Talk:Smith Wigglesworth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Charismatic (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.
 

This Article Should Be Removed[edit]

Except for that which is relevant to Wigglesworth from a verifiable perspective. The claims of Wigglesworth's supernatural abilities are not more remarkable or substantiative than claims surrounding others which have consistently been removed by wikipedia. There are large swaths of testimony peppered with references that either do not support the claims made here on the page, or are dubious themselves (i.e. an uncredited article on public webspace).

Supernatural claims should be held to no higher standard of evidence than empirical claims. But as such, they should meet the same standards of evidence that wikipedia has for anything else, and this article does not do that.

Otherwise, I'd like to request the reasons that anonymous and unverified references hold weight here while they do not on other articles. If there is a different standard for this article, then it should be clearly explained why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.137.74 (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To add, much of the article contains no historical significance. For example, "he worked in the fields pulling turnips alongside his mother" and "His grandmother was a devout Methodist" (this could be included if his grandmother had some tie in with the article in the context of historical significance but it does not), and "Wigglesworth said he had made a commitment to God that he would not sleep at night before he had won a soul for Christ every day." These have no historical value and are unverified projections of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.137.74 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Factual information?[edit]

In order to preserve the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia, I highly suggest that someone edit this page to either delete or substantiate these fantastic claims (the dead were raised?). Unchecked fanaticism has no place in an academic forum. Montana 01:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Montana: It is a well known fact that several people were indeed raised from the dead under the ministry of Smith Wigglesworth. For a modern example of this type of miracle look into the ministry of Reinhart Bonke, a German evangelist. He offers a video documentary of a man that was raised from the dead during one of his meetings. And there is absolutely NO doubt that the man was dead. He had a death certificate and had been clinically dead for many hours.
Again, there is no doubt that people have been, in this last century, raised from the dead. And that, my friend, is not unchecked fanaticism but glorious truth! If you consider yourself to be academic, don't just blindly dismiss what I have said but take the time to discover the truth for yourself. Thank you. [Unsigned comment by User:204.83.213.38 08:52, 26 March 2006]
I rewrote the entire article. Эйрон Кинни (t) 09:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You removed[1] a citation where he claimed to "raise the dead" and heal the sick. He had a daughter with a "serious hearing loss" he did not cure. Either he did not care for his daughter or he couldn't faith heal. So you either he was incompassionate or a fraud. The fraud tag will remain in unless you can prove that he did in fact defy science and logic to raise the dead.
Do not remove cited sources and call that POV. That is called white washing and its vandalism. Arbusto 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"which leds one to the question: either he did not have faith healing abilities or he did not care enough for his daughter to fix this." This statement doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. That's why I removed it. I just wanted to clear that up. Aaрон Кинни (t) 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
That was not a citation. Your so-called "citation" had no bibliography (etc.), therefore is not a credible source. I will continue to revert your edits. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
(from the Arbustoo talk page: "Excuse me? I emailed the maintainer of that webpage asking for his source, and he provided none; he didn't even reply. So until you get a better source (your source had no source) I will continue reverting your vandalism. Do you have any other sources for your claims? Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)") Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe your POV is leaking out, Sir, because you have a link to an anti-Christian and humanist website on your userpage, and you are making claims that Wigglesworth's healing was false even when I deliberately stayed away from his healing so as to prevent this sort of thing. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
See below for other citations. Don't excuse me of POV when I'm dealing with science and citations. Your edit summary admittly shows you know you should stay away from making claims about faith healing[2] Arbusto 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Also please don't remove vandalism warnings[3]. Arbusto 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I will remove them from my talk page if I please. Because I did not vandalize that article. That's why the warning didn't belong on my page, so I took the liberty of getting rid of it and I will persist in doing so. Эйрон Кинни (t) 22:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Several sources say that Smith healed the sick and raised the dead. Unless you personally were following him around during his life and can prove that all the sources are lying, then we must take the sources as fact for this article. Please do not let science and your own hardheartedness take away from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.101.89 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
To say that because Alice was not cured of her deafness at the hands of Smith W. he was a fake or a fraud is to misunderstand the nature of healing. Healing is a gift of God. Prayed for with faith it has to be accepted, and yet does not always happen. The only perfect healer was Jesus. Men - including Wigglesworth - get it wrong. As to 'unchecked fanaticism', there are five written accounts of Wigglesworth raising people from the dead. Regrettably perhaps he was not the sort of man to get medical certificates and publish them as evidence. I believe in such healing simply because I have been healed myself, and I am quite happy to look up such written evidence as there is for these five healings and provide what proof curently exists. But ultimately God leaves us to react in faith to His activity, whatever the written evidence. When I was healed, my consultant immediately accepted my claim that God had played a part, my doctor however refused to whatsoever although there was nor other explanation. Such seems to be true of the healings carried out by Smith W. - some accept, others on exactly the same evidnce rejevct the possibility. That is no reason for removing anything from the article. Rather leave it stand and let people make up their own mind. Tjohndavies (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This section has been dormant for 3 years. I'm not sure what the procedure is for deleting old sections but I feel like this meets the criteria.--Jacksoncw (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Raising the dead and daughter's hearing loss[edit]

It is well established he claimed he could raise the dead [4][5] [6] [7][8][9][10], and here it puts the claim at "raising fourteen dead people"[11], and here it claims he raised his wife from the dead[12]. Wiggelsworth also wrote books about raising the dead.

He had a daughter named Alice with a hearing loss [13]. Here it claims he "frequently" prayed for his daughter's hearing loss.[14] However, healing his daughter never occured.[15] Never healed her[16] ever[17].

Stop removing cited sources. Arbusto 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It rather depends on what you mean by proven, doesn't it? I would suggest that any claim of raising the dead which was scientifically proven after the mid-Victorian era would be the subject of legend and massive medical documentation. Just zis Guy you know? 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
So I added the fraudster tag back in. Arbusto 21:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if you don't believe Wigglesworth's claims to have raised the dead, the fraudster category is still inappropriate as it's POV, so I'm going to remove it again. It should only really be applied to people who have been convicted of fraud by a court of law. (See The fraudsters category talk page). Jammycakes 13:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
My humble opinion (this is a Christian speaking) about why Wigglesworth's daughter was never healed is GOD was testing him. "Though he slay me still will I trust you".. Put another way.. Paul of the Bible had a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of satan to buffet him, to keep him humble.. maybe Mr. W's thorn in the flesh was his daughter's infirmity.. something to make him realize his total dependence on God, and that man could NEVER take the glory for anything, even after all of the ppl that were healed and dead raised. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.168.8 (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in one of Smith Wigglesworth's books that God would not heal him from needing reading glasses due to the reason given above.Easeltine (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Half the sources this article references don't provide sources themselves[edit]

I emailed the author of this website asking him to provide sources on his statements about Smith Wigglesworth and I received none. This website doesn't provide sources either. Just because you have a source for a statement doesn't make it necessarily true. Will someone address this issue, because I want to see better sources. Aaрон Кинни (t) 01:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Wigglesworth ever raised anyone from the dead although several sources (including Frodsham's biography) claim he did. It would not be POV to relate the fact that these unproven assertions were made by some. I am surprised Word-Faith adherents have not tried to claim Wigglesworth as a forefather in this article or on the discussion page. Actually, there are significant differences in theology between Wigglesworth and the faith movement.--Loudguy 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS gives guidelines on what are reliable sources and what aren't. Jammycakes 09:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NO information on this page?[edit]

I have a friend who I discuss theology with and he is very into SW. The main thrust of who he was were his healings, mass conversions and raising folks from the dead. Why is there no mention of that here? Even if you do not agree.. something should be said about his claims. --DjSamwise 04:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating claims of healing according to mainstream Christian theology of healing[edit]

See faith healing. Mainstream Christian theology holds that prayer is the appropriation of God’s power, not a push button machine. Thus prayer only achieves positive results when it is done according to God’s will. This includes prayer for healing. Mainstream theology of Christian healing states that it is God who heals, not the faith healer himself. Claiming a gift of healing does not imply that everyone you pray for will get healed.

To show that a faith healer is a fraud, it is necessary to demonstrate that the faith healer is deliberately faking either the healings or the testimonies of the healings.

Thus statements that a faith healer could not heal his own daughter and was thus a fraud demonstrate faulty theology and a hostile POV to boot. I will edit the article to neutralise it. Raffles mk 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't check the external links from my internet connection. Could someone do that to see if they still make sense in the paragraph that I edited? Raffles mk 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs a scholarly touch[edit]

I just did some stylistic cleanups to this article, but I agree with most of the other comments here in talk: the references are a mess. Is there nothing at all scholarly written about this guy? No citable biographies? Beyond that, I couldn't tell whether the links listed as "external links" (which I changed to "further reading") were meant to be used as references. I wish somebody would find something truly citable for this article (some scholarly books and articles that cite their own sources). —LonelyPilgrim 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am new to the discussion section of Wikipedia, I don't even know what POV means; I have never written anything on it, but I have to agree that articles without sources as close to primary as possible have little credibility and are highly biased. It is impossible that /anything/ could be written that is entirely unbiased, but citing primary rather than tertiary (or even beyond that) sources is dubious article-writing.
Now, I am a fideist, and I think that not everything true can be proven, but that does not mean that if one takes the time to write an article (or tell a testimony) about someone's life, even a life devoted to the Most High Name, one ought to be able to show a little authority on the subject and not just make claims that those who /use/ their minds, who ask honest questions, can see right through, humanist (what's wrong with that?) or otherwise. joshua_kotc (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Miracle claims should at least be mentioned[edit]

Also regarding Wigglesworth's more incredible miracle claims — I've read the debate here, and here's what I have to say. I grew up hearing all about Smith Wigglesworth and these claims, and I think they're rather important to who he was and his reputation today. They need to be at least mentioned in the article, not excised completely just because some people don't believe them. Some people don't believe the stories about Christ himself, and there are no sources for his miracles but the Bible itself, yet you'll find oodles and oodles and articles about him here. So what I'm suggesting is not to include unproven, unprovable data, but rather to find some sources for these claims (as I see some people have been giving here) and write into the article language (perhaps even a whole section) describing these claims, but making it clear that that's just what they are — claims. —LonelyPilgrim 06:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What I mean to say is, it's entirely provable and citable that he made these claims. I haven't checked the history, so I don't know how it was written before, but miracles are the kind of thing that you can't write about as proven fact in an encyclopedia. They are matters of faith. Read Jesus's article. It's all about how he is "said to have performed various miracles" and "according to the Gospels." And it's a good, encyclopedic article that covers a lot of different points of view. We're not here to evangelize. What we're here to do is to present citable fact. Wigglesworth's miracles, like Christ's, have to be taken on faith. —LonelyPilgrim 06:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The person who removed then did it to the detriment of the article and failure to heed the previous discussion. Arbustoo 05:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I second. There is no need for wikipedia to investigate the (il/)legitimacy of the miracle claims (especially the more fantastic ones). Just mention the claims he is known for and as there are disagreements, just summarize the cited opposing viewpoints.97.81.103.230 (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Wigglesworth.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Wigglesworth.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 June 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Wigglesworth.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

POV[edit]

The entire section of healing is rife with POV language.

1. "Wigglesworth, who had no medical training" - Totally unnecessary and obviously sharp language meant to make him sound foolish; also irrelevant because it's a miracle not a medical work and he never claimed to have medical training.

2. "claimed to have healed" Wigglesworth never claimed to have healed anyone. He always said God did it through him so this is patently false and the wording should be changed immediately.

3. Secondly, an editor put " His 'healing method'". Never did Smith call it a healing method. An editor made this term up and put quotations around it to be sarcastic. Obviously POV and both the term and sharpness should be removed.

Also, it says several times "he claimed". I haven't read all the sources but it seems to me that all the claims were made by other people on his behalf. I could be wrong but I think the wording should be changed because I doubt that he made this claim when he didn't seem to be making any of the others. - Edit --Jacksoncw (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that Wigglesworth's approach was not based on any medical knowledge, and entirely appropriate to mention this fact. In particular, the claim to have cured cancer is not only based on a very primitive understanding of how the body works, it is highly dangerous to promote such an approach in such an uncritical way. To describe such anecdotal accounts at face value would give undue weight to a fringe view. --Rbreen (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit and added that he had no medical training at the beginning of the first paragraph as opposed to the last because I didn't think it fit. I still think it's unnecessary because he never claimed to have any medical training and it isn't relevant in the context of miracles, but I won't argue it. I removed the part about him being a plumber because it seems like a random tidbit of information randomly thrown in there. However, it could be placed in the lead.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The notability question is exaggerated, just bought a number of re-published books by Wigglesworth (2015) and this (with size of the print) should alone make him notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.82.120 (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)