This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
-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)
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)
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)
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)
(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." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatoranaki ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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. E Eng 21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
-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)
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)
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)
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)
(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." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatoranaki ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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. E Eng 21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)