Talk:Dorothy L. Sayers

Sayers' Plays and the Final Lord Peter Piece

Both the biography and the bibliography are lacking Sayers' plays. (A brief mention of _The Man Born to be King_ is tied to the reference to C. S. Lewis.) In the booklet _Sayers on Holmes_ appears a brief radio address as by Lord Peter Wimsey, telling of his visit to Holmes when he, Wimsey, was a child; Sayers wrote it for a B.B.C. program (on Holmes' 100th birthday) after World War II--at a time when she was assumed to have given up Lord Peter altogether.

--Joe R. Christopher

Australian Netguide

Congrats, this page was featured in the September 2006 issue of Australian Netguide!

Did Mac Fleming adopt John Anthony?

Query: I do not remember that Sayers and her husband ever actually adopted her son. There are letters where she says that Mac has agreed to the adoption, but I don't remember that he ever went through with it. Does anyone know specific details?

--Joe R. Christopher

IIRC, no, Fleming did not adopt John Anthony. Sayers did not need to adopt him as he was her legal son by birth. I can confirm tonight (don't have Sayers biographies with me) JenKilmer 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Inklings

About Sayers and the Inklings (below):

Lewis did write a letter (in response to John Wain's _Sprightly Running_)in which he said that Sayers probably never knew about the Inklings. But in the Sayers-Charles Williams correspondence, Williams read some of her letters about Dante to the Tuesday pub group (not quite the same as the Thursday evening Inklings) and reported the reactions to Sayers. This suggests some knowledge of the group around Lewis and Tolkien.

--Joe R. Christopher

Dorothy Sayers

From article "Dorothy Sayers":

I have taken the quotation marks away from "motor car salesman" (about DLS' first husband) since I can't see what purpose they serve. If he was an unemployed motor car salesman, then the quote marks are uneccesary. If 'motor car salesman' is a euphemism for something, then it would be better to explain it, since it's not apparent from the quotations. Floyd

This would be better moved under Dorothy L. Sayers under which name she is much better known. At least a Redirect should be established for DLS -> here. Ah! One exists. Dorothy Sayers is nevertheless sub-optimal. user:sjc

Should the articles be combined? JenKilmer 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Doctorate

Since the inaccurate "Dr" was added by a person who apparently has left (user:Isis) it would seem useless to inquire why it was added. So I'm removing it and putting in a note about her almost-doctorate, not a bad thing to mention anyway.
Dandrake 00:28 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

All right, it's not inaccurate, and has been restored, with a proper account of her doctoral history.Dandrake 17:05 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

Someone else should look at what I added on anti-Semitism: I'm not a Sayers expert, though I like her work. Also, would it be reasonable to discuss class and regional bias in the books, or am I the only person who's noticed this (in which case it might fall under the "no original research" rule)? Vicki Rosenzweig 23:45, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Vicki, who never seems to sleep, entered the preceding note while I was editing the following paragraph:

Since the question of anti-Semitism has been raised, I've put in my

own version, with an attempt to let both views be heard. I really don't want to get into an edit war about this. If anyone wants an uncritical defender of DLS's position, I'm not the one, as you can see from the second paragraph that I put in. So if I've swung the pendulum past the NPOV point, let someone re-balance the presentation. But the question must not be treated as if it were open-and-shut.

Now, I hereby free you of the onus of original research! Yes, in the matter of class and regional and national bias, it's not hard to put DLS's human race in concentric circles, with Jews at the fringe of England, and Americans beyond the pale, and hardly anyone else (besides the French) existing. It would be awfully nice if such subjects got more coverage. But this isn't the best place for that discussion, so I'm not sure how we get the NPOV properly established in the DLS article. BTW there are Yahoo mail-list groups LordPeter and DorothyLSayers. (The first is quite active, and the second resists all efforts to bring it to life.) Attempts at serious discussion are not out of place there. Dandrake 00:04, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

These comments are almost three years old. I wonder what threshhold is required to accuse a deceased person of anti-semitism without any documented proof. How about if we delete this entirely as of now? 69.109.182.238 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring the section saying that some of Sayer's characters express anti-Semitic views and that she portrays Jews in a manner that conforms to Jewish stereotypes. Both can easily be verified by reading her books. I'm not restoring the section saying that she wrote an anti-Semitic article or criticzed G.K. Chesterson for his anti-Semitism since, as you point out, there's no documentation given for either of these things.

Which books and which characters? Just show where. If I went back and re-read all of Sayers I could say "No you're wrong" and all you would have to say is "No I'm right." That could go on forever. One quote might help. 69.109.177.22 15:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish characters in Wimsey books

These accusations of anti-semitism are dangerous things. The wikipedia article is being quoted all over the web giving erroneous information. There are literally thousands of google hits. I wonder how poor old Dorothy would have felt about it. Notably, it's such a hot-button topic we're not even using our screen names...

I'm not sure which books and characters the earlier editor meant, but since I've read the books a lot, I'll try to sum up my observations in re anti-Semitism.

• Probably Sayers' most important Jewish character is Levy, victim in Whose Body?. He's supposed to have been devoted to his wife and daughter, tidy in his habits, etc, but he's pretty much just a corpse; I never get the feeling that he was very alive as a character even before he got murdered. The stupid but sympathetic Freddy Arbuthnot goes on the marry 'the beautiful' Rachel Levy in synagogue, having finally won round Mrs. Levy by a single Biblical quote put on top of years of courtship. He has promised any children can be raised Jewish, observing that it will be all to their advantage to be in the "Levy and Goldberg crowd", particularly if the boys "turn out anything in the financial way." ([[Strong Poison]) He observes that these Jews all "stick together like leeches, and as a matter of fact I think it's very fine of them." Which seems a typical comment from the actually major characters; willing to allow virtues to the Jews, but viewing them as a homogenous set of people quite different from themselves.
• I'm afraid I'm being too lazy right this minute to dig up any of the instances of rabid anti-semitism that crop up among the more minor characters; I think they're fairly randomly scattered, and have much the same tone as references to Bolshie conspiracies.
• However, even Peter replies to Bunter's announcement of "a financial individual" in Busman's Honeymoon with the question "Name of Moses?" The individual is actually named MacBride; Peter says "A distinction without a difference." Young MacBride, who represents th solicitors MacDonald and Abrahams and has come to try to get a debt paid, is referred to at least once as a 'Hebrew.'
• All that said, I can't pass over an exceedingly minor but rather charming Jewish character who turns up in the short story 'The Piscatorial Farce of the Stolen Stomach' (see the Lord Peter story collection); one Nathan Abrahams, a seller of precious stones and friend of Peter's. Stereotypical in many ways - but he really does love the beauty of the stones, complains about selling fine stones to "stupid Americans who think only of the price and not of the beauty", and teases Peter about how he should get married. 'Fraid that last's pretty much just airing POV, though.

Personally, I think Sayers' anti-semitism should certainly be noted in the article, but perhaps not given as much attention as it has at present. Candle-ends 16:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty thorough review for being off-the-cuff, Candle-ends! My main concern is that this wikipedia article has been picked up all over the web as a final authority on Sayers. Someone at some point called her treatment of Jews an "unblushing anti-semitism" (see italicized segment directly below), which is nice phraseology, but which sentiment does no good for a deeper understanding of Sayers' personality and authorship. I didn't remember the offhand remarks from my reading oh-so-many years ago, and it's all a bit complex. I just wouldn't want it to go down in history that Sayers was some kind of rabid Jew-hater. Any input welcome by my account. Guernseykid 11:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism or pre-WWII 'European culture'?

Can anybody please tell me the reason for discussing Sayer's alleged anti-semitisim in a Wikipedia article in the first place? Anti-semitism was a normal part of 'European culture' before World War II, so it's possible to find traces of it in virtually any book published back then. Sayers was certainly not the worst, even if you read her stories with the worst possible intentions. Ascribing any utterance from any character to the author herself has nothing to do with serious reading. However, you could find lots of other 'politically-incorrect' views in her books even without reading them like that. Whether each of these views, which might be seen as offensive to some ethnic or cultural groups, deserve a section of their own in any brief presentation, or if they're better forgotten after being wrapped up in the term 'eurocentric' (or perhaps 'anglocentric'), deserves the same consideration as the discussion of the 'anti-semitism' issue. And what about the outspoken propaganda for death penalty in some of the novels? Even worded by Harriet V., who would have been innocently executed was it not for the extraordinary intervention of Lord Peter. This is a moral-political issue of much greater relevance for Sayers' authorship – if moral-political issues should at all be discussed in a context like this. T.B.Hansen (visitor) 23 August, 2006

Inklings, anti-Semitism, Wimsey's faith

Failed to turn up any source for the story of her relations with the Inklings. On the contrary, Humphrey Carpenter asserts that she never met with that group. Though he's no expert on Sayers, he seems a good source for the Inklings. Changed the text accordingly. Dandrake 23:53, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

One of the members of the DorothyLSayers list has found a text in which C. S. Lewis says she never met with the Inklings and probably never knew of the group's existence. (That last part seems dubious, but there's no reason to doubt the substance of what he said.) On the other hand, she did go with him to some of the meetings of his Socratic Club. Perhaps this was the source of the confusion. Dandrake 01:14, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dandrake is correct. The association with Inklings is frequently declared to be an error by scholars and fans of both, Lewis and Sayers (I have never heard the story that she was unaware of the group). On a separate subject, this text is of doubtful accuracy:

Many have found in the novels an unblushing anti-Semitism which was marked even for the time and place of their writing; others cite the most offensive passages in the Wimsey novels as the talk of characters who do not represent the authorial voice. The case is made less clear by the fact that the author's own voice tends to be patronizing at best toward any persons who are not the right sort of Christian English people.

That statement sounds difficult to prove, since Wimsey himself is portrayed (explicitly in more than one of the books) as not professing Christian faith. Mkmcconn 02:38, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Got me there. Not only does LPW not call himself a Christian (and Sayers was quite annoyed by people who thought she should make him one), but conventional Christians did not come off very well at times in her work; see the uncomforatble Sunday breakfast in Clouds of Witness. And "nominal Christian" won't do, and "gentile" doesn't seem to work well. But the attempt was to characterize people who really belonged to that Christian (or once-Christian) nation, as opposed to foreigners and outsiders. Among the latter, in Sayers's view, were Jews, though the places where she was quite explicit about this are not well known and largely unpublished.

But I'm digressing a bit here; the reference you quoted was not to unpublished stuff. It was to what can be found right there in the Wimsey books–or so I claim. I mention the obscure sources just to say that the attitude is consistent with her other work. None of which solves the problem of wording the claim to get rid of Christian or properly qualify it. Dandrake 18:21, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mystery or detective fiction, not thriller

This article shouldn't be under thriller writers as the word is understood in the States -- mysteries or detective fiction is more appropriate. I realize that in England many books are called, in a generic sense, "thrillers", but I think that as the years go by that word is used much more often to designate books that have movement, action, and suspense, as opposed to mere detective happenings.Hayford Peirce 04:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Literary Criticism

I have tried to give the piece a more formatted feel and added a subsection for Literary Critism. I plan to add more details about Sayers' life and a list of her works, but I'm too tired to finish it tonight. I hope I haven't snipped out any valuable bits. This is only my second time to do this. Txqueen 05:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nitpicking belongs here and not in edit wars, however minor --

The "the" in her father's title seems to go in and out. Leaving out the definite article before Reverend is an American usage; I honor U.S. usage and it colors most of my writing. But this is an English writer, and by established Wikipedia convention, it should employ British usage consistently; if I were writing article text here, I should certainly honour that convention without reservation. So let's keep the definite article in the article, OK?

She was, in fact, an English writer who had very little use for American usage, or for anything else from this side of the Atlantic (on which side the presence of anything other than the USA was rarely noticed in her work). The one exception, in the use of single and double quotation marks, was not a preference for anything American, but a logical and well-argued choice. So it's a bit disrespectful to abandon her national (and, in the case of Rev., rational) choices. Dandrake 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Writer section

A paragraph in the Writer section seems to call for a good deal of reworking.

When she tired of grinding out detective stories, Sayers introduced detective novelist Harriet Vane in the arguably definitive Strong Poison. She remarked on more than one occasion that she had developed the "husky voiced, dark-eyed" Harriet to put an end to Lord Peter via matrimony. But in the course of writing Gaudy Night, Sayers imbued Lord Peter and Harriet with so much life that she was never able to, as she put it, "see Lord Peter exit the stage."

I'm not convinced of "grinding out", but the trouble starts a bit later. In what sense is Strong Poison definitive, even arguably? It marks a great change, certainly; calling it a watershed might be closer than saying it's definitive, since LPW's character is not fully redefined till 3 Harriet-Vane novels later. And it seems that it was in the writing of SP, not Gaudy Night, that her characters took on too much life to be pushed around arbitrarily. Finally, he did exit the stage, you know, rather slowly and quietly: Nothing was published after Busman's Honeymoon, nor anything written after Tallboys, more than a dozen years before she died. Anyone want to discuss a revision? If not, the para should just be hacked at when someone has the time. Dandrake 02:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Guinness Toucan

Dorothy L Sayers sould also be remembered for her work with S.H.Benson advertising agency, where she was employed in 1922. She became part of their writing team, and is credited with creating the Guinness Toucan which has been associated with the product for over 25 years. Sayers worked at the agency for 7 years and left in 1929. Her very popular design was reinstated by J.Walter Thompson in 1979 to promote Guinness in cans and so the toucan continued to be associated with Guinness and has been recognised alongside the brand for over 50 years

I agree it should be added JenKilmer 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Titles

I don't think the section titles are very good; creating a split between her "writing" and her Christian work seems wrong, as her Christian work largely consists of writing. I will try to fix that (tell me what you think of it). Also, is there not a better way to divide up the section about her personal life aside from quoting her letter to her cousin (especially when that same text is included in the article, anyway)? The section hardly describes the baby anyway; it deals more with Cournos and her husband.

Another thing: she fell in unrequited love with a man named Whelpton (Dorothy L. Sayers, Her Life and Soul by Barbara Reynolds) before she met Cournos, so I'm not sure whether calling Cournos her "first" adult love is accurate. Sophy's Duckling 05:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Turning heart and hands to God's work

This could use considerable expansion. It doesn't describe her plays at all--it just mentions CS Lewis liked one of them. I would also argue the title needs to be changed because there is considerable evidence that Sayers included Christian themes in her Wimsey books (consider The Seven Deadly Sins in the Work of Dorothy L. Sayers by Janice Brown). Sophy's Duckling 05:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

More suggestions

I just reread the article a couple of times, and it has a lot of excellent information, but it's not as well-organized or as informative as I think it could be. For instance, the only mention of her plays (and she mentioned in one of her letters that her switching to overtly Christian plays from the Wimsey books caused quite a scandal, so they're notable) is that CS Lewis liked one of them. And why is her friendship w/CS Lewis mentioned in her career section and not her personal life section?

Also, does anyone have a copy of the essay mentioned here (it'd be a good idea to get some solid quotes for the anti-semitism section)?

"In 1943-44, however, she wrote an essay for inclusion in a book The Future of the Jews by J. J. Lynx, in which it is definitely the authorial voice that asserts, for instance, that Jews are bad citizens with little or no loyalty to the country they live in. Critical discussion of this piece has been limited, as the essay was withdrawn from the collection at the last minute due to the demand of the other contributors, and was never published." Sophy's Duckling 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Bold text

bibliography

Why on earth are there no bibliography over her writings, preferable divided between say 'criminal fiction', 'plays' and 'essays'. Just to mention a title here and there in the running text without even mentioning the year it was written doesn't seem very encyclopedial to my mind. It assumes a great familiarity with her work before you read the article. Kurben 29 aug. 2006 15.35

I have added to the article a beginning of a bibliography. It concerns her criminal fiction which is my main interest in her as a writer. I don't know enough of her other writings to try a bibliography. Regarding the crime fiction I have excluded 3 novels she wrote together with the members of "The Detection club". I think it worked the way that they wrote a chapter each but i'm not sure. My argument is that they are not really a work of Sayers as a writer but of course they can be included. What do you think? Kurben 29 aug 17.43

I'm glad you've started this bibliography section! I think those 3 shared novels should be included as a separate sub-section. Andrew Dalby 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Added those. Found some more in that category when I looked through my sources. But I admit that I feel a little reluctance if you out there think we should add "Thrones, dominations" too. When Sayers notes run out there is not even a murder or a plot running, just some family conversation you might say. I consider that book almost entirely a work of Paton Walsh. Used Sayers name too sell some more books, it worked but no, it doesn't belong in a bibliography over Sayers is my opinion. Kurben 22:00, 30 aug. 2006

Assumptions made on page

The bibliography section refers to the "Detection Club", but nothing on the entire page says who or what that might be.

There is info on it in the biographies I have - shall I add a section? It's a British writer's club she helped found & led, IIRC. JenKilmer 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Added link to Detection club JenKilmer 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the abbreviation "PW" should not be used, because it's not an abbreviation that the average reader knows. Of course, if you read this whole page from top to bottom you can figure it out. But we don't write "FB" for "Frodo Baggins" on the Tolkien page, nor do we write "LM" for "Lady Macbeth" on the Shakespeare page. - Lawrence King 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed JenKilmer 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed JenKilmer 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Biography or "Personal Life"

Much of Sayers' life is discussed in the "Career" section. Might it not make sense to call the "Biography" section "Personal Life"? JenKilmer 05:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[[GK Chesterton

Nothing about Chesterton? She began publushing by writting to G.K. Weekly's anonimusly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domingo Portales (talk • contribs) 06:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:DorothyLSayers MuderMustAdvertise.jpg

Image:DorothyLSayers MuderMustAdvertise.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheFloatingAdmiral.jpg

Image:TheFloatingAdmiral.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Plays

Should her plays be separated out in a new section of the bibliography? I've added a link for Man Born to be King to its own wikipedia page; but it seems to be in the wrong section. It's under essays or non-fiction; but the plays are a fictionalization of Jesus' life. -- Duae Quartunciae 15:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The son and the royalties

I found the information on Tony and the inheritance of the royalties extremely interesting, and many thanks to the contributor who found and added it, but it is still in need of inline citations and was probably in the wrong place in the article. I have tidied it a bit for clarity and grammatical accuracy, and have moved it to a position following the bulk of the article, because it obtruded awkwardly into the info about DLS herself (who is, after all, the subject of the article). I'm not sure it's in the right place even now, but I do think it's more appropriate than where it was. Or does it perhaps merit a new article of its own? --Karenjc (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I did find it rather odd... as you say, the subject of the article is DLS. Is Tony a notable person within the Wikipedia meaning of that word? I would rather doubt it; his notability seems to come from his relation to DLS, and thus I'd suggest the material could be removed without harming any information about DLS. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

John Anthony clearly isn't notable, but some information on him is an essential part of a DLS biography. The material on the royalties is interesting, but perhaps not essential. I doubt that the section it's in needs to say anything about the alleged background to the birth of John Anthony's wife. Xn4 03:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Note that the alleged grammatical errors, were the correct use of the pronoun 'that' where the less educated would have used - and heve amended the text to - 'which' and 'who', that are non-defining pronouns that would be inappropriate to use there. These are common gramatical errors, even amongst those that consider themselves well-educated - See Strunk & White 'Elements of Style, Collier MacMillan 1979, ISBN 0-02-418200-1. 'That' is the correct 'defining' pronoun to use in the situation concerned.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.234.130 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As uses of the word 'that', I'm afraid none of these is very good English:

• "born to Lilian Ethel Davis that worked in the drapery department" ("who worked" is very much better)
• "then to Balliol College, Oxford, that was Lord Peter Wimsey's old college" ("which was" is much better)
• "two children that both died young" ("who both died" is better)

I have made these changes. Xn4 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lolol - am I supposed to duck? If opposing the odd Strunkenwhitism makes me "less educated" in your view then so be it, even though more recent authorities - Fowler, for one - have a different take on this point. "That" is indeed a defining pronoun, and an appropriate one in many situations, but the acid test is majority and accepted current usage, and I'm afraid nobody would say "Sayers, that was an only child" today, whatever a thirty-year-old style guide might advise. The purpose of Wiki is the provision of useful and readable information in a co-operative enterprise, not intellectual one-upmanship on arcane and arguable points of grammar. --Karenjc (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DorothyLSayers MuderMustAdvertise.jpg

Image:DorothyLSayers MuderMustAdvertise.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sayers's Son

I seriously call into question the accuracy, neutrality, and intent of the information in the section on Sayers's son. It is a mixture of unsubstantiated gossip (he was a bastard who married another bastard, and then "an Hispanic," got mysteriously rich, and then everybody died under mysterious circumstances?) and implicit accusations of shadiness. It is also added by someone calling hirself "Tony Sayers" and those are the only edits they have made. I suggest that it be removed until there is more substance and we know something of "Tony Sayers" and hir sources. Pinksisket (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)