Talk:Hercule Poirot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pronunciation

(pronounced Er-quele Powr-roe) confuses more than it helps. it's also wrong, as far as I can twist my tongue round it -- Tarquin

I don't know about Air-quele, but Pwah-roe is pretty good. How about Air-cyool? (quele to me would sound like kweel) Chewyman 23:32, 4 Oct 2004 (NZT)

Suppose we said that Poirot's name in English was pronounced Air-quele Pwah-roe? That would be a pretty close rendition of the French pronunciation.66.1.40.242 19:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Highlights and influences

This article is coming along! I wonder if we should try to begin chronicalling the highlights of Poirot's career or perhaps try to discuss the sources and influences on the character (I am think Auguste Dupin, for example).

I removed the phrase "Golden Age" from the second paragraph and replaced it with "early days of mystery fiction" because in the mystery genre "Golden Age" is always applied to the 1920s and 1930s, when authors such as Agatha Christie, Ellery Queen, Rex Stout, John Dickson Carr, Michael Innes, Dorothy L. Sayers, and so on either made their debuts or were at the height of their powers. Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown clearly belong to an earlier era, even if their creators worked into the 1920s.66.1.40.242 19:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Hercule_Poirot article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Hercule_Poirot}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Address

The last paragraph of the intro, giving Poirot's address, seems to assume that the article is about the ITV series, rather than about Poirot in all his media (though mostly in the novels). Not only does it refer to "the series" before establishing that there is a series (or that there is only one series), and I'm not sure (which is why I'm coming here first), but isn't the "56B" only from the series, and not in any of Christie's works? Binabik80 13:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Holmes

A few fans have noted that in the Labours of Hercules, it was mentioned that Poirot's mother came up with his name while talking to Sherlock Holmes’s mother

Strictly, while the scene does imply (but not conclusively) that the Holmes family are real in the Poirot setting, it doesn't indicate Mrs Holmes and Mme Poirot ever met; it's a bit of whimsy by Poirot's doctor, who believed that Achille Poirot was real, and was musing on the unusual names both women had given their children.

The line about Dr Sheppard being Poirot's Watson doesn't indicate anything about Holmes' reality or otherwise; Sheppard could just as easily be comparing himself to a fictional character.

Incidentally, on the "shared universe" subject, both Holmes and Poirot (and many other literary detectives) appear to be fictional from the perspective of Tommy and Tuppence. Daibhid C 10:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Further cleanup

Kudos to those editors taking this seriously! I'm only a casual fan, I haven't even watched all of the Suchet performances yet, though I have seen the 70s "Murder on the Orient Express" film and I've read the novelization of Black Coffee as well as the original "A Mysterious Affair at Styles." Anyway, some suggestions - the lead is WAY too long now. It should be trimmed to three paragraphs at the MOST. Perhaps a section about the detective's characteristics could be broken off to become the first section after the lead paragraphs. Second, be sure to follow the guidelines for writing about fiction and fictional characters. I'd also consider breaking the list of books and short stories into its own article (especially if anyone wants to push this article for GA or FA). Lastly, References References References! Please start using ref tags - I KNOW specific pages can be cited, and I'm sure there's a LOT of available secondary literature about Poirot and his portrayers. Good luck! --JohnDBuell 14:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Agatha Christie "canon"

According to whose rules of Christie's canon? I have a hard time seeing Christie herself saying that things that appear in her novels don't count. And who decided that the Cards on the Table movie "cannot be considered part of Poirot's universe"? Who is this who is deciding what opinion I can have about Hercule Poirot and his adventures? As the article itself states, Matthew Prichard currently holds the copyright over Hercule Poirot, so he would seem to be the only person who can make a determination like that, but there's nothing in the paragraph attributing it to him. If this is a common fan convention, it needs to say so (& mention how common a convention); if it's not, I'd say it needs to be removed. All in all, for something that is completely unsourced and was added without comment by an anonymous editor who's had multiple, very strong vandalism warnings on his talkpage, this paragraph appears very prominently in the article and takes a very demanding tone. Binabik80 17:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Looking back over the edit history for the paragraph, I note that the original author actually said, "According to the rules of cannon [sic]", not "Christie's canon" as the article says now. This very much implies to me that the original author seems to think there's some sort of general rulebook of "canon" for all fictional universes, which is not true, and that establishing a canon necessitates rationalising away contradictions in that fictional universe, which is also not true (Conan Doyle fans, for instance,—who were the ones who first started using the word canon in this context—have no problem with the fact Dr Watson's wound migrates around his body from story to story). Binabik80 18:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That whole section, and indeed most of this article, really REALLY is in need of references. I do think that generally a lot of fiction is considered canon only in the media form in which it first appears, such as the 56 short stories and 4 novels for Sherlock Holmes (utterly disregarding plays written by Conan Doyle or William Gillette), the TV shows and movies ONLY for Star Trek (where Roddenberry decided before his death that The Animated Series didn't count; there has been some debate on novels written by one of the creators of spin-off series Star Trek: Voyager), the six movies ONLY for Star Wars (though there have been arguments in favor of treating the radio play adaptations of the original trilogy as canon). So here, I think it would be safe to say that only the printed works (and arguably the play Black Coffee as Christie wrote that herself) are canon, and everything else is just an adaptation. This would eliminate such goofy POV statements about TV adaptations that currently appear in that part of this article (or at the very least, get rid of a bunch of OR, as I think Binabik80 is suggesting). Sorry for rambling, but I wanted to make my point. --JohnDBuell 04:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that the sillinesses about disregarding things that actually appear in Christie's novels or about TV series can go, which is by far the most important thing. I do think it's worth noting, though, that the canons we've cited so far have all appeared as a result either of discussions in fandom or explicit statement from the show's/books' creator. Conan Doyle fans sat down and deliberately created a definition for the Sherlock Holmes canon (without including our modern notion that once considered canonical, a story should not contradict information already included in the canon). Star Trek has its rigid definition of canon because that's what Gene Roddenberry and the Paramount Pictures press office decided it should be. Lucasfilm has a complex multitiered canon hierarchy to show the relation between the six films and the spin-off universe. In Doctor Who fandom, for instance, there's a massive debate that's been going on for about the past decade over what constitutes the Doctor Who canon; probably a majority of fans choose to include the spin-off novels published while the programme was off the air from 1989 to 2004, and a sizable chunk also include the audio plays of the same period.

I'd agree with the statement that "generally a lot of fiction is considered canon only in the media form in which it first appears," but I think there are enough significant exceptions that that doesn't mean we can apply it here without providing a source (the lack of which JohnDBuell mentions). I think you'd have a good argument, staying within the British mystery genre, that Midsomer Murders now "counts" more than the DCI Barnaby mystery novels. And Buffy the Vampire Slayer leaps to mind, where the original movie doesn't count, but the subsequent spin-off TV series does.

I guess I have two questions: (1) Has Christie fandom ever asked, in a notable way, what "counts" as being the "true" adventures of Hercule Poirot? And if so, then (2) how did fandom and/or Christie or her heirs answer? If the answer to question 1 is yes, then I'd like the answers to appear in the answer with proper sources (or at least with the word of a someone much more familiar with Christie fandom than myself). But if the answer is no, and Poirot "canon" has therefore never been a source of serious debate, then I don't see what relevance the paragraph in question has that would merit its continued inclusion in the article. I can ramble with the best of them! Binabik80 13:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The decision to ignore obscure points in the novels that contradicts other points, which most don’t notice by the way, and not allow the TV series to gain a toe hold in the Poirot cannon is not silliness. The fandom has seriously asked and has come up with rules. Part of the problem comes from the facts that Agatha Christie never put down any ground rules in writing, although there are plenty of verbal statements from her which are hard to pin down and reference, and the fact that, despite apparently outselling Sherlock Holmes, the (serious) fan base is small, hence the lack of press conferences on the decisions made. As one of the serious Poirot fans I can attest to that personally.

The fact that only works written by her are considered the "true" adventures of Hercule Poirot by the Fandom is based on the fact that Agatha Christie refused to acknowledge, and in some cases (the Austin Trevor and Peter Ustinofe movies) protested over all the TV and movie adaptations. This well documented refusal to except Poirot in any other media other than her novels, by his creator, has become a rule among fans which is continued to this day. But I must point out that there is an exception, the Albert Finney movie, which fans do accept, having little option, because Christie herself stated it WAS Poirot and give her seal to it.

The first novel overrides any other novels rule, was concocted in an attempt by fans to clarify the dates given in her "last" two novels. Christie rarely gives dates so it’s become procedure by fans to say the events of the novel happened in the year in which the book was published. But that created difficulties with regards to the two novels published post humorously years after they where written - Colonel Bantry being alive in 1970 where as he died in 1940 being the major one. Hence the dates in the previose novels are considered to override the dates of the later novels - Sleeping Murder is considered to take place before the 1940’s novel despite technicaly being puplished after it - otherwise the Miss Marple timeline does not make any sence. This rule stuck to Poirot through the debate over his age, he’s an old man in some novels despite other novels stating that he was only 30 at that time. Hope this clarifies things. Nubula

Hello... I've been doing some clean up and copy-editing on the page, and having read this discussion and noted that there were still no references regarding canon, I have taken the section out. I hope this will only be temporary, as it was quite an interesting read. It may also be more appropriate to include it in future on Hercule Poirot in Literature instead, which is a page I created to make the flow of this one better.

I think that given the wealth of information provided about Poirot on this page, it will work better broken down into sections (so now the other characters in his universe have their own page, as do the books). At some point I will add categories to the bottom of the page so that everything still holds together.

As you can see, the statements that have been left in and tagged with {{Fact}} are mostly things that can be clarified by a reference to the novel or story in question. I haven't access to these at present, but I hope that someone who does may be able to put these in.

Getting carried away with typing now, but my other edit notes are further down this page. Feel free to discuss any issues here or on my talk page. Curiousbadger 13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Novels Project Box

The Novels Project box was removed by an editor on the grounds that Poirot is a character not a novel. The Novels Project includes some characters (e.g. Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes) and the box should remain. Please do not remove it again. --Sordel 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Previous Edit on The Big Four

I have today removed the following text on The Big Four which I felt to be inappropriately detailed in the context of this account of Poirot's career:

Poirot was then to face the biggest threat of his life, a gang of super-villains called The Big Four. Number One was a Chinese political mastermind, Number Two was an American tycoon, Number Three was a French nuclear scientist and Number Four was a British assassin and master of disguise known by those few who have survived him as the Destroyer. Together these criminals sought world domination.

It was during this ongoing battle that he again encountered Vera Rossakoff. She had made a deal with Poirot’s unholy enemy. However, Poirot was able to convince the countess to betray her dark masters, in exchange for her long lost son who Poirot had found. With her help, Poirot overcame the Big Four and achieved international fame.

It should also be noted that although the bodies of Number Two and Three were recovered, the remains of Number Four were never positively identified and that Poirot and Number One, Li Chang Yen, the mastermind behind the gang, never met face to face. Poirot only read about Li's demise in the paper, so it is possible that both of the villains could still be alive and at large even though they never crossed paths with Poirot again. After considering that possibility, Poirot did contemplate marriage to the Countess, but finally let Rossakoff go once again. Poirot was never to see her again for twenty years and was sadly, never to marry.

--Sordel 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unidentifiable Quotation

I have removed the following quotation from the article. By rights it should come from Curtain, the only book in which it could have appeared, but I can't find it there. If anyone knows where this comes from - perhaps a film? - please reinstate it. --Sordel 13:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"It was a solemn and moving ceremony, and the extraordinary number of floral tributes passed belief. They came from high and low alike, and bore striking testimony to the place my friend had made for himself in the country of his adoption." — Arthur Hastings

-Actually, this is from The Big Four, where Poirot fakes his own death and funeral.

Tidying up

Hello,

I have edited the top section to 'Overview'. Most of the same information is still there unless it sounded speculative, although it still requires a lot of references.

Regarding these, I don't believe it's enough to name the book within the text, I think there should be a bibliographical reference towards the bottom of the page (still fairly new to this though, so please correct me if this is wrong). I don't own any of the texts though, so I can't reference these myself and would appreciate someone who can adding these where necessary.

If you have any feedback on the way I've tidied these inital part up, please let me know. I'll happily do some more cleanup as long as I'm not treading on anyones toes! Curiousbadger 11:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just done a bit more cleanup of the 'Portrayals' section, have also made two separate pages; Recurring Characters in the Hercule Poirot Stories and Hercule Poirot in Literature to make the page flow better. Curiousbadger 13:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that your not stepping on my toes at least. I am trying to provide citations for the Poirot Cannon and page referances for the main article but its slow going as its hard to pin down quotes from Christie herself and I'll be cut of from the bulk of my book collection as I return to university, so if you can please bear with me, and by all means continue to do some more cleanup yourself, I'll be very greatfull. Nubula213.122.36.21 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work so far, Curiousbadger! Statements about the play Black Coffee and why she created it I believe actually appear in notes with the novelization of the same play. I don't recall where trivia about approving Albert Finney and disapproving of Peter Ustinov appears, other than probably iMDB, which I would loathe to include as a source. Of potential use: Black Dog & Levanthal Publishers are putting a number of the Poirot works out in hardcovers starting this fall. --JohnDBuell 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's been good work done on this page since I first looked at it about a month ago. I don't agree with the view that more than the title of the work is necessary as a reference; reading through I recognise many of the examples given to be correct. The purpose is surely to provide an overview of the topic, not to provide a bibliographically scrupulous document of the sort that might be submitted at postgraduate level. At the moment, the many demands for citations here are making the article look contentious or badly based in the texts, and this is not the case. --Sordel 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Wikipedia seems so keen on everything being sourced and referenced and it's been some time since I read most of the novels so a lot of the information seemed unfamiliar - sorry for going a little overboard with the citation tags! Curiousbadger 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible copied text?

I was just hunting around for references for the remaining 'citation needed' tags and I came across this page... it sounded awfully familiar...

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Hercule_Poirot

How much change needs to be made to the text on Wikipedia to avoid copyvio? Or does anyone know if the Wikipedia author and the author of this page are one and the same? Curiousbadger 14:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I could have been completely mislead here - the bottom of the page has the following text:

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia © 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors (Disclaimer)

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Last updated on Tuesday September 26, 2006 at 11:12:52 PDT (GMT -0700) View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation

I presume that means this site is pinching from Wikipedia and not the other way around? Curiousbadger 14:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks that way to me ... on top of which it has the old text, some of which was very misleading! --Sordel 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed for GA

Although I'm a fan of the subject's creator, as of 20 October 2006, per WP:WIAGA, I failed this article for the following reasons:

• (criterion 1.a) A lot of portion of this article comes from the fictional universe. Per WP:WAF, wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself. And this is my main concern about this article for GA. It is mainly due that editors only selected sources from Christie's novels to describe the subject and thus has strong non-real word perspective. For example, in the Method section, where it should be a study of how Agatha Christie chose her style to solve and to present criminal mysteries for the subject (Poirot). I've put a tag to remind the editors to fix this major problem.
• (criterion 1.b) The lead section is too short to summarize the whole article, to stand as its own and it is unsourced. Please read again WP:LS.
• (criterion 1.c) I found some WP:MOS problems:
  • per WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes should be placed directly after punctuations, without space in between.
  • per WP:MOS#Headings, headings should not repeat the article's title, as in Herculet Poirot's life.
  • please consider to have more wikilinks to other WP articles.
  • please standardize the citation list. Citation items are not sufficient for verification. Please read a preferred WP:CITET templates for citation.
  • please also standardize inline citation style. I see footnotes and embedded links are mixed in this article. Please read WP:CITE for citation style guideline.
• (criterion 1.d) What is the meaning of: casus belli ? Who is Hasting ? Please explain briefly neccessary jargons and introduce briefly some names.
• (criterion 2.a) I found some sentences that need a citation:
  • Not only did his coming from a country occupied by Germany provide a good reason why such a skilled detective would be out of work and available to solve mysteries at an English country house, but also at the time of writing it was considered patriotic to express sympathy with the Belgians - since the invasion of their country had constituted Britian's casus belli for entering WWI. → clearly needs a citation and also the sentence is too long.
  • The whole section of Major novels is completely unsourced and the section needs inline citations to support claim of famousness facts. Also read again WP:PEACOCK to avoid peacock words.
• (criterion 3.a) Please expand the Popularity section, as I can't see where this popularity is explained.
• (criterion 4.a) Almost all sources come from Agatha Christie's novel (I assume, because citation is not complete). It therefore has strong POV from fictional side. Reduce these sources and provide more sources from a neutral point of view. Critics, reviews, etc. of Christie's novels can be considered as NPOV sources.
• (criterion 6.a) I found all images are copyrighted, but without fair use rationale for this article. Please supply it, per WP:FAIR. Besides that, their captions are not enough to describe their illustration to the subject of this article.

As soon as the above matters are resolved, this article can be renominated back. If you feel disagree with my review, you may want to submit this article in WP:GA/R. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 16:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Christie and Ustinov

In the article it says "Christie was less sanguine about Ustinov's portrayal, given that Poirot, written as short, slim, and with coal-black hair..." If Ustinov's first portrayal was in 1978, and Christie herself died in January of 1976, do we know this to be accurate? Does anyone know when filming actually began, and can we find a reference for Christie's comments about Ustinov? Did Christie know that Ustinov had been offered the part, or that filming had commenced? Asta2500 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First Meeting with Hastings

In The Mysterious Affair at Styles chapter 2, it is written that "The 16th of July fell on a Monday". The only year during WW I when this happened is 1917 thus it is more likely that Hastings and Poirot met in England in 1917 (and Hastings could have been confused about the year by the time of Curtain because of advancing age). Binand 11:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Christé and Doyle ?

What is this about? I can't find any references in IMDB or elsewhere. Should it come out entirely? The note about needing a citation was added 2 years ago. Ed8r (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Theme music?

I came here looking for the name of the theme music that accompanies (most of?) Poirot's television appearances. For me, it's the element most recognizably identifiable with the character. If anyone knows this, I think it would make a good addition to the article. Myself248 (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Theme Music: Christopher Gunning." Incidental music for at least one episode: Richard Hewson. The series is extensively represented on YouTube.com if you'd like to collect more information from the end credits... or just watch it again. I type in "Poirot: ..." and copy the name of the episode I want to see from List of Agatha Christie's Poirot episodes into the search box. Good Luck! Shir-El too 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Temporary Wartime injury

There are many reasons why Hercules Poirot's limp cannot be a temporary wartime injury of (it is presumed) the First World War.

1/ Poirot supposedly retired as a policeman before the First World War-the first book was set in 1916. He obviously never fought in it.

2/ It's mentioned in Mysterious Affair at Styles, and Three Act Tragedy (published 15 years after) so it cannot just be due to a temporary injury-there must be an inconsistancy here. 78.149.195.128 (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What is it called?

In the TV series Poirot, starring David Suchet, the detective wears a kind of ornate silver device with what looks like a small bunch of purple or blue flowers (a nosegay?) in it, on his left jacket lapel. Does anyone know what the device is called? Thank you, Shir-El too 22:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A boutonnière holder? I'm not certain, but Google searches produce similar objects with that name. —Mrwojo (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. However, I'm looking for the specific silver device used in the series, not the practice/flower. A costumier would probably know, though I don't know how to find one. Cheers! Shir-El too 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not try what I just did, and Google for it? I put in “buttonhole flower holder”, and immediately came up with thousands of listings; additional terms associated with would appear to be “ boutonnière”, as mentioned above, and a similar thing called a “lapel vase”, although this last one appears to be for wearing behind the lapel.Jock123 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

When did Peter Serafinowicz play Poirot?

Peter Serafinowicz is listed as having played the character, but where and when? There doesn’t seem to be anything about it anywhere lese on the web that I can see, and it isn’t listed in the Wikipedia article on him, nor the IMDB. Is this a mistake?Jock123 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems

this article has many problems. most importantly there is nothing said about life of poirot which can be easily found in his stories. specially in the last one(the Curtain). i am gonna add the whole life story of him in a matter of days. but since my english will have some problems and i am using persian versions of book to wrtie i would be happy if some Agatha lovers help me with correcting my mistakes. --Arash red 09:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters I've added some details on his early career in Belgium. According to The Big Four, his hometown is Spa, but in "The Chocolate Box" he is clearly working for the Brussels police. I'll try to add more, but it may take a while to sift through the stories in order to determine their chronological order Vremya 09:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote about Miss Lemon on this page was wrong, someone had changed it to 'unbelievably charming' rather than 'unbelivably ugly'. I have changed it back to :"unbelievably ugly and incredibly efficient,” which is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.118.23 (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Eras

In the opening paragraph, the following appears: appearing in 33 novels and 51 short stories that were published between 1920 and 1975 and set in the same era. I think the wording is a bit unclear. Does it mean that the stories are set in the same era in which they were published, or that the stories all take place in the same era (say, the 1920s)?

Roygbiv666 (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Death

I thought he shot himself, not died from a heart condition, although he did suffer from it and would have died eventually in Curtain. What happened? Istillcandream 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right I think (though my copy of the book is 6000 miles away). How about rewriting the section on his death as "Poirot commits suicide by shooting himself in the middle of his forehead (he makes a reference to the Mark of Cain in his final letter to Hastings) since he didn't wish to continue living; he was suffering from complications of the heart and he had just commited the first murder of his career." enclosed in spoiler-tags? - Binand 05:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this section actually needs a re-write. It has copied part of the plot sumary from Curtain, but out of context it doesn't make sense (at least not to me!) Million_Moments (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what this sentence means in relation to his death- "It is revealed at the end of Curtain that he fakes his need for a wheelchair (he wants to fool people into believing that he is suffering from arthritis)." I haven't read the book, so I do not know whether this information is relevant. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The link to the New York Times obituary is inadequate, it just points to a fan page. The actual obituary can be retrieved here. The full obituary requires payment, but the main facts (date, author of obituary and first paragraph) are at this link. Bill Jefferys (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Poirot dies from a heart condition-it was he had shot the guilty Norris in the forehead ie [The Mark of Cain] ; the publication of "Curtain"would have made sense

had it been published in 1946-in which Poirot would have been in his late 80s' {born 1850-1946} not 126 years old!!

Doubt on the conclusion of Hercule Poirot being Walloon

Beïng a Flemish Belgian I would like to express my doubt on the conclusion that Hercule Poirot would be Walloon because his native language would have been French.

At that time, most of establishment, of which Hercules was a member spoke French as native language in Belgium, no matter which region.

A lot of the "Nouveaux Riches", the people that became rich by succesfully taking advantage of the new possibilities that arose with the industrial revolution, were dutchspeaking but they took over quickly French as primary language, to adapt and fit in to the french speaking establishment, where they could find their trading partners or employers.

The business center of Belgium was Brussels at that time and the business language was French.

Compare it like Latin beïng the language of government and trade in Roman empire or English being the primary business and technical language in the post World War 2 era.

Dutch was spoken by the lower class north parth of Belgium, known as Flanders or "Southern Netherlands".

In the Southern part of Belgium, the lower class spoke French but not exactly like the upperclass, it was (is) no pure French, rather a typical Walloon slang in many varieties just like Flanders had (has ) many slang varieties of dutch slang.

I Believe the best estimate on Hercule poirot's origin would be "Brussels(or maybe another major city) upper class", since he is a typical upperclass citizen, speaking standard French not Walloon slang.

57.67.177.33 11:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Poirot is a bit of an icon to how little the British know of other Europeans. It is just typical, and maybe even a law, that just because he is from Brussels, he knows only French and English. I however am more entertained with what then was actual facts on how Eurpeans behave. Most taxed item in Belgium in the 30s? Rice. British passports are no get out of jail free. Halloween is more about maintaining family graves, and not the trick or treat. Despite his extensive knowledge, one should think Belgians never have a third language. My guess is that he is from Rue Neuve. --88.89.69.123 (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

David Suchet on television

Can we expand this section? Suchet is by far the most popular and well-recognised Poirot in history. When he began they were doing 1-hour weekly episodes; these aired on A&E in America. Then they switched to two-hour specials. Suchet vacationed from 2000 until 2005, when they began making the two-hour specials again, airing in America on Masterpiece. I think we need more info about Suchet and the framing of his Poirot portrayal. Also, shouldn't "Recurring characters" appear after all the Poirot data? Djathinkimacowboy 20:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with 'retirement' section

The Retirement section was written as if it was trying to explain the life story of a real person. Poirot is a fictional character, with no real life to document. If Christie was not consistent with Poirot's chronology over half a century, we should not be surprised. A paragraph on Poirot's retirement may have merit, but it should recognize that fictional characters do not live by our calendar. Although there may be some continuity among stories, the Poirot who was already an officer in the Belgian police well before WW I would have been ancient by the time the series ended. But in the stories, he is ageless. That's the advantage of fiction. MarkinBoston (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Poirot Sexuality

Is Poirot gay/ Asexual? Did he ever date or come close to marriage?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

He liked the Countess and in the Chocolate box her fancyed the chick in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clear in many of the stories that he was in love at least twice with fine ladies. He also encounters gay men in two of the stories; whilst not judging them he advises them to be "discreet". Djathinkimacowboy 20:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As with Sherlock Holmes, Poirot is not burdened with a love life so that the stories can be written without dealing with romance. And in fiction, there is no 'back story.' Poirot is exactly what you read on the page, and nothing more. Christie was fully capable of including gay characters, and did more than once. The absense of romance is a device of literature - it allows the author to focus on the plot. And as mentioned above, when Christie chose to, she did explicitly include romance, and it was not gay. In fiction, a lack of a wife does not imply homosexuality. In fiction, almost everything about a character is left out, and only what the author wants you to know is included. MarkinBoston (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Where does the name come from?

The section "Influences" currently starts with this statement "His name was derived from two other fictional detectives of the time: Marie Belloc Lowndes' Hercule Popeau and Frank Howel Evans' Monsieur Poiret, a retired Belgian police officer living in London." I am sure that I saw a documentary that mentioned the creation of the character and coming up with the name but it didn't mention that. This wouldn't count for much except that the reference currently given seems to be completely unrelated to the statement. I think it has been made up and should be removed. Yaris678 (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Investigating further, I find that the statement has been in there since it was added in this edit on 2006-09-05 by User:Curiousbadger. No inline citation was provided although Chris Willis is mentioned. A link was provided to Chris Willis, although I have a feeling that article is about someone else. He tagged it as needing a citation and provided this article in litencyc in these edits. That might be a more reliable source, but I can’t check it since access to the full article requires signing up to the website. If someone does have access and wants to find out what it says, that would be much appreciated.

I don't know if I buy that story. The version I know is told by this article. That is based on Christie’s own autobiography... but I guess she might have a reason to hide her influences.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference was changed in this edit of 2009-12-07. Over three edits, the IP also changed the nationality to Italian (which has since been undone) and cocked up several other references, some of which have since been fixed. In my last edit I have undone everything that hasn’t already been fixed. Yaris678 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I can answer readily. The name originates in Belgium, is related to Poiret, Pierot, Perot and seems to signify "dog" (which is perro in Spanish but is chien in French). I have Poirot relatives in Belgium. The Poirot coat of arms has a rampant black dog. Djathinkimacowboy 20:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence: "This is interesting as both names, Hercule and Achille, differ from the names of famous Greeks by one letter." Hercule and Achille are simply the French equivalents of the Greek names Hercules and Achilles, and the comment is unsourced and visibly original research.Thomas Peardew (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Oops!

Sorry for that a/an mis-edit -- I put the quoted "an" back, re-read the "fix it quietly" advice and tried to undo it, but messed it up. (I'll delete this section in a day or so) Alanf777 (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

For once and for all: the original Christie quote used "a Lestrade-type" (not "an Lestrade-type"). The confusion was (I think) because of the disambiguating link, which made it appear (to at least one editor, by their own admission) that the article a/an was followed by "Inspector" when it is not rendered that way for readers. Thanks ... I'd leave this here for reference by future editors. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Jules de Grandin

I've removed the the reference to the fictional detective Jules de Grandin, as he first appears in 1925 and can't be a model or influence on the creation of Poirot (created 1916, appeared in two published novels and several short stories before 1925). Contributor tom (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Date of death

The date of death of the version of the character from the TV series should not be in the infobox without some sort of note to clarify that this date does not apply to other versions. Christie's original version of the character demonstrably lived into the late 1960's based on references in the books published at that time. The dating of the events of Curtain is less certain, but they could have occurred up until the time of publication in 1975. --Khajidha (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs cleanup desparately. A whole lot of unsourced opinion and random quotes were added between 13th-15th May [1] which may or may not have merit. BTW how do we know he had green eyes, does it say that in the book, or is it based on an actor who played him? Arniep 17:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation under Major Novels, now citation 55. TalyReb BA (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)TalyReb_BATalyReb BA (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Most importantly this article needs to be rewritten from an out of universe perspective. DJ Clayworth 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

On the "green eyes" question, it is repeatedly said in the books (especially the early ones) that Poirot's eyes shine green when he is excited by an idea. --Sordel 07:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Does no one edit this article? It's been vandalized. I've just seen the article today for the first time, so I have no idea what was there before the vandal(s) defaced it, or I'd edit it myself -- Charles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.151.160 (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Poirot's police background

The article stated (In The Mysterious Affair at Styles Poirot had retired at age 55 in 1905) which is wrong; in The Mysterious Affair at Styles Poirot's age is not mentioned, and neither is the year 1905. I don't know where this comes from, but it's not from The Mysterious Affair at Styles. Thus I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.190.135.52 (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Popularity Section Unnecessary?

The current section on Popularity is either much too short or not necessary; I can't decide which. As it is, it seems exceedingly brief and unhelpful, but I think that the subject still has some merit. Would it be possible to start a whole new section about Influence? Or should the popularity section be linked to the Influence section in the novels? TrippCeyssens (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hastings/Watson

"....Hastings is what Dr. Watson is to Sherlock Holmes..."

Come on! How can one compare THE Dr. Watson to Captain Hastings? Hastings is a borderline buffoon. While Dr. Watson is an intelligent and very able man. Hastings is merely a sidekick.

Although through his naive observations he sometimes gives Poirot a little push into the right direction, I don't think they can be named in the same breath. Okay, they both act as a partner/assistent. But Watson is enabling Holmes to even functioning and act as his "better half", Hastings is just a intermediate (I don't know the English terminology) for Poirot to the reader.

The only things they really have in common is their loyalty to their boss, being classic English gentleman and former officers in the military.

I don't dare to edit it out because someones coming up with some literature references would "prove" me otherwise. But not every partnership in classic British crime novels is a Holmes & Watson one. Definitely not Poirot & Hastings! KingOfRay (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

They exist to serve the same literary function: creating an easy way for the writer to present the detective's thoughts to the reader. Their character traits are secondary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hastings serves as a narrator for several stories, but he is typically unaware of Poirot's thought process or motivations. His usefulness is something else. Through Hasting's interactions with other characters, the reader is presented with a first-hand view of them. An often misleading one, as his first impressions or emotions cloud his judgement. In The Mysterious Affair at Styles (which I recently revisited), Hastings has fallen simultaneously for two of the female suspects, so he views their actions rather favorably. In Curtain, Hastings is an overprotective father. So the reader is treated to a highly negative view of his daughter's love interests. Dimadick (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)