Talk:William M. Branham/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

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^G  (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 Wikipedia 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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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. Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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^G  (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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^G  (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 [x] reported that [y] happened" should not be based on the report in Newspaper [x]. And that's not because it is a question of faith healing, by the way - in the same way, a Wikipedia 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^G  (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 [a], [b], and [c] reported from the event", and for that, newspapers [a], [b], and [c] 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^G  (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^G  (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 Wikipedia policies. Doctor^G  (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^G  (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^G  (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 Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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.[24][25] 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.[24] 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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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.[24] The photograph showed a light appearing above Branham's head.[24][25] 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.[24] 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 Wikipedia. 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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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 Wikipedia 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

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's voice rather than identifying the claim ("perhaps the most famous relic [etc]") 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^G  (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.[10] 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.[11]

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 Wikipedia'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.[13][14] (Harrell is listed here as a reference [13], 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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 Wikipedia'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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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 Wikipedia'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 [1] 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 Wikipedia'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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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^G  (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 Wikipedia 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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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^G  (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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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 Wikipedia article. What is the quote in the book? Doctor^G  (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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^G  (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^G  (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^G  (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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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^G  (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^G  (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 Wikipedia article on William David Upshaw. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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^G  (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 Wikipedia 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^G  (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

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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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^G  (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^G  (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 Wikipedia. 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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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 (Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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^G  (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^G  (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^G  (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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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 Wikipedia 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^G  (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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 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

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^G  (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 Wikipedia, it's rarely productive. Doctor^G  (talk) 20:17, 4 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^G  (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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.[17] Historians generally mark the 1946 meetings as inaugurating the modern healing revival.[18] 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".{{http://table.branham.org|The Mainfestation of the Spirit|51-l0717|1951|p=34}} 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^G  (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 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 09:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

References

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^G  (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^G  (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^G  (talk) 14:08, 8 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 [x place] on [x date]), 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 Wikipedia'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^G  (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)