Talk:And Then There Were None/Archive 2

Title of the page
Why this page entitled "And then there were none" when book is entitled "10 little indians"? Since when USA outweight original work and rest of the sane world?
 * The title of the work currently in the english speaking world is "And Then There Were None", and it's a title endorsed by the Christie estate.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The original title was "10 little niggers" not "10 little indians" wasn't it? I'd prefer that the page title were changed to reflect this. 64.30.108.169 (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * this is true, I feel the article should reflect this. Hell look at the first paragraph, "ten little indians" is offensive to black people? How does that make any sense. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:And_Then_There_Were_None_First_Edition_Cover_1939.jpg Teravolt (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

First edition cover in infobox
Why isn't the first edition cover used in the infobox? Every single other Agatha Christie novel article uses the first edition, why doesn't her best selling novel follow this precedent too? I'm going to switch the images in accordance to wikipedia guidelines JayKeaton 20:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of discussion on this point a few months ago. A point was made that the UK first edition cover has a title which is no longer used and which is offensive. Overall, I disagreed that the points made required a change (And it was my copy of the UK first edition cover which is loaded) however for the sake of a peaceful life, the UK cover was put in the publication history. At the same time, the UK covers were moved out of the infobox on the other Christie pages by me (again, the vast majority of the images are mine) where the US edition takes precedence. Please don't change this back again. The UK cover is there as a historical record and so far, well for a couple of months anyway, everyone has seemed to be happy with the compromise. (I can't believe how often this damn page is changed in comparison to other Christie pages!!!)--Jtomlin1uk 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Argh! Too late - it's done! I'm stepping out of this one now. Let battle commence!--Jtomlin1uk 21:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Changing it back. The original cover looks very good down in the 'publication history' section. Marieblasdell 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The original cover looks very good down the publication history section? Hobgoblins of little minds? Neither of those points make much sense. Almost every book article uses a first edition cover. It's not just about consistency, this is an encyclopedia. The cover art of the re-re-re-re-re (times 64) print was not made before 1980, meaning that it was made well after Christies death. It is actually inconceivable to use a reprint where a first edition image is available. It would be like the Casino Royale (novel) cover showing a picture of Daniel Craig with a quote on it saying "remade into a blockbuster Bond film". JayKeaton 00:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So there will be no complaints about using the first edition cover then? I'll add it back now in that case JayKeaton 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it because of this novel that the rule 'never outrule the corpse' was applied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.185.96.150 (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the saying "never outrule the corpse"/"never out rule the corpse" and Google finds zero results when it is searched for. JayKeaton (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a Latin phrase, and that's only a rough translation. Why do you even care? When the original cover was released "niggers" was an acceptable word. It's not, now, and I apologize to anyone I offended by typing it here. So stick with the original, but add the new title as a subtext at the very least.
 * Whether or not or to whom the title of the first edition is offensive is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a school report. The first edition cover is the first edition cover. On a similar note the first edition title is also the first edition title, but I'm willing to let that one be as the Christie estate apparently endorses its new name - but I'd like to see this article at least mention why the name was changed, as this is, after all, an encyclopedia. Anybody up to the task? Will the Great (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Echoes in popular culture
Someone else (not me!) has deleted the entire section on 'Echoes in popular culture'. Looking at the article without it, I have to say I feel it's better (even if vandalism was on the mind of the person who deleted it). I can't help thinking that such a section makes the page more "trivial" in its nature and the article now is about the book proper. What do others think?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is in dire need of help
Please read Content_disclaimer and Wikipedia is not censored. The first edition cover was removed from the info box because some people found it offensive. The article was further censored and history was rewritten by IP address "99.225.167.18" in [this] edit, when this editor decided that Agatha Chrisie should not have originally published her book under the title "Ten Little Niggers", but that instead she should have called it "Ten Little Indians" instead. History can NOT be rewritten just because someone finds the title of a book offensive. We cannot mislead, lie or rewrite history just to make sure people are not offended. JayKeaton (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The rhyme!!
I have this article on my watchlist (as I do all of the Christie pages) and week in, week out, someone goes in and changes Indian to Nigger and within hours someone else changes it back. To say the least, it's tedious. The modern printing of the book, as endorsed by the Christie estate (meaning her grandson, Mathew Prichard) uses the non-controversial phrases Soldier Island and Ten Little Soldiers whilst keeping the original US title of the book And Then There Were None. In the (probably forlorn) hope that replicating this change on the wiki page will stop this ceaseless back-and-forth, I have replicated this change in the plot summary whilst referencing what the historical versions were, therefore avoiding accusations of censorship. I've also put hidden notes (or whatever they're called) to make people think before changing it. Please consider whether such a change is necessary before making it. You can bet your life someone will just change it back again and your efforts will be wasted (as mine might be here!!)--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The rhyme can be the modern version, for sure, but a note would have to be there for readers to know what the rhyme was originally about. The song "Ten Little Niggers" is the basis for this 100 million selling book, it would be very stupid to gloss over this fact just to appease the sensitive readers. JayKeaton (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with your sentiments, which is what I've tried to do in the note which preceeds the rhyme.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The link to to the nursery rhyme "Ten Little Niggers" at the top of the article links to "Ten Little Indians" instead, which is a set of different nursery rhymes than the one referenced in the book. Would it make sence to publish the original rhyme under it's own article and link to this one instead? First, it would be helpful for those reading the book. Second, the fact that a nursery rhyme has become politically incorrect does not mean that it can be erased from history. IMHO, publish it in article, discuss it's origin and how it came about, explain how it became politically incorrect and why it is now longer used as a nursery rhyme. Errors of the past should be corrected, but not forgotten. John Larring (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why can't the original rhyme be used? I agree that the word "nigger" may be offensive to someone as well as "indian", but Christie never intended it to be an insult. This book is a product of its time, and thus shouldn't be blamed for an improper use of language that is due to old fashioned English (as we don't blame Shakespeare when he refers to illegitimate sons calling them "bastards", and we don't change those passages). I think the original should be restored or at least the "indian" version so that the sense of the original is not completely distorted. The "soldiers" version seems to me the most absurd solution. French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese editions use the translation of the original rhyme without worrying of the racism issue (probably because they're of my same opinion). [unsigned]
 * You forgot to sign your comment. Quis separabit?  15:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "nigger" that Christie used is not the same as today, I agree. The term is similar to "a nigger in the woodpile" which would be roughly translated in contemporary English jargon as "a joker in the deck" or "a joker in the bunch". It is not politically possible to re-emphasize the original name without provoking negative and pointless verbal warfare. Suffice to say that the Wikipedia article does include the original name of the book and an image of the cover with the same name. That should be enough. I also added some background (hopefully it hasn't been removed) to the Pat Bottrill article over a similar controversy. Quis separabit?  15:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection
This page is subject to a great deal of revisions, particularly in the use of the words "Nigger", "Indian" and "Soldier" in the reference to the name of the book in the past and the rhyme contained in the book in the present. Despite there being notes to editors in the text, unregistered users are frequently changing the page, only for it to be reverted back again within minutes. I would suggest that there are some 3 to 4 such changes and reversals in a week which I, for one, deem to be reverting vandalism (No notes are left by unregistered users as to why such a change is deemed necessary and no discussion is entered into on this page). In my view, it is time that we applied to an administrator for this page to be semi-protected. I'd welcome other's views.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier to just let the vandalizers reveal themselves through their edits and to warn them and then ban their IPs to stop them from doing it again? However, having said that, if these constant edits are creating more work for regular editors for this authors series of books then semiprotection could save a lot of man hours that could be better used in the long run, so I would support it for a trial basis at least JayKeaton (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You make some good points. Since writing the above I applied for semi-protection last night on a page that underwent a lot of revisions with trivia as a result of the broadcast of last night's episode of Doctor Who (which featured Agatha Christie) and that request was denied. It made me realise that protection status is not easily granted. The constant changes to this page are wearying but not overtly troublesome so debate over, I suppose.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly discussion of original title?
Has there been any scholarly discussion regarding the original title, and its retitling, both of which ran afoul of political correctness? I can see the Ten Little Niggers issue being a big one with Christie because, just as with Doyle and Shakespeare and other iconic writers, there is a desire to preserve the original texts and revert back to original texts, too, when feasible. Yet, as you can imagine, if this book reverted to its original title and was solicited to Barnes & Noble it would probably be treated the way Mein Kampf is treated by retailers. There actually is a similar situation involving a James Bond novel, Live and Let Die, which in its original UK edition uses the "N-word" in a chapter title, but all US editions (until I think recently) changed the chapter title. Anyway, my point is I would be surprised if there isn't some journal article out there discussing this situation. 23skidoo (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's little point in expecting reasoned discussion of the issue from academia, because academia is systematically left-wing. Mowsbury (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal anti-intellectualism aside, Wikipedia uses reliable sources, which much of academia would be. -75.86.140.169 (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning
I think there should be a spoiler warning in the Characters section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.128.28 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the Wikipedia policy page Spoiler. Any spoiler warning will be deleted.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The spoiler warning should be moot because the plot synopsis is far too long anyway. 203.196.81.139 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The spoilers need to be deleted! This is a mystery novel. All that is needed is the premise of the plot and a brief description of each character. Preferable in alphabetical order and of equal length. All of the references to the method and order of deaths and references to the climax are unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.228.94 (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia does not avoid spoilers. Dimadick (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A good story but...

 * A good story but a stretching belief: for example; Lombard is supposed to be a experienced ex-soldier and professional mercenary-yet when he finds his pistol again he doesn't automatically check to see the gun is still loaded or if any cartridges have been fired! If he had seen that one chamber had not been fired he would have realized that Armstrong was lying and Wargrave was not dead and they they were both allies! Of course this would have ruined the entire plot! Secondly Scotland Yard claims they can't trace ownership-yet it is obvious that whoever owns the Island has to have a lot of money-which-everyone else being too poor- leaves only Marstan {who dies first}; Armstrong {who couldn't drag himself up on the beach after his death!} and Wargrave {investigation would have that his assets would have been gone-what could a dying man used his assets for....? Also in the stage/movie version Wargrave fires the gun once during his phoney death-yet if the stage play had followed the original story-there would have been the revolver with three fired cartridges-instead of two!! {The Phoney shot by Wargrave; Claythorne shoots Lombard; Wargrave shoots himself!!!!}
 * Lastly there is the part of the ten copies of the rhyming clues-2 of Scotland Yard finest missing such an obvious deduction....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right, of course. Obviously some suspension of disbelief is required for almost all works of fiction, and this one requires more than just some. I have to be honest though -- I never thought about the bullets in Lombard's gun; I guess I'm not gun-oriented, good points there!! Nonetheless the measure of a good book is if it is engrossing, enthralling and you can't wait to learn "who done it". The killing of Blore, in fact, is perhaps the least convincing murder as it could only succeed if the killer, a fairly old man with cancer, managed to topple a heavy statue from a window right onto the head of a moving target in such a way as to ensure death. Quis separabit?  01:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note-just saw the recent BBC Version--I can only saw disappointment--Blore has the most unrealistic death in the BBC version-stabbed by Wargrave wearing a Bear skin! Likewise Lombard checks his returned pistol-there are 6 Unfired cartridges--yet wargrave leaves the dying Vera with 1 pistol cartridge!!!! On the plus side for the British Versions of And then there None--Alex Hyde White and Charles Dance played such believable Justice Wargraves! Oh well-maybe someday there will be a faithful film adaptation of the book -such as the 1974 flim version of "Murder on the Orient Express"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.164.213 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note WP:NOTFORUM :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  14:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Another suspension of belief is at the end when Lombard and Claythrone find Armstrong body and each assumes the other is the killer espically then each assmues the other had killed Blore when neither of them could have killed him! Likewise neither of them could have had the time to "Kill" Wargrave - unless at the end each supposes that the other was an accomplice to Armstrong who was the "killer" of Blore and then  dies trying to swim to shore...?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.212.97 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That is already included in the article when it points out that Vera and Lombard "both overlook in their panic" the fact that neither could have killed Blore. As far as Wargrave's red herring of a killing, Dr. Armstrong carried enough weight, based on his profession, despite his own lethal lapse (crime) many years earlier, for the others to believe the judge was actually shot dead, even though no one heard a gunshot. Quis separabit?  20:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as "Likewise neither of them could have had the time to "Kill" Wargrave - unless at the end each supposes that the other was an accomplice to Armstrong who was the "killer" of Blore and then  dies trying to swim to shore...?" -- you are over-thinking this a bit. Yours,  Quis separabit?  20:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Adaptations

 * Other inspired adoptions? The Avengers had two episodes with a similar And then there were none storyline: in one Steed and several other experts in different kinds of hand to hand combat are tricked into being stranded on a desert island and killed off one by one; in another Steed former army associates are being killed off one by one until only Steed is left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.114 (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lonely guests/strangers killed off one by one is in epsiode of Quincy (TV series) "Murder on Ice" Quincy and his new wife are trapped in a mountainyop lodge with over guests who are being killed off one by one....
 * The Wild Wild West (TV Series) also has trapped guests killed off one by one... Were Avengers/Quincy/and WWW inspired by Then there were none?
 * The Lost Patrol (1934 film) and 49th Parallel are also stories of Persons killed off one by one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There was also the 1980s TV movie She's Dressed to Kill, most notable for its cast (Eleanor Parker, Corinne Calvet, Barbara Cason, Clive Revill, Jessica Walter) with a similar theme, although the victims are limited to the models at a fashion showing trapped in some snowed in locale (I can't remember all the details -- it was in the 1980s!!). Quis separabit?  01:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There were also the 1930s pre-Code Sherlock Holmes film, A Study in Scarlet, which is supposed to be somewhat similar, but I haven't seen it, although I do know from the synopsis that no one is geographically trapped in some remote locale, it takes place in London, as well as the quite creepy and scary film The List of Adrian Messenger, in which a lot of people are killed all over the British Isles (and in the sky with an airplane bomb) by a ruthless killer for a financial motive, although, like A Study in Scarlet no one is trapped in any one locale, per se. Still scary, though. Quis separabit?  02:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewboy censorship
In the original and modern editions, Philip Lombard calls Mr. Morris "Jew" and "Jewboy" with "thick Semitic lips", while some editions replace the word "Jew" with "Morris". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.91.109 (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is done because we are civilized people. MarkinBoston (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Christie was & other editions are as well: nothing uncivilized in showing others are barbaric. Not really censorship, either, though: more bowdlerizing. — Llywelyn II   02:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what Llywelyn II is getting at with the comment "Christie was & other editions are as well: nothing uncivilized in showing others are barbaric"; I hope it's not what I think. I agree that it is more bowdlerizing than actually censorious but to be regretted nonetheless, and I'm a Jewish atheist. Quis separabit?  15:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rms requested a gloss, apparently because he thinks I think people's lips have something to do with their level of civilization (?).


 * Christie and the other editions were civilized people and it's nonsense to pretend that they weren't. At the same time, their treatment of Jews was barbaric (i.e., uncivilized) and we at Wikipedia should present it as it was and let them be judged for it. Being civilized has nothing to do with rewriting our past to gloss the failures of our predecessors, as MarkinBoston implied. —  Llywelyn II   02:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If "Jew" is uncivilized, then Israel must be full of barbarians...77.11.38.141 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Touhou
I don't know anything about Wikipedia politics, this article appears to have a lot of watchers and a no relevant section right now for this snippet (perhaps its best to wait until more references are found?). However, it seems that the reference to the book in the Japanese game Touhou 6 - Embodiment of Scarlet Devil /must/ be notable. The music to a part of a final level is named /U.N. Owen was her/, implying that the last boss was responsible for the mystery here. I say this is notable despite the game being self-published, as currently a Google search for U.N. Owen hits much more Touhou (including the top hit) than Agatha Christie. The games are very popular in Japan among shooting game fans, and increasingly in the West, having very little local competition. More information at http://touhou.wikia.com/wiki/Flandre_Scarlet 86.20.64.180 (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * References in other works is a title in the recognised Wikinovels template however I cannot help but feel that the reference you want to contribute is pretty trivial, irrespective of how many google hits it gets.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, to the contrary, Touhou Project is anything but trivial -- the games have a very wide fanbase both in Japan and in the Western World (and probably many other places), and the music is also very popular. In fact, the infamous 'McRolled' video gets its music from none other than the very song mentioned. The series even has its own page here on Wikipedia . . . not to mention a very in-depth wiki of its own (as evidenced by 86.20.64.180's link). By the by, there's another reference to the book that is used in that game -- the second-to-last bullet pattern (aka Spell Card) that Flandre'll use against you is called "Secret Barrage - And Then There Will Be None?". 72.234.50.130 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above editor, especially considering U.N. Owen was her? is really popular in the internet, as of March 2009. 118.136.218.51 (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above editor that Cracked has a funny article about them but one internet fanbase (pretty much only in Japan) among all the other fanbases isn't notable for Wikipedia (Knowyourmeme, on the other hand...) and mentioning it here would be WP:UNDUE: it's a 2D shooter and the mention is a passing allusion. Feel free to mention it on their page, though, if it helps explain their 'mythos'. — Llywelyn II   03:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Niggers/Indians/Soldiers
Once again someone has made well-meaning changes to this page to show Indian instead of Soldier as the name of the island and the subject of the rhyme on which the book is based. I would like to say - for the last time but I doubt that - that this is the case for this wording on this page: the first and therefore true version of the book was that published in the UK in 1939 when the Nigger-word was used. This was Christie's choice and - if the manuscript was in existance today - one could see that that choice of word was typed with her own fair hand. Within a few months the book was published in the US and Dodd Mead, the US publishers, changed the words from Nigger (which they deemed unacceptable for the US market only) to Indian. This change presumabely had the agreement of Christie as no word of protest appears in her autobiography or any biographies of the lady. Even if she didn't like it, I have little doubt that her protests would have been ignored by Dodd Mead in the same way that they ignored some of her remarks about the US alternative titles for her books that they chose. From the 1960's onwards protests gathered pace on both sides of the Atlantic about the choice of words used in both of the markets. In the UK the title was changed from "Ten Little Niggers" in the mid-1980's to "And Then There Were None" but the contents of the book remained the same until relatively recently when Christie's literary estate - headed for a long time by her daughter and then her grandson - approved the changing to Soldier. This is the version that has been on sale for several years now in bookshops and you would in all probability not be able to purchase a NEW version of the book with either the original UK or US wordings. This page reflects the current wording of the book as approved by Christie's estate and on sale today but makes plentiful references to the original wording in order that someone couldn't make erroneous claims of censorship. In any case, as it is a British book and the the 1940 US wording was not of Christie's original choice the word Indian has not precedence whatsoever.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The section "Publication History" claims that "Modern printings use the rhyme Ten Little Soldiers and 'Soldier Island'." However this statement is not sourced, and seems not to be uniformly true. St. Martin's Press publishes a mass market paperback and a trade paperback of the book. The 2001 mass market paperback uses Indian Island while the 2004 trade paperback uses Soldier Island. Both versions are in print in the US and available through Amazon.com, so it's hard to claim that one is a modern printing and one is not. I've marked this statement for verification. --Uncia (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The version I read used soldiers and soldier Island — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.34.143 (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary references
I have deleted a number of unnecessary references that have been added to this page over the past few weeks. This page is about the book and, in line with the Wikinovels template, also refers to adaptations of the book, be they film, tv or other. Films which "somewhat" mirror the plot, episodes of television series where people die one by one or music on japanese video games are none of these things. To add these things in is to get close to having a "trivia" section which is always discouraged on Wikipedia.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
I understand why the original British title has been rejected in favour of the alternative American title and I accept this may be a controversial move. That said, this is a British book and it has mostly been published in Britain as "Ten Little Niggers". This article should really be given its original title. --Lo2u (T • C) 03:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the evidence again, it seems Agatha Christie's estate has approved the renaming of the book. So probably best to leave it. --Lo2u (T • C) 03:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Christie estate are commercially motivated, and subject to 21st century political pressures that are irrelevant to Christie's life. The book should certainly be published under its original title, but I suspect it will take a few hundred years for the issue to blow over and authenticity to be respected in this case. In the meantime, the article about an in print book should probably use the current title. Mowsbury (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dates incorrectly punctuated
There are several full dates with incorrect punctuation (lacking a comma after the year). As an IP user I can't fix this as the article is currently under semi-protection. 165.189.101.177 (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you give a couple specific examples so that I can fix them? Cheers.  Im per a t § r (Talk)  22:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed all the dates now. For International Format dates, a comma after the year is only required to conform with normal grammar rules. For example: "On 6 September 1939 Agatha Christie entertained the vicar." is correct, as is "On 6 September 1939, following tea with the vicar, Agatha Christie wrote a short story in which a clergyman is strangled.". --Pete (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I think this is wrong. Please see this page. The elements that make up dates should have commas between them.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't wrong. English has been doing away with extraneous punctuation since the pig's breakfast Dickens made of them: ...6 September 1939... is perfectly correct. The original anon was right, however, in saying that the American format dates ...September 6, 1939... should (technically) be followed by a comma after the year (it's a parenthetical appositive giving greater detail about the date). Of course, so many people leave it out that it's just something to correct as a personal quirk, not as an article of faith. — Llywelyn II   02:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

List of Movies based on this story is not complete in the Wiki article.
In 1965 the story was filmed under the name "Ten Little Indians." It starred Hugh O'Brian, the Wyatt Earp of 1950's American TV, and Shirley Eaton, who had short-lived fame as the girl who was killed by gold paint in the James Bond film "Goldfinger." Wilfred Hyde-White, Leo Genn, Dahlia Lavi and Fabian were also featured. Christopher Lee was the mysterious voice on the tape which accused the guests of their crimes.

This correction is based on the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) as well as personally having viewed the 1965 movie several tmes.


 * We can't change original versions. We must respect original text. If we change it then this is not Agatha Christie anymore! We must respect truth even if we don't like it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.60.154 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Topic paragraph
Wikipedia isn't censored? Are you kidding? There is no way to edit the topic paragraph, which is historically inaccurate. The book was originally called "Ten Little Niggers." Wikipedia is just as corrupt as the idiots who want to rewrite "Huckleberry Finn" to replace "nigger" with "slave." A huge middle finger to you douchebags at Wikipedia -- you are HUGE censors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlinn80 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 July 2011
 * Anyone can edit the article, it is not protected, simply click the "edit" button at the top of the page. The material is not "censored", if you look at the article history, you can see that an IP editor vandalized the article by changing the wording less than 16 hours ago.  This is also supported by the overwhelming talk page consensus supporting the use of the original title.  I just undid the IP's edit to restore the original wording and image in the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough -- but you guys don't include the  option in the topic paragraph, which is awfully confusing. And this is coming from a guy who designs websites all day. Really, guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlinn80 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that it was decided early in the days of the wiki that having a section-edit button for the lead was considered unattractive, so it was remove for the sake of appearance (with the logic that the full page edit button was available via the top tabs. However, it was made available so that each user had the option to add it for their own user-profile (I set it up on mine long ago, so had to search for where the switch is located): select the My preferences link at the very top of the page, then go to the "Gadgets" page; scroll down to the "Appearance" section, and add a check next to the line "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page".  From then on, you'll see a section-edit for the lead section as long as you're logged into your account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism "ten little sluty ass whores"
Someone changed the infobox "ten little [whatever]" to "ten little sluty ass whores"

I reverted the vandal edit by 72.47.9.101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.196.163 (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You're almost as awesome as User:ClueBot NG! Rivertorch (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Quincy
I wonder if the plot of the Quincy episode "Murder on Ice" could be regarded as an adaptation of this story. The story bears some similarities to this one. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've watched Quincy since I was a kid, so I can't respond specifically. Still, the essentials of the plot have become something of a trope, so it's hard to know whether any seemingly derivative work is intentionally echoing the novel or just following the convention—at least without hearing from the writer(s). I suppose that if a notable critic has indicated a connection, it might be worth a mention here. Rivertorch (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Length of plot summary
WP:NOVSTY advises 3-4 paragraphs, includes prologues and epilogues, not 12. AnEyeSpy (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Advice is advice, but this is a seminal psychological drama, and under BOLD and IAR one can sometimes color outside the lines. Yours, Quis separabit?  01:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about a compromise? I think the recent, shorter version was a bit too short for clarity's sake, but I've been thinking for some while that what preceded it was seriously verbose. Rivertorch (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, what kind of compromise do you have in mind? Quis separabit?  14:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing terribly specific. The prose shouldn't be so truncated as to be awkward or misleading, and that did happen here recently. On the other hand, summary should summarize, touching only on the essential elements and avoiding all but the most important details. Any detail that isn't critical to prevent a reader's being confused should probably be omitted, even if it means that the summary doesn't present a 100% coherent story. One of the problems with intricately detailed plot summaries is that they attract drive-by editors who think they should be even more intricately detailed. That has been an issue with this article, and there haven't been enough watchers knowledgeable about the plot to ensure accuracy.. It's been a few years since I read the book, but based on my recollection I'm guessing that there are enough important details in the book to warrant five or six paragraphs, some of them longish. Rivertorch (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do my best to rv the fat. Quis separabit?  00:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The present edition is fine. Tag removed.


 * Less than 500 words may be perfect for describing a Pokemon episode or Avengers movie, but detective stories are naturally heavy on plot and plot twists. Any future edits should be based on improving clarity and concision, not arbitrary word counts. — Llywelyn II   02:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

ABC TV series Whodunnit
The current (Aug. 2013) TV series Whodunnit could also be considered as a variation of the And Then There Were None story. They started with 13 "guests" and they are being killed one at a time, except for a double murder. As I write this there are only 4 left and one of them is the killer. We don't know who it is yet. Perhaps a reference to this should be added, after the TV series is complete. Scfenster (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Titles
As far as Google knows, the guy in the archive who thought the original Christie title was Nigger in the Woodpile seems to have been mistaken, but this source claims that the original US title for Dodd, Mead, & Co.'s first edition was Ten Little Indians; then later it became And Then There Were None and also The Nursery Rhyme Murders (which we don't even have listed as an alternate title in the publication history section). Could someone check the sources and figure out if this is accurate? — Llywelyn II   04:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nigger Boys, Injun/Indian Braves/Boys, Soldier Boys
There are some pretty obnoxious comments above and in the actual article complaining about how tedious it is reverting people's edits. In fact, the 'problem' seems to be Jtomlin1uk's page WP:OWNership and a pretty good reason for those continuing edits (I was starting make one myself) is that no one has even attempted to establish a consensus here or in the archived discussion. So, let's fix that.

I'm pretty sure there aren't many "Indian" fans just because that's the American version of the rhyme, so the argument seems to be should the article use Christie's original rhyme and wording or should it use the modern Christie Estate's? In favor of the modern, you have the point that "nigger" is so far outside the pale in modern diction that a Canadian government employee was fired for referencing this book under its original name; simply showing it inescapably makes Christie look a little sketchy to modern eyes. In favor of the original, you've got Wikipedia's general preference for presenting first editions; its policies against censorship; the work as a historic artifact; the facts that "soldier boy" was never an actual children's rhyme nor in any sense appropriately describes most of the characters in the novel. It's not our job to make Christie's work look any better or different from what she wrote.

Including the discussion above, support currently seems stacked against Jtomlin1uk's version: but obviously we should hear from more people. What do you guys think? — Llywelyn II   05:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Original: me John Larring unsigned here
 * (possibly also: unsigned in archive, Project2501a, Accounting4Taste, NeF, 64.30.108.169, & JayKeaton, who all speak strongly in favor of presenting the original wording of the title)
 * Bowdlerized: Jtomlin1uk
 * (possibly also: Will the Great, who speaks in favor of the the estate's wishes)

Copyediting points
Over the last few days User:Rms125a@hotmail.com and I have been working on this article. We've hit a few points where we seem to favor different wordings or styles.

Rather than revert where we differ I'm bringing them to the talk page to discuss them. Input from anyone else welcomed too :)


 * {| class=wikitable style="font-size:90%"

The additional (..) comment has been re-added after removal:
 * WP:BLP violation.
 * WP:BLP violation.
 * "The original name of the mystery... has long been abandoned as offensive. (For example, [name of living individual] was pressured to resign after using the same three words during [details of a real-world business meeting] [external cite link to show forced resignation])"

Yes it's useful to cite the statement "n-word is deemed very offensive". No, even if hell freezes over, we do not illustrate that by picking one unconnected living individual who was in completely different real-life circumstances prominently pressured to resign for using it in ....2002?!..., with zero other connection to the article and no other reason for mention at all, beyond (in effect) look at this real-world person's real-world disgrace, which shows it's a really offensive word. Instead, it should be pretty easy to find a different reliable source for the real point requiring cites: namely "the word is long-seen as grossly offensive". One can review the articles on that word, find an existing cite that shows it is agreed to be very offensive by mainstream/significant views, and reuse that cite in this article as well, to underpin the same point. Sorry for the strong tone I may have said that in, but it's really important to convey why it's serious, why it's not a borderline question, why one should not do citing this way (in any article), and how else it can better be done. Learning point maybe :) If you disagree, I'm happy to discuss but per WP:BLP please do not revert without clear consensus, thanks :)

I get wayyyy more relaxed now, after that's off my chest! :) Sorry for the strong words :) The rest's a lot lighter!
 * Original research:
 * Original research:

The underlined words are original research. (Some of them insert "outside reader" + critic's observations into the plot section. These should be in a separate "plot observations" section if anywhere, and citable to a reliable source, not just Wikipedians comments)
 * "Vera and Lombard... both now believe each other to be the killer, overlooking, in their shock and panic, that neither could have killed Blore ."
 * (outside-plot observation: this is what a reader might think, or a critic would think)


 * "He lured nine of them to the island he had purchased with the help of a shady lawyer, Isaac Morris"
 * (the novel doesn't - from memory - say anything on this, so he may have been completely honest as a lawyer, other matters aside. Contextually, it was written pre-war, before the war on drugs, when Sherlock Holmes was not an outcast for enjoying cocaine. I don't think we have any basis at all for a claim that the character Morris in the novel was a "shady" lawyer.)


 * "Armstrong, who trusted the judge more than anyone else "
 * ("trusted" yes; "trusting nature" yes; this no)


 * "U.N. Owen" as a character:
 * "U.N. Owen" as a character:

For most of the book, this is a character. The fact it's an alias of another person doesn't change that for the novel proper, U.N. Owen is indeed a mysterious character. Of course we need to be clear the reality. This I think is appropriate and says it all, if added:
 * "U.N. Owen is the fictional alias of the island's owner and the host who invites the guests to it. In their invitations the initials U.N. stand for different names for each guest. The guests surmise this to be a homonym of the word Unknown, used by the mysterious killer."


 * A lot of valueless verbosity or unnecessary details that can be tightened to improve tone:
 * "the corpse of Armstrong"
 * -> "Armstrong's body"
 * -> "Armstrong's body"


 * "Vera manages to persuade Lombard"
 * -> '''"Vera persuades Lombard"
 * "she fires, managing to shoot him through the heart, killing him almost instantly "
 * -> "she shoots him through the heart"
 * (is the mention of instantness a plot point, compared to if it took 40 or 60 seconds? Shooting through the heart in fiction is usually assumed by a reader to be pretty instantly fatal)


 * "She returns, relieved, to the house"
 * -> "She returns to the house"


 * "Morris, a hypochondriac, constantly complained of maladies, both real and imagined . For this reason, he accepted a cocktail of medicines given to him by the judge, who promised they would cure his upsets, and which, of course , proved fatal."
 * -> "Morris, a hypochondriac, was killed by poisoned medicines given to him by the judge before the weekend itself, who explained they would help his illnesses."
 * (So much wrong here.. we don't need 3/4 of this here, especially as it's background anyway, and it's further repeated in his character summary as well . Is it a key plot point that he "constantly" complained? Clauses like " For this reason ", " which, of course ", "which proved" rather than "which were", so much here is redundant, adding wordage or removing simplicity but not adding any value. What does matter here is two things - He had a (real or imagined) medical complaint. He accepted poisoned medicines he would have used.)


 * "He then played upon Armstrong, who trusted the judge"
 * -> "He then played upon the trusting Dr Armstrong"


 * "the judge met with his dupe secretly that night along the rocks overlooking the sea and pushed him to his death"
 * -> "he pushed the doctor off the rocks into the sea"
 * (don't need to clumsily state "dupe" or make that claim ourselves. We've already said the doctor trusted him, that's enough. "Death" is implied by immediate continuation, which states the "body" or "corpse" drifted on the tide)


 * "he correctly surmised that Vera and Lombard would turn on each other but that she would be more than a worthy opponent and manage to turn the tables on the latter"
 * -> "he expected Vera to outwit and kill Lombard"
 * (we don't need to emphasize how clever he is with words like "correctly", or dress up his expectations in a long phrase about her "more than worthiness" as an "opponent". He expected her to survive, and it happened. keep it simple and direct, encyclopedia tone not "literary review" tone)


 * "he (again correctly) anticipated"
 * -> "he anticipated"


 * "using a handkerchief to prevent leaving any of his own fingerprints"
 * -> "using a handkerchief to prevent any fingerprints"
 * (because he might leave someone else's prints if he touches it? :) )


 * "He states that he will fasten a rubber cord to Lombard's gun, using a handkerchief... If this plan works as intended, the gun will recoil"
 * -> "He states that he will fasten a rubber cord to Lombard's gun, using a handkerchief... The gun will recoil"
 * ''(Any plan's description is "what happens if it works as intended", this is redundant. It's re-stating it's Wargrave's plan, when we've already made clear this is his plan)


 * "The gun will recoil after firing the fatal shot through the forehead, leaving him exactly as described"
 * -> "The gun will recoil after his death, leaving him shot exactly as described"
 * (no need to repeat his plan a third time, either. We've said he will be left looking exactly as described. For Wikipedia plot purposes we've said how he will be left)


 * "She returns, relieved, to the house, which she notes does not "feel like an empty house", decides she is not hungry and ascends to her room "
 * -> "She returns to the house"
 * (the next sentence says that she feels another presence anyway [so it doesn't feel empty], her hunger isn't relevant, and the fact she goes to a room isn't relevant - the very next sentence is that she finds a noose in the house and hangs herself)


 * "Feeling the presences of Cyril, the boy she allowed to drown, as well as that of her former lover, Hugo, she places the noose around her neck"
 * -> "Feeling the presences of the boy she allowed to drown and of a past lover, she places the noose around her neck"
 * (the book states she's in a disoriented state, she smells seaweed, she feels others presences, and the suggestive nature of the chair and noose prompts her to kill herself. We don't need to mention each presence for this. Hugo and Cyril as individuals'' are pretty irrelevant. So we don't need a lengthy description. If we do, it's in her character info anyway.)


 * "After bludgeoning General Macarthur and Rogers, the butler,"
 * -> "After bludgeoning General Macarthur and Rogers,"
 * (Said who Rogers is in the plot, already)


 * "the judge managed to insert his remaining chloral hydrate as a sedative in Miss Brent's coffee before injecting her with cyanide when she was left alone in the kitchen, using one of Dr Armstrong's hypodermics"
 * -> "he used his remaining chloral hydrate as a sedative in Miss Brent's coffee before injecting her with poison"
 * (we're already discussing "the judge" who has just bludgeoned two people, so "he" is enough. The novel says nothing to suggest he "managed" to drug the coffee, any more than it says he "managed" to hit Rogers with an axe or "managed" to pull the clock down, that's tone we shouldn't add. It's not relevant she was "alone in the kitchen" or that he used the doctor's needles rather than bringing his own - all of that is minor detail for our kind of plot summary)


 * "shortly afterwards, shocking Lombard and Vera, the corpse of Armstrongs washes ashore"
 * -> "shortly afterwards, shocking the remaining two survivors, Armstrongs body is washed ashore"
 * (quickly mentions number of survivors - it's easy to lose count we're down to the last two! No need to repeat names as we mention names in previous + next sentence too. "Armstrong's body" is tighter text than "the corpse of Armstrong")


 * }

Comments and discussion welcomed. I've reverted the BLP item but not the others yet. FT2 (Talk 16:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Rms125a reply
I think we agree more than we disagree but how is this BLP? Is anyone related to the original mystery still alive?? Quis separabit? 21:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * {| class=wikitable style="font-size:90%"


 * "'shortly afterwards, shocking Lombard and Vera, the corpse of Armstrongs washes ashore'"
 * -> "shortly afterwards, shocking the remaining two survivors, Armstrongs body is washed ashore"
 * (quickly mentions number of survivors - it's easy to lose count we're down to the last two! No need to repeat names as we mention names in previous + next sentence too. "Armstrong's body" is tighter text than "the corpse of Armstrong")|}
 * Actually, we are not down to two; Wargrave is still alive, remember? Quis separabit?  22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Both in the reader's perspective and critically, there's probably a good case we are down to two. When Wargrave (apparently) died the characters in the book counted from 5 to 4 survivors, and then 3 after Blore, so in the plot we're at two when they face off. Outside the plot we are as well, even if only on a technicality. Wargrave isn't a "survivor", because, as the killer, he can't be someone who has "survived" being killed by the mysterious killer. Until we describe that Wargrave didn't die, then following our plot summary or the book, there are just 2 "survivors" at that point as far as they or the reader knows. That said I'm happy to consider ideas. But repeating their names is redundant (same names in 3 sentences running) and using words like "apparently" belabors the point a lot. I think "2 survivors" here is going to be pretty unambiguous, especially as a few lines down, after they are both dead, one of the deaths - believed real - is only then disclosed as having been fake. FT2 (Talk 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Both in the reader's perspective and critically, there's probably a good case we are down to two. When Wargrave (apparently) died the characters in the book counted from 5 to 4 survivors, and then 3 after Blore, so in the plot we're at two when they face off. Outside the plot we are as well, even if only on a technicality. Wargrave isn't a "survivor", because, as the killer, he can't be someone who has "survived" being killed by the mysterious killer. Until we describe that Wargrave didn't die, then following our plot summary or the book, there are just 2 "survivors" at that point as far as they or the reader knows. That said I'm happy to consider ideas. But repeating their names is redundant (same names in 3 sentences running) and using words like "apparently" belabors the point a lot. I think "2 survivors" here is going to be pretty unambiguous, especially as a few lines down, after they are both dead, one of the deaths - believed real - is only then disclosed as having been fake. FT2 (Talk 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * * "he correctly surmised that Vera and Lombard would turn on each other but that she would be more than a worthy opponent and manage to turn the tables on the latter"
 * -> "he expected Vera to outwit and kill Lombard"
 * (we don't need to emphasize how clever he is with words like "correctly", or dress up his expectations in a long phrase about her "more than worthiness" as an "opponent". He expected her to survive, and it happened. keep it simple and direct, encyclopedia tone not "literary review" tone)
 * OK, agreed. Quis separabit?  22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, agreed. Quis separabit?  22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * * "She returns, relieved, to the house"
 * -> "She returns to the house"
 * Not sure, here -- the book spends at least half a page describing Vera's self-absorbed triumphant relief. Quis separabit?  22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It describes a lot in depth, and a lot of different people's states of mind. Half a page of "OMG I survived, I feel floaty/triumphant/disoriented/woozy/whatever" isn't plot narrative stuff really, it's just the usual stuff that goes into the difference between a 120 page novel and a 1/2 page plot summary. The author puts the reader in their mind. Character has a state of mind, author describes it. But it doesn't really make it a plot point. FT2 (Talk 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It describes a lot in depth, and a lot of different people's states of mind. Half a page of "OMG I survived, I feel floaty/triumphant/disoriented/woozy/whatever" isn't plot narrative stuff really, it's just the usual stuff that goes into the difference between a 120 page novel and a 1/2 page plot summary. The author puts the reader in their mind. Character has a state of mind, author describes it. But it doesn't really make it a plot point. FT2 (Talk 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Will be back later after I review the book text. Ciao. Quis separabit? 21:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)'


 * Er, can't locate the book, so let me try from memory and and  to tackle a couple of more a few points:


 * *"Armstrong, who trusted the judge more than anyone else "
 * -> ("trusted" yes; "trusting nature" yes; this no)
 * OK, agreed Quis separabit?  22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, agreed Quis separabit?  22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Hugo and Cyril as individuals are pretty irrelevant. So we don't need a lengthy description."
 * -> Say what???!! Dude, the woman ruined her life because of her decision re her charge, Cyril, which cost her the man she loved, her career, and her professional and emotional stability. The psychological torment aspect of this novel centers on Vera and her thoughts about Hugo and Cyril. I wanted to add that she regrets her decision but does not really feel remorse, remembering Cyril as "whiny" and "spoiled" but I didn't despite backup text for the latter part as this is OR on my part, albeit accurate. However, to generally downplay the importance of Hugo and Cyril to Vera, the character who takes up more time and space in the novel than any other, would be a mistake. She is even thinking of Hugo when she puts the noose around her neck hearing in her mind (PTSD, maybe, but still) him telling her to do so! Quis separabit?  22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because its a plot summary. It's not trying to summarize the book as (say) Spark Notes would do. She survives. She goes to the house. She slips a noose over her head. The plot link is that she's disoriented, and various memories are coming to her, and objects and scents had been placed in her room to play on that expected/predicted state. It's a summary. (Off topic, if it helps, I also had the same reaction quite a bit on plot summaries, but this really is how plots are tightened for FAC and so on - what's key and what's not. It took me a while to get the point and not to feel "but you're cutting big parts of it?!" on it). FT2 (Talk 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "She survives. She goes to the house. She slips a noose over her head" -- there is a little more going on than that. Removing linguistic ostentation is one thing but leaving holes in important plot devices, even those at the very end, is not good. Quis separabit?  02:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How about "Thinking of the child she let drown, and the lover she lost as a result...", would that be a compromise? I don't have a problem with alluding to what was on her mind. I just don't think we need to go into names and details of them. When all said and done Cyril and Hugo are never actually characters in the book. Their plot relevance is that Vera is someone who has had a child drown and thereby lost a love (and also got targeted by a sadist but that's disclosed later!), and who has these losses come to mind when she's alone and in a shocked trancelike state after somehow surviving what she thinks is a mass killing by the man she's just outwitted and shot. Due to the situation, emotionality, suggestive furniture placement, deliberate invocation of seaweed (sea memories), she then ends up in a dreamy way doing as Wargrave thought she might. That's the plot. But those who come into her mind just before death, such as the boy she lost - he could have any name at all, John or Andrew, and we'd still have no essential change to the plot, nor need to refer to him much. We mention his name in her character though. Ditto and more so when we look at Hugo - Hugo is part of the loss related to Cyril that her mind flicks to. For example, he plays no great part himself in the novel, he didn't die, he isn't a reason she's on the island, and so on. Perhaps "Thinking of the child she let drown, and the lover she lost as a result..."? Would that work? We do name and describe them below. FT2 (Talk 10:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, compromise is always good, to wit: "Thinking of the child she let drown, and the lover she lost as a result..." Quis separabit?  10:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, compromise is always good, to wit: "Thinking of the child she let drown, and the lover she lost as a result..." Quis separabit?  10:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "He lured nine of them to the island he had purchased with the help of a shady lawyer, Isaac Morris"
 * -> (the novel doesn't - from memory - say anything on this, so he may have been completely honest as a lawyer, other matters aside. Contextually, it was written pre-war, before the war on drugs, when Sherlock Holmes was not an outcast for enjoying cocaine. I don't think we have any basis at all for a claim that the character Morris in the novel was a "shady" lawyer.)
 * Interesting, you should bring up cocaine. Wargrave killed Morris because provided the drugs that led to the death of the daughter of his [Wargrave's] friends (difficult as it is to imagine Wargrave having friends, but deus ex machina, there.) The Scotland Yard inspectors investigating the case also discuss Morris' character (or lack thereof).
 * So Morris was a drug dealer not "shady". I am OK with that change. Quis separabit?  22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Drug dealer" hmm.. suggests a regular activity/"career" but we aren't told that's so for the character either. The point is, we don't know if his professionalism as a lawyer was "shady" or "reputable" from the book, and the extent of any underground activity is not described in much depth either. We're best to simply document what's in the book. He (the character) is a lawyer. He also privately supplied drugs that led to someone's death. He got away with it until these events. FT2 (Talk 23:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to assume she was his only client? Quis separabit?  02:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point (and the reason that implying either way would be WP:OR) - the book doesn't say either way about the character, so nor can we assume what the character "must" or "probably" might (not) do. FT2 (Talk 10:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, agreed. Quis separabit?  10:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, agreed. Quis separabit?  10:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * }

Citation required under "other media"
I don't really know how to edit Wiki but I can confirm that the game exists - it is this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie:_And_Then_There_Were_None. A walkthrough here http://www.gameboomers.com/wtcheats/pcAa/AgathaATTWN.htm references the "Sailor Boys" many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.172.2 (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Excessive detail, OR, etc.
, seriously? A sentence or two ought to be more than enough: remember, this is a [List of] Characters, not "List of characters including the plot and my own conclusions about the story". The first section already says stuff like "His amorality makes him the first victim", which strikes me as an editorial comment, and "a rigid, repressed elderly spinster", likewise editorial (and sexist to boot--impossible to tell if this is the sexism of the Wikipedia editor or the author's). It contains (grammatically incorrect) verbosity like "The general fatalistically accepts that no one will leave the island alive" (sounds like Original Research to me). "His corpse washes ashore expeditiously" is POV/commentary, "his skull was crushed by a bear-shaped clock dropped from Vera's bedroom window onto the terrace below" is excessively detailed, "Lombard died in a standoff with Vera, both -- despite their cool, calculating, efficient natures -- overlooking in their panic (at discovering Armstrong's body) that neither of them could have killed Blore" is original research, "'U. N. Owen' (a homonym of 'Unknown')" is editorial commentary, etc. etc. Summarizing my edit summary as "silly detail" is acting untruthfully: I said "started cutting down this silly amount of detail, which should be in the plot or nowhere at all". Your quick and easy revert uses the almighty BRD as an excuse. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Drmies: "A sentence or two ought to be more than enough..." sounds like one size fits all OR to me considering we are talking about a psychological thriller and one the best-selling novels of all time. If I even found a way to put some of the details you object to into other sections of the article you would object to that as well. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, if you know what that means. Your massive reverts are as drastic and objectionable as you claim some of the more florid prose is for you. Compromise is always best. And BRD was not created by me as a recommended course of action. Any other opinions -- please........... Quis separabit?  21:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know what that expression means. I don't think you know what a baby is. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a slur of some kind. I guess I should contact the ACLU or Media Matters. When I wrote "Any other opinions -- please..........." I was referring to other editors besides the two of us, btw, so I hope you didn't take that the wrong way. Quis separabit?  21:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Slur? There was no baby, only bathwater. Now, speaking of best-selling novels, Uncle Tom's Cabin is one, and Uncle Tom's Cabin is an FA. You haven't addressed any of my points and have said nothing of substance, so please go see how that article handles its characters. Note how it addresses points of substance, how it does not resort to plot or original research. That there is a reference for where the character of Eliza comes from. That the list of minor characters is indeed "a sentence or two". What we have, in this article, is poorly written, full of original research and editorial commentary, more plot than anything, unbecoming. A novel this popular deserves a better article. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I was just kidding about the slur, but I didn't originally get the point when you said I didn't know what a/the baby is. I got it now. If it's OR to point out that Vera Claythorne encouraged Cyril, her charge, to swim far out in the sea and pretended to save him so her lover would receive his inheritance that the child would otherwise have gotten? I did quote that fact the she recalled the child as "spoilt" and "whiny", adjectives I remember from my reading. Do you want me to see what quotations I can glean online and just add them with reflinks. OK. I'll try. Quis separabit?  22:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, Rms. There may well be good material available on these characters and verified stuff is more than welcome, of course. Direct quotes can be helpful too. Thing is, I have seen many of these articles (more in TV and movie articles than in novels, sure) where character description just gets out of hand (typically added by fans, I think...) that I think the best course of action is to cut it down to the minimum we can do without sourcing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Title translations
Catalan 	Deu negrets 	Ten Little Black Men Finnish 	Kymmenen pientä neekeripoikaa    Ten little negro boys French 	Dix Petits Nègres 	Ten Little Negroes Galician 	Dez negriños 	Ten Little Black Boys

The above are a sampling of the translated titles for this book. My question is, are the Catalan, Finnish, and Galician translations really demonstrably different from the French one? That is, couldn't they all be rendered as "Ten Little Negroes" just as easily? Do the English phrases "Ten Little Black Men", "Ten Little Negro Boys" and "Ten Little Black Boys" really have different translations in those languages than the English phrase "Ten Little Negroes"? --Khajidha (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, about the Galician (and Spanish) translation, I have to say that "negro" is "black people", "nigger" or "negroes". Unless due to political correctness they (us) have decided to use different words, the three refers to persons of Negroid heritage, and none of them were supposed to be any kind of insult. Being that said, I have to say that nowadays it's also used "persona/gente de color" (Spanish) or "persoa/xente de cor" (Galician), which could be translated as "colored person/people" (regarding that, often when those expressions are used, some people just ask "which color?", so finally it's stated "black"; it's kind of a joke about stupid political correctness rules, no ofense is intended about black people).

So, for a quite long answer to your question, I'll try to put all the possible Galician (G) and Spanish (S) translations of those phrases (hint: "pequeño/pequeno" can be in size/height or in age, or both; hint 2: the Spanish/Galician diminutive can refer to size/height, age or denote sympathy or affection, among other uses): "Ten Little Black Men": (S) "Diez hombres negros pequeños" (G) "Dez homes negros pequenos" -> It states that the black men are adult and small/short. (S) "Diez pequeños hombres negros" (G) "Dez pequenos homes negros" -> It states that the black men are small/short ("hombres negros" that are "pequeños", or that they are kids ("pequeños hombres" that are "negros"; this is the translation used, for example, in the book "little women" - "mujercitas").  (S) "Diez hombres pequeños negros"   (G) "Dez homes pequenos negros"         -> It states that the adult men are black and small/short. Not quite used, as it should preferably have an "y" (S) or "e" (G), stating an "and".   (S) "Diez negritos"    (G) "Dez negriños"          -> Same as the previous ones. In this case, "negrito/negriño" is used (specially in Galician, that uses diminutives really, really a lot) to denote some kind of affection or sympathy (both are diminutive forms).    The correct one depends on the actual meaning, and you usually have to find that out from the context.

"Ten Little Negro Boys": Pretty much the same as the previous phrase, but in this case they are not adult men. (S) "Diez chicos negros pequeños" (G) "Dez rapaces negros pequenos" -> It states that the black boys are small/short. (S) "Diez pequeños chicos negros" (G) "Dez pequenos rapaces negros" -> It states that the black boys are small/short ("chicos negros" that are "pequeños", or that they are young boys ("pequeños chicos" that are "black").  (S) "Diez negritos"    (G) "Dez negriños"          -> All said about these.    The correct one depends on the real meaning, and you have to find that out from the context.

"Ten Little Black Boys": Same as the previous.

"Ten Little Negroes": Same as the previous, although it could also be -pollitically correct- translated as: (S) "Diez personas de raza negra pequeñas" (G) "Dez persoas de raza negra pequenas" (S) "Diez personas pequeñas de raza negra" (G) "Dez persoas pequenas de raza negra" (S) "Diez pequeñas personas de raza negra" (G) "Dez pequenas persoas de raza negra" (S) "Diez personitas de raza negra" (G) "Dez persoíñas de raza negra"

For a shorter answer, all phases can have pretty much the same translation, although there are some different emphasis/connotations, that should be related to the original meaning and context.

That said, in Spanish I've seen the title "Diez negritos" in several editions of the book (one of my mother's books that I read when I was much younger), although it's possible that for political correctness later editions had been titled "Y no quedó ninguno" (that's the translation of the title in the 2015 tv miniseries).

By the way, both spanish titles are quite literal translations for the english ones: "Y no quedó ninguno" could be "And there were none". The "And No One Remained" can be an alternative translation. Check that the "then" was no translated into Spanish, possibly because it adds no much information and makes the Spanish title much longer and, let's say, "uglier": "Y entonces no quedó ninguno". "Diez negritos" could be "Ten little niggers" (or "Ten little black boys", etc.). "Ten black boys", although could be translated as the same, would be more accurate as "Diez chicos negros".

Year in which the incidents occur
I put "in the late 1930s" because as Dr Armstrong notes it was "closer to fifteen years" since the incident for which he was going to pay with his life (operating while drunk and killing a patient), and that incident occurred in 1925 as per the gramophone recording, and 1939 is really unlikely as the late August date would mean this all took place just days before the start of WWII in Europe. So "late 1930s" must be right. Christie wrote the novel in 1939-40, I believe, but it has a retrospective feel as there are various references to World War I (aka "the Great War"). Quis separabit? 00:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Current published version of the rhyme
Right now under the current Wikipedia article, it gives the "current published version of the rhyme" as "Ten Little Indians." Clearly, that is no longer the case. I realize that this is controversial and that many fans of Agatha Christie wish that "Ten Little Indians" still was the rhyme used in the book, and that there are still others who wish it was never changed from "Ten Little Niggers." But pretending that it has NEVER been changed, and that "Indians" is the CURRENT (as of 3 April 2016) rhyme is doing Wikipedia readers a disservice. The only reason why I have not changed this right now is that I am having trouble finding an article online which cites exactly WHEN the estate of Agatha Christie approved the change in the book as well as the play adaptations.

One more thing I wish to note. There are some people who think that the book has been Ten LIttle Indians in the United States as early as 1940, and that And Then There Were None is only a recent title change. I know very well that when I was in junior high school (now middle school), the title of the book I read was And Then There Were None even when all the Indian and "nigger in the woodpile" references were not changed. Furthermore, there have been American publications of the book under the title ATTWN as early as 1939 or 1940. Ten Little Indians has merely been an ALTERNATE title for the book. What is new is that now that the rhyme has been changed, Ten LIttle Indians is no longer an option as an alternate title. I would not be surprised if there is a new publication with Ten Little Soldiers as an alternate title. Supposedly, there have been productions of the play under this title, but I cannot confirm this. Edward J. Cunningham (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Confusing
Under English Language editions we are told: Christie, Agatha (1963). And Then There Were None. London: Fontana. OCLC 12503435. Paperback, 190 pp. (The 1985 reprint was the first UK publication of the novel under the title And Then There Were None).[13]

So
 * 1) it would seem it was first published in the UK as "And Then There Were None" in 1985 (which is NOT "the early 1980s")
 * 2) and then somebody traveled backward in time to publish it under the same name in 1963 in a London in a parallel universe where London was not part of the UK. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, we also have a 1981 edition in Dutch listed in the English Language section. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia: The Encyclopædia Anyone Can Edit! Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  11:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to be implying that I should have fixed it myself, even though you have not fixed it yourself either. I should point out that one of the 5 principles of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is Not Compulsory. I would have had to spend time on some research that I had no wish to do if I wanted to be reasonably sure that my 'fix' was correct, and just because WP:Bold seemingly doesn't care about 'fixes' that are wrong doesn't mean that I don't - I've seen prolonged harm done to articles (and presumably also their misled readers) by bad fixes, which can seriously disimprove an article by replacing obvious errors by errors that are far worse because the reader can't easily spot they are errors. (And there are always other valid reasons for not wanting to try to fix things oneself - most of us know from experience that any edit carries a risk of getting involved in wasted effort and/or an unpleasant dispute, with the risk usually being greater for article edits than for merely mentioning a problem on Talk). Instead I prefer to point out the problem here so the article can be fixed by somebody who cares enough to put the effort into fixing it correctly. Comments implying "Fix it yourself" (incidentally WP:Bold is also called WP:SOFIXIT) merely make it less likely that people like me will point out such problems in future (for fear of ending up wasting yet more time defending oneself from undeserved criticism, as I have now done), thereby disimproving the Encyclopedia, and the fact that WP:Bold in effect invites such comments is just one of the many things that are wrong with Wikipedia, and quite likely a part of what causes Wikipedia to have such difficulty in retaining editors (and is part of the reason why I am now semi-retired as an editor). Tlhslobus (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've crossed out a small part of my original post, something which only belonged in the Talk page from which that post was copied - fixing things myself would presumably have required me to fix that article too, at least doubling the effort and risks involved.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We all, of course, look forward to your complete retirement: and possibly even wish you a happy one. Slán. Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  10:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On a lighter note, excellent essay on the 2009 DefAct. 10:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I fear it's possible that you may need an unreasonable amount of patience while looking forward to my complete retirement :) But thanks for the compliment on the essay. It's thoroughly undeserved (the essay now looks like dreadful waffle to me - basically just 'on the one hand, and on the other', with no clear conclusion - though a clear conclusion might easily make it even worse), but undeserved praise is definitely a lot more enjoyable than undeserved criticism :) So thanks again, and all the best.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In section And Then There Were None, the four bullet points 1963 to 1977 must be wrong about the 1963 title or confused about subsequent titles in more complex way. If the list covers the novel and other print forms, then it must be written carefully in that regard. --16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about ANY of these publications that Tlhslobus cited to make any corrections, but I'd like to make this suggestion. For decades, this book has been published in the United States as And Then There Were None even when the rhyme inside was still "Ten Little Indians" and the two references to "nigger in the woodpile" were still in print. Just as Ten Little Indians was an alternate title in the United States to And Then There Were None, might it be possible that And Then There Were None was an alternate title to Ten Little Niggers in Britain before 1985 and what really changed wasn't the title but rather the text, which now matched the American version. Does anybody have a copy of this 1963 British edition so we can know for sure? Edward J. Cunningham (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The British Library catalogue is free to access online and confirms that the 1963 Fontana [Collins] edition was called "Ten Little Niggers". I have a copy in front of me of the 13th impression (September 1971) of that 1963 edition and the title had not changed by then. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Michael. I'll check and see where either the catalog(ue) at the Library of Congress has similar information as to when "Then Little Indians" became "Ten Little Soldiers." It won't be easy because you cannot tell from the title. I may have to do this the hard way and go to a brick-and-mortar library to look up newspaper articles. I strongly suspect that this change took place in 2007, but I can't prove it. As much of a help as the internet has been for the spread of knowledge, it's frightening at how quickly that same information can disappear rapidly. Edward J. Cunningham (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

General John Gordon Macarthur
The term "life preserver" is ambiguous. Was he killed with a club or a lifebelt or a lifebuoy, all of which can have this name? (I am guessing not a lifejacket.) There is a link, but it would be better to have a non-ambiguous term in the first place. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr. Armstrong said he had been hit by a "life preserver or some such thing" but that he couldn't find "the actual weapon used", so he is just guessing based on the wound, which we know from the epilogue is a skull fracture, and not because he saw a lifebuoy lying on the ground. Therefore I think that Dr. Armstrong was using the "club" sense of "life preserver", and we shouldn't link to Lifebuoy as though that is the likely meaning. Since Dr. Armstrong is unsure of the murder weapon himself I don't think there's any benefit to mentioning it at all. (As they search the island later for the revolver and nobody mentions a bloody or cracked lifebuoy, I think it's likely the weapon was in fact a heavy club-like object that the murderer promptly cast into the sea, but that is speculation and doesn't belong here.)Lee Choquette (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A life preserver is a Victorian term for a club - nothing to do with a lifebelt or a lifebuoy. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the link was to the generic term life preserver disambiguation page, which should not be done. Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Arabic title
Based on a quick Google translation, it seems the Arabic translation has multiple titles. The English translation there should be changed. -KaJunl (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Main image
Is there a consensus that it is most appropriate for the main picture to be of a book with the old title? -KaJunl (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Purely speculation based on pictures in articles on music album, but I believe there may be some reasons around the non-free use nature of the cover art which causes us to use images of the original editions. an admin with experience on these things. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we generally use the first edition cover, even if the book's name changed (and here for obvious reasons). The caption does explain the discrepancy here so it should be fine. --M ASEM  (t) 16:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Checking WikiProject Books and WikiProject Novels, both establish a preference for the original edition to be included in the infobox. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Periods in US
I took out some periods and changed U.S. to US for consistency with later instances of "US" in the article. I am wondering why one my edits was reverted but not another. I don't have a preference for U.S. vs. US (maybe there is a style guide recommending one or the other), but I do think it should be consistent across the article. -KaJunl (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of a slur
Why do we need to have the original cover depicting the book when it's not even printed like that anymore? I think we should have that cover somewhere else in the article, but definitely not as the main image. TheWompEditor (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the image used to illustrate a book is (if possible) the cover of the first edition. Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That, and "white-washing" history is not what wikipedia is for. 2.242.124.16 (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on And Then There Were None. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.insightbb.com/~jsmarcum/agatha40.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/21-best-selling-books-of-all-time.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020054100/http://www.pekaeditorial.com/ to http://www.pekaeditorial.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a curiosity
I just wanted to add a curiosity that I didn't find in the page. Remember the Scotland Yard's ispector Sir Thomas Legge? I just wanted to advise you that the word "Legge", in italian (my mother tongue), means "Law"... so a man working for the respect of the law, whose surname is also Law, was the receiver of a letter sent by another (but "evil") lawman. I don't know if Agatha Christie knew this italian word (maybe she knew the latin one Lex, Legis), but the result was very accurate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.51.84.97 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Title used in article
The book was written as ‘Ten Little Niggers’ and known as this for many years. In more recent years, the alternative title ‘And Then There Were None’ has been introduced by the Christie estate to cater for objections to the original title. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Part 1: Should the article title be ‘Ten Little Niggers’ or ‘And Then There Were None’?
 * Part 2: Should the novel be described throughout the page as ‘Ten Little Niggers’ or ‘And Then There Were None’?
 * I know that the title Ten Little Indians is very popular, and many people will use that to refer to the book instead of And Then There Were None. But it's wishful thinking to believe that ATTWN is a "new" title. It's been the main title for all American editions since 1939, and for British editions since 1985. It was not introduced by Agatha Christie's estate, but by Agatha Christie herself. Considering not only how long the title And Then There Were None has been in use, but also how long Ten Little Niggers has been OUT of use, I don't see any reason to use the former in favor of the latter. On top of which is the offensiveness with which "nigger" holds in both American and now British culture, I think using the original title is pointless. Perhaps there would be a point in reinstating the title if it was what many foreign languages translate this title into---"Ten Little Negros" or "Ten Little Blacks." But at best, those titles would raise eyebrows. "Ten Little Niggers" would start fights, and while this is a classic mystery, nobody can intelligently claim that the word "nigger" is essential to the greatness of this book as it is to Mark Twain's The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn.


 * What would be an almost acceptable alternative would be what has been a popular ALTERNATE title for this book (and main title for the play) for many years, which would be Ten Little Indians. But there's the rub! This is the decision that the estate of Agatha Christie recently made concerning the book. It had nothing to do with introducing the title And Then There Were None because that has been used from the very beginning. Instead, the estate ELIMINATED Ten Little Indians as an alternate title for the book and retitled the play to match the book. If anybody has objections to replacing "Ten Little Indians" with "Ten Little Soldiers" then that should be the objection. If you think that the elimination of "Ten Little Niggers" has been done in recent years, then please be aware that Margaret Thatcher is no longer Prime Minister. Edward J. Cunningham (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The original title is Ten Little Indians, despise you say it is very popular. Please, do not generalize: Ten Little Niggers is still the most used Spanish title of the work (Diez negritos, not that terrible spanglish gibberish you wrote Ten Little Negros). In fact, if you write in Amazon SPAIN, the word diez (ten), it automatically suggests you negritos (little niggers), showing 2017 editions. When you look for Y no quedó ninguno (And Then There Were None), you get a 2013 edition, but if you look at all the covers with that title, you see it side of this: DIEZ NEGRITOS. Also, in Spanish it doesn't have the pejorative term as in American/British.


 * Another thing, the page should be Then Little Niggers (TLN), because that's the work it represents, despise the writer changed the title afterwards. That new title should redirect to the original one. In that page, you can read a false statement: And Then There Were None, a 1939 novel by Agatha Christie. When it was published, its title was and will always be Ten Little Niggers. You might add, again, on the page, the info (with the proper references) that she PERSONALLY changed the title to And Then There Were None, and it was not an editorial changes due to the Great Migration of 1910-1930.


 * Franzrogar (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If "negritos" in Spanish doesn't have the pejorative connotations of "nigger", then it isn't really a translation of that word. It is, instead, the equivalent of the English phrase "black men". Even the English word "negro" is somewhat more emotionally loaded than the Spanish term. --Khajidha (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Indians vs. Soldiers
It is not quite clear to me from the article whether modern publications (in the US/UK) are using soldiers or Indians (of both). It sounded like it has switched to soldiers but the current version of the rhyme section still uses Indians. -KaJunl (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The verse as shown in this article is quite puzzling. I must admit that I have not read the book for several decades, and I know that it has a history of 'controversy' over the verse around which it is centred.  Nevertheless, when did these 'soldier boys' get introduced either into the novel or the Wikipedia entry for it?  I realise that the original title of the book was offensive, but Wikipedia is being less than encyclopaedic if it includes a photo of the original cover but then bowdlerises the relevant poem around which the entire book - including original title and controversy - is structured?
 * This current censorship does Wikipedia, its readers and its editors, as well as all of us who find the terms offensive and outdated and have valid points to make in this article, a great disservice; I suggest that unless there is a very strong, clear argument for the change the verse should be as originally used by Ms Christie. (I have not yet even mentioned all of those military service-people who are no doubt disgusted at the epithets implied in the current version.) Ambiguosity (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the copy I have used "Indians", but the write up on this book at www.agathachristie.com quotes from the text using "soldier boy" so that would appear to be the currently authorized version. I do see your point about having the quotation be the actual original form, but I'm not sure if there is consensus for that change. --Khajidha (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Title translations again
It's fair enough to list the titles in other languages, though they ought to be sourced, or at least have publiction places and dates as other translations may exist wih different titles too. But without a source, we have no business translating those titles "back into English" ourselves--that's original research. I have spotted a number of instances where I find the back translation dubious. That entire secondary table ought to be removed. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't see a need for them at all. We have the interwiki links for that. But I definitely agree with you on the back to English point. look at the Croatian and Serbian titles, those are the exact same words in different alphabets. But we are expected to believe that the English meaning changes because of that? Is there really a difference in usage of the word "crnaca" between the two countries? --Khajidha (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Whoops, I looked the page wrong. But there are enough pairs of similar languages that my point should stand even if the example was wrong.
 * Look at all the languages where we are told that the title translates as "little black boys" or "little black men", do they REALLY mean that or do they actually mean "little blacks" with the understanding that 1) these are black people and 2) the word for black in this language has a masculine grammatical gender? --Khajidha (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree: the back-translations are indeed original research. In the last 12 months nobody has even attempted to justify their continued existence in this article. Would you care to delete them?  --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just gone ahead and done it myself. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Plot summary, characters, and refs for stage adaptations
I did a series of edits, to take a few words out of the long plot summary, and many words from the Character descriptions, which duplicated what was said in the plot summary. Then I sought references for the Stage adaptations with some success. I almost read the August 1944 article from the Dundee Evening Register that showed the play's title in the search returns, but the British Newspaper Archive wanted me to register, and so far the registration process failed me, so I cannot confirm if the ending of their production is like the novel's ending, or like the play's ending. I will try again, or if someone else is registered with British Newspaper Archive, feel free to beat me to it. Ah, this Oxford version of British English is new to me, so if I erred in spelling, please do correct me. This novel has quite a history to it, as well as in it. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

What to spin off?
Which sections do you have in mind for spinning off? All of the adaptations, as most of them are significant adaptations, like the play written by Agatha Christie, and the list of them is long? The parodies section seems like a lot of original research -- that is, no review or news article stating that the new piece of art intended to imitate, or was inspired by, this novel or one of its screen or stage adaptations. The concept of people isolated from others with murder occurring is common in murder mysteries, or so I believe. After the cited remarks by Conan Doyle, perhaps that could all be deleted. The Literary significance section seems strong. But I want to know why you placed that flag on top of the article back in December 2017. Prairieplant (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I added a table to the section on the lyrics of the song, but deleted the Parodies section, as having no citations. In its place, I wrote a short un-cited paragraph in the introduction to the Adaptations section. Those two sentences may not last long. There is a Translated page template on this talk page now. I would move the table showing the timeline of adaptations to its own article, but I am not quite sure how to do that. In passing, I changed some section titles to the more usual title in an article about a novel, Publication history, The title. If the changes are not improvements, then revert them. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

British English, but Oxford spellings, eh?
This was a new one to me. For others seeking guidance on just how to spell words following the Oxford English guide, here is one helpful web page from Oxford Dictionaries dot com, on the -ize and -ise words, and the -yse and -yze words too. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image
Let's reconsider if the first edition of the book is the best lead image. The book has not had the n-word on the cover in a long time. If you were browsing the Christie section of the bookstore you would not see the n-word printed on any of the covers. Many people don't even know the original title of the book.

Yes, I know the WikiProject Books guide says First edition covers are preferred. I also know that Wikipedia is not censored.

However. MOS:LEADIMAGE says avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. MOS:SHOCK says Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. WP:GRATUITOUS says that "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content and Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.

I absolutely agree that the original title of the book should be present in the article in some form per WP:NOTCENSORED. But the lead image should probably be replaced per the image guidelines I've cited. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I undid your changes, which you made without waiting for a reply from any editor. All the articles on books by Agatha Christie have the first edition cover. You chose an arbitrary 1973 cover. This article is frequently being changed by editors who do not like to see that original title for the copy first published in the UK, or do not even like to see the words of the title in the text. Wikipedia is presenting it as it happened, and that is mentioned in the boxes at the top of this talk page.


 * The cover from the first US edition is shown in the Title section of the article, which is the usual pattern for the articles about her novels, where the US and UK covers and/or titles were different. Agatha Christie wrote a novel that has maintained its popularity over decades and with several different titles over time, as people react differently to the book's title, and differently in different nations. That is reality. I suppose I am sorry you are shocked by that first edition cover, now back in the infobox, but the article tells the story of the publication of the novel and it is an interesting story. I take it as a lesson in how we change over the decades as to acceptable children's rhymes, and acceptable words to describe others. Other of her early novels reflect the common conversation of the times in which she wrote, and would not be so common now, like The Secret of Chimneys. Please do not remove the first edition cover from the infobox again. This topic has been much discussed on this Talk page. Thanks. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If you personally do not want to see that cover, look up to the boxes at the top of the Talk page, to Wikipedia is not censored., and you will find links there to change how you see the page, while leaving the article as it is. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's not that I personally don't want to see the original cover, it's that I feel the cover goes against the image guidelines that I've cited. As for the cover I chose being arbitrary: perhaps the best one to use would be the first cover with the modern title of the book. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 14:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not up for changing the cover image used in the infobox. This article contains words that might be censored elsewhere, which is why some editor put the box on this page, Wikipedia is not censored. You are trying to use another style guide to make a change that has long been rejected for this article. It is the true history of this novel, and Wikipedia chooses not to censor it. The cover of the first edition is the usual infobox image for articles about Agatha Christie novels, and other novels. It was not shocking to the UK when the book was published. It was many decades before the title was changed in the UK, as you can learn from reading the article. If you are on a campaign to make this change, you may want to take this up with a higher level of editor. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

U.N.Owen in translation
Just an interesting note. In other lannguages the name of Ulick Norman Owen & Una Nancy Owen are: Czech: Norman Zacharias Namy & Nancy Zasu Namyová Dutch: Norman Immanuel Manth & Nancy Isabelle Manth French: Algernon Norman O'Nyme & Alvina Nancy O’Nyme Hungarian: Valentine Adalbert Lacky & Victoria Ann Lacky Russian: Алек Норман Онім & Анна Ненсі Онім Slovak: N. E. Znamy --37.117.68.36 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: And Then There Were None and racial language
1. Should the lead image for the And Then There Were None article be the UK first edition with the original title, or a cover with the current title?

2. If the UK first edition cover with the original title is not used as a lead image, should the image appear elsewhere in the article? Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 20:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Question 1

 * Current title.
 * Although there is a general preference for using first edition covers in articles about books, this preference should not trump broader image guidelines. MOS:LEADIMAGE says avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. Would the average reader really expect to see a cover that does not match the title of the article or the current title of the book? MOS:SHOCKVALUE says Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. Is a cover that contains an offensive racist slur really the image of "least shock value"? Wouldn't a cover that uses the book's current title also accurately represent the topic?
 * Although Wikipedia is not censored, WP:GRATUITOUS says that "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content and Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Current title: the US first edition was issued under the current article title, and was published at the same time as the British edition. Switching to this version would also satisfy the principle of least astonishment – readers come to the article and would see a cover with the same title as the article. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 00:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Original title Re: the US first edition was … published at the same time as the British edition. Yes, but the book is British! The controversy about the name has existed almost since the book came out and is a significant part of the book's fame/notoriety. No good reasom is offered for deviating from 'original cover'. Pincrete (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to admit that the controversy's extremely well covered in the article though, and I really can't see how the infobox image adds to that (the difference between the image and the article title without explanation just seems to muddy the waters). I'm sure you're not, (and sorry if this comes across badly) but it does seem a bit like arguing for the "correct" name of a work rather than how's it's referred to now. (And just for the record, I'm a Brit, just not convinced that using our first edition image, with Agatha's original title, helps the article!) &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 14:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't take offence and would think that the book is possibly best known now for the title controversy - coverage of that does not seem excessive, though it may not be always wholly coherent. If our custom is to use the first edition cover of the nation with which the work is associated, then a strong reason needs to be offered to deviate IMO. The 'least surprise' argument is valid, but I think readers confront bigger surprises daily when titles of books/films etc. differ between the two countries and they find they are reading about a book with a title (not just a cover), they've never heard of before. Pincrete (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can’t speak for anyone else, but I knew of the book and its basic premise for years before I heard about its original title and the controversy surrounding it. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose these changes to first edition cover, and placement of first US cover. Old words astonish some people, now that those words are deemed to be insulting. In 1939 when the British novel was published in the UK, the astonishing term was in the title, on the cover, and throughout the text. In the same time that the UK has changed its views on acceptable terms in children's rhymes, the novel has sold continuously, enjoying enormous popularity. If it had not sold so well, this article might not be here. But it did, and it is here, and its history is enlightening, educational, illuminating. The twisty argument that Not censoring means to look for the least astonishing images, well, it holds no water with me. There is one first edition cover, and it was not withdrawn instantly in the UK, with that title, but the title was used for 50 or 60 of the novel's nearly 80 years in print. Further I think that it is more than a general preference to use the first edition cover in the infobox.


 * The US edition cover is already in the article, in the section on The Title, following the practice for Agatha Christie novels published in the US and the UK at the same time but under different titles. For the 20 instances when publication was first in the US, then the US cover is in the infobox as first edition cover. I was startled by the novel's story, but also interested to learn of the difference in the US and the UK in 1939, and also to see how many translations used the UK terms. But I see no reason to hide its history, which is what the proposer of these changes is striving to do, under any guise or policy possible. I believe that gains and changes are made among people by talking about the past and the changes made on the way to now, not hiding the past. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Original title for the reasons well stated by Prairieplant. And, by the way, the novel was published first in the UK, and only afterwards (admittedly only a few months later) in the US. The first edition cover should remain in the infobox. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Original title per Prairieplant. The point of the image in the infobox is to give the reader an idea of what the book looked like when people first saw it. That was the UK edition. In fact, there is precedent, just see Taken at the Flood and Five Little Pigs which both use the US cover with the modified title because they were released in the US before the UK. Both also feature the UK title in the "Publication history" section which is where I think the US cover should go in this case. Even our WP:NFCC policy allows having two different covers if there is sufficient critical commentary to accompany it (cf. Virgin Killer (careful, nude imagery!) for another example of where two covers can be legitimately used because the article, like this one, covers the controversy). Regards So  Why  12:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * TheVirgin Killer article is a very different situation and I personally have no problem with how that article uses the controversial cover. 1. The Virgin Killer controversy relates to the album's image, not its title, making it hard to discuss the controversy without showing the image. Meanwhile, the And Then There Were None controversy is strictly about the words in title, meaning that the addition of an image doesn't necessarily add to the reader's understanding. 2. It seems likely that the controversy over the album's image is the primary thing of interest about the album. Meanwhile there is broad interest in the book and its underlying story that goes beyond interest in the controversy. Acording to the article, And Then There Were None has had more adaptations than any other single work by Agatha Christie, and most of those adaptations do not use the controversial original title. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if you were right about Virgin Killer, you have not addressed the rest of my comment, especially the part that articles about other works by Christie have had two covers for years and always the first edition in the infobox. So yes, I will argue that doing it differently in this case would sacrifice the quality of the article because readers have come to expect, from many other articles, that the first image is the oldest if possible and not a later change even if that change is more widely known. Regards So  Why  19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No policy or guideline says that a book article should have the oldest possible cover. It's certainly a custom, and most book articles follow it, but then, why wouldn't they? If you're going to pick from a selection of covers why not pick the first? But I don't know if it's what readers expect per se. Speaking for myself, I never noticed that Wikipedia articles tended to use first edition covers until recently. I think what readers expect is a lead image that is appropriate and representative of the article. In most cases a first edition cover will be, but in this case, using the first edition cover seems to violate the MoS's lead image guidelines. As for the other Agatha Christie articles that have a mis-match between the title and the lead image, well, they may be borderline per the guidelines, but they don't contain any offensive slurs so they're a different kettle of fish. To me, illustrating And Then There Were None with the original cover would be like making the lead image for the Looney Toons article an offensive blackface caricature from one of the Censored Eleven. Of course no one denies that Looney Toons has some racism in its history or that the article shouldn't cover it, but it would still be odd to center the racism in such an in-your-face way. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 01:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Original title per Prairieplant & SoWhy. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Original title Much clearer historical context, and allows readers to see what the bok looked like in its British edition. Dimadick (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Current title (or none) The MOS-based arguments above are more convincing. Given the article title, it does not make sense to suddenly show the cover of a different book, even it might be justified in this case as the "first" cover. As a compromise, a lead image could simply be omitted and both covers shown later within the article. Jmar67 (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Current and both – lead with the image that matches the article title, then follow with the first edition; it's a little bit shocking, sure, but way too confusing if it's right up top looking like someone vandalized the article. Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Two images in the infobox is an interesting compromise. Jmar67 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't really anticipate it as both "in the infobox". Is that even a thing? Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that might be what you meant. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some rule somewhere that prohibits it, however. Jmar67 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Current title leaving aside everything else, the purpose of a lead image, per MOS:LEADIMAGE is "to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." If they are searching for the book (which is still widely known, read, analyzed, and adapted on its own merits), they should see the title they are most likely to be familiar with, to confirm "they've arrived at the right page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just a Rube (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Current title per WP:ASTONISH, MOS:LEADIMAGE, and Manual of Style/Novels. The mismatch between the cover and the title of this article is confusing at best for readers; when I first looked at this article I was incredibly confused about why that image was in the infobox because there is no indication that the image goes with this article. I had to read the lead to understand what that image was doing in the article. The controversy regarding the original cover is discussed extensively in the article and there's no reason to confuse readers who came here for a plot synopsis. Arguments that it should be kept in the lead because it was first are pedantic and unconvincing. We don't apply that standard to article titles for good reason (it makes navigating the encyclopedia hard), and if And Then There Were None is what contemporary English readers know this book as then the lead image should match that expectation as explained in MOS:LEADIMAGE. This isn't about trying to "hide it's history" (there is an entire section on that and it's the second sentence in the lead in bold), it's about making sure readers aren't confused by an image of a book with a title completely different from what they put in the search box. Beyond this, the manual of style for selecting what image to use in articles about novels says sometimes authors make drastic revisions to texts and later editions are considered to be the "preferred" edition which seems the case here since the title was changed merely months after the first publication and is now almost invariably known by the newer title. Nothing in the MOS requires the image be the first edition, in fact it makes clear that it doesn't have to be: often this is the first edition, but occasionally it is not. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notice that it was 47 years until the title was changed in the UK editions of this novel by a UK author, from 1939 first edition to the 1986 edition noted as the last one using the original UK title. The US used a different title from the start, as you will find by reading the rest of article. The US first edition came out 3 months after the UK edition, a trivial amount of time as you noted, and that difference of titles happened with Agatha Christie novels, one in the UK, another in the US editions. For Wikipedia articles, the UK title is used. The 47 years of using the title shown in the infobox is the issue. Two different issues regarding the title, just one is at issue, just to have that straight. Glad you cast your vote. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Question 2

 * No: per WP:GRATUITOUS, wmf:Resolution:Controversial content, and the fact that articles do not usually contain multiple different covers for the same book. Mentioning the original title in prose is sufficient. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes Upon consideration I've changed my vote. I've decided the original cover does have historical value, and that while it clearly should not be the lead image, it does belong in the section on the title controversy. My final vote is current title for question one and yes for question two. Here is a mockup: Wandering Wanda  (they/them) (t/c) 03:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes: I've argued above for use as main image - but I see no reason to NOT use the original cover elsewhere if not as main image. The whole point about the title is that its use would not have seemed so offensive (for various reasons) in the UK at the time of publication. If nothing else therefore, the cover illustrates a cultural shift in the approx. 90 years inbetween. Pincrete (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant question, the first edition UK cover belongs in the infobox, and is an important part of the story of this novel. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant question per Prairieplant. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant question per Prairieplant. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * *Irrelevant question per Prairieplant. Dimadick (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes But an alternative to showing the original cover would be to link to it so that it would be available to anyone wanting to see it. Jmar67 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the section on the title. It's relevant to that discussion, and I'd argue that the grossly stereotyped dancing figures on the cover further illustrate the point about the change in attitudes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just a Rube (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional discussion

 * please withdraw this RfC as malformed, rewrite and then resubmit. Per WP:RFCBRIEF, they should be short and simple and neutral; malheuresmemt I fear this is neither. I appreciate you must have put a lot of work into it, but suggest a close read of the page above, as well as the essay WP:Writing requests for comment, which, although an essay, will provide a broader context and more examples. ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Serial Number 54129: Thanks, rewritten. Do you think it's acceptable as it is now? Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 19:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Made an additional change: completely eliminating option 3 as it is probably too broad. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 20:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Some changes to the RfC were made soon after it was posted. The original version included an additional question 3 which has been withdrawn. I've reproduced question 3 and my response below:

3. In general, should an attempt be made to reduce the number of times the n-word appears in the article, or is the current usage of the word acceptable? Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is a trickier question so I will think about a bit before voting. But I'll note that the n-word currently appears in the article 32 times, by my count, not counting references. (It mentions the original book title, or adaptations that use the original title, 16 times. It uses the n-word 11 times when it quotes the original rhyme in full. And then the word is mentioned an additional 5 times.) For comparison: the article Racism in the United States does not contain the n-word. African Americans uses the n-word 4 times or (9 times if you count the ending-in-a variation.) Slavery in the United States uses it 0 times. The article on Django Unchained, a movie notorious for its heavy use of the word, uses it 5 times. Agatha Christie uses it 0 times. The book Duchess of Death: The Unauthorized Biography of Agatha Christie by Richard Hack seems to use it 12 times (based on an Amazon search.) Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 20:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a guideline that hasn't been brought up, from. It supports the idea that the lead image does not necessarily have to be the first edition:
 * Comment: WP:GRATUITOUS mentions the principle of least astonishment – using the US first edition cover would mean that the image has the same title as the article. The British first edition cover could be included later (though I'm not sure that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" from WP:NFCCP). I'm not convinced that the same material relating to the title needs to be repeated in both and reception and  sections, and there isn't really any need to have extended quotes which use the original title when not discussing it directly. The section  with its complete text of the poem, and comparison with two early versions seems outside the scope of an encyclopedia article on the book, and should almost certainly just be entirely removed. Also not convinced that the publication history section needs to go into that much detail either (I can't remember seeing another book covered in this way, but other Christie novels might be). The timeline of adaptations also seems redundant to the other adaptation sections. All of these things add up to repeat the original title... a lot; not sure there's any need, it doesn't seem proportionate to the issue in my opinion, and the article would benefit from being cut back to be closer to what a FA on this topic would look like. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 00:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy about Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED is questioned by one editor. The book's original title and first edition cover were Ten Little Niggers. From the start, the novel was published under the title And Then There Were None in the US, which is the title of the article. It is a top selling novel, estimated to have sold 100 million copies since publication. Many editors seeing the article remove the term, everywhere or in a few places, as the term is unacceptable in the US and the UK now, but the history of the novel and its various titles as views on that word have changed since original publication in 1939 is told in the article, which requires using the word. I think the debate has happened many times. Is Wikipedia still not censored, to tell the story of the popular novel and its interesting history? --Prairieplant (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Note: This comment was originally posted in reply to my RfC notice on the WikiProject Book's talk page. I did not think it was the appropriate venue for the comment (See: Canvassing), so I've taken the liberty of moving it here. Wandering Wanda  (they/them) (t/c) 05:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not challenging the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. I am not calling for the n-word to be completely removed from the article or for the history of the book to be removed. WP:NOTCENSORED needs to be balanced with other policies like WP:NEUTRAL. It's true that sometimes, because Wikipedia is not censored, we have to mention offensive slurs. But, because Wikipedia is supposed to always cover things neutrally and proportionally, we should never go out of our way to mention them. And right now the book's article feels like it's going out of its way to use the n-word. If there was an article that focused exclusively on the And Then There Were None naming controversy, I wouldn't have a problem with the lead image being a cover with the n-word. But it's inappropriate for the main article about a book that hasn't had the word in its title for decades. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how right now the book's article feels like it's going out of its way to use the n-word. All we have is the original title in the infobox and in the lead and then later a whole section dedicated to the title which only mentions the n-word four times in as many paragraphs. The n-word appears 40 times in the article, 30 of which are mentions that cannot be avoided because they are either in the rhyme that is replicated, mentions of other editions and adaptions or in references. Other two mentions are quotes. So yes, it's mentioned, but actually far fewer than one might expect in a similar article. Regards So  Why  12:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The image presented in the table should be the most significant cover historically for that book; often this is the first edition, but occasionally it is not. For example, sometimes authors make drastic revisions to texts and later editions are considered to be the "preferred" edition.

Putting aside everything but the lead image question: it just feels crystal clear to me that the UK first edition should not be used as the lead image. I say that as someone who agrees with Wikipedia's general policy that we shouldn't be coy about difficult subjects. I'm 100% in favor of the human penis article putting a big ol' penis in the lead image, for example. And, although I'm choosing not to use the n-word here on the talk page, I 100% understand that Wikipedia articles that deal with racism have to be frank and sometimes use offensive slurs and imagery. But for this particular article, I do not think the "10 Little N..." cover is a good representative image, and I don't think it's consistent with the lead image guidelines. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you accept the views of others? The MOS quote above makes it clear that the original cover is the most significant, being both first and in the current century, controversial. That makes it significant. I hope you can see that. Let us bring this to a close and leave the infobox alone. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The very next sentence indicates that a good reason to use an alternate cover is if a later revised edition becomes the "preferred" edition, which is exactly what's happened in this case. I've also brought up multiple other guidelines that the lead image is violating, like MOS:SHOCK: Lead images should be of least shock value. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 08:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The "shock" in this case is the n-word in the title. That argument ignores the fact that the original title is mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead (and the infobox) as well, so the "shock" cannot be prevented by removing the image from the infobox but would require all mentions of the original title to be removed from the lead, which is clearly incompatible with MOS:LEAD. That said, I'm pretty sure that MOS:SHOCK does not refer to images that merely contain text that is also in the lead because the point of said guideline is to allow readers to skip the article's more shocking images (like in Holocaust, the article the guideline explicitly mentions). In this case though, readers cannot avoid the "shocking" word because even if the image were removed, it has to appear in the lead. Regards So  Why  09:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between the word appearing in prose and it appearing in giant, red letters in an eye-catching image.
 * I also think there's WP:NPOV considerations here. Enshrining the original cover of the book in such a prominent way, when the publisher and reliable sources and people in general just don't use the old title anymore (except when specifically talking about the controversy), is giving the offensive original cover WP:UNDUE weight. If the book was only popular when it had an offensive slur in the title, that would be a different matter, but there was a BBC TV adaptation of the book just a couple of years ago, which demonstrates a continued interest in the book and its story. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Enshrining? It is simply words on a book cover that is mainly words, . It is the history that is of interest, and erasing the cover does not change the history. Time to let this go! --Prairieplant (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a mockup of what the page would look like if the US and UK covers were swapped. (In other words, if current title won option 1 but yes won option 2):




 * 1. The lead image now matches the title and better conforms to the lead image guidelines. 2. The section on the title controversy now has an image that more directly relates to the section. 3. Absolutely nothing is erased from the article. Seems like a good compromise solution to me. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What you've called 'compromise' seems to consist of ignoring consensus so far and accepting your preferred answer to question 1. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft is at least helpful to illustrate one possible outcome of the discussion, rather than trying to describe it verbally. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

For some factual background, the first edition UK cover image was prepared in 2007 by a Wikipedia editor for use in this and one other article, which you can read by clicking on the image and then on Details. The image was moved up to the infobox at this edit here, done on October 25, 2007, about 11.5 years ago, and been in that position since that time. Prior, it was in the Publication history and some now-unavailable image was in its place. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is the bogus Yankee title being used?
For the name of this article?

Use the book's actual title. 205.189.94.12 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Agatha Christie Limited, this is the book's actual title now. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Agatha Christie Limited" is not Agatha Christie herself, its a company, which does censorship on the title according to the laws, which is censorship and goes in conflict with uncensored wikipedia. Use the actual title. 89.1.159.31 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They own the copyrights that still exist on her novels. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
This request requires extended confirmed editors since it needs to use words that are blacklisted by edifilters.

Currently, a redirect (remove the spaces in the N-word to see the actual link, the N-word being banned) points here. There should be a hanote to point to the disambiguation page Ten Little N i g g e r s (disambiguation) (again, remove the spaces in the N-word)

So please add:

(remembering to remove the spaces from the two instances of the N-word in that code)

-- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. That redirect should have pointed to the main disambiguation page at Ten Little Niggers instead, and so I've updated the redirect, making the request here moot. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Cover image
The discussion above about changing the infobox to use a picture with the current title closed with no consensus and defaulted to no change. However,the image was subsequently changed by an unregistered editor in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None&oldid=937665669 back in January 2020. Given that this was against the standing consensus I was going to change it back, but thought that the 8 months it had been allowed to stand might signify a change in consensus and decided to bring the matter up for discussion. --Khajidha (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your approach. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the two covers ought to be switched to the original layout. This article has so many edits, changing the words by those who are offended by them, as well as those who want to lengthen either the plot summary or the character descriptions, it is hard to keep up with all of them. I would undo the January 2020 change, myself. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have swapped the two images (and captions) back to the long-standing consensus version. --Khajidha (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)