Talk:The Valley of Fear

message: The grammar, style and basic composition of the introduction and the entirety of this article needs some real help. There are run on and incomplete sentences, sentence fragments, undefined pronouns - the list goes on. Please help this article out by making it more readable. The basics are there, but whoever wrote it needs some real help in basic grammar and writing style. Not to be critical, but the work of one of the finest authors in history deserves some good basic grammar at the very least. It is a well intentioned start, so let's help make it excellent!  The Moody Blue 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and take the lead, and notify me when you start working on it. If you want more collaborative help, you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Novels, Sadads (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction Needs LOTS of Work 

message: This whole paragraph:
::The Valley of Fear is also notable for the involvement of Professor Moriarty, which contradicts the timeline of the stories. In "The Final Problem", Dr. Watson was first alerted by Sherlock Holmes to the existence of Professor Moriarty. In the same story, Professor Moriarty dies in the confrontation with Sherlock Holmes, as explained in "The Adventure of the Empty House", leaving no time in between the two events for any other story regarding the Professor. However, in The Valley of Fear, Professor Moriarty has been mentioned by Sherlock, and Dr. Watson had appeared to know both about the Professor's evil acts, and the fact that the existence of Moriarty is unknown by nearly everyone except Holmes. Moreover, "The Final Problem" and Moriarty's death is set in 1891, while The Valley of Fear is set in 1895 (twenty years after the events of the American part of the narrative).
is completely wrong. At the end of the first chapter, Doyle gives us the time at which the story takes place:
::Those were the early days at the end of the '80's, when Alec MacDonald was far from having attained the national fame which he had now achieved.
The 'twenty years later' in McMurdo's narrative should be taken as a rough estimate, and since (to my recollection) there aren't any precise dates given therein, we can take Watson's initial date as the canonical one. Presumably he wrote this entry in the Holmes archive before he wrote The Final Problem; the order in which Doyle published the stories is irrelevant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.232.21 (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Moriarty and the date of the story

message: Unlike other SH novels, this wiki entry has hadly any information at all, and no commentary or development. Is it generally not well liked? I would like to see more information, such as a discussion on Doyle's tendency to use Sherlock Holmes as an excuse for writing relatively disconnected stories from outside of England. 85.227.226.149 07:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance, there are interesting info on the James McParland page which could well be transplanted here.85.227.226.149 08:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I for one don't much like the novel; but I'm not sure why I find it so unsatisfactory compared with most of the Holmes tales, and am disappointed to find no analysis here.  Deipnosophista (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stayed at the Hill House Hotel in Happisburgh, Norfolk on several occasions, most notably while writing "The Dancing Men".
:Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stayed at the Hill House Hotel when on a motoring holiday at the beginning of the 20th century. The landlord's small son Gilbert Cubitt had developed a way of writing his signature in pin men. This intrigued Conan Doyle, who used the idea in one of his Sherlock Holmes stories, 'The Dancing Men'. It is based in Norfolk and is said to have been written in the Green Room of the old Boarding House which overlooked the bowling green – one of the finest in this district. Happisburgh Village site
:Conan Doyle stayed at Happisburgh and wrote to his mother from the Hill House Hotel in 1903 about his ideas for a new story, “The Dancing Men”. Doyle drove the first motor car seen in Happisburgh. Gilbert John Cubitt, born at Happisburgh 1891, was the small boy who signed his name in an alphabetical code of dancing figures, and gave Conan Doyle the idea for his tale. Happisburgh Village website
:It has been associated with the author Conan Doyle who, whilst staying at the Hill House Hotel in May 1903, is said to have got the idea for his story 'The Dancing Men'. He is said to have visited on several occasions and used a room in the Hotel to write as he looked out over the sea. The Cubitts were owners of the Hill House: Edith Cubitt who ran it until 1934 used to wait on Conan Doyle while he worked. Norfolk Heritage
See also Sherlock Holmes Society report
Gilbert Cubitt's father, Robert Thomas Cubitt was landlord of the Hill House Hotel from 1888 - 1892 Hill House Hotel on Norfolk Pubs web site. His widow, Emma Cubitt ran the hotel from his death in 1892, assisted by their eldest daughter Edith, who later married Herbert Thompson, a local farmer, and continued to run the hotel until at least 1934.
Robert Cubitt was a key witness in the trial of Patrick O'Donnell as this transcript of the trial shows:
:ROBERT THOMAS CUBITT . I live at King's Arms Street, North Walsham, Norfolk—I assist my father, an ironmonger—I and my brother, Frank Cubitt, were passengers on board the Kinfauns Castle, going to the Cape—I saw Carey and O'Donnell together on board during the voyage—I did not know until my arrival at the Cape that James Power was James Carey—they appeared to be on friendly terms—we arrived at Cape Town on Friday, 27th July, and I stayed there, and put up at the White House Hotel—on the afternoon the Melrose left, which was on Saturday, I went into a wine and beershop, and the keeper of the shop made a statement to me in relation to James Carey—he gave me this document with a likeness of Carey. (This was a supplement given away with the "Weekly Freeman" of May 5; in one corner was "He swears in his victims" in another corner, "Look to the man in the grey suit," in another "He informs," and in another corner, "Crown witness," with a portrait of James Carey in the centre.) I recognised that likeness as representing James Power, the man on board—I went with my brother to the docks from which the Melrose was to start—my brother has since died—I saw O'Donnell standing on the docks at the side near the Melrose—I said to him "Have you seen the portrait of Carey?"—I produced it, and showed it to him—he said "I will shoot him"—he asked me for it, and I think he put it in his pocket—he went on board the Melrose, and I believe she sailed about a quarter of an hour after the interview referred to—I did not go on to Port Elizabeth—I remained some time at the Cape with my brother—I then returned to this country—I met with an accident in an explosion that took place a few weeks ago—I have lately given this information.
:Cross-examined. I heard of Carey's death very soon after it occurred, when I was at Cape Town—I did not know of any inquiry being held at Port Elizabeth while I was there—I afterwards learnt that there had been one—I put myself in communication with the solicitors representing the prosecution after I got home in October—I knew as far back as July when I should probably get back to this country—I stayed three weeks at the Cape—I should have stayed longer if there had been a favourable opportunity in business—I made up my mind to come back again three weeks after I had been there—that would be about August—I did not then make any communication to the solicitors—I did not then communicate with the officials here, until they sent for me, which, I should think, was about a fortnight after I had got home—I think the Cape authorities saw my brother at Cape Town, where he died—as far as I observed the prisoner was a quiet, peaceable man, of few words—he was rather popular on board with the steerage and second-class passengers, and was a civil-spoken man—I did not see much of Carey—I should say he was rather excitable—I do not know of a man named McHardy being on board the Kinfauns Castle—I had not seen Carey in liquor or drinking, or heard him indulge in abuse of any people or person—I had very little to do with him, I had more to do with the prisoner—I have seen him use his revolver in the presence of the passengers, when he has fired at birds and fish—I heard Carey pretty freely discussed at the Cape, and abused—when the prisoner said that he would shoot him it was in a pleasant manner, smiling at the time, and when I heard of Carey's death I did not attribute any moment to those words.
:Re-examined. My brother was with me when the words were spoken—after my arrival home in this country I found my brother had made a communication to the Cape authorities, who had communicated with the authorities here. Central Criminal Court records
There was apparently strong suspicion in the USA (particularly in the mining areas) that Patrick O'Donnell was in fact a US citizen and it is reported that the US authorities considered intercepting the ship taking him back to London for trial at the Old Bailey. (Butte Miner newspaper). Some aspects of that are reflected in the plot of The Valley of Fear.
Is there a clear enough link to make it worth boiling this down for the main page?
(On a personal note, Gilbert Cubitt was my grandfather.)
John Campbell (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   Conan Doyle and James Carey 

message: I just started what promises to be a major undertaking in rewriting the plot synopsis.  Not only is the grammar and tense awkward throughout, but Parts I and II are discussed interchangeably instead of chronologically, with almost no description of the story of Part II (other than the major plot spoiler of Douglas/McMurdo's true identity, which I have to say ruined it for me, LOL).  Not only that, Mrs. Douglas is inexplicably given the first name Vena (with the article writer emphasizing this as "Vena Douglas, his wife" several times), and the names of the servants, Ames and Mrs. Allen, are also mixed up, as well as various plot points.  My head is spinning!  What was this person's source?  A TV movie adaptation?  I've got the Wikisource of the text open in another window and I'll get to work on it, but would really appreciate some help!  --Magmagirl (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds good, this article certainly needs a plot rewrite. FYI, you must include spoilers per WP:Spoiler which is the result of a series of long and drawn  out discussion which created the policy. I would also consider expanding the other content, such as critical reception, themes, etc. per WP:MOS (novels). Try to look for more real world information which you can WP:Verify per WP:Reliable sources and this article will be stellar. If you have any questions, I am watching the page, so I can answer question, though I don't have the time right now to participate in the revision (I may in about 2.5 weeks). Good luck, and if you have any question, go ahead and give me a holler,  Sadads (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the help!  I'm also a little short on time, so I'll be adding here and there as I can.  I'll put up a spoiler alert if that is what's required, but I haven't read enough Sherlock Holmes plot synopses on Wikipedia to know if that's standard practice -- isn't everything a spoiler by the end of the story?  ;-)  I'm actually almost done reading the novel myself, and happened to come here to check it out, and thought, "Hmm, that's not right...or that, or that, or that..."  The only real world information I was able to link was the Pinkerton detective (as I remembered that word bantered around in season 2 of Deadwood.  Thank you and I will really appreciate any help and advice you can give me! --Magmagirl (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just added a section about the likely location of Vermissa Valley, and I'm thinking, Maybe one day, this will be developed to "Article of the Day" status!  A girl can hope, right?  ;-D --Magmagirl (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, yes you can hope, it takes a lot of work though, and there are only 365 of those and about 148,000 contributers every month. It's a lot of work and commitment. I would suggest that you read WP:OR, which talks about why some of the information you did on locations, may be original research, so may not be Wikipedia appropriate. Take a look at the sections on Quicksilver (novel) which I wrote and is a pretty good representation of what kind of verifiable content we are looking for. You will see that I talk about information that is directly discussed in sources, not conclusions about information in the novel. This is a careful distinction between encyclopedic and other forms of scholarly writing which we are constantly working with here on Wikipedia (and sometimes battle with). Please feel free to ask questions if you don't understand my meaning or the distinction, Sadads (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see what you mean.  So theoretic location for Vermissa Valley would be something better kept on the discussion page, whereas if I find, say, the etymology of the word "scowrer" from the OED, that would be a verifiable source.  What about a comparison of the "Order of Freemen" to Freemasonry?  I've seen a few sites that link Conan Doyle's writings to information he got about freemasonry. --Magmagirl (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as this particular novel is treated in the source, or if say one reviewer comments on the similarity with freemasonry, then it would appropriate to talk about the broader critical perspective and then link to a central discussion of the themes in Doyle's work. And yes, your example of the OED definition would be correct, as long as you do so to further understanding of something central to the novel commented on by someone else, or if you were doing some sort of background so that readers could better understand the topics discussed in the articles, such as at Purge (novel) Sadads (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

text: What is it with this "plot summary"?   It goes into excruciating detail on Holmes' investigation, yet leaves out the main plot of part II:  McMurdo's infiltration of a terrorist organization.  The reader is led to believe that the avenger is a spurned lover (rather than an escaped terrorist) and no explanation is made of the shared brand.   Nor is there any mention of the controversy, that the real-life counterpart of McMurdo fabricated most of his evidence and the terrorist threat never actually existed.CharlesTheBold (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can definitely understand your confusion...try reading previous edits before I started hacking away at the synopsis.  It originally blended parts I and II, left out important details or got them completely wrong.  I have started trying to write the synopsis for part II but don't have as much time as I'd like, so I have to do it in bits and drabs -- apparently by myself for the time being, since the worthy Sadads is busy, and no one else has stepped up.  Please, Charles, I asked for help on the plot synopsis for a reason.  I can't write it up myself!  --Magmagirl (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot synopsis needs rewriting 

message: ...suggested the Douglas to leave England. - is it grammatically correct? 80.232.117.32 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence 

message: Its only citation is of the full text of the book at wikisource. For one thing, you should never cite a wiki, and that citation ought to be replaced with a citation of the gutenberg version, or of the actual book. But even more important, is that there are no other citations. For example no source is cited to corroborate that it was released in 1915, I just have to take the article's word for it; and you can't safely take Wikipedia's word for anything without outside sources corroborating it. 149.160.81.112 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacks reputable sources. 

message: The user St o'hara keeps inserting the claim that the Valley of Fear is "biased", and talks some guy name Kehoe. The claim builds a blog (which fails WP:RS and an article in LA Times which never says the book is biased. I've tried to explain WP:RS in the edit reviews and I've tried to explain it to St o'hara at his/her user page, but s/he is not discussing. I'd appreciate some other opinions on the matter. Jeppiz (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Is the photo in the History section relevant? 

message: The lead sentence  of this Wiki article states:
"The Valley of Fear is the fourth and final Sherlock Holmes novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It is based on the real-life exploits[citation needed]of the Molly Maguires and Pinkerton agent James McParland."
I inserted the "citation needed" in the above sentence because the "real-life exploits" of the Molly Maguires are disputed by historians.
I also responded  to Jeppiz's  communications to me  by providing references to several scholarly sources on the Molly Maguires and US labor history, including Kevin Kenny's of which the LA Times article was a review.  The blog I cited contained oral history  from the coal  region of Pennsylvania and was included because oral history is valid and important as an area of study and reference. 
And though my references to scholarly works and additions were deleted, no documentation is yet provided or explanation given for what is meant by the article's lead assertion that Valley of Fear is based on  the "real-life exploits" of the Molly Maguires.  At the very least this article should be rewritten with  updated and pertinent historical references included on the alleged Molly Maguires and the US labor movement (which I had provided and haven't time nor inclination to redo).
The guy named "Kehoe" (so called in a comment below) is John (Black Jack)  Kehoe, one of the alleged Molly Maguires hanged in Pennsylvania on the hearsay evidence of James McParland the Pinkerton detective. The men accused and later executed proclaimed their innocence. In fact, many reputable historians since the time of Conan Doyle have come to see the unionized miners  (called by the press and mine owners Molly Maguires) hanged in Pennsylvania in the 1870s as victims in a labor war.  Some historians even doubt the very existence of  Molly Maguires in Pennsylvania.  After looking into his trial, Pennsylvania's Board of Prisons recommended a posthumous pardon for John Kehoe, the alleged Molly "ringleader,"  which was granted by Governor Shapp who called the men executed "heroes" of the labor movement.   Renowned lawyer Clarence Darrow later exposed similar tactics used  by McParland  in Idaho when he went after a group of striking miners there. They  were all  acquitted.  
 
Making   credulous and uncritical assertions about  Doyle's version of history, as exampled in the lead sentence,  as if there could be no bias in his viewpoint, and then to delete scholarly references and additions to this article is not productive and  certainly reduces the value of Wikipedia as a trustworthy reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara (talk • contribs) 04:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is about using reliable sources, and about representing what those sources say. You posted a long essay of personal opinions, and then inserted sources that did not support your opinions. That is why I first reverted your original research, and then requested comments from uninvolved editors when you insisted on repeating your opinions. There was unanimous agreement among those editors that your edits were unsuitable and that they were not supported by the sources you provided.Jeppiz (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong with the sources, the problem is that you misrepresented the sources. That was the opinion of all who looked into the matter and the RfC was unanimous. If you want to continue debating it, take it to WP:ANI or to dispute resolution. However, be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum and that your personal opinions and conclusions aren't relevant. This isn't the only article, other users have found your contributions in violation of both  WP:OR and WP:NPOV in other articles as well. And please start signing your posts.Jeppiz (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I see no reason to continue this discussion as you clearly do not understand how Wikipedia works. That is not a problem, but your refusal to learn is a problem. Nobody cares if what you're saying is right or not, Wikipedia is not about the WP:TRUTH, it about properly using reliable sources WP:RS. You may think you have done so but all experiences users who have looked at your edits think otherwise. All your pompous talk of "maoism", "bullying of experts" and "censorship" is quite frankly ridiculous. If you want to claim some intellectual high-ground, it might be a good idea to start with showing that you're able to read, in this case capable of reading Wikipedia's guidelines. You might start with the above-mentioned WP:RS and WP:TRUTH, then continue to WP:POV, WP:OR and preferable also take in WP:NOTAFORUM.Jeppiz (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Credulous and uncritical assertions/ Lack of documentation

message: please explain what's not extraneous about them? They repeat what's already in the plot section. Plus the previous paragraph before them ended with Douglas dead, yet suddenly these three paragraphs assume he's alive? Banedon (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is not extraneous about the three sections? 

message: The writing style of the "Plot" section is awkward throughout, and omits important plot points in many instances. Additionally, the entire "flashback" story (the third-person narrative that begins after Douglas is revealed to be alive) is summarized in one sentence; in my opinion, the majority of the plot summary should in fact be devoted to the portion of the novel that takes place in Vermissa rather than to the introductory chapters which serve, to a large degree, as a vehicle for presenting the main narrative. If anyone would care to collaborate on this rewrite, please let me know either here or on my talk page. I intend to work towards improving both the style and substance of the plot summary here. 
Any comments are appreciated.
Helmut von Moltke (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section needs a major rewrite 

message: The thing we want, if we look a work of literature up in an encyclopedia, is to find out something about what place it occupies in the history of its author's writings and of literature in general. Is it one of the author's best or worst works, important or unimportant? What have literary critics said about it? I look for the Valley of Fear on wikipedia and find not a hint that anyone thought these questions worth answering. Instead, I find only an absurdly long synopsis of the plot--which is what small children imagine a book review to consist of. Sorry, but anyone who wants to know that much about the plot of a story should just read the story.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.220.61 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priorities?