Talk:William M. Branham/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

General

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

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

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

Added iconic photo to infobox under 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)

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

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

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

In response to your comments:

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

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

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

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

(5) Clarified this by changing the wording

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

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

I took the statement from the intros to the 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• " the opening of the seals revealed very little new doctrine..."-This takes place in the Book of the Apocalypse. 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.  Doctor^G  (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think this is sufficently covered and referenced now. Doctor^G  (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. Doctor^G  (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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