Talk:Billy Graham/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Views on homosexuality

The Views on Homosexuality section seems to have been added today, and makes a short statement that could use more qualification. It uses a single source that is dated today 2/21/2018, immediately after his death, from a news site that itself does not source the relevant claims about AIDS, and seems to have a strong pro-LGBT stance. This section should be expanded and have better sources.

In particular I would suggest at least changing "anti-gay", which is a fairly charged word, to something like "Graham was opposed to homosexual marriage and practices." 68.65.69.154 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the section. It was not reliably sourced, and it would need to be demonstrated that this was a significant part of his belief structure. It should be discussed here first. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:StAnselm: Why is Pink News not an RS?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's another RS we could cite:

• Ring, Trudy (February 21, 2018). "What the Obits Aren't Saying: Evangelist Billy Graham Was a Homophobe". The Advocate. Retrieved February 21, 2018.

Please restore the section and we can add more RS if you like! It had an "expand section" tag for a reason.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Use the BBC: "A social conservative, he opposed same-sex marriage and abortion." Billy Graham: Influential US evangelist dies at 99. Kablammo (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if I am allowed to restore the info as I am the one who put it in the first time around... But I'd be happy to expand it once it's there.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Because of their particular interests and biases, Pink News and The Advocate are always going to emphasise Graham's views on gay issues. We would need a more neutral source to suggest that this is an important part of Graham's life and thought. The BBC article might be such a reference, but it only mentions same-sex marriage in passing. And in fact, same-sex marriage is already mentioned in this article. StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's only one subsection.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And the fact that the headline is "What the Obits Aren't Saying..." suggests that we don't need to say it either. StAnselm (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It should be added back and even expanded. The reference from Kablammo is a good starting point. ContentEditman (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And now is a good time to remind people that this article is still covered by WP:BLP policy. And we don't normally have a separate subsection in BLPs for things that are just mentioned in passing, even if it is the BBC. StAnselm (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And that is why I added several new references other than just the BBC. There are a lot more and his statements of Aids, same sex marriage, etc.. are well known and documented. He even took out full page Ads in NC over it. ContentEditman (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's still undue weight; why have a section on "Views on homosexuality"? Why not put it in a section on "social conservatism", for example, following the BBC statement? StAnselm (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's undue. If anything, it needs to be expanded. It's in the "controversies" section, as he held controversial views on Jews, women and gays apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Opposing same-sex marriage is hardly "controversial"; millions of people oppose it. I'm OK with it being expanded into a subsection on "social views" more generally, and moved out of the "controversies" subsection. StAnselm (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not just same-sex marriage. Why did you remove his views on AIDS as "judgement from God"? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No, but WP:BLPREMOVE is! Did you read the source? The actual quote said that he wasn't sure; AND the statement was retracted. StAnselm (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Advocate is more thorough. It wouldn't be a BLP violation to say he said it and then retracted it and apologized. It was controversial for him to have said that.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

He also called homosexuality "detestable" and "a sinister form of perversion". Yes, that's from Pink News, but there is no need to censor/sanitize this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The BBC article far more of a neutral source, and could be used to source the sentence as it was proposed above: "Graham was opposed to homosexual marriage and practices." It could be expanded to include his antiabortion stance as well as the BBC piece calls it "social conservatism". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Just jumping in that StAnselm's argument that LGBT focused sources are unreliable because they are LGBT focused instead of on the merit of the source's quality seems like an untenable position. Advocate is a RS. Rab V (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as Pink News goes, the last time it was raised at WP:RSN it was rejected. StAnselm (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I am less aware of Pink News but the Advocate has a strong history. I am unaware of anything from RS policy that would imply a source is biased merely because it has an LGBT-focus, or is focused towards any particular group but that was your sole argument for discounting the Advocate.Rab V (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm looking for The Advocate's editorial policy but I can't see anything. Can you find it? StAnselm (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make an argument about The Advocate's editorial policies feel free but that is not the one you are making now. Wikipedia policy on RS states that not all news sources make their editorial policy public. Rab V (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand why a short, objective, and factual statement on these two issues is giving them undue weight. If you wish, put them in a section on his views and beliefs on social issues, but they are relevant and belong in the article. Kablammo (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

But then we'd have to do the same with his views on women. Why should gays be treated differently in this Wikipedia article?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not about giving groups equal representation. It's about writing an accurate and balanced biography of a person. StAnselm (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. So there is no need to censor/sanitize his views on homosexuality!Zigzig20s (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

An accurate and balanced biography will include mention of his beliefs on social issues-- civil rights, women, abortion, and homosexuality. They can all be put in a section entitled "Social Issues", with subheadings for each. I will be happy to do that once the edit flurry dies down. Kablammo (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that. StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No-one is attempting to do that. The question is whether his views on homosexuality are notable and significant. Coverage in Pink News and The Advocate don't demonstrate that, because naturally they are the views they pick up on. Opposing SSM is not particularly significant, but a mention might be justified (and was indeed already in the article). The AIDS comment might be significant, but it was retracted. StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

His views on gay rights absolutely are notable and relevant. 2012 was not a long time ago. Kablammo (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And it's their recentism that is the problem in constructing a biography of a person who lived to the age of 99. If Graham first started speaking on the subject at age 93, it's possibly not that important in terms of his whole life. StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

St. Anselm, I mean no disrespect here, and do not challenge your sincerity. But these issues are important, and the views of leaders in politics, religion, and other areas of society are newsworthy and important. Mentioning them hardly gives them undue import. Kablammo (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because his statements on AIDs were retracted, after blow back, does not make them any less relevant. They are well known and referenced. ContentEditman (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's an article I found on Newspapers.com:

• Graham, Billy (July 9, 1977). "Homosexuality a sin". The Daily Reporter. Dover, Ohio. p. 18. Retrieved February 22, 2018 – via Newspapers.com. Whether or not you choose to accept it, the truth of the matter is that homosexual practises are sin in the eyes of God. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

I don't have time to look for more right now but there must be many.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

StAnselm seems confused about RS policy, claiming sources are biased and therefore shouldn't be used because they cater to a specific subgroup. This argument doesn't seem to be used for sources like Christianity Today or Christian Post only the LGBT focused ones, but even if we ignore that RS policy seems clear that all such sources should be OK to use in general. Quote from policy on RS here "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." The policy also states in bold the need for "making sure that all majority and significant minority views" are covered.Rab V (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not so much RS policy as due weight (and therefore neutrality) policy. They're not great sources for working out what to include in a biography. StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It kinda seems like you have an enormous bias in Graham's favour. People have cited numerous sources confirming his homophobia, including from the man's own pen. Why are you choosing to die on this hill? I kinda feel a lot like it's for personal reasons, not due to a concern with accuracy. 64.208.131.46 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really - my suspicions were aroused when it was only added to the article after his death. Why now, after all these years? Not because of the obits, presumably - of the hundreds of produced, only a few mention homosexuality. StAnselm (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And if we were to have due weight in this section, we might need to say something like "after 1993, Graham largely steered clear of the subject of homosexuality" (source: NBC). StAnselm (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Well, that is incorrect, given his opposition to same-sex marriage.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what NBC says. Now, they're comparing Billy to Franklin - but it's also a check against our feelings about what is important and significant: in the context of Graham's whole life, homosexuality was not a major issue. Almost all evangelical Christian leaders are/were opposed to SSM; it's not a surprising or controversial position. StAnselm (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is why 5 lines would be fine, not 8 paragraphs. And there was also the AIDS comment and describing homosexuality as "a sin". Not just SSM.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, calling homosexuality a "sin" is the normal evangelical position - not surprising or controversial.StAnselm (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not Evangelicalpedia. This is Wikipedia. In mainstream culture, yes, it is controversial to refer to homosexuality as "sin"!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it? I'd like to see a reliable source for that - at least, a reliable source for Graham causing controversy for saying it. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, emphasises that they don't list hate groups on the basis of saying homosexuality is sin. StAnselm (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not SPLCpedia. In any case, I don't think it's undue. It sounds like you do but you are an outlier, and we add content based on consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If supported by RS I'd support such a statement too. Judging due weight is a bit subjective but I see enough mention on Grahams positions on LGBT issues in a variety of sources to merit some space in article. Rab V (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is another article we could cite:

• Moser, Bob (February 23, 2018). "The Soul-Crushing Legacy of Billy Graham". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 1 March 2018. We traffic in homosexuality at the peril of our spiritual welfare. Your affection for another of your own sex is misdirected, and you will be judged by God's holy standards.

Shall we expand the subsection then?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Considering the sway Billy Graham's positions hold over his adherents and admirers, those speaking to AIDS, homosexuality, and women are all very much worthy of address in this article. Frankly, the suggestion Billy's expression on these issues aren't suitable for inclusion is an outsized absurdity- it would be a bizarre for this aspect of his legacy to be absent. The attempt to justify excluding this material by impugning credible sources is an abuse of the time and energy of editors acting in good will. The suggestion that Graham's position on these issue aren't controversial because those positions are embraced by some subset of the population is likewise a disservice to the spirit of this space. I strongly support the restoration of those sourced quotes in which Graham himself delineates his positions.Mavigogun (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No one is impugning credible sources as none have been presented. What we have a is reliable sources that discuss the issue.

One draws a straight line between the concept and Graham. There are others that state that Graham and the topic are somehow related but never connect the dots. So we don't have what you're suggesting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? The Advocate literally says "Graham was a homophobe". That's pretty clear. Then we have direct quotes from the man himself comparing it to sin and peril, etc. Yes, they're all credible insofar as there is no reason to disbelieve these sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I was specifically addressing the topic of conversion therapy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. There have been too many changes to the article in the last week and I noticed that the views on homosexuality section has been limited and I didn't realize that. I know we removed claims that he was in favour of so-called conversion therapy since the sources were tenuous, but the one sentence that's currently there could be expanded, provided that it's not WP:UNDUE or WP:OVERREFed. It wasn't a major talking point for him (as opposed to other preachers, evangelists or groups such as Westboro). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

We have enough RS to include more info. There are entire articles about Graham's views on homosexuality. We can wait until we find better RS about conversion therapy later, but the other points should be included.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Why not be WP:BOLD and add something and see how it flies? You could always just try it out in a sandbox if you want some closer scrutiny before adding it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and written something. StAnselm (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

External video

Under "Later life, death and memorial" section (some users put way too many commas on Wiki by the way), the External video (Capitol Visitation for Billy Graham, February 28, 2018, C-SPAN Funeral Service, Billy Graham Library, Charlotte, North Carolina, May 2, 2018, C-SPAN) has the wrong month. It's March not May! 2600:1702:1690:E10:A0EF:AD87:BC1:7894 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the date. BTW, Wikipedia's Manual of Style specifies the use of the Oxford comma. That's why it's "Later life, death, and memorial" instead of "Later life, death, and memorial". Indyguy (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed. And it isn't just about that, it's about editors putting too many commas within sentences (on this article included). I have a person in mind who is doing it but won't type it here. Anyhow, while you're at it, where there should be a comma there isn't one so will you add one after the date (28th) under that same section? President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump honor the late Reverend Billy Graham on February 28, 2018 2600:1702:1690:E10:A0EF:AD87:BC1:7894 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. I also added a period since it's a complete sentence. Indyguy (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Great job, thanks! :) 2600:1702:1690:E10:54D5:4DFD:8454:816F (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You realize that block evasion is frowned upon. If you continue, I will discuss a range block. As for too many commas, see MOS:COMMA. As for captions, see MOS:CAPTION. That was caption turned into a complete sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Graham

change Bill Graham to Bill Graham (disambiguation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:218:8bff:fe74:fe4f (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Bill Graham is the disambiguation page, there is no need to link to Bill Graham (disambiguation), as that page redirects to Bill Graham. Iffy★Chat -- 15:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sloppy sentence

"Later life, death and memorial" section: Televangelist Jim Bakker also payed respect to Graham and stated that he was the greatest preacher since Jesus[78], and also stated that Graham visited him in prison.[79]

• Paid is spelled wrong
• overused words: also / and / stated
• long sentence

A better sentence may be: Additionally, Televangelist Jim Bakker paid respect to Graham, stating he was the greatest preacher since Jesus. He also said that Graham visited him in prison. 2600:1702:1690:E10:1CC6:9EDD:42E:91BF (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Added edits to this before seeing it was already updated/changed. Thanks! 2600:1702:1690:E10:1CC6:9EDD:42E:91BF (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Jim Bakker's statement is out of context from the rest of the paragraph about the D.C. Memorial/Honor where Bakker was not at. It reads as if he was present and spoke after the Speaker, President, etc. Perhaps space it apart from the rest? Just my thoughts/observation. Leave it or not. I'm a bit ocd. Grin! 2600:1702:1690:E10:1CC6:9EDD:42E:91BF (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"Relationship with Queen Elizabeth II"

Do we really need the section heading "Relationship with Queen Elizabeth II"? There is only one sentence in the section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It could probably be removed of the content merged into some other section. The content was added to support the inclusion of his knighthood in the lede. See above (or possibly the archives). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be moved or deleted from the 'politics' section. Merge it with (place it before this sentence) "In 2001, Queen Elizabeth II awarded him an honorary knighthood. The honour was presented to him by Sir Christopher Meyer, British Ambassador to the U.S. at the British Embassy in Washington D.C. on December 6, 2001.[134]" under the 'awards and honors' section. Problem solved. 2600:1702:1690:E10:49C2:7AB3:98DD:B165 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't add spaces when replying. Feel free to move it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

People can add spaces if they want. Don't be a manipulating control freak! 2600:1702:1690:E10:387C:9EC8:F449:2305 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines specifically state that MOS:INDENTGAP should be followed for those using machine reading software. Not trying to be a control freak. Just trying to love my neighbour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved with additional sources having been added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of discussion on BLP talk

There has been back-and-forth edits on whether negative information on one of Graham's grandchildren belongs in the article. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Billy Graham. Kablammo (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Has it been discussed on this page? I think you posted the discussion in the wrong place; BLPN would have been more appropriate, but only after it was discussed here. In any case, it's not just a BLP issue, there is also the question of WP:UNDUE weight. I think we should mention Tullian, since's he's notable - perhaps we could have something like "Graham had 19 grandchildren, including Tullian Tchividjian, and numerous great-grandchildren." Boz is not notable (at least, he doesn't have a WP article) and so should not be mentioned). StAnselm (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No it hasn't, and it's not really a BLP issue, but Kablammo took it there. I agree that it should mention both moderately famous grandchildren as their activities have garnered some publicity and therefore do not fail WP:LPNAME which is the principle I would rely on for removal. This just feels like censorship. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm on all points. Do not revert so many times before discussing here first (on article talk pages). This is basic WIKI 101 and is an ongoing issue with even veteran editors who aren't new to Wikipedia. It doesn't have to be "all or nothing" with contributions. Instead of editors trying to get their way and defending their BLP reason, a solution may be to simply include his grandson just being a senior pastor with the sources intact (so people can read about it without it being included in the article) as to not draw attention to the fact he was dismissed for his actions which isn't relevant to BG. For instance: Tullian Tchividjian, son of Gigi, was the senior pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[cite][cite] etc. 2600:1702:1690:E10:A0F2:B721:7796:883D (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The first sets of edits were done without explanation and looked reactive. The underlying principle for removing the content is completely wrong and the content should be restored as they were. The content about Tchividjian's behaviour is not problematic for Graham. The other sourced grandchild has been removed as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing is not enough, of course - non-notable grandchildren should not be named; if you think Boz is notable, write an article on him. StAnselm (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Is that what LPNAME states? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I found it surprising that Graham had a notable relative that is not mentioned in this article at all. It seems like an attempt to whitewash things. I believe what StAnselm proposed with "Graham had 19 grandchildren, including Tullian Tchividjian, and numerous great-grandchildren." is a good idea. We don't need a paragraph, or even a sentence about Tchividjian here much less one about another relative named Boz.

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not to cater to fans of a particular subject. It also surprised me that there was no criticism section in this article. There were no notable criticisms or disagreements of Graham's lifestyle, methods, practices, etc. in 70 years? Even the section about Graham's 1950 meeting with President Truman seems whitewashed in view of these sources: [1] and [2]. Truman disliked that Graham had broken a confidence. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

We generally avoid explicit "Criticism" sections; there was one here, in fact, and I recently renamed it to "Views". StAnselm (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A particularly unhelpful (from a reader's perspective) edit- as the "Controversies" label had clear utility, identifying the nature of the material there contained. The present header, "Other Views", is meaningless- "other" relative to what? There is an implicit value judgement, distinguishing these as marginal or tertiary. This latest massaging of content strikes me as having a motive of insulation rather than neutrality. Even a brief survey of public figures will show "Controversies" to be a common section of biographical articles relating to public figures. Mavigogun (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because other stuff exists, doesn't mean it's correct to have it. Not all articles have such a high level of scrutiny for correctness to manuals of style, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"Other" because the section immediately preceding is "Politics" which includes the subsection "Foreign policy views". StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Labeling a section to be diminutive to a preceding sub section is nonsensical. My citing the common use of the label in biographies was not a justification for use- rather, a clear refutation of StANselm's claim and misidentification of the section label (which ignored the obvious and explicit argument for using the "Contentious" label). I've restored the label for all the reasons cited here.Mavigogun (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems to have died down sufficiently. We should be adding back the full entry and reference on Tullian Tchividjian and Basyle "Boz" Tchividjian. Are there any additional grandchildren that should be included? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

King being bailed out by Graham

The bailing out of King by Graham is disputed. There needs to be another source other than the biography. It should not be used so prominently. Alaney2k (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I have also added 'according to' to the mention in the main text. Apparently, versions of the account of the bailing out differ as to time and dates and we should be careful about this. There might be less dispute about whether Graham paid the bail or gave money towards the bail. There also are apparently concerns about the friendship between the two. Specifically, that there was some falling out in the 1960s. We should be careful to be neutral about this. Alaney2k (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Why does there need to be another reliable source other than than one? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It was presented in the lead as fact. But the historian Miller could not find proof of the incident actually having occurred. If it occurred, there should be some record earlier than the last dozen years. Or someone to attribute it to in the 1960s. Right now, the attribution for it is a book of essays. Alaney2k (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

An anon just added additional references today. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything will be fixed when he's no longer on this site ruining articles and only causing chaos. 2600:1702:1690:E10:387C:9EC8:F449:2305 (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Awards and honours

Why is it that the section "Awards and Honours" sometimes tells us the year in which he received an award, but at other times does not? It would be good to know when he received the Templeton Prize, but the article does not tell us the year in which he received it. Vorbee (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's up to the editor I suppose. MOS:BIO doesn't give any advice. Care to make it consistent (and use American spelling in the article = p ) Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens

Should we include a sentence on Christopher Hitchens' opinion? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Why? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Because of the sheer number of third party sources that describe it. Here is one. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, so there's no need. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Converts encouraged to become Catholic"?

Hello, I read the cited sources, and there was no evidence that Graham encouraged his converts to become Catholic. Also, the lede section is designed as a summary of the article, and that assertion was only in the lede with no corresponding mention in the body. So, lacking a reliable source which supports the idea, it is not possible to retain it anywhere. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It is claimed that a "quote" supports the assertion. Let's read the quote, shall we? A few years later, in 1964, Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston (who, as archbishop, had even endorsed a Graham crusade in Boston in 1950) met with Mr. Graham upon returning from Rome and the Second Vatican Council, declaring before a national television audience that Mr. Graham's message was good for Catholics. I am baffled and puzzled as to where this quote says that Graham "encouraged his converts to become Catholic". I do not see it in this quote, I do not see it in the other quotes, and I do not see it in the cited sources. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

So the problem is yours. You're equating a cardinal stating that "being good for Catholics" is the same as him encouraging people to become Catholic. I don't see what you're railing against. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No - that is what you are doing. I am saying that it is NOT the same and does not support the assertion you keep restoring. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You're deleting content from a sentence that states "Graham's evangelism was appreciated by mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic denominations" and it's clearly sourced, with a quote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That is not the assertion at issue. At issue is the follow-on statement, as he encouraged new converts to become members of these Churches. which has failed verification. I would not oppose rewriting to indicate "appreciation" by Catholics to the exclusion of his alleged "encouragement". 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet that's the one you're edit warring over. Three reverts in four hours: 2018-11-10T19:16:25‎ 2018-11-10T21:48:43‎ 2018-11-10T23:52:17‎.

The wording needs to be changed, but Roman Catholic needs to remain as it is supported with the first reference there. Perhaps you would like to draft a new sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do so! Graham's evangelism was appreciated by mainline Protestants, as he encouraged new converts to become members of these Churches. Roman Catholics also showed appreciation for his efforts. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that would address the primary WP:V issue, but my secondary concern still remains. This assertion is not incorporated anywhere in the article body, and would actually seem to contradict Graham's somewhat-covert opposition to, e.g. JFK's Catholic presidency. So it is not sufficient to shoe-horn this statement into the lede, but it needs to be reconciled with the other facts and properly written into an appropriate section that is summarized by the lede. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I like it. It correctly expressed the ideas. Thanks for bringing the discrepancy to light. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

New Billy Graham template

Hi, everyone. I just created a template for Billy Graham, which has gone live in the past few minutes (as of this post). Any improvements and/or suggestions are welcome. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Senior posting

In the infobox, there's a section titled "Senior posting" that contains Graham's profession and personal website. This information doesn't seem related to a "senior posting", and was previously in the main section of the infobox. (Evidently, the change was made by Ltwin @ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Graham&diff=787012777&oldid=786579000.) I have a few questions:

• Was this change legitimate? Is it standard in Wikipedia to call this sort of info "senior posting"? It feels hacky to me.
• I didn't actually see the change in the infobox in the diff I'd referenced above. Which change introduced this section? Can it just be undone?
• Can this section be put back into the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panmaj (talk • contribs) 09:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

In describing "Graham's POV," listing how a commentator described him is inappropriate

In the part of the article on Graham's POV, an slur word was used by some commentator to describe his view. In discussing his POV, there should be no statement as to what some commentator said. You could get all kinds of comments on Graham by various persons. The article is not about what slur words commentators used for Graham. This commentator's comment was thus deleted. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

Homophobic is not a slur, it sums up the opinions of many.

You also got the fact that Southern Baptists do not consider themselves protestants wrong: they have no choice as they are. Since all evangelicals are protestant, you can't split that hair. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:: "Homophobic" is not a slur? Putting aside Billy Graham for a moment, let us suppose that, if the writer of that article for The Independent had an article on Wikipedia, and I had written a criticism of his attitudes and the things that he had said in a durably archived and reliable publication, and in that criticism had called that writer Christophobic or, perhaps (given some of the things that he said in that article) Deophobic, that would just be recognised as some objective view that would be deemed worthy of inclusion by the Wikipedia community? After all, his attitude that it is insufferable for a man of faith to believe, as Graham's faith teaches, that same-sex sexual activity is sinful, could easily be described as Christophobic (because it condemns a standard, long-standing, and sincere teaching of Christianity), as well as Deophobic (see the article that is cited for reasons why I would use that descriptor for this person). Would that be considered acceptable in an article about said writer, under a Controversy section, if such an article existed?

It is certainly quite possible that Graham was actually homophobic (that is, not just maintaining a sincere belief that same-sex sexual activity is sinful, but holding additionally contempt and/or disdain for people who engage in such activity), even in his later years, especially given some of the statements that he made that are cited in Douglas Robertson's piece (in particular, Graham's apparently uncaring comments in a response letter to a woman who wrote to him about her personal experience of same-sex attraction). It's also quite possible that Graham was homophobic given his statement on AIDS mentioned in this Wikipedia article. However, given that Robertson himself says in the cited article that "religion is so often successfully leveraged as a means of making bigotry appear somehow acceptable, even something to aspire to. There is an insidious belief that Christianity is somehow inherently “good”, that belief in a God or having “faith” is something to admire and aspire to". That sounds both quite Christophobic and Deophobic, don't you think? Not the best judge on bigotry, I would say, unless we are operating by the standard of "it takes one to know one". Moreover, the article indicates that Robertson identifies as part of the alternative lifestyle community, and has also engaged in same-sex sexual activity, so he isn't exactly a neutral party on the matter. He at the very least has as much of a dog in that fight as Graham did.

Incidentally, I'm a Catholic, so I'm not someone who thinks that Graham was some perfect messenger of God or anything like that. However, from all appearances, Graham was—though having plenty of unfortunate faults, and some clearly concerning conclusions that he reached—sincerely was trying to lead people to God, despite his incomplete knowledge of God's teachings, and some of his personal misinterpretations of God's teachings. The controversy section of this Wikipedia article ought to focus more on his statements regarding AIDS, that aforementioned response letter that he wrote to that woman who expereinced same-sex attraction, his advocacy (according to Robertson's article) for the misguided "conversion therapy" approach towards individuals who experience same-sex attraction, his concerning attitude that women ought not to obtain higher education, and the like. Those are actually troublesome things. A Christian believing that it is God's teaching that same-sex sexual activity is wrong, and deeply desiring that those who experience same-sex attraction live celibate lives, is not. You may not agree with that view. It is certainly up to you whether you agree with that view or not. Nevertheless, it is a sincere religious belief that is clearly not based on misinterpretation of faith. To call that belief bigotry is simply erroneous. Tharthan (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Good logic but still wrong. It is an interpretation of scripture. It's not a slur. It's not unlike saying that he was in favour of civil rights based on his reading of scripture. But I'd be happy to have you take this to an RfC with the question of whether "homophobic" was a slur or not, and if it was, what term to use instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

One thing further, I recognize that Wikipedia uses terms in an attempt to achieve WP:NPOV while groups may use other terms for reasons of spin. For instance, many Evangelicals make the claim that they are "pro life" when their stand is better described as "anti-abortion". The former term has better optics but is inaccurate as opposed to the "consistent life ethic" put forward by others. I am not opposed to a neutral term, but argue that the term for those who oppose homosexual activity is "homophobic". I do not know that there is a guideline to support that claim, which is why I suggest the RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside Billy Graham for a minute...

One cannot reasonably, for example, group an entity like the Westboro Baptist Church, which actually is homophobic, and a person of faith who merely believes —per understanding of the word of God—that same-sex sexual activity is sinful (holding no ill-will or hatred for any individuals who choose to engage in such activity), in the same category. That is not only a hate-filled action in itself, it is also simply disingenuous and inaccurate.

That is equivalent to someone grouping the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Satanic Temple, the Jacobins, and an innocuous agnostic into the same category, under "Deophobic".

Doing either of those things is totally absurd, and both suggest a conscious, deliberate animus against the individual being unjustly grouped with malefactors. That is hardly NPOV. There is no way around that.

With regard to Graham, though, I again don't dispute that (even in his later years) he may have actually been homophobic. There is clearly evidence suggesting that.

I also share your puzzlement regarding those who are merely anti-abortion calling themselves pro-life. They are overstating their actual views and commitments if they call themselves pro-life (especially when many such people continue to be advocates of things like the death penalty). Tharthan (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I know of know English word that encapsulates the position though. Care to offer one? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I am not sure if there is a lone word that encapsulates that position. I would say that the best thing to do would be to use phrasing like "has qualms with same-sex sexual activity (because of their sincere religious belief)", "does not believe in same-sex marriage (because of [religious_view_x] on marriage)", etc. Tharthan (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Shall we take that to the RfC? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)