Talk:Agatha Christie/Archive 3

Archives
The previous discussions have been archived as per Wikipedia’s talk archiving policies. Wikieditors are invited to peruse the archive before starting a new discussion to determine if any issue of interest is dealt with therein. This current Talk page is for starting new discussions not covered in the archive, or for re-visiting older issues. The archive itself is not to be edited. Happy reading!— SpikeToronto (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have got long again. I've added in Misabot so archiving should be automated from now on. Kiore (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this information needed?
"Mallowan introduced her to wine, which she never enjoyed – preferring to drink water in restaurants. She tried unsuccessfully to make herself like cigarettes by smoking one after lunch and one after dinner every day for six months." ~ AmazingAlec (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it to me. I also wonder about this: "He soon developed a romantic relationship with Clara, and they were married in April 1878". It's already been mentioned that Clara met "her future husband" -is it necessary to say he :developed a romantic relationship"? --Daveler16 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they're both unnecessary. I've removed them. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

most-translated?
"she remains the most-translated individual author – having been translated into at least 103 languages."

There are individual books that have been translated into way more languages than 103, so I don't know how that is true.... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_works_by_number_of_translations)

Maybe you mean to say that she has a large number of novels and many of them have a huge number of translations. And if you add up all of these translation she has a total surpassing all other authors? If so, to get that idea across the sentence would have to reworded. 207.61.204.116 (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Half of the 2 billion sales of her works were translations, per the Agatha Christie web site. Her web site claims 44 languages, but Guinness in 1976 said 103. "Most translated author" seems clear enough to me. The discussion on sales and translations has been included in the section Critical Reception; previously it was only in the lead, and the lead should be the summary or highlights of the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested update
I was looking at the Agatha Christie page and the sidebar column on the right indicates a link to Ms. Christie's daughter, Rosalind Hicks. That link actually takes you back to the page for Agatha Christie. 850commando (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the link. Thanks for pointing it out. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Source for 20 July 2017 edits
I have undone the good-faith edits of Notthebestusername because of sourcing problems. The source cited to support these several additions includes a link to video content that appears to be unrelated to Christie. It's just possible that there's an extremely long ad—more than two minutes—that plays first, but it's impossible to know what's going on because the web site is not in English. Even if the BBC program does eventually play from that url, I have concerns that the site may be hosting a copyright violation. If so, we must not link to it. I'd suggest trying to find a link to an authorized upload of the program. (There are official BBC channels on YouTube, for instance.) Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   14:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, actually the video sourced is the BBC video made using David Suchet. I amkign the edits while watching the David Suchet video, with interviews with Christies grandson and biographers, simultaneously reading parts of Christie's autobiography. As for the advert you are seeing in the link - I live in China, hence have given the youku video link as I am unable to give "You tube" links without using a vpn - usign a vpn by default makes Wikipedia suspect any edits! The youku videos usually start with a 90 second advert in Chinese followed by the actual videos. Youku is the Chinese version of you tube except that the picture quality in youku is often far better than you tube). I will revert back the edits, deleting the youku link. But you will find the same video on youtube. Do let me know if you feel any of the actual matter contained in them is not correct. Notthebestusername (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I'm reviewing your subsequent edits now, but here's the problem: it doesn't matter whether it's hosted on Youku or YouTube—if it's a copyrighted program uploaded by anyone who doesn't own the copyright, we can't link to it. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All right, I did a major copyedit on your additions. It looks as if you found some worthwhile information, so thanks. In the bit about the photo, I removed the phrase "by a pile of woods" because it doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know whether you meant a pile of wood, singular (if so, firewood? lumber? the trunks of felled trees?), or woods, plural (i.e., forest, copse, etc.), but it may not be important.
 * For the Suchet reference, you might try using Template:Cite AV media. I did find the whole program on YouTube, properly licensed but behind a paywall. It's not available in its entirety on either the BBC or PBS channels. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   05:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rivertorch . I am currently reading one of Agatha Christie's biographies and as I find this information in it, I will provide a cross reference to that too.  - Notthebestusername (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

How many books?
• This article states: Guinness World Records lists Christie as the best-selling novelist of all time. Her novels have sold roughly 2 billion copies. • But in the article "List of prolific writers" the 2 billion are doubled: Dame Agatha Christie, the most-published novelist in history, is estimated to have sold 4 billion books. • I can't seem to find the correct figure from Guinness source. Can somebody please help? Mieliestronk (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Promotion to GA?
I see that this article reached GA for a brief period in 2009 but was then delisted. It has now been expanded to about three times its 2009 length and has been far better referenced. It looks to me that with some general improvements in presentation and some careful copyediting, the article could be quickly brought up to GA standard. I'll see if I can devote some time to it myself but would appreciate assistance. I think it goes without saying that Christie is one of the world's most significant female authors, receiving an average of some 5,000 page views a day on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's generally in better shape than in 2009, although I do think that some of the sourcing still could be improved. Since I've been watching it for over a decade, I'll try to join you. (My on-wiki time is very limited just now.) Rivertorch FIREWATER  06:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The further reading list - should we kill it?
There have been, by conservative estimate, a gazillion articles and books written about Agatha Christie. Looking through the list of articles and books currently under "further reading" I see none that seem important or unique. I'm sure we could add 20 more that are just as relevant and vital, with no rhyme or reason for one over the other.

When a subject has been as thoroughly written about as Christie has, I do not think a "further reading" list serves any purpose; we don't need to direct people to discussions and analyses because they are so easy to find.

In short, I'd like to kill it off. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I really don't think it would be missed. JezGrove (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Your logic is impeccable DavidWBrooks HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. Let's see if it draws reaction. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Potential?
- We've both seen a lot worse, but I'd be inclined to the house for the present. KJP1 (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's go with the house, then circle back to this in a few months. This really should be at FA standard, given the importance, but 2019 would be a better time to start that push. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Childhood and adolescence: 1890–1910
Minor factual detail:

Following the referenced biography, the Childhood and adolescence section states that Christie's grandfather 'Boehmer was killed in a riding accident while stationed on Jersey in April 1863'. Although Boehmer's death notice does say 'late of the 4th King's Own' (Hampshire Telegraph, 18 April 1863), he retired from the Army in 1860 (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/Edinburgh/issue/7051/page/1162) so would not seem to have been 'stationed' in Jersey at the time of his death. Unless other evidence is provided, it would be better to simply state that 'Boehmer was killed in a riding accident in Jersey in April 1863'. RLO1729 (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The suggested edit has been applied. RLO1729 (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agatha Christie 3.jpg


 * This and another Christie image have now been deleted because of concerns over their origins. I have replaced the image in the info box with another from the Commons area but suspect it may eventually suffer the same fate. Can anyone supply one or more good quality, Creative Commons licensed images of Agatha suitable for the bio please? RLO1729 (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Christie photographs
Thanks to Пётр Филимонов (talk) for the image of Agatha at Schiphol in 1964, added to the Christie article information box after two Commons images were bot deleted (see "A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion" above and the Christie article revision history).

I suggest continuing to use the Commons image of Christie in 1925 (below left) in the article information box for as long as it remains in the Commons and using a cropped version of the Schiphol image (below right) later in the article.

What do others think? RLO1729 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)



I think the 1925 picture looks very nice, and is well composed, so I would support it as an infobox image. And I agree that the current infobox image of her could be used somewhere below in the article Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lochglasgowstrathyre, I have replaced and moved the images as suggested (using your alternative cropped image). RLO1729 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing partnership
This is to record, with thanks, the significant and valuable collaboration of Tbytheriver in the series of edits of this article I have made since October 2019. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 06:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It has truly been a pleasure collaborating! Tbytheriver (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Works, reception, and legacy" section overlap with "Agatha Christie bibliography"
In a recent edit, raised a valid issue of the number of bullet points in the "Works, reception, and legacy" section given there is a separate Agatha Christie bibliography article. I have been hesitant to delete large sections of existing text written by others that has remained relatively stable over a number of years, but would welcome other editors' thoughts on what should stay and what should go in this section.

Some summary repetition of information from the bibliography is certainly appropriate to provide continuity and completeness in the present article, but where is the balance? Also, the majority of bullet points in this section are in the "Titles" section and present information on the origins of Christie's book titles rather than repeating information in the bibliography. Or should that information be moved to the bibliography? Thoughts? ~ RLO1729&#128172; 09:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The 'works' sections in article should be an examination of the style of writing, common themes, academic integrity, lasting impact on field of study, novel techniques or approaches, etc (delete the inappropriate ones) and possibly the origin of titles, etc, rather than a list of the works. I don't think moving much into the current bibliography is a valid step (it's a Featured List, and contains what is expected in a bibliography, with no additional ephemera or trivia). Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks SchroCat, yes, I agree completely. So do the "Title" bullet points stay or go? Other editors have seemed to think the information was worth including and more than just trivia in the context of this article (they go to some of Christie's sources of inspiration). I think the three non-fiction works should be mentioned for completeness, and as there are so few. They could perhaps be covered more briefly and not as bullet points but that's probably only a marginal improvement. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 11:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "it's a Featured List, and contains what is expected in a bibliography, with no additional ephemera or trivia" That is one way to say that it is uninformative, lacks coherent information, and should be delisted. Wikipedia lists require data.Dimadick (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ? It's an interesting opinion, but a little misguided. There's a shed load of "data" on the page, rather obviously, and as such, I'm a bit bemused as to how it could be described as "uninformative". It does exactly what a bibliography should do. Delisted? Feel free to take it to the delisting procedure if you wish, but I don't think you'll get very far. As to some of the information on this page, it is less useful here (indeed it detracts from trying to explain information about Christie), and is best off either moved to the pages on the individual books or deleted. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible categories
I didn't know that Christie's mother was from Ireland! Should this article be categorized under "English people of Irish descent" and possibly "English people of German descent" judging by the surnames? This is of course, if the sources support it. TJMSmith (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You bring up interesting points about her ancestry. But Agatha's mother was not actually Irish--she was born there only because her father's British Army regiment was stationed in Ireland at the time. And, while Agatha herself was at least 1/8 German (through her mother's paternal grandfather), none of the published biographies go into this; it could be proven, but only by piling up lots of sources to create her family tree. On her American side, by the way, she also had ancestors who were Swiss, Dutch, and Scottish.Tbytheriver (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it isn't a defining characteristic so I wouldn't include it. Thanks for the explanation! TJMSmith (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agatha Christie in 1925.jpg
 * Agatha Christie with Max Mallowan in Tell Halaf 1930s.jpg


 * The images have been removed from this article. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 05:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Agatha Christie Star award
To all Agatha Christie article editors: The revision history shows that editors have been working on this article since at least 2001! Now that it has reached Good Article standard, please accept this award if you have made a significant contribution along the way. See Agatha Christie Star award for details. :) ~ RLO1729&#128172; 06:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Minor point for discussion: "more than" vs "over" in article
Not a big deal but this chestnut has arisen in the article's edits over time, with the article being edited both from "more than" (... two billion copies, for example) to "over" and, more recently, vice versa. There are numerous online discussions of which is "correct" but, from my reading of these sites, the modern consensus seems to be that either can be used (where appropriate). WP:MOS does not take a position but Merriam-Webster would seem to carry some weight. On balance, although I have previously used "more than" in the article myself, I now prefer the more succinct "over", but would welcome other editors' thoughts please. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 06:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As an elderly pedant, I prefer "more than" as (very) slightly more euphonious.Tbytheriver (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Quotation punctuation
Hi, thanks again for your recent copy edits, you have a good eye for detail. I see that numerous full-stops terminating sentences which end with quotations have been moved inside the quotation marks. MOS:INOROUT recommends: "For the most part,... keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence." and gives some useful examples. I would be grateful if you could revise your recent edits along these lines please. Thanks ~ RLO1729&#128172; 09:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * meh --Brogo13 (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Changes October 2020
There are multiple changes from someone who is either being clever or deliberately trolling. It might be best if the article was locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:9EC1:8500:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Member of the Church of England
This article says that Christie was "a lifelong, "quietly devout", member of the Church of England". Should this article therefore be added to the category "English Anglicans"? Rollo August (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Separation of Works, legacy, and reception?
In 2021, and with the current structure/format of Wikipedia articles today, that section is too lengthy. In addition to this, each topic has their own separate section with its corresponding info, as such, breaking the article into smaller and more navigatable sections would be better. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by Anthropology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Birth Date
On her headstone is the birth date 15th September 1890 2001:8003:2004:8301:E88B:FF83:697E:7DA2 (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Search preview text
Hello! I'm new to wikipedia and can't figure out how to edit the search preview text. Maybe someone more experienced can fix this issue? When I Google "Agatha Christie," the Wikipedia article appears as one of the top results. But underneath, where it gives a preview of the article's text, it reads "homophobic Dame Agatha Mary Clarissa Christie..." How do we remove "homophobic" from the search preview? The article itself makes no mention of homophobia. 4f3pdce8 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That word was added as a short-lived vandalism edit. Google has some sort of algorithm that grabs preview text and occasionally updates it. Presumably it grabbed the text before an editor had removed the word "homophobic". We'll have to wait until Google updates the text; there's nothing wikipedia can do that I know of. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense! Thanks! 4f3pdce8 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ten Little Niggers
I think the article is looking very good. I see we skate somewhat over the matter of the subject's treatment of racial matters in the section Character stereotypes; we also note, correctly, that the standards for such things have altered enormously in the past century or so. But I do not think we should consider omitting (as we do at present) the original title of her most read work, And Then There Were None. It's a particularly resonant topic at the moment, of course, and one on which scholars have written. Here is how the book article describes it:

"The original title of the mystery (Ten Little Niggers) was changed because it was offensive in the United States and some other places. Alison Light, a literary critic and feminist scholar, opined that Christie's original title and the setting on 'Nigger Island' (later changed to 'Indian Island' and 'Soldier Island', variously) were integral to the work. These aspects of the novel, she argued, 'could be relied upon automatically to conjure up a thrilling 'otherness', a place where revelations about the 'dark side' of the English would be appropriate.' Unlike novels such as Heart of Darkness, 'Christie's location is both more domesticated and privatized, taking for granted the construction of racial fears woven into psychic life as early as the nursery. If her story suggests how easy it is to play upon such fears, it is also a reminder of how intimately tied they are to sources of pleasure and enjoyment.'"

I suggest we include a greatly shortened version of that material into this article. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I support including the original title in the article, with a very brief explanation. I'm not sure Light's discussion of the title quite fits with the approach taken in Character stereotypes, which focuses more specifically on characters and racial groups described in Christie's books (but other racial groups should be included if they play significant roles in her work). Light's discussion seems to be more about Christie's attitudes (and those of her contemporary readers), evidenced by her choice of the original title. An additional comment could possibly be added to Personal qualities, though this section already notes that "Christie's works of fiction contain some objectionable character stereotypes". Does the name of one book warrant anything further? Additional secondary sources would be needed if we are going to explore Christie's attitudes along these lines any more deeply. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 01:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree that the original title of And Then There Were None should be dealt with--perhaps rename the subsection Character stereotypes to Character stereotypes and racism and put it there? Something along the lines of:
 * The original British edition (1939) of Christie's most famous novel, And Then There Were None, was titled Ten Little N-- after a nineteenth century children's song which figures in the plot. Alison Light, a literary critic and feminist scholar, believes that title reflects a symbolic darkness integral to the novel.[CITE: Light, Alison (1991). Forever England: Femininity, Literature, and Conservatism Between the Wars. Routledge. p. 99. ISBN 0-415-01661-4.]
 * Tbytheriver (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this approach. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 04:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Christie's original title for And Then There Were None (1939) was Ten Little N******, based on an 1869 minstrel rhyme. This was considered unacceptable in the US as the word n***** was acknowledged as an offensive racial slur. The US title, And Then There Were None, was adopted in the UK in 1985. The original title and the prevalence of the slur in the original text has led modern critics to criticise Christie's attitudes to race." --84.64.237.205 (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something like the below, obviously without the asterisks. I tried to be bold and just add it, but the edit was flagged as vandalism, because it contains an offensive word!
 * Note that the article about the book gives the original title, bolded as a variant of the article title, in the opening paragraph. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Rightly so. A high proportion of the interest in this subject may be from people who have seen the coverage of the original title, which persisted for 46 years in the UK. We are not here to cater to sensationalism, but it would be extremely odd not to mention it at all. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Important discussion, thanks everyone. The complete word should be used or not at all per WP:BOWDLERIZE. I support including, but only once in the suggested paragraph (i.e. only in the book title). ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree; I only bowdlerised it because I couldn't post otherwise. I am not sure on what grounds we would place a limit on the number of instances of the word. It seems important to cover it proportionately and it is easy to find secondary sources for the controversy caused by the name, which, even in 1940s England was highly unusual. Here's the latest story I was reading on it. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the word wasn't unusual at all in 1940s England. It was still common in my childhood in 1950s Australia, especially for black dogs, and some dark haired kids. For those unaware, the name was significant in the Dambusters operation in WWII, and the 1955 movie about that operation. Those articles are worth looking at to follow the word's evolution. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @84.64.237.205: The relevance to this article, as I see it, is as an indicator of Christie's attitudes. Details and analysis of the controversy caused by the title can be left to the article on the book itself. As such, only minimal (I think one) use of the word is required in this article. I recommend specifically limiting any (brief) paragraph here to discuss only Christie's attitudes.  ~ RLO1729&#128172; 10:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And without being mind readers of the dead, we cannot know Christie's attitudes. I think my comment immediately above highlights how common the word was in England through to at least the mid 1950s. There is nothing worth saying about Christie's attitude. It was normal for the time, with no intention or even awareness of offence. (Unless, of course, you want to go and amend those Dambusters articles to discuss the attitudes of the airmen involved, and the film-makers of 1955. Have you read them yet?) HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we can (and should only) reflect what the secondary sources have to say regarding the title and Christie's attitudes. And this may not be very much.
 * The relevant section in this article can include a "See also" link to the book article's more detailed discussion of the controversy itself. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 11:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevant section in this article can include a "See also" link to the book article's more detailed discussion of the controversy itself. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 11:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest:


 * [at head of Section] [then later in Section]

"Christie's original title for And Then There Were None (1939) was Ten Little Niggers, based on an 1869 minstrel rhyme. The title was not used in the US as it was considered racially offensive. The US title, And Then There Were None, was adopted in the UK in 1985. Alison Light, a literary critic and feminist scholar, believes that the original title reflects a symbolic darkness integral to the novel. The title and the prevalence of the slur in the original text have led other modern writers, including Elizabeth Marshall and Sadie Stein, to criticise Christie's attitudes to race."

"Christie's original title for And Then There Were None (1939) was Ten Little Niggers, based on an 1869 minstrel rhyme. The title was not used in the US as it was considered racially offensive. The US title, And Then There Were None, was adopted in the UK in 1985. Alison Light, a literary critic and feminist scholar, believes that the original title reflects a symbolic darkness integral to the novel. The title and the prevalence of the slur in the original text have led the writers Elizabeth Marshall and Sadie Stein to criticise Christie's attitudes to race."
 * or, to be more precise:


 * Shall I add this to the article so editors can tweak it from there? ~ RLO1729&#128172; 12:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me. (Incidentally, I just read "Poirot Loses a Client" in a 1960s paperback edition and several times Poirot talks about there being a "n in the woodpile". I wonder if that's printed in recent editions?) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That proposed text at least needs the word "American" in front of the names of those writers. Is there any reason to believe those people had any special insight into the linguistic situation in England when the book was written? I'm not convinced their opinions have much value. HiLo48 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In its current form, for completeness the final sentence probably also needs Marshall's co-author as well, but that makes it too cumbersome I think. I don't know the nationality of all the authors, or that their nationality per se has a significant bearing on their opinions, as would be implied by including it. (It may, but how do we know?) And why not Light's nationality, or the nationalities of other authorities quoted throughout the article?
 * As for the quality of these sources, we should certainly consider their reliability, as we would for any source, but not on the basis of just what they say in this context. Light and Stein are quoted as reliable sources in the And Then There Were None article. What do other editors think about the Marshall & Sensoy source? It would also certainly be reasonable to include a (reliable) modern secondary source that presents Christie's "attitudes to race" as just a product of their times, if one is known.
 * One option would be to just revise the final sentence to:
 * The title and the prevalence of the slur in the original text have led some commentators to criticise Christie's attitudes to race.[current citations]
 * Light's comment is not an opposing opinion so I don't think naming her and not the others is editorially preferencing one side of an argument (but I suppose it might still appear to the reader that the issue of Christie's attitudes to race is being minimised).
 * Another option would be to include relevant quotes from each of the other commentators to clarify their criticisms in slightly more detail.
 * But how far do we need to go into all this? Again, a brief para is definitely warranted, but not much more I think. Other editors' advice please. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Light's comment is not an opposing opinion so I don't think naming her and not the others is editorially preferencing one side of an argument (but I suppose it might still appear to the reader that the issue of Christie's attitudes to race is being minimised).
 * Another option would be to include relevant quotes from each of the other commentators to clarify their criticisms in slightly more detail.
 * But how far do we need to go into all this? Again, a brief para is definitely warranted, but not much more I think. Other editors' advice please. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another option would be to include relevant quotes from each of the other commentators to clarify their criticisms in slightly more detail.
 * But how far do we need to go into all this? Again, a brief para is definitely warranted, but not much more I think. Other editors' advice please. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But how far do we need to go into all this? Again, a brief para is definitely warranted, but not much more I think. Other editors' advice please. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Both authors are American. I had never heard of them (this actually matters - they need to to be of some significance to crack a mention here) so I looked them up. America is not England in the 1930s. Unlike England, America is the country with the slavery and racism history, distorting the views of people from that nation when compared with those from other places. The cultural background of critics is just as important as that of those being criticised. I say again, "nigger" was a perfectly normal, common and non-offensive word in England and other places outside the US until well into the second half of the 20th century. Her use of it says absolutely nothing about Christie's attitudes to race. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You may well be correct. I suggest that the suggested final sentence is still factually accurate in that it only says criticisms have been raised, and a reliable secondary source that discusses this issue directly and supports your analysis would be very welcome to balance the criticism. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Where to from here?
 * Some options:
 * a. Ignore the issue as the word was uncontroversial in Christie's country at the time, the title change in the US was an editorial decision and there was no contemporary outcry in the UK or elsewhere over the original title, and the sources criticising Christie's "attitudes to race" are not of sufficient quality.
 * b. Just add a hatnote, for example:
 * c. If the sources criticising Christie's "attitudes to race" are of sufficient quality to warrant inclusion then: revise section heading to Character stereotypes and racism (or Character stereotypes and accusations of racism?), add the hatnote, and add a para similar to those suggested above (including reliable sources opposing the criticisms, if found).
 * Other editors' comments welcomed to establish a consensus view. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Other editors' comments welcomed to establish a consensus view. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Marshall citation info for consideration
 * A more detailed version of the citation is:
 * "Sudie Hofmann is a professor in the Department of Human Relations and Multicultural Education at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota." (internet search)
 * On p. 174, reflections on Christie's attitudes are implied rather than stated explicitly. The main comments in this regard are that the titles (both versions) have "always been about eliminating a specific group of people of color", and the title And Then There Were None "represents another aspect of embedded racism, which is that of genocide", and that the phrase "Nigger in the woodpile" is "used to cast suspicion" on one of Christie's characters.
 * Also, on p. 176, Hofman notes the book includes the statement "natives don't mind dying" and says "Anti-Semitism is also expressed ... when a Mr. Morris is referred to as 'little Jew' and 'Jewboy' with 'thick Semitic lips'."
 * The chapter mainly focuses on the play. It does not cite other sources. Do other editors consider that the author has "criticise[d] Christie's attitudes to race"? Is the source of sufficient quality to justify its citation in the current context? ~ RLO1729&#128172; 09:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The chapter mainly focuses on the play. It does not cite other sources. Do other editors consider that the author has "criticise[d] Christie's attitudes to race"? Is the source of sufficient quality to justify its citation in the current context? ~ RLO1729&#128172; 09:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I see the words "embedded racism" as key there. The language Christie used can be described by modern standards, particularly from an American perspective, as containing embedded racism, but her language was completely normal for England of the time when she wrote the book. Any criticism of Christie's language could be also made of probably every other person in England at the time. I see Hofman's comments as irrelevant and pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "the phrase "Nigger in the woodpile" is "used to cast suspicion" on one of Christie's characters." See main article Nigger in the woodpile which explains the meaning as "some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed—something suspicious or wrong". The article also lists literary uses of the phrase by Dr. Seuss, Zane Grey, Somerset Maugham, William Faulkner, and Louis L'Amour. Dimadick (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "includes the statement "natives don't mind dying" " Quote mining a bit there. The phrase is "Self-preservation's a man's first duty. And natives don't mind dying, you know. They don't feel about it as Europeans do." The phrase is spoken by Philip Lombard when he explains why he left his native men to starve to death, while he escaped with the last food rations. Lombard is one of the most ruthless and remorseless of the ten murderers in the novel. Dimadick (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ""Anti-Semitism is also expressed ... when a Mr. Morris is referred to as 'little Jew' and 'Jewboy' with 'thick Semitic lips'." " Far from unusual in a Christie novel. But Morris' characterization is far from sympathetic as well: "Isaac Morris is a sleazy, unethical lawyer and erstwhile drug trafficker hired by Wargrave to purchase the island (under the name “UN Owen”), arrange the gramophone recording, and make arrangements on his behalf, including gathering information on the near destitute Philip Lombard, to whom he gave some money to get by and recommended Lombard bring his gun to the island. Morris' is the first death chronologically, as he dies before the guests arrive on the island. Years earlier, Morris had sold narcotics to the daughter of one of Wargrave’s friends; she became an addict, and later committed suicide. A hypochondriac, Morris accepts a lethal cocktail of pills from Wargrave to help treat his largely imagined physical ailments." Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Stein citation info for consideration
 * "Sadie Stein is contributing editor of The Paris Review, and the Daily’s correspondent." (article webpage)
 * This brief article is an opinion piece with no additional citations. Do other editors consider this article to be of sufficient quality to justify its citation in the current context? ~ RLO1729&#128172; 07:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This brief article is an opinion piece with no additional citations. Do other editors consider this article to be of sufficient quality to justify its citation in the current context? ~ RLO1729&#128172; 07:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, as with Hofman above, there's an emphasis on American views today about how an English woman wrote 80 years ago. I would love to know what English reviewers of 1939 felt about the language. Surely this is just as important in this global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Currently:
 * I'm not seeing a consensus on adding a new para or on the quality of the suggested sources discussed above.
 * IMO, having reviewed those sources, any new paragraph on this topic would need to be supported by better quality sources which contribute more than is already available in the And Then There Were None article.
 * In the absence of further discussion above, I have revised the section heading to Character stereotypes and perceived racism (to better reflect the current content which mentions "perceived antisemitism") and added a hatnote similar to that described above – neither of which I see as controversial or against the spirit of this discussion. Of course, these edits are open for revision too.
 * Thanks all for your comments in this discussion. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 03:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I notice there is currently no mention of her original book title in this article, no mention of her using the word in question, and no mention of racist overtones in her work – only anti-Semitism (which gets two paragraphs) and one mention of a stereotyping of Italians and "non-Europeans". There is also no use of the word "racism", "racist", "racial" or "race" (although there is one use of the more vague concept of "ethnicity"). The above-quoted section heading is gone – replaced by the more bland heading "Character stereotypes". There is no explanation of the reference to Italians and non-Europeans. This seems rather questionable to me. The article mentions that someone noticed that some of her works have since been edited "to remove potentially offensive language" (which is "potentially" putting it mildly in my opinion – no one would publish that novel with its original title and cover art today), saying this was reported in an article published this year in The Telegraph. I suspect someone noticed these problems in her work before 2023. Is the current omission of such material generally supported by others? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is ridiculous to omit things such as the original book title. Wikipedia is not censored. It is, however, wrong to simply describe Christie's work as racist. In the society she was part of it was not seen as racist. Christie was no more racist than any other of the millions of members of that society. If we want to describe it as racist, we must also always mention that such a judgement is according to today's standards, not those of her time. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the Telegraph article was published in March, I checked what the article said at the end of February. It had even less relevant content in it. The paragraph about subsequent editing for "potentially offensive language" wasn't there yet, and the mention of "ethnicity" also wasn't there yet. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After a bit of further digging, I also found an edit that removed the mention of the original book title and removed the heading's mention of "perceived racism". It was in September 2022 and the edit summary said only "stereotypes", so it wasn't really an explanation. The same editor had just reverted a related unconstructive edit, saying "npov" (a good call). They seem to not be in the habit of providing detailed explanations of their edits. I just reverted that edit. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)