Jump to content

Talk:H. H. Holmes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Moxy's edits

[edit]

In the episode The World’s Columbian Exposition of the TV series Timeless, the protagonists find themselves trapped in his hotel.[1][2][3]

Why is an unmade (likely never to be made) movie relevant but a TV show episode which fictionally depicted the events not relevant? Many movies that are planned are never made because they can't get the financing sorted or the main stars are committed to other projects. Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls review this old talk. If not clear...will talk more.--Moxy (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But why is an unmade movie that is not even in planning let alone production after three years relevant? Someone Not Awful (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's been 8 years since DiCaprio got the rights....not sure why your saying it's not being made. Scor...has 4 movies in the works pls see interview from this summer.--Moxy (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The unmade movie should be striken, per WP:CRYSTAL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."--Moxy (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So more unsourced junk added again. Been ten years I have been dealing with this and now have someone going out of there way to be combative what should I do. Wikipedia burning at the very least God damn it.--Moxy (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you see a request to discuss on the talk page as "combative". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Timeless recap: 'The World's Columbian Exposition'". January 17, 2017.
  2. ^ "Timeless recap: 'The World's Columbian Exposition'". Entertainment Weekly. January 17, 2017.
  3. ^ "Lucy doesn't need saving on an overstuffed Timeless". The A.V. Club. January 17, 2017.
Sourcing and confusion. I was referred to this article by another Wikipedia article, and started going down rabbit holes when I wondered who the otherwise unidentified professor "Herdman" was. I've done my best, given my limited available time, to sort things out, but this article needs substantial work to meet WP standards. One of the oddest claims was that non-factual info was said to have "stood the test of time." I think that was a misuse of the phrase, given that it might be oxymoronic in this case, and changed it to "persisted," which is factual. I am taking Dante Alighieri's comedic advice: "Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here." I am giving up. Activist (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death date dispute

[edit]

There is currently a dispute about the death date of H. H. Holmes, based on different contradicting sources.

"May 17, 1896:"

"May 7, 1896:"

Unless at least one additional reliable source for "May 17" is provided, I'm going to assume that this is a one-time factual mistake by the only source for this date. Nobody is perfect; this may well be a factual error in the documentation movie.

Courtesy ping: Shortydarby, Peaceray. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 7th as we have news reports of his hanging dated to May 8 publications.... example news paper clipping.--Moxy 🍁 04:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: Velella
Shortydarby is a new editor & is probably unaware of WP:UNDUE. Clearly 1896-05-06 is the prevailing date. If Shortydarby changes it without a preponderance of citations, well, that editor will get a quick lesson as to what constitutes disruptive editing & its consequences. I rather hope that this editor will read & heed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, & learn how to contribute to Wikipedia.
Peaceray (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, I reverted a number of edits including those by 174.255.132.47 which I assume are Shortydarby prior to registering. Not only did the date not match the sources but the formatting trashed the infobox. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   10:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Sherlock Holmes?

[edit]

Are they related? Laney145 (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am aware of. Suomichris (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character with a common surname, and the actual name of the subject of this article is Mudgett. Activist (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural Scene

[edit]

Can we include Supernatural scene S02 E6 to this ? 112.134.244.125 (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Highly fictionalized version of him for sure but definitely agree. 72.48.253.175 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. 94-kun (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes's vs Holmes'

[edit]

There has been lot of switching between Holmes's and Holmes' in this article's history. The AP style guide says to do Holmes', and that is what a lot of people are used to, but the wikipedia style guide says Holmes's, so thats what we need to stick with. Thanks. PrismaCosmos (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is another example of why schoolteachers give students a reduced or failing grade on assignments that borrow from Wikipedia. The person(s) who wrote the Wikipedia style guide evidently slept through their English classes in school. — Foxtrot1296 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of victims

[edit]

The victim count has been reported as 9, 27, or 200+

The 9 number is the Pitezel family, plus Julia & Pearl Conner, Emeline Cigrand, and Minnie & Nannie Williams. Of these 9 Holmes was only proven to have killed Ben Pitezel. Only the Pitezel family was confirmed to be dead, the other 5 never were.

27 is how many people Holmes confessed to killing. (Note: some of these people were still alive at the time of the confession).

The 200+ number is nonsense from tabloids.


So the final victim number is 1 confirmed, and 9 total suspected. PrismaCosmos (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there could be more. Where there’s smoke… 72.48.253.175 (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

translate into English and put in the article

[edit]

"The production did not up commencing" 100.15.120.189 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance at Phillips Exeter Academy?

[edit]

I work in the archives at Exeter Academy, a student asked to see proof that Mudgett went here but I have not been able to find any proof that H. W. Mudgett attended Phillips Exeter Academy. It is not surprising that he isn't in the alumni catalogue for the time period: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015076324436&view=1up&seq=5

I wouldn't actually expect to find him in there, but I couldn't find him in the Register of Students or Register of Grades ledgers from the 1870s or 1880s -- no Mudgetts and no Holmes' there. Those resources are all handwritten ledgers, they aren't digitized and available online yet. I can't definitively prove he didn't go here, but I certainly can't prove he went here. I'd rather check in with others than just lop off a paragraph, but I do legitimately think the most likely scenario is that he didn't go to the Academy. The timeline doesn't work, the documentation doesn't line up, and I can't for the life of me find the source of the claim that he went here. It's driving me bonkers. PhillipsExeterAcademyArchives (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed as unverified. Peaceray (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

I am new to the wiki editing. Someone posted and vandalized the H.H.Holmes page by posting a picture of some sort of animal?* gore. It's very disturbing. If someone can fix this page, I would appreciate it. Thank you. 75.142.60.109 (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it now. Perhaps you can point to one of the revisions at en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._H._Holmes&action=history, but I do not see what you are describing. I also checked the history of the article's images at Wikimedia Commons, but I did not see anything there either. Peaceray (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird. I checked back and the image is missing. Whatever the case is, im glad it's gone. 75.142.60.109 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil in Me video game

[edit]

The Dark Pictures Anthology: The Devil in Me has been cut from the popular culture section a few times, again today as "junk". Why is a notable piece of media that draws on the Holmes story considered junk and not worth mentioning? Belbury (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This helps our readers understand the topic how? Moxy🍁 15:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reader may be curious about the cultural legacy of the murders, whether there have been any major works of fiction based on the story. This appears to be one, and maybe the only one. Belbury (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have many games and TV shows that are simply name dropping essentially.... with zero historic accuracy or value. Moxy🍁 19:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pitezel

[edit]

The name Pitezel is mentioned early in the article but with no explanation. Only later is it explained that this was a collaborator of Holmes. 81.108.8.238 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it (without having seen this talk page thread, actually). Loki (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:H._H._Holmes&oldid=1257889719"