Jump to content

Talk:William M. Branham/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Rem. from Intro - 09/10/07

Photo claims

The article states:

On the night of January 24, 1950, an unusual photograph was taken during a speaking engagement in the Sam Houston Coliseum in Houston, Texas. As Branham stood at the podium, an apparent halo of fire appeared above his head. A photograph of this phenomenon was produced, the only one of its film roll that developed an image. George J. Lacy, an investigator of questioned documents, subjected the negative to testing [1] and declared at a news conference that, "To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world's history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated." The original of the photograph is in the archives of the Religious Department of the Smithsonian Institution.

However, a search of the Smithsonian's archives returns no results. I'm having a little trouble seeing anything especially extraordinary about the photo (as a photographer, it looks like a light on the ceiling to me).

The claims about the photo being housed at the Smithsonian are untrue (it seems to be an urban legend that follows the photo around - I've heard it before) and the only sites I can find that reference George J. Lacy are Branhamist.

I don't think the claims belong here as fact, as a statement of myth surrounding Branham, maybe. But it's not fact.

Wisco 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not an urban legend. The individual that posted the original comment regarding the Smithsonian simply had the facts mixed up. The original of the photograph is not in the Smithsonian but rather in the Library of Congress. I personally inspected the original photograph in Washington, DC about 10 years ago. I have changed the article to refer to the Library of Congress. - Taxee 13:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know where the writer of the article about the photograph got his or her facts from. George J Lacy did not, as far as I can ascertain mention anything about 'a supernatural being' and 'scientifically vindicated'. It would pay people to read the actual words of his report on http://biblebelievers.org/gjlacy.htm It is indeed unfortunate that some, both those who agree and disagree with the ministry of William Branham will misconstrue and misquote facts. This does nobody any good, and certainly doesn't help the article have a NPOV. I have now changed this part of the article to more accurately reflect what Mr Lacy actually wrote.Malachi456 09:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


As far as I've seen here is the letter that George J. Lacy wrote http://www.prisonministries.net/Web%20pages/George%20J%20Lacy%20Report.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.131.93 (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo URL

Here is the link to the photo on the LOC web site...

Branham a Mason?

I have taken this out of the first section, until someone can produce evidence that Branham was a Mason. I cannot find any evidence of it in his transcribed sermons, and I am pretty sure that he was not associated with the Masons in any way --Malachi456 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This should help: 

And he said, "Brother Branham." He said, "You know," said, "when..." He was a Nazarene, and he said, 
"You know, when--when you first started preaching," said, "I thought sure you was a Nazarene." He 
said, "And then I seen so many Pentecostal people along," said, "somebody told me you went Pentecost." 
And said, "Now," said, "I heard you say that--that you was a Baptist." Said, "I--I don't understand 
this."
I said, "That's easy." I said, "I'm a Pentecostal, Nazarene, Baptist." So that's the way we are. We 
just represent the Lord Jesus Christ in His mercy. That's right. For by one Spirit are we all baptized 
into one Body and become one people." And that...

Brother Branham also refers to himself as a Pentecostal Baptist on several occasions, but most of all he calls himself a Christian, because God doesn't judge by what church you follow, he judges you by your heart. But, of all things, he never claimed to be a mason! SplinterCell37 12:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Branham and King George VI

From a number of Branham’s comments, particularly in his later sermons the definite impression is given that Branham had personally gone to the palace to pray for King George and that this resulted in a instantaneous healing:

King George of England with multiple sclerosis, when I went over and prayed for him. Couldn't even set but just a few minutes at a time. Next day, played twenty-eight holes of golf. (‘Jesus of Nazareth Passeth By’, 24/5/58)

And I been in king's palaces, went to prayed for King George of England. I was with the Gustavus up in Swi--Sweden. And I been in many king's palaces, and King Farouk, and--and many other places, and great potentates and monarchs. Some of the greatest the world has today, I've had the privilege of going in and talk with them, interview. I've been in lovely homes. (‘Seal of God’, 16/2/61)

And as you know that when I went there and prayed for King George when he had multiple sclerosis and he was healed instantly; the next day he played eighteen holes of golf, and he couldn't even set up for just a few minutes at a time. (‘Why’, 13/4/61)

I've been in kings' palaces. I prayed for King George of England, you know, when he was healed from multiple sclerosis. I prayed for other kings, potentates, monarchs. (‘Uncertain Sound’.14/7/62)

Oh, my. I've been in Hollywood, and I've prayed for King George in the palace, and Gustav up in Sweden, and different places. (‘God Hinding Himself in Simplicity’, 12/4/63)

However earlier he had been more specific in claiming that he had actually prayed for King George without traveling to him, though he did claim that he went to England later to see him (on his way to Finland in April 1950):

And he was a friend to the king's private secretary, and through there King George of England sent word to me. I have his statements and have his letters of his fields and every... To come pray for him of multiple sclerosis, and so I couldn't go up that time. So I just wired back and told the king that I would pray for him here, that God would hear here just the same as he would over there. And so, then another telegram come through and wanted me to come on over immediately. Later when I went to England, over there, to see him, and the Lord healed him. He was--couldn't even stand up over five minutes at a time, and he... I believe the second day he played eighteen holes of golf, and never was bothered with it no more until the very day he died. And I was in Africa when he died. They found a little tumor here on his lung. They started to cut it open and air got to it some way, I don't know, and caused a blood clot to go to his brain and killed him instantly. So very fine man... (‘Testimony’, 29/11/53)

In other accounts of his visit to London he would refer to going off to Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey, however on at least one occasion (‘Testimony’, 29/11/53) he admitted that "The king wasn't in at the time". It is sometimes claimed that Branham prayed for King George in person on some other occasion, however it does not seem that Branham ever described an actual meeting with the King. The visit to London was mentioned in ‘A Man Sent from God’ (p208) however no mention was made of any royal visit. The probability that no such meeting occurred is reinforced by the fact that when the topic of the Royalty came up he would often remark about having seen the King and Queen as they were driven past in a carriage when they were visiting Canada, rather than any face to face meeting.

Branham's claim to have seen the King and Queen in Vancouver Canada is also dubious. On a number of occasions he claimed to have seen the King and Queen whilst in the company of Ern Baxter:

It was the Queen of England. Why, you would've felt honored, because she's a great woman. I got to see her once. I saw the old mother queen. I got to see them when King George just when he still had his multiple sclerosis, 'fore he sent for me come pray for him. And when we passed down the street in Canada, and standing there, there was the queen in her beautiful blue dress, and King George with his, setting up, great suffering with ulcers in his stomach and multiple sclerosis, which they said he was suffering tremendously that day. But you'd have never knowed it: sit just as straight. Why? He was a king, and he conducted himself like a king. And I noticed Mr. Baxter, which used to be my campaign manager; he just wept when he seen them pass. And I said, ‘Ernie, what you weeping about?’ He said, ‘Billy, there goes the king and the queen.’ Said, ‘Oh, aren't they lovely?’ I said, ‘Yes, Mr. Baxter, they are.’(Jesus at the Door, 29/5/58)

Sometime ago I was standing in Vancouver, British Colombia, and the King George of England had come over to visit Canada. And he was making his way down along the street in the carriage, and his beautiful queen setting by him... And Mr. Baxter, one of my associates, he was weeping, because he said, "Just think, Brother Branham, our king passes by. (Message to the Laodicean Church, 9/6/58)

King George's only visit to Vancouver occurred in May 1939. There is no record of Branham visiting Canada prior to 1947 and significantly it was only around this time that Branham met Ern Baxter who subsequently became a campaign manager for him. From Branham's accounts it is apparent that he considered Ern Baxter a reasonably close acquaintance, not just someone he might have met once, who would have subsequently have forgotten the meeting. While it might be conceivable that Branham could have made a trip to Vancouver in 1939, unrecorded apart from these comment about seeing the King and Queen, his claimed association with Ern Baxter at the time is rather less plausible. A close association between Ern Baxter and Branham in 1939 is not likely to be something that Ern Baxter would have forgotten or failed to have mentioned. Aside from these implausibilities, there are major inconsistencies in his various accounts. On some occasions he said that rather than actually seeing the King and Queen, he and Ern Baxter were listening to a radio broadcast:

And a good friend of mine, Brother Ern Baxter, as we were listening to it on the broadcast as it came through, him and his lovely queen setting there... And we were setting in the room and I'll never forget it. Ern got so overcome that he jumped up out of the chair and threw his arms around me and started weeping. And I said, "What's the excitement all about, Brother Baxter?" He said, "Brother Branham, that's my king.(Door in a Door, 23/2/63).

The likely explanation is that Branham was repeating a story told by Ern Baxter of seeing the King and Queen and over time began to believe he had witnessed it himself.

Aside from the rather misleading statements regarding the circumstances of Branham praying for King George there is also the questions of whether he was actually cured and whether it had anything to do with Branham. Firstly it should be noted that King George never had multiple sclerosis. In 1948 King George was diagnosed with arterio-sclerosis (‘hardening of the arteries’) which was probably a consequence of his heavy smoking. This is a quite different condition to multiple sclerosis (presumably Branham did not use the discernment of the ‘angel’ to make a diagnosis on this case). By the end of 1948 the blood circulation in King George’s legs had deteriorated to the point that he was significantly incapacitated. On 12 March 1949 a operation was performed to improve the circulation in his legs. This proved successful and he improved significantly, however this was not a cure but a partial relief for some of his symptoms and King George continued to suffer from arterio-scleroris up until his death. Branham evidently heard reports of King George’s improved health following the operation and attributed it to his prayers. It is true that answer to prayer can come in the form of a successful operation, however it is somewhat presumptuous of Branham to claim the credit for it, considering the many other Christians that would have been praying for him (prayers for the health and wellbeing of the monarch is a common feature of liturgy in the Anglican Church and numerous other Christians would have been praying without prompting). The only thing that appears to connect Branham with the King is a claimed telegram requesting prayer, though it is more probable that it was actually from his private secretary on his behalf, whom Branham claimed was a friend of someone he healed. In summary Branham’s claims to have healed King George are inaccurate and show signs of embellishment. Rather than providing evidence of his healing ministry, the idea he had anything to do with King George’s state of health is reliant upon his reputation. The rather shameless name dropping, in repeatedly mentioning the King, should be considered when claims are made for Branham’s humility.


Rev107 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC) http://www.biblebelievers.org/lkgeorge.htm This website describes the healing of King George. Skeptics need only contact those who hold William Branham's records to ascertain the truth of the incident, and examine the evidence. http://www.branham.org/BranhamDefault.asp?lbi=0 Ken O'Dwyer

Branham the prize fighter?

One of the more dubious claims that Branham made regarding his life story was that he had been a professional boxer including the claims "I won fifty-two straight professional fights. And I lost my fifty-three to Billy Pritchard" (Faith Without Works Is Dead, Aug. 22, 1950) "I had the undefeated title of bantam weight championship of the three states" (Expectation, Feb. 20, 1954) and "I'd won the Bantam Weight Championship in the Golden Gloves." (Results Of Decision, Oct. 08, 1955). With contemporary boxers typically not having much more than ten professional fights a year (often rather less) 53 fights would have taken a few years, typically 4-5 years or more yet there appears to be no point in his life in which to fit this career as a prize fighter (which is puzzling even to Branham's supporters who accept his claim that he was one). Furthermore attempts to find any mention of Branham in contemporary Boxing records, including the Golden Gloves championship shows no mention of him. Winning 52 straight professional fights would certainly be a noteworthy achievement. Branham did remark that as a boy he had ambitions of being a prize fighter: "I finally got me a little girlfriend, and like all little boys, about fifteen years old, I guess. …I wanted to be a prize fighter; that was my idea of life." (Life Story, Apr. 19, 1959). Quite possibly the boyhood fantasy of being a prize fighter became blurred with reality in his mind (there are several other examples of this, including meeting King George VI).

  • I don't believe that meeting King George VI was a fantasy. It would seem quite incredible that someone of Branham's calibre would imagine something like this. What makes you think he is imagining it?
    • See above
      • William Branham never did claim to have won 52 professional fights. He mentioned that he won 15 professional fights in 7 different sermons over a 19 year period. The claim of 52 comes from an early transcription error in one of those sermons when his recorded sermons were used to create a searchable text InfoBase of his sermons in the early 90s. You can find this database with the correct quote at the branham.org web site under “Message Search.” The sermon in question was preached in 1950 and the audio quality is poor resulting in a transcription error. If you listen closely to the audio it is plain that the number he actually says is also 15. I find it incredible that a competent researcher would only find the one place where it seemed William Branham “claimed” 52 professional fights and not find the 6 other places where the number was stated as 15. Especially since this other information is so easy to obtain. (William Branham’s entire collection of sermons has been on the Internet in a searchable InfoBase for 10 years.)


Removed this portion of text from the bottom of the article to clean it up a bit so that it is more NPOV. Might add it later (after it is edited).


Rev107 As has already been noted, some of the old audio tapes have poor quality. The boxer's name was not Billy Pritchard, but Billy Frick. This can be quite easily verifed by listening carefully to the tape (50-0822). The early tape transcripts occasionally contain such errors. The lastest up to date Message Search is correct. http://www.branham.org/MessageSearch.htm Another skeptic's rash claims bite the dust :) Ken O'Dwyer

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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)

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! Talk • Work 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. Wikipedia: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! Talk • Work 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! Talk • Work 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 Wikipedia policies on no original research.
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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! Talk • Work 10:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased

I am an avid user of Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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! Talk • Work 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.
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/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)

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! Talk • Work 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 Wikipedia 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! Talk • Work 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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! Talk • Work 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy. Taxee (talk) 17:52, 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 Wikipedia 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)

NPOV dispute -Biography

Wikipedia'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.[1]". 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 Wikipedia.
To repeat what is stated earlier in this talk page, Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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

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 Wikipedia 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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
Fixed Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Removed Darlig Gitarist (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Expanded Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:56, 3 August 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.  DoctorG  (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)
Changed Darlig Gitarist (talk) 01:39, 24 August 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)
Clarified. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 01:43, 24 August 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

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


  • " the opening of the seals revealed very little new doctrine..."-This takes place in the Book of the Apocalypse. Wikipedia 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.  DoctorG  (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 Wikipedia. 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)
All non-Harvard footnotes have been replaced. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Done Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:49, 16 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. DoctorG  (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 Wikipedia 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. DoctorG  (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!  DoctorG  (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. DoctorG  (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2017 (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! Talk • Work 17:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_M._Branham/Archive_1&oldid=1092130877"