Talk:Agatha Christie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAgatha Christie has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
February 22, 2009Good article nomineeListed
March 10, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 11, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 22, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that public reaction to Agatha Christie's eleven-day disappearance in 1926 included speculation the incident was an attempt to frame Archie Christie, her then husband, for murder?
Current status: Good article

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment[edit]

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

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Source for 20 July 2017 edits[edit]

I have undone the good-faith edits of Notthebestusername because of sourcing problems. The source cited to support these several additions includes a link to video content that appears to be unrelated to Christie. It's just possible that there's an extremely long ad—more than two minutes—that plays first, but it's impossible to know what's going on because the web site is not in English. Even if the BBC program does eventually play from that url, I have concerns that the site may be hosting a copyright violation. If so, we must not link to it. I'd suggest trying to find a link to an authorized upload of the program. (There are official BBC channels on YouTube, for instance.) RivertorchFIREWATER 14:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, actually the video sourced is the BBC video made using David Suchet. I amkign the edits while watching the David Suchet video, with interviews with Christies grandson and biographers, simultaneously reading parts of Christie's autobiography. As for the advert you are seeing in the link - I live in China, hence have given the youku video link as I am unable to give "You tube" links without using a vpn - usign a vpn by default makes Wikipedia suspect any edits! The youku videos usually start with a 90 second advert in Chinese followed by the actual videos. Youku is the Chinese version of you tube except that the picture quality in youku is often far better than you tube). I will revert back the edits, deleting the youku link. But you will find the same video on youtube. Do let me know if you feel any of the actual matter contained in them is not correct. Notthebestusername (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for responding. I'm reviewing your subsequent edits now, but here's the problem: it doesn't matter whether it's hosted on Youku or YouTube—if it's a copyrighted program uploaded by anyone who doesn't own the copyright, we can't link to it. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right, I did a major copyedit on your additions. It looks as if you found some worthwhile information, so thanks. In the bit about the photo, I removed the phrase "by a pile of woods" because it doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know whether you meant a pile of wood, singular (if so, firewood? lumber? the trunks of felled trees?), or woods, plural (i.e., forest, copse, etc.), but it may not be important.
For the Suchet reference, you might try using Template:Cite AV media. I did find the whole program on YouTube, properly licensed but behind a paywall. It's not available in its entirety on either the BBC or PBS channels. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Rivertorch. I am currently reading one of Agatha Christie's biographies and as I find this information in it, I will provide a cross reference to that too. - Notthebestusername (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested update[edit]

I was looking at the Agatha Christie page and the sidebar column on the right indicates a link to Ms. Christie's daughter, Rosalind Hicks. That link actually takes you back to the page for Agatha Christie. 850commando (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the link. Thanks for pointing it out. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many books?[edit]

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

Promotion to GA?[edit]

I see that this article reached GA for a brief period in 2009 but was then delisted. It has now been expanded to about three times its 2009 length and has been far better referenced. It looks to me that with some general improvements in presentation and some careful copyediting, the article could be quickly brought up to GA standard. I'll see if I can devote some time to it myself but would appreciate assistance. I think it goes without saying that Christie is one of the world's most significant female authors, receiving an average of some 5,000 page views a day on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it's generally in better shape than in 2009, although I do think that some of the sourcing still could be improved. Since I've been watching it for over a decade, I'll try to join you. (My on-wiki time is very limited just now.) RivertorchFIREWATER 06:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The further reading list - should we kill it?[edit]

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

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

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

Delete I really don't think it would be missed. JezGrove (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Your logic is impeccable DavidWBrooks HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Let's see if it draws reaction. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


SchroCat - We've both seen a lot worse, but I'd be inclined to the house for the present. KJP1 (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Let's go with the house, then circle back to this in a few months. This really should be at FA standard, given the importance, but 2019 would be a better time to start that push. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It would be nice if here, or as a link that is easy to wee, there is a list of her works.Kdammers (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's under the "Writing" section: Agatha Christie bibliography - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Childhood and adolescence: 1890–1910[edit]

Minor factual detail:

Following the referenced biography, the Childhood and adolescence section states that Christie's grandfather 'Boehmer was killed in a riding accident while stationed on Jersey in April 1863'. Although Boehmer's death notice does say 'late of the 4th King's Own' (Hampshire Telegraph, 18 April 1863), he retired from the Army in 1860 ( so would not seem to have been 'stationed' in Jersey at the time of his death. Unless other evidence is provided, it would be better to simply state that 'Boehmer was killed in a riding accident in Jersey in April 1863'. RLO1729 (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The suggested edit has been applied. RLO1729 (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A number of book sources in the reference list included a page number which appeared to be the total number of pages in the book rather than the page supporting the information given in the biography. Where obvious, these page numbers have been removed but there are still a few cases where I am uncertain if it is the right page number or not. Can anyone confirm please?

Also, three very similar sources appear in the reference list:

  • Thomson, Laura (10 July 2008). Agatha Christie. London. ISBN 0755314883. [Resolved RLO1729 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
  • Thompson, Laura (2008), Agatha Christie: An English Mystery, London, UK: Headline Review, ISBN 978-0-7553-1488-1
  • Thompson, Laura. Agatha Christie, An English Mystery (p. 473). Headline, 2007; ISBN 978-0-7553-1487-4. [Resolved RLO1729 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

Can these be reduced to only one source with relevant page numbers in the text? RLO1729 (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "similar sources" issue above is now resolved but the "total number of pages" issue is still live. RLO1729 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christie photographs[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

Editing partnership[edit]

This is to record, with thanks, the significant and valuable collaboration of Tbytheriver in the series of edits of this article I have made since October 2019.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

"Works, reception, and legacy" section overlap with "Agatha Christie bibliography"[edit]

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

Some summary repetition of information from the bibliography is certainly appropriate to provide continuity and completeness in the present article, but where is the balance? Also, the majority of bullet points in this section are in the "Titles" section and present information on the origins of Christie's book titles rather than repeating information in the bibliography. Or should that information be moved to the bibliography? Thoughts?  ~ RLO1729💬 09:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Possible categories[edit]

I didn't know that Christie's mother was from Ireland! Should this article be categorized under "English people of Irish descent" and possibly "English people of German descent" judging by the surnames? This is of course, if the sources support it. TJMSmith (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You bring up interesting points about her ancestry. But Agatha's mother was not actually Irish--she was born there only because her father's British Army regiment was stationed in Ireland at the time. And, while Agatha herself was at least 1/8 German (through her mother's paternal grandfather), none of the published biographies go into this; it could be proven, but only by piling up lots of sources to create her family tree. On her American side, by the way, she also had ancestors who were Swiss, Dutch, and Scottish.Tbytheriver (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like it isn't a defining characteristic so I wouldn't include it. Thanks for the explanation! TJMSmith (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Agatha Christie/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Posting my comments from next week. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, many thanks Sainsf!  ~ RLO1729💬 04:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have taken a good look at the article now and I will post my comments over the next few days. SchroCat, thank you for your scrutiny of the article, it is great to have another pair of eyes check a long and important article like this. I read the points you raised and I agree with you.. one might suspect POV issues with the wording in places, incomplete coverage in Portrayals and apparent lack of sources in some sections where citations may not be necessary per MOS guidelines, but adding citations helps a lot as they "stop the "fact" being challenged later on". I especially appreciate the footnotes suggestion as it fixes a lot of these issues. Apart from that there are a few unreliable sources as mentioned. RLO1729, thanks for actively addressing some of the issues, we will handle the rest as we move ahead with the review. Let me compile my points and I will post them in batches. Cheers, Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 08:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So beginning with the comments: Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 18:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I am worried about quite a few instances of close paraphrasing from this source [1].
Plagiarism detector: reviewed top 25 listed (all matches of 9% and up). Four cases of unnecessarily close paraphrasing have been revised. The remaining issues flagged by the detector involve no violation: (plagiarized from an earlier version of Wikipedia’s Agatha Article)
Classiclodges: “Public reaction at the time was largely negative.” is a line probably stolen from Wikipedia, not the other way around.
All of the following either contained quotes which are properly punctuated as such and cited, or contained merely coincidences with book titles: Irish Times;, Christie's life & re interview with Sophie Hannah (quoted and cited properly); New Yorker (quoted and cited properly); bbctoday (quoted and cited properly); guardian on stamps (quoted and cited properly); guardian on Bletchley (quoted and cited properly); (quoted and cited properly); Christie reading list; Telegraph obituary (quoted and cited properly); famousauthors (quoted and cited properly); disappearance; the-mousetrap; Guardian favourite Christie novels; trovenla (quoted and cited properly); mainecrimewriters.  ~ RLO1729💬 07:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the thorough review. Yes, I mostly meant the first one or two sources listed. No more problems here. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see some duplinks, see them using this tool and link the terms only on first mention
My understanding has been that links in the lead section may be duplicated in the body text. I have checked previously for dup links and there are some that appear so but aren't really for various reasons, can you point to any specific cases that we can discuss please?  ~ RLO1729💬 01:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This tool does not show links from the lead repeated in the main text, it just shows repetitions within either main text or lead while including captions probably, not sure. No problem, I will mention the ones I see here. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Lead - Hercule Poirot
New dup introduced after text revision, removed.  ~ RLO1729💬 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Early literary attempts - The Little Lonely God
The same link is used for different text, taking readers to While the Light Lasts and Other Stories for both The House of Dreams and The Little Lonely God – suggest keeping both links.  ~ RLO1729💬 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Second marriage - absolute
The same link is used for different text with which readers may be unfamiliar, taking readers to Decree nisi for "decree nisi" and "absolute" – suggest keeping both links.  ~ RLO1729💬 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Adaptations - Murder on the Orient Express
Linked to different text earlier in article, but removed this link.  ~ RLO1729💬 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No dablinks or broken external links
Thanks, these issues are now resolved. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just corrected the name of a novel in one place, but that was because I saw a redlink. We need to check whether there are any more errors throughout the article.
Typo, thanks. I haven't found any similar cases.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • known for her sixty-six detective novels and fourteen short story collections Per the MOS numbers above ten should be in digits
MOS:NUMERAL indicates that "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". We would prefer words as in current version.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, no strict rule. Just a heads up as people often don't know about the guideline. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 03:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • published in 1920 featuring Hercule Comma after 1920
Revised sentence.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The second paragraph focuses significantly on the impact of Christie's personal life on her writing. But I would have liked to see proper biographic details in it too. Like we move straight to the 2nd marriage without discussing even the first one, and even there the husband is not named. I believe we need a concise paragraph with a good balance between personal details from her birth to her death (let me know if it becomes too long though) while also commenting on significant changes in her writing (maybe cite only one example from this, instead of three? The lead should include only the most important details, and personal details appear more important to me).
Agree; revised paragraph.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much better now. I would still like a final, short line about her illness and death and it would be good to add the year of her second marriage. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added both marriage years to lead. I started to add something about her death but date of death is already given at the start of the lead and the only other details in the body text are failing health 1971-74, conjectured (but not formally diagnosed) dementia, and died peacefully at home. Are these important enough to include separately in the lead given date of death is already there?  ~ RLO1729💬 21:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is that uncertain, let us leave them out of the lead. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If there is only one child then better take the name in the infobox instead of '1'.
I've deleted the item as her child Rosalind does not have a separate Wikipedia article and other bios do not generally just list children's names unless they can be blue-linked. An alternative would be to include her name and red-link it if we considered she should have her own article (though that has not been seen as necessary by other editors to date). Thoughts?  ~ RLO1729💬 01:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would personally like to be able to find the name of her child (or children) as a reader in the infobox, and a redlink won't bother me. But as editors we should go with what is mostly followed in other bios. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 03:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Childhood and adolescence
  • Too many short paragraphs can increase the section length unnecessarily and gives the article quite a bitty look. Maybe combine a few of them.
  • The second paragraph may be condensed and merged with the first. Some details in the first part of the para might be irrelevant and can be omitted. Similarly, I am not sure how relevant the details of the births of her older siblings are (3rd para), so again I would recommend condensing it.
  • She was surrounded by a series of strong and independent women from an early age 'Independent' may be a fact, but in whose opinion were they 'strong'? An idea to rewrite this is attribute this statement to the writer of the source. Here it seems to be a credible biography by a notable person, whose name you can take and say "Jane Morgan notes in her biography of Christie that.." which omits concerns of NPOV and OR.
  • Not sure if we need to mention the publication years of books she read in her childhood. The titles should do.
  • Although she devoted much time to her pets, Christie spent much of her childhood apart from other children I don't quite see the contradiction here to say 'although' at the start.
  • We can omit the terms "Christie's sister/brother", "her mother" once these people have been introduced. The names should suffice.
  • Why is "pension" italicized?
Revised section to address these points.  ~ RLO1729💬 23:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Early literary attempts and the First World War
  • she continued her social activities Are there any prior mentions of such activities? Let me know if I missed any
Will add a line or two; previous mentions of social activities include Childhood: would visit the homes of her step-grandmother/great-aunt Margaret Miller in Ealing and maternal grandmother Mary Boehmer in Bayswater, Childhood: her appearance with them in a youth production of Gilbert and Sullivan's The Yeomen of the Guard, and Early literary attempts: Christie attended many social functions and particularly enjoyed watching polo.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay I think I mistook social activities for social work! My bad. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 03:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, revised text to clarify anyway.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The House of Dreams,[20]) citations are typically placed after the bracket.
Corrected typo.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Christie wrote her first short story What year?
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One of her biographers has commented that If you do go with calling her by her name, replace mentions like 'one biographer' etc with 'Morgan'.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • made under pseudonyms (including Mac Miller, Nathaniel Miller, and Sydney West) Should these not be mentioned in the infobox? It appears as if Mary Westmacott was the only pen name she used. May be call it her most commonly used surname or something in the lead? Similarly for Monosyllaba and any others later.
Westmacott was the only pseudonym under which anything was actually published so I'd suggest is the only one needed in the infobox. This has also been clarified in the text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Though personally I feel it may create an impression that it is the only one on a quick reader, but let's follow what most articles do. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 03:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Christie then set her first novel, Snow Upon the Desert, in Cairo I think "Christie then began work on her first novel, Snow Upon the Desert, set in Cairo..." sounds better. Also, what year was this?
Working on this, the year was 1908 but her biographer has this completely wrong.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now revised.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • from a family friend and neighbour, successful novelist Eden Phillpotts "from successful novelist Eden Phillpotts, a family friend and neighbour" flows better
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Meanwhile, her social activities expanded Again, more details on this would be helpful.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • She then met Archibald Christie The name "Archie" used later should be mentioned here
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Her war service ended when Archie was reassigned to London Year? Keep mentioning years whenever there are important events like this.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First novels and Poirot
  • She wrote her own detective novel...moustaches" and egg-shaped head sounds a bit weird. Do you mean her "first" detective novel? Also, you later say She began working on The Mysterious Affair at Styles in 1916 which sounds repetitive. Maybe the line I mentioned first should be reworded "Her first detective novel was..."
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Poirot had taken refuge in Britain after Germany invaded Belgium. Should be merged with the earlier line
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • though they still employed a maid Seems irrelevant
Revised text slightly to emphasise the contrast between the low salary and what they considered indispensable – goes to world-view.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • as did short stories commissioned by Bruce Ingram May be the short stories publication should be described more. Especially as she faced many rejections initially.. did she face similar troubles here too? Also, since when did these short stories start appearing?
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More generally re this subsection: I have broadened the scope of the previous subsection heading ("Early literary attempts and the First World War 1910–1919" now "Early literary attempts, first marriage, literary success: 1910–1926") and deleted the heading "First novels and Poirot 1919–1926" to create a less chronologically restricted section. After following Archie's career to the end of WWI, this allows the slight backtracking in time to Christie writing Styles in 1916 (but not publishing it until 1920).
Impressive. I feel the prose flows much better after this. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The disappearance caused a public outcry Had she acquired a lot of fame by then? May be talk a bit about the success of her works in the previous section to give the idea.
The press brouhaha came out of nowhere, as press brouhahas often do. She was not “famous” before this. Will revise to clarify.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Revised text to emphasise the reason for the public interest.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some believe that she disappeared during a fugue state, including her biographer Janet Morgan To be changed to "including Morgan" if you go for mentioning her as said earlier
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Who is Jared Cade? Introduce him
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Laura Thompson provides the alternative view She is only called "one biographer" anonymously earlier, may be change those references to her actual name and continue likewise throughout the text. Or introduce her here.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second marriage and later life
  • The 2nd para maybe merged into the earlier one
We would prefer to keep it as a separate paragraph as "the whole period" refers to the earlier disappearance as well, rather than just from January 1927 where the previous para begins.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Christie would use settings that were familiar to her for her stories This should include a mention of Poirot, as his character was also influenced by her observation of Belgian refugees in real life. I am not sure where to place this paragraph though, as it is quite general and does not belong exactly to this part of her timeline. May be put it in Formula and plot devices?
I have struggled with this. I think the section needs to reference at least some of her writing over this time period and grouping some of her works by mentioning her use of familiar places is not a bad way to do this. Influences on Poirot's background have been mentioned previously ("Early literary attempts..." para 6) so not needed here. This "familiar places" para doesn't suit "Formula and plot devices" as the places are influences rather than devices, but it would be largely superfluous to the "Interests and influences" section which covers archaeology in depth. So I suggest leaving it where it is.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the difficulty. No worries, this is good enough for GA. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Christie's 1934 novel Murder on the Orient Express was written in the Pera Palace Hotel If the source states so, may be it will be clearer to write she used her travel experience (most importantly the train journey) to write this.
Revised text and citations.  ~ RLO1729💬 05:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • National Trust in 2000[52]) cite after bracket
The citation was placed inside the bracket to emphasise that it was only relevant to the information in the brackets. Placing it outside the bracket then means it needs to go after the full-stop which makes it seem to apply to the whole sentence. Will move if necessary but prefer it where it is. Please advise.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm.. okay. Not really an issue. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • fictional Chimneys, Stoneygates Why the caps?
They are house names (as is Abney Hall).  ~ RLO1729💬 04:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • She served in a Devon hospital during the First World War, acquiring a good knowledge of poisons Now looking back at this from the lead this has not been mentioned clearly in the main text (World War I section), whereas this statement is there in the next section she updated her knowledge of poisons – to be put to good use in her post-war crime novels. Need to add the important missing link
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • it helped solve a case that was baffling doctors You mean in real life? The way this is worded one may mistake it for a story plot.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • she and Max Mallowan Stick to calling him Mallowan
Revised text throughout.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They were one of the few married couples...knighthood, Christie could also be styled Lady Mallowan. No inline citations
Revised text, added citation.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • May be Personal qualities should be a separate section outside Life and career
We would prefer to keep it within this section as a summary view of qualities she brought to all the activities covered in this Life and career section. I also prefer the Contents main section heading flow of "1. Life and career" followed by "2. Death and estate" without an intervening "Personal qualities" main section heading.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, just looked a bit odd to me as many other bios I've seen make it an independent section. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, many thanks Sainsf. As I mentioned elsewhere, this article has had many contributors over the years, so it is not the article Tbytheriver and I would have written had we started from scratch. Your collaborative and constructively critical approach to this review is much appreciated. We will work through each of your comments and we look forward to the next batch.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I am really impressed by your spirit :) Take your time with the issues, it is a long and difficult article after all. I will post my next batch later today, then there will be a final batch. Cheers, Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 03:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most points above addressed, outstanding items underlined. :)  ~ RLO1729💬 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amazing job, the rewritten parts look excellent! On to the next batch of comments. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next batch of comments[edit]

Personal qualities
  • I DO like sun Were the caps in the original quote? First time I'm seeing something like this.
Yes, caps in the original are clearly intentional so kept here.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Death and estate
  • I am not sure I like "Christie's" at the start of the heading for 2 sections, consecutive too. I feel it is redundant (it is implied we are talking just about her) and titles should be more of common nouns than mentioning names unless necessary.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Winterbrook House, Winterbrook, Wallingford, Oxfordshire Just the name of the house should do.. the location details seem a bit too long and were anyway mentioned only a few paragraphs earlier.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • with her husband Sir Max Mention either the relation or the name for previously introduced (plus heavily discussed in this case) people. Anyway consistency is needed in her husband's name. If necessary say Lord Mallowan consistently after you mention knighthood, I'm not sure how the name should be.
Missed this one when I revised all occurrences of Mallowan (because it didn't include "Mallowan"). Revised to just "her husband" in this case.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link The Mousetrap on the first mention
Revised links.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • by her daughter, Rosalind Hicks, Again, either the name (without Hicks) or the relation should be mentioned
"Rosalind" is used to identify her and connect with previous mentions in the article, "Hicks" was included here as she was married by this stage and is referred to by surname in later text (similar to other individuals in the article) rather than continuing to use her first name (which would seem to treat her a little childishly). I've re-worded slightly but suggest both Rosalind and Hicks are necessary in this first mention of her as an adult.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. I agree, let the name be that way. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • James Prichard is mentioned twice by full name.. also he should be introduced as Christie's grandson if that is what he is.
Full name needed to disambiguate Prichard family members mentioned in the same para. "Prichard" is used in the previous para to mean Mathew so available alternatives for the second "James Prichard" are then "James" or "Christie's great-grandson", both of which I think are worse than simply repeating his name in full.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it is not too big a deal, just looked weird are the lines are so close together. Maybe you can call them James and Mathew later? Up to you. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • at the time earning £2.1m annual revenue Maybe add a present day estimate?
Added monetary value templates to all figures in this para.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works of fiction
  • Biographer Laura Thompson Repeated introduction
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There should be a short description of Miss Marple similar to Poirot's as she was clearly one of her best known characters.
Revised text  ~ RLO1729💬 04:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I wonder if there should be a line of mention for Quin and Satterthwaite, two other well-known detectives?
Added new section on other detectives.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, looks great! (And refreshed many old memories :) ) After I read that I was thinking this line Their last adventure, Postern of Fate, was also the last novel written by Christie is probably important enough to include in the ending to the career section. I myself was under the misconception that Curtain was her last and Sleeping Murders was the only one posthumously published. Could we do that? Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added info to last para of "Second marriage...".  ~ RLO1729💬 07:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Queen of Fictional Crime"[100] developed her storytelling techniques during what has been called the Golden Age of detective fiction The title is not mentioned previously, not even the lead, but is apparently a crucial point. The present wording seems a bit too sudden and cramped for two major points in one line.. it would be good to split this into two, first say maybe that several sources/people/authors etc have called her the Queen of Fictional Crime (isn't it more commonly Queen of Crime that we hear?) followed by the Golden Age point which, by the way, should be in title case and would look better without italics. Sure italics emphasize points but some consistency is appreciable. As other points don't, and look better without, italics, this too should look similar.
Okay I just noticed the Queen of Crime part comes in Critical reception and legacy.. which means this needs to be sorted for consistency in mentions. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 18:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice. Though in this line we need the names to be in quotes, like they are in the next mention Christie has been variously dubbed the Duchess of Death, the Mistress of Mystery, and the Queen of Crime.
Added quotes.  ~ RLO1729💬 07:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Introduce Dilys Winn
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not really sure but isn't "vamp" a bit too informal?
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • in her Forward to Cards on the Table Isn't it usually Foreword?
Good catch thanks, revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • John Curran describes how Just Curran works
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • grateful thanks" for writing this novel Does the quote not cover the last part? Ideally the last part should be bracketed and put within quotes to imply an obvious (not originally researched) missing part.
The quote-mark position is correct and the citation provided covers the whole sentence. We have not included original research, just paraphrased the cited work.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh okay, hadn't seen something like that earlier. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • conventions: There is no detective small 'T'
Replaced colon with full-stop to avoid potential future editorial problems with differences between British/American language and style guides.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Many of Christie's mature works What are 'mature' works and considered so by whom?
Deleted word.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Author Charles Osborne notes Just Osborne
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Titles section mentions a lot of non-fiction works too.. I think this needs to be fixed for consistency. I suggest we make the Titles section an independent one and put it after Non-fiction works.
Agree, moved text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Italicize Book of Common Prayer
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reflecting a juxtaposition of innocence and the course of the story. No inline citations
Added citation, revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A link for Hebraic?
Added link.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The other Westmacott titles are... A Daughter's a Daughter (1952), and The Burden (1956) About the citations for book titles, do we add a note or something as we discussed earlier?
I don't see the problem with including them here for completeness. Some may feel it interrupts the narrative but, as a reader, I appreciate the information being there without having to click links to other parts of the document or Wikipedia and then click another link to get back, which in itself is disruptive. There aren't many titles and it's only a couple of lines so I'd prefer to keep them as is.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No no, I meant are we going for a note or something at the end so that it is not challenged as discussed on your talk page. I personally don't find it necessary as I understand the book names are enough as sources, just checked if we are clear on this. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link West End on first mention in Christie's death and burial
Added link.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Critical reception and legacy
  • regarded Christie's plotting as superior to her skill with other literary elements Now that we have read so much about her skills in constructing mystery plots, it would be good to know what literary elements were found to be lacking in her works. The critics and their writings are mentioned but please include a few words on what exactly they felt was lacking, what they were "dismissive" about.
Good suggestion thanks, revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As of 2011, And Then There Were None was Christie's best-selling novel, with approximately 100 million sales "As of 2011" sounds better than "is" in the lead, as it does not confuse one as to when this information was added? Have there been changes since then?
Exact current figures and independent sources have been difficult to find. There is also some confusion in the general use of the terms "best-selling" and "bestselling" which may mean either "highest selling" or a "best seller" (i.e. topping some chart somewhere). I have tried to reduce the opportunity for confusion in revisions of the lead and this section.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really well-worded now. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The French television series... works of detective fiction. no inline citations
I have added some links to the series official website and the Christie estate site but consider this unnecessary under Wikipedia policy.
The source for the information stated is the primary source evidence of the series episodes themselves. While I certainly understand and take on board other editors' comments in this regard, please bear with me as I'm going to have another go at using Wikipedia Policy to make the argument that inline citations are not needed in such cases. The inline citations would be the primary sources themselves, but including them as citations is superfluous when they have been named in the text already. Previously (on my Talk page), when I referenced MOS:TVPLOT:
Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given.
it was suggested that this was a slippery slope, so I'll go straight to fundamental Wikipedia Policy for primary sources WP:PRIMARY (my emphasis below):
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
The credits of thirty-six episodes of Les Petits Meurtres show the Christie novel that has been adapted by that episode. The article only states this straightforward, descriptive statement of fact.
(The same policy covers basic plot descriptions provided in the final section of the article.)  ~ RLO1729💬 04:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I agree with you, should've clarified this in my point. The reason I raised this was I wanted to ensure we discuss one final time what we are going to do about this and also because though the policy is logical, a few harmless links are not going to be a problem, in fact they would be helpful in avoiding unnecessary "cn" tags. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The note mentioning this excellent citation needs to be added. Let us see if any other section of the article could do with such a full list of things put in a citation in a note, especially if only a few of them are covered in the text. No case like that so far apart from this I guess.. books (/ plays) of one type have been listed fully or cited just as examples.
Thanks for the link. This book (also available at was published in 1993 so would only cover the earlier films. I'd suggest it could be included in the Further reading or External links section.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would actually like to see this implemented the way SchroCat suggested on your talk page, it is their idea I am repeating here. Of course we should look for more recent books if any, else this should do. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Underlining new reply) so I guess we are not putting this book in a note for a complete list of works as suggested by SchroCat because the book seems outdated and there is no better alternative? Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 05:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've included the source as an External link. Although good, it doesn't cover modern adaptations and the subsection already has a link to a list of adaptations at the beginning: Main article: Adaptations of Agatha Christie.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's for the second phase.. final phase coming after most of this has been dealt with. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 18:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impressive work at an amazing pace :) Starting with the last part now. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final phase[edit]

  • Link therapeutic agents
Added link.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There were to be many medical practitioners...among numerous others I get the meaning but it could be rephrased for better. Sounds a bit like these people are going to occur in her real life and then there is a string of her novels all of a sudden.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Arsenic, aconite, strychnine, digitalis, thallium, and many other standard pharmaceuticals We could do with a good number of links here. Digitalis links to Digitalis (foxglove) , which is the article about the plant and not the drug. You can say "digitalis (a drug obtained from foxgloves)" and link foxglove instead.
Added links to appropriate poisons.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link Abu Simbel
Added link.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I myself agree to self-sourcing in the mentioned works, but I would once again ask SchroCat if they are now satisfied with the citations in this section before we can finish the review.
Certainly, excellent idea.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also
  • Typically only the links not mentioned in the article but anyway important should be in this section.
Dup links removed.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source review
  • Citations formatted well enough, FA-level precision not necessary, though I would recommend adding ISBNs wherever possible, and removing .com, .org and other domain names and just using the website names.
Source website names revised, will continue to look for ISBNs.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is the ref 33 website reliable enough? Who runs it, especially as it is not endorsed by Agatha Christie Ltd?
This is a source added by another editor in 2013. I am not able to see who runs the site but it has been around since at least 2008, seems to have good production values, and is cited in Hercule Poirot (though only once). It is not required as other sources now cover the information in the sentence so I've moved it to the External links section.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is better, thanks. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 05:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In ref 138, is HowStuffWorks a good source? Like is the information presented well-researched like a proper book source might be?
Source appears to be reliable but have removed citation as I have not been able to confirm this independently.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's good. By its looks it easily looks like a top 20 list from somewhere on the net so won't exactly be an ideal source for us. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 05:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is ref 150 source that reliable? Need to check its background.
The ref 150 website is copyrighted "2020 TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES, INC. A WARNERMEDIA COMPANY" and the review cited is by the film critic for the Seattle Times, so we consider the source to be reliable.
Okay checked. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 05:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have any new comments to make. Thanks for this very interesting read, I enjoyed every bit of it :) Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for a very comprehensive and helpful review - much appreciated! Please let me know if there are any items above needing further attention while we wait for SchroCat's comments.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I couldn't have imagined such a long review would progress this fast :) Okay so I would like a reply to two points underlined above, first phase is fully done. We will wait 5 more days for SchroCat to weigh in, in their absence and after these points have been fully addressed I don't see any major reason to stall the promotion. Cheers, Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 05:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Underlined items addressed. Thanks. :)  ~ RLO1729💬 13:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pardon me for butting in to your GA review. I came to this page today to check out something in a paper by one of my students. I don't see why we have that great long paragraph on Christie's parents. In abbreviated form, it could go into a note, but seems irrelevant in an encyclopedia article on Agatha Christie. YoPienso (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi YoPienso, thanks for your question, you are very welcome to join the conversation :). There is value in setting the Christie family social and financial scenes as they impinge on Christie's life and fictional characters and settings, as well as explaining the complicated relationship with "Auntie-Grannie" who inspires Christie characters, including Miss Marple. It is important that readers understand that her parents were not born into the upper classes and it clarifies her American background (which most people don't actually know about). It also corrects a number of mistakes found in the usual biographies on aspects of her background that those biographers see as important to include.
I suggest that, as an ongoing project, my co-editor Tbytheriver and I (and any other interested editors of course) revisit whether the family background provided can be simplified/rearranged, but do you see this as an obstacle for the current review? Cheers.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a first step, some of the finer detail of the para has now been removed or relocated to notes.  ~ RLO1729💬 22:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comment Yopienso. The length and the arrangement of this part of the text were a concern during the review, and I am happy it has improved much after the discussion. It would be good to shorten and simplify it further, but I do not find it mandatory per the points made by RLO1729. Let us know what you think Yopienso. Cheers, Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 09:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have worked together and discussed several points about the article in the last two weeks. All major issues raised in this review have been adequately addressed, and the article now meets all GA criteria in my opinion. Excellent work by both nominators on such a long and difficult article. Promoting :) Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks Sainsf for your very constructive review which has helped improve the article to this standard. Thanks also to all the other editors who have contributed over the years. Cheers, RLO1729💬 and Tbytheriver (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The images have been removed from this article.  ~ RLO1729💬 05:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • ... that mystery and detective novelist Agatha Christie's books have sold over two billion copies? Source:"Her books have sold over a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation." The Home of Agatha Christie (official website)

Improved to Good Article status by RLO1729 (talk) and Tbytheriver (talk). Nominated by RLO1729 (talk) at 14:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Good to go ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Agatha Christie Star award[edit]

The Agatha Christie Star
The Agatha Christie Star is hereby awarded for making a significant contribution to the Agatha Christie article during its long journey to Good Article standard on 11 May 2020 (UTC).

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

Minor point for discussion: "more than" vs "over" in article[edit]

Not a big deal but this chestnut has arisen in the article's edits over time, with the article being edited both from "more than" (... two billion copies, for example) to "over" and, more recently, vice versa. There are numerous online discussions of which is "correct" but, from my reading of these sites, the modern consensus seems to be that either can be used (where appropriate). WP:MOS does not take a position but Merriam-Webster would seem to carry some weight. On balance, although I have previously used "more than" in the article myself, I now prefer the more succinct "over", but would welcome other editors' thoughts please.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an elderly pedant, I prefer "more than" as (very) slightly more euphonious.Tbytheriver (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quotation punctuation[edit]

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

meh --Brogo13 (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ten Little Niggers[edit]

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

The original title of the mystery (Ten Little Niggers) was changed because it was offensive in the United States and some other places. Alison Light, a literary critic and feminist scholar, opined that Christie's original title and the setting on "Nigger Island" (later changed to "Indian Island" and "Soldier Island", variously) were integral to the work. These aspects of the novel, she argued, "could be relied upon automatically to conjure up a thrilling 'otherness', a place where revelations about the 'dark side' of the English would be appropriate."[1] Unlike novels such as Heart of Darkness, "Christie's location is both more domesticated and privatized, taking for granted the construction of racial fears woven into psychic life as early as the nursery. If her story suggests how easy it is to play upon such fears, it is also a reminder of how intimately tied they are to sources of pleasure and enjoyment."[1]

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

  • I support including the original title in the article, with a very brief explanation. I'm not sure Light's discussion of the title quite fits with the approach taken in Character stereotypes, which focuses more specifically on characters and racial groups described in Christie's books (but other racial groups should be included if they play significant roles in her work). Light's discussion seems to be more about Christie's attitudes (and those of her contemporary readers), evidenced by her choice of the original title. An additional comment could possibly be added to Personal qualities, though this section already notes that "Christie's works of fiction contain some objectionable character stereotypes". Does the name of one book warrant anything further? Additional secondary sources would be needed if we are going to explore Christie's attitudes along these lines any more deeply.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree that the original title of And Then There Were None should be dealt with--perhaps rename the subsection Character stereotypes to Character stereotypes and racism and put it there? Something along the lines of:
The original British edition (1939) of Christie's most famous novel, And Then There Were None, was titled Ten Little N------ after a nineteenth century children's song which figures in the plot. Alison Light, a literary critic and feminist scholar, believes that title reflects a symbolic darkness integral to the novel.[CITE: Light, Alison (1991). Forever England: Femininity, Literature, and Conservatism Between the Wars. Routledge. p. 99. ISBN 0-415-01661-4.]
Tbytheriver (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was thinking something like the below, obviously without the asterisks. I tried to be bold and just add it, but the edit was flagged as vandalism, because it contains an offensive word!

Christie's original title for And Then There Were None (1939) was Ten Little N******, based on an 1869 minstrel rhyme. This was considered unacceptable in the US as the word n***** was acknowledged as an offensive racial slur. The US title, And Then There Were None, was adopted in the UK in 1985. The original title and the prevalence of the slur in the original text has led modern critics to criticise Christie's attitudes to race.[2][3]

-- (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that the article about the book gives the original title, bolded as a variant of the article title, in the opening paragraph. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rightly so. A high proportion of the interest in this subject may be from people who have seen the coverage of the original title, which persisted for 46 years in the UK. We are not here to cater to sensationalism, but it would be extremely odd not to mention it at all. -- (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Important discussion, thanks everyone. The complete word should be used or not at all per WP:BOWDLERIZE. I support including, but only once in the suggested paragraph (i.e. only in the book title).  ~ RLO1729💬 00:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree; I only bowdlerised it because I couldn't post otherwise. I am not sure on what grounds we would place a limit on the number of instances of the word. It seems important to cover it proportionately and it is easy to find secondary sources for the controversy caused by the name, which, even in 1940s England was highly unusual. Here's the latest story I was reading on it. -- (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest that the word wasn't unusual at all in 1940s England. It was still common in my childhood in 1950s Australia, especially for black dogs, and some dark haired kids. For those unaware, the name was significant in the Dambusters operation in WWII, and the 1955 movie about that operation. Those articles are worth looking at to follow the word's evolution. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ The relevance to this article, as I see it, is as an indicator of Christie's attitudes. Details and analysis of the controversy caused by the title can be left to the article on the book itself. As such, only minimal (I think one) use of the word is required in this article. I recommend specifically limiting any (brief) paragraph here to discuss only Christie's attitudes.  ~ RLO1729💬 10:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And without being mind readers of the dead, we cannot know Christie's attitudes. I think my comment immediately above highlights how common the word was in England through to at least the mid 1950s. There is nothing worth saying about Christie's attitude. It was normal for the time, with no intention or even awareness of offence. (Unless, of course, you want to go and amend those Dambusters articles to discuss the attitudes of the airmen involved, and the film-makers of 1955. Have you read them yet?) HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, but we can (and should only) reflect what the secondary sources have to say regarding the title and Christie's attitudes. And this may not be very much.
The relevant section in this article can include a "See also" link to the book article's more detailed discussion of the controversy itself.  ~ RLO1729💬 11:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I suggest:
[at head of Section] [then later in Section]

Christie's original title for And Then There Were None (1939) was Ten Little Niggers, based on an 1869 minstrel rhyme. The title was not used in the US as it was considered racially offensive. The US title, And Then There Were None, was adopted in the UK in 1985. Alison Light, a literary critic and feminist scholar, believes that the original title reflects a symbolic darkness integral to the novel.[1] The title and the prevalence of the slur in the original text have led other modern writers, including Elizabeth Marshall and Sadie Stein, to criticise Christie's attitudes to race.[4][5]

  • or, to be more precise:

Christie's original title for And Then There Were None (1939) was Ten Little Niggers, based on an 1869 minstrel rhyme. The title was not used in the US as it was considered racially offensive. The US title, And Then There Were None, was adopted in the UK in 1985. Alison Light, a literary critic and feminist scholar, believes that the original title reflects a symbolic darkness integral to the novel.[1] The title and the prevalence of the slur in the original text have led the writers Elizabeth Marshall and Sadie Stein to criticise Christie's attitudes to race.[6][7]

Shall I add this to the article so editors can tweak it from there?  ~ RLO1729💬 12:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks good to me. (Incidentally, I just read "Poirot Loses a Client" in a 1960s paperback edition and several times Poirot talks about there being a "n---- in the woodpile". I wonder if that's printed in recent editions?) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That proposed text at least needs the word "American" in front of the names of those writers. Is there any reason to believe those people had any special insight into the linguistic situation in England when the book was written? I'm not convinced their opinions have much value. HiLo48 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In its current form, for completeness the final sentence probably also needs Marshall's co-author as well, but that makes it too cumbersome I think. I don't know the nationality of all the authors, or that their nationality per se has a significant bearing on their opinions, as would be implied by including it. (It may, but how do we know?) And why not Light's nationality, or the nationalities of other authorities quoted throughout the article?
As for the quality of these sources, we should certainly consider their reliability, as we would for any source, but not on the basis of just what they say in this context. Light and Stein are quoted as reliable sources in the And Then There Were None article. What do other editors think about the Marshall & Sensoy source? It would also certainly be reasonable to include a (reliable) modern secondary source that presents Christie's "attitudes to race" as just a product of their times, if one is known.
One option would be to just revise the final sentence to:
The title and the prevalence of the slur in the original text have led some commentators to criticise Christie's attitudes to race.[current citations]
Light's comment is not an opposing opinion so I don't think naming her and not the others is editorially preferencing one side of an argument (but I suppose it might still appear to the reader that the issue of Christie's attitudes to race is being minimised).
Another option would be to include relevant quotes from each of the other commentators to clarify their criticisms in slightly more detail.
But how far do we need to go into all this? Again, a brief para is definitely warranted, but not much more I think. Other editors' advice please.  ~ RLO1729💬 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both authors are American. I had never heard of them (this actually matters - they need to to be of some significance to crack a mention here) so I looked them up. America is not England in the 1930s. Unlike England, America is the country with the slavery and racism history, distorting the views of people from that nation when compared with those from other places. The cultural background of critics is just as important as that of those being criticised. I say again, "nigger" was a perfectly normal, common and non-offensive word in England and other places outside the US until well into the second half of the 20th century. Her use of it says absolutely nothing about Christie's attitudes to race. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may well be correct. I suggest that the suggested final sentence is still factually accurate in that it only says criticisms have been raised, and a reliable secondary source that discusses this issue directly and supports your analysis would be very welcome to balance the criticism.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Where to from here?
Some options:
a. Ignore the issue as the word was uncontroversial in Christie's country at the time, the title change in the US was an editorial decision and there was no contemporary outcry in the UK or elsewhere over the original title, and the sources criticising Christie's "attitudes to race" are not of sufficient quality.
b. Just add a hatnote, for example:
c. If the sources criticising Christie's "attitudes to race" are of sufficient quality to warrant inclusion then: revise section heading to Character stereotypes and racism (or Character stereotypes and accusations of racism?), add the hatnote, and add a para similar to those suggested above (including reliable sources opposing the criticisms, if found).
Other editors' comments welcomed to establish a consensus view.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Marshall citation info for consideration
A more detailed version of the citation is:
Hofmann, Sudie (2011). "Rethinking Agatha Christie: The Strange and Offensive History of 'Ten Little Indians'". In Marshall, Elizabeth; Sensoy, Özlem (eds.). Rethinking Popular Culture and Media. Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-942961-48-5.
"Sudie Hofmann is a professor in the Department of Human Relations and Multicultural Education at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota." (internet search)
On p. 174, reflections on Christie's attitudes are implied rather than stated explicitly. The main comments in this regard are that the titles (both versions) have "always been about eliminating a specific group of people of color", and the title And Then There Were None "represents another aspect of embedded racism, which is that of genocide", and that the phrase "Nigger in the woodpile" is "used to cast suspicion" on one of Christie's characters.
Also, on p. 176, Hofman notes the book includes the statement "natives don't mind dying" and says "Anti-Semitism is also expressed ... when a Mr. Morris is referred to as 'little Jew' and 'Jewboy' with 'thick Semitic lips'."
The chapter mainly focuses on the play. It does not cite other sources. Do other editors consider that the author has "criticise[d] Christie's attitudes to race"? Is the source of sufficient quality to justify its citation in the current context?  ~ RLO1729💬 09:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the words "embedded racism" as key there. The language Christie used can be described by modern standards, particularly from an American perspective, as containing embedded racism, but her language was completely normal for England of the time when she wrote the book. Any criticism of Christie's language could be also made of probably every other person in England at the time. I see Hofman's comments as irrelevant and pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"the phrase "Nigger in the woodpile" is "used to cast suspicion" on one of Christie's characters." See main article Nigger in the woodpile which explains the meaning as "some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed—something suspicious or wrong". The article also lists literary uses of the phrase by Dr. Seuss, Zane Grey, Somerset Maugham, William Faulkner, and Louis L'Amour. Dimadick (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"includes the statement "natives don't mind dying" " Quote mining a bit there. The phrase is "Self-preservation's a man's first duty. And natives don't mind dying, you know. They don't feel about it as Europeans do." The phrase is spoken by Philip Lombard when he explains why he left his native men to starve to death, while he escaped with the last food rations. Lombard is one of the most ruthless and remorseless of the ten murderers in the novel. Dimadick (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
""Anti-Semitism is also expressed ... when a Mr. Morris is referred to as 'little Jew' and 'Jewboy' with 'thick Semitic lips'." " Far from unusual in a Christie novel. But Morris' characterization is far from sympathetic as well: "Isaac Morris is a sleazy, unethical lawyer and erstwhile drug trafficker hired by Wargrave to purchase the island (under the name “UN Owen”), arrange the gramophone recording, and make arrangements on his behalf, including gathering information on the near destitute Philip Lombard, to whom he gave some money to get by and recommended Lombard bring his gun to the island. Morris' is the first death chronologically, as he dies before the guests arrive on the island. Years earlier, Morris had sold narcotics to the daughter of one of Wargrave’s friends; she became an addict, and later committed suicide. A hypochondriac, Morris accepts a lethal cocktail of pills from Wargrave to help treat his largely imagined physical ailments." Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Stein citation info for consideration
Stein, Sadie (5 February 2016). "Mystery". The Paris Review. Retrieved 4 July 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
"Sadie Stein is contributing editor of The Paris Review, and the Daily’s correspondent." (article webpage)
This brief article is an opinion piece with no additional citations. Do other editors consider this article to be of sufficient quality to justify its citation in the current context?   ~ RLO1729💬 07:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, as with Hofman above, there's an emphasis on American views today about how an English woman wrote 80 years ago. I would love to know what English reviewers of 1939 felt about the language. Surely this is just as important in this global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Currently:
I'm not seeing a consensus on adding a new para or on the quality of the suggested sources discussed above.
IMO, having reviewed those sources, any new paragraph on this topic would need to be supported by better quality sources which contribute more than is already available in the And Then There Were None article.
In the absence of further discussion above, I have revised the section heading to Character stereotypes and perceived racism (to better reflect the current content which mentions "perceived antisemitism") and added a hatnote similar to that described above – neither of which I see as controversial or against the spirit of this discussion. Of course, these edits are open for revision too.
Thanks all for your comments in this discussion.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ a b c d Light, Alison (1991). Forever England: Femininity, Literature, and Conservatism Between the Wars. Routledge. p. 99. ISBN 0-415-01661-4.
  2. ^ Marshall, Elizabeth; Sensoy, Özlem (2011). Rethinking Popular Culture and Media. Rethinking Schools. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-942961-48-5.
  3. ^ Stein, Sadie (5 February 2016). "Mystery". The Paris Review.
  4. ^ Marshall, Elizabeth; Sensoy, Özlem (2011). Rethinking Popular Culture and Media. Rethinking Schools. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-942961-48-5.
  5. ^ Stein, Sadie (5 February 2016). "Mystery". The Paris Review.
  6. ^ Marshall, Elizabeth; Sensoy, Özlem (2011). Rethinking Popular Culture and Media. Rethinking Schools. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-942961-48-5.
  7. ^ Stein, Sadie (5 February 2016). "Mystery". The Paris Review.

I notice there is currently no mention of her original book title in this article, no mention of her using the word in question, and no mention of racist overtones in her work – only anti-Semitism (which gets two paragraphs) and one mention of a stereotyping of Italians and "non-Europeans". There is also no use of the word "racism", "racist", "racial" or "race" (although there is one use of the more vague concept of "ethnicity"). The above-quoted section heading is gone – replaced by the more bland heading "Character stereotypes". There is no explanation of the reference to Italians and non-Europeans. This seems rather questionable to me. The article mentions that someone noticed that some of her works have since been edited "to remove potentially offensive language" (which is "potentially" putting it mildly in my opinion – no one would publish that novel with its original title and cover art today), saying this was reported in an article published this year in The Telegraph. I suspect someone noticed these problems in her work before 2023. Is the current omission of such material generally supported by others? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is ridiculous to omit things such as the original book title. Wikipedia is not censored. It is, however, wrong to simply describe Christie's work as racist. In the society she was part of it was not seen as racist. Christie was no more racist than any other of the millions of members of that society. If we want to describe it as racist, we must also always mention that such a judgement is according to today's standards, not those of her time. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the Telegraph article was published in March, I checked what the article said at the end of February. It had even less relevant content in it. The paragraph about subsequent editing for "potentially offensive language" wasn't there yet, and the mention of "ethnicity" also wasn't there yet. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After a bit of further digging, I also found an edit that removed the mention of the original book title and removed the heading's mention of "perceived racism". It was in September 2022 and the edit summary said only "stereotypes", so it wasn't really an explanation. The same editor had just reverted a related unconstructive edit, saying "npov" (a good call). They seem to not be in the habit of providing detailed explanations of their edits. I just reverted that edit. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes October 2020[edit]

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

Member of the Church of England[edit]

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

Separation of Works, legacy, and reception?[edit]

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

Birth Date[edit]

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

Search preview text[edit]

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

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

Foreign victims[edit]

"Christie portrayed some "foreign" characters as victims, or potential victims" Are there specific examples mentioned in the source? The most prominent foreign victim that I remember is Mr Shaitana, the "flamboyant" Syrian collector from Cards on the Table. He was mistaken for an Italian, and faced anti-Italian sentiment in the novel. See the following summary:

  • "..we’ve interviewed Mr. Shaitana’s solicitor. We know the terms of his will. Nothing of interest there. He had relatives in Syria, it seems."
  • "There are, however, a few racial moments: Shaitana was not only called a dago, but also “the sort of Dago who needed kicking badly. He used to make the toe of my boot fairly itch”, said the intemperate and clearly racist Despard. "Dimadick (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christie's quote about Ibn-e-Safi may possibly be significant enough to Ibn-e-Safi to mention at that article, but I don't see it having any significance to the article about Christie. She paid a compliment to another writer; how is that important enough to mention in an encyclopedia article? Pinging @Sayyedfahad: who has been edit-warring to add that content. Schazjmd (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, agreed (I have just reverted the addition again). Not a statement about Christie but about Ibn-e-Safi. Also, sourcing may be a problem - one of the references given was to Teach Yourself German on Amazon. Tacyarg (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this article about Agatha Christie, there are many points that are not so important but included in the article, information about Agatha Christie's visit to Pakistan and her opinion about Ibn-e-Safi are also there with references. That page is also available from the weekly newspaper of 1960, if you want to see it, I will send it through email (reference of Dr Aqeel Abbas Jafri writer of book Pakistan Chronicle). It is hoped that you will add information about Agatha Christie's visit to Pakistan with suitable words and also include her expression about Ibn-e-Safi. Thanks. Sayyedfahad (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What matters is not what Agatha Christie expressed about Ibn-e-Safi, Ibn-e-Safi has his own fan following. Ibn-e-Safi also holds the record of selling 100,000 novels in a week. It is important that the information reaches the researchers, because it is a fact that Agatha Christie has come to Pakistan and expressed her opinion about Ibne Safi and when the researchers do the research, they can find information from other sources as well as Wikipedia. This information is not incorrect. Thanks. Sayyedfahad (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Christie has been described as a "globetrotter", meaning she visited many countries. She spent time in France as a child, and traveled around the world (South Africa, Australia, and North America) in the 1920s. She accompanied her archaeologist husband on multiple digs in Syria. She spent time in Persia (now Iran), Iraq, New Zealand, and the Canary Islands. She based two of her novels in Egypt, which she visited several times. She wrote Murder on the Orient Express while staying in Turkey.
The point is that when people write about Agatha Christie, they mention the significant places she visited or stayed (meaning they were significant to her work or her life), not an exhaustive list of every location that she went to. The Wikipedia article summarizes what people have written about Christie. That Pakistan was one of the places she visited isn't considered significant by her biographers, so it isn't considered significant to Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Yes, Aga Christie visited different countries. Some are also mentioned in article. Isn't it a contradiction that some countries are mentioned and others are not mentioned? They have been mentioned in one place in the article. An important thing is that Agatha Christie visited Pakistan and mentioned her fellow writer Ibn-e-Safi. Well, if it is not mentioned, then it does not matter. Which countries Agatha Christie visited can also be mentioned. Regards. Sayyedfahad (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Small detail - copyright owned by daughter[edit]

I am currently reading "Murder with Mirrors" (1952, the 1987 Penguin edition) and happened to notice that the copyright is indicated as held by "Rosalind Margaret Clarissa Hicks and William Edmund Cork". There's no mention of that anywhere in this or in the article on Hicks, although it does mention that Hicks was given the copyright on a different work. Can anyone explain/confirm/discuss? (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found three older newspaper articles that discuss the copyright status of Christie's work.[2][3][4] (That third one is Hicks's obituary.) Unless reliable sources go into details on who owns copyright on each work, the article can't do so. Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]