Remembering in every disagreement, there is much one might agree with the other parties ... Isn't it a primary source to rely on the original play and therefore disqualifiable under arcane Wikipedia rules?
I've seen the argument used in 10,000 other conflcts. (
Of course, an "argument" on the Wikipedia is rarely little more than gamesmanship to promote a POV by someone who does not know the topic to be won by the most time investing obsessive or nearest cabal. How can you really build an encyclopedia with people who really don't know their subjects and with no editorial overview?)
QUOTE
Join the millions who have already discovered whodunnit, but will not share their secret...
That, and the length of the play's run, is the only notable thing about it. So where are the secondary sources revealing the murderer? 'The Complete Christie: An Agatha Christie Encyclopedia' does not have it.
Cyclopedia, I don't think you are a bad person and I think even you as a genuine academic can see the shortcomings and messy, hectoring puerility in much of the Wikipedia and wrestle with them too.
A better example than child porn - which the Pornopedia is still wrestling with - might be homemade explosives. Let's upload the Anarchist Cookbook ... I mean, a recipe of how to make a bomb never killed anyone.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: