Talk:William M. Branham

Community reassessment

William M. Branham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drafted

This was added to the article:

Branham was drafted on October 16, 1940, with his full name officially recorded as "William Marvin Branham".

The source does not actually say Branham was drafted, and I have not found any evidence of military service in any other source I have reviewed. I think the correct way to look at the information is that Branham "registered for the draft", but was not actually drafted. That said, I do find that to be a very important fact. Everyone registers for the draft in the United States since World War II. But is interesting that he had a different name on his draft registration. I converted that to a footnote at the start of the article where his name is first presented. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Request edit on 6 October 2021

• What I think should be changed:

Joseph Coleman, a follower of William Branham in the United States with influence over multiple churches, "perpetrated a multi-million dollar fraud through an investment management company". News reported that Coleman had solicited over $20 million in funds under false claims.

• Why it should be changed:

If it is possible, I want to point out wrong information on this page about the above statement. I am intimately familiar with this case and the people who were involved. I am not a member of their church; I am only pointing out the correction for the sake of accuracy and fact. There are two "Joseph Coleman"'s. There is the father "Joseph Coleman" and his son and namesake "Joseph Jonathan Coleman", so it is easy to get them mixed up. These are 2 different people. Father and pastor Joseph Coleman (passed away in 2012) was very well known and a follower of William Branham in the United States with influence over multiple churches. But he had absolutely nothing to do with Jadis Capital, the investment management company. He was never involved in the company. His son "Joseph Jonathan Coleman" was personally involved in Jadis Capital and was one of the 5 managers in the company; he was also a follower of William Branham like his father, but is not well known and did not have influence over multiple churches. So you have the wrong "Joseph Coleman". The problem is the statement on the page as is gives the false impression that it was the father and pastor "Joseph Coleman" that perpetrated the fraud. Anyone reading that who is not familiar with the case will immediately get that false impression. Anyone who is familiar with the case will know this is absolutely not true. Also, by far the main perpetrator of the fraud was "Isaac Ovid" from Trinidad and Tobago, who was the owner and CEO of the company, and who hired all the others to help him manage the company. You can see evidence of that here He was also a minister and follower of William Branham. If anyone's name should be mentioned, it should be his. Please make the correction, if you can. Thank you

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

The request does not provide suggested wording for the requested edit. Additionally, the referenced New York Times article specifically implicates the elder Mr. Coleman as the SEC stated he held public prayer for the venture in June 2004 which resulted in many parishioners expressing interest in investing. While the article could be expanded to detail the involvement of the senior Coleman, the added detail would not benefit the article as a whole. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 15:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I made some minor tweaks to the text to better distinguish between father and son. Hopefully that will bring a little better clarity. I agree, it is probably not notable enough to expand those couple sentences into a full paragraph explanation. That said, it may be worth its own article since it is linked to a court case. Many court cases are notable enough to warrant a full article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Loveroftruth97 (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

References

William branham

Large portions of this article are terribly incorrect.William Branham never had nothing to do with the klan except they paid his hospital bill when he was young and he did not promote any ministry of Jim jones 173.191.236.189 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

He was ordained a minister by the Imperial Wizard of the KKK. And he held joint meetings with Jim Jones for several years. Are you saying the sources are incorrect? If you have a reliable source for, it that would be great to include in the article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet you can’t be so sure the sources claiming all that are being honest and legit. 2603:6011:9600:52C0:55B4:215A:E03F:81C8 (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If you find some of the cited sources do not meet the requirements of WP:RS feel free to point them out. We certainly would want to address that, if it were an issue. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Nuage mystérieux William.M.Branham.jpeg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)