Talk:Billy Graham

Pneumonia

Graham was hospitalized on May 11th. I'm assuming this is sufficiently notable because it got headline billing on CNN.com and news articles are popping up every minute. Rklawton (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Religious views?

I think there should be a section that discusses his religious views. 68.104.173.148 (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not NPOV?

This article sure has a pro-Christian slant to it.

'According to his staff, more than 3.2 million people have responded to the invitation at Billy Graham Crusades to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, many to the altar call song "Just As I Am".' Doesn't exactly sound neutral to me. How about '...have responded to the invitation to convert to Christianity' or 'have become christians' at Billy Graham Crusades?

203.109.246.72 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well considering he's probably the most well-known living Christian I'm not surprised that it's pro-Christian. The problem with your suggested changes are that he invites them to accept Jesus as their personal saviour. They may already have faith positions that could be characterized as Christian such as any one of the various forms of Catholicism. So you can't assume that they're not already Christian or that they are becoming Christians. Then on the other side of the coin is the position that they haven't actually become Christians as that involves discipleship. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, "have become 'born again' Christians at Graham's behest" or "have become Baptised (according to whatever convention he preaches) as a result of his works." There's more than one way to skin a cat. It may not be surprising it has a pro-Christian slant, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed so it doesn't. "...have responded to the invitation to accept Jesus as their personal saviour" seems subtly to suggest that he actually is their saviour and these people have come to accept that 'fact' when it hasn't been established as such. It just occurs to me that it could be said better, preferably by someone other than me, who knew nothing about Graham until he stumbled on this article last night. Also, Billy Graham better known than Pope Ratzinger, Barach Obama and Queen Elizabeth II? I doubt it, somehow. 60.226.45.225 (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say to the article critic, seeing this from a logical wikipedia POV, are you serious?

The particular individuals in question inside the article have responded to an invitation which was "invitation X". So therefore the article states that a specified number of people responded to "invitation X". I mean, are you seriously criticizing this article on this basis?

I believe introducing a bias into this article is wrong, and if the article is stating that Rev. Billy Graham has had Y number of people respond to his invitation X, then this is the appropriate stating of the facts. By questioning this, I believe you are introducing a anti-Billy Graham bias, and therefore your suggestions should be disregarded. I do not know Billy Graham nor have heard any of his speeches/writings, and I suggest his Wikipedia entry contain but unbiased factual data. I don't think it is wise to conclude that ["...have responded to the invitation to accept Jesus as their personal saviour" seems subtly to suggest that he actually is their saviour and these people have come to accept that 'fact' when it hasn't been established as such."] Stating that Y number of people responded to the invitation to accept Jesus as their personal saviour does not imply that it has or has not been established, that he is or is not. It is just a response to Billy Graham's particular invitation. Nothing more, nothing less. Hense I suggest, you are coming at this criticism from a anti-Billy Graham, or possibly anti-christain POV, and therefore, are unbiased. I believe it would be wise as in individual hoping to edit wikipedia, to remain unbiased while attempting to present logical influence to the further improvement of Wikipedia articles. 68.61.47.116 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster here that the chosen wording comes off as a little biased. I think it's all because of the word "accept" in this context. Maybe this is just a semantics argument, but to me, the word implies that something has already been established as true. At the same time, I see why "convert to Christianity" doesn't necessarily describe it either, for the reasons already pointed out (e.g. the conversion could be from some other sect of Christianity). WillieBlues (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the writer is anti-Billy to any degree. It's just that this "article" reads like an advertisement to become a Christian and "join the club." Blondesareeasy (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe the article is written factually. Billy's ministry was to invite people to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior. How do you write that neutrally without altering what he actually did? Most of the people did not accept this invitation until Jesus was real to them. Obviously, this is not done at a scientific or hard science level. The fact is Billy gave his invitation in just that way. How we respond to it is based on our own realities. Christians applaud it. Anti-Christians hate it and resent it. People in the middle may feel a tug to go forward, or may still resist it. Our feelings are mixed into our objective reasoning; even the most logical among us still make 70% of their decisions based on how they feel. So, it doesn't surprise me that some people are wanting to soften or alter Billy's message, but the fact remains that this is his message. He invited people to accept Jesus as their savior. Like it or not, reject or accept it, that's what he did. And that is what is true for any evangelist from any religion, and even from marketing gurus pushing products. Alrich44 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Odd

It is odd that Graham could not remember a conversation with a President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

See note 43. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Many conversations, limited storage for memory. Only the unusual would stand out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Award and honors

Section "Award and honors" is a result of random edits of random editors. It should be improved. "Congressional Gold Medal" is mentioned twice in different paragraphs, but according to you it is correct. Some sentences are wrongly referenced. For instance this one:

"He has received the Congressional Gold Medal from the United States Congress and the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Reagan, America's highest civilian honors."

It is referenced to this site, but there is nothing about these two medals. It needs correct references. Why you do not want to improve this article? There are plenty of dead links. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't hide discussions about articles on the talk pages of individual editors. I have no problems with fixing the article, so I'll go clean-up the mess you made and maybe you can stop thinking your edits are perfect.

OK Now that I've read everything you've said I can only conclude you're not familiar with the Internet or the technologies around web pages. The previous reference wasn't duplicated. An anonymous editor just added it and you mangled it even worse minutes later. I reverted all of it. Then you added your edit back. The reference you were looking for was on the second page. http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/07/The-Billy-Pulpit.aspx?p=2.

As for dead links, I'm not sure what you're talking about? I just ran it through a tool that checks for them and it didn't find any.

So now I get to ask you: do you want to improve the article or just push your POV? I'm reverting to where it was 12 hours ago. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did not read this page carefully, I was only looking for word "medal" (only 30 seconds), but there are more important things. Perhaps you can add more references, there are some unreferenced paragraphs. The lead should be expanded (every article longer than 30k should have at least three paragraphs. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't see the big "Continued on Page 2" when you reached the bottom?

Where did you pull that stat about ledes from? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in that case I did not see it, and I do not know why. Sometimes I use much more advanced Internet technologies, you can see that in my manuscript articles. Wikipedia:LEAD#Length - basic wikipedia standards. Are you unfamiliar with wikipedia standards? I know it happens. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen that section of that MOS page, but I have seen "Continued on Page X" multiple times. You use more advanced Internet technologies? Perhaps you should stick to browsers that render the page correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Scottish descent

Billy Graham is also a Scottish American on both sides of his family. His mother was a Bell and his father a Graham (both surnames of Scottish origin) and his geneology can be seen on this site [1] his ancestor Matthew Stewart, born 1720 in Scotland as were his ancestors with other Scottish surnames like Harris and Stewart.Uthican (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The URL provided does not work. Rklawton (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

okay thats strange as it worked just as I searched for it, how about this book "Billy Graham, the preacher James E. Kilgore Exposition Press, 1968 - Biography & Autobiography" states his father was of Scottish descent. "Narratives of the religious self in early-modern Scotland

By David George Mullan p27 Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2010" states Graham was born in 1918 near Charlotte, North Carolina of Scottish descent. Are they ok? As I have yet to find his ancestry os of English or Irish I'll remove those until someone finds an article to wiki standards and re-edit the Scottish descent in.Uthican (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the URL. It's not a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My real concern is how many generations back do we go? I don't know of a policy, but I would argue that two generations (grand-parents) would be the maximum.

Basing genealogy simply on family name is not sufficient. Country of origin may not be sufficient as a person's heritage and descent may be involved in more than names, particularly when it comes to Americans.

I would also argue that any geological category that does not have support in the article should be removed. Perhaps we should have someone from the appropriate project(s) advise on the subject. Those projects would be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy. Perhaps someone watching the various nationality categories: Category:American people of English descent, Category:American people of Irish descent, and Category:American people of Scottish descent. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The word "geological" seems to be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is. How about I spell genealogical and not let my spell checker "fix" it for me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to Uthican's point: James E. Kilgore, Billy Graham, The Preacher, Exposition Press, 1968 and David George Mullan, Narratives of the Religious Self in Early-Modern Scotland, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2010, p27, appear to be sufficient RS to establish that Graham was of Scottish descent. I added it to the text and in categories. In addition, the Presbyterian Church was strongly associated with Scottish immigrants and their descendants in the US. Parkwells (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Graham and Harry Truman

The article incorrectly referred to Plain Speaking as Harry Truman's "autobiography". That is not true. Plain Speaking is allegedly an oral biography of Truman written and edited by Merle Miller. Unfortunately, the book is notoriously inaccurate (for instance, the "account" of Truman's meeting with MacArthur at Wake Island is markedly different from eyewitness accounts of the event). In fact, I believe members of Truman's own family have said that the book contains distortions. Thus, there is reason to question the accuracy of Truman's "comments" about Billy Graham. It's quite possible that Miller simply made it up.97.73.64.173 (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not "allegedly" an oral biography, it IS an oral biography for which President Truman was interviewed for hundreds of hours over a period of several years in the early 1960s. If you're going to call it "notoriously inaccurate" kindly cite your sources. As Truman is quoted verbatim throughout (since the sessions were audiotaped) there can be little doubt as to what he actually said. As to MacArthur and Truman: they spoke alone so the only witnesses to what was said were the two men themselves. I don't believe (though I could be wrong) that MacArthur ever gave his account of the meeting. It is a fact, however, that Truman had no use for Graham and viewed him as an opportunist. A quick read through the section of this article relating to the presidents will make it pretty clear that Truman was correct.Gillartsny (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's enough to accurately show Truman's opinion as quoted by Miller.Parkwells (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Evangelical Christian is not the same as Christian and it's not the same as an evangelist.

If you look at evangelism, the hat note currently reads "Not to be confused with Evangelicalism." This seems to be something that at least one editor is doing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Walter, didn't we go through something like this before with Carman? Now with Billy?

Again, there is no religion called "Evangelical Christianity." Sometimes in an infobox in Religion, it could be written as "Christianity (evangelical)" (like for Rick Perry), but for Billy Graham, it says Evangelist and Southern Baptist. Just one of those means that he is evangelical. Evangelicalism is not a sect. The word "evangelical" should also not be in the lead. A person can be evangelical and not be an evangelist (one who evangelizes), but a person cannot be an evangelist and not be evangelical (one who believes in evangelizing). --Musdan77 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There is is a movement within Christianity known as Evangelicalism. People identify themselves within the movement. They are known as Evangelicals or Evangelical Christians.

These people are not evangelists, which is an office is the church.

He is not a fundamentalist, which many prominent evangelists are. He is not a charismatic, which other evangelists are. He is an evangelical. It should be firmly in the lede because it identifies who he is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I will concede that there's a difference between evangelical and evangelistic (though the lines do often cross). And there are different definitions for fundamentalism, as there is for evangelicalism -- and charismaticism, for that matter, but I'm not going to get into that here. But when it comes to the Religion parameter in the infobox, like I said, there is no religion called "Evangelical Christianity," and should not be listed as such. All Christians, no matter what the doctrine, are a part of the religion called Christianity. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I will concede your point here if you go to all of the infoboxes of Governors General in Canada and change the religion parameter there so that it doesn't list a denomination but rather lists Christianity as well. I have been told that religion doesn't mean religion in those discussions. I don't know if the template backs that point or if it's consensus, but it's standard practice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Among seminary circles (including Gordon-Conwell which he co-founded with Harold John Ockenga), Billy Graham is heralded as one of the architects of Evangelicalism (a.k.a., Neo-Evangelicalism or "The Mid-Twentieth Century Evangelical Revival") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.76 (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

2.2 Billion

Have 2.2/7 billion people really heard Billy Graham speak? I find that to be amazingly high. The cited article is behind a paywall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.168.217 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Google lists several other sources, which ultimately return to Graham's organization, that state similar numbers.The statement is not that 2.2 billion different people listened, rather that this was the cumulative audience. The TV broadcasts were quarterly, I believe, and in prime time and the weekly radio program ran for 50 years. So if the same person listened to the weekly program alone for the entire fifty years that would be 52 X 50 = 2600 "listeners". And then if you add his monthly events (or were they quarterly as well?) in stadiums, where 50,000 or more people would attend nightly for six days, you get a sense at how quickly the numbers can add-up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

wordy...

Is there a better way of saying "evangelical evangelist"? This just sounds weird... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you offer a way to indicate his theological affiliation and his spiritual calling? Evangelicalism is a theologically conservative position in Christianity. It is identified in the Western branch of Christianity and as non-Catholic. It identifies him as non-Liberal and non-Fundamentalist. As for his calling, he's an evangelist. So if you can find a better way to state this, fee free to suggest it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If I had one, I would've just changed it. Maybe just not place the two words in the same phrase? I'm not talking about word-choice about talking the evan-evan following each other so closely... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that to someone who doesn't know what the terms mean it can be confusing, and I did have a back-and-forth with another editor over this a while ago. As it currently reads, "is an American evangelical Christian evangelist", there are links to both terms to help clarify the meanings. They're not immediately next to each other, and they both nouns are required to describe who he is. It's important since many modern-day evangelists are Fundamentalists or Charismatic. It would do a disservice to the subject and the community to remove it from the opening sentence. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its function is to use words correctly, I'm not sure that I see a major issue here. If this were the Simple English version I would "fix" it, however even they list it as "is an American Evangelical Christian minister and evangelist". May I suggest lobbying the lexicographical community to come up with words that don't use the root word "εὐαγγέλιον" (euangelion = good messenger = "the Gospel") to describe the theological bent and the calling? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Over-reliance on few sources

One article, briefly called "When Worlds Collide", is cited 12 times, and a 1993 TIME article more than that. These seem to give UNDUE WEIGHT, looking at Graham's achievements in terms of the number of people he preached to. In addition, editors have sometimes gone beyond the article in using it, for instance, ascribing meaning to Truman's dislike of Graham that is different than that found by his biographer in Truman's quote. I have deleted content that was not in the article. There appear to be good scholarly sources that provide more of a critical overview, and these should be used. Parkwells (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Presidential pastor

There seems an emphasis on proving he was influential with presidents, but every encounter or reference does not need to be listed. It is speculation to write that he would have officiated at two high-level funerals except for illness, and I have deleted that. Parkwells (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Foreign policy views

This section needs secondary sources, not just Graham's quotes. There are scholarly works about him that should be used.Parkwells (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Parkwells (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Relations with Jews

Part of the article suggests that Graham built positive relationships with Jews, unlike some other evangelists, but content is mostly about the controversy following release of tapes capturing his very anti-Semitic remarks with Nixon in 1972. There needs to be content from secondary sources that provides a fuller picture, and why the tapes were such a shock.Parkwells (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Need authors

Editors should provide full cites with authors identified for articles.Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Little qualitative evaluation

There is so much emphasis on events and numbers, that it is like reading his organization's press releases. What did his revivals accomplish? Did people increase charitable giving, save children, start schools, provide health care, or just listen to him? It's probably an issue with all evangelists, but there have been critical works about him that should be referred to for his historical legacy, and not just opinion polls.Parkwells (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Alleged death in November 2011

An editor recently added a death date of November 2011. This is incorrect, as shown by this story about a false report of Graham's death. I will remove the death date from the article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need to notify us about someone who is clearly alive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Lausanne Movement

(Billy Graham's role in the Lausanne Movement has not been mentioned in this article. The intention of this section of the talk page is to document that role and demonstrate its importance for the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"The Lausanne movement came into existence as a result of the vision and support of the most respected evangelist in our day, Billy Graham." The movement came out of the International Congress on World Evangelism (ICOWE) held in July of 1974. Graham led in the convening of that congress. "Time magazine called it 'possibly the widest-ranging meeting of Christians ever held.' "

It needs to be reworked since it doesn't read smoothly or appropriately and should include material from Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. It should also be correctly wikilinked. I tried to reconcile the two sources but don't understand the subject sufficiently to do that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nostly, get rid of the two direct quotes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of Evangelical Christian in the infobox

"Evangelical Christian" is, I suppose, no denomination. It seems to me, that I have read he is a Baptist. Is it so? 86.115.5.194 (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes he is a Baptist, a Southern Baptist to be specific. No, Evangelicalism isn't a denomination: It's a collection of ideas that defines a number of denominations and would qualify as a religion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with Walter on the religion, this brings up a question: there is a parameter for denomination, shouldn't it be used with Southern Baptist? --Musdan77 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Graham's support of a North Carolina Amendment appropiate in the Controversy section

While the issue is a wedge issue, Graham's position on it was hardly controversial, especially since it is a common one for example the amendment passed with 63% of North Carolinians supporting. Just because the position generates disagreement hardly means it generated controversy, I mean from my point of view it would be controversial if the longtime evangelical leader came out against it. To judge a position on a wedge issue controversial while the opposite position would not be called controversial, for example in Former Governor Bev Perdue's article it doesn't seem to me her position against the amendment would be categorized as such. It is the Wrong section it belongs in another unless I missing something here we can’t call it a controversy. John D. Rockerduck (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You are misreading it. It was controversial in the public eye and to other Evangelicals. If he had come out in favour of gay marriage, as Steve Chalk has, that would be controversial as well. However, the reasons would be polar opposite to the controversy that he raised by taking the side that he did on this issue. Look at it this way, if he had come out in favour of Dr. King and the civil rights movement, that would have been controversial with those opposed to the movement. If he had refused to accept the principles of the civil rights movement, that too would have been controversial with those in favour of it. The same occurs here. Since this issue is perceived as a political and not a religious issue, even though I disagree with that opinion, any religious figure who takes a stand on this perceived political issue is courting controversy. 04:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Mid-Century Crusade

I believe that Wheaton College (Mr. Graham's alma mater) has archives of a mid-century Crusade. It isn't certain whether he started this in Grand Rapids, or at Dr. Harold John Ockenga's request -- when he both preached at Park Street Church and the then-Boston Gardens. It wasn't until 1951 when it returned to Los Angeles when it was recognized by Time Magazine as the first Transcontinental Crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.19.122 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Presidential Candidate and LGBT Material Adds

Hello, the edits being added are not cited and are inflammatory. The must have citations if they are to remain and not be reverted.--TRL (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Was Graham a critic of Catholicism because he opposed Kennedy's candidacy?

I don't know that being against Kennedy makes him a critic of the denomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair question. I certainly agree that being against Kennedy because, e.g., you were a committed Republican, or thought Nixon was better on the issues, or whatever, would have nothing to do with being critical of Catholicism. However, the sentence in this article (which was added long before I ever showed up) states that Graham "was opposed to the candidacy of John F. Kennedy because he was Catholic" (emphasis added). This is backed up by the linked source for that sentence, a transcript of an interview on PBS, where Rev. Randall Balmer, a historian of religion at Barnard College at Columbia University whose research specialty is squarely in this area, states that Rev. Graham was "very concerned about the prospect of a Roman Catholic in the White House...."

Rev. Graham is an exemplary human being, and has certainly become admirably ecumenical in his later years. Personally, I admire him as a man and as a Christian.

However, at one time in his life he was opposed to the prospect of a Catholic, qua Catholic, being President, as the PBS source proves. I'm trying to add people to the category "Critics of Catholicism" so that someone doing, e.g., a research project on the topic has a handy list of people who've been notably critical of Catholicism, the Catholic Church, or Catholics qua Catholics. That's the kind of thing that, in my mind, makes categories useful for readers of Wikipedia. That Rev. Graham, one of the most prominent Christians in 20th century U.S. history, once held the views he did is notable, and it might be useful to readers for us to note it. And the history backs it up. It's notable and it's reliably sourced. That's my rationale. I respect that you may still differ. All the best, Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Flawed logic. He was opposed to John F. Kennedy because he was Catholic. That makes him anti-Catholic, not a critic of Catholicism. If he had preached a sermon that stated why Catholicism was wrong and then ended it by stating that for this reason alone you should not support John F. Kennedy, then he would be a critic of Catholicism. However the logic here does not follow. You're making a leap of logic not supported by any statement in the article. And even if he were simply against Catholicism, that too doesn't make him a critic of it. The fact that there's no category for that is not an issue to discuss in this article though. Luther was a critic of Catholicism. Calvin also. Tyndale, Knox and especially Jack T. Chick were all critics of Catholicism. Graham never was. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well argued. I see your point. I'll revert my change. Thanks for arguing so cogently. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Superstar Billy Graham

FYI, the usage "Superstar Billy Graham" is under discussion. you may be interested, see Talk:Billy Graham (wrestler) -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Which George Bush delivered the eulogy for Ronald Reagan?

The sentence This was mentioned by George Bush in his eulogy is found towards the end of the section Pastor to presidents. In my experience, the name 'George Bush' when used by the media or persons of some renown has always referred to George H. W. Bush but as you can see, the internal link is to the George W. Bush article. I would change the link as appropriate but the sentence lacks a citation so I can't easily find out which of them delivered the eulogy. (I assume it was George W. Bush as he was POTUS at the time but I shouldn't make an edit based on an assumption.) Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Evangelical Christian evangelist?

I see Mr Graham is described as an "evangelical Christian evangelist". Is this not redundant? Please excuse my ignorance, I'm unfamiliar with the finer gradations of American Christianity.

Is there such as thing as an evangelical Christian nonevangelist (or a nonevangelical Christian evangelist)?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not redundant.

Evangelicalism is a division of Christianity.

Evangelism is an occupation.

Hope that helps.

I am an evangelical Christian who is not an evangelist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you: nice and concise. Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikiquotes

I know it sounds daft: but I’ve noticed the Billy Graham has a Wikiquote page.

Would it be worth while putting a link to it in the ‘See Also’, or ‘References’ section: or where-ever is felt appropriate?

I know it sounds daft, but I know I’d find something like that, useful … 

Cuddy2977 (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's already there. It's on the right side of the external links section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, didn’t spot that! My NEXT questions … ? Are ‘Are there similar links on other biographical entries?’ And ‘couldn’t they be a BIT more prominent … ?’ Just as a thought … Cuddy2977 (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There are two templates that could be used, {{Sister project links}} and {{Wikiquote}}. You can see what links to each by clicking on the "what links here" link on the left side. The latter has thousands of links. I won't even try to figure out how many the former has. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry

It should be made more clear that Tullian Tchividjian, so the children of "Gigi" (Virginia) have lived up to their grandfather's (Billy Graham) dynasty. I think there is too much focus on Will Graham, and the eldest son of Billy (even though rightly so because he is the heir of the Billy Graham Ministries group) 182.255.99.214 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)