Talk:Gospel of Thomas

"Christ"

The article states that The Gospel of Thomas does not refer to Jesus as "Christ"' but goes on to say 'though it does mention Peter, James, Thomas, and Matthew as "disciples of Christ"'

Seems to be something wrong with this.

-Seabhcan 25/02/04

Seabhcan makes a good point, and I have revised the passage, removing those "Christ" references and now giving the disciples' names just as they appear in the text of GofT. Wetman 05:10, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Two points of correction. First, there's ample evidence that the "oral gospel" was still authoritative for many Christians well into the second century. Irenaeus' early writings rely on an oral gospel, for instance, while later he vigorously defends the four written canonical gospels.

Second, are there any Christian groups that take the Gospel of Thomas as authoritative? I don't know of any; if there aren't any, then "Many" can be changed to "No Christian groups accept it as authoritative." Wesley 17:44 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)

I think Wesley is correct in this. Wetman 21:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Like Hugh McGregor Ross, I'd consider it "Jesus untouched by the Church", but then, I'm a Buddhist, not a Christian group. Evertype 12:25, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

There is a group of Christians called the Mar Thoma who look at the Apostle Thomas as their founder instead of Peter or Constantine. They are based in India,affiliated with the Syrian Orthodox Church and have a special status in the Catholic Church. Much like the Ethiopian Coptic Church, they were cut off from Western Christendom for several hundred years, and they have a different collection of religious texts in their cannon. In their version of the new testement, there is a version of the 'Gospel of Thomas'. see [1]or [2]

The GoT would have been widely used in India until the roman church homologized Indian Churches into its fold. Of course, the Holy sea did its best to prevent the teachings of non canonical texts post Council of Nicea. That would account for a lack of modern christians who use the gospel. I guess not many other christian sects survived into modern day especially after the inquisitions. Those you mention are the few surviving christian alternatives other than roman derived churches. Thats not to say that modern Christians can't change their views on the GoT! After all, people don't have to worry about inquisitions now, you can read what you want without fear of death.86.4.59.203 00:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

I am sure that the preceding is incorrect. There's no evidence that the Christians of India used the Thomas Gospel, much less regarded it as canonical. You may be confusing it with the Acts of Thomas, an apocyphal book which is often said (also incorrectly) to be part of the canon of the Indian Christians. Tom129.93.17.195 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Grenfell and Hunt, the original editors of the Greek fragments of Thomas, dated them to c. 200, not c. 140 (which seems to be rather the common date of composition for the late camp). Stephen C. Carlson 02:26 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

The article now distinguishes between dates of manuscripts and dates of composition, as it must. Mr Carlson is well aware, though the average reader may not be, that Grenfell and Hunt were basing their dating on minute scraps found at Oxyrhyncus, before the discovery of the complete text, though in a later manuscript, of GofT. Grenfell and Hunt's dating was tentative.)Wetman 21:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

is there a public domain e-text of the GoT? (mhjb)

http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html has links to several translations. -- Zoe

Should be in External links. --Wetman 23:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

stephen patterson and stephen daivs dated to 50AD. By the end of the first century, pagans and Christians referred to Jesus as the Christ, and Josepheus may have referred to Jesus as the so-called Christ. GOT does not refer to Jesus as Christ, but all the gnospels do.

---

As noted in an edit summary, I'm concerned about this article. We have tons of stuff arguing for the early camp, but very little arguing for a 2nd Century date for the GoT (which, as far as I know, is still a very viable and supported proposition). I believe there is info out there that would balance this article, but don't possess it. As it stands, we seem to have contributions from anons who are fans of Elaine Pagels and those of her school of thought--legitimate scholars, certainly, but as Pagels has made a lot of money out of her advocacy for these apocryphal gospels, I would like it if we relied on other scholars as well? Can anyone provide advice/balance here? Jwrosenzweig 20:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think we also need to demonstrate the extent to which the Gospel of Thomas/Sayings of Jesus is free of gnostic ideas (or isn't). Since its authenticity is undoubted, perhaps we can stop worrying about the canon and just look at the actual text and the documents. Because whether it's accepted by modern churches or not is akin to whether we all "like" it or don't: revealing, but not history. Wetman 21:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by this as its authenticity as a 1st century text is highly disputed and therefore its authenticity as to Thomasine authorship. It is not canon because the early church decided to leave it out of canon, it isn't going to be reintroduced by the modern church. Rmhermen 21:20, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Attributions and dating are two separate questions I didn't touch. The text, whatever its date, is not a forgery. Not even an early forgery. Of course it's not acceptable as canon. How could it be, after so much historical development in other directions? Wetman 21:34, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is not a modern forgery. It may be part of a batch of texts of that era which claimed a more prestigious and generally earlier author which could mean it is considered an ancient forgery. Rmhermen 21:37, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've invited the anon who keeps posting material to this talk page: hopefully they will arrive. I think the question of ancient forgery is worthy of at least brief mention. Of course, we are certain of none of the gospels' original authors. My biggest interest is in presenting a legitimate response to the many charges of the early camp. It seems to me that most of the early camp's argument rests on the fact that GoT verses that look like NT verses prove they are from the same time period and source, and GoT verses that don't look like NT verses indicate they are even closer to the original source material than the NT. While this may be true, I think there is easily much to be said against this perspective: where the GoT follows the NT it may be derivative, and where it does not, it may be from later apocryphal sources or entirely fictional. The point is that all of the evidence the early camp marshals can be reinterpreted, but right now the article seems to have the early camp as the people with evidence, and the late camp as a thin response to the evidence. That's what I'm hoping to rectify. Jwrosenzweig 21:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

___ by this line of reasoning all gosples and many of the new testament material are forgeries.

to call matthew's gospel matthew is a forgery. to call timothy pauline is a forgery. hebrews was not written by paul, another forgery. john did not write both gospel of john and revelation, that is another forgery.

You raise a legitimate point, and one I already pointed out. :) We should make sure our other articles are appropriately skeptical about authorship. But authorship isn't the main concern here--not for me, anyway. It's balance. Can you address that? What can we add for the late camp? Jwrosenzweig 21:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

most fundies already believe GOT is late so why bother? it's like trying to "balance" evolution versus creationism. since evolution is a fact, why add non-scientfic antievolution?

I think it should be obvious to you that we are dealing in different matters. No scientific principle is attempting to compel us to take an early or late look at the GoT. It is entirely a matter of interpretation (unless a fragment of the GoT carbon-datable to 50AD arrives....and even then I think we'd argue over carbon-dating), and therefore there are good arguments in both camps. What I've seen of the GoT (note: not a scholar of antiquities, but I do have grad work in religious history, which may mean my opinion is not entirely worthless) makes me fairly suspicious of the early camp: it reads too much like someone trying to make an authentic-looking document a century after the fact. I will say, though, that I can also understand easily the other camp--I'm not looking to remove the early camp's ideas! I'm just saying that in my limited experience and opinion, there is a lot more to be said for the late camp than the few sentences we have, half of which essentially try to push aside the late camp as "fundies", as you described them. I think that language ought to be considered, but honestly I think there's more to be said here, and I'll see what I can do about contributing it. Anyone have suggestions for where to start looking? Jwrosenzweig 16:52, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity has a vested interest in discrediting the Gospel of Thomas as a text that predated the Gospels. TEAMS of scholars have shown that it is dated before the synoptics. The team of translatiors/scholars that wrote "The Nag Hammadi Library", the team that wrote "The Gnostic Bible", and many other authors-scholars. Elaine Pagels is not the only one, and every scholar that claims a late date is a CHRISTIAN scholar, a person who cannot accept the doctrine that the Gospel of Thomas puts forth. This is an inherent conflict of scholarly interest. Detached atheistic and jewish scholars consistently assert that the Gospel of Thomas is to be dated to before the synoptics.

i do not care for fundies, but any fundie website that discusses GOT will give "late" arguments, which may or may not be valid, along with arguments against evolution, islam, abortion rights, homosexuality, etc. in my experience the only people who care about GOT are fundies who want to discredit it as "worthless" to use one fundie phrase.

The above unsigned anonymous comments were stricken out because it is strictly against Wikipedia policy to express bigotry and attack people for what they choose to believe. Guess what, in most countries (maybe not yours) people have freedom to believe whatever they want, regardless of whether or not you approve. You have NO RIGHT to attack people's choice in belief system here, any more than they have to attack yours. You may wish to read up on Wikipedia policy, not making bigoted ugly comments like that is one of the cornerstone policies. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also next time you feel the need to make bigoted comments about other peoples' belief systems, either keep them to yourself or go somewhere else with them other than wikipedia. They are NOT WELCOME here!!! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a very good argument concerning dating. You all seem to be arguing about the date of the original GoT, yet nobody can possibly say when the first one was written as it was likely destroyed by the roman empire purge of heretical texts!!! The carbon dating of the surviving manuscripts only tells you the latest estimate of the date it could have been written, not the earliest. A lack of evidence does not mean a lack of common sense. You can't speculate on when the GoT was written, as all other copies were destroyed. The same can be said of the other Gospels and non canonical texts. Exactly when the scriptures were first written down is unknown and will never be found out. That is the view to promote, one of exepting ignorance on the matter.86.4.59.203 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

I am sure that the preceding is incorrect. There's no evidence that the Christians of India used the Thomas Gospel, much less regarded it as canonical. You may be confusing it with the Acts of Thomas, an apocyphal book which is often said (also incorrectly) to be part of the canon of the Indian Christians. Tom129.93.17.195 03:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Apostles" vs. "Disciples"

Luke and Acts refer to the Twelve as apostles. The other gospels don't; the other supposed reference to "apostles", in the English versions of one verse each of Matthew and Mark, comes after Jesus is said to have "sent" them; in those two isolated verses it means simply "the sent ones." Most of the references to the word "disciple" in the Gospels, and all of the references to the word "disciple" in Acts, use the word to mean any believer in (and/or follower of) Jesus. Paul uses the word "apostle" to include himself along with James the Bishop of Jerusalem and the other brothers of Jesus, plus at least two other Christian leaders, Andronicus and Junia (the latter, interestingly, being female). The most correct statement the article could make would be "The Gospels do not list any women among the Twelve."

However, there are discrepancies in the three synoptic gospels' listings of the tenth and eleventh of the Twelve, although the other ten are identical in all three. Number ten of the Twelve is called "Thaddeus" in Mark and in some manuscripts of Matthew, "Lebbeus" in some other manuscripts of Matthew, "Lebbeus called Thaddeus" in still other manuscripts of Matthew, and "Judas of James" in Luke; number eleven is called "Simon the Cananaean" in Matthew and Mark, and "Simon the Zealot" in Luke. Why the inconsistency? Was number ten originally Mary Magdalene? Was number eleven originally Salome the wife of Zebedee, who was also the mother of James and John? According to the Thomas Gospel, those two women were intimate disciples! Were those two female names scratched out of the three canonical gospels by women-hating patriarchalists and replaced haphazardly by male names? Shucks, "Salome of Zebedee" actually resembles "Simon the Zealot" in its sound. Tom129.93.17.195 01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Gospel according to Thomas is the ancient title

The preceeding is wrong. The last logion (114) is followed by the words "the gospel according to Thomas". Those words complete the manuscript, and seem to be a title. Tom129.93.17.195 02:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the date is really inconsequential in comparison to the teaching of the Gospel of Thomas which is in fundamental opposition to the apostolic teachings. It is much more of a theological argument that is broader than the erroneous philosophical assumption that the most precedent event is somehow the source of truth concerning written material. One can not take the precedence of God as the sole validity of His authority and/or especially make a false analogy between God as original source and original source document and subsequently ascribe theological validity to the source because of its place in time. There were plenty of religious writing before the Christian gospel but it would be erroneous to ascribe them as the predecessor to the Christian faith. The Gospel of Thomas is apocrypha because the Church fathers did not accept it in the cannon; it is a matter of apostolic authority not literary precedence. To avoid human authority on these matters, i.e. those selected via divine grace to pastor the faithful is to be in rebellion according to Catholic tradition. No literature can stand apart from the living. In many instances it is simply easier for Gnostics to deal with 'dead letters' rather than a living human authority placed over them namely the Catholic bishops. Obedience to authority is a fundamental trait of humility and piety found in many religions without which theological scholarship is vain. The significance here is to remind the reader of the necessity of staying cognizant of the philosophical comprehension of the Christen and Catholic position in regards to these matters. The Nicene Creed for instance which is still recited in every high Catholic Mass reads in part "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life , who proceeds from the Father and the Son, with the Father and the Son he is worship and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets." Subsequently to discredit the canon gospels is to go against God to ones own detriment. It was written to consolidate the Catholic teachings in response to Gnostic and other heretical positions. This is Catholicism, the Bible is the Churches Book, one cannot dictate to the Church what will be cannon and what will not. It is worthy on behalf of the enterprising student of Catholic teachings to keep in mind two very important points. One is that the Church is held accountable for the souls i.e. "lives" in their charge, thus heretical teachings that can lead souls astray are very dangerous. Second, many so called scholars of Catholic theology are dismissive of the Catholic or Christian faith due to a presumption of familiarity with faith which is prohibitive due the largeness of the subject.

Mar Toma collection

This is a problematic source, and their claims dont necessarely represent Saint Thomas Christians; they call themselves Patriarchs of Jerusalem. check Talk:Church_of_the_East_&_Abroad since this site is mentioned as a site of that organisation. Also note that the site is said to be maintained by 'Rev. Fr. Archdeacon Marcus, in New Zealand.' ; Id expect Saint Thomas Christians to be from India.. Also, those churches separated like all the other oriental orthodox churches, at the council of chaledon, in 451AD and this is far too late for there to be an aditional gospel, cuz like this text explains, the sellection of the gospels in the orthodoxy crystallised much sooner, certanly by the late 2. century AD. In all, Id like to see some aditional support for this ancient tradition of this gospel as a part of the bible actually existing, precisely because such prospect is incredibly tantalising.. - User:Aryah

A gnostic text; Brill trans. of saying 66

I believe the majority opinion is that the Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic text, though this is not pointed out in the article. For example:

A majority of scholars have concluded that Gos. Thom. is a gnostic gospel, though it cannot be assigned to a particular sect or school. As the text now stands, it surely seems to be gnostic, for Gos. Thom.'s members acknowledge in the first person plural their origin and identity in the realm of light (saying 50), and where they preexisted (saying 19.1) and are destined to return (sayings 18, 49). This gospel thus bears witness to that widespread esoteric movement in antiquity which regarded insight as the means of attaining liberation, the recognition of one's own identity with the divine. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 6:539.

Also, the Brill translation of saying 66 is from an old edition.

(66) Jesus said, "Show me the stone which the builders have rejected. That one is the cornerstone." James McConkey Robinson et al., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (4th rev. ed.; Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 134.

Opinions? —Wayward ^Talk 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Its more a debate about whether the gnostics existed at the time - it cannot be a gnostic text if the gnostics were not around when it was written. If the gnostics did exist at the time, it gives greater weight to the position that gnosticism was the original form of Christianity (rather than emerging later), and hence is somewhat controversial. Clinkophonist 12:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me if this entry was made incorrectly. I have developed a strong desire to understand the differences between Orthodoxy (I am Protestant)and Gnosticism. In the process of studying, I have made Wikipedia a helpful source. While reading this particular article it seemed that; whether or not GoT was written before the Four is irrelevant, in as much as Orthodoxy and Gnoticism are completly opposite. It seems that the real issue is not necessarily when GoT was written (because there is much support that the Four were already extant and could make similar claims - see Pauline Letters which were dated 50-65) as much as whether GoT is Gnostic or not. By definition any writing which refers to Jesus Christ in a dualist light: Jesus was a human man and Christ was 'above' the material and a seperate entity, IS Gnostic. Whether Gnostics (see entry above - posted 15 July 2006)existed when doesn't matter. Using a corny play on words, "If it looks Gnostic, walks Gnostic, sounds Gnostic, then its Gnostic." ... I do ask if a kind soul can offer suggestions to further my learning please point me in the right direction. 97.89.168.81 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree because your argument is fallicious in the sense that you dispute the definition of Gnosticism on the criteria of whether there was a sect who actively believed the ideology rather than Gnosticism being an stand-alone ideology that is a priori. Both definitions are usable though one cannot interchange them. I believe that the latter of the two definitions I described is the one being used for this article; the GoT is a Gnostic text (containing concepts that are considered Gnostic and core to the ideology of Gnosticism). —Lehel 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

• An anonymous editor informs us "calling one translation correct over another violates the Wikipedia POV restrictions." Where would one begin to respond? --Wetman 06:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cornerstone or keystone - or even a measuring stone - what word (among many possibilities) should be used here? As I understand it, building a bridge involves the same architectural principles that building an arch does, and a uniformity of stones (in terms of width, length, and depth) is highly desirable.

If you were to build an archway in a wall (and not just build a flat, featureless wall), wouldn't you want to put aside (reserve) a stone you can use later on, at least as a basic unit of measurement, to cut by? that is, for reference sake? (Remember, even the pontifex was a bridge-builder before he became a specialized sort of augur bent on predicting things by casting things into the water, or watching birds dip in the water, these practices being a special kind of trial in water reminiscent of the Roman practice of building temples on hilltops to watch birds fly by from, but I digress greatly.) As I understand it, you build an arch by saving the angled stone (which is fortuitously already in a triangular, wedged or partly pointed shape) for the very middle of the arch, where it will sustain the greatest stress from the sides, which involve neighbors that are cut more regularly. The symbolism of the matter would not be lost on the housebuilders of the time: is there really that much difference from a wall and an arch? Couldn't the source languages allow an ambiguity here?

Then again, striving for too much precision tends always to ruin a translation, and almost always at the expense of legibility. There may have been an attempt to preserve the ambiguity found in the Greek original (?) by employing a comparably ambiguous word in Coptic. Which makes me wonder which word, exactly, was being used in the Coptic version for words like keystone and reject?

I edited the article slightly to point out that a majority of Thomas scholars favor an early date, while a majority of scholars at large favor a late date. It's very important that readers understand and appriciate this distinction, as well as the fact that the dating of GOT is extremely contraversial. -Magicbymccauley

I apologize if I upset someone by removing what I considered to be nonsense. It can easily be restored from the page history. I was not trying to censor anyone, however I honestly thought the post was nonsense. I would be glad to restore the content or discuss these matters further. It may help the IP editor to review some wikipedia basics at Help:Contents/Getting started. Hope this helps, and feel free to contact me personally for any concerns.--Andrew c 01:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I had not intended to offend anyone with my "nonsense", so I guess I will have to admit I should have paid more attention to the canonical gospel admonition against casting pearls before swine.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.210.105.5 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 1 November 2006.

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings and teachings of Jesus. The sayings and teachings are not usually explained by the writter of the GoT. The sayings and teachings are mostly found in canonical Gospels with some that are not. A Gnostic may interpret the GoT in one way, and a Roman Catholic in another. But you can't say its a Gnositc book because the sayings do not belong to any one group. No Gnostic myth is expounded within the GoT, so there is no connection to those theories. The interpretation of verse 66 is that the odd shape of a keystone enables it to hold the pillars of an archway together. Hence a person who is like a keystone is one whom is able to support others, who is able to lead others to salvation. When builders build pillars (or walls for a church) the stones need to be square or rectangular. Builders therefore reject stones off odd shapes, but keepp them aside for the keystone to support the archways (or roofs for churches). The place of light mentioned in verse 60 is Eden (the spiritual world of God). All living souls were once living there, and because of Adam and Eve, souls now live on Earth. This is not a gnostic viewpoint, but one steming form Genesis in the old testament. Its Jewish. One who stands at the begining (verses 18 and 19) refers to one whom decides of his own volition to become subserviant to God again and renounce the original sin (to be as Adam and Eve were before they sinned). This again is Jesus' interpretation of the Old testament and is not Gnostic in origin. The great majority of humans (and all living creatures) wish to follow their own will and do what they wish (to have control over their own destinies). One whom alone is chosen(verse 49) is one whom (by Gods mercy) renounces the original sin and agreeing to serve penance by serving God, will recieve reward from God by being aloud to enter the kingdom of heaven. Those whom were lucky enough to be taught by Jesus recieved Gods mercy and were chosen to. That is the implication of that verse (that God is directly or indirectly responsible for everybodies fate). This is not only Gnostic, its a broadly Christian belief. Liberation and salvation mean the same thing in religious terms. Liberation turns into salvation when you die. You can be liberated and yet fall again into sin. The point to remember is that not all non canonical writings were disputed. Some were not included in the canon because other gospels were written better or were easier to understand. The roman church wanted to promote "Jesus' death on the cross as securing forgivness to all those who believe in Jesus from the original sin" as the criterior for salvation. They were opposed in that respect by the Ebionites, gnostics, Coptics and other smaller christian sects. So the GoT isn't just gnostic. If you consider yourself a Roman Christian, one wouldn't like any idea that salvation was dependent on works.86.4.59.203 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

Your assertion regarding interpretation of the GOT is basically correct, however incomplete. There are Christian sects that don't believe in "original sin" or your concept of "eden" etc. While you're correct in a fundamentally "Roman"-derived manner, your statement ignores the broader spectrum of overall Christianity. I know that Mormons in particular, as well as many other "Restorationist" sects, would have a very different interpretation of those select verses than either the accepted Gnostic view or your stated interpretations. I just want to make sure we're keeping a well-rounded perspective on this article. Our goals are the same, I'm just hpoing to clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.104.144.250 (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed link

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/thomas.html for review. Please, if any reader thinks it is worth to be posted, do so. The article presents strong arguments in order to explain why GThomas should be dated around 120. Bernard

Two additional references that could be added?

They are:

1) 'The Gospel of Thomas' Richard Valantansis, Routledge, London and New York, 1997 ISBN 0-415-11621-X (hbk) ; ISBN 0-415-11622-8 (pbk) - (part of the 'New Testament Readings' series edited by John Court).

2) 'The Parables of Jesus' Joachim Jeremias, Prentice Hall; 2 edition, 1972. ISBN: 0023605103 (pbk) - I recall that an edition that I have seen had a table of correspondnce for the parables from Thomas and from the canonical gospels. (Or, perhaps, it was "Rediscovering the Parables" by the same author? i have neither to hand.)

Would any-one object to these being added? If not, where specifically?

Thanks

john courtneidge

Unverified claims, and opinioins disguised as facts

This article needs to be properly referenced, and many assertions of fact need to be identified as the opinions that they are. Frjohnwhiteford 23:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Citation Needed"

...Apparently at some recent time a Christian priest came through and littered this article with roughly fourteen billion "citation needed" tags. This seems excessive. 128.2.247.61 06:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, I could have deleted about half the article, as being unsourced original research (or in many cases, simply as gratuitous assertions), but I thought before doing so it was only fair to give those who put those unsourced assertions an opportunity to source them first. If you have a problem with any given example in which I have identified an unsourced assertion of fact, then please lay them on the table. Frjohnwhiteford 11:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations not forthcoming

I think enough time has passed, and since much of the claims in this article remain unsourced, they should be deleted as original research. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)