Talk:A Scandal in Belgravia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Media franchises / Sherlock Holmes (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Sherlock Holmes (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force.
 

1895[edit]

Any significance to 1895? Year perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.108.206 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Most likely a reference to a sonnet by Vincent Starrett. The final line is "it is always 1895".[1] NW (Talk) 23:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

- That's the year Sherlock Holmes died in the original story "The Final Problem" 81.152.218.64 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe that is true. As you can see in our article, "The Final Problem" was written in 1893 and set in 1891. NW (Talk) 02:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The Dreyfus affair, Oscar Wilde going to prison, the Cuban war of independence ? -- Beardo (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Plot[edit]

Should some reference be made in the article as to the absence of a plot or anything resembling coherence in this particular episode. It might not be significant but I thought it quite odd. --2.102.54.66 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No, your personal opinion is of no interest. Mezigue (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothing should be of interest but my opinion. --194.81.33.10 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought the same but apparently the critics like it. 71.206.188.10 (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The article includes some critical comments from Sam Wollaston from The Guardian. The JPStalk to me 21:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The absence of a plot is still striking though but most people seem to have missed it. I guess most people enjoy having their minds numbed. --194.81.33.10 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note that this talk page is solely for discussing this Wikipedia article. It is not to be used as a forum for discussing the episode itself. The JPStalk to me 23:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


Does anyone here really believe that the final scene of the episode implies that in the context of this fiction Irene Adler was actually rescued from the terrorist cell by Sherlock Holmes?

There are many reasons to think just the contrary.

1/ Sherlock is a genius, a Nietzschean superman, but not a Marvel-type superhero. He's a well-known detective, not a secret agent. He's a young Englishman who cannot pass for a native speaker of any language other than English, and who could not possibly enter any organisation in Pakistan where they speak Urdu, Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi or Arabic.

2/ Some other scenes in this episode do not depict actual events in a realistic manner, as when Irene and Sherlock appear to be instantly transported to the place where a man was killed by his own boomerang.

3/ This last scene lasts only a few seconds and is isolated from the rest of the plot: if Sherlock had indeed infiltrated a terrorist cell without his disguise being pierced, even though the terrorist can rely on the support of Prof. Moriarty, there would be material enough for a complete episode. This episode would have been shown by now, or at least would be in the pipeline for later release.

4/ If Irene Adler has indeed been rescued, we cannot explain satisfactorily that in later episodes she has not become Mrs Holmes, or remained a minor protagonist, or, at the very least, has not even sent at least one other text message after the last one we see in the episode: "Goodbye Mr Holmes".

I hate to see Wikipedia giving the wrong impression to a large public. Ask any professor of literature, cinema, fiction... Ask the scriptwriters if you have access to them. They will all tell you that in the context of this particular fiction Irene Adler is dead, and this last scene depicts what goes on in Sherlock's head, maybe, or in John Watson's head, or in a naive viewer's head, but in no way an actual event.

You have to get used to this idea: Irene Adler is dead. She's passed on. This woman is no more. She has ceased to be. She's expired and gone to meet her maker. She's a stiff. Bereft of life, she rests in peace. Her metabolic processes are now history. She's off the twig. She's kicked the bucket, she's shuffled off her mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. THE WOMAN IS AN EX-WOMAN!

Please let me edit the article accordingly.


Yours Aline Maginot, from France. aline.maginot [at] free.fr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aline Maginot (talkcontribs) 15:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research. If you can cite a reliable source that says the same thing, then it'll be included in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, the episode itself is the only reliable source available to date. My interpretation, above, is not original research. It's a better interpretation of what's available than that of the current version of the article. Aline Maginot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aline Maginot (talkcontribs) 17:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but "interpretation" by its very definition is original research. What's meant by reliable source is a published secondary work that lays out the above interpretation. DonQuixote (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright, then. Thank you for reminding me the rules. In my turn, let me read the rule book to its full extent for you. Where is the published secondary work that justifies the following statement, that is plainly wrong but can be read in the article as fact: "Sherlock had infiltrated the cell and rescued her with seconds to spare"? It is nowhere to be found, is it? Now, without a reference to such a reliable source, that statement is no more than an interpretation, therefore it is original research, as per the definition of "original research" used in this encyclopedia, therefore it is an invalid statement, and so it should be removed. Pronto. Like any annoying windmill that might cross your way unawares, my dear DonQuixote. Aline Maginot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aline Maginot (talkcontribs) 22:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Good point about the infiltration bit. But the scene does show him to have disguised himself and it does show that he rescues here, perhaps not "with seconds to spare" which can be an interpretation. DonQuixote (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
No infiltration, then, at least none that is mentioned in any reliable source, and no "seconds to spare" either: you conceded that much. Now, if you care to read again my initial input, above, you will have to admit that one cannot rely on any source, not even on our most reliable source, the scene itself, to prove without doubt that there was a rescue, either. This is mostly because of point #2: There are other scenes in the episode which show things that did not "truly" happen, that are fictional within the fiction, that only take place in Sherlock's mind. My point is that this last scene is of the same vein and that Wikipedia cannot let the general public believe that in the BBC version of the stories, Irene Adler was truly rescued by Sherlock Holmes in the end. What you see is not what you get. The scene depicts a fancy version of Irene Adler's execution. Earlier, the viewers learned the truth, and the truth is that Mycroft Holmes "checked thoroughly" that the woman is dead. He said that much to John Watson. A fancy of Sherlock's is not match for fact checking by Mycroft: please let me edit the article accordingly. Aline Maginot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aline Maginot (talkcontribs) 07:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's your interpretation and original research. You'll need a reliable source to say that the last scene "is of the same vein" and "what you see is not what you get". The summary is written as neutrally as possible.. DonQuixote (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Is "Sherlock had infiltrated the cell and rescued her with seconds to spare" neutral or stupid? I vote for stupid. Let's get rid of this statement which is supported by no reliable source whatsoever. Aline Maginot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.191.119 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
That's why it has been recently edited to be more neutral (see revised sentence in article). DonQuixote (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
All right, thanks. Not for my own satisfaction, mind you, but for the reputation of this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.191.119 (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is not up for discussion. This. Episode. Made. No. Sense. Am I only the person who can see this? Why are people wasting time debating the completely meaningless last section of the episode when the rest of this travesty is screaming in their faces? --86.172.18.146 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion that this episode made no sense. Please cite a reliable source that says the same thing so we can include that in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not opinion. It's fact. You've all been brainwashed by a Smorgasbord of such Carollian absurdity that it leaves one open-mouthed with horror. Not just at the fact that Steve Moffat, the genius behind River Song would not not only be such a sexist pig as to turn Irene Adler into a fluttering damsel but would be also be so condescending to the viewing public as actually take the time and effort to pen the script for this "episode". I mean, I've read Alice in Wonderland but what was Moffat on? And then there's the even more disturbing revelation that some idiot actually thought that it would be a good idea to actually comission it for filming. And is presumably not in a psychiatric institution! Then I saw the reviews online and died a little bit inside. --2.102.53.173 (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your observations. Please cite a reliable source that says the same thing so we can include that in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That's just the problem. As always, there aren't any because nobody ever notices the blindingly obvious. Why must I be surrounded by idiots??? --2.102.53.173 (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. Please publish your observations in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll be sure to give it my best shot but I'm afraid I'm sceptical as to the odds of anyone being sane enough to publish me. As Oscar Wilde once said "One of the prerequisites of sanity is to disagree with the majority of the British public." I'll add to that, the public in general! --2.102.53.173 (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And now again a question to Aline Maginot's doubts concerning Irene Adler's rescue: The scene shows the rescue, but it shows it in a very irritating way, so that it's not erroneous to see this as a dream sequence (just like "I wish I could have helped her"). Yes, Don Quixote, you are right, that's just an interpretation. But a) the article excludes that interpretation, and that's not appropriate to this scene; and b) calling this scene a flashback is also only an interpretation (the scene leaves too many open questions).

The point is: the scene can be a flashback, but it also can be an expression of Sherlock's wishes.

Or otherwise: The deciding words are revealed and flashback. From which source do you know, that it really is a flashback, a remembering of something that really happened? Did the script say this explicitly?

Is it possible to describe the scene in a way that doesn't prefer one interpretation? Maybe something like: "After John leaves, Sherlock stands in his room, thinking, looking at her last Message "Goodbye Mr. Holmes"; the next pictures show the execution in Pakistan, where Sherlock poses as her executioner, reveals himself to her, and rescues her." If my English was a bit better, I would try it myself... --91.38.203.144 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The default is that the narrative--book, film, etc.--portrays scenes that are real in terms of the narrative. To claim that it doesn't--i.e. dream sequence, unreliable narrator, etc.--is an extraordinary claim that requires the primary source to state it explictly or a reliable source to verify it. DonQuixote (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
You mean: For classifying the last scene as a "flashback" it wasn't necessary to have a verifying source? --91.38.203.144 (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Anything depicted in a primary source is by default understood to be a "real" event unless otherwise specified in the primary source. For example, everything that occurred in the episode is by default understood to have taken place within the narrative world and not within a dream within the narrative world. So unless the primary source states otherwise, or the alternate interpretation can be verified by a reliable source, any particular scene depicted is by default "real" rather than a dream. So the question is "why is this one scene a dream and not the entire episode?"...please cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"Anything depicted in a primary source is by default understood to be a »real« event otherwise specified". I wonder how you arrived at that strong approach. And a very strong approach it is, as technically every fictional work is open for interpretation. Which by itself is only limited by plausibility and accordance of interpreters. You fancy an approach that depends on a prerequisite you do not put into question beforehand: On the expectation that what you see is what actually happens. Which goes offlimit for all depicting of nonreal things. Based on your approach, the movie "A Beautiful Mind" could not work at all - but it does. Not following your approach, I could state instantly at least two other equally plausible interpretations which by no means rely anything more on secondary sources than yours. Aline has made a good point there in hinting at the fact that narration in itself is often unreliable and we expect and know it to be unreliable, whether it be in literature or film. Be it Rousseau's "Nouvelle Heloise", Goethe's "Werther" or Eco's "The Name of the Rose". --Deneb el Okab (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, "A Beautiful Mind" works because it's a part of the narrative. Yes, narratives can be unreliable, but there's nothing within this narrative that suggests, nor does any reliable source state, that this narrative is unreliable. So, unless you can show that this narrative is unreliable, going off on a tangent about unreliable narratives is pointless in the context of this talk page. DonQuixote (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
True, in "A Beautiful Mind" it's central element of the narrative, which is why I cited it at all. But in contrast to your statement about pointlessness, narratives are simply by definition unreliable as they in itself do not and cannot provide "proof" for their content. I assume that you do not intend to argue in favour of that the episode depicts factual events, even if the BBC created a Sherlock Holmes Homepage. If not so, the narrative describes fictional events which are prone by itself to interpretation - and interpretation is not a one-way road. I might cite Plato who complained in that a text is interpreted in a different way by every reader once it is completed and thus separated from the author ('texts rolling everywhere'). Scientific perspective is all about that for any single given piece of art there exist multiple interpretations - and all are equally valid as long as they don't contradict the context. In the given case, this narrative does strongly play with elements of depicted fiction and irrealism, like in the audition scenes. The narrative itself offers no arguments in favour of a depiction of facts as it does not offer arguments against a depiction. The only decision on what is considered more likely is based on perception and the individual point of view of the recipient, which is - needless to say - highly subjective. And that's the whole point about the discussion here. Declaring all other possible interpretations as invalid based on your personal understanding, on your point of view and your interpretation of a narrative leaves us with a problem, as there DO exist different interpretations you technically strive to exterminate on the base that anything is "understood to be a real event unless otherwise specified." You might have read Patricia Waugh "Metafiction", who has a good approach on it. Or I might suggest Wolfgang Iser: "The Fictive and the Imaginary". Both would be good ressources to reflect on the reliability of narratives, if you prefer secondary sources. --Deneb el Okab (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Look, you're going off on a tangent. Yes, you can apply literary and dramatic theory to analyse this work and suggest it's an unreliable narrative, but that's your original research, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. So, unless you can cite a secondary source that specifically says something like "A Scandal in Belgravia uses the technique of unreliable narrative" (cite source), it's pointless as it strays into unverifiable observations and interpretations. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought but a summary of secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Disagreed. I do not offer an interpretation. I refer to the fact that any interpretation is by definition and by scientific standards subjective and not supported by facts. No OR by me here. Simple enough: As The narrative itself is an unreliable source for interpretation it does not suffice in supporting a single interpretation as THE valid one, not even by being a primary source. In regards to this article, we must leave the interpretation open somewhere along "The next scene depicts [insert scene description here]. It remains open whether factual events or an imagination are depicted." --Deneb el Okab (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
You're going off on an unencyclopaedic tangent. Encyclopaedia articles require the simplest summary of the events shown on screen. Anything else is interpretation. See writing about fiction, particularly WP:FICTIONPLOT ("Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."). DonQuixote (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
So you know the passus. Even worse, for in its current state, the article is in regards to the depiction of this scene already interpretive. Exactly what it should not be and what several people have mentioned here for months now. It would be okay if the article merely described what can be seen on the screen, but the current "summary" goes beyond that and states a factuality, which is interpretation or more simply OR. --Deneb el Okab (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, we're not going to twist the words around to get your interpretation in. You're making the extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof is on you. You have to show why this one scene, out of every scene in the entire episode, should be treated as if it were an unreliable narrative. That requires the primary source to explicitly state it (which it doesn't) or a secondary source to posit this interpretation. Unless you can cite a source, this discussion is unproductive. DonQuixote (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Six months later [citation needed][edit]

Apologies if this may sound a bit on the fandom side (might be better off on the Sherlock wikia, I know), but I crave accuracy and this article has a critical point. I want to address the "citation needed" issue.

"Six months[citation needed] later, Sherlock learns (via text message) that Adler has sent him the camera phone for safekeeping" is not confirmed in the show. It could be true (in the sense there wasn't any contrary evidence) but what she actually said at the end of the episode was that she gave Sherlock six months with her camera phone to try and crack it. On the other hand, do we take the tie-in websites as canon? They were written for the show. Look at John's blog. There's a post made in March that Adler was under a witness protection scheme, so the negotiation scene took place before that, which gives less than three months of Sherlock being in possession of the camera phone. The only way to get a six month time frame is if you start from the Buckingham Palace event in September. Either way, Adler's statement at the end of the episode is fuzzy. This whole thing might be a goof on the writers' part.

Anyway, my point is, the necessary change to the article depends on whether we take the tie-in websites as canon. If no, then the "six months later" clause should be stated as after Christmas and not after Adler's first escape. If yes, then the clause should be removed altogether. --Secretss (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The best way to handle minor quibbles like this is just to get rid of them. If it can be rephrased less controversially, that should be better. The JPStalk to me 10:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a mistake (I'm pretty sure I did). There's no mistake in the show after all; in fact, the whole episode apparently spans 18 months from September 2011 to March 2013. I read something on TV Tropes that John's blog used to have years in the post dates, but the production crew removed them. So the 007 plane scene could well have happened in June 2012. Sorry about my goof!--Secretss (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

007 --> Coventry ?[edit]

can anybody explain the allusion "007...007? The Coventry-dilemma!" (quote re-translated from the German version)?80.136.86.209 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this can't be a James Bond allusion... -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Bond Air is go". The allusion is quite clear in the episode.--Sid-Vicious (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we have a secondary source to go with that. Technically, without a reference, that constitutes original research. Even if the dots are close together, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to make the connection. The JPStalk to me 06:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Any reason some non-notable blog should be quoted in the controversy section?[edit]

Who is this blogger, and why should anyone quote her in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.196.183 (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

She was published by The Guardian, one of the UK's most respected newspapers, and her comments attracted reaction from Moffat, and attention in other media. The JPStalk to me 06:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources and allusions (Barnard)[edit]

I seem to have committed a faux pas and I'm not clear on what it is. I posted a fact I thought would be of interest to anyone interested in this episode: that the mystery writer Robert Barnard also nodded to the story "A Scandal in Bohemia" with a novel titled "A Scandal in Belgravia." User:DonQuixote deleted it as "unsourced speculation." I understand the need for a source, and have supplied it. As for speculation, it is a simple fact that Barnard wrote this book. I suppose it is speculation that he was referring to the Doyle story, but it seems perfectly solid to me, considering that the story is very well known to everyone who is well-read in classical British mystery fiction and Barnard was certainly that. It would be speculation to say that Moffat was aware of Barnard's book; I don't know whether they arrived at the play on words independently or not, and did not venture a guess. I hope this is correct procedure. I am a new user and although I've read over the guidelines, they are voluminous . . . AmyinNoCal (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You need a secondary source saying that, otherwise it's just your speculation and nobody else's. DonQuixote (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are saying is speculative. What I added is a point of information that I thought would be of interest to people interested in Sherlock and this episode. I apologize if this is not the right forum to ask these questions. Should I click your "talk" link instead? AmyinNoCal (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You claim that the title of one work is a nod to another work. Without some reliable source saying that explicitly, it is your speculation that such a thing is true. That is, it has to be verifiable. DonQuixote (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks--I understand now. I was misled by the use of the same phrase a couple of sentences earlier: "Watson reveals his middle name to be Hamish, a nod to Dorothy Sayers' theory." So it would be appropriate and useful information to write, simply, "The mystery writer Robert Barnard also wrote a novel titled "A Scandal in Belgravia." AmyinNoCal (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Expressing it like that makes it seem like trivia. Trivia is discouraged. DonQuixote (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)