Jump to content

Talk:And Then There Were None

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeAnd Then There Were None was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 10, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Relevance of Septimus Winner rhyme

[edit]

It doesn't seem right to present the 1868 Septimus Winner version of the rhyme as being in some way equivalent to the 1869 Frank Green version, for the purpose of this book. It's quite clear that the Frank Green version is the one that Christie actually used; the other is quite different, although obviously related. I'd suggest removing the text of Septimus Winner and just referring to it by way of historical background. This is not an article about alternative variants of the rhyme, but about a specific novel. Thoughts? MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelMaggs, I think it makes it clear why Indians was used as a term when niggers was considered offensive, for at least one published version. Just an idea of mine. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That should be discussed of course, but I don't think that needs us to quote the entirety of a different historical rhyme - one that is not used at all in the book. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the above, still no evidence has been presented that Christie's rhyme was partly "derived from" the 1868 Septimus Winner text. She obviously didn't use it directly, and we don't have a single source stating that Frank Green's rhyme (which is what she did use) was derived from Septimus Winner. They could just as well have both some from some other, common, source. I'm proposing to remove the full text of Septimus Winner, and just refer to it in passing. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that approach, and action. The main interest of the 1868 version is it might have influenced the US publishers to shift from the term niggers to the term Indians instead of little boys or people or men any other phrase that might be used in the 1868 version. It is clear it did not influence the author in writing her novel. --
This is more complicated than expected. I have not been able to find the complete 1869 Frank Green lyrics online, but I doubt that what we have in the article is accurate, as a 1869 British publication would hardly have used the US spelling of "traveling". I may need to search out an original songsheet when I'm next in the British Library. All earlier versions I can find online end up with the last Indian (or Injun in some versions) getting married, not dying by hanging. It's unclear whether hanging was in the Green version, or whether that was added for the purpose of the story by Christie. Also, was Septimus Winner's 1868 version derived from some earlier traditional nursery rhyme? There are suggestions that it was, but what evidence do we have for that? Ten Little Indians is unclear. Some information here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's written in the entry is incorrect, but this is also incorrect. If you look at the sheet music cover it's credited to Septimus Winner AND Frank Green. That's because Frank Green's version does open with Winner's "One little, two little three little..." There is a very old British children's record you can hear on Youtube that opens with Winner's rhyme, then goes into the new Frank Green lyrics that Christie uses. Jeri Southern (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to the sheet music online? MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True location?

[edit]

I am editing this, mainly because I didn't enjoy asking it, but, is the island based on a real life island? If Christie holidayed on an island that was too dangerous to get to and from by swimming, sounds like good inspiration for a murder mystery. Middle More Rider (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schmoop thinks it is based on a real island, but it is not part of the description of the novel on the official Agatha Christie website. Without a reliable source, and I do not consider Schmoop a reliable source as it had no footnote as to where they learned this, I would not add this to the article. If this is included in a biography about the author, that might be a reliable source. - - Prairieplant (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing movie adaption

[edit]

Whilst it's not a direct adaption I think the film Identity (2003) has enough in common to maybe considered adding 81.187.69.130 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change cover image to reflect article title?

[edit]
Resolved. SN54129 20:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's more than a little jarring to see the N word in giant letters the moment you open this page, especially since the page title doesn't reflect the novel's original title. Could we find the first cover featuring the "And Then There Were None" title and use that instead? 2601:1C1:8501:F557:898:6A25:929A:71C5 (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. SN54129 20:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey, could you please explain why it is necessary to have the outdated cover and title, especially since it contains a racial slur, instead of a newer cover with the title that matches the name of the article? I think it is unnecessarily confusing for readers and rather insensitive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoolaHoopsSuck (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice to use the first edition cover, where available, for all books – a practice that's specifically recommended in Template:Infobox book. That's still the case where the original cover is outdated or racist, per WP:CENSOR. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Images says it should usually be the first edition cover, but not always. This certainly seems like that kind of exception, not because of the racial slur per se, but because the later titles are much better known. I nearly edited that section to specifically mention cases where the title changed and the later title is better known, but now I realize that if anything the consensus here seems to favor displaying the first-edition cover. Maybe there has been too much focus on the offensive nature of the title, and not on how the book is most commonly known? 183.89.250.246 (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Images to note that some users prefer to always use the first edition cover. It still seems highly questionable to be displaying a cover image with a title that is not the title of this article, but whatever. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that given the history of this article, the issue deserves full discussion here, with proper consideration given to both views. If you agree, I'll open a new section on this page in a couple of days, and we'll see what happens. You shouldn't unilaterally change Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Images to your interpretation of consensus on this specific cover, though, as that's a different and much broader discussion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1939, 1940; collier & sons edition

[edit]

I have a version titled “And Then There Were None” copywritten 1940 by P. F. Collier and Son Corporation with “manufactured in the U.S.A.” that does not appear on the publications list, and the first printing in 1939 would be an earlier version than the first claimed US version from January 1940 Dodd publishing. My version also uses “Indians” throughout. Any insight? Pictures attached in reply. 2601:188:CC7F:E60:4173:6174:5E51:FB49 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1]https://postimg.cc/gallery/s7GsCks 2601:188:CC7F:E60:4173:6174:5E51:FB49 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you find 1939 as the first print? Your book has "Copyright 1939, 1940". I presume that refers to the original 1939 UK edition and 1940 is the additional copyright for the US adaption. That is a beautiful hardback, no doubt a plethora of avid Christie fans are foaming at the mouth jealous :) BeardedChimp (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing cover image

[edit]
Resolved. ——Serial Number 54129 18:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I know this was already mentioned, but it was closed without a reason why it shouldn't be changed.

It's more than a little jarring to see the N word in giant letters the moment you open this page, especially since the page title doesn't reflect the novel's original title. Could we find the first cover featuring the "And Then There Were None" title and use that instead? Or just don't have a cover? 23.120.125.83 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not Baby's First Encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not censored. It's standard practice to have a picture of the first edition in articles pertaining to books. Zacwill (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deciding which cover should be displayed in the infobox

[edit]

This article has been the subject of a slow edit war over many years concerning the appropriate cover to be displayed in the info box. There are two candidates I'll refer to as Original and Current titles:

Initially, the current title seems to have been preferred, but in recent years the original has become the main infobox image. An RFC 5 years ago was inconclusive, and the slow edit war has continued. (In that RFC, I voted to keep the original title, but I'm now neutral on the issue).

A variety of editors who have switched the infobox image to the current title have been rapidly and sometimes rudely reverted, mostly just with a reference to WP:CENSOR. But the arguments on both sides are more complicated than that, and I've opened this section to try once again to agree a long-term consensus.

Relevant guidelines

[edit]
  • Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Images: The image displayed at the top of the article should be the most significant cover historically for that book; often this is the first edition cover, but occasionally it is not, if a later edition is better known. (This guideline has recently been edited for clarity, including by me, but in essence has remained the same for years.)
  • WP:CENSOR: Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. [...] Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content.
  • WP:GRATUITOUS: "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion. [...] Images should respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.
  • MOS:LEADIMAGE and MOS:SHOCK: The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. [...] Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred.

Summary of main arguments

[edit]

FOR Original title: The 1939 cover is the worldwide first edition, and according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Images should normally be considered the most "significant cover historically". Infoxes as a matter of practice do typically show the first edition. The fact that the book's title may offend some does not negate that, per WP:CENSOR.

FOR Current title: And Then There Were None has been the definitive title in the UK for nearly 40 years, and the book has never been called anything else in the US. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Images "[the] later edition is better known" and hence should be preferred for the infobox. The existing title of the article is the book's "most commonly recognised name", as recommended by WP:COMMONNAME, and the image should match the article title. WP:GRATUITOUS and MOS:SHOCK say that "Images should respect the conventional expectations of readers", and "Lead images should be of least shock value": a reader who arrives at this article, knowing the book's current title, should not without warning be presented with a large picture that includes a racial slur.

Pinging editors who have more recently commented on this (please add any I may have missed): User:Zacwill, User:Serial Number 54129, User:JayKeaton, User:Jtomlin1uk, User:Marieblasdell, User:Will the Great, User:KaJunl, User:Rotary Engine, User:Masem, User:TheWompEditor, User:Chemical Engineer, User:WanderingWanda, User:Prairieplant, User:El C, User:Yodin, User:Pincrete, User:SoWhy, User:Dimadick, User:Jmar67, User:Dicklyon, User:Just a Rube, User:Wugapodes, User:Khajidha

Please express your opinion (Original title or Current title) for the image to be used in the infobox, giving reasons. You can also comment on whether your non-preferred image should be kept lower down the page, or whether it should be omitted entirely.

Let's see if we can get a consensus this time. It will save a lot of future hassle. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

[edit]
  • I support switching to the Current title – MOS:LEADIMAGE and MOS:SHOCK seem conclusive to me – the 1940 edition represents the topic at least as well to readers, and the many edits to the article, and comments here show that it does have a shock value – having the title match the article name would also make the image less unexpected to readers. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Images specifically allows leeway in situations like this, where a later edition is better known. --YodinT 17:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping, MichaelMaggs; I'd forgotten that RfC and my earlier comments. I support switching to ATTWN.
    I don't care (or give a fuck, more aptly!) about NOTCENSORED, but IMAGERELEVANCE and OMIMG are vital guides here. There's no absolute requirement to have any image in any infobox on any page at all, but where we do, Images should respect conventional expectations of readers. Anyone who thinks that seeing that word is acceptable in anything apart from passing background commentary is living in the fucking 70s. The 1870s.
    The argument that readers "have" to see the first edition has been soundly refuted, so hopefully, we won't be hearing that old chestnut again. Conversely, WP:COMMONNAME is pretty fucking uncontroversial. For example, that the lead image's purpose is to "give the reader an idea of what the book looked like when people first saw it" is wholly wrong; in fact, it is opposite. The purpose of the lead image per LEADIMAGE is to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page: a page that is titled one thing, but whose image presents something totally different is obtusely unhelpful. In fact it is less helpful than no image at all would be.
    Per SHOCK, they should also be "appropriate", and that's the title that every single person who comes to this page having read the book will know it under, unless we are lucky enough to have a major demographic of Anglo-crusties.
    SerialNumber54129 18:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the image from the original UK publication, and that matching original title in the info box, as the page is now as I write this. This book is a good mystery novel, still popular, and has a history that reflects social changes. Both aspects are valuable, especially in view of the continuing popularity of the novel and plays based on it. The first US cover is in Publication (once Publication history). All aspects of the original name are discussed in the article. It is a true history. I do not agree that the purpose of the cover image is to confirm “I found the right page”; publishers issue new covers very often, making the text, not the cover, the indicator of the article. I do not understand Shock as relevant to this discussion. The word once caused pain, was used to distinguish them and us, not to cause shock.

MichaelMaggs, you are the one to bring this to closure, writing calmly and including all viewpoints. Thanks for the ping. - - Prairieplant (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The example MOS:SHOCK gives of an image that would be too shocking to include in a lead is one showing corpses of Holocaust victims. I'm not sure the opening line of an old children's rhyme is equivalent in terms of unpleasantness, even if it does include an obnoxious racial slur. Further, WP:GRATUITOUS says that material should not be removed solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. As such, I oppose removing the original cover from the infobox and I strongly oppose removing it from the article altogether. Zacwill (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:And_Then_There_Were_None&oldid=1242070847"