Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:04, 27 February 2018

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page.

William M. Branham has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 31, 2017.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Charismatic Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Indiana / Kentucky / Louisville Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (assessed as Low-importance).

The article is strongly biased

This article is obviously biased in favour of people who support or sympathize with Branham's life of preaching to gullible, uneducated people. There is no balanced argument about a doctrine which is clearly heretical - eg: Devil's spawn (ridiculous!) - and a photo from a scratched negative which was supposed to make him a messenger of God! (ridiculous!) He predicted his own death - yet died much earlier - therefore not predicted. He gave out anecdotes about how popular he was because nobody could verify the truth. In short, he was a conman of the most despicable kind. Francis Hannaway (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The article uses appropriate neutral Misplaced Pages language such as "Branham claimed ..." or "Branham believed ...". It does not state anything as a fact that is not verified by secondary sources such as Weaver, Harrell, Hollenweger and some newspaper reports.. Rev107 (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I rest my case - Rev107 is a self proclaimed collaborator in the Branham sect. If he is an interested party, then probably most of the other editors will be blind to the neutral path of editing. Francis Hannaway (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Your case must rest on the language used in the article, not your personal opinion of me or any other editor. Rev107 (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Francish7. Rev107 uses wikilawyering to wear people down that disagree with him. He is strongly biased and the language of the article reflects that. Taxee (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The point that Francish7 makes about the devil's spawn being ridiculous ignores several scriptures of the Bible. The first is that of St. John 8:33-47, where Jesus himself distinguishes between the Son's of God and the Son's of the Devil, with 'of' representing lineage and that this lineage is not in the natural but spiritual - as they were Abraham's seed in the flesh but yet were not the Seed of Abraham. Paul later explains that the Seed of Abraham are those that have the faith of Abraham. Later John also, referring to Cain in 1 John 3:12, indicates that he was 'of (again referring to lineage) that wicked one and not the son of Adam, and that there are 'children of God' and 'Children of the Devil' ( John 3:10). To say that the devil does not have any offspring is to discount the Bible, which would make any argument pointless, as all of the doctrines taught with reference to Christianity should have a biblical backing or it is not a biblical doctrine. William Branham himself indicated that every revelation and vision he received was not accepted unless it had a solid biblical foundation. The teaching of the Devil having offspring, the serpent's seed, has a biblical backing. 190.80.119.21 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides, but if there's a neutrality dispute, that needs to be tagged at the top of the article. Stevie is the man! 17:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the disputed tag because 3 weeks had elapsed since the person who started this discussion had made a contribution. The personal comments by other editors seem to be inappropriate and irrelevant in resolving a dispute. Rev107 (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with articles about such quackery is that sensible people see them for being such,and because of that they avoid editing them. Why is there no record of the photograph as being described as a scratched negative? ... because people see the scratched negative photo and think "Uh-oh! Loonies! Anyone can see that it's a scratched negative and not a halo." To say that he was uneducated - that he had dipped into varyious heretical texts - should be emphasised in this article. You could say ... it's a "made-up" religion like the ones that say the aliens are telling them what to do. Let's take the example of the "Devil's spawn" concept ... which only a fool ... I repeat, a fool, would believe. This is what is on the Misplaced Pages page about Devil's spawn: QUOTE Serpent seed, dual seed or two-seedline is a controversial doctrine, according to which the serpent in the Garden of Eden mated with Eve, and the offspring of their union was Cain. This belief is still held by some adherents of the white-supremacist theology known as Christian Identity, who claim that the Jews, as descendants of Cain, are also descended from the serpent. name="Borgeson">Borgeson, Kevin; Valeri, Robin (2008). "3: Christian Identity". Terrorism in America. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. pp. 52–55. ISBN 0-7637-5524-9. Retrieved 2009-02-20.ref name="Martin">Martin, Gus (2006). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues (2, illustrated ed.). SAGE. pp. 453–454. ISBN 1-4129-2722-6. Retrieved 2009-02-20. The idea has also existed in several other non-racial contexts, and major proponents include Daniel Parker (1781–1844)"Primitive Baptists". Primitivebaptist.info. Retrieved 2014-07-15. and William M. Branham (1909–65)."Branham, W. M., ''An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages'', (Jeffersonville, Indiana: WBEA, 1965) p98". Nt.scbbs.com. Retrieved 2014-07-15. END OF QUOTE This is just one of the doctrine that should be prominent in the article. Another is that he claimed that people were cured, even though there is evidence to say that people died after so called healings. This should also be prominent in the article. I could go on .... My point is that the article is written by Branhamists and any conflicting edits are removed. Francis Hannaway (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I speak this from personal experience: I had suffered from a disease called Ankylosing Spondylitis. It had affected my hip joints making it difficult to move them. One day, while in a church service, I was healed. It was an experience that I felt as much as believed. I was able to walk out the church without crutches. An hour later, after being plagued by many thoughts and doubts, I was again unable to walk without crutches. So I know from experience that a man can receive healing and then lose it when his faith fails. Was there medical proof of my healing? No. But there was visible proof - my walking. 190.80.119.21 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of a tag when there's a clear dispute is inappropriate and doesn't assist efforts in resolving it. There's no pre-requirement for an edit war to place that tag. Stevie is the man! 11:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Stevie, how long should a disputed tag remain on an article after the person who placed it there fails to respond? F H has now re-entered the dispute after five weeks but from what I see his comments are simply expressing a personal opinion about the subject and those who follow beliefs he considers to be quackery. Rev107 (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A dispute is a dispute, and your characterization of others' opinions provides a strong indication that there continues to be one. There is no specific timetable that I know of for when a dispute has to be resolved. I would recommend that the various parties come together, decide all the passages that are in dispute, then work on each passage one by one until it's all ironed out. Of course, guidelines must be applied, and positions that are based on reliable sources must take the lead. I noticed somewhere that some sources people talked about are self-published ones -- of course, these must ordinarily be rejected as WP:OR. I'm not going to be a part of any specific discussion here, as again, I don't want to take sides. Someone has to play neutral.  :) Stevie is the man! 20:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

My "characterisation" of others' comments refers to the use of words such as "fool" and "quackery". Everyone has a bias, however, the focus should not become personal but address specific changes to the article. It is very difficult to resolve an issue when the other editor is not prepared to engage in ongoing discussion. I will seek further advice on how long an article can remain tagged in the absence of the person who placed the tag. My impression is that it is 14 days. (In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time. Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute) Rev107 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Francis, please edit your post to include your references with your last comment. I would prefer you avoided the use of words such as "quackery" and "fool" and concentrate on specific changes you are proposing. The "serpent seed" doctrine is included in the article, along with a source providing criticism (Weaver). The article also includes criticism from Hollenweger concerning not as many were healed as was claimed. Many people were healed in WMB's meetings and many people weren't. Peter walked on the water (some would call that quackery too :) but when he doubted he sank. Rev107 (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that everyone has a bias and, as has been pointed out yours is unmistakable. In any event, removing a disputed tag after 3 weeks in the middle of the summer when people are on vacation is another clear sign of bias. I would suggest leaving it up for 3 months and see what happens. As indicated, I am in agreement with the dispute tag remaining and have reinstated it. Taxee (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem confused as to whether you are supporting the first tag used by FH (neutrality) or the second placed by STM (factual accuracy). You have not advanced any argument that supports the tag you have used. Please read "Adding a tag to a page" at Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute and Misplaced Pages:Accuracy dispute. I will accept another 14 days without an ongoing discussion before removing the tag. Please note that Misplaced Pages:Tagging pages for problems defines a reasonable time as "a few days" Rev107 (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that this article is primarily based on Branham's own words, the factual basis of this article has to be questioned. Weaver clearly states that Branham's "autobiographical stories were often embellished and sometimes contradictory" (p.21.22). Taxee (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Factual errors re "Early Life" Comment

Rev107 revised my comment on the grounds that it reflected POV. The problem with his revision is that the offending word - dubious - is one used by Weaver in his book. The original wording in the article was as follows:

At the age of twenty-two he had a conversion experience and later was ordained as an assistant pastor at a Missionary Baptist Church in Jeffersonville. When he disagreed with the pastor about the role of women preaching, William Branham held a series of revivals on his own in a tent. Later, the meetings moved to a Masonic temple until they were able to construct a building in 1933 which the congregation named 'Branham Tabernacle'.

There are a number of problems with this passage from a factual perspective. This is one of many reasons why I support the notice of dispute re factual accuracy.

The problems are as follows:

1. Weaver's research uncovered the fact that the church pastored by Roy Davis in Jeffersonville was not a Missionary Baptist church but rather was the First Pentecostal Baptist Church. This is corroborated by advertisements in the Jeffersonville Evening News and by listings for the church in the Jeffersonville Directory.
2. According to both Angela Smith's "Generations" book and the Jeffersonville Evening News, the original name of the Branham's church was the Pentecostal Tabernacle.

So in 3 sentences, we have 2 serious factual errors.

Rev107, since you didn't like my edit, I would invite you to edit the above 3 sentences in a manner that accurately reflects the facts. However, I do find the present wording as revised by yourself unacceptable as it does not accurately reflect the facts. Taxee (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"The First Pentecostal Baptist Church" was a Missionary Baptist church. It is something like saying the "Cloverdale Bibleway Church" is a Message church. There were two main divisions among the Baptist churches: Missionary Baptists and Primitive Baptists. See also National Missionary Baptist Convention of America.

Roy Davis was not Pentecostal as it is understood today. "First Pentecostal" refers to the belief that their church could be traced back to apostolic times. He wrote in a letter: I had been a Baptist preacher for many years, and had been taught to disregard such ideas and concepts of spiritual things ... (Voice of Healing, Oct 1950)

WB called the church he started "The Pentecostal Tabernacle". The board of the church, with the support of the congregation, later changed it to "Branham Tabernacle". Rev107 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Your statement that "The First Pentecostal Baptist Church" was a Missionary Baptist church disregards the words of the letter of Roy Davis that you refer to. Roy Davis stated in that letter that:

I am the minister who received Brother Branham into the first Pentecostal assembly he ever frequented. I baptized him, and was his pastor for some two years... I was the first man on this earth whom Billy ever saw anoint and pray for a sick person. I feel I can write more intimately of Billy Bran­ham than any living minister, as he also received his Baptism of the Holy Ghost in my humble home in Jeffersonville, Indiana.

Does that sound like a classical "Baptist" church? No! The emphasis was on Pentecostalism. It is for this reason that Weaver states the following in his book:

Branham's assertion that the "holy roller" caricature was his only previous understanding of Pentecostalism is dubious. Though Branham described the Baptist church to which he belonged as the Missionary Baptist Church,... the actual name of the church was First Pentecostal Baptist. The congregation was "a Holy Ghost church where they worship God in Spirit and not the fleshly denominations."

That is my problem. As a follower, you believe every word William Branham said. Weaver looks at his statements critically. The article should reflect Weaver's doubt about William Branham's veracity on this issue. Taxee (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand that "Missionary Baptist church" refers to a Baptist affiliation, not the name of Roy Davis's church?

All churches of every denomination believe in the baptism with the Holy Spirit in some form or other, and every denomination has always prayed for the sick, even Catholics, but they do not accept that a person received the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues which is the general belief of Pentecostalism. In the letter you refer to, Roy Davis clearly identifies himself as "a Baptist preacher for many years, and had been taught to disregard such ideas and concepts of spiritual things as visions, talking with the Lord, and kindred things."

I do not object to Weaver's opinions being included in the article as long as the comments are identified as his opinions. Weaver does not say it is dubious WB "was ordained as a Missionary Baptist" (as you wrote in the article) but rather Weaver thinks it is dubious that the Oneness Pentecostal meeting WB attend in 1936 was "his only previous understanding of Pentecostalism". Weaver includes this in a footnote as his opinion though in the text of his book he clearly states: "Branham's first exposure to Pentecostalism occurred in 1936. While on a vacation, by coincidence he attended a gathering of Oneness Pentecostals." Rev107 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Intro to biography section

I am proposing that an introduction to the biography section include wording as follows:

Much of the information about Branham's life and ministry seems to have been from Branham himself or one of his followers, and that different versions of the same incident that he himself told are sometimes either difficult to reconcile or are contradictory.

This is almost a direct quote from Sheryl, J.Greg, (2013, July), The Legend of William Branham, The Quarterly Journal, The Newsletter Publication of Personal Freedom Outreach, Vol. 33, No. 3, p.10.

Weaver makes essentially the same point on page 21 of his book when he states that

Branham's autobiographical stories were often embellished and sometimes contradictory. Other sources, written by his associates or followers are apologetic and hagiogroaphical in nature.

Given that the information in this article is primarily from Branham's sermons, a note regarding the potential factual problems in this information must be given to the reader. Taxee (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed statement is POV. Reword it to be NPOV and include it in the criticism section if you must. BTW, the PFO journal is a self published source and under WP policy is only acceptable as reliable source for information about themselves. Rev107 (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not POV, this is a conclusion from the journal article. Editing from a neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The view expressed above is represented in several sources and so should be expressed. It should not be ignored.

Weaver makes the same point. If it suits you better, I will simply directly quote from the article. But it is not POV, it is a conclusion of both Sheryl and Weaver. Taxee (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You can quote from Weaver but you cannot use the PFO journal as it is a self published source and can only be used as a reliable source in articles about themselves. Keith Morse, who is PFO’s vice-president and serves on the Board of Directors, is the journal's editor and is responsible for preparing for publication all the material that appears in this periodical. Rev107 (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What makes a scholarly journal with an editor, numerous contributing authors, a board of directors and a separate board of reference which includes several well known theologians, a self-published source? Taxee (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

When a religious group with a very specific agenda publishes its own journal, it is a self published source and therefore not a reliable source (other than about itself) according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Rev107 (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please identify and reference the specific Misplaced Pages guideline that states this? Taxee (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. WP:V WP:RS Rev107 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In the Public Ministry section paragraph 2, should we include a link to the article in the June 2, 1933, issue of Jeffersonville Evening News identifying 14 conversions as a result of his tent meetings? Bus-stop3 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change. The newspaper article appears on at least one other website, does it make sense to reference this website as well? Bus-stop3 (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The date of the article in the Jeffersonville Evening News that indicated 14 converts is June 02, 1933. This was near the beginning of the revival. The baptismal service was June 11, 1933. That was 9 days later, and so by that time there may have well been a significant more (even hundreds) converted and/or baptized than the 14 converts mentioned in the June 2nd article. This comment misrepresents the facts and is framed in such a way as to suggest the account of a 17th convert is not truthful, therefore the comment should be edited or removed.Electseed (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Such a comment is interpretive in nature. Given the newspaper report of June 2, 1933, one would have thought that there would have been additional reports in the news if anything else significant had occurred. Taxee (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Original name of Branham Tabernacle

The original name of William Branham's church was the Pentecostal Tabernacle. It is first referenced in an advertisement in the Jeffersonville Evening News on August 17, 1935. Rev. Wm. Branham is listed as the pastor of the Pentecostal Tabernacle. Hope Branham's obituary in the Jeffersonville Evening News of July 22, 1937 also refers to her memorial service being held in the Pentecostal Tabernacle. The 1937 Jeffersonville City Directory lists Rev Wm M Branham as the pastor of the Pentecostal Tabernacle. The "Messenger" book published by the Branham family also acknowledges on page 7 that it was originally called the Pentecostal Tabernacle.

The name of the church was changed to the Branham Tabernacle at some later date. Taxee (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This statement of yours is also POV: However, from Weaver's description of the church, it appears that it was as much or more a Pentecostal than a Baptist church. This is an interpretation of what Weaver said. Stick to the facts, keeping in mind that Weaver clearly states in the text "Branham's first exposure to Pentecostalism occurred in 1936. While on a vacation, by coincidence he attended a gathering of Oneness Pentecostals." Rev107 (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How can stating a historical fact be POV? The church was originally called the Pentecostal Tabernacle based on verifiable historical sources. Perhaps you could explain this to me because i certainly don't understand where you are coming from on this issue. Taxee (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never questioned that WB's church was originally called "Pentecostal Tabernacle". I am glad you added it to the article. My comment above refers to the nature of Roy Davis's church ("as much or more a Pentecostal than a Baptist church"). This is POV. I have reworded the article to reflect what Weaver actually says about the "First Pentecostal Baptist" church.

You have added extra information but you have still not identified anything in the article that justifies the tag disputing factual accuracy. Rev107 (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding your comment. I was perhaps under the wrong impression that each discussion section dealt with a different subject.

On the issue of the factual dispute, I am just getting started. There is a new 350+ page book on Branham that was published earlier this year that contains a lot of pertinent information relating to his life as well as the journal article from 2013. The example of the name of the church being wrong is simply one example of a factual error that was never previously corrected. I previously gave up my attempts to edit this article in any meaningful way because of the constant need for dispute resolution. However, if that is the way we will have to proceed then we will take this slowly, one issue at a time until we have exhausted all of the issues. Only then will I support removing the dispute notice. Taxee (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The article said the church was named Branham Tabernacle. That was not an error. Your addition of the original name is a minor detail that was not included previously ... and I am glad you included it as it lends support to the fact that when WB first established his church he did not name it after himself. Sorry, my friend, you have not corrected anything. Keep trying  :)

As I stated above, self published sources can only be used for information about themselves. Since Owen Jorgensen is recognized as "a dedicated member of the Branhamite sect" by BTS, among other critics, his books can be used as a source for the article. Rev107 (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your interpretation. Jorgensen's book is a perfect example of hagiography and should not be used as a reference source for this article. Taxee (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. WP:V WP:RS

Under this guideline Jorgensen qualifies but the PFO journal does not. Primary sources can be used for simple statements (such as the name change of Branham Tabernacle) but not for "exceptional claims". You need to carefully look at how the source is being used before discounting it. On this basis I have reinstated Jorgensen's comment about the name of BT Rev107 (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not logical. Jorgensen's book is hagiographic and can't be relied on. The issue regarding who named the church is an immaterial detail that should not be in the article Taxee (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not based on Misplaced Pages guidelines concerning primary sources. The issue regarding the original name of Branham Tabernacle is a minor detail that did not need to be included in the article. Rev107 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

And why is who named it more important? The issue is raised by Weaver and was important to Weaver as an indication that Branham's claims regarding the timing of his introduction to Pentecostalism was dubious (Weaver's words). Taxee (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not say it was more important. I said I was glad you included the name of Roy Davis's church as well as the original name of Branham Tabernacle. These are not disputed statements. Weaver compares WB's "first exposure to Pentecostalism" (Oneness Pentecostals) with his "only previous understanding of Pentecostalism" (First Pentecostal Baptist). The article reflects that understanding so can we say this issue is resolved? Rev107 (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Primary vs. Secondary Sources

Rev107, I think that we need to arrive at an agreement with respect to how we should move forward with this article. If we can't arrive at an agreement (which might require compromise on both of our parts), then I can't see how we can avoid a dispute.

The NRM Manual of Style states that

Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources. Editors also should not use primary sources for explicit or implicit advocacy for or against a new religious movement, unless they cite a reliably published secondary source using the same primary source in the same manner.

In the NRM field, primary sources include:

• Writings or other media published by an NRM;
• Writings or media recordings of a movement's founder;
• Self-published writings of members and ex-members;
• Websites of members, ex-members and critics.

Primary sources can be cited to support specific statements, but the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.

In my view, the article as it currently reads is based on primary sources with some commentary from secondary sources. That is problematic.

I would suggest that we work on an agreed list of reliable secondary sources and a list of primary sources and then figure out how we move forward from there. If that is not acceptable, then I would be interested in how you think we should proceed. Taxee (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No Misplaced Pages guideline supports the removal of primary sources. The solution is simple: add more genuine secondary sources.

You need to remember that sources can qualify for some purposes and not for others, this applies particularly to primary sources such as Jorgensen.

With all that you have written thus far you have still not identified a single factual error in the article. The language used in the article is careful to say what WB claimed - it does not say what he claimed was true.

The best way to move forward is for you to start at the beginning of the article and identify the first disputed statement. Rev107 (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I was quoting a[REDACTED] source. That's why I provided the link. Re facts, we can start with Branham's birthdate. Here is one fact that should be mentioned - William Branham listed April 8, 1909 as his birthdate on his marriage certificate to Hope Brumbach. He later changed it to 1908 as a result of a fortune teller he met. This is outlined in Peter Duyzer's new book - Legend of the Fall - which is a recently published book that is not self-published. Amazon listing Taxee (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the Misplaced Pages source you quoted. I said, and say again, no Misplaced Pages policy supports the removal of primary sources that are used correctly.

The two most authoritative secondary sources (Harrell & Weaver) have concluded that WB's birthdate was April 6, 1909. (BTW, other critics do not agree with your dates! Don't you know the latest "discovery" is March 10, 1907? Time you guys got your story straight ... LOL)

ISP is hardly in the same league as Harrell's & Weaver's publishers and Duyzer is far from being a third party - he has an obvious conflict of interest that precludes his book being used as a reliable secondary source. (See Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources).

Next "error" please. Rev107 (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Duyzer's book is from a recognized publisher and is not a self-published source. Weaver wrote a recommendation of the book which appears on its back cover. The issue relates to Branham signing his marriage certificate with a date in 1908 and then later changing that birthdate because of the comments of a fortune teller. Taxee (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bergen & Collins also recommend Duyzer's book but they claim a different DOB. ISP is for books that reputable publishers won't touch. Duyzer is not a third party because he is a disaffected "Branhamite" and because he has a conflict of interest he is not a reliable secondary source. The consensus of Harrell & Weaver settles the question for the purposes of this Misplaced Pages article. Move on. Rev107 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What Bergen & Collins think is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that in a well-researched book by Peter Duyzer, a copy of Branham's marriage license is reproduced which his signature attesting to the fact that his birthdate is different from that used in the Misplaced Pages article.

Independent Scholar's Press is not listed in the Misplaced Pages list of list of self-publishing companies. Furthermore, other books published by Independent Scholar's Press are listed as references in other Misplaced Pages articles. So your claim above, is completely baseless.

The primary problem with this article is that it relies PRIMARILY on primary sources. This is against "no original research" Misplaced Pages policy which states:

Policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only ifthat has been published by a reliable secondary source.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

This is my major concern with this article and why I believe that there are factual problems. Taxee (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What you believe is not relevant. You must identify and substantiate specific errors.

I have added Weaver's comment to the criticism section where it belongs.

You cannot ignore the consensus of Harrell & Weaver regarding WB's DOB.

Duyzer's book is not published by a well recognized publishing company - even ISP admit this on their website. And he is not a third party.

Please identify a paragraph in the article you think relies too heavily on primary sources so we can address a specific problem? Rev107 (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I repeat my concern with this entire article. There is a relegation of secondary sources to the criticism section while primary sources predominate the article itself. Weaver's conclusion should not be in the criticism section. It is a conclusion that he reached regarding the Branham's primary source material. That belongs front and center, not as a postscript.

It is Misplaced Pages policy that articles come primarily from secondary sources which is again being ignored. Taxee (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion about the use of primary sources in this article is meaningless without the identification & substantiation of specific examples and specific paragraphs. It is the same with "factual errors". And let me remind you yet again you still have not identified & substantiated a single error.

Weaver's comment is a criticism and belongs in the criticism section. Rev107 (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the motivation for relegating secondary sources to the criticism section? Weaver puts it in his book as a clear warning about the nature of the biographical material. Taxee (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Show me one precedent for what you are trying to do. Criticism belongs in the criticism section.

If you want to remove primary sources concerning WB's claims then you will need to remove this recently added comment:"Branham claimed that this event happened while he was baptizing his 17th convert"; however, the Jeffersonville Evening News reported only 14 converts as a result of his meetings..

It has been established in previous discussions on this Talk page that primary sources are reliable sources for claims that a person has made. Take this to a WP noticeboard for resolution and place a link to your action here. Rev107 (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What transpired previously on this talk page is irrelevant if it is not in line with clear Misplaced Pages policy. If you aren't willing to even discuss how we can bring this article in line with the Misplaced Pages policies that I referenced above, then I suppose the only option is to engage in dispute resolution. Taxee (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

To put it short, the problem of this entire article is that it is highly biased. There are mainly two types of books, those written by harsh critics ("enemies") and those written by followers or admirers ("friends"). Since you are not allowed to quote "friends", you are left with "enemies" - and anyone knows that an article written by an enemy will never be neutral. And here we are today, left with an article almost solely based upon a baptist theologian's work, a book that is everything but objective. Eforsund (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume from your comments, Eforsund, that you are a follower of Branham. And to a follower, an objective analysis of Branham's life and ministry will seem critical because it looks at the facts and not the views of Branham or his followers. I appreciate that may be problematic to someone who's worldview is based on Branham being a "biblical" character. However, it is important to understand how articles on Misplaced Pages should be written.

This article should not be based on primary sources, which includes self-published websites that are highly critical of Branham or websites that are glowingly positive. similarly, hagiographic, self-published books (the books of Lindsay, Stadsklev, Vayle, and Green) cannot be used as a basis for this article. The article must be based on secondary sources and we must restrict any analysis to those independent sources. Taxee (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is largely based on a highly critical book about William Branham written by a baptist theologian. It goes without saying that his personal faith and connections to the baptist denomination will heavily impact his level of objectivity. His negatively loaded language is a clear giveaway. To put it another way, it would be like letting the pope write Jeanne d'Arc's biography, had Misplaced Pages been around in those days. The result is the direct opposite of a hagiographic text, which is just as big a problem. Do you see my point? Eforsund (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the material referenced to Oosthuizen and Crowder as it is not properly referenced and therefore cannot be validated. As such, it must be assumed to be a primary source.

Taxee: In what way are these sources not properly referenced? Eforsund (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

With respect, the book by Weaver must be considered the most reliable source of information on the subject of William Branham. The most reliable sources are:

• Peer-reviewed journals
• Books published by university presses
• University-level textbooks
• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream newspapers

You may not like Misplaced Pages standards and policy but that is what an encyclopedic article must be based on. Weaver's book is published by a university press and that fact that you don't like his analysis does not give you the right to exclude it. Taxee (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Taxee: I am discussing these policies with you now. Is there really no policy that considers balance? When more than 50% of sources come from one book, the balance is no longer there. Is there really no policy that also allows one to question or critic sources? Eforsund (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: "the book by Weaver must be considered the most reliable source of information on the subject of William Branham", and given that a large degree of sourcing comes from the book, wouldn't that come into conflict with WP:RS and WP:UNDUE? It's not like Weaver has some kind of special right to "hold the floor" on this subject, right? As for balance that Eforsund speaks of, there should be well-referenced representations of what the subject thought of himself, as long as it's secondary, or written by the subject himself. It's not hagiographic to present someone's views, even if most considered such views flawed. Stevie is the man! 13:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Stevie is the man!, if primary sources from the pro-Branham side are included then one must also include primary sources that are highly critical of Branham (there are plenty of them). The article in its present state avoids both of these extremes. This problem is clearly spelled out in the NRM Manual of Style which states that "Misplaced Pages's articles on new religious movements (NRMs) have frequently proved contentious. The key to stable, neutral articles in this contentious field is good sourcing: focus on using the best, most reputable sources, above all scholarly sources, and avoid the use of primary sources – both movement and countermovement sources." This is even more critical here because Branham is not well known; hence the dearth of good materials.

One must also pay attention to the Wkipedia policy that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. For example, the followers of William Branham claim that a picture was taken of Branham with a supernatural being hovering over his head. Opponents to Branham challenge that claim. The policy on exceptional claims states that one must use extra caution when challenged claims are supported purely by primary or self-published sources. That is the case here. Weaver and Harrell deal with this issue objectively, which is the proper treatment.

There are really only 2 academic books that devote significant attention to Branham, Harrell and Weaver. Weaver is the only in-depth analysis. BUT there are 16 other secondary sources on the subject of Branham and, while they only devote a couple of pages to Branham, none of them contradict or are opposed to Weaver's conclusion and many of them reference him as a reliable source.

The only other solution would be to significantly scale back the article in such a way as to keep the details regarding Branham to the minimum found in all of the secondary sources. That would probably be more in keeping with Branham's importance in 20th century Pentacostalism but may not be acceptable to Eforsund.

I am certainly prepared to leave the article as is or to work with Eforsund to scale it back. But I think it would be in opposition to Misplaced Pages policy to simply allow this page to be based on primary sources favorable to Branham while not allowing the opposing view. That is a slippery slope that will lead to a common outcome on NRM pages. The NRM topic area is among a very small number of topic areas consistently generating several intractable disputes per year that require the intervention of Misplaced Pages's arbitration committee. As a result of these arbitration cases, over the years dozens of editors – both committed members and committed opponents of new religious movements - have received topic bans, even site bans. I really don't want to go there. Taxee (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's rather simple. Let a minimal piece of the article be Branham speaking for himself -- after all, he's the subject. I'm not talking about what others said of him, pro or con. You don't have to have directly challenging information against what the subject says about themselves -- you're just presenting their views. We have other articles reproducing quotes and thoughts of their subjects, and this article should be no different.

Also, I don't think we should pretend to be comfortable with the apparent lack of secondary sources, and we shouldn't be giving extra-heavy weight to one person's analysis, even if one thinks it's spot on. Stevie is the man! 17:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Stevietheman and Taxee. It seems like we are moving in the direction of a more balanced biography that also allows the subject to speak for himself. What we have right now is "Branham according to Weaver", and the whole article is heeling over. Please advise on how to proceed further. Thanks! Eforsund (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Stevietheman, your suggestion is unlikely to work for the simple reason that Branham made a significant number of exceptional claims about himself. An article solely based on Branham's claims would be hagiographic in nature. That's not the point of articles in Misplaced Pages. This is the primary area of dispute in all NRM articles. If Eforsund is prepared to accept an article with zero exceptional claims, then it may work but I don't expect that this would be acceptable to him. That is precisely the value of secondary sources, they look at exceptional claims objectively. I would think that a better approach would be to eliminate much of the detail on Branham's life and ministry and only include those exceptional claims that are dealt with in multiple secondary sources, including Weaver and Harrell. As I indicated, we have 18 secondary sources listed, however, virtually all of them restrict the comments on Branham to a few paragraphs because in the grand scale of things he is not particularly relevant. If that is acceptable to Eforsund, then we can probably make it work. Taxee (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

First, please stop pinging me, as I watch this page, and this convo isn't exactly high-priority for any reason. Secondly, it doesn't matter if Branham's claims about himself are exceptional -- if he said them about himself, and he's notable enough for an article, a summary of them should be included. It's not hagiographic to say what a notable person said about themselves in their own writing. Also, it isn't entirely necessary that the limited secondary sources respond to all of his claims. Respect the intelligence of the reader to sort it out. Stevie is the man! 11:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinging you? Not me. I didn't even look at the talk page until last night. I don't even know how to ping someone . I don't really understand how it's beneficial to ignore basic Misplaced Pages policy in an article and go with primary sources. Do you have a reference to a policy so that I can understand where you are coming from, particularly given the NRM manual of style? Taxee (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Branham and Jim Jones

The article fails to mention that Branham helped start the ministry of Jim Jones. Jones and Branham shared the pulpit in June 1956. This is detailed in Raven: The Untold Story of the Rev. Jim Jones and His People by Tim Reiterman. Taxee (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And this somehow makes WB responsible for what happened in 1978, does it? Rev107 (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said that. It is, however, an important fact that is missing from this article. Taxee (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How is it important to WB's life? Rev107 (talk)

How is it important? Are you serious? He helped launch Jim Jones and you don't think that it's important? Go read the Jim Jones article, they reference Branham and this article. It is an important fact related to Branham's life and ministry. Taxee (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

William Branham held meetings and had contact with literally thousands of ministers/churches, and it is not pertinent to this article to name them. This comment makes Jim Jones the subject instead of William Branham and therefore is not fitting. It is rightly left to the Jim Jones article. That he helped "launch" Jim Jones is an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electseed (talk • contribs) 11:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Taxee, I asked how is it important to WB's lfe? Whether WB was important in JJ's life is debatable but there is no evidence that JJ was important in WB's life. Rev107 (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

An important aspect of the article is the impact that Branham had on Christendom and on the US. There is no question that he had a significant impact. The question is what was the extent of that impact. The fact that he helped to launch Jim Jones is not insignificant given Jones later history.

Are you aware that Jones referred to what he was saying as "the Message"? Given the historical importance of both Jones and Branham in American history, this is a fact that should be included in this article. Remember that the article should be based on secondary sources whereas it is still based primarily on primary sources. Taxee (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that John referred to what Jesus said as "the Message?" (1 John 1:5, 3:11) There is no connection to be drawn between JJ and WB based on Jim Jones use of the phrase. There is no evidence that Jim Jones had any impression or impact in the life or ministry of William Branham therefore the comment is not appropriate. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest Jim Jones was impacted by William Branham. The fact that William Branham ministered at this certain meeting where Jim Jones was present does not establish what you are seeking to establish. William Branham was in meetings with perhaps millions of people and tens of thousands of ministers over his lifetime, and so to reference Jim Jones on that bases—that inturn makes him the subject of this article, is out of order. Nevertheless, if there is information that Jim Jones was someway effected by William Branham, then the proper place to establish that is on the Jim Jones article. Electseed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.108.116 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Section removed. Rev107 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is everything that is negative about Branham removed or moved out of the main section on his biography even though is it confirmed in multiple secondary sources? Why is the emphasis on primary sources and not on secondary sources? Taxee (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not an issue of negative or positive - it is an issue of relevance and importance.

You deleted the section on the "seven seals" when Weaver states: "The most significant experience of the 1960's was Branham's opening of the seven seals of Rev 6-8". I have now included his reference. Rev107 (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the paragraph because the references were only to primary sources. If the information is backed up by secondary sources, then there is reason to include it. Given the new reference to a secondary source, I have no reason to exclude it (subject to verifying that the secondary source is correct). My concern is when, as was the case here, the only references are primary sources. The content that I deleted was only referenced to primary sources. Primary sources are to be used for illustration only, according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Taxee (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edit reinstating the paragraph with a link to Weaver as a secondary source highlights the essence of my concerns. You use primary sources for the material and then put in the secondary source as a reference but the material is not changed to reflect what the secondary source actually says about the material. I have revised the paragraph (which probably needs a bit more work to accurately reflect what Weaver says about the subject of Branham's series on the seven seals but it now includes Weaver's analysis of the subject. The picture painted is much different than that derived from the primary sources. Taxee (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The information included on Jim Jones in the article is from a secondary source. In accordance with Misplaced Pages policy, if a quote of Jim Jones (i.e. a primary source) is included in the article it should be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. The quote that I removed was used in a way that constituted original research. Jones' comments are difficult to interpret and therefore should be excluded and only referred to through the analysis from secondary sources. Taxee (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Article Tag

This article has been tagged since 21 June. Since that time not one disputed statement has been identified & substantiated. Only two disputed statements have been raised and both have been resolved: (1) WB's date of birth has been established by 2 authoritative secondary sources (Weaver & Harrell), and (2) the name of the church in which WB was ordained has been clarified (the name was "First Pentecostal Baptist" church which was a Missionary Baptist church).

The editor currently maintaining the tag is not discussing disputed statements. He/she is only adding new material and discussing the use of sources. In these circumstances the tag cannot be maintained. The tag is not used to indicate an editor's reservations about the use of primary & secondary sources. Rev107 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I restored the tag. If other editors involved in recent disputes will report here that they have been resolved, then it will make sense to remove it. Stevie is the man! 02:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If you carefully examine the above discussions you will see that there is no ongoing discussion regarding any specific disputed statements as required by the tag. The current discussions concern sources and additional information, not factual accuracy. In the absence of an ongoing discussion related to factual accuracy the tag can be removed. By removing the tag I am attempting to force any "factual inaccuracies" to be clearly stated so they can be addressed. It is patently unfair to replace the tag without clearly identifying the specific statements in the article that are being challenged for factual accuracy. Misplaced Pages:Tagging pages for problems Rev107 (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The tag is placed via common sense. There are obviously ongoing recent disputes about the content continuing to happen. I am not going into any details because I am not going to become part of the disputes. As I said before, somebody has to play neutral -- it's either me or some other third party. I would characterize the disputes as supporting the inclusion of the tag. But I'll tell you what -- as long as nobody else seriously challenges your removal below or starts a new topic that supports the tag, I won't restore it. Otherwise, I will, and I will seek admin assistance to make it stick. Stevie is the man! 11:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Support or Oppose removal of factual dispute tag

Here is a place where recent disputants can either Support or Oppose removal of the tag that begins with "This article's factual accuracy is disputed." I will not be a participant. Please explain why you support or oppose. Stevie is the man! 11:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the tag - This article contains many statements, "facts" and conclusions drawn from primary sources. The problem with these sources are apparent from the comment in Weaver's book:

The reliability of William Branham's biographical material should be viewed with caution. This is because Branham's autobiographical stories were often embellished, and sometimes contradictory. Other sources, written by his associates or followers, are apologetic and hagiographical in nature.

There is not dissimilar comment in the July 2013 article on Branham by J. Greg Sheryl in the Quarterly Journal of the Personal Freedom Outreach. So we have scholars saying that the primary source material is suspect. As a result, the quality of this article is also dubious and should be tagged as such. I am willing to work towards ensuring that this article is based on secondary sources and maintains a NPOV.

The manual of style for new religious movements states that:

In the NRM field, primary sources include:

• Writings or other media published by an NRM;
• Writings or media recordings of a movement's founder;
• Self-published writings of members and ex-members;
• Websites of members, ex-members and critics.

Primary sources can be cited to support specific statements, but the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.

This is also mandated in the Misplaced Pages policies on no original research.

Misplaced Pages recognizes that the NRM topic area is among a very small number of topic areas consistently generating several intractable disputes per year that require the intervention of Misplaced Pages's arbitration committee. Given the most recent comments by Rev107 suggesting that I need to deal with this through dispute resolution, I expect that our current problem is insoluble and I will need to head down the path of dispute resolution. I had hoped that compromise was possible and that I could work together with the other editor to ensure that the article was based on secondary sources, but that increasingly appears to be unattainable. Taxee (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the tag - "Facts must always be presented to counter Branham's fiction." User:Vindicated1 — Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the tag. The source documents from which this information is taken are taken primarily from the words of William Branham himself. Yet, when these words are closely examined, a pattern of inconsistencies between them and the known facts are observed, as well as a tendencey to extremely exaggerate and embellish the accounts. Extensive research has been done recently and is published on several websites that demonstrate this. These websites include www.believethesign.com, www.seekyethetruth.com, and www.searchingforvindication.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth or Fiction (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I OPPOSE THE REMOVAL OF THE TAG. Almost all of the biographical material is drawn from Branham's own telling of his life story. The telling of his life story changes dramatically from account to account, and is embellished dramatically. Most of the third party references on the site do not independently verify his claims, but rather assume his telling of his biography is accurate and reference his claims verbatim. For example, the Biography section claims that he had a boxing career and was a cowboy in Arizona. However, the boxing records from the locations, time periods and the weights he said he fought in contain no record of him. His claims of being a cowboy in Arizona conflict with instances where he claims to be a cowboy in Kansas. His stories from this period are suspiciously similar to the plots of popular western shows of the time. There are various websites such as www.searchingforvindication.com and www.believethesign.com and others that have worked hard to reconcile his stories with historical records such as newspaper clippings and birth and marriage certificates, that show his Misplaced Pages biography to be significantly inaccurate and factually incorrect. These websites have become more accurate in compiling a biography that matches (and is based upon) recorded and documented history. Bus-stop3 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the tag William Branham's own words often contradict each other and his stories change over time. There is legal documentation proving that he lied about his birth date, the church he attended, and many statements he made concerning events in his life. You may view the documents at www.searchingforvindication.com. Blittzer (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Blittzer

Tag Removed

I have removed the tag based on the edits over the past 2 months which relates everything in the article to secondary sources, primarily Weaver and Harrell. Taxee (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I tried editing this article in 2013 but gave up after being embroiled in a dispute over content. I ended up with the distinct feeling that one needed to be a lawyer to edit anything on Misplaced Pages. So I walked away.

I came back recently after reading a new book on the subject of Branham that was published earlier this year which contained a lot of information on Branham that had not previously been published. It became readily apparent after a short time that things had not changed with trying to edit this article. While I wish compromise could be reached, it does not appear that this is likely to happen without third party intervention at some level.

I should also add that, while I formerly attended a church that followed Branham, my aim is to present a fair and balanced picture of Branham. I do appreciate that Misplaced Pages is not a place for advocacy in favour of or in opposition to a movement. What I would like to see is a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature of Branham. I do not believe that the article currently reflects this.

I have done a fair amount of reading of the relevant Misplaced Pages policies and believe that to make this article factually correct and NPOV, we need to arrive at a reasonable consensus on the following:

• The article should conform to the NRM manual of style (NRMMOS).
• As outlined in the NRMMOS, the article should be based on reliable secondary sources. IMHO, the article as it stands needs a thorough review to ensure that this is the case.
• As also outlined in the NRMMOS, editors also should not use primary sources for explicit or implicit advocacy for or against a new religious movement, unless they cite a reliably published secondary source using the same primary source in the same manner.

• The NRMMOS also recommends that an article on the founder of a religious movement should cover at least the following points:

1. Biography, including important events in the movement's history
2. Teachings
3. Reception of the founder and her or his movement

Nowhere is it suggested that any negative analysis from secondary sources should be excluded from the relevant section and relegated to a "criticism" section.

If Rev107 is willing, I would like to suggest trying the use of a third opinion. This is neither mandatory nor binding. Rather, it is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal mechanism through which two editors currently in dispute can request an opinion from an uninvolved third editor.

Trying to edit the article in any reasonable fashion is a complete waste of time if the majority of substantive edits are simply reverted without any willingness to compromise or undertake a reasonable discussion on the merits of the edit. Taxee (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

I am going to clean up the footnotes in the article which could take some time. The current footnoting style makes editing the article difficult. Using a bibliography and small footnotes will make editing easier and should also help those that are interested in doing further research.

I have started with Weaver (as he was the first footnote) then will go through the entire article. I will not be making any edits other than the footnotes while doing this.

I will also be going through the article and removing embedded links in the footnotes. Embedded links are to be avoided as outlined in Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links:

Embedded links to external websites should not be used as a form of inline citation, because they are highly susceptible to linkrot. Misplaced Pages allowed this in its early years... This is no longer recommended. Raw links are not recommended in lieu of properly written out citations, even if placed between ref tags... Taxee (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

William Branham

I have noticed that the William Branham page has been edited over the past year or so and articles and negative opinions have dominated the page. The original page which was likely written by his family or people who knew and loved him. Since the recent edits have been placed into the page the true story of the man and his ministry have been clouded by skepticism and borderline hate literature. One must understand why certain people would be motivated to write a book or a chapter of a book to discredit the ministry of William Branham it is because William Branham disagreed with what that person believed. Any person could write a book or an article and self publish it which neither makes the book true or false, it is just merely one person's opinion put into writing. So to constantly quote a book written by Weaver who was an obvious critic of the man and to imply that because it came from a book it must than be true would be naive. The page now is riddled with skepticism and needs to taken down and rewritten. There have risen certain groups of former followers of the message of William Branham that have made it their mission in life to discredit this man and his ministry. They have been allowed a free for all on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.G. Perkins (talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in any of the content development of this article, but it's important to understand some things:

• This is an encyclopedia article that discusses notable facts and reported public discourse (positive or negative) about a subject, not a page devoted only to praising the subject (i.e., a hagiography).
• Articles ordinarily should not be written by people close to the subject (family, close friends, etc.) as that poses a conflict of interest.
• The article should have only secondary sources such as newspapers and non-self-published books. If you can identify a citation that comes from a self-published book, feel free to disclose it on this talk page, and people who work on this article should address it. If any content (positive or negative about the subject) is based on a self-published book, it should be ordinarily be removed, perhaps unless it is material that discusses how the subject views himself in his own published works.
• There is nothing essentially wrong with skepticism that is cited from respected publications and maintains a significant proportion of thought about the subject. Of course, there could possibly be issues with balance. If you want to argue that the skepticism is WP:UNDUE, that is, given too much weight, it would be helpful to identify particular parts of the article where you find this to be the case, so that can be addressed.
• I don't see a reason to take the article down, per se. We ordinarily do not do that in the Misplaced Pages except for two reasons: If the content was copied/pasted from copyrighted work or if the subject is not notable. If you have specific parts of the article to contest, this talk page is the place to discuss.

I've tried here to explain how the site works and what the expectations are. I hope this helps. Stevie is the man! 10:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased

I am an avid user of Misplaced Pages, which I believe is a fantastic project that provides Internet users with unbiased information on a vast range of topics.

I was therefore surprised to find the opposite when I read this article about William Branham, which could be best described as a synopsis of Douglas Weaver's book: "The Healer-Prophet".

The current article has no less than 49 references to Douglas Weaver's book, which in itself is not the problem, although these references account for more than half of the references put together.

The problem is that Douglas Weaver is not a reliable source of unbiased information.

The mere fact that he is a baptist theologian (and former baptist pastor) working as a professor in a private Baptist university (Baylor) implies that his agenda would be to defend the baptist faith, theology and tradition in an apologetic manner.

Take into account that Wililam Branham started out as an independent baptist minister and later left the denomination.

In light of this:

In its current state this article is heavily biased against William Branham, it is based on highly biased sources and should be taken down and rewritten.

Eforsund (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't "take down" articles in the Misplaced Pages unless there is copyright infringement. If you want to improve the article, have at it as long as wiki guidelines are followed. Stevie is the man! 15:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Baylor is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools(SACS) is one of the six regional accreditationorganizations recognized by the United States Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Dr. Weaver is a respected academic so the comment on bias should be validated by another secondary source if it is to be viewed as credible.

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. There is a list of secondary sources in the article and Dr. Weaver's book is the only one focused solely on William Branham that was published by a university press. His book is well footnoted and referenced to primary sources and he interviewed a number of William Branham's associates. If you have a better secondary source or other secondary sources that are not referred to in the article, please reference them. Taxee (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a significant edit to the article which involved removing original research as well as improperly referenced material and NPOV information. Using primary source material to derive conclusions is considered “original research” and is not appropriate in Misplaced Pages articles. Also, Harrell's excellent work on the healing revival which devotes over 20 pages to Branham must be tempered by the later, more extensive (192 page) work by Weaver. Removing Weaver's analysis and replacing it with hagiographic material is even more inappropriate. Additionally, removing a quote from a secondary source and replacing it with something from a hagiographic source is also inappropriate.

I would suggest in the future that any significant edits, particularly those using primary sources (which generally end up in original research) should be discussed on the talk page first. Taxee (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for those of my contributions have been contrary to the best practices for Misplaced Pages articles. It was never my intention. I also thank for constructive feedback from Taxe regarding this. Nevertheless, the article is in its current form is anything but objective. Information that was deleted in the latest revision has removed important information such as:

• The result of the IRS 's investigation of Branham
• The conclusion of the investigation of the photo that was taken in Houston, Texas

(In addition to other important and updated information)

Why is this deleted? If formatting of sources is not done in a proper way, please point it out. We do not want a hagiographical article, but nor do we wish an article that omits important information like the kind mentioned above.

I will therefore remit this information, unless you have reasons I do not know of, that would suggest otherwise. Eforsund (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The article must be based information on secondary sources (see discussion above). Regarding the Houston photo, the comments from Sims book are appropriate (as it is a secondary source) but those from Lindsay's book are not as it is a primary source. Taxee (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Taxee: It is quite strange that Weaver never mentions the outcome of the examination of the photograph, but it might be an outcome he didn't like. George J. Lacy was a respected examiner of questioned documents, and this document exists and has been referenced to in many books. If you are really interested in an informative and correct article, how would you suggest we solve this?Eforsund (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually when you compare Branham's stories all through his sermons, you will find the man contradicted himself many times.A good indication he was making things up. You only have to look at his complete different life stories . One version is that he was raised to a young man in the mountains of Cumberland,Kentucky together with his siblings . In another version he says the Branhams moved to New Albany,Indiana when he was still very little (about 290 km/180 miles westward!). And was raised there , which is confirmed by US census records.He was 3 years when they moved to Indiana! This is something we see going on with all his stories. Also the miracle healing stories. A good example is the king George VI case. There's nowhere any record of him visiting the king or the king suffering from multiple sclerosis . In fact he had arteriosclerosis and died in 1952. https://en.wikipedia.org/George_VI . Here we see Branham was confusing names of diseases , probably had read about the king somewhere. After the king's death he still claimed he was healed by his prayer.Argus52Genesis (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Whose comment is this? No signature? 86.62.143.189 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry I'm learning to work with this Argus52Genesis (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Very Narrow View; We Need More Information!

This article has become a battle field of opinion due to it's conflicting nature. I would like to suggest we add substantial information to this article and allow the reader to decide what he/she would like to read about William Branham. If an Individual is looking for something to criticize William Branham on then they will find it here. On the other hand if someone is looking for a more positive read on his life they will also find that here. This never the less is only possible if we stop fighting and allow both Positive and Negative things to appear on this page for the Reader to find. If neither side is willing to compromise in this way this page might as well be pulled from Misplaced Pages altogether. Thank you for Considering this Idea--Footprints on the Sands of Time (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Footprints on the Sands of Time:, it's not as straightforward as balancing positives and negatives. I will welcome you to the Misplaced Pages on your talk page with some helpful links to pages that you can read to see what we're trying to accomplish in this and other articles. Stevie is the man! 13:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently based on secondary sources as outlined in the NRM manual of style. Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources and wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources. Editors also should not use primary sources for explicit or implicit advocacy for or against a new religious movement, unless they cite a reliably published secondary source using the same primary source in the same manner.

Primary sources can be cited to support specific statements, but the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. This is what the current article was based on. The most significant secondary sources are the books by Harrel, Weaver and Duyzer. Basing the article on primary source material from both pro and anti-Branham sources would result in an article that is clearly outside of the NRM manual of style. Taxee (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is all very fine; but may I point out that this page is about William Branham and not a New religious movement. --Footprints on the Sands of Time (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Footprints on the Sands of Time:, the NRM manual of style is based on the overall principles of Misplaced Pages and covers articles on the founders of new movements, which Branham is. The reason for the NRM manual of style is the often contentious nature of articles about NRMs and their founders. The three core content policies of Misplaced Pages are "NPOV" (representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic); "verifiability" (information must come from a reliable source) and "no original research" (no analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources).

A comprehensive list of secondary sources is provided in the article on Branham. Those reliable sources are what the article should be based on according to Misplaced Pages policy. Taxee (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent reverted edits

Instead of engaging in an edit conflict, I'm going to list problems with the content/headings being added back:

• The section "Ordained a Baptist Minister" is not referenced at all and refers to the subject as "Billy". Generally, we refer to subjects by their last name, and subsequently in a paragraph, use a pronoun, in this case, 'he'.
• Many of the headings don't reflect their content. A couple examples:
  • "Pillar of Fire Appears While Baptizing" -- there is a bright light reported, but no "pillar of fire", in the content as written. Editors aren't allowed to read in their personal thoughts into what happened.
  • "Stunts of the Devil" and "Devil Uses the Government" -- these couldn't be more obviously POV. An editor must keep the content and headings factual and neutral. Especially in these cases, there seems to be no interest in being objective.
• Most of the headings don't use the wiki heading style, with non-proper nouns lower-cased, and we use 'and' instead of '&'. This is a minor concern compared to the above items.
• Also, it's unusual to break sections like this into single paragraphs with headings. It looks unprofessional and not serious.

Stevie is the man! 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Footprints on the Sands of Time:, in addition to the above issues I outlined, I want to address the edit summary you last used: "These Headings are very useful and don't break any rules". Some of them actually do break one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages called WP:NPOV, also a core content policy. As I stated above, a couple of them are so subjective that in no possible way will they stay in this article. Also, your added paragraph breaks another core content policy called WP:V. You may want to read the pages I've linked to, as they are very important to this encyclopedia. And that's no matter what I have written on my user page about guidelines. We're not talking mere guidelines -- we are talking the hard policies of this site. Stevie is the man! 02:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Stevietheman:Your right. Sorry to cause problems with your policies. I also apologize for being so biased I see your point there too.--Footprints on the Sands of Time (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

William Branham's 7 Visions of 1933

It has been proposed that the following addition be made to the article:

The seven major events of the 1933 vision were:

1. Mussolini would conquer Ethiopia, but then die a horrible death at the hands of his own people.
2. America would be drawn into a world war against Germany which would be headed up by the Austrian, Adolph Hitler, who would be vanquished and come to a mysterious end.
3. Nazism and Fascism would come to nothing but Communism would flourish.
4. The fourth vision indicated the advance of technology, showing an egg-shaped car with a glass bubble roof which drove itself as the passengers played some kind of game.
5. The fifth scene had to do with the disappearance of modesty. He saw a woman, fully dressed at first, but her clothing became increasingly revealing until she was wearing nothing but “a little fig leaf type apron.”
6. There will arise over America a beautiful but cruel woman of great power and terrible splendor. Branham suggested three interpretations of this femme fatale: 1) The Roman Catholic Church, 2) a female president, 3) a symbol of womankind overthrowing God-ordained gender roles and dominating men.
7. “In the last and seventh vision I heard a terrible explosion. As I turned to look I saw nothing but debris, craters and smoke all over the land of America.

Reference provided is ”Branham, W,, Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, William Branham Evangelistic Outreach, 1965" with no page number.

There are several problems with this proposed edit:

1. It is based on primary source material

2. Because the primary source material disagrees with itself in several places, listing this material without listing the other versions of these visions is inappropriate.

3.. This primary source material is not a direct quote. Therefore, given that other primary source material is at odds with this information, the proposed edit must be considered original research. Original research is not permitted per Misplaced Pages policy.

4. Given that these "prophecies" are dealt with in Weaver's secondary source material, that is where the information in the article should come from.

Taxee (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

That does seem to be the biggest issue with proposed additions to the article - they've mostly been based on primary sources with questionable reliability. While that last vague tidbit about a female president is somewhat interesting, I would argue for maintaining the status quo for now. Unless any of his revelations or sermons can be found to be clearly relevant to his Teachings or his Legacy - as established by secondary sources - they should not be included. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Weaver unreliable?

As I have reverted changes I thought I have started a discussion. (I have no opinion) Red Jay (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Taxee: I think you are best suited to answer this as I remember you advocated for this source previously. Stevie is the man! 17:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's content is governed by three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are generally the most reliable sources. With respect to William Branham, we have two such sources that are significant - David Harrell's book, All Things Are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in Modern America, (Indiana University Press, 1978) and Douglas Weaver's book, The Healer-Prophet: William Marrion Branham (A study of the Prophetic in American Pentecostalism) (Mercer University Press, 2000). Harrell's book devotes a portion of several chapters to Branham whereas Weaver's book is focused solely on Branham.

Based on the Misplaced Pages essay on writing articles on new religious movements, articles on new religious movements (NRMs) have frequently proved contentious. The key to stable, neutral articles in this contentious field is good sourcing: focus on using the best, most reputable sources, above all scholarly sources, and avoid the use of primary sources – both movement and countermovement sources. That is what the article on William Branham is based on - the best, most reputable, scholarly sources. However, Weaver's book is viewed as unreliable by William Branham's followers precisely because it is a peer reviewed objective analysis of Branham's life and ministry.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant facts and viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Due weight is established by secondary sources. Prominent topics in self-published sources (movement and countermovement) may not be prominent in third-party sources (such as scholarly works); but it is the latter which establish due weight in articles on new religious movements. Misplaced Pages is not a place for advocacy in favour of or in opposition to a movement. I think that the current article is a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing secondary source material on William Branham. However, I do appreciate that both supporters and detractors of Branham may disagree with Weaver, but that doesn't mean Weaver is unreliable. Based on my research, it is the most reliable secondary source in existence. It is an independent, peer reviewed, academic publication and so must be given appropriate weight. Taxee (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Weaver has proven unreliable because of his putting his own opinion in his book rather than the facts. For one thing, the "Halo" photo was examined by George J. Lacy, an expert in questionable documents, and he said the light did strike the negative. Weaver says it is an obviously scratched negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.63.76.237 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the Weaver book? If so, could you please provide me the page on which he states that the negative was obviously scratched? I actually don't think you have read the book because I have searched it and can't find the passage you are referring to. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -Biography

Misplaced Pages's NPOV section states under "Assert facts, not opinions" : When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to weight policy, and they should be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it.

The statement "The reliability of William Branham's biographical material should be viewed with caution. This is because Branham's autobiographical stories were often embellished, and sometimes contradictory." Is a assertion of opinion, and although it is a cited opinion it is asserted as fact. This is not dissimilar to the statement "John Doe is the best baseball player" in the example above. Instead it should includes the words "According to Weaver" or other such inline attribution.

That is an overly biased statement that could be asserted to any religious leader of any religion who has had biographical work written about them. This statement also tells the reader what attitude to take towards the material of unsaid number of books. The term "biographical material" could encompass every book ever written on the man and any future books to be written. This is a biased and unfair generalization. The statement "This is because Branham's autobiographical stories were often embellished, and sometimes contradictory" makes a unneccessary point with no citation to specifics. By saying "often embellished" are we to assume the author has omnipotent information of every autobiography written or will ever be written on the man? How does he know? What does he mean by "often"? These are natural objections. Without specifics this opinion is not verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionram (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you disagree with the research and conclusions of secondary source material does not mean that the secondary source material is NPOV. Well researched opinions of seconday sources hold weight on Misplaced Pages.

To repeat what is stated earlier in this talk page, Misplaced Pages's content is governed by three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are generally the most reliable sources. With respect to William Branham, we have two such sources that are significant - David Harrell's book, All Things Are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in Modern America, (Indiana University Press, 1978) and Douglas Weaver's book, The Healer-Prophet: William Marrion Branham (A study of the Prophetic in American Pentecostalism) (Mercer University Press, 2000). Harrell's book devotes a portion of several chapters to Branham whereas Weaver's book is focused solely on Branham.

Based on the Misplaced Pages essay on writing articles on new religious movements, articles on new religious movements (NRMs) have frequently proved contentious. The key to stable, neutral articles in this contentious field is good sourcing: focus on using the best, most reputable sources, above all scholarly sources, and avoid the use of primary sources – both movement and countermovement sources. That is what the article on William Branham is based on - the best, most reputable, scholarly sources. However, Weaver's book is viewed as unreliable by William Branham's followers precisely because it is a peer reviewed objective analysis of Branham's life and ministry.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant facts and viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Due weight is established by secondary sources. Primary sources (in this case, both pro-Branham and and anti-Branham) do not establish due weight; only secondary sources can be used to establish due weight in articles on new religious movements. Misplaced Pages is not a place for advocacy in favour of or in opposition to a movement. I think that the current article is a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing secondary source material on William Branham. However, I do appreciate that both supporters and detractors of Branham may disagree with Weaver and/or Harrel, but that doesn't mean Weaver is unreliable. Based on my research, Weaver is the most reliable secondary source in existence. It is an independent, peer reviewed, academic publication and so must be given appropriate weight. In other words, it cannot be ignored.

Putting up a tag to try to push an agenda is not responsible tagging. It is much easier and less time-consuming for an experienced Wikipedian to identify and label an article's problem than it is to actually fix the problem. I have removed the tag, and replaced it with the edit you suggested. That is what you should have done. Taxee (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William M. Branham/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I know you've waited a while, but I'm starting this now.

General

• There are plenty of photographs of Branham available on the Internet. Images do much to increase the quality of an article. At least one of these should be included. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

How does one deal with the issue of copyright with respect to pictures? You are correct that there are a lot of pictures on the internet but there is a question as to whether they are in the public domain or not. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Cite the name of the author, if possible. Always provide a URL. Basically, fill in as much information as you can. Display name 99 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Added iconic photo to infobox under Misplaced Pages fair use policy. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• I don't see the need for there to be so many citations in the lead section. The lead is supposed to be a summary of what is in the main body, and it's presumed that whatever is there will probably be explained in more detail below. So it generally isn't supposed to have a citation unless the citation is in support of a specific statistic or quote. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Biography

• The introduction to this section is needlessly cryptic and would likely cause the reader to doubt the reliability of the information he is about to read. That should not happen. The questions regarding reliability could probably be reduced to a single sentence in the lead. Whenever potentially dubious information is mentioned in the article, it should come with an appropriate disclaimer. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I moved the caution on primary source material to the Bibliography section which is probably the better place for it.Darlig Gitarist (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I personally recommend getting rid of the "Biography" header and making full sections out of the things which are now-subjections. This is partially because the "Public ministry" section is very long and should itself probably be divided into sub-sections. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Darlig Gitarist (talk)

• The matter of Branham allegedly being born into poverty should be explain more deeply, I think. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Added section on "Early Life" Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have several problems with this section now. (1) The second sentence, concerning light, is completely without context. (2) Did the family actually move? (3) The article previously stated that his "claims of poverty have been called into question." Now, the article says nothing about these claims being questioned, and even takes the opposing view by saying that he grew up in "abject poverty." (4) When was he officially ordained? (5) What was the fact that the previous church was a "Holy Ghost church" have to do with anything? How is that connected to Pentecostalism? (6) The article doesn't bother to explain who Oneness Pentecostals are or why Branham joined them. Display name 99 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In response to your comments:

(1) I have added that his claim was in respect of his birth.

(2) Added a reference to the fact that he claimed that they moved the same year.

(3) Added a reference to his purchase of a new car at age 18.

(4) There is no record of the date of his ordination that I could find.

(5) Clarified this by changing the wording

(6) Added a brief explanation of Pentecostalism and Oneness Pentecostalism. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for an unsourced two-sentence explanation. A sentence about why Branham was attracted to them, with a passing summary of their beliefs in the same sentence, would be better. Speaking of sources, the last sentence in that section is conspicuously without one. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I took the statement from the intros to the Misplaced Pages articles on Pentecostalism and Oneness Pentecostalism. Since it was linked to that article, I assumed it was OK. I have replaced it with other sources. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Why is "Voice" capitalized? Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Quotes usually aren't put in italics. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed Darlig Gitarist (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• "He returned home when his brother died and Branham began a search for God."-You ought to be more specific. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Expanded Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Why is it important that he was exposed to Pentecostalism? Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have tied this into the death of his wife and daughter which he claimed was punishment for his failure to join Pentecostalism. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It still doesn't say when exactly he officially joined the Oneness Pentecostals. And it doesn't say why he interpreted it that way. Display name 99 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Weaver infers this was an embellishment in order to enhance his relationship with the Pentecostals, who were the only group that really accepted him. I also don't think Branham ever "officially" joined the oneness fraction as he took great pride in not belonging to any organization. In essence, Branham converted to Christianity in a Pentecostal church. That is where he started and he effectively stayed with that group his entire life. Not sure there is any reason that he "joined" Pentecostalism other than that. It appears from Weaver's comments that Branham's stories were simply a way to win favor with the Pentecostals who tended to be the majority of people who attended his meetings. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This section was a little confusing so I reworded it slightly to more clearly connect the dots. I think it is sufficient now.  Doctor (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• "which he also believed was the same day that the State of Israel became a nation." Well it wasn't. Why did he think that? Also, the "State of Israel" did not become a nation in 1948. Firstly, this is because the word "nation" refers to any group of people united by shared ethnicity, religion, etc., which Israel was long before 1948. Secondly, prior to being an official country it was not called a state. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This has been clarified and wording changed. Note that Branham used the word "nation" but I have now put this in quotes to clarify this. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• "campaign team"-What? Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Changed Darlig Gitarist (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Why did he leave the Baptists and become Pentecostal? Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

He didn't. The first church he attended was a Pentecostal Baptist church. He was effectively a Pentecostal from the time of his conversion to Christianity. I have added a statement to this effect. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• "although again the actual facts surrounding the event must be discounted."-Why? Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarified. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• The second to last paragraph in "Public ministry" is very confusing. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to clarify this, although to be honest, his teaching on these issues are very difficult to understand because of the language he uses. Those that are not familiar with the Bible will have a hard time understanding this but I have added a couple of biblical references as an aid to those that want to understand where he was coming from. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Teaching

• Why did he baptize people in the name of the "Lord Jesus Christ" if he rejected Trinitarianism? Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Added Weaver's explanation of the issue. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• " A woman's place was in the kitchen." The article should not interpret or speak on behalf of Branham. This should be reworded. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that it may be hard to believe, but this is what Branham actually said on multiple occasions. it is not an interpretation, it is simply referred to by Weaver. I can provide a direct quote if that would be more appropriate. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If he actually said it, than yes, it needs quotes. If he said something similar, you should either add that direct quote or choose a different method of paraphrasing. Display name 99 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have put it in quotes as Weaver included that exact phrase and Branham repeated it at least a half dozen times. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Same with "They were the tools of the Devil." Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• ", age immediately preceding the rapture, whose characteristics were all strikingly compatible to Branham's personality."-How? What does this mean? Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• " the opening of the seals revealed very little new doctrine..."-This takes place in the Book of the Apocalypse. Misplaced Pages should not make such a claim about a passage in the Bible. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Changed the wording to be clearer that the reference was to Branham's teaching on the subject. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I reworded this last piece to make it clear that Branham thought they were living in the age when the rapture would occur. I think this is good now as well.  Doctor (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

• This should've been done already, but fix the Harvard errors.

I think these are all fixed now. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at the article! They're obviously not all fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2017 (U

Sorry, but I feel like I am going blind. I am totally unfamiliar with Harvard citations and not sure who started it. They take a lot of time to do properly. I think I have figured them out and hope they are all done now but if not, you may need to be a bit more specific about what the problem is. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The Harvard errors are those red messages that appear in the referencing section. Basically, the point of the Harvard referencing style is to allow readers to click on a citation and be taken directly to the source. For this reason, it is, in my judgment, the best citation style on Misplaced Pages. But this cannot work if the name and year in the citation do not match the name and year in the "Bibliography" section. For this article, there are several cases in which these do not match. For instance, with Harrell, his name is given only one l in the citations. But his name has two ls in the Bibliography section and in real life. So that needs to be fixed. There are others. Display name 99 (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Red messages? That's probably the issue as I don't see any. Are you using a special tool to view the reference section? I've looked that the section in both Safari and Chrome and there is no red coloring at all in the ref section. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright I am, because when I logged out I saw nothing. I did have one installed on my account a while back, although I underestimated how much of what it allowed me to see was not visible to others. I'm sorry, Darlig Guitarist, for the tone of my above comment. I've fixed most of the errors myself. Display name 99 (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Can you tell me the tool you are using. This has been very frustrating trying to fix errors that I couldn't see (and taken way too much time as a result). Thanks! Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Also, be consistent. Don't use Harvard style referencing for most of your book sources but then leave just a couple without it. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

All non-Harvard footnotes have been replaced. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• The "cite web" template is the best format to use when citing Internet sources. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• In "The Decline of the Healing Revival," what happened to his tax evasion charges? ?Why do two sentences look weirdly different? Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what happened that caused the accidental deletion but it has been fixed. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. Now what about the tax evasion part? Display name 99 (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. The settlement of the tax evasions charges has now been added. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this is sufficently covered and referenced now. Doctor (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• In the infobox, his parents and children are listed with their YOBS and YODs. This is information that should be included in the article but, for the most part, is not. At the very least, the years should be taken out of the infobox. At present, it looks a bit cluttered. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I copied the basic format from another page. The infobox should now be much cleaner. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Still no source for the information. Display name 99 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I found a source for most of the info at findagrave.com. Finding the few bits that aren't there may take a bit longer. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Notes

Darlig Gitarist, I'm writing to remind you that, since this review began one week ago, you have not responded to any of my concerns on the talk page. You've made some changes to the article, but they don't seem aimed at implementing my suggestions. I'm going to give you 3 more days to respond to this review. If you do not respond, I will fail the article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99, thank you for taking the time to do such a detailed review. Unfortunately, I just saw your review for the first time today when you pinged me. I understand that the system should have given me a notification when you posted your review, but it didn't. I will start working on it but it will take a while as I am traveling. I will post comments as I work through your issues and would appreciate if I can interact with you about them. I suspect it may take me until the end of the first week of August to get to all of these. But I will try to get some of them dealt with this week. Thanks again! Darlig Gitarist (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. Take your time. Display name 99 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig Gitarist, since making your last post here on July 11, you have made some edits to the article and to its talk page, but none in response to the points which I have raised. I've also taken a look at the recent content disputes and edit-warring, and I certainly can't say fornow that the article meets the stability requirement for GAs. I'm not far from failing it. So please get back to me about the review within the next couple days. Display name 99 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99, as I indicated I am traveling and so couldn't devote any time to this article until late next week. I had a chance to do some minor edits relating to your recommendation to remove the references from the lead section. I have also done some work on trying to figure out what photograph of Branham I can use as there is no indication on the photographs online as to whether they are copyrighted or not.

It is interesting what a single obstreperous editor can do to an article when they don't respect the general Misplaced Pages guidelines. I do intend to get to this at the latter part of next week and the first week of August. Thanks for your patience. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig Gitarist, I see you said that you hoped to get to this in early August. You did a few things on August 3, and a couple more on August 16. But there are still plenty of things that need to be done. Since August 16, I haven't seen much of anything on the article aside from some edit wars. (Maybe applying for semi-protection wouldn't be a bad idea if all of the IP edits are disruptive.) Any idea when you can get to this? Display name 99 (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99, things rarely seem to go according to plan. However, we just said goodbye to some visiting relatives so I should be able to give this some attention tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Display name 99: and @Darlig Gitarist:, I have done extensive reseach on Branham and may be able to help you out, but I don't want to step on your toes or mess up anything you are currently working on. So, give me something to do and I'll jump right in. Doctor (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have something that you feel would be helpful, go ahead and share it. I didn't know anything about Branham before starting this review, so I might not be the best to judge the content except by how its inclusion conforms to WP guidelines. But please feel free to assist in any way you like. Display name 99 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Display name 99: I made a few notes here as I think a lot of your concerns have been taken care of. Can you take some time to strike through anything you agree has been fixed so we know where to focus our energy next? Thanks!  Doctor (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've decided that this article now meets GA criteria. Good work Darlig Gitarist and, in your late assistance, DoctorG. Display name 99 (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad I could add some minor assistance. Doctor (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper reference

The following was deleted but should be placed back in the article if it can be verified:

The Durban Sunday Times showed the picture of 16-year-old Ernest Blom, who had been crippled for 12 years, who raised up and walked with no difficulty.

This reference to a newspaper article is apparently from the November 11, 1951 issue of the Durban Sunday Tribune.

Danpeanuts, can you please provide the URL of the online archive source so that I can verify the report by reading what the newspaper actually reported?

Thanks! Darlig Gitarist (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, I don't know how to get URL's of the Durban Sunday Times. Julius Stadsklev put pictures of the entire article in his book "A Prophet Visits South Africa" on page 76, if you would like to read it.

Also, since no other Misplaced Pages Christian leader has a biography section and this one is clearly slanted to tell people what to think, I'm deleting it as suggested in the above article, which I repeat below: ```Danpeanuts

Biography

• The introduction to this section is needlessly cryptic and would likely cause the reader to doubt the reliability of the information he is about to read. That should not happen. The questions regarding reliability could probably be reduced to a single sentence in the lead. Whenever potentially dubious information is mentioned in the article, it should come with an appropriate disclaimer. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• I personally recommend getting rid of the "Biography" header and making full sections out of the things which are now-subjections. This is partially because the "Public ministry" section is very long and should itself probably be divided into sub-sections. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpeanuts (talk • contribs)

Stadsklev book is a primary source which precludes it from any weight in the article. There are also questions that have been raised about its reliability as there are reported factual inaccuracies in it. With respect to documentation of miracles and people being resurrected from the dead, please read WP:EXTRAORDINARY to understand my concerns. If you are unable to reference the actual newspaper article such that it can be verified, then it should not be included.

I indented your comments above (which you should learn how to do as well as how to sign your comments if you are going to be active in Misplaced Pages). Darlig Gitarist (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, Why do you keep removing the documented newspaper articles that I have put in? Misplaced Pages calls this "warring" and will block one or both of us if this continues. Weaver has put in his own opinions rather than fact in more than one place. His book shouldn't be used at all. If you want to put in negative comments, why not list them on the bottom of the article on Branham in a separate place and let those who want to know about the man stand alone for those who want to know about the ministry. You realize that no one has ever done the same things that Jesus did until Branham came on the scene. 184.63.76.237 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)22 July 2012

For an example, please look at Kenneth Copeland's[REDACTED] site. It has the official information first and then controversies afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpeanuts (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

In response to 184.63.76.237, Weaver is a secondary source. You don't appear to understand the difference between primary and secondary source material (although this has been made clear above). Please take the time to understand this issue. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below. In general, the most reliable sources are, peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses and university-level textbooks. Weaver's book is published by a university press and so is considered reliable (even if you don't like his conclusions).

I would refer you to the following articles on Misplaced Pages - WP:NOR and WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

One must also pay attention to the Wkipedia policy that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. For example, you would like the article to say that a newspaper stated that someone was raised from the dead. The policy on exceptional claims states that one must use extra caution when challenged claims are supported purely by primary or self-published sources. That is the case here. Weaver and Harrell deal with this issue objectively, which is the proper treatment.

Danpeanuts, have you taken the time to understand these issues? You refer to the Kenneth Copeland article which I have read. You will note that there are no claims about people being healed even though he and his followers would make these claims. Also, he is still alive which makes his biography a bit more complicated. The issues are different when you are dealing with a person who is still alive. A better article to look at is that of Oral Roberts. You will find no specifics of anyone being healed, although his ministry is comparable to Branham's in the view of Harrell.

I want the article of Branham to be high quality and I am prepared to work with you to get it that way BUT I and others on Misplaced Pages will revert any edits that violate the policies of Misplaced Pages and most of your edits, in the view of myself and others, have violated that policy. You will accomplish much more by working together with those of us that do try to uphold Misplaced Pages's policy and that will involve coming to an agreement here on the talk page prior to making the edits on issues that can be controversial. The question is whether you want to work together?

Look at my last edit which was to delete an obviously derogatory comment about Branham. I want the article to be balanced and neutral but that does not mean that the article should contain unverified material on exceptional claims or info based on primary source material.Darlig Gitarist (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, It looks like we do need to decide what to write before we write it. To be an accurate account, the miracles should be included. I would like to put the newspaper articles back in, but if you wish to leave one or more out let me know. I notice that T. L. Osborne's Misplaced Pages article was mostly all positive. Harrell gives a good un-biased report, while Weaver gives a very biased report and even adds lies and his own opinions (Like where he said the picture of a Halo was an obviously scratched negative--even though an expert who examined it said the light struck the negative (Probably because he is Baptist and the many miracles and God speaking directly through a man offended him). There are numerous testimonies on YouTube that back up the accuracy of the discernment. I have even spoken to some of them myself. On page 38 of Harrell's book he also admits that the discernment appeared to be 100% accurate. What do you suggest that gives a balanced report? Danpeanuts (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Dan Holt, 23 July 2017

A couple of questions:

1. Danpeanuts, have you read the Weaver book? If so, could you please provide me the page on which he states that the negative was obviously scratched? I actually don't think you have read the book because I have searched it and can't find the passage you are referring to. Weaver is actually very unbiased. But he includes the negatives and the positives as any balanced analysis by a researcher would be expected to be. If you haven't read Weaver's book, you can't comment on it with any sense of credibility.

2. How many people are indicated to be healed in the Osborn article? Answer: Zero. You still have not read the articles I referenced and, therefore, I don't think you understand what Misplaced Pages is about. There are arbitration routes that I will pursue if you will not abide by Misplaced Pages's policies. I don't think you will be happy with the outcome.

3. Branham was much more controversial than Osborn and both Harrell and Weaver talk about it. Are you aware that Harrell wrote the preface to Weaver's book? They are both university professors. The issues they raise set the weight of the article.

4. Do you understand WP:NOR and WP:EXCEPTIONAL? Can you please explain to me the difference between primary source and secondary source material and why Misplaced Pages relies on secondary sources? If you can't, then there is not point in discussing anything.

I am happy to try to reach an agreement on what should be included by discussing it on the talk page. That is what is supposed to happen. But if you violate Misplaced Pages policy, then I am not the only one that will revert your edits. Go look at your edits that were previously reverted. I certainly did not do all of them. If you can't come to an understanding of Misplaced Pages policy, then you will constantly see your edits reverted. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, I really didn't want to buy Weaver's book. I have Harrell's 1975 book. I deleted Weaver's statement about the scratched negative about 2 edits back. If it's possible to retrieve it, you can read it for yourself. To me, it seems that the books like "Prophet Visits South Africa" is a secondary source because it was written by an eye-witness who was a second person. I know I would have more confidence in the Bible written by actual witnesses than by someone else--especially someone who didn't believe. In a court of law they also only want eye-witnesses. If the only articles allowed are people who weren't there, then I would favor Harrell's book. The only thing is that not only the negative thoughts should be in Misplaced Pages, but also the positive ones. Here's a statement from Misplaced Pages's WP:NOR: "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. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)"

Here's a few examples: 1. Arrangements were made to have the Halo photo examined. It should say that it was examined by an expert and found to be authentic. 2. An unnamed minister in Saskatchewan, Canada stated that many pronounced as healed, later died, etc. For one thing, all will die, also, that's why I wanted to put some of the newspaper articles in to balance the subject so it wouldn't look like all of those prayed for died and that it wasn't fake. 3. Kenneth Hagin prophesied that Branham would die for his disobedience. Why was Hagin even mentioned? His own 1997 prophecy of St. Louis failed to come to pass. 4. Why were only the bad people influenced by Branham mentioned (Jim Jones, Schaifer), and not the successful ones (T.L. Osborn, Jack Coe, Oral Roberts, etc.)?

Danpeanuts, it's fine if you edited out the comment on Weaver but that does not negate the fact that you were posting things that were not true. Do you know what that does to your credibility? I have done a lot of research on Branham and own all of the books in both the primary and secondary source list. There are errors in Stadsklev's book. Are you aware of them?

There was a very balanced paragraph on the Houston photo at one time but someone messed it with the fallacy that Weaver said the negative was scratched and in edit battle to ensure the statement was truthful, the entire paragraph was deleted.

I want the statements to be balanced and the article to be neutral but that will require the negative to come out as well as the positive. If you are not prepared to have the article look at Branham as the academic community views him, then you don't understand what Misplaced Pages is about. It is not an apologetic for Branham. It looks at him from a neutral perspective, and that includes all of his problems. Weaver talks about Hagin and Lindsay and their interaction of the Pentecostal community with Branham.

You want to quote newspaper articles but you cannot even verify them. How do I know they are not like your Weaver research on the scratched negative? Do you understand why I (and many Misplaced Pages editors) will have a problem with sources that cannot be verified? Did you even read the article on "Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources"?

I am going to spend some time next week going through the article in detail and trying to answer all of the reviewers comments and, while I am doing that, will relook at Weaver's book and ensure that we do include his positive comments. If I post anything you don't like, we can discuss it here. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, I am not aware of any errors in Stadsklev's book, nor am I aware of anything I posted that was not true. I do know that there are a few people who were raised in the faith who have departed and are doing all in their power to discredit Branham. As far as I know he is probably one of the few who preached true bible holiness. You may have noticed that even in the church you attend, the women are wearing immodest clothing, men's clothing, cutting their hair and many things that they didn't do in the past. Men tell off-color jokes, use profanity, etc. Not all, but some; and the pastor is afraid to say anything about it. Perhaps where you attend is an exception, but there is a great falling away from what the church fathers taught. We needed someone to restore all things (Matt. 17:11). Would you tell me of an important error in Stadsklev's book? Also, why do you feel that you are the only person who can write about Branham and that you have a perfect understanding--even though you never knew the man or any of his family or people who witnessed the discernment and miracles?184.63.76.237 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)24 July 2017

Darlig, I notice that nothing has changed. Why do you want to completely control this site? You and Weaver continue to promote your own views and leave important facts out. This is like CNN and the Clilntons giving a report on Donald Trump. I have found other newspaper articles on the web telling of the many miracles that were done in the Branham campaigns and they need to be told. If you continue your grip on this site, I'm going to a third party. Let me repost the statements above:

I am requesting this also184.63.76.237 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)25 July 2017

Since I'm on Social Security, I don't feel able to pay the price to get the original news articles, so would at this time like to remove Weaver's opinion about Branham making up a story about the light and voice that came when he was baptizing. His opinion should not outweigh what Branham said: "Given the lack of corroborating evidence for this supposed supernatural event, Weaver’s opinion is that it is possible that Branham later embellished the incident by 'remembering' the forerunner message when he was achieving success in the healing revival.".

Weaver looked at the evidence. That's what researchers and academics do and from that they form opinions based on the evidence. Misplaced Pages does not allow original research. But opinions of academics carry weight on Misplaced Pages. That's the way Misplaced Pages works. Again, have you read the Misplaced Pages articles I referenced?

I have actually looked for corroborating evidence which should be easy to find given that Branham said that it was all over the newspapers across North America. There is only one newspaper report and it only mentions that 14 people were converted, nothing else. If you could find a newspaper report that was verifiable, I would support referencing that in the article.Darlig Gitarist (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, There doesn't seem to be any place where you can obtain a list of all newspaper articles. The Newspaper Archive has been kind enough to let me have a free trial, but I see that they only have a few newspapers that they have copies of. Lee Vayle said that he saw a small article about the light and the voice that said "As John the Baptist was sent..." in a Canadian newspaper. That's what got him interested in Branham in the first place.

Thanks for putting Branham's picture back on the site with the halo or logos over his head. I have some newspaper articles of a couple of healing testimonies, including the page numbers of the newspapers and the names that I would like to put back in after the nay-sayers. Also, I would like to put back the article from the Durban Natal Mercury. A photo of the article appears in Stadsklev's book, unless you can prove that he is a liar and made a fake photo. I will try to get something from the newspaper too, but need to know exactly what you need to see and then your promise to leave it alone. Most newspapers don't want to write about the works of God, so only a few will do it. There are hundreds of witnesses of these miracles. I've heard many of them personally.

I didn't put Branham's picture back on the site. It was never on the site.

The newspaper articles have to be verifiable, i.e. someone other than you has to be able to examine the articles to ensure that what you are posting is factual. Stadsklev's book is not a valid source as it has been proved to have serious errors in it. Please compare Stadsklev's story on pp. 43-44 from "A Prophet Visits South Africa" with the story as described on page 6 of the Nov. 1954 Voice of Healing magazine. You still don't seem to understand the phrase "Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources". This is Misplaced Pages policy and, as a result, any edit that violates that policy will be reverted by Wikipedians that understand the policy.

I would suggest this as a compromise. Please take whatever it is that you are going to use as proof for divine healing in the Branham article and insert it as an edit in the article on Faith healing. If it is not removed from that article by someone other than myself, then I will allow it to remain on this page. But it must use the same wording. That will remove it solely from the discussion here to something more general. But as and when it is removed from that article, it will be removed from this article. Agreed? Darlig Gitarist (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, Did you block me from using Misplaced Pages? I have talked to Senzo Mkhize, the archives man for the Natal Mercury newspaper and he is sending the article about the mass healings in Durban, S.A. and I also have other newspaper stories about other people who have been healed. I want to at least insert 1, 2, or 3 of them, because you and Weaver are spreading lies about Branham. At least Harrell gave an honest report in his book and what he said about the healings should be included in Misplaced Pages. I believe the people who said they didn't believe should be removed, because the proof is there that multitudes were healed. In looking for "As John the Baptist was sent.." I found a prophecy that was given in 1958. Here's part of it: “Yea, and so even unto those whom he hath come; yea, they have assembled together, yea, they have met in their council chambers. Yea, the leaders of my people have counciled together; and they have passed judgment even upon him. They have said in their secret chambers: ‘We shall reject him; yea, we shall search out a fault with him. Yea, we shall find many faults with him, and we shall teach our people. Yea and we shall tell them, that this also is Be-elzebub. Yea, it is not the Spirit of the Lord that has sent Him’.”User:Danpeanuts 4 August 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, are you saying that people that disagree with you should be removed from Misplaced Pages? Darlig Gitarist (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all. You have in the article one unnamed person who (in his opinion) thought nearly no one was healed. Also, the Canadian Assembly of God leader who (In His Opinion) thought it was fake. These are only opinions, why not the facts? True--not everyone gets healed, but a large number do, and a few newspapers tell about it. When Jesus was here, I think 10 lepers were the most that He healed at the same time. At the Durban meeting, truckloads of wheelchairs, crutches, etc. were carried off the racetrack. This was newspaper headlines. Why do you want to just list all the negatives that you can find about what Jesus did in 1951? Why must the truth be suppressed? Do you realize that this is not honest? As a Christian, we are supposed to tell the truth even when goes against our personal religion. Please let there be balance. User:danpeanuts 06:05, 5 August 2017

Also, why does the reference to Jim Jones keep getting put in here? The article from the University of San Diego about JJ was written by Mr. Collins, who also has a website called "Seek Ye the Truth" where he does nothing but bash Branham. He is totally unqualified to be writing for the University of San Diego or Misplaced Pages. I'm asking again that the association of JJ and Branham be removed. It's obvious that you are using JJ to stain the reputation of Branham. Here's the last request for removal from a previous post: Are you aware that John referred to what Jesus said as "the Message?" (1 John 1:5, 3:11) There is no connection to be drawn between JJ and WB based on Jim Jones use of the phrase. There is no evidence that Jim Jones had any impression or impact in the life or ministry of William Branham therefore the comment is not appropriate. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest Jim Jones was impacted by William Branham. The fact that William Branham ministered at this certain meeting where Jim Jones was present does not establish what you are seeking to establish. William Branham was in meetings with perhaps millions of people and tens of thousands of ministers over his lifetime, and so to reference Jim Jones on that bases—that inturn makes him the subject of this article, is out of order. Nevertheless, if there is information that Jim Jones was someway effected by William Branham, then the proper place to establish that is on the Jim Jones article. Electseed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.108.116 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Section removed. Rev107 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC) User:danpeanuts 10:30 p.m. 8 August 2017

In order to have a balance, after the 2 people who were critical that Weaver mentioned, there should be something telling of the thousands who really were healed in this ministry. I have the newspaper articles and page numbers (The Durban Natal Mercury isn't digitized, but Senzo, their archives man, will gladly send a picture of any article you ask for, as he has done for me). I would like to add this paragraph (Let me know if there are any changes that would make it better):

Perhaps the largest number of mass healing miracles in the world came at Branham's meetings in Durban, South Africa in 1951. One newspaper had the heading “Cripples Rise from Wheel-Chairs and Walk” “There were scenes of mass-healing of cripples and stretcher cases getting up and walking” following Branham’s prayer. A huge crowd came forward: crippled women and children threw down their crutches and leg irons; mothers wept as children took a few steps, for some the first time in their lives. Twisted bodies were made straight, deaf and dumb were healed. There was a TB and Cancer case mentioned which were both healed. An 18-year old deaf girl was healed in Winnipeg,. An arthritis patient walked onto the stage with help and then walked lively away in El Paso.

Weaver appears to be a deceiver. I want to ask again that his opinions be removed--They are not fact--only opinion, and do not qualify to be in Misplaced Pages (like his opinion that Branham made up the story about the light and the voice and that the income tax case had something to do with his drop in popularity. Harrell told the truth about that--Branham said 1956 was the year that America would either accept or reject Christ. After they rejected, his sermons included rebukes for unbelief like women cutting their hair, etc.). I do want to thank you for not re-posting Weaver's opinion that the halo was a scratched negative. Also, would like to delete John Collin's opinion that tries to make him associated with Jim Jones killing the people.

One more request: Can we tell about the 2 signs that the Angel told him he would receive--the hand vibrations, and knowing the secrets of hearts: how God was able to speak directly through his mouth and tell people the secrets of their hearts, diseases they had, and if they needed to confess any sins to God? user: danpeanuts 6:30 p.m. 9 August 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You mentioned above that Stadsklev's book had serious errors in it. I looked at both articles and the only thing different was that one said they prayed for Florence Nightengale in a hotel and the other in a house. That is only a minor thing. They both agreed that she was later completely healed. Also, the newspaper clipping of the mass healing in Stadsklev's book is exactly the same as I got from the newspaper archives. Stadsklev's book seems reliable. Why all the doubt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpeanuts (talk • contribs) 16:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thousands of people healed? This specifically disagrees with the comments of Pentecostal historican Walter Hollenweger. He specifically states that William Branham had a good diagnostic gift but very few people were healed. As i said previously, if you can get your edits to be accepted in the article on Faith healing, then I will agree to accept them here.

Weaver's book is secondary source material. Are you aware that Harrell wrote the preface to Weaver's book? They are both university professors. I am sorry but the article on William M. Branham must be balanced and weighted according to secondary source material. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Darlig Gitarist (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, It is not right that you have complete control over this site as you show bias against this man. The newspaper articles I have quoted from have also been witnessed by thousands of other people--some still alive today. I can understand why you don't want others to see the results from the South Africa campaign because they go against the picture you are trying to paint. Harrell may have written a preface to Weaver's book, but I am not interested in Weaver's book because of the obvious bias and the opinions he gives instead of facts. Weaver may have written a book, but Weaver is not an honest man. Harrell at least tried to represent the truth to the best of his ability.

Since you didn't answer the questions above, I went ahead and posted the newspaper articles. I, personally want to see at least actual facts presented that shows the gift worked and not only opinions from people with opposing beliefs. I asked you before and I'm asking again: What would you like to see changed about the South Africa campaign? It is a major happening in this ministry. The newspaper articles are verified by other newspapers in the area too. I can get the page numbers, etc. or whatever you want from them too. Why try to hide the truth just because it doesn't agree with what you think? For one thing, your denomination teaches that women should wear a man-made covering, while St. Paul said her (long) hair is given her for a covering (I Cor. 11:15b) and if she doesn't have it to shave it all off (11:6). The reason this man was sent was to restore our faith in the Word of God. I'm asking you as a Christian: Will you allow the truth to be told? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpeanuts (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, Here's the information again with confirmation by historian Donald Gee. If I don't hear from you, I'll go ahead publish it:

Perhaps the largest number of mass healing miracles in the world came at Branham's meetings in Durban, South Africa in 1951. Thousands were healed at the same time. A sea or people stood to give their hearts to Christ — Many times the 3,000 at Pentecost. Two newspapers carried the story: One had the heading “Cripples Rise from Wheel-Chairs and Walk” “There were scenes of mass-healing of cripples and stretcher cases getting up and walking” following Branham’s prayer. A huge crowd came forward: crippled women and children threw down crutches and leg irons; mothers wept as children took a few steps, for some the first time in their lives. Twisted bodies straightened up, club feet, deaf and dumb were healed. There was a TB and Cancer case mentioned in which both were healed. Danpeanuts14:10, 8/15/2017

References

1. Weaver 2000, pp. 28–29. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
2. Cedar Rapids Gazette|Jan. 18, 1958|p.3
3. The Natal Mercury, Durban, Nov. 23, 1951, p.12
4. Winnipeg Free Press|7/15/47|p=3
5. El Paso Herald Post|12/17/47|p=7
6. The Natal Mercury, Durban|11/23/51|p=12
7. Donald Gee |Wind and Flame |(Pentecostal Pioneers book 41) |accessed 8/15/2017 |Kindle Location:3467

Discussion about references

I have seen this article evolve and there are a great number of edits which get added to essentially give credibility to a man whose works and statements are at best questionable, and are at worst dubious. There have been many sources which are not credible when speaking to the events which are presented as fact concerning William Branham's healing ministry and his acceptance in the community. The newspaper articles which have been cited do not exist in some cases, particularly those of the generally available print media concerning Branham's healing campaigns and public meetings. The articles which do exist do not contain any relevant first party verifiable information. Having written Press Releases in the past, the articles which do exist and which have been printed rely heavily on the information provided by Branham's own magazine for which he served as editor. This it seems to me is not a credible independently verifiable record. TIMKRAUS

Use of the word "halo"

Darlig, Do you realize that you are warring? This site does not belong to you! It is for others to add information too. Harrell said that it wasn't just a light, but a "supernatural halo light" over his head. I left out the word "supernatural" just so you would leave it alone (You went ahead and reverted everything back to what it said before anyway (light instead of halo light), In fact, you have deleted every post I've made). You are trying to misrepresent the statements of the historians with your own fake information. I deleted Weaver's reference because Weaver is always critical of Branham. In fact, I notice that about half of all the new references say: Weaver, Weaver, Weaver, Weaver. There are others who wrote more balanced information. This site had balanced information on it a few years ago and now you, and I don't know who else, have slanted much of it to be critical rather than just state facts. Weaver's beliefs should be left completely out since he wrote a very critical report with his opinions rather than the facts. Danpeanuts (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2017

I am not the one who has been taken to task by other editors for your failure to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies. I am happy to have you quote Harrell PROVIDED you don't delete Weaver. As I said, Harrell wrote the preface to Weaver's book. But if you delete Weaver's info then I will not support your edit. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the Help request for now. I believe the original wording said "halo light" and not just "light". Were you the one that removed the word "Halo" in the first place? Please allow it to be put back. Also, since you commented in my talk with Bonadea, you probably noticed that she said the statement about checking the picture could be removed since there is no basis for it. George J. Lacy, who often examined documents for the FBI gave it every scientific test he had and verified that the "halo" light did strike the lens. He even made the statement that it was probably the only photograph ever taken of a supernatural being. I still say that all the edits of Weaver's statements are to discredit the man, since he is a Baptist and doesn't believe in Divine healing. Can we come to a compromise? Danpeanuts (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2017

The problem i have is that you make statements that have no source and cannot be backed up. Did Lacy make "every scientific test he had" and did he state that the light was a "halo"? If so, where did he state this? Does Harrel call it a "halo"? If Lacy is not mentioned in any of the secondary sources then he should not be mentioned. That is the way Misplaced Pages works, even if you don't like it. I don't have Harrel's book in front of me as I am travelling but will by week's end. Weaver is objective and so is Harrel. If Harrel calls it a halo then I am happy to include the reference, but if he does not, then it should not be included because it adds something to the article that cannot be found in the secondary sources. I have deleted Weaver's statement. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a source to my statements. Here's where I read that Lacy had made every scientific test that was available to him in 1950: George J. Lacy, Investigator of Questioned Documents, and often hired by the FBI in that capacity, subjected the negative to every scientific test available. At a news conference, he stated, “To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world’s history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated.” Mr. Lacy added, “Rev. Branham, you will die like all other mortals, but as long as there is a Christian civilization, your picture will live on.” The original of this photograph is kept in the archives of the Religious Department of the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.

The word "Halo" needs to be put back in place where it was. Were you the one that deleted it? This is a quote from David Harrell: "A shot taken of Rev. Branham upon development showed a supernatural halo of light above his head." . Since both Harrell and the document expert used the words "supernatural", what's wrong with using the same words? Why use "fake" information from bias people? Danpeanuts (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2017

You still don't understand what a reliable source is. Neither of the websites you refer are reliable sources. If you use the word "supernatural" it will get reverted and not by me. Someone else will revert it. That is what happened to a number of your edits. Secondary sources establish due weight and not any editors opinion. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hope it's ok to start without indenting because we're running out of room. It's good that you added the tax case was settled out of court. It would be best if the whole story was told about him not using the money on himself. Here's the rest of the story from "Epherma of William Branham" from Billy Graham's archives: "By 1955, Branham's teaching and preaching ministry came under severe attacks over doctrinal disagreement with the pentecostal denominations that had previously supported him. Also at this time, the IRS accused him of evasion of taxes on gifts he had been receiving, although he had not kept the money for himself. Eventually, the case was settled out of court. However, Branham continued his work despite the criticism until 1965, using a blend of preaching and healing services. In one year alone, he reported over a half-million conversions -- thirty thousand in one meeting in Durban, South Africa. Thousands of supporters believed in his ability to heal, foretell the future, and even raise the dead."

I may go ahead and put the extra info there myself about him not using the money if you don't mind. Also, I'll ask you again: were you the person that deleted the word "Halo" from the report? I want to put it back and I'm asking you to leave it alone. I won't say "Supernatural".

Since you or someone put so many Weaver opinions on this site and he says that Branham Embellished things, didn't tell the truth, can't be trusted, and so many other accusations, I would also suggest we add "In Weaver's opinion" to all of the places where he expressed his opinion. Please check Misplaced Pages’s NPOV section under “Assert facts, not opinions”: "When a statement is an opinion, it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Also, it needs to be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it." Danpeanuts (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2017

Please do not add more minor details, and definitely do not add editorial comments such as "In Weaver's opinion" - attributing opinion does not mean saying "this is an opinion", it means making it clear what the source of something is. In any case, why do you believe that Weaver's statements are "opinions" to a greater extent than other assertions (such as those of Branham's followers)? What is your source for that? --bonadea contributions talk 19:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, you still do not understand what secondary references are, even though I have repeated this multiple times. Please look at Misplaced Pages:No original research and try to understand what it says. This is a direct quote from the article - "Policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Here is another quote - "In general, the most reliable sources are... Books published by university presses..." Both Weaver and Harrel's books are published by university presses. But you don't seem to understand that, as such, they carry weight, even if you don't like them. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

First, Bonadea, Why am I not to add reliable secondary source material and you and Darlig can? Do you have exclusive rights to this site? I suspect that Darlig is the person who deleted the word "halo" in the first place and I should have a right to put it back. In fact this entire site has been filled with Weaver's comments and opinions and many are just that--opinions that misrepresent the man and just plain call him a liar. There must first be proof that he practiced not telling the truth before any such statement should be made. It was after a debate with another Baptist theologian (like Weaver) that the "Halo" picture was taken in the first place. I'll admit that I'm new to Misplaced Pages, but am trying to learn. I originally asked you for help and didn't know your views.

Darlig, I'm asking the 4th time: Are you the one that deleted the word "halo"? Danpeanuts (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2017

Danpeanuts, you do not seem to understand what reliable secondary source material is. That is one reason why so many people revert your edits. I give up trying to explain this to you. I'm not sure why you don't understand it but you clearly don't.

I have made so many edits to this page as a result of the GA review that I can't remember if I reverted the word halo or not. Why is the word halo so important? I will check to see what Harrel says but give me a day or so. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the GA review? I think I understand Misplaced Pages policy now--I just added Billy Graham foundation's comments for you to see, because they respected each other and tried to be truthful about their fellow-laborers in the Gospel.

The "halo" was a sign to the world that this man was in God's favor and the religious expert wasn't (should show that Divine healing is from God).

In the Bible, Jesus just went around doing good and healed many people. The common people loved Him, but the religious people hated Him. I can't understand this. Here's someone who did the same things and religious people like yourself have contempt for him and can't find enough bad things to accuse him of. Why? Danpeanuts (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2017

Danpeanuts has been warned about not assuming good faith from other editors. @Danpeanuts: Do not make assumptions of other editors' beliefs or values, and please take some time to read and understand the information about verifiability and sources that has been provided to you. While it is important to respect the personal beliefs of all editors, it is equally important that those beliefs do not unduly influence article content. As for GA, it means Good Article, which in turn means that the article has been reviewed according to a specific set of criteria on Misplaced Pages. If you look at the top of this page you'll see a link to what that means. --bonadea contributions talk 12:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, in response to your suggestion that the word "halo" be used in the article, I do not think this is a good idea. I looked at Harrel's reference to this and he is simply quoting someone who's view of Branham could be described as hagiographic. It is not a description that Harrel uses himself with respect to the photograph. Because the word "halo" has a specific connotation in religious iconography. I do not think its use in the article is warranted. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darlig Gitarist: who was Harrel quoting in this statement? Doctor (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doctorg:, he was quoting Gordon Lindsay who wrote a self-published book on Branham in the early 50's. The problem with the book and other primary sources is that they all tend to be hagiographic. They assumed Branham was telling the truth and simply repeated his claims verbatim. But the bloom went off the rose, so to speak in the latter part of Branham's ministry and most of his supporters distanced themselves. I think it is appropriate as Weaver and Harrel have done to talk about the photo but they are both careful not to ascribe supernatural attributes to the photo. Darlig 🎸 22:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm very familiar with Branham. He has some issues later in his ministry. Where do we stand on the use of the halo word? Did we agree to use it as a "claim?" Doctor (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, How do you know why Harrell chose the word "halo"? That is also the word used in the description to the man who worked for the FBI ("a streak of light in the position of a a halo above his head") and it's also what nearly anyone else viewing the photo would say. "Halo" is the word the historian used and no one has the right to change it because "the photograph became perhaps the most famous relic in the history of the revival".

Please put the word "halo" back where you deleted it from or I am going to do it and report a dispute if you take it out again. To me, this is like bleaching out Hillary's emails for her. Bonadea says I must use good faith, so I want to believe that you have only made a mistake and that your beliefs don't unduly influence article content. Danpeanuts (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2017

As I stated above, I think the word "halo" has religious iconographic connotations which are inappropriate. Harrel does not use the word himself but rather quotes someone who believed it to be a supernatural halo. But Harrel does not say that it is. I would suggest we ask some of the other editors to comment. I am happy to live with the consensus of some of the other editors that have been involved in this article recently if they think it appropriate to add. @Bonadea, Cullen328, Doctorg, and Dammitkevin: Would any of you care to comment? Darlig 🎸 03:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I am completely opposed to using the word "halo" in Misplaced Pages's voice. A halo in this sense is a supernatural phenomenon and there are no reliable sources that say that halos actually exist. The article can say that certain persons believed it was a halo but others were skeptical and believed that is was lens flare or some other mundane cause, as long as those statements are properly referenced. No editor's personal beliefs should shape article content and that includes you as well, Danpeanuts. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article could include something similar to what @Cullen328: suggested. It's such a polarizing event/photo that the halo piece is worthy of mentioning in some format. Doctor (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Neither Harreell or Weaver refer to it themselves as a "halo". I think it is important when using Misplaced Pages's voice that we don't use wording that the secondary sources themselves don't ascribe to it. Darlig 🎸 22:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I fear we are falling back to where this discussion was a few days ago. I joined in because you mentioned that you would be happy to live with the consensus of some of the other editors that have been involved in this article recently if they think it appropriate to add. Maybe I misunderstood @Cullen328:, but it seems we are both saying the same thing about the halo. Doctor (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This wording claims that there was a halo, not that some commentators believed that there was one, and as such it is not acceptable. Since there are apparently no secondary sources commenting on this except to quote primary/affiliated sources, I would not include the word at all, even with a more neutral phrasing. The next sentence tells the reader that Branham thought it was a supernatural light, and there are mentions of the photographer's reaction. Dwelling more on the picture would give it undue weight. --bonadea contributions talk 06:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Just FTR, I removed a sentence about the photo which failed WP:NPOV and also misrepresented the source - the whole sentence was a quote, not just the noun phrase which had been placed inside quotation marks. As such, the claim would have to be placed in context, and since the context is that this is a claim made in one source, and there was (IMO) already undue weight on the photo, removing the sentence appeared to be the best solution to fix the NPOV issue. --bonadea contributions talk 19:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Danpeanuts:, it would probably be worthwhile for you to read Misplaced Pages:Consensus, which outlines the primary way decisions are made on Misplaced Pages. You may have an opinion that differs from mine but the way edits are accepted depends on reaching consensus. This is what has been demonstrated through the comments above. I appreciate that you may not agree with the decision but it is consensus. The community decides which edits are acceptable: not me or any other individual. Darlig 🎸 20:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea, Cullen328, Darlig Gitarist, and Dammitkevin: What a fun conversation! OK, I am travelling at the moment but I do have a stack of books in my library at home about Branham. I'll see if I can find a better reference for this image. But, in keeping with NPOV standards, I think it is wise, as someone else already suggested, to state something to the effect of, ...the photo was examined by an expert who reported the light in the photo was legitimate, but others have asserted there was likely a scratch on the lens...something similar to this would provide for both points of view and that would be the most appropriate. I'll look for some references when I get home, I think I have one specifically on this topic, but it will be a few days. On a side note, I personally think the light was a manifestation of the angel standing next to him, and I think that is probably what the references I have at home say, but I need to double check it. Doctor (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Doctorg, when you write "I personally think the light was a manifestation of the angel standing next to him", I surely hope that you realize that your personal religious beliefs have no place in this article. The problem with a formulation like "the light in the photo was legitimate" is that there are countless possible explanations for this "light" other than tampering with the negative, and other than the light being a supernatural halo. Another problem is the credibility of the "expert". Who was this person, what was their training, what other unusual photos did they analyze, and was there any expert criticism of their work? In other words, any source used to say that a supernatural event took place must be subject to rigorous review. The same thing applies to the book that Julius Stadsklev wrote about Branham's trip to South Africa. Who was Julius Stadsklev, and what was his training and education? Why should anyone accept him as an expert on healing? What else did he do other than write this book? Who was the publisher of the book and what is the reputation of that company? Was this book widely reviewed, and if so, what did those reviews say? My Google search did not answer those questions, but I am willing to evaluate offline sources. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far the evidence looks really weak to everyone except true believers.

To whoever wrote the above comment. I was not suggesting that my personal opinion be added to the article. Doctor (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a good thing this is the talk page where we can discuss the article, good references, etc. without arguing with each other. Notice I said I have some references at home that I think point to the angel theory and that I will look them up in a few days. I'll wait until then to comment any further. Doctor (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A minor but significant problem here is that these talk page sections are excessively long and are meandering to new topics. Going forward, editors should stick to the topic of each thread as identified in its header, and start new threads to discuss new issues. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Doctorg, try doing a google search on - branham houston photo - and you will find some interesting research on the subject that debunks the "angel" theory. Darlig 🎸 02:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And yet the angel piece, as part of the story of his life and ministry, is a central part. Some of the material I have read regarding the Bosworth debate mention that the light moved from the balcony down to the stage where Branham was standing just before this photo was taken; but it wouldn't be a good source for Misplaced Pages. Doctor (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that even Branham claimed to have seen the light, so I am not sure where your reference is coming from. In fact, Branham claimed that all of the negatives on the camera were blank except for the picture of the light but this is clearly an embellishment given my research on the subject (there are other pictures from the debate). I think there is a good case to be made that the light appearing over Branham's head is simply a floodlight. It's a great shot that apparently even surprised the photographer but, to the best of my knowledge, there is no "evidence" that it was supernatural. Darlig 🎸 22:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised at what you said, Darlig, because you say that using an unreliable source is taboo. The article you are referring to was written by Jeremy Bergen, who is openly a Branham hater the same as Collins, who wrote the Jim Jones article that you have posted. If you will take a close look at the photos you will see that the basketball player's hand was high in the air to be able to see the horizontal lights in the top of the coliseum, while the picture taken of Branham wasn't up in the air and the light was at a 45 degree angle. Sorry to have to debunk your debunk, but this man is doing all in his power to discredit Branham. The man who scientifically examined the photo was often hired by the FBI to examine their documents. He was the expert in his field--not Bergen. Danpeanuts (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2017

I have not used any of the sites that you refer to in the article and I am not advocating to do so. But being aware of them is beneficial just as being aware of the hagiographic material is beneficial. Being aware of it does not mean that I advocate using the information in the article However, I also don't think you understand photography. The focal length and aperture of the lens, the angle of the shot, the dynamic range of the film used, these factors all go into what a photograph ultimately looks like. To say that the Branham photograph was supernatural or thatit was a "halo" is simply not warranted based on the secondary sources. The primary sources are on both sides of the issue - some say that is was a flood light and others say that it was a supernatural being. Occam's razor would argue for a non-supernatural cause. Darlig 🎸 17:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

All this talk seems fruitless. You seem to know more than George J. Lacy, the man the FBI uses for these cases. He should know a flood light from a scratch on a negative so I have filed a dispute. There are several other matters that you and the other 2 wont allow to be told by deleting nearly everything I post. There are a lot of positive things that the historians have written that need to be told. Danpeanuts (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2017 == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

The dispute was closed for two reasons:

"The first is failure to provide the proper notice. The second is that the discussion on the article talk page doesn't seem to focus on what changes should be made to the article. The discussion seems to consist of one editor saying that the subject was a holy man or miracle worker, and other editors discussing the need for extraordinary proof of extraordinary claims. (Anyway, any statement in the voice of Misplaced Pages that the subject worked miracles would be contrary to Misplaced Pages policy.)"

Based on the above, I do not think there is any support for having Misplaced Pages state that Branham worked miracles or had a "halo" over his head. There was a light on the photograph but making supernatural claims in respect of Branham is not something that Misplaced Pages can or will do. Darlig 🎸 15:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I admit that I don't understand many of Misplaced Pages's policies and therefore didn't file the above dispute correctly. Also, I wrote to Doctorg on his own page. I thought I could talk to other editors on their personal page, but according to Bonadea, I can't ask for help there either. Since Bonadea says she took out the statement that "the photograph became perhaps the most famous relic in the history of the revival", can it be reworded and then put the ref. and page number after it? This photograph with the light in the position of a halo is probably the most important relic of the entire revival, and to take that information out is definitely not right. The photo is at the upper right hand corner of the William Branham page and is used all through many Christian books and literature. In fact, it's even on the cover of Weaver's book.

This is not the only problem with this Wiki site: Jim Jones is mentioned here too that infers that because he spoke at the same tabernacle that Branham spoke at, that makes Branham responsible for what Jones did. In all the recorded sermons of Jones that the FBI has, he only mentioned Branham once and that was in a derogatory way along with Oral Roberts and Billy Graham. Why are not the people who really were influenced by Branham mentioned, like Oral Roberts, Jack Coe, T. L. Osborn, and several others? When you read all the articles above you'll see that I'm not the only one who noticed the strong bias on the Branham site. Here's just one of the quotes above:

This article is extremely biased

I am an avid user of Misplaced Pages, which I believe is a fantastic project that provides Internet users with unbiased information on a vast range of topics.

I was therefore surprised to find the opposite when I read this article about William Branham, which could be best described as a synopsis of Douglas Weaver's book: "The Healer-Prophet".

The current article has no less than 49 references to Douglas Weaver's book, which in itself is not the problem, although these references account for more than half of the references put together.

The problem is that Douglas Weaver is not a reliable source of unbiased information.

The mere fact that he is a baptist theologian (and former baptist pastor) working as a professor in a private Baptist university (Baylor) implies that his agenda would be to defend the baptist faith, theology and tradition in an apologetic manner.

You know, anyone can write a book, but that doesn't mean what they write is the truth. Over half the references on Branham's page are Weaver's. To me, this is plain deception and trying to have me blocked (as Bonadea suggested) isn't going to fix it. Someone needs to go through the entire page and put in the correct, unbiased information. Weaver's opinions can be listed too, but his thoughts shouldn't be the main emphasis.Danpeanuts (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2017

You can of course talk to other editors on their user talk pages, but when a content discussion is carried on in several places at the same time, it becomes difficult to follow, and it means that most of us will not see the parts that don't happen here. I asked you to come here and discuss, I did not mean to imply that talking to other editors elsewhere isn't allowed (it would be very inappropriate for me to try to prevent anyone from doing that!) Thank you for re-joining the discussion here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There are 2 issues here, Danpeanuts.

1. The way an article is written is based on this policy - Misplaced Pages:Consensus. The majority of editors here are in agreement that the article, as is, is a good article. That is consensus.

2. The article is based on secondary sources. This is critical because the article is a biography of the deceased founder of a new religious movement. NRM articles are often contentious and the key to a stable, neutral article in this contentious field is good sourcing: focus on using the best, most reputable sources, above all scholarly sources, and avoid the use of primary sources – both movement and counter-movement sources. There are 2 key secondary sources on William M. Branham - Harrel, whose treatment of Branham is quite short as he deals with multiple individuals in his book, and Weaver, whose book focuses on Branham. Both of these books are scholarly secondary sources published by university presses Harrel wrote the preface to Weaver's book. Because Weaver's treatment of Branham is much more detailed, it contains commentary and analysis on issues that Harrel did not have the time to deal with. The point is that both Harrell and Weaver are reliable sources by Misplaced Pages standards.

I think the article is balanced and neutral, dealing with both sides of the various issues. So does the reviewer who did the GA review. So do the majority of editors that you have discussed the article with. I really am quite sorry that you can't seem to see our point of view. I would suggest that you try editing other articles as this will help you become familiary with Misplaced Pages's policies. I also agree with Bonadea that you should discuss any issues relating to the article on its talk page. Darlig 🎸 15:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

References

1. https://iconicphotos.org/tag/george-j-lacy/
2. http://people.delphiforums.com/johnk63/Lacy.jpg
3. Harrell|All Things are Possible|Indiana University Press|1975
4. Harrell |All Things are Possible |Indiana Univ. Press | 1975 |p.35

Durban Sunday Times?

There has been a lot of discussion about a supposed 1951 article in the Durban Sunday Times. I have been unable to verify that any such newspaper has ever existed, although The Sunday Times (South Africa) has been published in Johannesburg since 1906. I see no evidence that any editor commenting here has actually read this article. Unless we can review the actual article, it is a waste of time to discuss it further. It seems that some editors believe that it reports on faith healing events that Branham held in South Africa . So what? We already know from many other reports that Branham held many such events. Suppose this newspaper article says he actually healed people. So what? Why would a random Durban newspaper article published in 1951 in racist South Africa be a reliable source for such an extraordinary claim? We would need multiple sources of vastly better reliability to make such a claim in Misplaced Pages's voice. There is a really big difference between saying that "Joe Smith reported that Branham healed people although Jack Jones disagreed", and saying in Misplaced Pages's voice that "Branham healed people". That second type of claim is completely inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. Darlig 🎸 15:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I don't think I have ever read this article (or this paper) and agree we would need multiple mainstream sources to validate an exceptional claim. Though I'm not sure what bearing racism has on this discussion, unless the paper was known for being racist (I don't think a racist nation automatically disqualifies its newspapers). At any rate, I checked the Library of Congress's microfilm collection of foreign newspapers and they don't have this one listed so it's probably a moot point. Doctor (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's the address of the Sunday Tribune in Durban, S.A. that had the story of the cripple that walked normally for the first time in his life. Since it is probably not digitized you will need to have the archives man get the article for you the same as the Natal Mercury archives man did for me with the story of the mass healings. It is exactly the same story that you can see in "A Prophet visits South Africa" p.125. Just curious: Why try to disprove everything concerning this man? Danpeanuts (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2017

Danpeanuts - one more time - Misplaced Pages policy requires that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Please see WP:EXCEPTIONAL. A single newspaper article that an editor like myself or Cullen328 can't not easily verify does not qualify as multiple high=quality sources. If Harrel and Weaver agreed on an issue like this, that would qualify as multiple high-quality sources. We don't have that. So since we do not have multiple high-quality sources, it can't be accepted as an edit under Misplaced Pages policies. It's that simple. Darlig 🎸 21:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, the term "disprove" is not present in my Misplaced Pages vocabulary. All I care to do is to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic. Misplaced Pages will not state in its own voice that Christian miracles or Muslim miracles or Hindu miracles or Jewish miracles or Buddhist miracles are true. No reliable source on the question says that any of these "miracles" ever happened. On such matters, we neutrally summarize what advocates and adversaries say, as reported in reliable sources. The one thing that I can assure you is that this article will never be transformed into a Branham tract. Not gonna happen. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.africanadvice.com/1154008/Newspapers/Durban/Sunday_Tribune/

Additional sources

While reading through the talk page, I think I saw several mentions of needing more references or of locating some newspaper articles. I will be in the Library of Congress in a few weeks, so if anyone is looking for a particular source for a reference, please let me know and I will try to find it, and snap a photo for you. Doctor (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Doctor G. I can't think of any American papers that would be helpful on this matter. When the mass healings took place in Durban, South Africa, all the local newspapers carried the story and I can get the pages. It's also in Donald Gee's book (at least 3 verified witnesses). I really don't think it would do any good though, because Darlig says he doesn't believe it anyway and would likely delete it because it doesn't appear in either of the 2 books he chose. Thanks for your willingness to be of help. Something does need to happen to bring this page back into balance like it was 3 years ago. Will you help?Danpeanuts (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2017

Danpeanuts, it is not whether I believe it or not. It is what the secondary sources say. Additionally, you have heard repeatedly from multiple sources that Misplaced Pages will not post something advocating supernatural miracles. So whether I believe them or not is irrelevant. As I indicated, I suggest you post something that attempts to prove miracles on the article on Faith healing. If you can get your info on that article, it would logically follow to put it here. With respect to Donald, Gee's book, one would have to determine whether it was secondary or primary source material. Given that the article on Donald Gee does not have his books in the reference source, I assume they are primary source (and the books used for his article are secondary source. Darlig 🎸 03:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, I have been looking at the page's history from 2014; a lot happened to it then and it would be helpful to know which version you refer to. As you already know, there is an existing consensus that the page is currently unbiased and balanced. It went through a Good Article review only a couple of weeks ago, after all. As regards newspaper sources reporting on faith healings and other miraculous events, I don't see how those can be useful because they would be primary sources in this instance. Misplaced Pages cannot claim that actual healings took place, that would violate several policies (I do not agree that you should try to insert such claims in any other articles either, because it would violate policy regardless of where it was added - but you are of course welcome to discuss it on that article's talk page as long as you read up on earlier discussions first). What can be mentioned is that healing meetings took place, and possibly that newspapers reported on miracles; if secondary scholarly sources (which would exclude any books written by religious preachers to evangelize) discuss such newspaper reports, Misplaced Pages could include a mention of that discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 04:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Mainstream newspapers are considered to be among the most reliable, see this for that info. If the New york Times printed a story about a miracle, it would be a reliable source (same for any other main stream newspaper). I don't know about the South Africa one that has already been discussed here, but if someone knows of a mainstream US newspaper that printed such an article, let me know, it is very likely that I can get a look at it. As far as considering newspapers as a primary source, that's an untennable argument. Mainstream newspapers have a reputation for checking facts and printing reliable information. The journalists write their articles based on what they know to be factually true, and/or what they have collected from multiple sources. The journalists sources are the primary sources, but the newspaper article would be secondary (A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources. Doctor (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Doctorg; Thanks for your input. Now we seem to be getting somewhere. I understand that you are partly responsible for getting the GA on this page. Do you really feel that this is a good article, considering all the untrue and slandering information on it? Also, do you know for sure that Misplaced Pages doesn't allow anyone to tell of actual healings, miracles, or supernatural events? Danpeanuts (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2017

@Danpeanuts: I'm not here to take sides, just want to bring some balance to the conversation. I do think this is a good article but a good article isn't a perfect article, it can still be improved upon. I wasn't the primary reviewer, I just stepped in to help because it appeared to be stuck in the process. Though, if I was aware of the ongoing edit war, I would have recommended failing it since the lack of edit warring is part of the good article criteria. As far as miracles go, I am not aware of a specific Misplaced Pages policy that states miracle's can't be discussed. There are articles about the Miracles of Jesus and a Eucharistic miracle with examples and references. The biggest thing is to make sure you have reliable secondary or tertiary sources, this policy defines what those are. It seems most of the arguments on this talk page revolve around the reliable source issue, which can be easily resolved if everyone would read through the policy again. I have a PhD in a scientific field so I take reliable references very seriously. But my standard is higher than Misplaced Pages's, so sometimes I have to dial back my standard and re-read the policy myself to see what can be included (I think all passionate editors probably fall into this trap). If the edit warring continues, I may put the article in for a reassessment of it's good article status. Doctor (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@DoctorG: I am reasonably well acquainted with the verifiability policy and WP:SECONDARY ;-) That's why I said that a newspaper report would be considered a primary source in this instance. The specific case I'm thinking of is the report mentioned on this page, where a regional newspaper in the 1950s printed a story about a healing and reported it as if it were an actual case of healing. As I said, it would be perfectly fine to include text about such reports, as long as they are based on secondary sources - but a source cannot be a source for itself! ("Newspaper reported that happened" should not be based on the report in Newspaper . And that's not because it is a question of faith healing, by the way - in the same way, a Misplaced Pages article about a scientist does not rely on the author's own publications, as those are primary sources for that article, even in cases where that scientist's publications can be used as reliable sources for other articles). As an aside, it is not the case that any article in New York Times is automatically considered a reliable secondary source, either, it would depend on which section of the paper it was printed in. --bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Newspapers report on information provided to them by primary sources (eyewitnesses, etc.). Why would this newspaper article be considered a primary source? Have you read it?  Doctor (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I am not being more clear. It is a primary source regarding its own activities. It is not a primary source regarding the event itself, but that's irrelevant. The text that could be included would presumably be something on the lines of "The newspapers , , and reported from the event", and for that, newspapers , , and are primary soures because they would be sourcing information about themselves. Does that make sense?

I think we may be saying the same thing, just in a different way. I just want to make the point that if a reporter writes an article based on information he/she collected from others, the newspaper article becomes a secondary source. If the reporter writes an article based on their own experiences, the article would be a primary source. So, if this article in question was written by a reporter who interviewed eye witnesses, the article would be a reliable secondary source and could be cited here. Doctor (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, on the subject of which sources are reliable for this article I defer to Darlig Gitarist, who wrote a very useful summary above (at the end of the section Use of the word "halo"). Their point about NRM leaders and the need for scholarly sources is well put. Also note that anything relating to faith healing falls under the topic area of health, which means that sources that make claims about e.g. healing taking place must meet the WP:MEDRS requirements. (I'm not suggesting that anyone has said that the article can make such statements, but in case that should become an issue it's good to be clear on that point from the start.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Your medical point is a good one and normally that would be the case, but the WP:MEDRS requirements are for WP:Biomedical information which preclude religious beliefs so, it actually wouldn't apply to faith healing. If that were the case, the Faith healing article would have to be completely reworked. Doctor (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we are on the same page. I just want to make sure everyone's suggestions get a fair shake, in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. Doctor (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, off the top of my head, I think the only sections I would consider unreliable in a mainstream newspaper would be any article not written by a journalist employed by the paper (opinions section, classifieds, etc.). I don't know where the article appeared in the SA paper, so I can't make a judgement on that (which I think was probably the consensus in these talk pages...I agree with that). Doctor (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@DoctorG:, this isn't an edit war as much as it is a single editor that has had a problem with the consensus view. This is common on NRM articles because followers often believe the founder to be above reproach. It is interesting that the article on Oral Roberts, who had a ministry similar to Branham, has no specific references to healings from newspaper sources. But my bigger problem was the attempt to exclude a secondary source because someone disagreed with its conclusions (when they admittedly hadn't even read the book).

@Darlig Gitarist: I disagree, there is clearly some "pride in ownership" over the article, which is also common when someone puts so much time into it and someone else wants to make changes. From my outside perspective, it appears valid sources are being discounted. Doctor (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the history of the article, it used to be an apologetic for Branham, based entirely on primary sources. I was quite shocked when I read it the first time. So myself and a couple of other editors improved it over time. I personally bought a bunch of books on the subject of Pentecostalism and my general theological library is now quite extensive. This is the first article that I have applied for GA status and I plan to start on my next article in the not too distant future. I tend to focus on one issue at a time, although I do have a wide range of theological and NRM articles on my watchlist. It is critical that Misplaced Pages articles are based on secondary sources. Darlig 🎸 17:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not the case of a single editor: Since Darlig changed the whole page in 2014 to reflect Weaver's opinions, is when this talk page became very active with other people who saw the misinformation and have posted their complaints as well. I can understand now why he watches over the page like a hawk to keep positive information off the page. It seems to me, this page should be called "William M. Branham according to Douglas Weaver" and then another new page started for just Branham, for people who want to know facts about the man without a skeptics opinion.

Below is my change for the 2 sentences for the halo and the sentence Bonadea deleted. Go ahead and comment and suggest reasonable edits:

The photograph showed a light appearing above Branham's head. The photograph was examined by George J. Lacy, Examiner of Questioned Documents, Houston, TX, who gave it every scientific test available and affirmed that it was his definite opinion that the light above Branham's head in a halo position was caused by light striking the negative. Some people say they think it was a lens flare or a scratch on the negative. The photograph became likely the most famous relic of the entire revival. Branham believed the light was supernatural and was a divine vindication of his ministry. Danpeanuts (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2017

@Danpeanuts:, the only issue I have with your proposed edit is this statement: "The photograph was examined by George J. Lacy, Examiner of Questioned Documents, Houston, TX, who gave it every scientific test available and affirmed that it was his definite opinion that the light above Branham's head in a halo position was caused by light striking the negative. Some people say they think it was a lens flare or a scratch on the negative." Where did the information come from? It is not in Harrel's book nor in Weaver's. If it is from another secondary source, it needs to be referenced. If it is from a primary source, it should not be part of the proposed edit. Darlig 🎸 02:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I honestly can't locate a secondary source except for which calls it a Supernatural being. There are several sources on the web where one can read the report. Otherwise, I can use a quote from one of Branham's own statements if that would be better: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." WP:V WP:RS Danpeanuts (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2017

The website you referred to above is not a secondary source. If the info isn't in a secondary source, then it has to be used with a great deal of caution. Did you ever read the article on making exeptional claims? Primary sources cannot be used for making such claims, regardless of how many you have. The article specifically states that William Branham believed the light to be supernatural. How would quoting him improve on that? Darlig 🎸 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, since self-published material may be used as sources of information about themselves, let's use this instead:

By 1950, the Branham team included F. F. Bosworth. On the night of January 24, 1950, a photograph was taken of Branham during a debate between Bosworth and a Baptist minister regarding the biblical justification for healing. The photograph showed a light appearing above Branham's head. Branham said that the picture was examined by George J. Lacy, who was an examiner of questioned documents, and Lacy verified it to be genuine and the only picture ever taken of a supernatural being as far as he knew. Branham believed the light was a divine vindication of his ministry. The picture is available from the Library of Congress. Danpeanuts (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2017

Neither Harrell nor Weaver mention Lacy. It was not important to them. Secondary sources, not primary sources, provide due weight in Misplaced Pages. Branham also said that Lacy was head of the FBI. Primary source material is simply not reliable. I think the section is fine as is. Darlig 🎸 20:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and in addition WP:ABOUTSELF would not apply because it is a) an exceptional claim and b) information about a third party. I'm afraid it is a clear-cut case of an instance where a self-published source cannot be acceptable, per the policy on reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 20:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Harrell said in his book that Gordon Lindsey reported the startling results of the photo in the Voice of Healing magazine, so he didn't need to repeat everything in his book; also that "the photograph became perhaps the most important relic in the history of the revival". Bonadea deleted this statement also, and it needs to be here because of it's importance. I'm asking you, DoctorG, because you know more about Misplaced Pages policies than I do, and I think you can see what's happening here; is this true? After all, Branham told about the angel of the Lord commissioning him and several other things that no one else witnessed. Dr. Bosworth took the photo to Lacy, who also did work for the FBI. Even if Branham didn't understand it exactly, what difference does that make? There are people who have spent thousands of hours combing through everything Branham said just to find any minuscule error that they could accuse him of because of their hatred for holiness and what he stood for. Danpeanuts (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2017

Misplaced Pages articles may not include copyright violations, which was why the sentence about "important relic" was removed in this edit. Harrell's book says on page 35: "The photograph became perhaps the most famous relic in the history of the revival." I don't have access to the physical book, but it is searchable through the wonder that is Google Books. I might suggest a writing on the lines of "It was characterised by historian Edwin Harrell as "perhaps the most famous relic in the history of the revival"", which would correctly attribute it and remove the copyright concern, and still be faithful to the original statement. (The faculty page at Auburn University calls him "Ed Harrell" so maybe that is better than "Edwin" - I have no opinion on that.) --bonadea contributions talk 05:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Bonadea, I read in the rules that you can quote a short statement from the book as long as you put it in quotation marks, so this should have been ok, as written, but if it would keep you from deleting it again, we could rephrase it, but it does need to be there because of importance. Isn't this like trying to split hairs? Danpeanuts (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2017

Yes, it is fine to include a short quote, but it is important that it is attributed. As I said, one of the problems here (and the reason it had to be removed as it was so as not to violate the copyright policy) was that the entire sentence was an exact quote, but only the last noun phrase was marked as a quote, with quotation marks. In addition, and forgive me if I am repeating myself but it doesn't seem like I was clearly understood before, the previous phrasing made a claim in Misplaced Pages's voice rather than identifying the claim ("perhaps the most famous relic ") as coming from one specific source. I would be perfectly happy leaving the sentence out, but needless to say I am equally happy to include some version of it, provided there is consensus in favour of doing so, and provided the text doesn't violate policy. --bonadea contributions talk 12:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm gathering some other quality secondary sources so we can expand the content a bit and get this article to FA status. I have found a few newspaper references that are interesting so I will look those up when I am at the Library of Congress, and I also know of a few great historical encyclopedias they have (that I can't seem to find in bookstores anywhere) that I think have a few pages of content on Branham as well. I'll let you all know what I find. Doctor (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

DoctorG: That's great! Anything you can find that will improve this article will be helpful.

Bonadea, I believe that statement ("perhaps the most famous relic..." has been there for years. Would it be ok to just put it back like it was and put the quotation marks in the right place?

Also (Darlig), there are a couple more things that are Weaver's opinions that need to be identified as "his opinion" or left out. At the beginning of the article (Early Life) it says: 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. 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.

The newspaper article was dated June 2, at the beginning of the revival, which lasted for several days. By the end of the revival there were some 130 people baptized in water. Also, it is Weavers OPINION that Branham embellished the incident and it needs to say so, otherwise it's in Misplaced Pages's voice that he embellished it.

Here's another "Embellishment" from Weaver plus Duyzer: 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 joining the Oneness Pentecostals, something he felt God had wanted him to do. This appears to have been an embellishment to enhance his relationship with the Pentecostals. (Harrell is listed here as a reference , but that's not what Harrell wrote).

God had not wanted him to JOIN the Oneness Pentecostals (He taught that denominations are the (Roman Catholic) Harlots of Rev.17:5 that will lead to the mark of the beast). He said that he felt God wanted him to "Conduct Revivals" in their churches. These "embellishment" statements need to be identified as Weaver's opinion or left out. Can we try to correct some of these statements? Since you were probably the one who put this information here, Darlig, would you please correct it? Danpeanuts (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2017

I still don't think you understand what secondary sources are. I have posted the references to the Misplaced Pages policies on secondary sources a number of times. Secondary sources will contain the analysis and opinion of the authors. Those opinions and analyses should be reflected in the article. If it is in Misplaced Pages's voice, it should not be a direct quote from the secondary source, in which case it should be in quotes. I will take a look at the references you relate above and will ensure they are correct. Darlig 🎸 17:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, I see you have done nothing about the false statement about Branham joining the Oneness Pentecostals, so I am going to go ahead and change it for you.

Also, I see that you haven't changed the statement about Kenneth Hagin's prophecy. Since Hagin falsly prophesied that St. Louis would have a big revival in 1997, that shows that Hagin is not a prophet and this needs to be changed. What are you going to do about it? It was only Weaver's opinion in the first place--not a fact.

Also, DoctorG: All three of the Durban, Africa newspapers reported on the healing campaign in their city--one only told about the first meeting where they were instructed to consider accepting Jesus Christ first, and the other 2 papers told about the healing miracles. Is that enough for a verification of the many healings that took place in their city? Danpeanuts (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2017

Your third point is easy to answer: No, it is not a verification that healings took place. I don't even think it is sufficient verification for the text "it was claimed that...", given the policies linked (multiple times) above regarding exceptional claims. And any claim to do with medicine has to meet these requirements for sourcing. --bonadea contributions talk 13:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the wording "according to". I believe someone deleted a prior edit about wanting to add "in the opinion of" with respect to Weaver's book. The information is referenced, so it is obvious where the information comes from. Stating the obvious is unneccesary. That is what the references are for. They tell you exactly where the information and who the author was. Darlig 🎸 18:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

We seem to have a double-standard here. Bonadea said it would be ok to say Harrell said it was the greatest token in the revival. Why can't we say that Duyzer said this. Otherwise it is Misplaced Pages's voice when it is only Duyzer's OPINION. Not at all a fact. I have repeated Bonadea's comment below:

I might suggest a writing on the lines of "It was characterised by historian Edwin Harrell as "perhaps the most famous relic in the history of the revival"", which would correctly attribute it.

Remember, I also asked you why Hagin's prophecy wasn't removed. There are many opinions in this article like "you should be careful not to believe anything Branham said because he often embellished, etc. If I had recordings of what you or me said for 18 years, I know that I could find variations too, but that doesn't mean we often embellished things. Anyone who is honest can go over the teachings and see that he was clear that we must live by every word of God. That includes not giving a false report. Are you going to delete the Hagin prophecy or do I need to do it? Danpeanuts (talk) 24:10, 22 September 2017

A quote must be attributed, as I pointed out in the post you referenced. This was not a quote, so it's two different cases entirely. And I did absolutely not say that it would be ok to say Harrell said it was the greatest token in the revival because that's not what is in the source. --bonadea contributions talk 19:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, you can't have it both ways. If you want to remove the reference to "Hagin claimed" which is from Weaver and Liardon, then it would also be appropriate to remove all of the "Branham claimed" references as well. Darlig 🎸 21:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, I have already removed the paragraph with Hagain's and the other person's opinions. Neither one of them had ever made an accurate prophecy to my knowledge. This site is about Branham. By the way, he said "Thus Saith the Lord" over 100 times and there are many testimonies in books, YouTube, and people who are still alive that attest that it happened that way. I think there are only 2 prophesies that are questioned that Branham made. At least 2 or 3 historians testify that his discernment was 100% accurate while God was speaking directly through him.

Bonadea, I'm sorry but I can't understand what you are talking about. I want to put the quote back from Harrell and then put the reference back. I'll either use the whole quote in quotation marks or put it in my own words--whichever is best. Also, since I can't get an answer from DoctorG, I'm considering contacting him on his own site again. If you want to go there to see what I write, that's fine, but I need to know some information from him since he understands Misplaced Pages's policies and isn't bias against Branham. Danpeanuts (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2017

Nobody in this discussion is biased against Branham. Will you please start assuming good faith? The rest of us assume that you edit in good faith and you owe us the same courtesy. But I have talked about this at length on your user talk page already and won't waste your time by repeating that here.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I replied to your previous post where you compared my statement about a direct quote and another statement by Darlig G (with a rather offensive summary which again did not quite assume good faith). I simply wanted to point out that you had misunderstood the attribution thing. It is necessary with direct quotes, but usually avoided elsewhere. --bonadea contributions talk 14:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Medicine and Divine Healing are 2 completely different things.

I have added back the sentence about the photo relic. I believe that I did it right. Also, while I was there, I added the word "halo" back in again. You said that extra ordinary things need extra-ordinary verification, so I have added the name of a second author's book from the University of Kentucky Press. I believe that DoctorG said he didn't know anything bad about using the word. Is that enough? Danpeanuts (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2017

Unfortunately, the latest edit said that the photograph showed a halo of light, rather than that it showed a light that some people claimed was a halo. The former claim can't be made in Misplaced Pages's voice (again, please see WP:EXTRAORDINARY); the latter can be made if there are sources, and that is what the discussion above has been about. Currently, there is no consensus but there is no hurry, and a couple of people have said that they intend to return to the discussion when they have time. --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why this is still being discussed. There are no secondary sources that call this a "halo". Harrell does not call the light a "halo" and neither does Weaver. I thought we had consensus. Look at the dicussion two headings above under "The use of the word halo". Darlig 🎸 18:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Harrell's book clearly states "But a shot taken of Rev. Branham, upon development showed a supernatural halo of light above his head". Sim's book says "The one shot of Branham showed a halo above his head." Both of these are valid sources and there is no reason not to quote them. Since this was such an unusual happening, it's probably in other books too. Bonadea or Darlig have no right to delete the word. Your personal beliefs should not be a factor here. Danpeanuts (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2017

It doesn't actually look remotely like a halo? Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Danpeanuts: (and anyone else), let's keep this civil and not attack anyone's personal beliefs. Doctor (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

To be blunt, Danpeanuts, you have no idea what my personal beliefs are. I have no idea what your, or Darlig G's, or anybody else's personal beliefs are - nor do I care, because it is entirely irrelevant. Your accusation that "personal beliefs", rather than an attempt to stick to Misplaced Pages policies and guielines, are the driving force behind other people's edits is another failure to adhere to WP:AGF. I find that extraordinary, given the many times you have been specifically asked to read and stick to that important guideline. --bonadea contributions talk 14:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Harrell is quoting a primary source and does not call it a halo himself. You have misquoted people in the past. Danpeanuts, so I will take a look at the Sims quote myself and will report back. Darlig 🎸 14:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darlig Gitarist: I don't have the Harrell book, what does this line everyone keeps arguing about say, exactly? Your argument that he is quoting a primary source isn't really valid since that is what a secondary source does, they rely on primary sources for their material. Doctor (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doctorg:, secondary sources synthesize primary sources. They may quote primary sources as illustrations or examples but that doesn't necessarily mean they agree with or affirm what they say. The important thing is the analysis and opinions they render with respect to all the information that they review on the subject in question. Weaver quotes Gordon Lindsay with respect to the "halo" but also lumps him into a group whose writings he classifies as hagiographic. Darlig 🎸 23:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darlig Gitarist: an author's agreement with the primary material is not a factor in whether or not it is a quality secondary source, but it could affect how it is presented in the Misplaced Pages article. What is the quote in the book? Doctor (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Harrell |All Things are Possible |Indiana University Press |p=35 |1975
2. https://iconicphotos.org/tag/george-j-lacy/
3. Voice of God Recordings |Early Spiritual Experiences |52-0713A |para. 36-37
4. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/95512174/
5. Harrell |All Things are Possible |Indiana University Press |1975 |pp. 34-35
6. Harrell |All Things are Possible |Indiana University Press |1975 |p=28

Reference review

@Danpeanuts:@Darlig Gitarist:@Bonadea:I'm starting a new section here, partially for the sake of my own sanity, so we don't have to keep digging through all the previous comments. I'm sitting in the Library of Congress with a handful of this articles references in front of me and wanted to add a few thoughts. Regarding the halo discussion, after looking at the Weaver and Harrell books, as well as the pentecostal charismatic dictionary also cited in this article (one of my favorites) I don't think we should use the word halo in this article (sorry Danpeanuts). My reasoning is two fold: first, both Weaver and Harrell are quoting from the Voice of Healing magazine without adding their own analysis. Second, Branham himself is quoted as saying "the angel permitted me to have his picture taken with me" (weaver, pg.50) which tells me that Branham didn't think it was a halo. That being said, I propose we change the text in this article to read as follows: The photograph showed a light appearing above Branham's head, which Branham and his associates believed to have been supernatural. This is certainly backed up by the included references and gives a more NPOV approach. It would also be appropriate to add the lens scratch piece in here as well if a quality reference is available for that. Doctor (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the newspaper articles, I'm headed over to the newspaper archive next to see what I can find there. I have a list of Branham meetings held in the U.S. so I am going to focus on looking for articles in those time frames/cities. Doctor (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I have located 6 different newspapers from Branham meetings held in 1946, 50, 51, and 56. I think I have enough time ot go through the ones from 1951 today. The rest will have to wait until another day. Doctor (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doctorg:, I have no problem with your suggested edit. Regarding the lens scratch comment, Danpeanuts stated that Weaver made the comment but then admitted he had not read the book. I could not find any such comment by Weaver. I am unsure what source Danpeanuts was referring to but perhaps he could clarify his comments. Darlig 🎸 21:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darlig Gitarist: Great, I made that change. Regarding the scratch, I have heard or read it in a handful of places, but I'm not sure where off the top of my head. Doctor (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

On the newspaper front, I found the newspaer article for the Upshaw miracle mentioned in this same paragraph. The story was in the Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky on Sep 23, 1951; I printed a copy from micro-film this afternoon. The reporter states that William Upshaw was healed at a meeting in Los Angeles after using crutches for 42 years. There's a few quotes from Upshaw and his wife, then some more work by the reporter that gives some more background of the miracle. I think I want to gather a few more newspaper articles and build out a separate paragraph to combine the reported miracle activity together. I didn't have time ot go through the other ones at the Library today, but they have an extensive collection and I have some more dates I want to look through. More to come on this front. I will change the prose a bit in this section though. He wasn't a congressman at the time of the story. He had already retired and also ran for President at one point. Doctor (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I did a fair amount of research into the Upshaw healing a few years ago and found that he had printed a testimonial of his healing. Apparently Branham never actually prayed for him. What happened is that one of Branham's team questioned Branham as he walked off the platform - "What about the congressman, you never prayed for him?" Branham told the individual to tell the congressman he was healed. The man then walked on to the platform, announced this to the congregation, and Upshaw stood up. If you read Branham's version of the story as he later related it, it is wildly embellished. I have not had the time to research it, but apparently allegations were made that Upshaw used his crutches as a bit of prop - see this newspaper article. There is no question that Upshaw was seriously injured as a boy but the question of whether it was possible for him to walk unaided has to be asked. It is also interesting that there is no reference to Upshaw's healing in the Misplaced Pages article on William David Upshaw. Darlig 🎸 16:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this the opinions section of the paper? It looks like something written by a reader, not a journalist. What I'm thinking of doing is writing something broader that will include multiple articles written by journalists across several years of his meetings. Doctor (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the statement about the obviously scratched negative, I deleted it myself. I didn't read where it came from and don't know why Darlig put it there in the first place. I just figured it was from Weaver because it was derogatory. The scratch came from one of the rogue websites that defame Branham. I think it was from "Believe the sign". Like I mentioned before this man along with John Collins were brought up in a church that believed Branham's message, but dropped out and now it seems their life's work is to find every small fault with the man that they possibly can--even if it means fabricating their own evidence.

I see Darlig also uses one of the rogue sites to prove that Branham didn't rightly represent the story of Upshaw. John Collins has a collection of probably about 25 times that Branham told about Upshaw. Sometimes he just tells about him being in a wheelchair (which he was for a few years), but a few of the times he told about it he did mention that he used crutches. The main thing I understand is that this was a miracle, and Upshaw told about it far and wide. Branham admits that while God was using his voice, it was like he was asleep and wouldn't hear what he said anyway unless he played the tape back. He only knew that Upshaw was healed at the meeting and may not have had all the details right. The newspaper article that Darlig gave about it is from a paper in Wilmington Delaware in 1936 and I couldn't find any mention of Upshaw at all.

Another statement that needs correction is that Hagin prophesied about Branham's death because of his disobedience. Hagin never prophesied anything right in his lifetime, as far as I know, and this statement needs to be removed. I understand that there was also a well-known woman preacher that prophesied his death because of his forbidding women to preach (as the apostle Paul commanded). Actually, no one knows why he died. If you search it out, you will find several others who want to tell their version of why he died, also. Weaver also lumps Gordon Lindsey into a group that are hagiographic, so his comments shouldn't be too authoritative either if that disqualifies him. I don't know if Misplaced Pages has any rules concerning hagiographic writings, but I do know there is something about defaming statements.

It is very unbalanced to mention 2 people in Canada who didn't believe the healings happened and not to mention the many newspaper articles like the 2 papers in Durban, South Africa where multitudes witnessed the mass-healings. I have other newspaper stories from various U.S. cities telling of the people God healed at the Branham meetings. These stories need to be part of the Branham page.

It is also unbalanced to try to associate Branham with Jim Jones and not mention the many people who received the anointing to pray for the sick while attending a Branham meeting. T. L. Osborne is one person who talked about it often. Jack Coe and Tommy Hicks are a couple more and the list goes on and on. Danpeanuts (talk) 11:15, 31 September 2017

I agree with you on the Jim Jones piece which is why I trimmed it up and moved it to the end of that section. I also agree we need to include more of the miracle and impartation pieces, which is why I am collecting newspaper articles. I don't care about people's opinions on websites, if we have newspaper articles written by journalists, those will stand as solid citations (I have one sitting in front of me about Upshaw that is good). I think the best approach is to collect some more newspaper content and pull it all together in one section. I'm just waiting until I get the rest of that together so we don't have a hondge podge section with few citations. Doctor (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Another thing is the knit-picking that Branham's claim of being raised in poverty was called into question because he was able to buy a new car when he was 18. Anyone who could get a job could afford a new Model T for $300 or $400. That had nothing to do with him being raised poor. He then worked on a ranch in Phoenix, so he didn't get rich after that. This sentence by Duyzer (who co-authored a book with John Collins) should also be deleted as it adds nothing worth-while to the page.

Since most of the Branham page is from Douglas Weaver's book, it should be questioned why a man who wrote 3 books about the Baptist Church would even want to write a book on someone who had spiritual gifts. When I went to the Baptist church they denied all the gifts of the Spirit and said they were done away with when the last apostle died. Just a short distance from the Baptist church was a Pentecostal church where the gifts were operating. Didn't take much to change churches. Danpeanuts (talk) 19:55, 31 September 2017

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.  Doctor (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. Doctor (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. Doctor (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 🎸 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. Doctor (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 🎸 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. Doctor (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! Doctor (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 🎸 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. Doctor (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? Doctor (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 🎸 23:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darlig Gitarist:But that has nothing to do with the decline of the revival. Doctor (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 🎸 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. Doctor (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 🎸 16:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding "Citation needed" tag

@Doctorg:, I reverted your addition of the two "Citation needed" tags as the citation at the end of the second sentence covers both of the sentences. I am assuming that you don't have Weaver's book since, if you read the portion referred to in the reference, it is obvious it covers the issue in detail. I also assume that we don't need identical references at the end of each sentence or after the semi-colon. Darlig 🎸 23:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch, I intended to take another look at the book this week to see if the one reference at the end mentioned all of this.  Doctor (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper miracle articles

I have gathered enough quality newspaper sources to include some reported miracle content that will help provide NPOV in the 3rd paragraph of "the healing revival section". I have gathered articles from 6 seperate newspapers from the United States and overseas that consistently reported some type of miracle activity in the meetings. Please read through it and let's have a discussion if you have conerns about any of the references. Doctor (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read any of the newspaper reports as I don't have access to them, but I doubt if they will stand up to the scrutiny of more skeptical editors. The problem is that there are also reports on the other side, saying that while many people claimed they were healed, the long-term prognosis was not good. As I indicated, if you are trying to support the claims of faith healing generally, I would suggest posting this edit in the Faith healing article and see if it withstands the scrutiny of a wider range of editors. I suspect it won't. There is a reason that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" is a policy of Misplaced Pages. Did the newspaper reporters do any follow-up to ensure that the healings were authentic? Did they do background checks to ensure that the people that said they were healed were actually sick to begin with? Did you look for any skeptical articles with respect to Branham? Darlig 🎸 05:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The exceptional claims section of verifiability requires multiple high quality sources that are mainstream, not primary, and not self-published. This is why I spent time at the Library of Congress to read through the microfilm of various newspapers and compile this list. I'm trying to give due diligence to balance out this section of the article. Paragraph 3 of "the healing revival section" challenges the claims of miracles, so NPOV would suggest that the other viewpoint is also provided (Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources states that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered because of NPOV). I also cited news articles written by journalists in different cities (as opposed to just one article) to show that this wasn't one random report, but that it was widespread. This inclusion meets Misplaced Pages's standards and reflects the opposite view of the controvery presented in paragraph 3. If you have any other newspaper articles that provide more content regarding the controversy, please include them. We need this to be as balanced as possible. Doctor (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it is appropriate to doubt a source is legitimate without reading it. I didn't have the Weaver source, so I took the time to get access to a copy and read the contents, which led me to support your position on the halo discussion. Doctor (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I forgot I had this other book on my shelf (Miracle Workers, Reformers, and The New Mystics by David Crowder) and I added in another citation to help bolster this paragraph. This book also talks about the Upshaw healing. Doctor (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I do think that you must meet the skeptics standards in this issue. That is why I am suggesting that you also put some kind of entry in the Faith healing article based on the research you have done. I personally don't think that the newspaper articles meet the exceptional sources test for this issue but I am prepared to be proved wrong. You are also ignoring the work of Walter Hollenweger, a noted Pentecostal historian who believes in divine healing, but who indicated that Branham's discernment or prognosis was without par, but very few people were ever actually healed through Branham's ministry. Darlig 🎸 15:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I am ignoring anything, but I could be wrong. I thought I saw Hollenweger already cited in here somewhere. If you think it is valuable to this article, you should include it. I have no problem with a balanced NPOV section that contains the reports of miracles as well as the skepticism. There's already some skepticism in this section, which is why I added the other content. I also found a published work that discusses the Upshaw miracle and broadly discusses others (this is in the Crowder book). This all meets the Misplaced Pages standard. I have other material I have not included because I know it doesn't meet the standard, but everything I have cited is of good journalistic quality and reviewed by editors for accuracy. Doctor (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have Hollenwerger's book here and noted that he interpreted for him in Zurich, Switzerland. All he said that much of what was reported about him in Pentecostal Journals seemed (to him) to be exaggerated, but there are a number of well-attested cases of miriculous healings--even raising from the dead. Probably the majority of people's healings came over a period of a few hours or days, as happens yet today, so he wouldn't see an instant miracle in most cases. Not the case in South Africa, where masses of people were healed immediately unless the newspaper reporters were exaggerating. One thing I note about Hollenwerger is that he has the information wrong about Branham's death.

In all the books the authors agree that the discernment was 100% correct. This should also be included in this article because it is as unusual as the light above his head. Is it illegal to use the word "Supernatural"?Danpeanuts (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2017

The problem is that there are other explanations for it being accurate. Check out the work done by James Randi. One cannot say that it was supernatural without all other potential explanations being ruled out. Darlig 🎸 23:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The accuracy of the discernment, since it is so unusual, needs to be included in this article. I looked at the article on Randi and see that he was an athiest who even scoffed at the bible. I guess you realize that attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil is a sin that isn't forgivable. Danpeanuts (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017

The 2 Signs

Here's a suggestion about wording the for the 2 signs:

 The Healing Revival

Branham's first meetings as a faith healer started in 1946. His healing services are well documented and he is regarded as the pacesetter for those who followed. Historians generally mark the 1946 meetings as inaugurating the modern healing revival. Branham said he had received an angelic visitation on May 7, 1946 commissioning his worldwide ministry. The Angel said "As Moses was given two signs to vindicate his calling, so will you be given two signs".Template:Http://table.branham.org The first sign was when he took people by the hand there would be signs in his hand that would tell people what disease they had. Then if they wouldn't believe that it would come to pass that you'll tell them the very secret of their heart, and by this, they will believe. Everyone who witnessed this verifies that it was 100% accurate. Danpeanuts (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2017Danpeanuts (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done promotional nonsense. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: please don't refer to other editor's suggestions as nonsense, we can all disagree in a civil way.Thanks Doctor (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an important part of the story of Branham. Not only was it said, but it also happened, and there are many eye witnesses who verify it. Since this article already has several statements by skeptics, this will help to balance it out. Danpeanuts (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2017

No, please see WP:UNDUE. --bonadea contributions talk 06:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bonadea and Theroadislong. Darlig 🎸 09:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Harrell, All Things are possible & Indiana University Press 1975, pp. 37–38. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarrellAll_Things_are_possibleIndiana_University_Press1975 (help)
2. Harrell, All Things are Possible & Indiana University Press 1975, p. 38. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarrellAll_Things_are_PossibleIndiana_University_Press1975 (help)
3. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals & Augsburg Publishing House 1972, p. 354. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHollenwegerThe_PentecostalsAugsburg_Publishing_House1972 (help)

Attribution

@Bonadea:Thanks for your attribution note on one of my edits, I thought I already had that line in there. Also, please don't forget to assume good faith, tone makes all the difference in these discussions. Thanks again. Doctor (talk) , 19:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be mixing me up with somebody else, as I have never assumed bad faith. I do not discuss other editors' motives or speculate in their beliefs or reasons for editing - removing non-neutral phrasing is not the same thing as assuming bad faith. --bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't argue with people on Misplaced Pages, it's rarely productive. Doctor (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hollenweger

Does anyone know if the final sentence in the 2nd paragraph of "the healing revival" section is a quote from Hollenweger? I see his book is cited but I'm not sure if he said it, or someone else said it. Thanks.  Doctor (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Hollenweger said "Branham filled the largest stadiums and meeting halls in the world". This was right after he stated that Branham was able to name with astonishing accuracy the sickness and often also the hidden sins of people whom he had never seen. Hollenweger said he wasn't aware of any case in which he was mistaken in the often detailed statements he made. Danpeanuts (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2017

Thanks, I have come across some Hollenweger content in multiple sources but I didn't want to mess up the prose of this paragraph until I knew this was attributed to Hollenweger. I'll add some more stuff today. Doctor (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, in case there is any confusion, Hollenweger's "The Pentecostals" book was originally published in 1972. Several subsequent editions were published later (I think the latest is 2012), all with different ISBN's. Doctor (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hyatt

I noticed Eddie Hyatt's book is listed as a secondary source but I didn't see any citations from his book in the text, so I have added some missing elements from his work. Doctor (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Crowder

I have had a look at the Crowder book, and do not believe it meets the requirements for a scholarly source. I would not recommend using it, other than perhaps for purely factual claims (things like "Branham preached at on ), and definitely not for any discussions about miracles. In fact, I think it would be preferable to remove it altogether as a source, as it is not independent. Crowder is very open about his own personal religious belief - the book is subtitled How to become part of the supernatural generation, and the page about it on Crowder's website sounds as if the book claims that supernatural phenomena are factual occurrences. I have used GBooks to read parts of the book, and there is no scholarly analysis at all that I can see.

Regarding this article, the section The Healing Revival is currently pretty neutrally phrased even though I do think it places too much emphasis on individual occurrences; I still don't feel comfortable about the reliance on newspaper articles, I'm not sure we reached a consensus to use them as sources (if I am wrong, please provide a diff), and perhaps it would be helpful to ask editors who are more experienced in this area to weigh in. --bonadea contributions talk 19:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Bonadea: Thanks for your thoughts. Crowder's book is published by a respected publishing house, the newspaper articles were written by professional journalists. Crowder's book is also very well sourced throughout, including references to the Harrell book also used in this article. Every source I have used meet Misplaced Pages's standards. Reading a few pages on Gbooks and making a judgement based on a title does not warrant removing material from this article. One could argue that the Weaver source used throughout this article is biased against Branham but I have not made that assertion, nor have I tried to remove material referenced from his work. Please stop removing quality content and sources or I will file a dispute resolution and this one will not be summarilly dismissed like the last one. These silly antics need to stop!!! Doctor (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages policies are misunderstood or misconstrued so I am pasting what seems to be relevant here (though there may be more):

• Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"
• Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"
• Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using independent sources the use of independent sources is not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline

I think both of these issues are linked. I think the references currently used in the article meet all requirements of Misplaced Pages 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. Doctor (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Doctor (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 Misplaced Pages works. The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy. Doctor (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. Doctor (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. Doctor (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

No, not on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages in the "faith healing" category so to assert that it can't be on Misplaced Pages is untrue. Here's just a few of them:

• Aimee Semple McPherson
• F. F. Bosworth
• Benny Hinn
• Smith Wigglesworth
• John G. Lake

 Doctor (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 Misplaced Pages 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. Doctor (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. Doctor (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Community reassessment

William M. Branham

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Already closed AIRcorn (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I was part of the discussion to provide GA status to this article. At that time, it was not clearly apparent that an edit conflict existed, but after working on the article for the past month, it is now clear that there is a small edit war occurring regarding acceptable sources and content. This has made the article unstable and unable to meet all 6 of the WP:Good article criteria. Visitors to this page may find it in flux from day to day. I recommend it be delisted until consensus can be achieved in the areas where there is currently disagreement. I have contributed to the article enough that I cannot provide a unbaised review and would like the community to reassess (just in case I am way off base). Please review the article’s history and talk page for evidence of the ongoing conflicts. Thank you!  Doctor (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, @Doctorg:. I think the edit conflict you are observing is common to articles on NRM's. To quote from a Misplaced Pages essay on writing good articles on NRM's - "The key to stable, neutral articles in this contentious field is good sourcing: focus on using the best, most reputable sources, above all scholarly sources, and avoid the use of primary sources – both movement and countermovement sources." I don't think newspaper articles are sufficient secondary sources for a claim with respect to divine healing.

The issue currently in question is whether Misplaced Pages can support claims of "faith healing". The best way to resolve such an issue is to engage a broader audience of editors. This is an issue that is much broader than the article on William Branham. I have suggested that those in support of including claims of faith healing take this issue to a broader article such as Faith healing but this has not been done to date. I think it is a better way to resolve this issue - that there are sufficient secondary sources to support faith healing in the context of Misplaced Pages. I am not sure why they don't want to improve the article on Faith healing in this way, if they think they are correct.

Alternatively, I propose to copy the edits dealing with faith healing to the faith healing article and, if they disappear from that article by consensus, then I will feel at liberty to remove them here. I do think that it is a way to engage multiple editors who may not be interested in the Branham article, to comment on the greater issue. Personally I think the current approach, which is to re-review the GA status of the article is wrong, because the issue in question deals with a fundamental issue with Misplaced Pages sources which can more easily be resolved by the way I have suggested. Darlig 🎸 10:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darlig Gitarist: This is only one fo several issues but I will refrain from going into a long discussion here. Please read my latest post on the talk page, I took this particular issue to the teahouse and made adjustments based on their reccomendations. Doctor (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is quite biased against Branham. It seems like any "good" thing mentioned of him is mentioned in a bad light. There were discussions above regarding whether or not miracles (or healings, or however you want to mention them) should be included. There are several sources citing proven healings - specifically one involving a United States Congressman named Upshaw. I am writing now, after having worked with Upshaw's grandson (Thomas Upshaw Tuten - a physician living in SC) for years (who is not a practicing Christian nor follower of Branham) and he, himself, absolutely verifies the authenticity of the congressman's account of being raised from a wheelchair he was confined to since a young boy.

He wasn't wheelchair bound. See http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/Congressman_Upshaw

Less wrong daily (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The main sources mentioned in the article are all biased in themselves. How can an article written by someone with an agenda, not be biased? People writing about Branham all write using hearsay. Quoting a old writing full of hearsay does not make it a fact. If you are going to speak about his doctrine, surely you can quote him in context, as I understand many of his sermons are recorded. If he's like any normal human being, he probably does have trouble recalling things the same each time he talks about them. Obviously, he wasn't God, I'm sure he did get stuff switched up occasionally (as do we all).

Hearing from eye witnesses (as there are many, though aged) Branham rarely, if ever, took up an offering of money in any of his campaigns. There's certainly something to be said for that, as that's the agenda of most preacher "personalities" today. What would be his motive for such deception as the article states?

There's too much conjecture from what I've read and who I've spoken to, to consider much of the information provided as "reliable" information (whether good or bad.) If he was such an evil person, where are the sources from the time period he was living that discredit his character? Was he involved in affairs? Did he get charged with abuse? Rape? Did he beg for money?

It's much easier to point out disagreements when people aren't around to defend themselves. It's also much easier to embellish stories once someone has passed on. This entire Wiki page can never be settled.

Actually, I do believe there are enough records to settle most of these issues. What's challenging is locating secondary sources that are based on records rather than hearsay. It's remarkable how unmiraculous his ministry was once you remove the hearsay and hagiographical content.

Less wrong daily (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple secondary party sources that critically analyze Branham. Weaver and Harrell are the primary sources used in the article now, and they are both written by people who state they are non-beleivers in what Branham stood for and they offered a critical and fair review of his life. Because they are balanced they are the main sources used for the article. Kydd is also a reputable source, but more sympathetic to the subject, and the use of this source is balanced by the use of Hanegraaf who looks at the entire evangelical movement as a cult and accuses Branham of effecting a hoax on people. There is not one source in this article that is wrote by Branham's followers, in fact every source opens their book stating their own personal disagreements with Branham. We are only putting in this article what these secondary sources have said. Duyzer and Collins are the only two primary sources still in use in the article, and they are used in such a minor way (except the Jim Jones part) that they are not impactful at all on the article. —Charles Edward  14:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer is on a wikibreak, I am goign to close this reassessment. There seems to be three people in favor of closing: Me, Darlig, and Less wrong daily. —Charles Edward  14:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit that this warring seems to be insurmountable. I have tried many times to add documented content to give this article a balance only to have it reverted. I admit that I'm a newcomer to Misplaced Pages and don't know all the ropes, but there are opinions here that are completely contrary to what most of the historians say and although there are many books written by historians about the supernatural aspects, only Weaver's opinions are favored and he is a Baptist who has written 3 books about the Baptist Church (Baptist doctrine is against the gifts of the Spirit today). The only reason I can see that he even wrote a book about Branham was to discredit him. So far this is not a Good Article and until more positive information is allowed to be told it will remain completely out of balance. Right now, over half the references are from Weaver. Danpeanuts (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2017

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 Misplaced Pages 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.  Doctor (talk) 12:53, 11 October 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." 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. 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.

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. This appears to have been an embellishment to enhance his relationship with the Pentecostals. 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." 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. 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. Darlig 🎸 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 "? (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 ". --bonadea contributions talk 16:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I made the edit as sugggested by Bonadea. Darlig 🎸 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. Doctor (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It is critical with Branham as he was prone to wild exagerration. Darlig 🎸 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. Doctor (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 Misplaced Pages. 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 🎸 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Doctor (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 🎸 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. "This appears to have been an embellishment to enhance his relationship with the Pentecostals."

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. 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 Misplaced Pages. Darlig 🎸 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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.

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. Doctor (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. Doctor (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 🎸 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 🎸 20:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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.

Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages 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 🎸 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 🎸 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  16:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Weaver is an academic, and his book is published by a university press, so by Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages for 12 years, I have had multiple featured articles on the main page. I am familiar with Misplaced Pages 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  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 , 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 

Weaver's book is considered a reliable secondary source under Misplaced Pages'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 🎸 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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  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 🎸 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 Misplaced Pages biographies on people from Indiana. That is primary interest in this article. I have also authored the majority of Indiana history related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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  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  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 Misplaced Pages 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.

@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)

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  23:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Major Revision

I completed a through fact checking of the article as I have not previously been involved with it. From this check stems most issues I found. Here is a full summary of my changes. —Charles Edward 

Synopsis of the article's major sources

It appears that Weaver, Harrell are the two best sources on multiple levels. The are fairly neutral, well researched, and academically published. Burgess, Crowder, Larson, Hanegraaff, and Moriarty seem to be tertiary, and are largely based on Weaver and Harrell, and contain multiple direct quotes to them. Duyzer and Collins are very close to the subject, close enough to qualify as primary source in my opinion. Duyzer also seems to be an outlyer in his views; Harrell, Weaver, Crowder, and Hanegraaff report dates and events in general harmony, whereas Duyzer follows a unique timeline of events and openly disagrees with Weaver and Harrell on some of their assessments. Babsinksi is odd, in that it is really just a biography of the writer who happens to mention his interaction with Branham followers. I have used all these sources, but I am conveying an honest assessment of them. I think they should be weighed accordingly for their merit. In my opinion, if want to add each conflicting detail, it would be best to add a footnote section and then foot note the least common asertions, and follow the more general consensus in the body of the article. For example, have the body state what Weaver and Harrell say, but footnote Duyzer's disagreements. I have not undertaken this in this article, but I have done so in other articles I have authored. (For example, see the Notes section in the Battle of Tippecanoe featured article I authored.) —Charles Edward  21:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Issues I am correcting in my revision

• The sources seem to be selectively used. For example, both Weaver and Harrel are somewhat apologetic and sympathetic towards the topic, but that does not come through at all in the article. Even the most critical sources, Collins and Duyzer offer alot of positive content on the topic that seems to be ignored in favor of the more sensational negative parts. This seems to be a theme throughout. It seems that at some point in the past, this article has suffered from a biased editor or series of editors. It is not obviously biased in its current state, but when comparing to the actual sources that bias becomes apparent. Babinski, for instance, is used to reference alot of really strange things that make Branham seem like a wing nut, but his ultimate conclusion of Branaham's followers is left out. He states "In spite of their odd beliefs they are honest and hard working citizens and their inclusion in the book of cults is unfair." In looking through the history of the article it looks like several editors have made a commendable effort to make the article fairer, but I suspect they lacked access to all the sources to be able to fully rectify the issue or validate all the statements in the article. Nearly every source has been used in this selective way and I have tried to rectify this issue. There are multiple examples of this, I have detailed them in the fact check section.
• There are several "sources" that are not used to cite any part of the article. Since they are not actually used as a source, I am moving those to a further reading section. If citations are added, then they could be moved back to source section
• Because of the controversial nature of the article, I intend to put a citation on every sentence. I will remove or adjust each sentence as needed. I have access to most of the sources listed in the article and will assume the first reference following the sentence is intended to reference it. I will consult the source before adding a new citation.
• Collins and Duyzer are both problematic sources and are used to make the most controversial claims in the article. In reviewing the sources though, the article actually goes beyond what the sources in their claims. Collins: http://seekyethetruth.com/About.aspx Duyzer: http://wmbranham.net/ I will remove everything referenced to their self published works, and carefully review the remainder to ensure it accurately reflects the source and is properly attributed within the article.
• Overall, all critical elements of the article need better attribution within the article itself. I will improve this. It is ok to have criticisms, or to use two sources that offer conflicting information. Buy we need to make sure we are conveying to the reader who is asserting what, that way the assertion is presented not as wikipedia's assertion, but as the assertion or claim of the source.
• The article is a little rough in its flow. I intend to use the source to expand the article by about double its current length, and therein address the flow issues.
  • The sources offer a great deal of content for the healing revival section. As that is what the topic is most known for, it makes sense to make it a more significant section within the article. It seems like that is the most notable period of the subject's life, based on the sources, whereas the later part of the life is generally agreed to have ended in somewhat increasing obscurity. I intend to weight the article accordingly. Right now the bulk of the content is focused on the doctrines he began teaching after the healing revival period came to and end. This is a bit of a undue weight issue, but easily addressed.
  • The legacy section seems too narrowly focused based on my read through of weaver and harrel. I intend to rework that section. He seems to have a great impact on the the healing beliefs of some denominations, and beyond that
  • The lead needs stregthened
• I want to try and locate sources for some of the basic biographical data that is currently unsourced; marriages, children, etc. If this cannot be found in the secondary sources, I will use the primary sources for this information.
• I think it is a little strange that two sources are used assert four other sources are unfit for use. It is normal for sources on a topic like this to espouse different viewpoints. Minimally the way it is currently presented needs to be changed. It violate the MOS, and the claims need to be attributed. I also have never seen such a thing directly in the reference section. I will see if there is a way to work it into the body of the article instead.
• There must be some more pictures we can add to this article. I will try to find some. I intend to make a day trip and see if I can gather some photos of notable sites. Also, copyright has expired on several of the primary source biographies, so we should be able to use some of the pictures in those books as illustrations.
• There are some minor MOS issues; forced image size, block quote usage, etc. I will correct these
• There are alot of direct lifting of the wording from Weaver. This present an issue of plagarism, as they are not presented as quotes. I am going to try and paraphrase as many such instances as I find to eliminate this issue, and where I cannot, I will present the sentance as a direct quote from Weaver.
• "Denial of Eternal Hell" - I have changed this title to "Annihilationism". "Denial of Eternal Hell" rings as an accusation to me. It seems this doctrine is held by a significant number of denominations, so why not call it by its theological name?
• "View on Women" - Weaver is the only source used in this section. Weaver however categories this a subset of Branham's opposition to modern culture. I am therefore retitling this "Views on modern culture", and expanding the section to properly place in context this component

Issues identified in fact checking

There are numerous sentences that were not supported by their given citation, but I was able to find alternative citations which I have added. Some things I could not verify though. The list follows.

• Jim Jones, the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple, tried to use Branham's fame to boost himself into the limelight. Jones, who was later known for the mass murder and suicide at Jonestown in November 1978, organized a religious convention that took place June 11 through June 15, 1956, at Cadle Tabernacle in Indianapolis. To draw crowds, Jones needed a religious headliner, so he arranged to share the pulpit with Branham. - Page 9-10 of this source has nothing that supports this statement... https://www.amazon.com/Raven-Untold-Story-Jones-People/dp/1585426784 There is a mention of branham on page 50, and I am using that to rewrite the paragraph.
• Sheryl, J. Greg (2013). "The Legend of William Branham" (PDF). The Quarterly Journal. Personal Freedom Outreach. 33 (3). ISSN 1083-6853. - This source is primarily a theological publication that is advancing the theological viewpoint of their own organization. According to their website, their peer review is done by associated theologians. The publication alleges that several major christian denominations are in fact cults. It is certainly a biased source. Currently, its only use in the article is to source a statement that some primary sources are biased in favor of Brhanham. There is already another reference for that statement, so I am removing the sole citation to Sheryl and moving it to further reading section
• He believed that five of the seven predictions, relating to world politics, science, and the moral condition of the world, had been fulfilled. The final two visions, one related to the Roman Catholic Church gaining power in the United States and the second detailing the destruction of the United States, would be fulfilled by 1977, subsequent to which Christ would return. - The source cited does not support this. Babinksi makes no connection to "seven prophecies", and only mentions an earthquake prophecy. I am rewriting to this to actually align with the source, as follows: Branham predicted the rapture would happen in 1977, preceded by various world-wide disasters including including Los Angeles sinking during an earthquake, the unification of denominational Christianity, and the Pope rising to world power.
• Branham's most controversial revelation was his claim to be the end-time "Elijah" prophet of the Laodicean Church age. - Synth? OR? The sources state the claim, but none call it "Branham's most controversial revelation". Two of the sources (Larson and Babinksi) do not actually state any opinion on the claim, other than to record it. Duyzer points to serpent seed as his most controversial doctrine. Weaver sort of supports the "most controversial" statement, but only narrowly so. Because of the conflicting views, I am demoting this to just "a controversial..." This is most impact because this sentence is also in the lead.
• For the most part, Branham, his message, and his followers are little known in the Western world. Bob Larson, in Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality, refers to Branham as an "odd historical footnote". - the given source does not say this at all, in fact it is at odds with the source. This is a misreading of the source. It is clear Larson is saying he has included Branham in his book because he is NOT "an odd historical footnote," but because of the "lasting legacy" of his ministry. I am rewording this to reflect the source
• Given the lack of corroborating evidence for this event, Baptist historian Doug Weaver believes it is possible that Branham later embellished the incident when he was achieving success in the healing revival. - I think this is a misread of the source. First, a lack of corroborating references is not the basis for Weaver to question the event. (He actually sites supposed witnesses) Weaver questions the event because Branham failed to attach much significance to it in his early career and because Branham appears to have re-interpreted the event in his later career. Secondly, Weaver advances two theories on this event, one apologetic, one not. The current statement is a misuse of this source to just include one of the two alternatives given. I have adjusted this sentence accordingly.
• Branham stated that his first exposure to Pentecostalism was in 1936; however, the First Pentecostal Baptist Church he attended prior to 1933 believed in most of the basic doctrines of Pentecostalism. As a result, Branham appears to have been exposed to Pentecostalism from the date of his conversion to Christianity. - I have struggled trying to understand this from the given source. I think the sentance does not effectively communicate the nuance that is indicated by Weaver.
  • Here is the issues
    • Weaver agrees Branham's first interaction with Pentecostals was in 1936
    • Weaver agreesthe church Branham was first converted at was the First Pentecostal Baptist Church, which was pre-1936 (Which seems a contradiction at first, but is not as you consider Weaver's other points)
    • Weaver says Branham was a Baptist at the time he was converted
    • Weaver says the First Pentecostal Church had a Baptist pastor
    • Weaver says First Pentecostal Baptist Church observed some Pentecostal doctrines (Divine healing being the only stated Pentecostal doctrine held by the church)
    • Weaver says Branham knew more about Pentecostals than he let on in 1936
  • I believe this is the correct way to understand these facts:
    • 1. Branham attended a Baptist denominational church at the time of his conversion
    • 2. Branham's first interaction with a Pentecostal denominational church was in 1936.
    • 3. Branham was nominally a baptist for the early part of his ministry
    • 4. Branham knew more about pentecostal beliefs than he initially let on in 1936 because he was exposed to some pentecostal doctrines during his time at the Baptist church
  • I do not believe this sentence accurately reflects these conclusions and I cannot see how to draw another conclusion from the facts as Weaver present them, therefore I am adjusting this sentence to the following: The First Pentecostal Baptist Church he attended at the time of his conversion was a nominally Baptist church that observed some Pentecostal doctrines, including divine healing. As a result, Branham appears to have been exposed to some Pentecostal teachings from his conversion. He was first exposed to a Pentecostal denominational church in 1936, where he was invited to join them, but refused.
• An analysis of his teaching on the identity of this Laodicean prophet-messenger reveals conflicting and confusing assertions and disclaimers. - I have not been able to locate a source for this sentence, I am removing it.
• Branham believed that he was (and desired to be) the eschatological prophet, but also had doubts about his role. - The given source does not support the sentence as wrote. Weaver actually says all the characteristics Branham described matched his own life, but Branham did not directly claim to be the messenger. On page 132, it does say Branam desired to be that prophet, but I cannot find a reference in Weaver, and on page 133 Weavers claims Branham likely privately believed he was, but again on page 132, that he left the interpretation up to his followers. So I have updated the sentance as follows. Branham desired to be the eschatological prophet, but never stated he was. Weaver believes Branham considered himself to be the prophet he spoke of, but had self-doubt. Branham left the interpretation open to his followers, who widely accepted that he was indeed that prophet.
• Although not always consistent with each other, his primary concerns were eschatology, the denial of an eternal hell, Oneness Pentecostalism, predestination, eternal security and the serpent's seed., This is difficult to source as written. I am breaking it up into separate sentence so each part can be properly attributed. Additionally I think this is a misread of weaver. Weaver says his primary concern was solely eschatology, and then lists the othor items as things of secondary importance.
• Branham asserted that his doctrinal teachings were given to him by divine revelation. - this is not supported by the given source. At this point I have not come across a reference supporting it (although it seems like a pretty straight forward thing to say, it is OR or SYNTH to include it without a source.)
• The doctrine of Annihilationism was not a new concept to Pentecostalism as Charles Fox Parham had also advocated the doctrine. - this is not in the given source at all... Clearly a misure of the source and someone trying to mislead a reader... However, I have found another source which generally supports the point (https://books.google.com/books?id=6GLISQjySHwC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=parham+eternal+hell&source=bl&ots=vMzOiq7mvr&sig=Ek30WBFfWYJlB0WkLGADg0oQqRY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKz97T877ZAhWozIMKHSfuDNYQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=parham%20eternal%20hell&f=false), and I am rewording the sentence accordingly.
• Although Branham had taught the doctrine since 1957, he suggested in 1960 that the Holy Spirit had just revealed it to him as one of the mysteries that God was revealing in the "end-time". - I think this is another misreading of the source. It is not clear whether the author is saying Branham claimed to have been revealed the revelation in 1960, or if in 1960 he was referring to an earlier point when it was a revelation. The amazement of the author seems to be the fact that he claimed the revelation to be new, as opposed to something that was already in circulation in Pentecostalism - not that Branham contradicting himself. I am rewriting accordingly
• and it was also reported that Branham had told some Trinitarians that he agreed with them, but that he felt obligated to the "Jesus Only" Pentecostals because they had supported him early in the revival. I cannot locate a supporting reference for this statement. I am moving it to here until a reference can be found. Removing this does seem to substantially alter the section.
• Branham taught that Eve and the serpent had sexual intercourse and Cain was their resulting offspring, and that consequently every woman potentially carried the literal seed of the devil. this is directly lifted from Weaver. To avoid plagerism I am adjusting as follows - Branham taught that the story of fall in the Garden of Eden was allegorical. He interpreted the allegory to mean that the serpent had sexual intercourse with Eve and Cain was their resulting offspring. "Consequently every woman potentially carried the literal seed of the devil," according to Weaver's analysis of the doctrine."
• Branham's attitude toward culture was a very extremist perspective of "Christ against Culture", that education was Satan's snare for intellectual Christians who rejected the supernatural and Satan's tool for obscuring the "simplicity of the Message and the messenger". - this is another direct quote from Weaver that is not properly attributed and equals plagiarism. I am adjusting accordingly. - According to Weaver, Branham's attitude toward culture was "a very extremist perspective of "Christ against Culture"", that education was "Satan's snare for intellectual Christians who rejected the supernatural" and "Satan's tool for obscuring the 'simplicity of the Message and the messenger'".
• However, other than those that still follow him as their prophet, Branham has faded into obscurity. - that is in the lead. I have not found any source to support this. In fact, most sources outright contradict it and point to his strong lasting legacy and impact on the charismatic move and televangelism.
• However, other than those that still follow him as their prophet, Branham seems to have faded into obscurity. Robert Price, as quoted by Douglas Weaver, summarized Branham's legacy as follows:"In the days of his prominence, the 1950's, what Spirit-filled believer did not know his name? Yet today, we may wonder, what believer does?" - there is not page number given in this cite, and I did not find this in my read through of the book.

Lead with citations

MOS prohibits cites in the lead, but I am including here for reference. Note all statements have been verified as being present in the body with a citation.

William Marrion Branham (April 6, 1909 – December 24, 1965) was an influential American Christian minister and faith healer who initiated the post-World War II healing revival. He is recognized as the "principle architect of modern restorationist thought" who left a lasting impact on televangelism and the modern charismatic move. The first American deliverance minister to successfully campaign in Europe, his ministry reached global audiences with major campaigns held in North America, Europe, Africa, and India. At the time, his meetings in the United States were the largest religious meetings ever held in most cities.

Branham's meetings as a faith healer started in 1946. He claimed to have received an angelic visitation on May 7, 1946 commissioning his worldwide ministry. He held numerous meetings around the world resulting in thousands of coverts and numerous reports of miracles. His ministry spawned many emulators that quickly set in motion the broader healing revival that subsequently transitioned in the modern evangelical and charismatic movement. His campaigning and popularity began to to decline in 1955 as the Pentecostal churches began to withdraw their support from the healing campaigns for primarily financial reasons. Branham transitioned into a teaching ministry by 1960 which became increasingly controversial amongst the Pentecostalism. Branham developed a unique theology that was primarily a mixture of Calvinist and Arminian doctrines, with a heavy focus on Branham's own unique eschatological views. Branham's espoused a controversial revelation that indicated he was the end-time "Elijah" prophet of the Laodicean Church age. In his last days, Branham's followers placed him at the center of a Pentecostal cult of personality that continues to this day. Branham died in a car accident in 1965.

Note: I do not personally like this sentance: In his last days, Branham's followers placed him at the center of a Pentecostal cult of personality that continues to this day. Only one source states this, and three of the articles other main sources disagree with the label of cult. This is fully explained in the body, offering both views. I have not yet determined how to fairly summarize this in the lead, so I have left it as is for now.

1. Harrell 1975, p. 29. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarrell1975 (help)
2. Duyzer 2014, pp. 32–33. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDuyzer2014 (help)
3. Reiterman & Jacobs 1982, pp. 9–10. sfn error: no target: CITEREFReitermanJacobs1982 (help)
4. ^ Babinski 1995, p. 277. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBabinski1995 (help)
5. ^ Larson 2004, p. 79. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLarson2004 (help)
6. Weaver 2000, pp. 28–29. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
7. ^ Weaver 2000, pp. 32–34. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
8. ^ Weaver 2000, pp. 33. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
9. Weaver 2000, p. 128,133. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
10. Weaver 2000, p. 128. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
11. ^ Weaver 2000, p. 133. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
12. ^ Weaver 2000, p. 98. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
13. ^ Weaver 2000, p. 118. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
14. ^ Weaver 2000, p. 119. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
15. ^ Weaver 2000, p. 111. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
16. ^ Weaver 2000, p. 114. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
17. Weaver 2000, p. x. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
18. Weaver 1978, pp. 22. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver1978 (help)
19. Harrell, p. 25. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarrell (help)
20. Weaver 2000, p. v. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
21. Weaver 2000, p. vi. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
22. Weaver 2000, pp. 56. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
23. Weaver 2000, pp. 51. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
24. ^ Weaver 2000, pp. 47. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
25. Weaver 2000, pp. 45. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
26. Weaver 2000, pp. 37. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
27. Harrell, p. 40. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarrell (help)
28. Weaver 2000, pp. 92. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
29. Weaver 2000, p. 93. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
30. ^ Weaver 2000, p. 103. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)
31. Weaver 2000, pp. xiv. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaver2000 (help)

Discussion

Thank you for the revision. I just finished reading it and I think it does a good job of better representing the broad variety of opinions from the authors. Polarizing figures like Rev. Branham naturally create extreme views in opposite ways among authors covering their lives, which makes it difficult to bring a balance to their wiki page. I think overall you've done a good job. Idealee (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Good article reassessment nominees
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• GA-Class Charismatic Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• GA-Class Indiana articles
• Low-importance Indiana articles
• WikiProject Indiana articles
• GA-Class Kentucky articles
• Unknown-importance Kentucky articles
• WikiProject Kentucky articles
• GA-Class Louisville articles
• Low-importance Louisville articles
• WikiProject Louisville articles
• WikiProject United States articles