Talk:Agatha Christie/Archive 1

Initial message
you can force links to work by making any substantial change to the page the link appears on; you don't have to change spaces in the link to underscores. In fact, I avoid changing them to underscores because then the term you do that to doesn't show up in a search. You could instead copyedit or change some minor bit of punctuation; or even add an &amp;nbsp;  somewhere in the article. That's html for a space, but the wikiware thinks the change is substantial enough that it quits accessing the cached version without the active links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoyaanisQatsi (talk • contribs) 22:48, 12 June 2001 (UTC)

Mrs Oliver
The following came from ../wiki.phtml, which was created by some kind of software bug we had briefly. Koyaanis Qatsi --

Despite seemingly replacing Hastings as Poirot's foil only in the later novels, Mrs Oliver was in fact created much earlier.

First seen, albeit very briefly, in 'Parker Pyne Investigates', where she devises plots for false mysteries to amuse bored clients of retired civil servant turned Mr Fix-it, Parker Pyne.

Her first proper appearance comes in 'Cards on the Table' where along with several others, including Poirot, she attempts to investigate the circumstances of the death of the host of a party which she and Poirot attended.

After this novel, it was 16 years before Christie again teamed her up with Poirot in 'Mrs McGinty's Dead', where she plays a peripheral part in the investigation after arriving on the scene as a guest and hitting Poirot with an apple core thrown from her car window!

She also appears in 'Dead Man's Folly' (again creating a murder mystery, but a real murder occurs during the proceedings).

'Pale Horse' (which I have not read) was her next appearance.

She then teams up with Poirot for 'Third Girl', 'Halloween Party' and 'Elephants Can Remember', in all of which she plays an active part in introducing Poirot to the case and in assisting his solution of it.

From the books I have read, Mrs Oliver appears to be a successful crime novelist, having created a Finnish detective beloved by the public. She hates the character and is shy of attention she gets from fans. She is rather overweight, eats large quantities of apples, lives alone in a London flat, tries many different hairstyles and is often vague and absent minded.

Playing fair and love stories
Maybe I read the books too quickly or beacause I read them in French, but I do not agree that Christie was fair with her readers. Often, very often the detective finds the solution with elements that were not mentioned at all before.

One of the best example is found in Murder on the Orient Express. Before Poirot explains that everybody was somehow connected to the killed baby, we had never heard of this baby before. It is truly frustrating.


 * I would be very surprised it this were the case in the French translation. In my Fontana/Collins English edition of 1974, the full details of the Armstrong kidnapping case are given in chapter seven of section one, there being three sections in total. It is key to all of the exposition. JennyRad 13:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Another example would be: The Mirror Crack'd from Side to Side. Sure we know that the first victim was ill when she met the murderess. But only Miss Marple has heard the name of the disease. Christie never mentions it before the very very end when everyting is told.
 * True, we don't know the name of the disease, but that would have given the game away completely. We know the victim was ill, and that she had to put makeup on her face to disguise her illness, so I don't think it's beyond guessing.  Nowadays it's an even more well-known illness and well-known risk than it was when the story was written.  And crucially, it's not the case that Miss Marple knows from the start and it's withheld from the reader - she doesn't know either, she has to make that intuitive leap before she checks it out.   Christie's different in that regard from many other mystery writers (Conan Doyle springs to mind), who withhold essential facts before they reveal the solution so that there's no chance of even making an educated guess. Tobelia 08:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And other examples could be found.
 * Please list them. The only example I can think of is The Clocks (novel), and the detective's method of discovering the evidence is that book's gimmick.--Ellissound 01:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read every Agatha Christie novel at least twice (except for one, which I am saving). I agree with Ellissound -The Clocks (novel) is the only time when Christie truly pulls the solution out of her hat. Both examples cited above -Murder on the Orient Express and The Mirror Crack'd from Side to Side- can be solved by a diligent reader. The Clocks cannot. fshepinc

Another thing could be said about the author: she was romantic! When she could add a love story to her story, she would do it. The examples are countless when Poirot helps a couple to fall in love or when the dark handsome man falls in love for the young rich woman.


 * This I agree with - several of the novels are thinly-disguised romance novels (Passenger to Frankfurt, Destination Unknown, among others). JennyRad 13:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Christie wrote several romance novels under a pen name.

Hound of Baskerville???
The article mentions "The Hound of Baskerville (twelve short mysteries) (1933)". This is probably a mistake - I think it ought to be "The Hound of Death (and other stories) (1933)". Binand

I agree. Why wikipedia will never work. fixed. Rich Farmbrough 17:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mousetrap
IS it still running? Rich Farmbrough 23:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes :) Turnstep 14:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Unhappy first marriage
Where did this statement about her first marriage being unhappy come from? From what I read in her Autobiography, it seemed to be quite a happy marriage until Christie left her. It has been a while since I read it, however. The Zaniak 07:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Just read her autobiography for the umpteenth time and yes, until the last few years it sounds like it was a happy marriage. Glitterspray (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Agatha_Christie article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 00:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Picture
Can someone put Agatha`s picture on article?
 * Done. The picture's from the grave memorial, so it may not be quite the most accurate, but it'll do. Cheers.  Im per a t § r (Talk)  22:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ten Little Niggers --> And Then There Were None
A well-meaning contributor recently moved the article Ten Little Niggers to And Then There Were None, on the argument that this is the "more common title" for the work. Certainly it gets more Google hits, but those are heavily weighted by the movie. Could the Christie experts on hand please weigh in at Talk:And Then There Were None? I'm sure the debate about "original title" vs. "most common title" vs. "offensive title" has been waged in other forums; we could use more input. Thanks! &mdash; Catherine\talk 23:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think the title matters much. Although it was the original title, I don't believe the book was titled "Ten Little Niggers" for very long. Wasn't the book renamed Ten Little Indians and then finally renamed "And Then There Were None"?


 * No. Christie was adamant that her original title was taken from the traditional English nursery rhyme and that it had no racist content at all -- as far as she was concerned. (Blinkered, yeah.) The book kept that title in the U.K. until (I think) the '60s or '70s. The *American* edition was published as "Ten Little Indians" because in the U.S. "nigger" = "negro" while it Britain it referred to any dark-skinned non-Anglo. (And yes, of course, it was still racist, but whatever.) She didn't like the American title because it referred to a different nursery rhyme, one she considered puerile. The movie was released as "And Then There Were None" -- but the book never was. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (retired public librarian)


 * Whatever the case, you should probably use the two names that are most recognizable, with (Ten Little Niggers) one in parenthesis. - ICarriere 23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, I'm afraid. The title given the book by its author should take precedence. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is authority on both sides, at least with reference to detective fiction. For instance, Rex Stout's The Mountain Cat Murders was originally published as Mountain Cat and never republished under that title again; the Stoutian authorities both here and elsewhere (including Hubin) cite the book under its second title and give the first as variorum.  Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that tries to be useful to its readers, I think usefulness should be our watchword.  Since the book hasn't been published in many years under its first title and is extremely unlikely to be ever republished as such, I suggest that today's enquirer would be most likely to look for it under its current title.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A concise, well-researched and well-reasoned response. (Hey, is that allowed?) I agree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. (And the book most certainly was published under the title And Then There Were None; I have a copy.) Rivertorch (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Books' pages - Stub Status
A large number of Christie's books have their own pages here on Wikipedia, but a significant proportion of them are classified as "stubs". While I'd be very willing (an able) to expand them with more plot detail, for example, it doesn't seem to me that the pages which are not classified as stubs are actually giving more detail. Consequently I'm hesitant to expend time filling out details which are not what Wikipedia is designed for. I'd appreciate a more experienced Wikipedian advising me on what details would be considered useful and/or interesting to "de-stub" these pages. (E.g. 4.50 from Paddington, which is a stub, as compared to The Sittaford Mystery, which is not.)


 * There are no hard and fast rules for what makes a "stub" and what doesn't - the tags are added at editors' whims. It can get a bit arbitrary. So add what material you think is pertinent and valuable and then remove the stub tab. My opinion is that except for a few of her most notable books, such as Murder of Roger Akeroyd (sp?) or Murder on the Orient Express, plot synopsis should be limited to just a couple of paragraphs; concentrate on other information, like whether a movie was made, or shared plot lines/secondary characters with other books. It's easy to get carried away with synopses, but we're not trying to be CliffNotes. - DavidWBrooks 02:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

US and alternative titles
As a lot of the books were published under alternative titles in the US, I've added a bunch of US titles to the list of works, using what seems to be the standard format "(also known as X)". I've also amended one of them (Taken at the Flood) so that the UK title comes first, for consistency. Is this OK? Tobelia 01:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

William Shakespeare?
"Agatha Christie is the world's best-known mystery writer and all-time best-selling author of any genre other than William Shakespeare."

I am not convinced 'William Shakespeare' is a genre of literature. Any objections to the change to "Agatha Christie is the world's best-known mystery writer and, apart from William Shakespeare, is the all-time best-selling author of any genre"? It does kind of lose some of its focus on Christie. --Mobda 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it ought to be changed to "Agatha Christie is one of the world's best-known mystery writer....... and apart from Shakespear and J K Rowling, all-time best-selling author of any genre?". I think this makes it more true and to-the-point. - user:Anandamatthur


 * I rolled it back, only because I can't find figures that Rowling's total sales, while mind-boggling, are anywhere near Christie's total sales. Can you point us to sales totals? - DavidWBrooks 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And having rolled it back, I rewrote the whole intro. Let's see what folks think. ... - DavidWBrooks 00:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just changed "fiction" to "books", as the wording previously implied that Shakespeare did not write fiction, which term very definitely applies to a large fraction of his work, whereas the latter is clearer, as Shakespeare wrote plays and poems rather than books. Ou tis 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Birthday
When was she born? 1890 or 1891? Older sources said 1891, newer ones say 1890. Is there a consensus now? Chvsanchez 07:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All the sources I've come across say 1890, including my AC books and the official Christie website which is endorsed by her family. Tobelia 12:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Marriage and Roman Catholicism
"In 1930, Christie married (despite her divorce) a Roman Catholic . . ."

Christie's divorce is what changed her marital status from married to single, so her divorce would in fact be a necessary prerequisite to her remarriage, not an impediment as the sentence implies. If the contributor who added that information is trying to indicate that Christie herself, Mallowan himself, Christie's family, Mallowan's family, the Catholic Church or the press/public had a specific problem with Christie marrying a Roman Catholic because of her divorce, then those objections need to be elucidated. If the contributor is just adding it to say that, in general, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't recognise divorce and doesn't allow its members to remarry after divorce, then it's original research and also, in the absence of it actually causing Christie a material problem, pretty much irrelevant. Binabik80 14:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this qualifies as original research. The Catholic Church's position on divorce is well known. It may be irrelevant, but I see no problem with the line's inclusion.--Ellissound 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * actually, it has nothing to do with her and all with him. it's his church that doesn't recognize intermarriage and divorcees getting married.  to be married in the catholic church is far different than the legal kind.  a marriage to them must be to another catholic and it is forever, barring the rare annulment.  i have a feeling they did not have a religious marriage, in that case the parentheses are pointless.

External link
Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry
 * to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This user has added similar requests to link to biographies hosted on the same site to about 50 different articles. Although I believe that these requests were made in good faith, adding the links to all of the articles would be spamming. In addition, the biographies tend to be not very insightful and/or minimally informative, and the webpages contain Google AdSense links.
 * A fuller explanation of my own opinion on these links can be found here, if anyone wishes to read it.
 * Hbackman 23:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Christie in Fiction
Can anyone provide justification for the claim that a character in Anthony Berkeley's "The Poisoned Chocolates Case" is based on Christie? Having recently re-read it, I can't see any obvious reason to assume this, based purely on the text (nor for the similar suggestions for Sayers, Carr and Chesterton). Jon Rob 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a theory that the amateur detection club in "The Poisoned Chocolates" was based on the Detection Club, the mystery writer's club which many of those writers appear to have belonged to, but this seems unlikely as it doesn't bear much resemblance to the one in the novel. Besides, aren't there only two detective story writers in Berkeley's novel?  One of them is also rumoured to be based on Berkeley himself.  Tobelia 22:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As no-one has provided justification, I've deleted it. Jon Rob 07:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tag seems justified
I find the reason "she's a writer, not a narrative" cited by Chcknwnm insufficient justification for removing the spoiler tag. The following paragraph does contain spoilers which would not be expected by all readers. I have therefore reinstated the spoiler tag. My gut feeling is that Chcknwnm removed the tag based on a personal dislike of spoiler tags similar to that of Shanes. Of course, the alternative solution is to remove the spoilers, which probably would mean a major edit (castration?) of that paragraph. TheGoblin 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

LibriVox Recording link
Just an FYI, I've removed the link to the LibriVox recording of Mysterious Affair at Styles due to there being a possible copyright conflict. LibriVox is working to resolve this and will repost the link if resolved. thistlechick 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Video Games section
The entry on And Then There Were None is unencyclopedic in tone - it reads like a press release. If anyone agrees with this, it should be re-written (by someone who knows something about the game) or deleted. Jon Rob 09:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link - concerning the eleven days dissappearance.
The link

The Agatha Christie disappearance

does not currently work. ????

24.13.28.158 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Charges of Racism
Many modern sources charge Agatha Christie with blatant anti-semitism and racism. Several of her novels have very strong anti-semitic comments (one example is Lord Edgware Dies), and the original title of And Then There Were None, Ten Little Niggers, has been the subject of much debate. I am surprised that this issue is not addressed in the main entry for Christie. Fshepinc 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because similar charges can be made against most western authors of the same period. (They can, in fact, also be made against many non-western authors of the same period - we humans are a nasty lot - but English speakers rarely read those, so we don't know.) Compared to her contemporaries, Christie was extremely mild in this area. - DavidWBrooks 11:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

However, few - if any - other writers wrote anything like 'Racial Musings', an ode against miscegenation published in Poems.


 * The "anti-semitism" is usually in the form of references to "a touch of the Levant", oily hair, noses, etc., with the clear implication that these characters might well be Syrians or Lebanese or Turkish, and not just Jewish. "Ten Little Niggers" was the nursery rhyme that most of us learned as "Ten Little Indians", but since the Brits of that era considered people from India to be "niggers", the reference is racist, but not aimed at black people from Africa.  Just a little context.  Ortolan88 20:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I confess ignorance about the Poems reference - that does sound like something potentially worth mentioning. - DavidWBrooks 21:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I find the title "Ten Little Niggers" thoroughly objectionable, and it unpleasantly reflects the racism of the period, in itself it doesn't tell us anything specific about Christie's own racism. It's one of many examples of Christie using a well-known nursery rhyme of the time (like One, Two, Buckle My Shoe etc) to frame her story, rather than a comment about ethnicity - particularly since there are no black people (or indeed Indians) in the plot.


 * 'Racial Musings' indeed sounds like quite another matter. I've never come across it either - probably the reason it's not mentioned is that nobody's heard of it. I believe it's out of print (maybe that poem is why).  Tobelia 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How many novels?
I counted 66 novels in the works list in this very article, not 80. If you include the co-authored works, it comes to 69. Still far from 80. So where did 80 come from? Combining novels, co-authored works and short story collections makes it 90. So which do you want? I edited it to 66. If anyone can verify the amount of novels, and update the works list accordingly, go ahead, but we can't have such contradictions within one article. Trubadurix 01:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * http://uk.agathachristie.com/site/about_christie/queen_of_crime.php says "Agatha Christie wrote 80 novels and short story collections." I suspect this is where the number 80 came from. But that still doesn't make the previous use here correct, since that figure include the short story collections. And using the list of works in this article, combining short story collections comes to 87. So agathachristie.com is either wrong, or the works list is wrong. http://christie.mysterynet.com/ says "In all, she wrote over 66 novels,...", so that points to the works list here being correct. Trubadurix 14:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Un evenness of Christie's output
I would like to see somebody with the right credentials write a critical appreciation of the corpus, and to partuclarly address the unevenness of the Dame's output. The best novels rank her among the best, perhaps behind only Sayers, but some of the later novels are slapdash and unfair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.185.55.78 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Agatha Christies Learning Disability

Why doesnt anyone mention her learning disability? I thought it might be important to mention that she was very successful regardless of her being dyslexic.

The diagnosis of dyslexia was not yet then created, and thus the Dame was probably never subjected to the battery of tests to determine her cognitive functions, therefore any assertations about them would be mere conjecture. Until the 1980s, and certainly through the 1950s, people now diagnosed with 'learning disabilities' were simply considered 'dim witted' or 'stupid'. 24.205.77.78 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider's Web
I've changed references to this play/television production which were cited as "The" Spider's Web. My copy of the 1982 television production gives the title as "Spider's Web" as do most web citations not based on Wikipedia. Accounting4Taste 16:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Pudding
Good catch jtomlin1uk, the title is "The Adventure of the Christmas Pudding", but that's a short story, so I've amended the wording of that sentence to allow for that ambiguity. I very much doubt if Christie wrote all six of the short stories collected in the volume entitled, I believe, "The Adventure of the Christmas Pudding and other stories", in the same hotel room, since they vary in date quite a bit, but if someone can demonstrate that as a fact, by all means make the correction.

I've got the original magazine publication details of all the stories in "Xmas pudding" and will soon update that article, and you're right - they appear to have been written over a 40 year period and therefore almost certainly not written at Abney!!--Jtomlin1uk 11:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The recent revision you made to that section certainly makes it clear that one is a short story and the other is a novel, but -- and I don't know if I'm misinterpreting this or not -- it also now seems to say that those two works are in some sense based on Abney Hall, which I assume means that the layout of the building is used in the stories. I can definitely see that for the short story but I'm wondering if it also applies to the novel (I haven't read that one in a while).  Accounting4Taste 16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through Christie's autobiography, Janet Morgan's official biography and the more recent Readers Companion by Vanessa Wagstaff and Stephen Poole and Abney doesn't link to After the Funeral there. The only positive link is on this website and the entry for Abney Hall itself which leads to the local government website where the claim is made which could just be a bit of "tourist catching". I'll search further. I think it would be safer to safe the stories are based on Abney. There are very few books where one can say hand on heart exactly where they were written.--Jtomlin1uk 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The entry for Abney Hall (which I've just edited to reflect your changes about the novel/short story) also suggests that the Hall is the basis for the "great house" Chimneys, which is prominently featured in two Christie novels, one titularly. I agree that Abney Hall would probably want to do as much "tourist catching" as possible, but I'd like Wikipedia to be completely accurate regardless of their assertions.  What do you think of the Chimneys suggestion? Accounting4Taste 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a good one in as much as the aforementioned book by Wagstaff and Poole links Chimney's to Abney. They also link the following: Styles, HP's Christmas, Body in the Library, They do it with Mirrors and 4.50 from Paddington (for the latter, an old map is produced showing the railway line running at the edge of the Abney estate which is still there to this day). A quote from them in the book that you may wish to use is "Abney became Agatha's greatest inspiration for country-house life, with all the servants and grandeur which have been woven into her plots. The descriptions of the fictional Styles, Chimneys, Stoneygates and the other houses in her stories are mostly Abney in various forms" Agatha Christie: A Readers Companion - Vanessa Wagstaff and Stephen Poole, Aurum Press Ltd. 2004. Page 14. ISBN 1 84513 015 4. By the way, the book has LOTS of pictures of Abney, both past and present if you are interested.--Jtomlin1uk 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * An excellent citation, and I've added it to the Christie article and to the Abney Hall article, for which thanks. But it's not what *I* may wish to use -- the Wikipedia motto is "Be bold!"  Feel free to add this sort of citation yourself, you obviously have access to good reference books and have an eye for detail.  BTW, you might want to look up the standard citation formats -- I don't have the Wagstaff/Poole book in front of me to amend the citation, but it's a little bit off.  Great work though -- keep it up!! Accounting4Taste 20:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I'm very new to editing Wikipedia entries (although having a great deal of enjoyment adding my knowledge base to all of the Christie material contained within) but I must confess that I find the various "rulebooks" of what to do, what not to do and how to do it are pretty overwhelming - and I work in a compliance/legal function!!

I'm working my way through each Christie entry, adding to details of first publications from various reference works, contemporary reviews from the TLS, quotes from the biography and revised biography and soon thumbnail scans of the UK first edition jackets for each book from my collection. I'm going again to the British Newspaper Library this Saturday to (hopefully) obtain further details of Odham's publication of "Hound of Death", details of the newspaper serialisation of "Man in the Brown Suit", details from "Radio Times" of the 1930's TV plays and the 1947 "Three Blind Mice" and if I have time after all that, the exact details of the first publication of one or two of the short stories in UK periodicals.--Jtomlin1uk 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Publication order
I've made three changes to the publication order in the table of novels. This is as a result of inputting on each of the individual pages for each novel the publication details (date and publisher) over the weekend. These details show whether the book received its first publication in either the US or the UK. In the case of the latter country, I've been able to input the month of publication and, for most of the 50's and early 60's, the exact date of publication (This information has been taken from both the "English Catalogue of Books" in the British Library and a catalogue of first editions of the Collins Crime Club that I own. There were three errors on the table on the Christie page. They were:

1) Dumb Witness was stated as being published after Death on the Nile. 2) Murder is Easy was stated as being published after And Then There Were None. 3) After The Funeral was stated as being published after A Pocket Full of Rye.

Hope this suits--Jtomlin1uk 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

contradiction
Text states that Chorion owns controlling rights to her literary works, then later states that copyrights are now owned by her grandson, Mr. Mathew Pritchard. This needs to be clarified. 71.227.113.171 20:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Now clarified by Account4Taste--Jtomlin1uk 08:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unpublished plays
A few days ago, another editor put three entries into the 'Plays' section including 'Eugenia and Eugenics'. Could someone please advise where this information comes from? Plays like this are given no mention whatsoever in Christie's autobiography or in any of the standard reference works. I've left a message on the talkpage of the user who added this info (or rather copied it from the 'unpublished' section at the base of the page) but have yet to receive a reply. Anyone out there know?--Jtomlin1uk 08:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As no one has come forward with any evidence that these plays ever existed, I have deleted them from the plays section. Standard Christie reference works such as Morgan and Christie's and Peter Saunders ' autobiography make no mention of these works. I have also moved "A Daughter's a daughter" to 1951 as the play was performed once in that year in Bath. I hope to obtain more details soon.--Jtomlin1uk 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Promotional Image
I have replaced the previous image of Agatha Christie with a promotional image from Agatha Christie Ltd. The previous image was low resolution, while the promotional image is high resolution. - ICarriere 23:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very nice picture and one I've not seen before - Thank you!--Jtomlin1uk 07:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem at Pollensa Bay
Until today there was an entry on this page for a play of "Problem at Pollensa Bay" supposedly adapted in 1992. I cannot trace any record of this play. I have in front on me a copy of issue 174 of "Book and Magazine Collector" (September 1998) which has as its lead article a feature on all of Christie's plays, both written by her and adapted by other people and this makes no mention of "Problem". In addition, I've scoured the web and the only mentions are copies of the info on this site. If someone has some genuine proof that such a play was written and presented, then please say so.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maigret
I find the following unsourced statement hard to believe:"As an example of her broad appeal, she is the all-time best-selling author in France, with over 40 million copies sold in French (as of 2003) versus 22 million for Emile Zola, the nearest contender". According to this source Simenon had been the world's best-selling author for forty years when he retired. This article about AC states that "Except for Georges Simenon, Agatha Christie is the only writer of fiction whose works have sold over 300 million copies throughout the world". The claim implying that AC outsold him in France should be either reliably sourced or deleted. L&#39;omo del batocio (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the Christie quote is unsourced (and one I've never heard of before) the webpage you quote hardly seems unbiased. When it says "For the last forty years of his life he had been — by general consent — the best-selling novelist in the world, with global sales topping three million books a year" you do have to wonder what they mean by "general consent". For one, I am happy for the French quote to be deleted as I think Christie's record stands by itself, UN figures and all.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah - and here's another vague Web source that claims Simonon sold 1.4 BILLION books ; we're in pretty iffy territory there.

Disappearance
It is incomprehensible to me that her disappearance is not understood as an attempt on her part to frame her husband's mistress for murder. Of all people, Agatha Christie, with her talent for scheming plots, should be suspected of having schemed a plot which would convict her rival of murder. Agatha disappears. The mistress's name is on the hotel register as having stayed in the vicinity. Police always look for a motive. The motive is that with Agatha's disappearance, the husband is free to re-marry. This is a reasonable explanation. The other explanation, involving a "nervous breakdown" and a "fugue state," results in the abandonment of the car and the false hotel registry as "crazy" or unexplainable behavior. Lestrade (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade


 * You may well be right, but wikipedia isn't the place for unsourced speculation. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, especially since everybody knows that the disappearance was caused by the intervention of a large vespiform alien. :-P Sturmovik (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Even more obtuse is the Wiki article's uncited claim that Opinions are still divided as to whether this was a publicity stunt.Lestrade (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Fair enough - it needs a citation. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Agatha Christie Code
This ITV3 documentary (or was it a mockumentary?) contains scenes with Agatha and her sister. This should be added to the "Popular Culture" section I think. Unfortunately, IMDB provides very few details on the cast. Anyone knows more? CapnZapp (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

3 December or 8 December?
The bio here gives the start date of Christie's disappearance as December 3 1926, but the only other credible Wikipedia reference I have seen comes from the December 8 page. The bio used as a reference on this page gives the December 3 date, as does The Guardian newspaper. . The official Website,, administered by Chorion, seems to make no mention of the event.

Should the December 8 page and December 3 page be changed, or should this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomshadow (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The disappearance was on December 3rd. Reference is Christie's official biography - Janet Morgan - Agatha Christie - A Biography William Collins, 1984. ISBN 0-00-216330-6 Page 135.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does "Sexy Bitch" redirect to Agatha Christie?
What does Sexy Bitch have to do with this book author? A pure vandal redirect if you ask me. I read the whole article and do not find where " Sexy Bitch " fits in. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's gone now. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

NOT encouraged to write when she was young.
Article says: "Her mother taught her at home, encouraging her to write at a very young age."

According to her autobiography, Agatha's mother was going through an "anti-education fad" for girls when Agatha was young. She believed no child should learn to read before age eight. Agatha taught herself to read (before she was five) and after that her father decided she should learn to write as well. (Page 15 of my Berkley paperback, copyright 1996). Glitterspray (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Language List in Introduction Ridiculous
Is a list of 40+ languages, especially in, of all places, the introduction, at all relevant to the article? The Bible page does not list the hundreds of languages it has been translated into, nor does the Casablanca  (for instance) page list the extent of its xenoglossic subtitlings. Link to an outside list if available. I am removing the list on the grounds not only of complete irrelevancy, but also sheer inanity.
 * Good move - it was inane. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Who decided to break-up the list of Agatha Christie's works into a million sections?
Like it says. There was a great list two years ago: "Complete Works of Agatha Christie". Why oh why has it been divided into "Novels," "Short Stories," etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.28.37 (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not? That's pretty standard when listing an author's bibliography, especially when it's as enormous as Christie's. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I second David's response. I do think however that the adaptations section is getting too unwieldy and possibly needs a page of its own.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

56 languages must be an underestimate of translation number
The article says that Christie's works have been translated into at least 56 languages; this is surely an underestimate. According the Index Translationum, she is the most translated individual fiction author in the world. Since the works of Paulo Coelho have been translated into more than 60 languages and - as the article on Enid Blyton says   - Enid Blyton's works have been translated into nearly 80 languages, Christie, who I believe continues to hold this record, must have had her works translated into higher figures than these. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "at least 56 languages" (my emphasis) appears to be a deliberately conservative estimate. If we can find a reliable source giving a higher number, then terrific; otherwise, the "at least" part makes it factual, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Formula/Spoilers
Can somebody PLEASE add some sort of spoiler warning to the 'Formula' section on Christie's page. The bit about The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and Endless Night has no doubt ruined the ending of those novel's for countless newcomers to this author's work. --Heslopian (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I am sympathetic to your concern, I also think that the newbies among Christie's readership should know better than to read relevant encyclopedia articles. Please read WP:Spoiler. Rivertorch (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but on the other hand a lot of modern Christie readers may not have read those particular works yet, so it isn't just newbies to her canon who might be affected. If adding a spoiler goes against Wikipedia policy, I think the sentence should be removed; it isn't really relevant to the section anyway. --Heslopian (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think that Christie's use of narrator as murderer is probably significant, and I'm not sure there's another section where it would be more relevant. Perhaps it could be part of a new section exploring Christie's villains. (Who are they typically, for instance? Can a generalization be made? Also, I wonder if Christie was the first major author to have a murderer-protagonist. That would be very noteworthy, if so.) On reflection, though, I don't think that naming the titles enhances the article in any way, so I'd support removal of the second clause of the sentence. (Btw, WP:Spoiler is a guideline, not a policy, so there'd be plenty of wiggle room if the circumstances were extraordinary.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand what WP:Spoiler is telling us. But, it is a guideline, a guideline that states “it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.” I am not a newcomer to Christie’s work, but have decided to re-read her novels and short stories in publication order. I can only hope that by the time I get to the titles discussed in the formula section I have forgotten what I have read here! Now, getting back to WP:Spoiler, that guideline indicates a preference for not using “spoiler alerts.” However, when applying common sense and the possibility of making an occasional exception, perhaps we can come up with something here that allows the formula section to stay more or less intact while steering those who do not want to have key plot data revealed clear of it. Here is a quetion, the answer to which may help us to balance the interests of those of us who want full details with those of us who do not want the jewels contained within the Christie plots revealed: Would the formula section be irreparably harmed if the titles mentioned were removed while adding a link to a previous edit containing the titles? Such a link would look something like this. Of course, a rewrite would be required to make the sentence coherent once the titles are removed. Alternatively, WP:Spoiler also suggests that section headings can be used to steer clear people who do not want key plot data revealed. Specifically, “Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as ‘Plot’ or ‘Ending’) which imply the presence of spoilers.” In this instance, I would suggest changing the title of the formula section to something akin to “Formula and plot devices.” Any thoughts on these two suggestions? Any alternatives? Thanks! SpikeToronto (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your first suggestion (linking to previous edits) doesn't seem very workable, but your second (retitling the section) sounds like an elegant solution, imo. Anyone concerned with spoilers who chooses to read the text beneath "Formula and plot devices" really has no complaint. I'm going to be bold and make the change. Rivertorch (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Max Mallowan's (Alleged) Affairs
In the “Second Marriage & Later Life” subsection of the “Biography” section, it is stated as fact, without citation, that Agatha Christie’s and Max Mallowan’s “marriage was happy in the early years and endured despite Mallowan's many affairs in later life, notably with Barbara Parker whom he married in 1977, the year after Christie's death.” [Emphasis added.] However, that Sir Max had any extra-marital affairs with anyone — including Barbara Parker — is doubted and denied by many sources in and around the Christie and Mallowan families, and within the professional orbits of both Christie and Mallowan.

In the recent Christie biography, Agatha Christie: An English Mystery (London: Headline Review, 2008, pp. 443-457), Laura Thompson brings Mallowan’s alleged extramarital affairs into serious doubt. With reference to a significant number of Christie and Mallowan relatives and professional peers, and with reference to the warehouses of Christie and Mallowan papers to which Ms Thompson was given unfettered access, she leaves the reader with a great deal of doubt that Christie was betrayed by her second husband as she had been by her first.

I suggest, therefore, that the sentence be rewritten to read: “Their marriage was especially happy in the early years and remained so until Christie’s death in 1976. Mallowan rewed in 1977 to his longtime associate, Barbara Parker.”

— SpikeToronto (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you're providing a source and the current wording has none, you have the advantage. However, if other reputable biographies disagree, and if Thompson mentions the allegations (even if only to refute them), they should probably be mentioned. Since Mr. Mallowan is deceased, there's no BLP issue, so there's no reason to sanitize it. Rivertorch (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

✅ Given null response from all but Rivertorch, made the changes, as suggested by me above, two months ago. Rather than have a reversion war, if there are objections to changes, let’s have discussion here. Thanks! SpikeToronto (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming you have the source at hand, what does it say about alleged affairs? Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, in Thompson’s biography of Christie, the author brings Mallowan’s alleged extramarital affairs into serious doubt. With reference to a significant number of Christie and Mallowan relatives and professional peers, and with reference to the warehouses of Christie and Mallowan papers to which Ms Thompson was given unfettered access, she leaves the reader with a great deal of doubt that Christie was betrayed by her second husband as she had been by her first. That Sir Max had any extra-marital affairs with anyone — including Barbara Parker — is doubted and denied by many sources in and around the Christie and Mallowan families, and within the professional orbits of both Christie and Mallowan.

Of the four major biographies of Christie that have been published in the last four decades, only one (the pulp biography penned by Jared Cade) alleged that these affairs took place. That writer’s source was the then 10-year-old daughter (Judith Gardner) of a women (Nan Watts Pollock Kon) who was an infrequent acquaintance of Christie’s and with whom Christie was not in the habit of sharing the personal details of her life (and who died in 1959, 20 years before Mallowan married Parker!). Thus, Judith Gardner’s evidence is second-hand hearsay at best. Moreover, as was not uncommon for women of the Victorian and Edwardian eras — whose sensibilities most decidedly informed Chrisite’s worldview — Christie was more likely to have divulged such information to her longtime, loyal retainer, Charlotte Fisher (“Carlo”) than to Nan Kon and there was never any suggestion of such activity from Carlo’s quarter.

Thompson refutes each of Gardner and Cade’s allegations with intereviews with many of Christie and Mallowan’s relatives and professional peers, and with reference to vast paper resources that were made available to her in the preparation of her biography. Since the section dealing with this issue is 15-pages-long, I’ll leave you with a few quotations:


 * “The omnipresence of Nan in Agatha’s life — which Cade’s book requires the reader to accept, as Nan is the source of almost every one of its stories — is simply not borne out by the facts.”


 * “…[T]here is no sense that she was an intimate friend of the kind that Jared Cade implies. Agatha was simply not the type to have confiding relationships.”


 * “…[T]he truth is that nobody knows what went on between Max and Barbara. As with the disappearance, so with the affair: Jared Cade’s book presents a weight of unsubstantiated claims as if they were undisputed facts.”

Finally, and in the alternative, Thompson provides a great deal of support for the argument that, if indeed Mallowan was having extramarital affairs, as regards her marriage, Christie “saw its realities, in all their ambivalence and … she lived with them.” Moreover, Max made her happy. Which may mean that Max was not having a long-term affair with Barbara Parker and that the Mallowan marriage was mutually devoted until the end. Or it may be that Max was having an affair, and Agatha knew nothing of it (although the Gardners insist she was aware of it all along). Or it may mean something more complex, more mature, more accepting. The evidence for this is in Agatha’s writing: so often the key to her mysterious character.”

Thompson then proceeds to look to Christie’s books (both the Christies and the oft’ autobiographical Westmacotts) and stage plays for clues as to what, if anything, Christie may have known. I leave it to you to read the book for what is contained therein! This is a great biography written by someone who is an award-winning author and biographer and who ties Christie’s life in with Christie’s mountain of work, breathing new life into Christie’s oeuvre in the process. The literary criticism is itself worth the price of the book! Because the work comes from a small imprint, I do not expect it to stay in print long, so one had best buy it now.


 * Thompson, Laura. Agatha Christie: An English Mystery (London: Headline Review, 2008.) ISBN 978-0-7553-1488-1.

— SpikeToronto (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Very interesting, thanks for posting that. It may come in handy in the future. One final question. You say that only one major biography in the last four decades alleges the affairs happened, but do the others make a point of talking about the rumours? What I'm getting at it that if there was a widespread public perception of scandal, that may be notable even if there really wasn't any scandal. Rivertorch (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I seem to recall that there was no real thought in that vein until Cade’s book came along with its unsourced claims from a once 10-year-old girl’s second-hand recollections. The others were Christie’s autobiography, which made no mention along those lines, and a highly regarded 1984 biography that also made no such mention. Moreover, Janet Morgan, the author of the latter, shared her thoughts with Thompson during extensive interviews and appears to agree with Thompson’s position almost 25 years after Morgan’s own biography of Christie. SpikeToronto (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'd say your changes to the article are an unqualified improvement. Nice job! Rivertorch (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Talk Page
Would anyone object to me archiving some of this Talk page, which is becoming unwieldy? I propose archiving everything up to and including № 39: “56 languages must be an underestimate of translation number.” Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about up to and including 37, since 38 and 39 are from this year and the spoiler topic does recur from time to time? Thanks for offering to take this on instead of siccing the bots on us! Rivertorch (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

✅ Done See here. As per Rivertorch’s (talk) proviso. — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Her name in the lede
Agatha Mary Clarissa, Lady Mallowan, DBE (née Miller; 15 September 1890 –  12 January 1976), commonly known as Agatha Christie, was an ...

What do we have here? It looks like this written by someone who writes the Court Circular or whatever. It's stuffy and, well, inaccurate. OK, her husband was a knight and thus she was Lady Mallowan. But was she ever known as this except in some very formal contexts? I doubt it. Then, there's the question of her own damehood. We give a passing nod to this by mentioning her DBE postnominal, but what about "Dame" before "Agatha"? It seems that her reflected title Lady Mallowan has somehow taken precedence over the honour she received in her own right. That surely cannot be correct. What I'd like to see is something like this:
 * Dame Agatha Christie DBE (15 September 1890 –  12 January 1976) was an ...

and then later talk about her full name at birth, her married names, and her formal title Lady Mallowan, which is virtually never used. It certainly doesn't merit a mention in the lede at all, and particularly not the primary name we give her. Besides, if Lady Mallowan were the most appropriate title for her (which it isn't), it would be simply "Lady Mallowan", not "Agatha Mary Clarissa, Lady Mallowan". I might agree with "Lady (Agatha) Mallowan" if it were appropriate to call her Mallowan at all, but it isn't, so I won't. -- JackofOz (talk)


 * I think if you are being strictly accurate it is Dame Agatha Mallowan as Christie ceased to be her name in 1930 upon her remarriage.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds plausible, but do we know it to be true? Did she ever call herself "Mrs Mallowan", or, after his knighthood, "Lady Mallowan", or, after her own damehood, "Dame Agatha Mallowan"?  She might perhaps have used one or more of these names privately, but to the world at large, and that's who we're writing for here, she was always "Agatha Christie", and later "Dame Agatha Christie".  Not all women adopt their new husbands' surnames on remarriage; many retain an earlier husband's surname, or revert to their own maiden name.  I've never seen any evidence that Agatha Christie ever used Max Mallowan's surname.  We even refer to his widow Barbara as simply "Barbara Mallowan", not the second "Lady Mallowan".  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I like Jack’s suggested re-write of Christie’s name in the first line of the introduction to the article. As it is now it’s such a clumsy read. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Done.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Jack, maybe you should leave something of the previous version in the lede. Perhaps after née could be Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller. Thus, the opening line would be:


 * Dame Agatha Christie, DBE (née, Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller, 15 September 1890 – 12 January 1976) …

That way, the information that JTomlin (JT) wanted presented is preserved, while the very first occurrence of the name, at the commencement of the sentence and article, is as anyone looking up the article would expect. It is a compromise. Also, the fact that, upon Max Mallowan’s being made CBE, Christie became Lady Mallowan, before being Dame Agatha in her own right, can be dealt with in the Second marriage and later life section. Would that be acceptable to both of you, Jack and JT? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. A female subject's maiden name is not something that typically appears in WP lede paragraphs, unless there's some particular reason to show it.  We already tell our readers, in the appropriate place, that she was born Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller.  It is not information that is necessary for the lede paragraph.  It might be if she had published works under "Agatha Miller" - but she didn't.  Now, is it a "fact" that she became "Lady Mallowan" upon her husband's knighthood?  I agree that she would have been entitled to use this name had she so chosen - but do we know that she ever did?  Jamie Lee Curtis is entitled to be known as Lady Haden-Guest, but rarely uses that title.  We make reference to it in her lede, but I think it doesn't merit a place there either.  The lede is for important information about what the person did and was notable for.  The fact that Curtis does not use the name Haden-Guest is hardly what she's notable for.  I make the same point about Agatha Christie.  Whatever connection she had to the surname Mallowan - and it's tenuous at best - belongs anywhere but in the lede.  In Curtis's case, she does at least use her Lady title in some circumstances, apparently.  I don't think there's any evidence that Agatha Christie ever used Mallowan as her name.  Ever.  But even if someone dug around and found some obscure document where she calls herself "Agatha Mallowan" or whatever, that still would not make a case.  The version I changed was trying to give a complete history of her names, and that's not what the lede is for.  People come here wanting information about Agatha Christie, and that's what they should certaintly get - but in the apporpriate places.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First Jack, you may need to re-read my comments. I never suggested that Mallowan be in the lede; I think it inappropriately placed there. Secondly, you know as well as I do that in the UK one is often referred to as Lady Such-and-Such whether or not one refers to oneself in that manner. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that in archeological circles she was often referred to in this way by Sir Max’s fellow toilers in academe. And, given her devotion to her second husband, she would most likely have considered such with great pride. Thus, a mention of his CBE, and her consequent elevation to “Lady,” is not inappropriate in the Second marriage and later life section, as I suggested. Finally, if “[a] female subject's maiden name is not something that typically appears in WP lede paragraphs, unless there's some particular reason to show it,” such as publications under that name, then so be it. You won’t get any arguments from me. (And, you are correct that her maiden name is fully given in the Early life and first marriage section.) I was merely trying to create a compromise position between the two of you. You would do well to recall that on August 29, I agreed with your proposed changes to the lede and still do. I was merely wondering aloud if there might be a compromise position between yours and JT’s positions. It’s called consensus building, or at least I thought that that’s what I was endeavoring to do. Alas, you’ve made clear that, from your perspective, on this issue, there is no compromising. — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is a rather unnecessary and quite inaccurate characterisation of my position, SpikeToronto. I'm always willing to discuss matters till there's general agreement; I'm also not backward in stating my point of view, sometimes quite strongly, but I'm not so attached to my own opinions as to think I am the only one with opinions worth having.
 * "you know as well as I do that ..." - since we don't know each other from Adam, I don't know why you assume my level of knowledge about anything. There have been numerous cases where a woman's husband was knighted and she had the right to be known as "Lady " but chose not to.  It isn't automatic that she adopts the title, and unless there's evidence that she did, we shouldn't be imposing such titles on such women.   (Btw, he was Sir Max on his becoming a Knight Bachelor in 1968; his 1960 CBE had nothing to do with it.) --  JackofOz (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You’re much too argumentative. I leave it to others to deal with you. — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Suits me. If "dealing with" other editors is what you're about, I want no part of it.  I put that sort of extraordinary high-horse language in the same camp as describing unregistered users as "second class citizens".  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Holy crap. I know little about honorary titles, and I cannot imagine that it makes any substantive difference in the lede. How about we just make it "Agatha Christie" and call it a day? It's only Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the current iteration ("Dame Agatha Christie ...") is fine. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Teh current version seems the best, even the official announcement of her honours in the London Gazette though listed under Mallowan in each case, acknowledges that she is better known as Agatha Christie, and since we are not bound by conventional usage in the way the Gazette is, I don't think we particularly need to mention Mallowan at the start of the lead at all. One possible addition to thelead would be to mention her marriages, or at least that to Mallowan since he wa notable in his own right.  David Underdown (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Movie adaptation tables
I think that the movie adaptation sections and the others should be redone into tables or be made into their own page. 58.27.205.220 (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So I see. I'm indifferent about the movies and tend to think that "the others" are fine as is. Wherever they are and however they're formatted, though, movie and book titles need to be italicized and not in quotes. Would you like to do the honors? Rivertorch (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 58.27.205.220 (talk), would you please consider registering? The reason I suggest this is that the next time you come here to discuss this, your Internet Service Provider (ISP) could very well have given you a new IP address and none of us will know if we’re talking to the same person. As for your suggestion, you should have brought it here to the talk page first, before doing it. But, that’s just my opinion. Others will say that you were following WP:BOLD. That having been said, I agree with Rivertorch that the use of tables has to be consistent and you will have to also do it for the radio programs, the television shows, etc. Also, and this question might be able to be answered by people who are part of WP:NOVELS: Is there a guideline regarding tables versus the manner in which the info was heretofore entered? That is, if we switch to tables, will the Agatha Christie article be consistent with the other articles about writers of fiction? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Linking and overlinking
I have partially reverted an edit that sought to remove instances of overlinking in the article. (It also corrected several instances of hyphens used as en dashes.) There clearly was overlinking, and there may still be some, but I think that in many cases the link was appropriate upon first mention, so I attempted to restore those. Rivertorch (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rivertorch. I saw the edit to which he was referring, but did not have the patience to painstakingly revert the wikilinks that should not have been undone. Bravo to him! —  Spike Toronto  05:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Spike. In the meantime, I see that another editor has done some more unlinking. I agree with all of these latest changes, even the delinking of comics: that link was useless because the comics article is too general in scope. What comics is this article referring to? If it's graphic novels, let's say so. When I think comics, I think either newspaper funnies or comic books. Rivertorch (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with those (i.e., comics, etc.). But, I am not sure that I agree with de-wikilinking WWI and WWII, especially given the rationale in the edit summary. It is not relevant that someone would not come to this wikiarticle seeking a path to wikiarticles on the World Wars. The reason one creates wikilinks is for the reader who comes across a thing, person, event, etc., with which they may not be familiar; then, they can click on the link and find out what that thing, person, event, etc., is. Of course, it would be a rare person who doesn’t know what were those two cataclysmic events. But, I recall talking to a guy in his 20s who didn’t know the first thing about the First World War other than it must have been before the Second World War, of which he had more knowledge, albeit limited. So, I tend to like having things like that wikilinked so that the reader can get some context as to what is this World War during which Christie wrote some of her masterpieces. In this instance, following such a wikilink might let the wikireader draw inferences as to how such events might have informed the author’s writing. —  Spike Toronto  06:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes, good point. After all, this encyclopedia is for "rare persons" as well as for . . . well, whatever their opposite is. I have no objection to linking the wars the first time each is mentioned. Rivertorch (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough (says the guy who unlinked the wars) - I think that's a reasonable argument. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Rivertorch (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  06:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Religion
Just wondering, is Christie's religion notable? Did she have one? Have a great day! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Alzheimer’s Disease
There has been a recent addition to the article that Chrisite suffered from Alzheimer’s at the end of her life. However, the source given does not say that. Thus, I have added the template to both the body of the article and the reference in question. Moreover, her very recent biographer, Laura Thompson, makes no mention of this notwithstanding full and complete access to all of the family’s papers, etc., and extensive interviews with family and colleagues (see Thompson, Laura. Agatha Christie: An English Mystery. Headline Review. 2007). — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Spike, do you have access to Orlando—i.e., does the source not say that or does the linked page not say that? The detailed pages on the site in question are password-protected, so one needs to have access privileges to be sure. The only relevant guideline I can find is here, and it leaves a good bit of wiggle room. The source itself seems reliable enough but I cannot quickly or easily get full access. Rivertorch (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The wikieditor who entered the reference suggests in his/her entry that one could elicit that information from the “overview screen.” Yet, I could not deduce any such evidence from that. Anyone can link to such a subscription-only site and claim that it says such-and-such, confident that virtually no-one else will be able to verify the claim. I realize that one must assume good faith in the edits of other wikieditors, but such a heretofore never heard of claim should be especially verifiable. I cannot find anything that supports the Alzheimer’s claim in Thompson’s biography. Can you find anything in Morgan’s? (Let’s forget about Cade: I suspect that he would claim she drank Kool-Aid™ and ascended to some spaceship behind some planet if it would accrue to him sufficient notoriety and sell some books!) — SpikeToronto (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As you have noted, there are AGF implications. The editor's newbie status might have raised a warning flag, but the addition seemed to be sourced rather meticulously for a hoax (if ultimately unhelpfully). I also thought the claim itself was credible and not disparaging in any way. (Not sure if we should worry about disparagement with dead people, what with the L in BLP, but better safe than sorry). On further consideration, however, I think that unless the Alzheimer theory is very new, it should have been mentioned somewhere other than a registration-only site. And if it is new, it will find its way to a more accessible source very soon. Since it's now tagged, I'd suggest leaving it for at least a few days and seeing if Henrietta Stackpole comes back and has anything to add here. I'll leave a message for Henrietta. Rivertorch (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no references in Morgan either. She writes, on page 374 of the 1984 first hardback edition, "Fragile and immensely aged, Agatha became, as the very old sometimes do, more and more like the child she had been eighty years before." She goes on to talk of her being "serene" and at other times "eccentric". Later in the paragraph she states, "She could be as interested and quick-witted as ever...she now greeted her solictor with the words, 'I wonder what has happened to Lord Lucan? From time to time she still pounced on an idea for a plot." None of this seems like a lady with Alzheimer’s to me. If the two biographers who had access to Christie's papers and interviews with her daughter and grandson don't mention it, the probable truth is that she didn't have it, irrespective of what one internet site says. I say remove the wording.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Should I replace the template with the  template in Henrietta’s citation? However, and in the meantime, I have found some other references that could instead be quoted and cited: See The Telegraph and The Ottawa Citizen. These are citations that do not require registration/subscription to view. I am saddened that this research comes from Canada … [[Image:Sad-tpvgames.gif|20px]] — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the words "may have" into the wording of the article. The wording that was there indicated that the scientist's conclusion was definate but the Ottawa Citizen piece doesn't go that far.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then, why don’t we insert an actual quote from the Citizen and replace Henrietta’s subscription-only citation with the Citizen citation? — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Without going into excessive detail, could it also be given some context? ie "Research" is very vague and could be misinterpreted.  It could relate to changes of behaviour, but the "research" relates only to examination of her writing style and word-usage and the possibility that the changes may be explained by Alzheimer's.   As it reads, it could be incorrectly assumed that stories have emerged about Agatha's day-to-day life, and that does not seem to be the case.  (Certainly this type of anecdotal "evidence" should have been turned up by at least one of her biographers.)  Another article goes into some detail here and I'm sure there are others.   Changing to "may have" was a good move as the original edit seemed to be drawing a conclusion.   Rossrs (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

To be completely honest, ordinarily I would not have a problem re-writing the section under debate, but I find many-years-later, posthumous diagnoses, especially as they pertain to one’s mental faculties, distasteful. I think that such attempts are little more than pseudo-science and I do not like to lend them credence. This is why I said earlier that I am disappointed that the “research” seems to have come from my home country, Canada. Thus, I elect to be an ostrich placing my finely plumed head in the sand, choosing to ignore this latest theory and am going to leave it to one of you fine fans of the great writer to come up with a delicate, balanced, contextual way to enter the “stuff” into the article, since, I guess, we have a responsibility to do so. — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I really do not think it belongs where it is, in the biographical/personal life section of the article,  because it seems to me that it can never be more than a theory, and one that probably won't be universally accepted.   If there was a "legacy" or "cultural impact" and "scholarly analysis" section - (as there is, for example, on today's FA Noël Coward) -  it could be included, reliably sourced and with supporting information, as part of the discussion of her work.   Given her stature, I'm surprised there isn't more than the very slim "reception" section.   This information doesn't belong where it is, but there is nowhere else for it go.   I think it's equally possible that an old woman in failing health, who has spent her whole life thinking about plots and writing down ideas, may lack the energy or the motivation she once possessed, and might not write with the same precision that characterised her earlier work.   It bothers me that the "research" is analyzing the information and suggesting that the results can only have one cause.   It makes me wonder if the research is biased in purposefully searching for clues to Alzheimer's.  Rossrs (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Been rethinking this today . . . Any number of people may have had Alzheimer's, but unless changes in their cognition or behavior had demonstrable impact on whatever made them notable or otherwise had a major effect on their biographies, it doesn't add anything to our understanding of them. I haven't checked lately, but my understanding has been that Alzheimer's cannot be definitively identified without examination of the brain. If I remember that correctly and it's still the case, and assuming that Christie's brain wasn't examined, then any conclusion drawn by any researcher today can be little better than informed speculation. My sense of it is that if we can't know for sure, and it doesn't really matter since it has little if any bearing on what made Christie notable, then it doesn't need to be in the article. If multiple reliable sources or perhaps one major biography mentioned it, that might be different. But one newspaper article plus a subscription-only Web page that no one here has even read? Boo. Hiss. I say let's delete it and offer a wet towel to poor sand-encrusted Spike, who must be a unique ostrich indeed to have head plumes. Rivertorch (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think it should be deleted, and with some urgency, before Spike's plumage is damaged.  Clearly it is speculative.  Time will tell, but it also has the look of  WP:RECENTISM about it.  Rossrs (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It was actually three newspaper articles: Ottawa Citizen, Telegraph, and Guardian. I think we should briefly mention it as a mere speculation, allegation, theory. And, we should remove the subscription-only citation. Btw, Rossrs, I think that perhaps the reason there is no section on critical reception of Christie in this article is that there is such a section in the wikiarticles for each of her works. Finally, as for my plumed head, I use my tailfeathers to make a rather fetching hat! All the finest ostriches are wearing them these days! — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. I didn't realize that.  I was thinking of something like Charles Dickens or Mary Wollstonecraft, because that way any general discussion of her writing could be included, but I am starting to take this off the subject at hand, so it's probably best to leave that for another time.   The hat sounds superb, by the way.  Take good care of it.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

✅ Done I re-wrote the Alzheimer’s comment as follows: The footnotes are as follows: I believe that as much as we fans do not want to hear this stuff, we cannot ignore something that was burning up the papers and magazines on both sides of the Atlantic. So, I hope that this simple sentence and accompanying references will suffice to have it in the article and provide further reading for those who are interested in such posthumous analysis. — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Kingston, Anne. “The ultimate whodunit,” Maclean’s. April 2, 2009. (Retrieved 2009-08-28.)
 * Boswell, Randy. “Study finds possible dementia for Agatha Christie,” The Ottawa Citizen. April 6, 2009. (Retrieved 2009-08-28.)
 * Devlin, Kate. “Agatha Christie ‘had Alzheimer’s disease when she wrote final novels,’” The Telegraph. 4 April 2009. (Retrieved 2009-08-28.)
 * Flood, Alison. “Study claims Agatha Christie had Alzheimer’s,” The Guardian. 3 April 2009. (Retrieved 2009-08-28.)


 * I find the notion that ONE story "burning up the papers" to be taken as fact quite ludicrous. This has nothing to do with "fans not wanting to hear things" although some people are that way, but the fact is that her later books, though more verbose and a bit more loose in style, were nevertheless easy to solve if one followed the clues. Her final book, Postern of Fate, has been of late proven to have been altered by several hands. Also, the fact that she began to use a dictaphone late in life almost certainly contributed to her "looser", more verbose writing style. In the end, it appears to me that she chose to please herself in the writing of her final books, which is perhaps why she flet books such as Passenger to Frankfurt were indeed good books (an opinion I mostly share). We as fans may have wanted a Poirot or a Marple, but AC simply did not feel like writing one. Sorry, but the notion that she was senile may or may not be true, but nothing I have read so far, based on ONE study, seems to carry much if any weight. - Tal1962 (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Date what is the the truth
I won’t put back the date 8th to 3rd and 19th to 14th again. Read here and you can take your own conclusion. Other counties give the date that I wrote. news where Agatha Christie in December 1926 was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.239.81 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You can change the dates. No one is stopping you from doing that. However, in order to not have your change reverted, you must provide verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) supporting the date change. Rivertorch would not have reverted otherwise. You provide a source here, but you did not provide one there. Also, if your source differs from the preponderance of sources, then you will need to develop a consensus for the change through discussion here on the article’s talk page. Also, Rivertorch was merely following the Bold, revert, discuss cycle (shortcut → WP:BRD). You were bold, he reverted, now time for discussion. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  20:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that "this day in history" websites, like the one you cited, are suspect, since they don't necessarily have the best sourcing. Using one as a sole source is pretty weak. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * IP 77.251.239.81, I'm a bit confused. The link you provided says that Christie was found on the 13th, but you changed the date to the 14th. Both your source and the source in the article agree that she was missing for 11 days. There's a potential fudge factor when counting elapsed time in units as large as days, I suppose, but even if we went with your source we'd have no call to second-guess their count and call it the 14th. This is probably all academic, since the records of when she was reported missing and when she was found are well documented.


 * Fwiw, in a rare fit of original research (forgive me, O Jimbo, I have sinned), I looked up the relevant days of the week and discovered that the 3rd was a Friday, which makes a lot more sense in terms of Archie leaving the house for the weekend. Nonetheless, we really do need to stick with the most reliable sources available. Her disappearance and reappearance were reported in multiple newspapers and have since been discussed in multiple well-sourced biographies, so we probably should turn to those sources to verify the dates for the article. Rivertorch (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that for the English version of Wikipedia I can use the same account as in other countries, a bit stupidly that I didn’t try. I speak the Dutch language and sought information about Agatha Christie because of a writer’s competition about her disappearance. The 3th was indeed a Friday, count up with 11 days and you come on the 14th. It has no sense to change the date again and again because of the ping-pong effect, so I leave it so. The date 19th was not of my hand watching the previous edits  info in Dutch about a writer’s competition in Belgium and Holland--Calimero54 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I put a p.s see edit summary. --Calimero54 (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although your English is a thousand times better than my Dutch, we're both at a disadvantage, I fear. I'm not completely sure what you mean. I think we'll check some book sources for the dates (Spike, if you're watching? otherwise it's to the library for me) and rely on those. Good luck with your competition. Rivertorch (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Read here; Agatha Christie's Harrogate mystery is this enough information or will it always be a mystery? I'm curious what kind of stories will be written in this competition.--Calimero54 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Titles & Etiquette
It is quite improper to refer to the late Dame Agatha as "Dame Agatha Christie, DBE". She is a Dame by virtue of being appointed a DBE, but the postnominal letters should only normally be used in that form for non-British recipients - and, in any case, a person uses ONE indicator of status (pre-nominal or post-nominal) not both!

In the same way, a doctor either uses the prefix "Dr" or postnominal letters according to the degree awarded - so "Marcus Welby, MD" and "Dr Kildare" but NOT "Dr Marcus Welby, MD" and NOT "Dr Kildare, MD".

Tartania (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems to me we've discussed this before. I see what you mean about "Dame" and "DBE"; it seems redundant. Are you suggesting using "Dame Agatha Christie", then? (I personally would prefer the simpler "Agatha Christie", but there seems to be some leeway for titles and honorifics in lead paragraphs.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Tartania, can we please see some reference to it being "improper" to use both a prenominal title and postnominal letters? I have never heard that before.  If you look at any of the articles in this category, you'll see they're all of the form "Dame Julie Andrews DBE".  Same for knights - "Sir Bill Smith KCMG".
 * Maybe you're getting confused with the rules for honorary knighthoods and damehoods. People who are not citizens of a Commonwealth realm receive honorary awards - they may use whatever postnominal letters are appropriate, but not the title "Sir" or "Dame".  Those who are citizens of a Commonwealth realm receive substantive awards, and may use both the prenominal title and the postnominal letters in those circumstances where such usages are usual.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jack, I overlooked your comment until now. Assuming there's nothing definitive in the MOS to guide us, the fact of its being a WP convention to use both prenominals and postnominals is a pretty good argument to use that form here. I haven't run a broad survey, but I see that Judi Dench and Elton John follow the form of Andrews and Smith, as do John Mills and John Gielgud. (I checked the last two since they're deceased, like Christie. Gielgud wasn't a CBE, if that makes any difference.) My question at this point is this: does WP's convention in this matter reflect standard usage by reliable sources? If so, the argument against this usage in the lede falls apart completely: although it (like "Dr. John Doe, Ph.D.") is redundant, we're not here to set standards but to follow them. (Verifiability, not common sense, in other words.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * After digging in the Manual of Style, I found the following:
 * "Honorific prefixes [...]
 * The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are honorific titles discussed in the Honorific Titles section below. Honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters. [...] As with regular titles, honorific titles should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that."
 * "Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated."


 * From Manual of Style (biographies)
 * These passages clearly indicate that the both the pre-nominal and the post-nominal of a person should be included in the initial reference of the person's name, hence the form "Dame Agatha Christie DBE" is appropriate here.


 * Atchom 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. Thanks for looking into it and making the changes. Rivertorch (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance
Sorry if this has been covered before, but regarding her "disappearance" -- if she left a note saying she was going to Yorkshire and she stayed in a Yorkshire hotel, how exactly was she missing? Was the note she left not revealed until later or ...? Roygbiv666 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * She sent the note to her brother-in-law (husband’s brother), who destroyed it. Then, since he could not prove it ever existed, he kept mum about it for some time during the search. Also, the detective in charge wanted to believe that it was something greater and so made it something greater, not believing what both the husband and the husband’s brother told him, thinking them in cahoots covering up her murder, aiding philandering hubby’s mistress. Plus, the notes from Christie made specific reference to the mistress and hubby did not want to taint mistress’s reputation by making them public, caring more about the mistress than his wife. Or so I seem to remember. It is discussed in: Thompson, Laura (2007). Agatha Christie : An English Mystery. London: Headline Review. Chapter 6, pp. 186ff. My recollection of the account may be incorrect. I read it some time ago… —  Spike Toronto  04:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just re-read The Hollow. If Chapter 30 (the last chapter) isn't a description of what she was doing and how she felt 20 years earlier, suitably altered, I'll eat my favorite summer hat. No expert, of course, just a fan. --SLSpence (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Concern about a reference
There is a claim here that her works have been translated into at least 103 languages (indeed, it has long been my understanding that only the Bible and the Koran have been translated into more languages). However, why is that when one clicks on the hypertext number for a reference, one simply gets to the Wikipedia article on the Guinness Book of World Records? A better reference should be given here. I shall be grateful if some one could find a proper reference and improve this. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. The assertion of having been translated into 103 languages is supported by a citation from Guinness World Records, 1976, page 210. The link to the Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the support of the claim, it's just there to give the interested reader a clickable link to find out more about that publication. This could be considered a case of overlinking if it could be assumed that every reader knows about it already; given the wide readership, including from non-English-speaking countries, this is probably unwarranted. In general, citations do not always include links to the cited material. On the other hand, they often contain links to the authors or publishers of the works cited. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Stereotyping"
I find the stereotyping section lacking when it comes to addressing the outright racist and anti-Semitic undertones of Agatha Christie's writing. It implies that before the end of the Second World War Christie was no more or less racist than other people of that era and that in a later period she was particularly sensitive and sympathetic to Jews and other ethnic minorities. This is simply not true. Christie clearly kept up her racist, stereotyped characters long after the end of the war. For example, in Hickory Dickory Dock there is a stupid, Voodoo-practising, woolly-headed West African, an alcoholic, overly dramatic Greek, and a couple of criminal Africans/Eurasians.

I think that the racism in Christie's work does need to be addressed but the way in which the article addresses it is incredibly generous even to the point of dishonesty. EttaLove (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to edit the section to reflect what you see as the true situation - with reasonable references, of course. Indignation is not enough in itself. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The section isn't exactly well sourced and clearly could use some work. However, I'm not sure that the wording implies quite what you suggest it does. It seems to say—and the wording is muddled—that stereotyped attitudes were more commonly expressed publicly before WWII. Not sure if that's true; they certainly were commonly expressed in pre-WWII British detective fiction by a number of authors, but whether it was more so before the war I have no idea. Good sourcing would be invaluable here. Incidentally, you're not suggesting that woolly-headed Africans, overly dramatic Greeks, and the like held a monopoly on villains or fools in the Christie stable of characters? Of the myriad nth-generation Englishmen and Englishwomen she put in her books, quite a few were ridiculous or murderous (or occasionally both). Rivertorch (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Original works and adaptations
When I stop to think of it, there's something odd about movie and TV adaptations getting their own tables in the main article while Christie's own creations are relegated to a spin-off article. I think I understand why it ended up like this, but the effect is to give more prominence to the adaptations than to the original works. Am wondering about the advisability of spinning off the adaptations into their own article. Rivertorch (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, where IS the list of original works? If it exists, I can't find the link to it from this page. If I find a separate article, i will see if I can link it. (my first time using the Talk page--am attempting to sign this: Belmontian (talk) 13:00 PST, 29 March 2012 ) —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC).