Talk:The House of Silk

See Here For Necessary Revisions

-We are currently in need of an abridged plot summary. I will post a copy of this page's summary on my user page and work on it, however, any assistance from other users would be most welcome.

I've abridged the plot summary. Any further clean-up is welcome. --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Initiate Page Creation Efforts

At this point, all information is drawn primarily from news sources, with only a few novel-based plot outlines, considering the novel has yet to be released. A "future event tag," may be in order. Tatoranaki (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In light of shipping delays and recently written reviews, I've added some additional information. B&N notification is via e-mail and thus has no URL capable of citation. --Tatoranaki (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot Summary

A plot summary is currently in the works and should be finished within the week (or of close proximity in time thereof). --Tatoranaki (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC) I have posted a segment of the plot summary I am currently contriving, and more should be on the way shortly. --Tatoranaki (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As the plot summary was not yet finished, I added a last paragraph - which might need some corrections by a native speaker (which I am not). 125.162.47.86 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you for your contributions, I'll see what I can do about making the necessary revisions sometime soon. --Tatoranaki (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations

http://books.google.com/books?id=VvuMQ3dfprMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false could possibly be used in reference to Chapters 3 & 4 (if need be), as Google Books provides those sections of the manuscript as a preview. --Tatoranaki (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Outdated Sections [Removed]

(Shipping Delays) On November 2nd, Barnes & Noble sent the following message to customers who had pre-ordered the novel: "We want to give you an update about the pre-ordered item(s) listed below. Unfortunately, we just got word that the release date for this item(s) has been changed. We expect to ship the item(s) soon and will email you when it is ready to leave our warehouse. If we cannot acquire the item(s) within 30 days, we will notify you by email." In store, however, the book has been stated as "available." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatoranaki (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Canon? I think not

The article here states: "It marks the first time that the Conan Doyle Estate has upheld an official novel as canon, outside the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle." However, the cited article says no such thing, only: "this is the first tine the Conan Doyle estate has authorised a new Sherlock Holmes novel" [sic]. That does not mean it is canon. This is not a part of Arthur Conan Doyle's canon - it is a non-canonical Sherlock Holmes pastiche. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to become irritated - I thank-you for your feedback and will inquire of the Estate as to the nature of the novel in regards to the canon. You are correct in that the Guardian article did not include such phrasing, and if this Wikipedia article regains its original statement, I assure you it will have multiple resources to enforce the fact. Until then, your revision will be retained - again, thank-you. --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you hear a reply from the estate on this matter it will also affect the page Canon of Sherlock Holmes, where if relevant it should be noted as an authorised and canonical work, albeit a pastiche by another author. - Carty239 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It can't be both pastiche and canon. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And an inquiry constitutes original research; it wouldn't matter. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my anonymity; all I would like to say is that even though the Guardian reports this book as the first book authorized by the Conan Doyle estate, this is a misunderstanding made by The Guardian (and the book publishers) and is clearly not true. A quick look at other books that have been authorized, including at least The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, indicates that there have been numerous other texts approved by the estate. Even if The Guardian meant to suggest that it is the first one approved by the estate since the decease of Jean Conan Doyle (and thus the founding of the estate as an entity outside of the immediate Conan Doyle family), that too would be incorrect. At best, it might be fair to say that the Guardian reports this claim, which is also made on the cover of several publications, but is untrue given the wide variety of other Conan Doyle pastiches available and authorized. It is also definitely not canonical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.151.236 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you for the citations, they're very helpful. --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing Content

I will be removing the following edit shortly: The boy Ross is found brutally murdered with greivious injuries all over his body. This is where the House of Silk mystery starts. Whether the two mysteries are independent or are they linked to each other is what is finally know at the end of the book. Holmes faces the most challenging case of his life where there is danger at every step. Its a case wherin even Holmes is quickly outwitted. Very soon Holmes is caught red handed for murdering Ross's sister. With all evidences against him and with key eye witnesses validating the events, Holmes is completely tied down by his enemies. But will he rise? Will he be able to prove his innocence? Or will the enemies plans to finish him off in jail work? More macabre than any of the earlier Holmes novels, this fast paced book will ensure that the reader is never able to put the book down.

Reasons: Spelling & Grammar, content reads like a promotional piece, etc. I do, however, thank the contributor for their effort! I will not remove this piece, however, until my own replacement is written. --Tatoranaki (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added some additional plot information, and will continue shortly. My work may, however, require some revision to maintain quality standards even after completion. --Tatoranaki (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

No discussions have been made regarding this article's neutrality, yet an NPOV dispute banner was added. Considering no remarks have been made, for or against, I will remove the tag. If there are any concerns, please make them here. --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Critical reception seems to me to have been highly conditioned by the successful sales ploy of confusing the press with talk of the Conan Doyle estate and the Conan Doyle family. This hugely complicated situation - there are entities called The Conan Doyle Literary Estate and also The Conan Doyle Estate Ltd - has become identified with the situation regarding James Bond, where sequels really are controlled by the heirs. Conan Doyle, who died in 1930, has - in any ordinary sense - no surviving family. "The Times" of London published an article a few days ago, interesting in parts, mainly about Bond, but mentioning Horowitz as the first writer since Doyle to chronicle Holmes!!! There are of course more "pastiches" than anyone could probably read in a lifetime, or - if they could - remember.

Rogersansom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Problematic source

The last line of the incipit references three sources, however the second of these sources is a The Guardian article that includes the problematic line "Doyle's last 13 stories were published as The Return of Sherlock Holmes in 1905", which is obviously false, as it's well-known that Doyle published 20 more Sherlock Holmes stories between 1908 and 1927, as certified by literally millions of sources. One one hand, we may ignore this gaffe since the article is not used to support the claim that Doyle's last Holmes collection was published in 1905, but on the other hand I feel it is misleading to redirect readers to an article containing such an obvious gaffe. Especially given that other, non-problematic articles are available. I discussed this with User:ThaddeusSholto in User talk:ThaddeusSholto#House of Silk, but for some reason he thinks that "The Guardian article is one of the first that appears on google when searching review for the book and it is a reliable source so it belongs in the article". Actually, the link to our discussion also includes another dispute but it's better if we analyze just one problem at the time. Do youn think we really need to keep the Guardian article despite the gaffe, or are the other sources enough? Before doing a dispute resolution request, I think it's better if I use the talk page to look for a third party joining our discussion. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I am copying here the content of User talk:ThaddeusSholto#House of Silk for everyone's benefit:

Hi, I don't think your rollback of my edit on the article The House of Silk was a good move. To suggest a 2011 British Sherloch Holmes novel coincides with "the first time the Conan Doyle Estate had authorised a new Sherlock Holmes pastiche" means supporting a fringe claim than ignores thousands of sources documenting thousands of pre-2011 SH pastiches, most of which had the appoval of the estate because they were published before 2000, the year the copyright on the character expired in the United Kingdom. It even means we are telling the reader that the 1954 pastiche collection The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes was not athorized by the Doyle estate, even though it was co-written by Doyle's own son! When it comes to outlandish assertions, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and Wikipedia's guidelines don't put all sources on the same level: there are reliable sources and unreliable sources. The former can be used in Wikipedia articles, the latter cannot be used. It's not always easy to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources, however in this case there is only one source and I'd say this is a textbook example of unreliable source: an article written in a generalist newspaper by a person who is not a SH scholar or expert and obviously has no idea of what she is talking about, and full of nonsense like "Doyle's last 13 stories were published as The Return of Sherlock Holmes in 1905". There has to be a reason why Wikipedia distinguishes between reliable and unreliable sources. What do you think? --Newblackwhite (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source as is Publishers Weekly which also said "The hype surrounding what’s being billed as the first pastiche ever officially approved by the Conan Doyle estate..." [1] So is the Financial Times "Now the Doyle estate has, for the first time, officially sanctioned the continuation of the great saga" [2]

Whether you like it or agree the fact is the book was advertised as the first authorized continuation and that was a major part of the promotional campaign. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't read your second link since I am not registered, while I can read your first link. Still, if there are multiple sources, it's better to add them in the article so that it is clear the claim was reported by many newspapers and not just in that single article.

Anyway, I think you are missing the point when you write "The Guardian is a reliable source". A newspaper is not necessary always 100% reliable or always 100% unreliable as a source: many of them are regarded as reliable for everyday subjects but unreliable for specialized subjects if not written by people who are experts on the subject itself. And I serously don't see how you can call reliable an article saying Doyle's last Holmes collection was published in 1905. If we don't remove the claim, we should at least replace the source, maybe using the Publishers Weekly article you linked above.

At any rate, I think it is a violation of WP:NPOV to simply register the claim that it was the first pastiche approved by the Doyle estate without also informing the reader that the claim is false accoring to countless reliable sources. --Newblackwhite (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a violation of WP:NPOV because there is nothing not neutral about it. The Guardian is a reliable source as it meets all the criteria at WP:RS regardless of whether or not you think the author is enough of an expert. Wikipedia is about verifiablility and not truth. The claim is verifiable because numerous articles made the claim. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess we are running in circles... if you are seriously convinced that an article saying Doyle published his last SH story in 1905 is a reliable source just because it was published by The Guardian, then I guess nothing I could say can convince you of the opposite. Which is sad, because I think these kind of misunderstandings between editors are one of the reasons that are driving many Wikipedia contributors away these days.

Also, why do you say that "there is nothing not neutral about it"? It is fair to say the claim was made as part of the promotion of the book, but it is not neutral to imply the claim may be true, because we have reliable sources saying it's not. Again, I don't see why we should have a disagreement over such a simple fact.

I won't do complex edits for the time being to avoid an edit war, so I'll start by simply replacing the Guardian source with the Publishers Weekly source you mentioned. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The article says "The book was promoted with the claim..." so Wikipedia is not making any claims of truth about the claim and therefore it is perfectly neutral. The Guardian article is one of the first that appears on google when searching review for the book and it is a reliable source so it belongs in the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I will follow the rule that we must assume good faith, but if it weren't for that rule I would almost think that you are trolling. You reverted my edit while writing in the summary that "The Guardian is a reliable source". I have asked you before, and I'll ask you again, since you never answered: how can an article claiming Doyle stopped writing Holmes stories in 1905 be regarded as a reliable source? Hopefully I'll get a real answer this time. You obviously are an expert on Sherlock Holmes, so you know that Doyle wrote 19 SH short stories and one SH novel between 1908 and 1927, as certified by millions of sources. Just because the Guardian published the article it doesn't mean what's written in it is reliable.

But the most puzzling thing is that for some reason it seems to be of vital importance to you that the Guardian article keeps staying in the page, even now that you have found other articles that say the same thing without inflicting readers with that Doyle stopped in 1905 nonsense.

"Wikipedia is not making any claims of truth about the claim and therefore it is perfectly neutral": on the surface, it seems that Wikipedia neither supports nor rejects the claim. However, the fact that the claim is not rejected will lead many people to assume that it is true, even though it is shown by reliable sources to be wrong. What's the point of confusing people if we can avoid that? Plus, it is not neutral to give undue weight to the claim made during the promotion of the book while totally ignoring the overwhelming consensus among the reliable sources that the claim is wrong.

I guess it's time to involve some third party in this dispute otherwhise we will be stuck forever. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I will reply but then any further comments from you will be deleted because you just seem to want to argue your own point of view. The Guardian is a reliable source as it meets all the criteria at WP:RS regardless of whether or not you think the author is enough of an expert. Wikipedia is about verifiablility and not truth. Please read that last sentence once again: Wikipedia is about verifiablility and not truth. The Guardian article is not being used as a reference to support the claim that Doyle's last Holmes collection was published in 1905 so it doesn't matter whether or not that one aspect of the Guardian article is untrue. It is being used to support the true and verifiable claim that The House of Silk was advertised as the first non-Doyle work to be officially authorized by the Doyle estate. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thaddeus, I haven't examined the sources in detail but there's validity to what Nbw says. Sources are not 100% reliable or unreliable, but have to be evaluated for their reliability on individual points, in context. The Independent is certainly reliable in general, but on a specialized topic of literary history like this, it may not be so, and that's especially true when the same article contains such a glaring error (1905 etc.). You're right, TS, that WP is about V and not T, but the V relies on evaluation of sources in context, like I said; the 1905 error pretty much disqualifies that author as not having first idea what he or she is talking about. Anyway, surely by now there is scholarly commentary on the work itself that can be used in place of either 2011 source. EEng 21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is one error in a source that doesn't disqualify the source otherwise any book with a typo would be thrown out. It isn't being used as a source for any claim about the dates of Doyle publications so that error is not relevant to what it is being used to reference which it is accurate about. Newblackwhite initially tried to throw out the whole thing because they don't agree that House of Silk should be seen as an authorized sequel which you can see from this edit they made with an edit summary that makes no note of that removal. Now they are trying to impugn the source for a different reason which is still a workaround to eliminate the claim that the book was advertised as an officially recognized work by the Doyle estate. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

TS, anyone who calls himself Thaddeus Sholto is OK in my book, and I'm looking forward to working with you on Saga-related stuff for a long time to come, but your approach to source evaluation is oversimplified. I don't know the history of the specific content dispute, so I can't take a position on just what the article should say, but I suggest you take it from me as an experienced editor: a source that says Henry VIII enjoyed Shakespeare, or that the last Holmes stories were published in 1905, is pretty much out of the running as anything but a source on itself. Now please, both of you, there must be authoritative sources on this that will avoid this problem altogether. EEng 02:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I did add other references that say the exact same thing about the book being authorized by the Doyle estate and in the next edit Newblackwhite wrote "The claim is still very problematic" which is isn't. It is a verifiable fact. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly the statement that the book is promoted as the first authorized etc etc belongs in the article, and from what I've seen it looks like it really is authorized. Whether it's the first seems to be the sticking point. I can't get into this right now, though. EEng 02:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Good to see a that a third user has joined the discussion and, ironically, this happened around the same time I asked for a third party opinion on Talk:The House of Silk.

I disagree with the idea that a typo in a book is comparable with a giant factual mistake in a small article, but there's no point in discussing this. If that were the only source, we could keep it despite the mistake, but since you have added other sources saying the same thing, what's the point of keeping it? It's just commons sense: if we can choose between multiple articles covering the same content and one of them has a giant mistake, it is less confusing to reader if we redirect them to articles that don't have mistakes. Also, notice how in my last edit to the page The House of Silk, which you have since reverted, I didn't removed the info, just replaced it with another one. I thought it was better to do one thing at the time, while waiting for the consensus.

"Newblackwhite initially tried to throw out the whole thing because they don't agree that House of Silk should be seen as an authorized sequel which you can see from this edit they made": the edit you linked is unrelated to this discussion since I have made it for a different reason. At any rate, I never tried to deny that it was an authorized pastiche, only that it is the first authorized pastiche. It's not even a matter of truth vs verifiability, since we can have both: the existance of countless pre-2011 Sherlock Holmes pastiches that were also authorized by the Doyle estate (incuding one co-written by Doyle's son and published in 1954) is certified by many reliable sources.

In conclusion, after this whole debate my idea is that we should do something like the page The Mask of Zorro, which first reports that Banderas were often referred to as the first Spanish actor to play Zorro during the promotion of the film, and then explains that this is not true and there were earlier examples. I don't have onjections to keeping the info that the book was advertised as an officially recognized work by the Doyle estate, but it should be clear that it is not the first. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there are now three users involved in this debate, it's better if we continue the discussion on this page rather than in a single user's talk page, especially since ThaddeusSholto is starting to remove my new messages from his talk page. --Newblackwhite (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)