The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Which book cover should be displayed in the infobox of And Then There Were None: the 1939 cover with the original UK title that includes a racial slur, or the 1940 US cover with the current title And Then There Were None? MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Original title: The worldwide first edition (UK, 1939), with the book's original title that includes a racial slur
• Current title: The US first edition (1940), with the title And Then There Were None.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Question......what version has sold more..... As in which cover is more recognizable to the general public? Thus far all the talk has been about who thinks what is best...... do we have any statistics?Moxy🍁 20:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I support switching to the Current title – MOS:LEADIMAGE and MOS:SHOCK seem conclusive to me – the 1940 edition represents the topic at least as well to readers, and the many edits to the article, and comments here show that it does have a shock value – having the title match the article name would also make the image less unexpected to readers. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Images specifically allows leeway in situations like this, where a later edition is better known. --Yodin^T 17:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the ping, MichaelMaggs; I'd forgotten that RfC and my earlier comments. I support switching to ATTWN.
  I don't care (or give a fuck, more aptly!) about NOTCENSORED, but IMAGERELEVANCE and OMIMG are vital guides here. There's no absolute requirement to have any image in any infobox on any page at all, but where we do, Images should respect conventional expectations of readers. Anyone who thinks that seeing that word is acceptable in anything apart from passing background commentary is living in the fucking 70s. The 1870s.
  The argument that readers "have" to see the first edition has been soundly refuted, so hopefully, we won't be hearing that old chestnut again. Conversely, WP:COMMONNAME is pretty fucking uncontroversial. For example, that the lead image's purpose is to "give the reader an idea of what the book looked like when people first saw it" is wholly wrong; in fact, it is opposite. The purpose of the lead image per LEADIMAGE is to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page: a page that is titled one thing, but whose image presents something totally different is obtusely unhelpful. In fact it is less helpful than no image at all would be.
  Per SHOCK, they should also be "appropriate", and that's the title that every single person who comes to this page having read the book will know it under, unless we are lucky enough to have a major demographic of Anglo-crusties.
  SerialNumber54129 18:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. The image should match the title. Elinruby (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Wikipedia page on Nigger correctly notes that "some authors still used the term in a neutral sense up until the later part of the 20th century, at which point the use of nigger became increasingly controversial regardless of its context or intent."

  In other words, your implication that this term was no longer considered a neutral word by anyone after the 1870s is historic revisionism.

  I also can't square your earlier statement that you don't care about WP:NOTCENSORED, when you use a pro-censorship argument as a reason. Aapjes (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the image from the original UK publication, and that matching original title in the info box, as the page is now as I write this. This book is a good mystery novel, still popular, and has a history that reflects social changes. Both aspects are valuable, especially in view of the continuing popularity of the novel and plays based on it. The first US cover is in Publication (once Publication history). All aspects of the original name are discussed in the article. It is a true history. I do not agree that the purpose of the cover image is to confirm “I found the right page”; publishers issue new covers very often, making the text, not the cover, the indicator of the article. I do not understand Shock as relevant to this discussion. The word once caused pain, was used to distinguish them and us, not to cause shock.

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

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

  Are you saying that unless it's at the level of the Holocaust there is no shock value, despite the bullet point after MOS:SHOCK giving a completely different example of an image that could be considered shocking (genitals)? The argument not to use the original cover isn't solely because it's offensive/unpleasant – see all the reasons given above: the title on the 1939 cover doesn't match the article name, and readers wouldn't expect to see that, per MOS:LEADIMAGE, the 1940 edition's title is much better known, and so Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Images would support using it instead, and so on. --Yodin^T 23:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying that unless it's at the level of the Holocaust there is no shock value? – No, not necessarily, but the chosen example does suggest that the guideline wasn't written with rude words in mind. In any case, I don't think anyone is proposing removing the original title from its current position in the second line of the lead, so even if the image is removed, readers will still be confronted with the "unexpected" and "shocking" title as soon as they open the article. Zacwill (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, you don't seem to be addressing why MOS:LEADIMAGE doesn't apply here. Would you object to this being raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images to get more editors' perspectives on whether MOS:SHOCK covers situations like this? --Yodin^T 10:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the original title for the lead picture and the US first edition below. See also The_Nigger_of_the_"Narcissus". Chemical Engineer (talk)

• The original cover is the only rational one to include. It's the truth. it's history. Yes, it apparently hurts the sensitivities of people in a different country from that in which it was created, but the screwed up politics of that single country is not a reason to avoid reality. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with HiLo48, "screwed up" American politics should play no role in the decision. The entire book is based on Ten Little Niggers, which we describe as "a standard of the blackface minstrel shows." Historical negationism is not an option for an encyclopedia. Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (saw this on the novels talk page). Support switching the infobox image to reflect current page title (i.e. ATTWN), mainly per the guidance and rationale provided in LEADIMAGE. The current image fails the first para (it fails to provide immediate visual confirmation that the reader has arrived at the correct page). The advice in NOVELS to generally choose the first edition as a leading image is fair enough, but I think it's clear that the book is better known under the current title, so I think the provisio regarding better known later editions is met in this case. In the event that the page name changes to the original UK title then I would support the first edition. No opinion either way on whether the article would benefit from having the 1st edition image in the body should the infobox image change. Scribolt (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Based primarily on the idea that the purpose of the infobox image is to confirm that the reader is at the right page (the rationale I use when I upload copyrighted images as fair use for that purpose!), I support the American/new title. When I went to go look at the article just now I actually did think I was in the wrong place somehow, since I thought the offensive version of this title was Ten Little Indians! (That was the copy I read fifteen years ago — even though it was handed to me by someone saying I should read And Then There Were None.) The original UK title is clearly explained in the first sentence, so the information will be rapidly learned and is not suppressed. I would also support including the image in a relevant part of the article body. But given the widespread adoption of the US title as this book’s common name in all regions, I think the infobox is a confusing (and possibly WP:SHOCKing) place to put the old title. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Going back through the archives, I don't think I have ever expressed a preference. And I won't now. My concern has always been "does the presentation match consensus?" I will accept either outcome and only change things to maintain the consensus when it has been flouted.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" here will inevitably be a count of votes. That will not be good. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping, MichaelMaggs and for the excellent summary of the issues and guidelines. Like Serial Number 54129 I'd forgotten the RfC and my earlier comments. Also like Serial Number 54129, I support switching to ATTWN, although this was not my previous position. I also agree with Serial Number 54129 that There's no absolute requirement to have any image in any infobox on any page at all, but where we do, "Images should respect conventional expectations of readers". I would still strongly argue in favour of having the original cover at a suitable point later in the article, for historical reasons, but no useful purpose is served by 'thrusting it' into 'pole position' especially as it does not match the current article or book title.Pincrete (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support switching to Current Title per above. Given that judging "consensus" shouldn't really just be a count of votes, I'll respond to some of the arguments for retention of the original title image in the infobox:

• WP:Manual of Style/Novels#Images: This is the strongest argument, though that does not address books with multiple titles and MOS:LEADIMAGE counters it somewhat (and this book is a bit of a different case from books such as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or The Mystery of the Yellow Room where the foreign title is still in use and clearly non-English, though the The Three Musketeers does not use either serial or book as its image). The guideline states "The image displayed at the top of the article should be the most significant cover historically for that book; often this is the first edition cover, but occasionally it is not, if a later edition is better known". I can't see evidence for the best known edition or sales under the various titles, but I'd argue that the first US version has turned out to be more significant historically given that it reflects the now universal English language title.
• It's historical: Absolutely, and it belongs at the Publication section with its historical context. As LEADIMAGE, other considerations come into play.
• It's a US thing: If the original title had been retained then that'd be a consideration, but even in the UK, it's been published under the current title for almost half its life (~45%). In other countries where the term has been publically acceptable to some degree for longer than the US it's less so - see Use of nigger in proper names for some examples of non-US renamings, and for the UK there's [1], [2] and [3]. The change of title in the UK in 1985 indicates more a change in UK sensibilities than reflecting US
• WP:CENSORED applies: Since that is about removal of content, it does not particularly apply to this dispute which is about selection of a primary image. There's certainly no particular support that the original cover image (or title) should be removed from the article, and nor would I support its excision.
• The Nigger of the Narcissus: That book was actually first published in the US under the title Children of the Sea, but it doesn't use that cover in the infobox. Instead it uses the edition reflecting article title / COMMONNAME, and the original cover is included below -- which is consistent with what would occur under the proposal to switch.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I also support switching to the current title image per Hydronium Hydroxide. The lead image right now is jarring and confusing because it doesn't match the article title. The original cover makes more sense further in the article but not in the infobox. Schazjmd (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The search title should be the one illustrated at top, with the original title as an auxiliary image. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• current title/switch infobox image to match the article title, and also to reduce the shock value of a racial slur in the infobox. I see that the current title cover is in the "publication" section, so that can be the infobox image. I'm thinking of switching the racial slur cover into that "publication" section though instead of removing it outright, to give a decent visualization for the original offensive title. In other words, Schazjmd's suggestion to put the racial slur title further in the article but not the infobox. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• current title (Here from WP:VPM) The lead image not matching the article isn't helpful to readers, who have no context for why it wouldn't match (per MOS:LEADIMAGE lead images should give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page). The images should be switched with the one from the 'Title' section used in the infobox, and the infobox image used in the title section where it's historic context can be explained. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• current title. The topmost image offers the first major clue to readers as to whether they are on the page they are seeking. The current title is more helpful than the original title. This is not a matter of censorship as both the article's body text and later images can show the original title.Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• current image/no change I fail to see how one might be shocked at the image but not the bolded Ten Little Niggers in the lead. MOS recommends using the original cover and this is in line with other book articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As MOS:LEADIMAGE says, The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. The title in the image is designed to be eye-catching, in a bright red font, and takes up much more of the page than the original title in the lead, which isn't even on the first line of text. --Yodin^T 09:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Current title. We can mention the historical fact of the original title (and original poem on which the title was based) without placing gratuitous emphasis on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Current title. (Here from WP:VPM.) Between the lack of an obvious connection to the present-day title, and the prominent usage of a racial slur, the image of the first-edition cover is likely to confuse or MOS:SHOCK readers if placed in the lead image. I would support the inclusion of the first-edition cover later in the article, but my worry is that we risk muddling the user experience if it's the first thing a reader is likely to see. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Current title gratuitous MOS:SHOCK with not much justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Current title: (Summoned by bot) It's the common name and the title of the article right now. A bit misleading to have a completely different title in the infobox. The WP:SHOCK is also unnecessary. No real arguments for the old title. C F A 💬 14:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Current title. Racial slurs aside, the principle of least astonishment is at play here: that's how the article is titled, how the play is known, if would only confuse the reader to have a completely different title on the cover. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Current title with the "And Then There Were None" image. Move the original book cover image to the "Title" subsection below. At this point in time, the current title has been in use far longer than the original and I suspect most of the world knows the book by the current name and not the original. WP:COMMONNAME applies. spryde | talk 23:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Original title. The book was written by a British author, from a British contemporary perspective. Clearly, this title was considered acceptable by the author, in her contemporary context. There is no evidence that Christie ever objected to it, and it was published in the UK under the original title until after her death. So clearly, she didn't approve of a global change to the new title, as that happened after her death.

It is not up to Wikipedia to censor authors due to disagreement with their literary choices, beliefs, etc. That the book was always named differently in the US is not relevant. The article on The Art of War also shows a picture of a book in Chinese, not an American book, even though a visitor to the English wikipedia is unlikely to have read the book in Chinese or is able to read the Chinese title.

Adapting titles to better suit different cultures is an accommodation to that different culture, but does not reflect the primary intent of the author who, after all, was not American. Adaptations to different cultures should always be secondary, while the publication in the authors' own environment should be primary. This is more obvious when a book requires translation, but that is just as true when the book is adapted to a different country that speaks a similar language.

I see several people argue that having a mismatch between the titles, or seeing an unknown title, would confuse readers. However, plenty of people who have read the books that were published in the UK between 1939 and 1977 would have read the book under the original title. Many of those people are still alive today. Furthermore, many translated books seem to have based their title on the original title, so people from those countries who visit the English Wikipedia would also be more familiar with the original title. One can argue that featuring both titles prominently allows more visitors to recognize that they are on the page they are looking for. And if the titles must be brought into alignment, using the original title with a redirect for the US title that later also became the UK title, would be more correct than changing the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapjes (talk • contribs) 13:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I want to point out that while the current American semi-taboo on the word Nigger surely results in more 'shock value,' both the original and the current title are references to the exact same poem. So if one is offended by the original title, then how can that person not be offended by the new title as well, unless they are ignorant of its origin? Aapjes (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Current title, i. e. change the image in the article's infobox to a cover that shows the title And Then There Were None. The MOS:LEADIMAGE of an article should give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page, and the article topic will be best known to our readers by the title And Then There Were None. MOS:SHOCK elaborates that lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. The first edition title is shocking to the sensibilities of plenty of readers. This is not about prudishness; this is about presenting, as the first thing a reader sees upon navigating to the page (likely by a blue link that gave the title as And Then There Were None, meaning the reader is very likely to be expecting this kind of language content), vulgar and extremely racist content. No, Wikipedia isn't censored, but that doesn't mean we don't go out of our way to push vulgar material, which we only use if there is no non-obscene alternative. In this case, there is an alternative, and it's an alternative that will make the article more recognizable to readers and more inclusive as well, in keeping with the movement charter. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Current title per User:Hydronium_Hydroxide. Based on the above, the main argument for the offensive cover is its significance to history ("It is a true history," – Prairieplant; "It's the truth. It's history." – HiLo48; "Historical negationism is not an option for an encyclopedia." – Dimadick; the "primary intent of the author" in her 1939 "contemporary context" was stressed by Aapjes). History is a fine reason to include the title/cover in the section about history (conveniently right next to the paragraphs of context!), not a convincing reason to feature this uncommon name-bearing cover in the article's most prominent and eye-catching real estate, and in bright red, all-caps styling no less. We don't use the outdated, insensitive title/cover art for Let's Get It Started just because it was original or part of history. We're writing for present-day readers. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crunchydillpickle Your Let's Get It Started example is very poor, since it is a newly released work by the same creators. The original song was released as part of the Elephunk album, and is featured on the page of that album. AFAIK, the original song doesn't have its own cover art, as it was not released as a single. If Agatha Christie had released a censored or otherwise different book, with one title clearly referring to one work and another title clearly referring to the other work, then your comparison would have made sense. But that is not the case and for her, the 'And then there were none' title was the title of the American version, not that of the book as she actually wrote it and published it in her home country. Furthermore, I've already explained that it is very plausible that present-day readers may have read the title with the original title, especially since older prints did not magically disappear once a new title is used. It is a falsehood to claim that readers can only be familiar with the American title. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not just used by Americans. Aapjes (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Current title. Having a different name in the image is confusing for readers before the difference has been explained to them in text. The 'historical nature' point raised by a few people above is something that needs to be taken into account, but the article text does that with an explanation of the original title and when, where and why it was changed. - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @MichaelMaggs:, since you started this RfC but did not weigh in on one side or the other, would you close it? Consensus seems to be clear, activity has died off, and WP:RFCL has quite a backlog. Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]