text:
Three Act Tragedy

Three Act Tragedy is a work of detective fiction by British writer Agatha Christie, first published in the United States by Dodd, Mead and Company in 1934 under the title Murder in Three Acts and in the UK by the Collins Crime Club in January 1935 under Christie's original title. The US edition retailed at $2.00 and the UK edition at seven shillings and sixpence (7/6) (approximately and approximately  respectively).

The book features Hercule Poirot, supported by his friend Mr Satterthwaite, and is the one book in which Satterthwaite collaborates with Poirot. Satterthwaite previously appeared in the stories featuring Harley Quin, in particular those collected in The Mysterious Mr Quin (1930). The novel was adapted for television twice, first in 1986 as Murder in Three Acts, and again in 2010 as Three Act Tragedy.

Plot summary
Renowned stage actor Sir Charles Cartwright hosts a dinner party in Cornwall at his home. His guests include Hercule Poirot; psychiatrist Sir Bartholomew Strange; Hermione "Egg" Lytton Gore and her mother; Captain Dacres and his wife Cynthia; the playwright Muriel Wills; Egg's friend Oliver Manders; Mr Satterthwaite; and Reverend Babbington and his wife. When the Reverend Babbington suddenly dies after sipping one of the cocktails being served, Cartwright believes it was murder, though Strange finds no poison in his glass. Sometime later, Poirot is in Monte Carlo and hears the news from Satterthwaite and Cartwright that Strange died from nicotine poisoning after drinking a glass of port wine, despite there being no trace in the glass. Except for the three men, Strange's guests are the same ones who attended Cartwright's party. Both Satterthwaite and Cartwright return to England to investigate the murders. They learn that prior to the party, Strange had sent his usual butler away for two months and that he exhibited strange behaviour as if expecting something. A temporary replacement he hired named Ellis has since disappeared, with Satterthwaite and Cartwright finding drafted blackmail letters from Ellis in his room. Babbington's body is soon exhumed, showing he also died from nicotine poisoning.

Cartwright, Satterthwaite, and Egg investigate the deaths, and Poirot joins them as a consultant. Each guest has a possible motive or suspicious circumstances surrounding Strange's death but no connection to Babbington. When Wills is interviewed, she recalls noticing Manders drop a newspaper cutting on nicotine and that Ellis had a birthmark on one hand; she later disappears. Poirot stages a party where he demonstrates how the murderer substituted the poisoned glasses while everyone's attention was on the victim. He then receives a telegram from Mrs De Rushbridger, a patient at Strange's Yorkshire sanatorium, who arrived on the day Strange died. Poirot and Satterthwaite go to meet her but find that she has, in turn, been murdered. Learning that Cartwright's servant, Miss Milray, is hastily heading to Cornwall, Poirot follows her to find out why.

Upon his return, Poirot assembles Cartwright, Satterthwaite and Egg, eventually denouncing Cartwright as the killer. Cartwright wants to marry Egg but already has a wife who resides in a lunatic asylum. As he could not divorce her under British law, he decided to conceal this knowledge by murdering Dr Strange, his oldest friend and the only one who knew about the marriage. After his party, Cartwright persuaded Strange to let him assume the role of his butler as a joke and then poisoned him during his party. He planted the nicotine cutting on Manders after tricking him into being at Strange's home. He falsified Ellis's blackmail letters, then travelled to Monte Carlo the day after to establish his alibi. The first murder was a dress rehearsal for the second to test whether the glass could be switched unseen, and the victim was selected at random. The only safe guests were Cartwright, Strange, who disliked cocktails, and Egg, to whom Cartwright gave a safe glass. Cartwright used Mrs De Rushbridger as a red herring to distract from Strange's behaviour towards "Ellis", and he killed her to divert suspicion and prevent her from revealing her ignorance of the case.

Poirot reveals that the nicotine came from rose spray distilled by Cartwright at an old tower near his Cornwall residence; the equipment was found by him when Miss Milray went to destroy it. His suspicions about Cartwright were based on several facts: Cartwright was the most likely to have poisoned the cocktail, his passport showed his return to England to play Ellis; Miss Milray's actions were motivated by a secret love for her employer; Miss Wills spotted Cartwright's similarity to Ellis and was spirited away by Poirot to protect her; and the telegram supposedly from Mrs De Rushbridger was addressed to Poirot when she knew nothing of his involvement. Cartwright flees, but Poirot says that he will "choose his exit" of public trial or suicide.

(In certain American editions, Poirot tells Cartwright that doctors and policemen await him in the next room. Cartwright, unable to believe someone as important as himself has failed, tries to prove Poirot a liar and is arrested when he opens the door.)

The shocked Egg is picked up by Manders, whom she initially cared for before Cartwright appeared. In the aftermath, Satterthwaite remarks how terrible it was that anyone, himself included, could have drunk the poisoned cocktail. Poirot remarks there was an even more horrendous possibility: "It might have been me."

Characters

 * Hercule Poirot - Renowned Belgian detective. A friend of Sir Charles, involved in investigating the case after the murder of Dr Strange.
 * Sir Charles Cartwright - Well-known stage actor, and Poirot's assistant in his investigations.
 * Mr Satterthwaite - A sociable and observant man. Assists in initially investigating the case on Poirot's behalf.
 * Reverend Babbington - First victim of the case. A local vicar in Cornwall, murdered during a cocktail party organised by Sir Charles.
 * Dr Bartholomew Strange - Second victim of the case. Nerve specialist and long time friend of Sir Charles, and head of a sanitarium near his home in Yorkshire.
 * Mrs De Rushbridger - Third victim of the case. Patient at Strange’s sanatorium, recently arrived on the day Dr Strange is murdered.
 * Hermione Lytton Gore - An attractive, young, single woman, known by the nickname of "Egg". Sir Charles's love interest, and one of his guests at his cocktail party.
 * Lady Mary Lytton Gore - Mother of Hermione, and a guest at Sir Charles's cocktail party. She seeks a suitable husband for her daughter, and currently faces difficult financial circumstances.
 * Captain Dacres - A gambler, and a guest at Sir Charles' cocktail party.
 * Cynthia Dacres - Wife of Captain Dacres. A successful dressmaker, and a guest at Sir Charles's cocktail party.
 * Angela Sutcliffe - A well-known actress, and a guest at Sir Charles' cocktail party.
 * Mrs Babbington - Reverend Babbington's wife. One of the guests at Sir Charles's cocktail party.
 * Muriel Wills - A playwright, also known as Anthony Astor. One of the guests at Sir Charles's cocktail party.
 * Oliver Manders - A young financier, who is in love with Hermione. One of the guests at Sir Charles's cocktail party.
 * Miss Milray - Long-time servant to Sir Charles.
 * Ellis - Mysterious new butler at the home of Dr Strange. Disappears shortly after his employer's death.

Literary significance and reception
The Times Literary Supplement of 31 January 1935 admitted that "Very few readers will guess the murderer before Hercule Poirot reveals the secret", but complained that the motive of the murderer "injures an otherwise very good story".

Isaac Anderson in The New York Times Book Review of 7 October 1934, said that the motive was "most unusual, if not positively unique in the annals of crime. Since this is an Agatha Christie novel featuring Hercule Poirot as its leading character, it is quite unnecessary to say that it makes uncommonly good reading".

In The Observer's issue of 6 January 1935, "Torquemada" (Edward Powys Mathers) said, "Her gift is pure genius, of leading the reader by the nose in a zigzag course up the garden and dropping the lead just when she wishes him to scamper to the kill. Three Act Tragedy is not among this author's best detective stories; but to say that it heads her second best is praise enough. The technique of misleadership is, as usual, superb; but, when all comes out, some of the minor threads of motive do not quite convince. Mrs Christie has, quite apart from her special gift, steadily improved and matured as a writer, from the-strange-affair-of-style to this charming and sophisticated piece of prose".

Milward Kennedy in The Guardian (29 January 1935) opened his review with, "The year has opened most satisfactorily. Mrs Christie's Three Act Tragedy is up to her best level"; he summarised the set-up of the plot but then added, "A weak (but perhaps inevitable point) is the disappearance of a butler; the reader, that is to say, is given rather too broad a hint. But the mechanics of the story are ingenious and plausible, the characters (as always with Mrs Christie) are life-like and lively. Poirot does not take the stage very often, but when he does he is in great form."

Robert Barnard commented much later that the "[s]trategy of deception here is one that by this date ought to have been familiar to Christie's readers. This is perhaps not one of the best examples of the trick, because few of the characters other than the murderer are well individualised. The social mix here is more artistic and sophisticated than is usual in Christie."

References in other works

 * Colonel Johnson alludes to the events of this story in part 3, section V of Hercule Poirot's Christmas.
 * Poirot refers to the events of this novel in The A.B.C. Murders (1936) when he and Arthur Hastings reunite after not seeing each other for several years. Poirot is telling Hastings about his experiences since retiring. He relates that he was almost "exterminated" himself recently by a murderer who was "not so much enterprising as careless".

References to other stories

 * In Act 3 Chapter 5 Poirot says that once he had a failure in his professional career that happened in Belgium, hinting at the story The Chocolate Box.
 * In Act 2, Chapter 1 Poirot makes a hint to The Mysterious Affair at Styles while talking to Satterthwaite.
 * In the end of Act 2 Chapter 3, Satterthwaite tells Sir Charles Cartwright that it is not the first time that he is investigating crimes. He is just starting to tell about the events of the story At the "Bells and Motley" when Sir Charles interrupts him and starts to tell his own story.
 * In Act 2, Chapter 1, Sir Charles Cartwright discusses reserving a compartment on the "Blue Train" in order to travel from France to England. This is the titular train from another Poirot mystery, The Mystery of the Blue Train, published in 1928.

Publication history

 * 1934, Dodd Mead and Company (New York), Hardback, 279 pp
 * 1935, Collins Crime Club (London), January 1935, Hardback, 256 pp
 * 1945, Avon Books (New York), Paperback, (Avon number 61), 230 pp
 * 1957, Fontana Books (Imprint of HarperCollins), Paperback, 192 pp
 * 1961, Popular Library (New York), Paperback, 175 pp
 * 1964, Pan Books, Paperback (Pan number X275), 203 pp
 * 1972, Greenway edition of collected works (William Collins), Hardcover, 253 pp, ISBN 0-00-231816-4
 * 1973, Greenway edition of collected works (Dodd Mead), Hardcover, 253 pp
 * 1975, Ulverscroft Large Print Edition, Hardcover, 351 pp, ISBN 0-85456-326-1
 * 2006, Poirot Facsimile Edition (Facsimile of 1935 UK First Edition), HarperCollins, 6 November 2006, Hardback ISBN 0-00-723441-4

Two recent audiobook versions have been released.
 * 2003, BBC Audiobooks released an unabridged reading by Andrew Sachs.
 * 2012, HarperAudio released an unabridged reading by Hugh Fraser.

The novel's true first publication was the serialisation in the Saturday Evening Post in six instalments from 9 June (Volume 206, Number 50) to 14 July 1934 (Volume 207, Number 2) under the title Murder in Three Acts, with illustrations by John La Gatta. This novel is one of two to differ significantly in American editions (the other being The Moving Finger), both hardcover and paperback. The American edition of Three Act Tragedy changes the motive of the killer, but not so significantly as to require adjustment in other chapters of the novel.

In 1935 the novel became Christie's first title to sell 10,000 copies in its first year.

Television
A 1986 television film was made under the title Murder in Three Acts, starring Peter Ustinov and Tony Curtis, which relocated the action to Acapulco, replaced the character of Satterthwaite with Hastings, and made Charles Cartwright an American movie star.

An adaptation starring David Suchet for Agatha Christie's Poirot was released as the first episode of Season 12 in 2010, with Martin Shaw as Sir Charles Cartwright, Art Malik as Sir Bartholomew Strange, Kimberley Nixon as Egg Lytton Gore, and Tom Wisdom as Oliver Manders. Ashley Pearce, who previously directed Appointment with Death and Mrs McGinty's Dead for the ITV series, also directed this. The adaptation omitted the character of Satterthwaite and changed a number of details but was generally faithful to the plot of the novel.

The novel was also adapted as a 2018 episode of the French television series Les Petits Meurtres d'Agatha Christie.

Radio
A radio production was made for BBC Radio 4 in 2002, starring John Moffatt as Poirot, Michael Cochrane as Sir Charles, George Cole as Satterthwaite, Beth Chalmers as Hermione Lytton Gore (Egg), the heroine, and Clive Merrison as Sir Bartholomew.

The production was broadcast across five weekly episodes on BBC Radio 4 and stays predominantly faithful to the novel, with only very subtle changes being made. Sir Charles travels to the South of France in order to get away from Egg, after initially believing she was in love with Oliver Manders, following a goodnight kiss between the two characters. At the end of the story, once Poirot has revealed the motive and the proof of the first wife, Sir Charles storms out of the room, in order to "choose his exit". It is implied he chooses the quicker option of suicide. A shaken and emotional Egg is then taken home by Manders, leaving Poirot and Satterthwaite to contemplate that they could have been the victims to the poison cocktail, at Sir Charles' party.

title: Three Act Tragedy


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of White supremacists

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The vote was 15 for keep, 21 for delete and several for rename. Woohookitty 23:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

List of White supremacists
Reason why the page should be deleted NoahB 18:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's inherently POV. Before, at the earliest, 1920, most notable public figures in the U.S. and many other countries expressed white supremacist ideas. The number of white supremacists is so large that any list is going to be limited, which means that we're going to be unfairly singleing out certain people as racist. A related problem is that almost no one these days (not even David Duke) consider themselves white supremacist, so labeling them as such is POV. Finally, it has been suggested that the article be restricted to people notable for their white supremacist beliefs or who are leaders in the white supremacist movement. The problem here is, who decides who is notable for white supremacist beliefs and who isn't?  Again, I don't see any way to put the list together that isn't inherently POV.
 * Keep if you look at this very VfD page, you'll find a lot of people deciding what is and isn't notable. There is nothing inherently POV about judging someone to be notable or not. --malathion talk 19:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - simply a list of people who express a certain belief. It shouldn't matter that "almost no one these days" calls themselves that, as a list can encompass historical figures as well. -- BD2412 talk 19:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As repulsive (or not, depending on one's POV) as this list might be, as BD2412 said, it's a list of people who express a particular belief.  We have lists of other things just as potentially problematic here, but it's an encyclopedic matter (if only for the historical figures alone) and should be retained.--Mitsukai 20:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to List of Historically Notable White Supremacists and leave out anyone who fails to meet the double-criterion of historic and notable. Alternatively, make it a category.  The Literate Engineer 21:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with White supremacy, upon further consideration, maintaining only the most influential half dozen to a dozen. Create a category, as a sub of [Category:People known in connection with identity politics], for the rest if need be. The Literate Engineer 06:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

At any event, anonymous votes don't count.--Gramaic | Talk 05:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC) At any event, anonymous votes don't count.--Gramaic | Talk 05:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Trovatore 04:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, why does Wikipedia need a list of white people who think they were/are better than everyone else? When is someone going to want to look at a collection of these people? Phoenix2 22:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please we are not here for censorship but freedom of information Yuckfoo 22:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of modern white supremacists. It seems from this discussion like the historical change in attitudes that the nominator mentioned is going to be an issue; I see a lot of people here using slippery slope arguments, and if there's technically nothing preventing, e.g. Abe Lincoln from being listed due to his many pro-slavery statements, the slippery slope would get ridiculous and the article would just become a free-for-all.  However, I think the definition of this list can be pinned down, if limited to a certain timeframe.  Dcarrano 23:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep For the reasons stated above.--Gramaic | Talk 00:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's an unmaintainable list. If one believes, as many do, that white supremacy was systematic and inherent in western society before the Civil Rights movement, then practically anybody can go on the list if you can pull up a quote that would justify their inclusion.  Yet, to do so would be to apply modern moral standards to historical people, a practice which presents POV problems.  There are already problems with, for example, Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson appearing on the list, and conceivably it could go on forever: Shakespeare, Jack London, H.L. Mencken, FDR, Lincoln, George Washington, Mark Twain...???  It might be possible to exclude historical figures, which would keep the list limited to people like David Duke who clearly belong.  But in practice, is that really going to happen or is the list going to be cluttered up with edit wars by people who insist that their own POV be represented by the inclusion of one historical figure or another that they don't like?  Alternatively I would support a name change to "List of notable modern white supremacists".  Kaibabsquirrel 02:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a list of contemporary white supremacists in the White supremacy article (which is also controversial). My understanding was that this new article was created in order to have a more comprehensive list.  (Whoops!  Forgot to sign earlier -- this is by me.  NoahB 18:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete. Weird mixture of people. It doesn't make sense to mix contemporary Ku-Klux-Clan leaders with Nazis, revisionist "historians" and others. Martg76 06:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is detrimental to the Wikipedia project as it's potentially the opening of pandora's box. With a white supremacist list, there will be lists of all other things popping up, furthermore, there is no segregation between 'white supremacist' and 'white seperatist' or 'white nationalist', many of the people on the list at the moment express anti-white supremacist views.  It's flawed and a waste of space, next we'll have other fanatics listing black supremacists and every other ethnic group which will all fall down to a mamoth name calling and labelling tantrum, something we don't need! Jachin 13:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Above user has also voted with two sock puppets - David Gerard 16:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Was over-ruled by Wiki stewards, IP is a proxy host. Jachin 04:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, in its current form. Jachin is pretty much right, and its already happening w lists like List of fascists and so forth. ¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸ 14:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, This is stupid, obviously an attempt to slander people. There is a distinct difference between a supremacist and a nationalist and there are several nationalists on this list.  This only serves to de-legitimize wikipedia.
 * (User:Izmorrow)
 * Comment, Wikipedia has been good in regards to promoting diversity. We don't need to pander to hatemongers on this balanced site. How many more must be oppressed and gassed until we learn that we can only allow 'Free Speech' as long as we all agree to stay free. If this list dies,so does our future. You say that every ethnic group will have a list like this? Who have the Jewish people EVER oppressed? NO ONE. - JDL Rep. "Never Again!"
 * (User:JDL Rep)
 * Note: I restored the original comment. This edit by an anonymous user modified it. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 23:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:Ought to be verified.--81.134.102.240 17:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This isn't about jews, blacks or other ethnic groups. This is about whether the article should be deleted.  Try and stay on topic and not let your hatred of White's blind you too much. (User:211.31.9.5)
 * This is User:Jachin editing as the IP - David Gerard 16:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Was over-ruled by Wiki stewards, IP is a proxy host. Jachin 04:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but possibly rename. Also are all white supremacists? I'm not sure Ray Hill is (read the article.--MacRusgail 17:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I believe this is inappropriate for the Wikipedia project.
 * (User:Kinej)
 * Keep, Maybe convert to table & include a specific reason for including their name. pamri 18:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Who determined that these individuals are "White Supremacists"? I think listing individuals borders on slander. Wikipedia should not become a "hit list" for individuals with an axe to grind. I'm Jewish and I denounce what the JDL person said in his above statemnt. Robert Rosenberg. (UTC)
 * User:Robdepasquale, who was the one who added the anti-Jewish comment to the above statement.
 * Delete, it's inappropriate and racist for white people to be singled out as "supremacists". Afterall, the "Jewish" state of Israel makes the former apartheid state of South Africa look like a bastion of civil rights and equality. I'm tired of the double standard...perhaps we should start a "List of Jewsh supremacist" page?(UTC)
 * (User:Tizokman)
 * Delete, Whites should not be singled out and labelled as "supremacists". This is inappropriate for Wikipedia, not to mention unnecessary.
 * Comment Um, I thought Jews were White? (Sorry if that offends someone) Why isn't Ariel Sharon on there? He is anti-Arab. Do the Jews see themselves as nonwhite? Oh wait, they aren't Caucasian, they are Semitic like the Arabs, but jews DO think they are superior to everybody so aren't they the real supremacists?  Master Cylinder 19:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - First of all, the name is spelled wrong, move it and make that w lowercase if kept. Anyway, we should not single out whites for being supremists, but, if they are well known to be white supremists, what's it going to hurt to keep a list on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not censored. --Phroziac (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I find the notion of "white supremacy" alone to be, more often than not, a laughable mirespresentation of any semblance of racial awareness or interest expressed by any White. Let's face it: supremacists don't really exist anymore, and if they do, Sharon or the powers that be behind the oddly named "Aztlan" movement should be named in similar manner. This list is useless and, what's more, ignorant. The term alone sounds comical, much like the overused term "racism," today a meaningless moniker used to smear any opponent of the prevailing religion of egalitarianism, much like "heretic" was once employed. Some simply do not share the views of the lumbering majority, and the voices of the dissenters amount to just a bit more than "supremacist" ideas, but very valid concerns which should be presented in a fair light.
 * (User:Exil2)
 * Delete This article does not contribute anything to the Wikipedia project and opens pandora's box. I agree with Jachin and other users statements on the matter, it's downright stupid and racially vilifying potentially non-white-supremacists by listing them there.
 * Delete This is actually very racist that Wikipedia calls these people, "White Supremacists". I guess that Jews cannot be "Supremacists", only "Zionists"? What is someone called who acknowledges races are different but doesn't feel "supreme"?  Does that definition take on a more sinister tone if you are a European?
 * (User:68.38.136.135)
 * Keep and move to List of white supremacists. "White supremacist" is a designation that really is applied to people. We didn't make it up. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 23:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There's been a lot of modifying of other people's comments. I'm trying to clear some of it up, but unless it's done as it happens, it's probably hopeless. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 23:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't mean to bash other Wikipedians, but the only contributions Izmorrow, Kinej, Tizokman have made were to this page, and Exil2, has only made five edits here in Wikipedia; three of the edits to Hilton twins and the two other edits were to this page.--Gramaic | Talk 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Anonymous (i.e. unregistered) and newly registered users actually are allowed to vote according to official policy. However, in a contentious vote or if there is evidence of sockpuppetry, there's a good chance that they will be ignored. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 17:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. All these lists make no sense. They are hard to maintain and add no value. --Zappaz 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and possibly rename. We have all kinds of lists of people, List of conservatives, List of Libertarian Politicians and Media Personalities, List of Los Angeles natives, List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual composers, List of gangsta rappers, and so on. I think that "List of white nationalists" may be a more accurate name for this article, and uses a term that most people on the list would use to describe themselves.-Willmcw 08:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Just invites POV, if not outright abuse. Perhaps rewrite per The Literate Engineer. A verifiable list of leaders or theorists of white supremacist movements might be encyclopedic, but the current list is simply too broad to be meaningful.  (Unless someone wants to add a mini-bio on each and every entry to justify their inclusion.) Peter Grey 15:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as it stays verifiable and accurate of course -max rspct 15:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE Some of the keep arguments presented here disgust me as a human being. Especially that by JDL_Rep, hostile, dispicable and a shame to our people. ADL488 16:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet of User:Jachin - David Gerard 16:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Was over-ruled by Wiki stewards, IP is a proxy host. Jachin 04:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to List of racist fuckwits. (count this as a keep vote)  Grue  18:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Turn into a category. It is despicable but these people do exist. Include only the self-professed and definitely verified supremacists - Skysmith 08:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Guettarda 21:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete definately delete. This is hideously inappropriate content for the Wikipedia project. Adam249 08:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet of User:Jachin - David Gerard 16:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Was over-ruled by Wiki stewards, IP is a proxy host. Jachin 04:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV. Radiant_ >|< 17:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure how long this vote goes, but since there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus, I'm going to go ask a few other editors who have contributed to articles on race-related articles to comment. I hoped we could leave the vote open at least a couple more days to see if any of them wish to vote. NoahB 17:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this list were to be kept, it would have to include nearly every white person before 1900. And many blacks as well - most black people in the United States would have said publicly (if asked to do so) that white people were fit to rule over black people - to say otherwise would be suicide. So who's a white supremecist and who's not? This category is problematic beyond repair. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, though not necessarily under this name. Probably should be moved to List of modern White supremacists. And there should be clear criteria for the list. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Change the name per above, but then again I could see some heated arguements over whether or not a person should be on the list. MicahMN | Talk 21:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The votes thusfar are as follows.
 * Delete 19
 * Keep 12
 * Move 2
 * Weak keep 2
 * Rename 1
 * Delete. I agree w/the originator of this VfD that any proper list of white supremacists would be endless and that any list we could come up with would, necessarily, be POV.  I recently added the names of several dead U.S. presidents, along with a few others, to the list to make a point:  white supremacy is a pervasive ideology -- and has been, for centuries. We might just as well undertake to make a list of people who are not white supremacists.  A fairly convincing argument could be made that such a list would be shorter. deeceevoice 02:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Question: While a holocaust denier can be totally wrong and crazy, does that automatically qualify him as a white supremacist? nobs 04:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The list already appears to be going along the lines of 'almost anyone who's white can be labelled a white supremacist', which is why it's a stupid concept and detrimental to the Wikipedia project, it's all opinionated drivel Jachin 03:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Could easily be libellous.  Who's going to check to make sure all these people really are white supremacists?  Moreover some of them (like Sen. Byrd) are apparently on the list for things they did in the distant past; I don't think it's fair to put him on a page whose title implies he's a white supremacist now. --Trovatore 06:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, I added Harry Flood Byrd (D-VA) to the list. He was a racist, old fart who croaked in 1966.  You're probably thinking of Robert Byrd (D-WVA).  deeceevoice 06:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, right you are. Doesn't change my larger point though.  The page is libel bait and unmaintainable. --Trovatore 04:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarification: "right you are" that I was thinking of Robert Byrd. I know almost nothing about H. F. Byrd and have no comment to offer on your characterization of him.  --
 * I think your entry of Harry Flood Byrd, whomever he happens to be, is a substantial example of why this list is a moot concept. He was a 'racist' and an 'old fart'.  I'm not quite sure which applies to declaration of white supremacy out of those two?  On one hand, almost all white 'old farts' (pre-1930's) are white supremacists, yet almost all 'racists' would be, by capita, not white as whites are not a majority and racism is a proven facet of the human psyche.  So in theory, how can we list 'racists' in a 'white supremacist' list when most racists aren't white?
 * The fact ultimately remains, there is not enough underlying definitive quality of product provided by this article, the concept is a loose name-calling / labelling project similar to a nazi death-camp, except in this modern era of 'enlightenment' where we forego our forefathers who worked to put us in a position with so much leasure time that we can damn the entire history of human development as an evil empire, we are instead handing out more than just stars of david to people.
 * We had the 'communist' badge of the post-WWII era, dozens more between, and now we have our current 'terrorist' badge. The question is, where do we draw the line at generic stupidity of attempting to label or catagorise everything into big broad sweeping statements?  It all smacks of witch-hunt mentality that I, as a human, have always wished we'd have gotten over by 2005. Jachin 10:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you're trippin' a bit, Jachin, though we essentially agree, I think, on this list. No.  Racism isn't a come-with kinda thing; it's not, ipso facto, automatically part of being human.  That's far too facile; it reads like somone was looking for an excuse.  Your argument may pretty much be correct in the case of whites, given the pervasiveness of the ideology of white supremacy -- which has been my experience.  It certainly has not been my experience with regard to many peoples of color (though, it seems to me, Asians (of the Far East) rank pretty high on the list of folks with racist tendencies).  Be that as it may, there is absolultely no question of Harry Byrd's racism or white spremacist beliefs and policies.  And, yes, white supremacy was pervasive in a particular time period -- but it is pervasive, still; it simply has been sublimated to political correctness, its prominence among those in the news pretty much relegated to backroom/backwoods/boardroom/country club conversations, instead of front-page media quotes and explicit public policy agendas.  But then -- oops -- there're always the public slips/foot-in-mouth gaffs; the atrocities, like the lynching of James Byrd, that surface from time to time.  Again, white supremacy is so pervasive, it might be easier to make a list of who isn't one than who is.  deeceevoice 10:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Split and rename to List of white supremacy theorists and List of white supremacist politicians. To merit inclusion, white supremacism should be a major and essential (and I mean "essential" here literally, as in "constituting the essence of") part of the person's ideology/policies. Junes 11:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but as with some other lists, inclusion should be on quite strict criteria, not (of course) to include smears, slurs and so on. Charles Matthews 10:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * CommentThe problem with restricting to strict criteria, or with trying to keep it to people for whom white supremacism was essential or major or some such is that this is also POV. If you are going to keep people off the list who were clearly, by word and action, white supremacist (like Woodrow Wilson, for example, or Jefferson Davis, or Thomas Jefferson or Christopher Columbus or even Abraham Lincoln) then you are going to  hugely minimize the extent and power of white supremacy as an ideology.  You could make a pretty good case that white supremacism was a central part of the ideology of America for the first couple hundred years of its existence -- it's enshrined in the Constitution, no? The problem isn't that there's a threat of the list being too large and therefore libellous -- the problem is that for the list to be inclusive is impossible, and that a non-inclusive list is hopelessly POV -- both unfair to the people on the list  (since their white supremacism is not properly contextualized) and  unfair to people of color (since it downplays the power of racism in our culture.) NoahB 14:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You got a point there, but I don't think it's enough reason to give up on what could be a potentially useful list. I think the list should be designed with this usefulness in mind. I don't think anyone interested in the history of white supremacism would be helped much with a link to Christopher Columbus or Abraham Lincoln. Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, may be a useful addition - that's for the editors of this list to decide. If, after a few months or so, this article turns out be nothing but a bait for edit wars, I'd have no problem with deleting it. For now, I have faith in the Wikipedia process of establishing criteria for inclusion (this is what we do constantly, not just for this list). To prevent people from thinking that these were the only white supremacists in their days, some sort of introduction text could be provided. (By the way, we have a List of anti-Semites that would arguably have a similar problem). Junes 09:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete - POV. White Supremacy does not have a clear definition and making it a list is a way to shut down debate about the validity of the label. Tfine80 01:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep as deplorable as they all are, those white supremicists play a role in American history and civil rights. This entry must stay. 69.167.100.155 06:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wayne Township, Auglaize County, Ohio

Wayne Township is one of the fourteen townships of Auglaize County, Ohio, United States. The 2020 census found 1,508 people in the township.

Geography
Located in the northeastern part of the county it borders the following townships:
 * Auglaize Township, Allen County - north
 * Marion Township, Hardin County - northeast corner
 * Roundhead Township, Hardin County - east
 * Goshen Township - south
 * Union Township - west
 * Perry Township, Allen County - northwest corner

The village of Waynesfield is located in southwestern Wayne Township.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau the area of the township is 69.9 sqkm.

Name and history
It is named for General "Mad" Anthony Wayne and is one of twenty Wayne Townships statewide.

The township was formed in either 1834 or 1836 while still part of Allen County.

Government
The township is governed by a three-member board of trustees who are elected in November of odd-numbered years to four-year terms beginning the next January 1. Two trustees are elected in the year after the presidential election and one is elected in the year before it.

The township fiscal officer is elected in November of the year before the presidential election. The officer serves a four-year term beginning the next April 1. Vacancies on the board of trustees or in the fiscal office are filled by the remaining trustees.

Public services
Children in Wayne Township attend schools of the Waynesfield-Goshen Local School District except in the southeast corner of the township where they are served by the Upper Scioto Valley Local School District.

The township is served by the Waynesfield (zip code 45896) post office except for two small sections served by the Wapakoneta (45895) post office and the Harrod (45850) post office.

title: Wayne Township, Auglaize County, Ohio


text: User talk:84.67.167.221

title: User talk:84.67.167.221


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three beautiful things

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Three beautiful things
A supposed 2004 cult, size unknown, started in England. Unfortunately, only 3 google hits for "Three beautiful things" +Cult, and only 8 for "Three beautiful things" +"Clare Grant" (the supposed founder). Non-notable, essentially unverifiable. Delete. Meelar (talk) 18:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-verfiable, not trace of this group on the web. Brand new and perhaps a vanity. -Willmcw 19:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Friday 21:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete certainly a vanity page. --Zappaz 21:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a definite movement in the sout-east. The first two statements above contradict each other -- there either is web reference or there is not. If these contributors can decide to delete an entry, then I must state they have too much power.
 * Delete. Badly written, and probably not notable. "Clare Grant is the one that done it." is particularly bad. If it was better written, I might be persuaded to change my vote. Themindset 23:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity page for this blog and nothing more. Meelar, be careful with searches like that... supporters of a "cult" are not likely to describe themselves as such. ;) — HorsePunchKid → 龜 00:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable movement. Dcarrano 00:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable non-movement; HorsePunchKid is right, it's just blog-vanity.--Pharos 03:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable cult. JamesBurns 06:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. V. interesting to see how this site works. Someone has add the "Clare Grant is the one that done it" bit. I agree it is badly written, but can it not be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.249.237 (talk • contribs) 11:31, July 16, 2005
 * It certainly can be edited. If you would like to establish the noteworthiness of the subject, now is the time to do it! Just keep in mind that cleaning up the writing will probably not be enough to save this from deletion. — HorsePunchKid → 龜 21:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Alfred Nicolas Rambaud

Alfred Nicolas Rambaud (2 July 1842 – 10 November 1905) was a French historian.

Life
Alfred Nicolas Rambaud was born in Besançon. After studying at the École Normale Supérieure, he completed his studies in Germany. He was one of that band of young scholars, among whom were also Ernest Lavisse, Gabriel Monod and Gaston Paris, whose enthusiasm was aroused by the principles and organization of scientific study as applied beyond the Rhine, and who were ready to devote themselves to their cherished plan of remodelling higher education in France. He was appointed répétiteur at the École des Hautes Études on its foundation in 1868.

His researches were at that time directed towards the Byzantine period of the Middle Ages, and to this period were devoted the two theses which he composed for his doctorate in letters, De byzantino hippodromo et circensibus factionibus (revised in French for the Revue des deux mondes, under the title of Le monde byzantin; le sport et l'hippodrome, 1871), and L'Empire grec au Xe siècle, Constantin Porphyrognete (1870).

This latter work is still accepted as a good authority, and caused Rambaud to be hailed as a master on the Byzantine period; but with the exception of one article on Digenis Acritas, in the Revue des deux mondes (1875), and one other on Michael Psellus, in the Revue Historique (vol. iii., 1876), Rambaud's researches were diverted towards other parts of the East: The Franco-Prussian War inspired him with the idea for some courses of lectures which developed into books: La domination française en Allemagne; les Français sur le Rhin, 1792–1804 (1873) and L'Allemagne sous Napoleon I. 1804–1811 (1874). He watched attentively the role played by Russia, and soon observed how much to the interest of France, a good entente with this power would be.

He accordingly threw himself into the study of Russian history, staying in Russia in order to learn its language, institutions and customs. In 1874 he took part in the 3rd Archeological Congress that was held in Kiev, and wrote a report on it for the "Revue des Deux Mondes". On his return, he published La Russie épique, a study of the dumas, Ukrainian epic songs (1876), a short but excellent Histoire de la Russie depuis les origines jusqu'à l'année 1877 (1878; 5th ed., 1900), Français et Russes, Moscou et Sévastopol 1812–1854 (1876; 2nd ed., 1881), and finally the two important volumes on Russian diplomatic history in the Recueil des Instructions données aux ambassadeurs (vols. vii. and ix., 1890 and 1891). He was not improbably moved by considerations of foreign policy to publish his Russes et Prussiens, guerre de Sept Ans (1895), a popular work, though based on solid research. After teaching history in the Faculties of Arts at Caen (1871) and Nancy (1873), he was called to the Sorbonne (1883), where he was the first to occupy the chair of contemporary history.

By this time he had already entered into politics; he had been chef du cabinet of Jules Ferry (1879–1881), though this did not distract him from his literary work. It was under these conditions that he composed his Histoire de la civilisation française (2 vols., 1885, 1887; 9th ed., 1901) and his Histoire de la civilisation contemporaine en France (1888; new ed. entirely revised, 1906), and undertook the general editorship of the Histoire générale du IVe siècle jusqu'à nos jours. The plan of this great work had been drawn up with the aid of Ernest Lavisse, but the entire supervision of its execution was carried out by Rambaud. He contributed to it himself some interesting chapters on the history of the East, of which he had a thorough knowledge. In 1885 Rambaud published, in collaboration with J. B. Baille, a French translation of J.R. Seeley's Expansion of England, and in the preface he laid great emphasis on the enormous increase of power brought to England by the possession of her colonies, seeing in this a lesson for France.

He was anxious to see the rise of a Greater France, on the model of Greater Britain, and it was with this idea that he undertook to present to the public a series of essays written by famous explorers or political men, under the title of La France coloniale, histoire, geographie, commerce (1886; 6th ed., 1893).

Having become senator for the département of Doubs (1895–1902), Rambaud held the position of minister of Public Instruction from 29 April 1896 to 28 June 1898, and in that capacity endeavoured to carry on the educational work of Jules Ferry, to whose memory he always remained faithful. He dedicated to his former chief a book (Jules Ferry, 1903), which is a valuable testimony to the efforts made by France to organize public education and found a colonial empire; but this fidelity also won him some enemies, who succeeded for some time in preventing him from becoming a member of the Institute. He was finally elected a member of the Académie des Sciences morales et politiques on 11 December 1897 in place of the duc d'Aumale, of whose life he wrote an account (vol. xxii., 2nd series, of the Mémoires of this academy). His many interests ended by wearing out even his robust constitution, and he died at Paris in 1905.

title: Alfred Nicolas Rambaud


text:
Why Didn't They Ask Evans?

Why Didn't They Ask Evans? is a work of detective fiction by Agatha Christie, first published in the United Kingdom by the Collins Crime Club in September 1934 and in the United States by Dodd, Mead and Company in 1935 under the title of The Boomerang Clue. The UK edition retailed at seven shillings and sixpence (7/6) and the US edition at $2.00.

The novel is set in Wales and Hampshire. Bobby Jones finds a man dying at his local golf course. A photo he saw in the man's pocket is replaced, as police seek his identity. Bobby and his friend Lady Frances Derwent have adventures as they solve the mystery of the man's last words: "Why didn't they ask Evans?"

The novel was praised at first publication as "a story that tickles and tantalises", and that the reader is sure to like the amateur detectives and forgive the absence of Poirot. It had a lively narrative, full of action, with two amateur detectives who "blend charm and irresponsibility with shrewdness and good luck". Robert Barnard, writing in 1990, called it "Lively" but compared it to Evelyn Waugh's Vile Bodies and felt that the detectives were too much the amateurs.

Plot summary
Bobby Jones is playing golf with Dr Thomas in the Welsh seaside town of Marchbolt. Seeking the golf ball he hit over the cliff edge, he sees a man lying on the rocks below. The doctor says the man is fatally injured and seeks help. Bobby stays with the man, who briefly regains consciousness, and says "Why didn't they ask Evans?" before dying. Bobby finds a photograph of a beautiful woman in the man's coat pocket, but no identification. Roger, a stranger wearing plus fours, offers to stay with the body so Bobby can play the organ at his father's church.

The dead man is identified at the inquest as Alex Pritchard by his sister, Amelia Cayman. She is said to be the woman in the photograph; Bobby wonders how such a beautiful girl could become such a coarse older woman. After the inquest, Mrs Cayman and her husband ask if Pritchard had any last words. Bobby says no, but later, when talking with his friend Lady Frances "Frankie" Derwent, Bobby remembers Pritchard's final words and writes to the Caymans to tell them.

Bobby receives and rejects an unexpected job offer from a firm in Buenos Aires. Soon afterwards he nearly dies after drinking from a poisoned bottle of beer. The local police do not pursue this. Frankie thinks Bobby is targeted for murder. When Bobby sees the issue of the local paper with the photograph used to find Pritchard's sister, he sees that it is not the one he found in the dead man's pocket. He and Frankie realise that swapped the photographs and that Mrs Cayman is not related to the dead man. Bobby and Frankie trace to Merroway Court in Hampshire, owned by Roger's brother and sister-in-law, Henry and Sylvia. They stage a car accident outside the house with the help of a doctor friend so that Frankie, feigning injury, will be invited to stay to recover. Frankie produces a newspaper cutting about the mysterious dead man; Sylvia remarks that he looks like Alan Carstairs, a traveller and big-game hunter who was a friend of John Savage, a millionaire who killed himself after learning he had terminal cancer.

Frankie meets two neighbours of the – Dr Nicholson, who runs a local sanatorium, and his younger wife, Moira. Investigating in the grounds at night, Bobby encounters a woman who says that she fears for her life; she is the woman whose photograph Bobby found in the dead man's pocket. Several days later, Moira Nicholson turns up at the local inn where Bobby stays in his disguise as Frankie's chauffeur. She says her husband is trying to kill her and says she knew Alan Carstairs before her marriage to the doctor. Moira suggests that Bobby and Frankie ask Roger if he took the photograph from the body of the dead man. Roger admits that he took the photo, recognising Moira and wanting to avoid scandal for her. Frankie leaves after Henry is found dead in his home, an apparent suicide.

Interested in the will of the late John Savage, Frankie consults her family's solicitor in London and learns that Carstairs consulted him too. Savage was staying with Mr and Mrs Templeton when he became convinced he had cancer, although one specialist told him he was perfectly well. When he died by suicide, his will left seven hundred thousand pounds to the Templetons, who have apparently since left Britain. Carstairs was on their trail when he was killed. Bobby is kidnapped and Frankie is lured to the same isolated cottage by Roger disguised as Dr Nicholson. They turn the tables on him with the timely arrival of Badger Beadon and find a drugged Moira in the house. When the police arrive, Roger has escaped.

Bobby and Frankie trace the witnesses to the signing of John Savage's will. They are the former cook and gardener of Mr and Mrs Templeton. Mr Templeton is also known as Mr Leo Cayman. The cook says that Gladys, the parlourmaid, was not asked to witness the will, made the night before Savage died. Frankie realises that the cook and gardener did not see Mr Savage before the signing, while the parlourmaid did and would have realised that it was Roger in the "deathbed" who wrote the will and not Mr Savage. The parlourmaid is Gladys Evans, hence the reason for Carstairs' question, "Why didn't they ask Evans?"

Tracing the parlourmaid, they discover she is now the married housekeeper at Bobby's home. Carstairs was trying to find her. Returning to Wales, they find Moira, who claims she is being followed by Roger and has come to them for help. Frankie is not deceived and foils Moira's attempt to poison their coffee, realising that Moira was Mrs Templeton and is Roger's co-conspirator. Moira then attempts to shoot Frankie and Bobby in the café, but is overpowered and arrested. Several weeks later, Frankie receives a letter from Roger, posted from South America, in which he confesses to murdering Carstairs, murdering his brother, and conspiring in all of Moira's past crimes. Bobby and Frankie realise they are in love and become engaged.

Characters

 * Robert "Bobby" Jones: fourth son of the Vicar of Marchbolt, 28 years old, living at the vicarage
 * Lady Frances "Frankie" Derwent: daughter of the Earl of Marchington
 * Dr Thomas: golfing partner of Bobby
 * The Vicar of Marchbolt: Bobby's father
 * Alex Pritchard: man who died on the cliffs near Marchbolt, revealed to be Alan Carstairs, a friend of John Savage
 * Mr Leo and Mrs Amelia Cayman: supposed brother-in-law and sister of Alex Pritchard
 * "Badger" Beadon: stammering friend of Bobby and owner of a garage in London. He was at Oxford with Roger
 * George Arbuthnot: doctor and a friend of Frankie
 * Henry : wealthy Englishman who lives in Merroway Court in Hampshire, lately a drug addict, who died at his home
 * Sylvia : American wife of Henry who takes a liking to Frankie
 * Thomas : their young son
 * Roger : Henry's younger brother who takes a fancy to Frankie
 * Dr Nicholson: Canadian owner of a sanatorium near Merroway Court
 * Moira Nicholson: his wife; also Mrs Templeton
 * John Savage: millionaire big-game hunter who stayed with the Templetons and died under mysterious circumstances
 * Mr and Mrs Templeton: friends of John Savage at the end of his life; Mr Templeton is Leo Cayman
 * Mrs Rivington: friend of John Savage who knows Sylvia, and brought Mr Carstairs to dinner at her home
 * Gladys Roberts: former parlourmaid to Mr and Mrs Templeton when she was Gladys Evans, now staff with her husband to the Vicar of Marchbolt
 * Rose Pratt: former cook to Mr and Mrs Templeton and witness to the last will of "John Savage"
 * Albert Mere: former gardener to Mr and Mrs Templeton and witness to the last will of "John Savage"

Insight into how the title originated
In the introduction of Agatha Christie's book Passenger to Frankfurt (Dodd, Mead hardcover, 1970) she gives examples of how she has come up with ideas for her books. Included is this explanation: "You go to tea with a friend. As you arrive, her brother closes a book he is reading – throws it aside, says: 'Not bad, but why on earth didn't they ask Evans?' So you decide immediately a book of yours shortly to be written will bear the title, Why Didn't They Ask Evans? You don't know yet who Evans is going to be.  Never mind.  Evans will come in due course – the title is fixed."

Allusions to real people
The name of the novel's hero – Bobby Jones – is the same as that of the American golfer who was at the height of his fame at the time of publication. The first chapter introduces "Bobby Jones" playing golf; when his stroke scuds disappointingly along the ground, the narrative explains this Bobby is not the American master.

Reception
The Times Literary Supplement (27 September 1934) concluded favourably, "Mrs Christie describes the risks (Bobby Jones and Frankie Derwent) ran in her lightest and most sympathetic manner, playing with her characters as a kitten will play with a ball of wool, and imposing no greater strain on her readers than the pleasure of reading at a sitting a story that tickles and tantalises but never exhausts their patience or ingenuity."

Isaac Anderson in The New York Times Book Review (18 September 1935) concluded, "Frankie and Bobby are not nearly so brilliant as amateur detectives usually are in books, but you are sure to like them, and you may even be able to forgive Agatha Christie for leaving out Hercule Poirot just this once."

The Observer (16 September 1934) started off by saying that, "there is an engaging zest about Agatha Christie's latest novel" and concluded that, "the narrative is lively" and "the story is full of action."

Milward Kennedy in his review in The Guardian of 21 September 1934 said after summarising the set-up of the plot that, "Poirot has no part in this book; instead, a young man and a young woman who blend charm and irresponsibility with shrewdness and good luck contrive amusingly and successfully to usurp the functions of the police. The fault which I find is the overimportance of luck. For the villains it was, for example, singular good luck which enabled them to discover and identify an obscure vicar's fourth son asleep on a solitary picnic; it was very bad luck for them that he was able to assimilate a sixteenth times fatal dose of morphia. They were lucky, again, in having always at hand just the properties required to make an extempore murder seem something else; and as for the Bright Young Couple – but these are defects which are little noticeable in the gay stream of Mrs Christie's narrative. Perhaps I should not have noticed them had I not read the book so quickly that, in a secluded village, there was nothing for it next day but to read it again with a sterner eye but no less enjoyment."

Robert Barnard wrote of the book in 1980 that it was "Lively, with occasional glimpses of a Vile Bodies world, though one short on Waugh's anarchic humour and long on snobbery ('Nobody looks at a chauffeur the way they look at a person')." His critique was that the novel was "Weakened by lack of proper detective: the investigating pair are bumbling amateurs, with more than a touch of Tommy and Tuppence"

Publication history

 * 1933, The McCall Company (abridged version as part of Six Redbook Novels), 1933
 * 1934, Collins Crime Club (London), September 1934, Hardcover, 256 pp (priced at 7/6 – seven shillings and sixpence)
 * 1935, Dodd Mead and Company (New York), 1935, Hardcover, 290 pp as The Boomerang Clue (priced at $2.00).
 * 1944, Dell Books (New York), Paperback, (Dell number 46 [mapback]), 224 pp
 * 1956, Fontana Books (Imprint of HarperCollins), Paperback, 192 pp
 * 1968, Greenway edition of collected works (William Collins), Hardcover, 288 pp
 * 1968, Greenway edition of collected works (Dodd Mead and Company), Hardcover, 288 pp
 * 1974, Ulverscroft Large-print Edition, Hardcover, 394 pp ISBN 0-85456-270-2
 * 1978, Pan, Paperback, 188pp ISBN 0-330-10736-4
 * 1980, Pan Books in association with Collins, 188pp
 * 2012, 2022, William Morrow (imprint of HarperCollins), Paperback, 304pp ISBN 9780062074126

The novel was first published in the US in the Redbook magazine in a condensed version in the issue for November 1933 (Volume 62, Number 1) under the title The Boomerang Clue with illustrations by Joseph Franké. This version was then published in Six Redbook Novels by The McCall Company in 1933, prior to the publication of the full text by Dodd Mead in 1935. The other five condensed novels in this volume were The Thin Man by Dashiell Hammett, The Figure in the Fog by Mignon G. Eberhart, The Cross of Peace by Philip Gibbs, White Piracy by James Warner Bellah and Parade Ground by Charles L Clifford.

Book dedication
The dedication of the book reads: "To Christopher Mallock in memory of Hinds"

The Mallock family were friends of Christie's from the years before her first marriage. They staged amateur theatricals at their house, Cockington Court, near Torquay in which Christie, managing to overcome her usual crippling shyness, took part. The allusion to Hinds is unknown.

Dustjacket blurb
The blurb on the inside flap of the dustjacket of the first UK edition (which is also repeated opposite the title page) reads:"'Believe it or not, Bobby Jones had topped his drive! He was badly bunkered. There were no eager crowds to groan with dismay. That is easily explained – for Bobby was merely the fourth son of the Vicar of Marchbolt, a small golfing resort on the Welsh coast. And Bobby, in spite of his name, was not much of a golfer. Still, that game was destined to be a memorable one. On going to play his ball, Bobby suddenly came upon the body of a man. He bent over him. The man was not yet dead. 'Why didn't they ask Evans?' he said, and then the eyelids dropped, the jaw fell... It was the beginning of a most baffling mystery. That strange question of the dying man is the recurring theme of Agatha Christie's magnificent story. Read it and enjoy it.'"

International titles
This novel has been translated into various languages other than its original English. Twenty-six are listed here, some published as recently as 2014. This is in keeping with the author's reputation for being the most translated author.

 * Bulgarian: Защо не повикаха Евънс? /Zashto ne povikaha Evans?/
 * Catalan: La cursa del bumerang translator Esteve Riambau, 1996, Barcelona: Columna ISBN 978-8482563008
 * Chinese: 悬崖上的谋杀 /Xuan ya shang de mou sha translators Lisidi Ke, Gang Ye, 2010, Beijing: Ren min wen xue chu ban she ISBN 978-7020081806
 * Czech: Proč nepožádali Evanse?
 * Danish: Hvorfor spurgte de ikke Evans? translator Michael Alring, 1999, Copenhagen: Peter Asschenfeldts nye Forlag ISBN 978-8778802996
 * Dutch: Waarom Evans niet?
 * Estonian: Miks nad ei kutsunud Evansit?
 * Finnish: "Askel tyhjyyteen" translator Kirsti Kattelus, 1989, Helsinki: WSOY ISBN 978-9510155172
 * French: Pourquoi Pas Evans ? translator Jean Pêcheux, 2014, Paris: Éditions France loisirs ISBN 978-2298085549
 * German: Ein Schritt ins Leere, translator Otto Albrecht van Bebber, 2005, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag ISBN 978-3596168903
 * Greek: Οκτώ κόκκοι μορφίνης
 * Hebrew: כדור במגרש הגולף (Ball in the Golf Field) 1960 translator unknown. ?מדוע לא ביקשו את אוונס translator: Dov Halachmi 1980
 * Hungarian: Miért nem szóltak Evansnek?
 * Italian: Perché non l'hanno chiesto a Evans?
 * Japanese: 謎のエヴァンズ殺人事件 /Nazo no evuanzu satsujin jiken translator Tadae Fukizawa, 1989, Shinjuku: Shinchosha Publishing ISBN 978-4102135167
 * Norwegian: Hvorfor spurte de ikke Evans?
 * Polish: Dlaczego nie Evans? translator Katarzyna Kasterka, 2014, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Dolnośląskie ISBN 978-8324592838
 * Portuguese (Brazil): Por que não pediram a Evans?
 * Portuguese (Portugal): Perguntem a Evans
 * Romanian: De ce nu i-au cerut lui Evans
 * Russian: Почему не Эванс /Potchemu ne Evans?/ translator not known, 1998, Warszawa: Proszynski i S-ka ISBN 978-8385661757
 * Serbian: Zašto nisu pitali Evansa?, translator Tea Jovanović, 2008, Beograd: Mladinska knjiga ISBN 978-8679281432
 * Slovak: Prečo nepožiadali Evans?
 * Slovene: Zakaj ne Evans? translator Zoja Skušek, 2012, Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga ISBN 978-9610118862
 * Spanish: Trayectoria de boomerang
 * Swedish:
 * Turkish: Ceset dedi ki ... translator Gönül Suveren, 1980s, İstanbul: Altın Kitaplar Yayınevi ISBN 978-9754050097

1980
Why Didn't They Ask Evans was adapted by London Weekend Television and transmitted on 30 March 1980. Before this production, there had been relatively few adaptations of Christie's work on the small screen as it was a medium she disliked and she had not been impressed with previous efforts, in particular a transmission of And Then There Were None on 20 August 1949 when several noticeable errors went out live, including one of the "corpses" standing up and walking off set in full view of the cameras. By the 1960s she was emphatically refusing to grant television rights to her works.

After Christie's death in 1976, her estate, principally managed by her daughter Rosalind Hicks, relaxed this ruling and Why Didn't They Ask Evans was the first major production that resulted. Evans attracted large audiences and satisfactory reviews, but more importantly, it demonstrated to television executives that Christie's work could be successful for the small screen given the right budgets, stars and attention to detail – Agatha Christie's Partners in Crime, Miss Marple with Joan Hickson (who had a minor role in Evans), Agatha Christie's Poirot with David Suchet and Marple with Geraldine McEwan, until her retirement, and then with Julia Mackenzie, can all trace their style and successes back to this 1980 adaptation.

Given a generous budget of £1 million, a large sum for the time, it had an all-star cast and a three-month shooting and videotaping schedule. Problems were encountered during the 1979 ITV strike which lasted three months and led to replacement production personnel when the strike ended, including a change of director. The original intention was that the 180-minute teleplay would be transmitted as a three-part "mini-serial", but ITV then decided to show it as a three-hour special with maximum publicity, especially for Francesca Annis in the role of Frankie.

Locations
Much of the film was taped on location in Cuddington and Long Crendon in Buckinghamshire. Hall Barn, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire doubled as the Bassington-ffrench residence and Castle Ashby in Northamptonshire was used as Lady Derwent's home.

The production was faithful to the plot and dialogue of the book. Two notable changes were made. The first is the recognition in the isolated cottage that Dr Nicholson is Roger Bassington-ffrench in disguise. In the novel, it is Bobby who recognises the deception as the man's ear-lobes are different from those of the doctor whom he had glimpsed previously. In the adaptation, Frankie witnesses one of Nicholson's patients attacking him in the sanatorium when his face is badly scratched. In the cottage, she realises the scratches have disappeared. The second change comes at the end when, instead of writing to Frankie from South America, Roger lures her to a deserted Merroway Court, makes much the same confession as appears in the book's letter and tells her he loves her, asking her to join him. When she refuses, he locks her in a room of the house (to be freed by Bobby the next day) but does not harm her as he makes his escape abroad. The production was first screened on US television as part of Mobil Showcase on 21 May 1981, introduced by Peter Ustinov.

Adaptor: Pat Sandys Executive Producer: Tony Wharmby Producer: Jack Williams Directors: John Davies and Tony Wharmby Artwork: John Tribe

Principal cast:

 * Francesca Annis as Lady Frances (Frankie) Derwent
 * Leigh Lawson as Roger Bassington-ffrench
 * James Warwick as Bobby Jones
 * Connie Booth as Sylvia Bassington-ffrench
 * John Gielgud as Reverend Jones
 * Bernard Miles as Dr Thomas
 * Eric Porter as Dr Nicholson
 * Madeline Smith as Moira Nicholson
 * Doris Hare as Rose Pratt
 * Joan Hickson as Mrs Rivington
 * Roy Boyd as Alan Carstairs
 * James Cossins as Henry Bassington-ffrench
 * Robert Longden as Badger Beadon

2011
Patrick Barlow loosely reworked Christie's novel as a two-hour television film starring Julia McKenzie as Miss Marple, a Christie character who does not appear in the original novel. It was first transmitted on Wednesday, 15 June 2011, on ITV. Among the major changes to the plot:

 * Miss Marple is portrayed as a friend of Bobby's mother (Bobby's father does not appear), and joins the investigation while masquerading as Frankie's governess.
 * The time period of the book is shifted from the early 1930s to the late 1950s to match the timeframe used by the rest of the ITV Marple series.
 * The characters of Leo Cayman, Amelia Cayman, Badger Beadon, Henry Bassington-ffrench, Vicar Jones and Dr Thomas are omitted.
 * Thomas Bassington-ffrench is a small boy in the novel, but in the film he is a cold and introverted teenager.
 * New characters and subplots are introduced, including Sylvia's two children Tom and Dorothy Savage, Wilson the butler, Commander Peters and Claude Evans. Evans, portrayed as an orchid-grower and a friend of the Savages, is murdered to throw Bobby, Frankie and Miss Marple off the track.
 * Sylvia Bassington-ffrench and Alan Carstairs undergo name changes to become Sylvia Savage and John Carstairs, respectively. Sylvia becomes a drug addict in this version, her fixes supplied by Dr Nicholson.
 * John Savage (called Jack in this adaptation) is made into Sylvia's husband, who is murdered before the film begins.
 * Bobby does not find the body whilst playing golf; he is taking a walk across the cliff. The attempt on his life is by running his bicycle off the road rather than a poisoned beer.
 * Roger's role in the household is changed: Instead of being Sylvia's brother-in-law, he is the piano player at Castle Savage, and since the Caymans are deleted and there is no photograph for him to take from Carstairs' body, he is not present when the body is discovered.
 * The motive for the murders is changed: Roger and Moira are revealed to be brother and sister, children of Sylvia from her first marriage, to Jack Savage's brother George. Jack and Sylvia began an affair while the brothers were living in China shortly before the beginning of World War II, and Jack had his brother, a vocal opponent of the Japanese, murdered. As the war intensified, Jack returned to England with Sylvia but forced her to leave her children behind, where Roger was placed in an orphanage and Moira, it is implied, was used as a "comfort girl" by the Japanese army. The denouement is changed; Moira and Roger are interrupted in an attempt to kill Sylvia by injecting her with poison, but are surprised by the other suspects. During the ensuing struggle, Tom shoots Roger, and Wilson kills Moira by injecting her with the poison she intended for Sylvia.

The Castle Savage scenes were largely filmed at Loseley Park near Guildford — a 16th-century stately home in Surrey belonging to the More-Molyneux family.

The cast for this adaptation included:

 * Julia McKenzie as Miss Marple
 * Sean Biggerstaff as Bobby Attfield
 * David Buchanan as John Carstairs
 * Siwan Morris as Florrie
 * Helen Lederer as Marjorie Attfield
 * Georgia Tennant as Frankie Derwent
 * Samantha Bond as Sylvia Savage
 * Richard Briers as Wilson
 * Freddie Fox as Tom Savage
 * Rik Mayall as Alec Nicholson
 * Hannah Murray as Dorothy Savage
 * Rafe Spall as Roger Bassington
 * Natalie Dormer as Moira Nicholson
 * Warren Clarke as Commander Peters
 * Mark Williams as Claud Evans

2013
It was adapted as a 2013 episode of the French television series Les Petits Meurtres d'Agatha Christie.

2022
In April 2021, it was announced that Hugh Laurie would be adapting the novel for BritBox in 2022. The filming took place in Surrey, mainly in the villages of Shere and Albury, between June and August 2021, and at Three Cliffs Bay in Swansea. The three-part series became available on BritBox on 14 April 2022. It was then shown on ITVX and ITV in April 2023.

title: Why Didn't They Ask Evans?


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan St. Clair

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Bratsche talk 5 pillars 20:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Bryan St. Clair
Delete Non-notable. Only reference is relation to a brother who is only slightly more notable. Icelight 18:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable card gamer. Banning from tournaments isn't exactly notability. -Harmil 19:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn Friday 21:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable cardie. JamesBurns 02:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons above. IINAG, 18:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable player. Riddle | Talk 04:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Settling Accounts

Czarist Russia
"Turtledove never explains why Russia is still Tsarist, since in real life the Russian Revolution was in large part caused by its being defeated in World War I, which also happened here."

A possible reason for this would be that in this timeline, the Germans felt no need to send Lenin in a sealed railway car back to St. Petersburg (the war on the Western front would have been considerably eased without American involvement on the Anglo-French side.)

Added the part about guerilla warfare in Ireland; re-arranged the bit about a lack of explanation for the continued existence of a Tsarist Russia.

 * Actually, he does; Stalin did attempt an overthrow, but the Tzarist faction won when Stalin and the upper communist leadership died. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.215.227.97 (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

 * What happened to the republicanists (White Revolution) and Trotskists then? It would have been preferable to have split the Russian Empire in three, with the communists controlling Central Russia, the Czar controlling the Russian Far East, and the republicanists controlling European Russia. (And then the Empire fracturing due to local nationalist movements, and the conquest of Siberia by Japan) 70.51.8.242 03:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Lenin probably shot Rasputin so that his prophecy came true.

Deseret
The Mormon rebels do not use the Utah flag, they apparently use a honeybee flag with the words "DESERET" on it. Is this flag historical, because if it is then it should replace the Utah flag on the war summary. Don Quixtote (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

World map is rather speculative
The world map showen in this article is rather speculative. In Africa, Germany snatched the Congo from the Belgians, but otherwise everything looks just like in our timeline. That's IMO rather unlikely (Germany might have claimed more territory from Britain and France to connect all her colonies) and Turtledove doesn't give any details. The Baltic states, Georgia, several Caucasus nations, Romania and Albania are all independent and members of the Central Powers. Not mentioned in the books AFAIK. The territory of Poland and the Ukraine is unknown too. All South American states except Uruguay, Argentia and Chile are shown as neutral powers. Not mentioned in the books AFAIK. Siam is a Japanese ally. China is at war with Japan. Also not mentioned AFAIK. I know, in Turtledoves books, stuff that's not explained usually happens like in our timeline, but IMO, the map is still highly speculative and should be replaced by a list of nations/flags instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.3.135 (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

NOT A MILITARY CONFLICT
Please for the LOVE OF GOD do NOT use the military conflict infobox for this article.

Because it is not a military conflict.

I'm working on a collaborative research project that examining aggregate military conflict Wikipedia over the course of human history. We're trying to see what we can learn both about the history of human conflict, and the way conflict is preserved and remembered on knowledge databases like Wikipedia.

I've already had to remove nonsense data due to the irresponsible and erroneous use of the military infobox on Lord of the Rings and Star Wars Wikipedia pages. I rewired our parser to remove Star Trek pages when we saw a sore thumb outlier battle with over a TRILLION casualties that ended up being some fictional "Dominion War."

This one was particularly tricky because it uses real world entities AND links to them in the infobox. We're looking at huge patterns in huge amounts of data but I just happened to notice that the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire were indicated as military active in 1941 and I knew that was wrong. I cracked open the layers of processed data and realized that this fictional alternate history book was caught by our widely cast net.

Because some writer uses the military conflict infobox. But this is not a military conflict. It's a work of fiction. Vqmalic (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the change. There's no reason to remove that information from all readers just to make one person's data mining easier. And it IS a military conflict, just a fictional one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vqmalic. By some bizarre coincidence, I happened to be reading about this series of alternate-history novels by way of research on James Longstreet. I was muttering to myself about some of the 'liberties' and 'flights of fancy' I thought the author had taken, decided to look at the Talk page... and found your comments about the 'Dominion War' page. Having spent the best part of three months back in 2011 trying to transform that very page from a fictional history account into a more encyclopaedic entry about the real-world writing of that story arc, I can only apologise that I never considered also removing the military conflict infobox. However, since it already resided there, and nobody ever left any feedback suggesting it shouldn't be there, I had no idea that I should remove it. Thus are the pitfalls of a user-curated wiki. I'm sure if you simply went to edit it out yourself, this would be acceptable, if you explain the reason. I would happily support you! However, please be aware that editors have spent their own time and passion contributing to even what might appear trivial pages and subjects. They are not doing it to antagonise anybody on purpose. Good luck with your project. Ethdhelwen (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Settling Accounts


text:
George Wittet

George Wittet (1878-1926) was a Scottish architect who worked mostly in Mumbai, India.

Biography
George Wittet was born in Blair Atholl, Scotland in 1878. He studied architecture with a Mr. Heiton of Perth, Scotland, and worked in Edinburgh  and York before moving to India.

Wittet arrived in India in 1904 and became an assistant to John Begg, then Consulting Architect to Mumbai. The two men played a large part in the development and popularization of Indo-Saracenic architecture, based on careful study of Indian models.

On 12 May 1917, Wittet, by then Consulting Architect to the Government of Mumbai, was unanimously elected as the first President of The Indian Institute of Architects.

Wittet designed some of Mumbai's  best known landmarks: the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Saghralaya, the Gateway of India, the Institute of Science, the Small Causes Court at Dhobitalao, the Wadia Maternity Hospital, Bombay House, the King Edward Memorial Hospital, the Grand Hotel and other buildings at the Ballard Estate, by the Mumbai Docks.

In Karachi, he designed the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) building.

He died of acute dysentery in Mumbai in 1926, and is buried in the Sewri cemetery.

title: George Wittet


text:
Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954

The Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 10 (N.I.)) was an act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, passed in 1954. It was repealed under the direct rule of the British government, by the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

It was bitterly resented by nationalists who saw the Act as being deliberately designed to suppress their identity. Although it did not refer explicitly to the Irish tricolour, it did the Union Flag. The Act gave the Royal Ulster Constabulary a positive duty to remove any flag or emblem from public or private property which was considered to be likely to cause a breach of the peace, but legally exempted the Union Flag from ever being considered a breach of the peace. As a result, of all the flags likely to be displayed in Northern Ireland, almost exclusively the Irish tricolour would be deemed a breach of the peace. However the Act was not a wholesale ban on the Irish flag, and it was often allowed to remain flying, especially at GAA grounds.

The Act was introduced at a time of some turmoil within unionism in Northern Ireland, dissent that was viewed with alarm by the Ulster Unionist government, and the legislation was initiated amid the pressure emanating from that dissent. Hard line unionists accused the government of appeasing nationalists; a more lenient approach by government to some nationalist parades had led to an increase in the flying of the Irish Tricolour. Likewise, the Coronation celebrations had led to the erection of Union Flags, not only in unionist enclaves, but in nationalist areas where disputes erupted and where some Union Flags were taken down and replaced with Tricolours. Nationalists had also organised boycotts of shops which openly celebrated the coronation with the display of the Union Flag, increasing tension and unionist fears. The Act took over some of the powers of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922.

Violations of the Act were punishable by up to a fine up to £500, or up to five years in prison.

The enforcement of the Act could on occasion lead to rioting, most notoriously during the UK General Election of 1964 on the lower Falls Road in Belfast.

Reading

 * Henry Patterson, Party versus order: Ulster Unionism and the Flags and Emblems Act, Contemporary British History, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Winter 1999), pp. 105–129.
 * Henry Patterson Ireland Since 1939, Penguin Ireland, 2007
 * Andrew Gailey Crying in the Wilderness: Jack Sayers, a Liberal Editor in Ulster, 1939-69, Institute of Irish Studies, Queen's University Belfast, 1995