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
DateProcessResult
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

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]

(
)
  • ... 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]


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]

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. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[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]
  • 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]
  • 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]

--84.64.237.205 (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[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]
Rightly so. A high proportion of the interest in this subject may be from people who have seen the coverage of the original title, which persisted for 46 years in the UK. We are not here to cater to sensationalism, but it would be extremely odd not to mention it at all. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[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]
I agree; I only bowdlerised it because I couldn't post otherwise. I am not sure on what grounds we would place a limit on the number of instances of the word. It seems important to cover it proportionately and it is easy to find secondary sources for the controversy caused by the name, which, even in 1940s England was highly unusual. Here's the latest story I was reading on it. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[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]
@84.64.237.205: The relevance to this article, as I see it, is as an indicator of Christie's attitudes. Details and analysis of the controversy caused by the title can be left to the article on the book itself. As such, only minimal (I think one) use of the word is required in this article. I recommend specifically limiting any (brief) paragraph here to discuss only Christie's attitudes.  ~ RLO1729💬 10:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[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]
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]
  • I suggest:
[at head of Section]
See also: And Then There Were None
[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
  • 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:
For information on Christie's book title Ten Little Niggers, see And Then There Were None.
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]
  • 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]
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]
"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]
"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]
""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]
  • 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]
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]
  • 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]

References

  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]

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]
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]
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]

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]

Ibn-e-Safi[edit]

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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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? 100.0.242.34 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found three older newspaper articles that discuss the copyright status of Christie's work.[1][2][3] (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]

A well-written and researched article. Kudos! Lee D. Rothstein 17:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LDR (talk • contribs)

Her characters - Poirot, Marple, Tuppence, etc. - omit Superintendant Battle.[edit]

Her characters - Poirot, Marple, Tuppence, etc. - omit Superintendant Battle. 2600:6C50:64F0:60E0:612E:CF29:DC12:F73 (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agatha_Christie&oldid=1214758242"