Talk:The Final Problem (Sherlock)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Rathbone Place

Rathbone Place? Shout out to Basil Rathbone? Brrrr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.50.155 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I was about to say that we can't do anything about that without a source, but if we wanted one, [1] would suffice. Still might not be encyclopedic detail, but I'm delighted by the shout out in any case. --joe decker ^talk 20:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Source Citation

'В сеть досрочно утекла финальная серия «Шерлока» в переводе Первого канала' does NOT mean 'Channel One prematurely leaked final episode of "Sherlock" online'!!! It means 'Final episode of "Sherlock" with translation by Channel One prematurely leaked.' Please stop this anti-russian propaganda already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.190.40.159 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not propaganda, just translated wrongly, I assure you. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trim down plot

The plot summary seems over detailed and not as concise as the plot summaries for other episodes. Should we trim this down a bit? KevinLiu (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's too long. See WP:TVPLOT, which specifies a max wordcount of 500 for TV episodes. I'd rewrite it myself but I don't watch the show. Popcornduff (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just brought it down to 489 words by condensing the paragraphs to the extent I was able to. Does it still need more trimming? Realitycookie (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, it's under the word limit now. It could probably be reduced further (most things can) but I can't comment without having seen the show. Popcornduff (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of "Broadcast and reception" section

In the final paragraph, three sources are quoted for talking about representation issues – while these issues are totally valid, I wonder if there are more sources which explicitly give a different, or milder, opinion? Currently the paragraph is very one-sided, with little in the way of discussion about the issue. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 19:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having read some of the source material a bit more carefully, it seems the Wikipedia editor in this case has cherry-picked statements about sexism for this paragraph. Whether this is okay or not is debatable. Idk. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 19:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this thing reads more like a polemic than anything. Also not sure Indiewire, Vox and daily dot constitute reliable sources. Further complicating the matter is the fact that representation is by its very nature an issue affecting all media and I don't think the article has established clearly that representation in sherlock is any more of an issue than any other program. Until that is laid out I don't see why this is worthy of inclusion or notability. Either way I think we should address those concerns first and foremost.

-124.188.232.125 (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the person who wrote the last paragraph. I can find other references if you prefer, there are quite a few. As to being one-sided, I haven't seen any reviews praising the representation of women or queer people, but I would love to see some if there are. M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.37.113 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IndieWire and Vox are quoted in the second paragraph, which also quotes Den of Geek. Why were they reliable sources then? More importantly, Sherlock has been called repeatedly on its misogyny and its queer baiting. Is there more neutrality in refusing to mention these issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.37.113 (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of TERF blogs hardly constitute 'calling' something. I'm also not totally convinced 'queerbaiting' is an issue. But you're right, IndieWire and Vox probably should be removed from that section as well. As for the broader argument of 'neutrality' I would say its about as neutral as not letting a bunch of far right bloggers mention their issues with ethnic segregation in media in a reception section.

-124.188.232.125 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are far right and feminism/LGBTQ in *any way* similar?! I take it you're a straight man. Giving references from mostly male written reviews (which will happen if IndieWire, Vox and The Mary Use get removed) is a lot more biased than to choose to include other insights on the material. You're claiming that the queer baiting does not convince you - it doesn't have to. The argument of the "reliable" vs "non reliable" sources only arising when related to these issues say a lot more about your preferences than the publications. IndieWire and Vix are respected publications, they just offer different perspectives than those fitting your worldview. Finally, who gave you the authority to remove the paragraph I wrote? How come your judgment is more final than mine? I would like a admin to join the conversation please. M.

I do not agree that the paragraph should have been removed before a better consensus is reached, so I have replaced it. Anyway, nobody's "judgement" is more final than anyone else's, which is why edit wars occur. I don't think an admin needs to get involved at this point, but if you disagree please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. To add to this discussion, I have no reason to believe IndieWire or Vox are unreliable sources, especially when it comes to TV reviews and suchlike. I simply think that the issues raised in your paragraph may be too overstated. Maybe a long piece of prose like this belongs in the main Sherlock article, since queerbaiting is clearly a recognised issue in the show. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 21:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Pingumeister. I thought you had left the conversation, which is why I wanted an admin to come back and see the edits. I am a professor in gender studies and media and I have been following the reviews of the episode very closely for a research paper I'm working on. It really has raised more issues than the rest of the show, though I agree that it should also be mentioned in the general Sherlock page. Would it help if the section was shorter? I will be happy to do the edits you see fit. M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.37.113 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like someone to speak to my anonymous colleague here, since their natural instinct when questioned is apparently to make a bunch of sweeping assumptions about my identity and then launch into a massive character assassination for disagreeing with them about an article review section.

I was only arguing that perhaps 'Queerbaiting' is not really relevant to the review section of a tv program. Unless you're trying to imply that failing to cater to the sexual whims of viewers is somehow evidence of discrimination on the part of the author or that authors are somehow morally obligated to portray a relationship in a text in a particular way, a notion which I as a tenured PHD specializing in the works of a female author, I find deeply disturbing.

I removed the section because I thought maybe it would be easier to include after we had reached a consensus than before since its neutrality is disputed (a valid charge if ever there were one). But if that is against protocol, I apologize.

But I am sure there is no shortage of reviews of the episode by women which do not contain femnist essays merely using the program as a thinly veiled springboard, which was all I was trying to say about IndieWire and Vox or the Mary uSer, these are all sites which have an establish pattern of overstating 'issues' like this as clickbait. If 'Queerbaiting' apparently needs to be addressed I would contend that it ought to be on the series main page rather than on an episode review section. -124.188.232.125 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M: Thanks for your input. I believe the section should stay, but please shorten the direct quotes, instead objectively summarising the points made by the reviewers (see the MOS:QUOTE guideline for reasoning). I also think the issues raised about the role of Eurus in the show – in the context of her gender – are much more credible and important than the points about queerbaiting, which as a subject seems so poorly-documented that its own Wikipedia article is primarily sourced from WordPress blogs and YouTube. I think the queerbaiting parts of the section should go, unless you can evidence (and I hope you can, given your station) queerbaiting as being a real, documented, studied issue, rather than – to be frank – a term used by journalists for clickbait. Cheers. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, Pingumeister. I will shorten the quotes. For the question of queerbaiting, there have been many academic articles published in journals specialized in Cultural and Media Studies but they are general research papers and would not be relevant here. I agree that the main page on queerbaiting should definitely be improved and maybe I can try to work on it in the future, but regarding the Sherlock episode page, would it be okay to just state that the question has been brought up (keeping the two current references) without going into details? Done. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.37.113 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, that reads much better! -- Pingumeister^(talk) 02:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were getting rid of the 'queerbaiting' ? How can an issue be worthy of mentioning while not providing any sort of context or clarification for how it relates to the actual text? We should remove it entirely.

-124.188.232.125 (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I did provide clarification using quotes and references, it was too long. Why can't we move on? Ps. I replied to your personal message, in case you haven't seen it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.37.113 (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of the discussion was to remove it and you didn't. I would do it myself but last time someone moved a section of your writing on this, a collaborative writing format, you insisted it was a personal attack.

-124.188.232.125 (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some critics have problems with queerbaiting, other with the lack of queerbaiting. I don't know why there should be some standard of content to be met? Take one recent blockbuster (which are to be praised up to levels of hilarity of course) and let the critics do the longest panegyrikos in art history.--85.179.176.37 (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man Lying on Floor in Ending Sequence

If I'm not mistaken, the man unconscious on Sherlock and Watson's floor is a reference to Dr. Huxtable from the original story, "The Adventure of The Priory School", who bursts in and promptly passes out 31.169.102.246 (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite a reliable source that states that, otherwise it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]