Talk:William M. Branham/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Consensus impasse

@Bonadea:@Theroadislong:@Danpeanuts:@Darlig Gitarist: I understand everyone is passionate about the content of this article and about making it as NPOV as possible. It seems we have a bit of a consensus impasse so I would like to propose we pause all edits for a short period of time and have a discussion. After reading through the talk page, it appears to me that there are 2 central issues we keep revolving around:

  • Whether or not a reference is usable
  • What type of supernatural healing content (if any) should be included.

It also appears to me that some of the Wikipedia policies are misunderstood or misconstrued so I am pasting what seems to be relevant here (though there may be more):

I think both of these issues are linked. I think the references currently used in the article meet all requirements of Wikipedia policies. Whether or not they are bias or independent is irrelevant. Whether or not we personally agree with the content is irrelevant. Each of these references provide an element of the majority and minority views that should be included to meet NPOV. And I think the healing content should be included in some fashion since it it mentioned in so many secondary sources. I'd love to hear your thoughts. DoctorG  (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a bias for reality and mainstream science, by policy. To include supernatural healing we would need a medical source to suggest it happened NOT the views of an evangelical writer. Thanks. Theroadislong (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Theroadislong:That is actually not the Wikipedia policy, WP:Biomedical excludes a patients' beliefs, including religious and spiritual beliefs, from the medical standard. What is policy, is that quality secondary sources can be used to provide encyclopedic content...regardless of what the editors personal beliefs are. This article already includes statements about Branham embellishing the miracle accounts. NPOV requires (I'll say that again, requires) the other viewpoint to be presented. DoctorG  (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Probably the majority of people who come to God for healing don't ever talk to a doctor about it. Divine healing is a completely different subject than medical practice. The newspapers and eye-witnesses are probably the best source in this case. Even doctors don't agree: If you ask an MD about a chiropractor, he will tell you he's a quack, and the same with acupuncture and naturopathy. Danpeanuts (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2017
If you ask an MD about a chiropractor, he will tell you he's a quack, and the same with acupuncture and naturopathy That is a good point, Danpeanuts, and it serves very well to illustrate how Wikipedia works. The Wikipedia articles about those subjects, Chiropractic, Acupuncture, and Naturopathy, all define the subjects as pseudoscience, because there are no reliable scientific sources that have shown that the treatments work to alleviate medical problems. As Theroadislong points out, policy requires scientific (medical) sources for this type of claim. --bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bonadea: please see my note above, this is not Wikipedia policy. DoctorG  (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy. My statement is correct in any case - that is in fact how it works in articles about alternative medicine. --bonadea contributions talk 19:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want medical science to weigh in on the discussion, medical studies have shown that 73% of U.S. medical doctors attest that miraculous healing occurs today (Orr, Robert D.Responding to Patient Beliefs in Miracle. Southern Medical Journal, 2007, pg.1263-1267). That's written by a medical doctor, in a peer reviewed medical journal. And if you want popular culture, you can look at the June 24, 1996 edition of Time Magazine which stated that 82% of Americans believe in the healing power of prayer. That's a international magazine with a reputatoin for quality journalism. DoctorG  (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Even if 100% of Americans believed in the healing power of prayer it wouldn't make it a fact. In the Uk a study in the British Medical Journal investigated spiritual healing, therapeutic touch and faith healing. In a hundred cases that were investigated, no single case revealed that the healer's intervention alone resulted in any improvement or cure of a measurable organic disability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You are correct, what people believe is irrelevant, but a peer reviewed articel from a doctor who cites multiple miraculous healings is another story all together. DoctorG  (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
No, not on Wikipedia I'm afraid. WP:MEDRS does apply here, and the article you refer to is not MEDRS-compliant. --bonadea contributions talk 19:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The article "Responding to patient beliefs in miracle" is being misquoted here. It's mostly about how to talk to patients who insist on continuing inappropriate treatments such as keeping a brain-dead person alive in a coma, just in hopes of a miracle. The doctor who wrote the article gives two examples of healings he considers miraculous, but then again he admits that maybe they aren't. And in the survey of medical doctors, the question is "do doctors believe in miracles" in a general sense, not specifically in "miraculous healing... today". The question was worded loosely enough to possibly include "miracle drugs", as the article admits.
I also believe that WP:MEDRS does apply, and the reason is that it applies to alternative medicine in general; and faith healing is included in the list of types of alternative medicine. JerryRussell (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, discussion of miraculous healing is a common component of many of the articles on Wikipedia in the "faith healing" category so to assert that it can't be on Wikipedia is untrue. Here's just a few of them:

 DoctorG  (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of those articles have multiple issues too. Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm no trrying to convince anyone that miracles are real, but I am making the point that I have multiple quality secondary sources that met Wikipedia standards to support the content I have put into the article. We can't cite one reference that claims Branham made stuff up without also citing a reference that provides the alternat viewpoint. That is what NPOV looks like. Branham got a little wierd near the end of his minstry/life and it's important to include that content in the article. But it is equally important to include content that multiple newspapers and authors have also discussed about him. DoctorG  (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

But WP:UNDUE is a vital part of WP:NPOV, and it is policy. --bonadea contributions talk 19:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. The fact that the events at Branham meetings were covered by newspaers around the world are significant and reliable. Further, none of this is providing medical guidance which is why WP:MEDRS doesn't apply here (sory, I don't think I connect this clearly earlier). This isn't about advice or about what anyone believes. This is about representing all viewpoints fairly, whicj is also part of WP:UNDUE. DoctorG  (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Updating newpaper attributed content

I had a great conversation in the Teahouse yesterday regarding how to include claimed miracles in articles such as this one (and the many other articles that exist). I thought it would be beneficial to get some 3rd party opinions and the consensus there was that this content is OK for Wikipedia as long as the claim is attributed to the person the source is talking about, worded in the proper context, and not included outside of biographical articles. To that end, I have reworded the newpaper section I previously put in the article and changed it to reflect the claims of individuals.  DoctorG  (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim Jones

The Jim Jones bit is interesting but it doesn't have anything to do with the decline of the revival and should be moved somewhere else.  DoctorG  (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I reworked this section a bit, i think it reads a little smoother now and the Jim Jones piece doesn't read is if it was a major reason for the decline of the ministry. If someone has evidence to the contrary, please add it. DoctorG  (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I also think the Jones piece is more of a side thought and shouldn't have too much prominence in this article since Jones wasn't famous for the suicide at that time. He was a very active civil rights figure and religous leader in the 50's. Please let me know if my rewording takes anything away from the article. DoctorG  (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The Jim Jones piece was in chronological order of Branham's later life. I don't think it reads as well now because the piece moves along chronologically and then jumps back to 1956. I have left your wording but put it back in chronological order.
One of the best known books on Jim Jones, "Raven", specifically discusses the meetings that Branham held with Jones. Given the historical importance of Jones, I think that it is important that it is mentioned. If you do any research on Jones you will find that he used similar language to Branham, referring to "the message" as what he was teaching his people. This is exactly the same language that Branham used. This becomes very apparent if you look at the information available at The University of San Diego website. The impact of Branham on Jones seems significant. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 04:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I had moved it to the end because it's current position suggests that Jim Jones' actions were partly to blame for the decline of the revivals. Really, it shouldn't be in this section at all. I think we need to find another place to put it in the article. It may fit better in the legacy section where the other mention of Jom Jones is located. Moving it there would also eliminate the inferrence that Jim Jones had something to do with the decline of the revival. DoctorG  (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how you get an inference that it helped in the decline. That is not stated explicitly and it is not implied. It is simply an entry in the biographical section that should be of great interest to people reading the article. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 21:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
It's in the section titled, "decline of the revival" so it is explicitly linked. Moving to the legacy section is a better overall fit. I'm not suggesting we take it out, just suggesting we put it in the most appropriate section. DoctorG  (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Darlig Gitarist:I'd like to build consensus on this, but also don't want any one editor to feel like they "own" the article so let me know what you think about moving this to the legacy section. I am sure I have some consensus with Danpeanuts on this piece, let's make this a featured article! DoctorG  (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Based on your comments, it sounds like the problem is the title of the section and not the content. However, I do think that the meetings with Jones were not a cause, but rather an effect of the decline in Branham's ministry. He stopped getting invitations so when he got the one from Jones, who had been ordained by Mattsson Boze, a good friend of Branham's and one of the founders of the Latter Rain Movement, he accepted. I am going to add a couple of sentences that may help with ensuring that the Jones piece is not viewed as a reason for the decline. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 00:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Unless you have a quality source that shows Jones' activity (or Branham's activity with Jones) led to the decline, it can't be in this section. It fits fine, the way it is, in the legacy section with the other Jones content. DoctorG  (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Darlig Gitarist: I like the content you added to the "decline of the healing revival section" and I think it was probably needed regardless of the Jones content. That being said, the Jones content still seems out of place. Are you completely against moving it to the legacy section? If so, why? DoctorG  (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I do think it fits better in the chronological section rather than being moved to the legacy section. I think it shows that Branham was reaching out to try to do something to combat the decline of his ministry. Jones was someone new and so they used each other to some extent. Jones wanted Branham's status to improve his own and Branham was looking for venues to speak at since other avenues had dried up. Jones provided that. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 23:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Darlig Gitarist:But that has nothing to do with the decline of the revival. DoctorG  (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is not a cause. But it is an effect, which is still relevant. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 20:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Darlig Gitarist:How is it an effect? I'm not saying it isn't relevant, I am saying it isn't relevant in this section. DoctorG  (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it seems obvious to me. His meetings are failing to attract people. He is not getting invitations to speak as he had in the past. He gets an invitation from an up and coming new minister named Jim Jones, who holds at the time similar beliefs to Branham. So he accepts the invitation and holds meetings with Jones. If Branham's campaign had been operating at full tilt as it had prior to 1955, he would have been conducting his own meetings and would never have gone into Jones' church. As such, his association with Jones is a fall out of the failure of his own campaign efforts. He needed to rely on others. He simply could not continue on his own as he had in the past. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 16:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Boy Raised from Dead

Here's another misleading statement from Weaver:

Branham also claimed to have witnessed a young boy raised from the dead in Finland in April 1950, although again there were widely divergent stories between Branham and other witnesses to the event.[45]

I know that Darlig probably was the one who put this statement in here and may not want to change it, but this makes it look like the boy didn't raise from the dead. There were 3 witnesses that all agreed that he came back to life after Branham prayed for him. The statements didn't all agree, but they did all agree to the miracle. When Branham told about it he sounded like it happened by the roadside, while the Finnish Pastor Soininen and Jack Moore said that the prayer was made and the boy came back to life inside the car while transporting him to the hospital. Since there were 3 witnesses that this really did happen, can this be clarified? I don't understand why the truth can't be told. In all, I believe there were 6 raised from the dead, which isn't too hard to believe, because it's written that St. Patrick prayed for over a dozen who raised from the dead. Danpeanuts (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2017Danpeanuts (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence should be removed, there are absolutely NO substantiated claims of people being raised from the dead by Branham or anyone else for that matter! Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
There actually are quite a few substatiated claims of dead raising, but that's a discussion for another time. I agree with your removal of this content from the article until a better secondary source can be found. DoctorG  (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I have removed other "claims" of Branham too we don't have to list every ridiculous claim he made. Theroadislong (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Branham was a faith healer, so we at least need to include some content about faith healing claims that are in quality secondary sources. I think content on this topic that is currently in the article is sufficient. Thank you, @Bonadea: for removing the redundant Upshaw info, I didn't realize it was in there 2 times. I restored the lost citations back in. DoctorG  (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Good luck, Doctorg, in finding better secondary source material than Harrell or Weaver. I am certainly not aware of any. I have no problem with the material that was deleted. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 00:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a problem with deleting the raising from dead statements, because it is mentioned in every book about Branham that I can find: Hollenweger p-354, Sims p-192, Crowder p-325, Harrell (1975) p-161. Isn't that enough? This is something very important that makes his ministry different from many. Is there any book about him where this phenomenon isn't mentioned? If this article is about Branham, let's at least tell the same story as the historians about his ministry. Besides it's a bible promise (if a person can believe the bible) in John 14:12 Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also". In reading Crowder's book I see that several Christians have raised the dead in the past. This is nothing new. Danpeanuts (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2017
On the paragraph about the healings, I would like to add: There were even reports of the dead being raised (then list all the historians' references above. We could even put in Weaver's critical reference too. Since all the historians are in agreement with this it needs to be reported, as this is a major issue. Danpeanuts (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2017
Absolutely...you just need to find a reliable medical source that supports "dead being raised", otherwise it's just another ridiculous claim by his supporters. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Theroadislong: As far as I know, there are no doctor statements on any of the people raised from the dead. The first one in Jonesboro, Arkensas was done in front of thousands of people. The one in Mexico City was done in front of a multitude of people. What right do you have to change history? All the historians told the same story. That's good enough for Wikipedia. It shouldn't be deleted just because one or two people don't believe it. I'm asking you to please let it stand as written. Almost all of this article has been changed to a negative slant instead of what most of the historians have written. I'm asking for a NPOV. How about it? Danpeanuts (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2017
It might be good enough for Conservapedia but we certainly can't report that Branham raised people from the dead here without strong sources. NPOV does not been entertaining ludicrous claims of raising people from the dead, where are the sources for that, who are the "historians"? Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's another question for DoctorG: Does Wikipedia only accept edits from Liberal Left-wing people or the people who write books from University Presses? In this particular case, all the books written from University Presses about Branham mention the dead were raised and all I ask is that this article just says there were "claims" of the dead being raised. Darlig says that it's proper to put Weaver's thoughts in this article with no proof of anything--just because his book was printed by a University Press. Is there something out-of-balance here? This article is definitely not a GA. Danpeanuts (talk) 11:15 4 November 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Danpeanuts, instead of violating AGF again (which is amazing to me, after all the information and warnings you have received about that - if the rest of us did not bend over backwards to accommodate you and assume good faith on your part, you might have been reported a long time ago for contiuing to talk about other editors instead of their edits), how about replying to the question "which historians"? Hollenweger, Sims, and Crowder are not historians, and a discussion at WP:FTN a month or two ago was unanimous in concluding that Crowder should not be used to source any extraordinary claims. Harrell does not make any claims about raising the dead, he simply quotes an unspecific statement from someone else about Branham being called to raise the dead. That leaves only Weaver. If you have other historians whose publications meet WP:RS, please provide them. And "raising the dead" is a much stronger claim than "witnessing one person being raised from the dead", which as far as I understand is what Weaver mentions. --bonadea contributions talk 18:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Bonadea. It does get frustrating at times. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 20:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article about Oral Roberts mentions raising people from the dead 3 times, so it is all right to mention claims of raising people from the dead in Robert’s article, but not Branham’s? In fact, I was just looking at a recent picture of Kari Holma, who was the 10-year-old boy reportedly raised from the dead in 1950 in Finland. He is about 77 years old right now unless he has recently passed away. Danpeanuts (talk) 06:15 18 November 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct old errors

I notice that the request to correct the out-of-place newspaper report was made in the past and it has never been corrected. It was on June 11, 1933 when the light and the voice came, but the newspaper report was on June 2, which was 9 days before the voice came. This error needs to be removed along with the opinion after it:

Branham was baptizing converts on June 11, 1933 in the Ohio River near Jeffersonville when he said that people along the bank saw a bright light descend over where he was and that he heard a voice say, "As John the Baptist was sent to forerun the first coming of Jesus Christ, so your message will forerun His second coming."[11] The only available newspaper report of the event was that of the Jeffersonville Evening News on June 2, which indicated that the Branham campaign reported 14 converts.[12] Given the lack of corroborating evidence for this supposed supernatural event it is possible that Branham later embellished the incident by "remembering" the forerunner message when he was achieving success in the healing revival.[13]

Also, Duyzer's opinion about Branham's motives (In the book he says his mother-in-law persuaded him not to hold the revivals for the Oneness Pentecostals--nothing to do with enhancing his relationship):

Branham's wife, Hope, died on July 22, 1937 and their daughter died four days later (July 26, 1937) after the Ohio River flood of 1937. Branham interpreted their deaths as God's punishment for his resistance to holding revivals for the Oneness Pentecostals, something he felt God had wanted him to do.[16] This appears to have been an embellishment to enhance his relationship with the Pentecostals.[17] Danpeanuts (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2017Danpeanuts (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
So the first paragraph should instead read:
Branham claimed he was baptizing converts on June 11, 1933 in the Ohio River near Jeffersonville when he said that people along the bank saw a bright light descend over where he was and that he heard a voice say, "As John the Baptist was sent to forerun the first coming of Jesus Christ, so your message will forerun His second coming."[11] The only available newspaper report of the event was that of the Jeffersonville Evening News on June 2, which indicated that the Branham campaign reported 14 converts.[12] Given the lack of corroborating evidence for this supposed supernatural event it is possible that Branham later embellished the incident by "remembering" the forerunner message when he was achieving success in the healing revival.[13] Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 16:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Isn't the point that there were no newspaper reports from an event on 11 June, though, only the one from a week earlier? There are several websites discussing this, but I assume they wouldn't be considered reliable sources - still, I've been able to read the newspaper clipping from 2 June. Maybe something like "The only available newspaper report of Branham's activities at this time was that of [etc]"? (Or a better noun than "activities".) I agree that there should be a qualification at the start of the text, such as "Branham claimed he was baptizing [etc]". --bonadea contributions talk 16:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I made the edit as sugggested by Bonadea. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 15:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think if we stick to using the "claimed" verbiage anytime a miraculous event is referenced (as I did with the healings) is the best route to take. It's a good middle of the road approach that allows the use of a quality reference without taking away from reported experiences. We could do the same throughout the article to standardize it. This was the consenus in my Teahouse discussion a few weeks ago as well. I will also be using this on other biographical articles of faith healers. Thanks for making those changes. DoctorG  (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It is critical with Branham as he was prone to wild exagerration. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 18:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
That's an opinion, there are plenty of references that give an opposite viewpoint, but I am fine with this middle of the road approach. DoctorG  (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This still doesn't have a NPOV. I don't know if we should use the term "WPOV" for "Weavers point of view", but it is always critical rather than Neutral. He continues to surmise throughout the posts in this article. His surmising at the end of this paragraph needs to be removed:
Given the lack of corroborating evidence for this supposed supernatural event it is possible that Branham later embellished the incident by "remembering" the forerunner message when he was achieving success in the healing revival.[13
It is recorded that Branham filled the largest auditoriums in the world. If he started a revival with 14 converts, it is nothing unusual that there were a few hundred converted at the end of the 9 days. The statement still is misleading as it stands. Danpeanuts (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2017
The purpose of this article is not to be an apologetic for Branham. Please provide evidence for your claim that in 1933, Branham filled the largest auditoriums in the world. We are talking about documentation that is acceptable for Wikipedia. If you can find secondary source material that supports Branham claim about his 1933 meetings, then it should be mentioned. However, it is the considered opinion of a relevent secondary source that Branham is overstating the facts. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 12:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I imagine that Hollenweger (who wrote about filling the "largest stadiums and meeting halls in the world") was writing hyperbolically - he can't possibly have intended for the statement to be taken literally. That is just my own surmise, of course, but in any case, as you say Wikipedia can't include a claim like that without corroborating evidence - including the names of the auditoriums, the dates, and some actual reliable sources. One indication that it's an intentional exaggeration is that I don't think Branham travelled very extensively abroad (or perhaps he did?). --bonadea contributions talk 12:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Imagining what an author thinks isn't appropritae for wikipedia, a secondary source is a secondary source. Having the names of stadiums would be helpful though. DoctorG  (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
My mistake. I was thinking about later years. The request here was just to delete Weaver's surmising. How about it? Danpeanuts (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2017
DoctorG, You know about Wikipedia policy and I don't. Is it acceptable to use statements like Weaver makes that are entirely his own opinion with no facts at all? I know you can't say bad things about a living person without actual proof on Wikipedia. Weaver has written 3 books on the Baptist Church (which doesn't believe in gifts of the spirit today). The main purpose of his book seems to discredit Branham (much of it with no facts at all), it seems to me that his book should not be a credible source for Wikipedia. Right now this article has mostly statement by Weaver and there should be more from the other historians who have a different view. Danpeanuts (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2017

Danpeanuts, Weaver's book is that of a university professor published by a university press. That is about as good as it gets for Wikipedia secondary sources. I have yet to hear a good reason for ignoring him, other than you don't like his conclusions.

Bonadea, good point. Branhamm did not travel extensively. He appears to have made 5-6 overseas trips during his lifetime and they were only to a few countries. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 21:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Darlig, I want you to read this again and see if Duyzer's comment makes sense. Also how could Duyzer know what Branham's thoughts were anyway? Only Branham had discernment--not Duzyer. Since there is warring between the Pentecostals and the Oneness Pentecostals this would have only caused bad feelings from most of the Pentecostals. This article doesn't need surmising at all--only facts. Will you please revert it back? Danpeanuts (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2017
Branham's wife, Hope, died on July 22, 1937 and their daughter died four days later (July 26, 1937) after the Ohio River flood of 1937. Branham interpreted their deaths as God's punishment for his resistance to holding revivals for the Oneness Pentecostals, something he felt God had wanted him to do.[1] "This appears to have been an embellishment to enhance his relationship with the Pentecostals."[2]
I mentioned the following error before and it still hasn't been deleted: Hagin was supposed to have prophesied the death of Branham because of his false teachings. Hagin's St. Louis Prophecy didn't happen and I don't know of anything he said that did--He isn't a prophet. Now, I want you to look at this meeting and check out Hagin's sound behavior and teaching. You can just skip through the 1/2 hour service if you want because it is the same all the way through from :40 on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7A_1JuHLHs Also watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdzSseghu58 at 2:30 and there is even more at 45:30 on serpent behavior.
Here's the statement in question under "DEATH" that needs to be deleted.
Gordon Lindsay's eulogy stated that Branham's death was the will of God and privately, he accepted the interpretation of Kenneth Hagin, who claimed to have prophesied Branham's death two years before it happened. According to Hagin, God revealed that Branham was teaching false doctrine and God was removing Branham because of his disobedience.[55][56] Danpeanuts (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2018
Danpeanuts, are you saying that Lindsay's eulogy and Hagin's claim are not mentioned in the two sources given in the article? --bonadea contributions talk 22:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
They are specifically mentioned but, but I am assuming that because they aren't favorable to Branham, he would like the reference deleted. If my assumption is incorrect, Danpeanuts, please provide an explanation as to why the statement from a secondary source should be deleted. The youtube videos above are not relevant as they are not relevant to Branham and even if they were, your conclusions would be original research which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 19:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hagin accused Branham of false teachings and you can clearly see that Hagin's teachings are so far out of line that he is certainly no authority on what is false. Since Wikipedia is all about verifiability and not the truth, who is able to verify this prophecy? Certainly not Weaver. He doesn't even believe in prophecy if he is faithful to what his church teaches. Danpeanuts (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2018
Read what the passage actually says. Hagin stated something, and the article simply tells the reader that he stated it. Whether his statement and "prophesy" was true or false is not discussed in the article, nor should it be. Reliable sources verify the fact that he made the claim (thanks, DG - I assumed that the sources said that, but the GBooks previews didn't include the relevant pages). That's the only thing that matters here. --bonadea contributions talk 23:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Made minor grammatical corrections

Found a few minor spelling errors I thought I'd clean up. While doing so I also corrected one sentence from a Weaver citation that was poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HGBenaiah (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the spelling fixes, and the orthographical correction was in line with the source of the quote. I reverted your altered wording, though, because it changed the meaning of the paragraph; "with respect for" is not the same thing as "with respect to", and the sentence was intended to show that there was a slight shift from a contradictionary stance to a more consistent message. --bonadea contributions talk 06:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Source question

Does anyone have a copy of "Sheryl, J. Greg (2013). "The Legend of William Branham". The Quarterly Journal. Personal Freedom Outreach"? - I cannot find this anywhere. I have been able to locate a copy of every other source used in the article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 23:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Disregard, I found it: http://www.pfo.org/tqj1.html —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 23:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The Branham Page is still out of Balance

Darlig Gitarist originally changed the Branham article in 2014 to reflect Doug Weaver’s opinions and I’m disputing it again because whenever I have tried to delete Weaver’s opinion, Darlig or one of his helpers have reverted it back. Starting from the beginning of the article, there are statements questioning every little error that Branham made. One accusing statement that Weaver made was when he gave a newspaper article that was written days before the light and voice came when there was a small gathering of people: “Given the lack of corroborating evidence for this supposed supernatural event it is possible that Branham later embellished the incident by "remembering" the forerunner message when he was achieving success in the healing revival.” There is no documentation of this at all—only Weaver’s opinion. When I deleted this it was reverted back again, but it still needs to be deleted. In fact all of Weaver’s research needs to be called into question. Having Weaver, a Baptist theologian, write a book about Divine Healing and Prophecy is the same as having Greenpeace write a book about fossil fuels. Nearly everything I’ve seen from his book is negative. Even the other books which are more neutral have many of their positive statements left out in the Branham article. This is not NPOV nor is it balanced. It needs to have much of Weaver’s opinions deleted from it and some positive writings from other authors replaced to bring it back to near neutral and what it used to be before 2014. Branham wasn’t a bad person as Weaver portrays him. He prayed for multitudes and many were healed and he was one of a very few preachers who taught that we have to live by every word of God. Also, he never asked for people to give him money, which is different from the modern evangelists.

For one thing, under the Healing Revival, the words of the angel that he claimed commissioned him are left out: “Branham said he had received an angelic visitation on May 7, 1946 commissioning his worldwide ministry.” It needs to say: Branham said he had received an angelic visitation on May 7, 1946 and that the angel told him “You are to take a gift of healing to the peoples of the world. You will preach to multitudes the world over and pray for kings and rulers and potentates. As Moses was given 2 signs to prove he was sent from God, so will you be given 2 signs: First, when you take a person’s right hand in your left hand you will be able to detect any germ-caused disease by the vibrations. Second, you will be able to tell by vision the very secrets of their heart.” Those who witnessed this sign said it appeared to be 100% accurate. (Hollenweger p-354, Harrell 1975 pp-37-38, Gee, etc.

There are 2 men who were raised in churches that believed Branham’s message and when they left, they searched the archives (which are digitized for easy access) for every fault that Branham had to publicize it. Jeremy Bergen and John Collins have spent thousands of hours finding every fault they could with Branham. In fact, Peter Duyzer (another Baptist) and John Collins co-authored a book to try to make it look like Branham had something to do with the Jonestown massacre. The only shred of evidence they could find was that Branham held meetings in the same building as Jim Jones one time (there is no mention of this in the Jim Jones article at all nor any of their book). Why is this Jones fabrication even mentioned in the Branham article? Jones moved to San Francisco and started a church there before going to Guyana. Weaver very likely copied some of his information from Bergen and Collins as they seem to be the source of most of the negative information.

There are thousands of witnesses all around the world who are still alive that have seen or received discernment or healing from Branham. In a court of law the jury listens to the witnesses to make their decisions. Here’s just a few and I want them left in the talk section for anyone who is interested in personal testimony, knowing none of this is allowed in the Branham article:

DELETED PRIMARY SOURCE LINKS Danpeanuts (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2017Danpeanuts (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Wikipedia policy states that talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. I deleted the primary source links because they are not secondary source material and therefore are irrelevant. They are primary source material that support your personal point of view. This talk page is not a place for arguing your point of view as to Branham's status as a prophet. It is also not a place to attack people who disagree with you.
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material such as facts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable, published sourcesexist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. The best sources we have are Harrell and Weaver. The fact that you do not agree with them does not change their status as reliable secondary source material. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 17:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I asked for these testimonies to remain on the talk page and I don't think anyone has the authority to remove these but myself. I have no problem with anything that Harrell wrote in his book because he wrote an unbiased account from all the information he could gather. Weaver, on the other hand has written a highly biased account based on his beliefs. I have attended several Baptist church meetings and know first-hand that their beliefs are the very opposite from God giving gifts like divine healing to men today.
I will personally delete these references when the many undocumented thoughts that Weaver put in his book are deleted. There is no fact at all to back them up and they do not qualify to be in Wikipedia. Documented facts are fine, but surmising is not.
Here are the testimonies again. Please leave them alone and let me delete them when the dishonest accusations from Weaver are removed.
[Inappropriate content deleted again]
Danpeanuts (talk) 11:00 21 November 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Talk pages are not intended for that content, and there is no bargaining around Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If you choose to ignore the policies repeatedly explained to you, your edits will of course be reverted. The notion of "balance" you present has nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies about neutrality - but again you presumably know that and choose to ignore it. Do not restore the inappropriate content again. Any user in good standing can (and should) clean up those kinds of posts from talk pages. As I assume good faith on your behalf, the rest of your posts are allowed to remain, even though they are becoming a disruptive time sink. --bonadea contributions talk 19:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Well said, Bonadea. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 22:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I want to comment in favor of Danpeanuts basic point, this article is unbalanced in a negative way, primarily as a result of the use of Weaver's book. Weaver's book is clearly biased against Pentecostalism in general, as might be expected from a figure of one religion writing a book on the beliefs of an opposing religion. I am not suggesting that Weaver's book not be included, but it something should be done to balance it. In short, the article relies far to heavily on Weaver's book, and does not use any other source in a significant way. 60% of the content of the article is from Weaver's book. I am surprised it passed it's good article review for this reason, it may be worth initiating a reassessment. WP:BESTSOURCES calls for limiting the use of biased sources. Minimally WP:NEUTRALSOURCE is violated by this article by not pointing out the non-neutral nature of the article's main source of reference. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Weaver is an academic, and his book is published by a university press, so by Wikipedia's standards it isn't a biased source. Per Weaver's presentation at Baylor university, he appears to be a Christian (hence we could perhaps expect him to be biased in favour of Weaver as a Christian preacher), but since his writings are peer reviewed and factual, they are in fact the best source we have. What we cannot do is make a judgment call based on what we as individual editors believe about the author of a reliable source. That is original research. As for "balance", please refer to WP:UNDUE. "Balance" does not mean "include all possible points of view with equal weight". We must give greater weight to factual sources that meet WP:RS. This page has been discussed at WP:RSN and WP:FRINGE before now, but of course new discussions can always be started if new evidence comes to light. --bonadea contributions talk 16:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I have been editing on Wikipedia for 12 years, I have had multiple featured articles on the main page. I am familiar with Wikipedia policy. Undo weight is for focusing the article on one area more than it should be. This article does not have that problem. I am not saying weaver is an unacceptable source, I am saying it is a biased source. It is not as biased as say the references to John Collin's book. There is nothing wrong with using biased sources. It is the fact they are not presented as such that is the problem. I understand there are few or no unbiased sources on this topic. But just as the bias of the pro-Branham sources are pointed out, so should the bias of the anti-Branham sources be equally pointed in the article. Not all are anti, but Weaver and Collins most definitely are. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I just finished a pretty thorough review of the article and there are also signs of original research. Example this statement:
However, he had the date wrong, as the establishment of the State of Israel was May 14, 1948.
However, the source makes no such assertion. This is a synthetic sentence [WP:SYNTH], drawing a conclusion from facts in two sources, which neither source directly states. Additionally, the references cited to John Collins violates the WP:PRIMARY as he a self reported "cult escapee" and his books are self published. I think the article just needs a little cleanup is all. Its not quite up to good article quality as it currently exists. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs)
Weaver's book is considered a reliable secondary source under Wikipedia's standards. The fact that a particular editor doesn't like the conclusions that Weaver reaches does not mean that it is not a reliable secondary source. With respect to your statement re the State of Israel, are you suggesting that the date is something other than May 14, 1948? Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 07:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The way you are responding to what I am telling you is worrying me a little bit. You are ignoring what I am telling you. Yes, the statement seems to be factually correct: Isreal did become a nation on May 14, 1948. If the statement merely said "Israel was founded on May 14, 1948", that would be a valid use of the source and correct. But the statement is drawing a conclusion in comparison to a statement Branham made referenced in the prior sentence, which is not directly stated in either source. So someone has inferred a conclusion (which is a correct conclusion) but that conclusion is not stated in either source. The conclusion is that that Branham was mistaken on the date Israel was founded. But neither source says "Branham was mistaken on the date Israel was founded." That is original research. It does not matter that the statement is correct. It matters that the source does not say it. Therefore is is WP:SYNTH violation. The fact that there are such obvious issues in this article again brings me back to wondering why it is a good article. The statement needs to have a source that draws the same conclusion as the statement, not two sources from which a Wikipedia draws a conclusions.
And again, I am not saying Weaver is an invalid source. You are ignoring my point. I am saying that the article fails to make clear that it's largest source is biased against the subject. The options to remedy that are to point out the bias directly, or to balance it with a favorable source. I have given you the relevant policies. Please read them. I am proposing the following actions be taken:
1. Conduct a thorough review of the article and sources and remove all statements, including synthetic statements, not directly supported by the sources.
2. Remove all statements referenced by Collins, as he is a primary source and his books are self published.
3. Remove all statements referenced by Duyzer, as he is a primary source and his book is self published.
4. More thoroughly add material from the Weaver's book so it includes his positive points in addition to his already present negative points
5. Delete or find sources for the currently un-referenced statements in the article.
What worries me about your replies is that you seem to dismiss these as being issues. These are clearly issues that violate policy. I am assuming good faith still at this point. I am in the process of preparing to make these edits myself, and I am commenting here out of a courtesy to you. There are still a couple of the sources from the article I am lacking, but once I have them, I will begin to edit the article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Just a quick follow up, I now have a copy of Weaver's book. I want to say I think I was mistaken. Weaver's book is actually pretty neutral and honest overall. My impression that it was biased was because it is primarily used to reference the negative sentences within the article. It seems Weaver has only been selectively used... I am still assuming goof faith here. Just pointing out what I am finding the more I dig in. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This article was throughly reviewed and given a "good article" approval. Myself and a number of other editors spent considerable time on the review. If you want to spend the time to improve the article that would be appreciated. But the majority of editors who have contributed to this article do not feel it is out of balance. The Collins material is from articles from San Diego State University website. I am unsure how this would be considered self-published. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 05:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I am drafting my updates now. In regards to Collins and Duyzer, I do believe they are both self published. Here is what I have found in my digging into them. Both of them claim to be former Branham followers who now believe Branham was a cult leader and are both openly engaged efforts to discredit Branham. I am not saying don't use their sources, but caution appears to be in order. I cannot find anything they have published that is peer reviewed or third party published. Collins: http://seekyethetruth.com/About.aspx Duyzer: http://wmbranham.net/ Duyzer's book used in this article is definitely self published: (http://indipress.ca/), and there is no evidence of it being peer reviewed. I have ordered the book, along with most of the other sources in this article.
One exception: the SDSU articles are published in the Jonestown Report publication, so it is valid. However, the reference in the article is wrong. It is attributing it to a primary source repository that states it "is dedicated to collecting, preserving, and publishing primary source information about Peoples Temple." I will fix this the reference and point it to the more acceptable publication. However, upon reading the sources, it does not support the paragraph it is referencing... So that will need rewrote too. I have not dug through the article history to see who authored what, just pointing out what I am finding as I review the sources. Still finding substantial evidence of original research and selective use of sources...
I want to make sure I have all the relevant source material before I start editing as I understand this is a somewhat controversial article. I am a member of WikiProject Indiana, and I have authored hundreds of Wikipedia biographies on people from Indiana. That is primary interest in this article. I have also authored the majority of Indiana history related articles on Wikipedia. I am hoping to make this article my next project. It would be nice if we could get this close to FA standards, which is why I am being hard on it. I think we could do that with a couple of weeks work. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Charles Edward I disagree with your statement that the information from SDSU being used in this article is permissible under WP standards. The Jonestown Report publication webpage is hosted on the SDSU server, but is not an official SDSU website (which you pointed out). Therefore, it cannot be considered as published by SDSU (contrary to what DarligGitarist is saying). Further, the Jonestown Report publication is clear that the information published on their site is not peer reviewed, etc. The homepage says, "In an effort to be impartial, we offer many diverse views and opinions about the Temple and the events in Jonestown." It's more of a forum. This looks like an attempt to get around the WP No Original Research Rule. Misterniceguy (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry if my position was unclear. I generally agree with what you said. The website bills itself a "repository of primary source materials", and most of what is there is a primary source. The peer review quality is obviously poor to non-existance. (For example, Collins assertions are laughable. Jim Jones won the Martin Luther King Jr humanitarian award from the NAACP in 1977. A suicide cult leader he was, a racist he was not. Collins is making things up out of whole-cloth. Clearly he is just pushing a line of thought to advance his own agenda, not a historical truth.) But while it is not well peer reviewed, I think (not stating this authoritatively) that it is published by SDSU which lends it some credibility. So using in accordance with the policy on primary sources is ok. I am really on the fence as to whether or not it is a secondary source. I generally agree with your opinion, and think it would be wise to err on the side of caution, and consider it all a primary source. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Charles Edward:After reading through this discussion and how certain people are using the so-called San Diego State University website on the William Branham page and also other Wikipedia pages, I contacted the "JonesTown Report" website to get some answers. My suspicions were correct. The "Research Editor" responded to my questions on behalf of "JonesTown Report." I asked the following questions and his responses are in (parentheses). "Are the articles posted on your website peer-reviewed, vetted, and/or endorsed by San Diego State University?" Editor (No). "Does SDSU have oversight over what is published on your webpage? That does NOT mean that an employee works on editing the site. It means that this is an official University webpage that represents SDSU, not simply a page that is hosted on the University’s server." Editor (No) "Do you represent SDSU in an official capacity? If not, who can I contact with my concerns?" Editor (No. I could refer you to somebody, but I would want to be sure that these email exchanges be part of the record.) I also asked him to removed the Collins material. He declined, which I now understand given that website is not built solely around factual material, but allows "alternate" theories. This is a clear example of "circular reasoning" by Collins, trying to publish his information on a .edu website and then using that website as a source. I apologize for my lengthy comment, but I hope that sheds a little light on the subject. It is also important to note that I work at William Branham Ministries. My goal is not to hinder any information from going on this page, whether it is positive or negative; I just want the information to be factual.
I think we are in agreement. To explain, wikipedia has rules on sources. John Collins works fall under the WP:Primary policy. There is a narrow allowable use for such sources. Then there are also WP:Tertiary and WP:Secondary sources. Secondary sources are what has been deemed to be the best for use on Wikipedia. So the arguement here is not whether or not Collin's works have merit; as editors we cannot make that decision. The argument here is what category his works qualify as under Wikipedia policy. I argue that with exception of Jonestown Report, they are all clearly primary. Jonestown is borderline, and because of the ambiguity I lean in favor of categorizing as primary. At any rate, in my recent revision I have removed all citations to his work and adjusted things in accordance with better sources on the same topics. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 23:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Charles Edward: I agree with your opinion, this article contains at least a few synthetic sentences and original research. I deleted one yesterday: (Some have called his claims of poverty into question, because, among other things, he was able to purchase a new car when he was 18 years old.) This was a blatantly synthetic opinion by one of the editors as it is not found stated in that manner in Duyzer’s book, as referenced. Not only synthetic but inaccurate at that, as Duyzer states that Branham purchased the Ford in 1933 which would have made Branham 24 years old. I hope you can bring this article up to higher standards. Idealee (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Per request left at my talk page. I will probably do this gradually as time is limited.
  • Just looking at the lede, you need to check for proper grammar and usage, or you will tick off people at FAC.
  • In the infobox, the "m." prior to the spouses, one has a space afterwards and one does not.
  • Also in infobox, we do not list children by name unless they are notable.
  • Still in the infobox, you are inconsistent in whether you have a space between the name of the denomination and the parens.
  • "He launching" He launched
  • " in his meeting" at his meetings
  • " In 1963 Branham preached a sermon indicating he was a prophet with the anointing of Elijah who had come to herald Christ's second coming." Indicating is a word that is pretty low key and out of keeping with the rest of the sentence. Possibly "announcing".
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you wehwalt, any feedback is appreciated! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Harrell 1975, p. 29.
  2. ^ Duyzer 2014, pp. 32–33.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_M._Branham/Archive_7&oldid=846328225"