![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
“ | The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements contains these comments:
"The person universally acknowledged as the revival’s 'father' and 'pacesetter' was William Branham. The sudden appearance of his miraculous healing campaigns in 1946 set off a spiritual explosion in the Pentecostal movement which was to move to Main Street, U.S.A., by the 1950s and give birth to the broader charismatic movement in the 1960s, which currently affects almost every denomination in the country" While it is sometimes claimed that other groups in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements were partially influenced by Branham (including the Latter Rain Movement, Manifest Sons of God, and Kingdom Now theology) there is little resemblance between the current theology of these groups and what Branham taught. |
” |
The article states:
On the night of January 24, 1950, an unusual photograph was taken during a speaking engagement in the Sam Houston Coliseum in Houston, Texas. As Branham stood at the podium, an apparent halo of fire appeared above his head. A photograph of this phenomenon was produced, the only one of its film roll that developed an image. George J. Lacy, an investigator of questioned documents, subjected the negative to testing [1] and declared at a news conference that, "To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world's history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated." The original of the photograph is in the archives of the Religious Department of the Smithsonian Institution.
However, a search of the Smithsonian's archives returns no results. I'm having a little trouble seeing anything especially extraordinary about the photo (as a photographer, it looks like a light on the ceiling to me).
The claims about the photo being housed at the Smithsonian are untrue (it seems to be an urban legend that follows the photo around - I've heard it before) and the only sites I can find that reference George J. Lacy are Branhamist.
I don't think the claims belong here as fact, as a statement of myth surrounding Branham, maybe. But it's not fact.
Wisco 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not know where the writer of the article about the photograph got his or her facts from. George J Lacy did not, as far as I can ascertain mention anything about 'a supernatural being' and 'scientifically vindicated'. It would pay people to read the actual words of his report on http://biblebelievers.org/gjlacy.htm It is indeed unfortunate that some, both those who agree and disagree with the ministry of William Branham will misconstrue and misquote facts. This does nobody any good, and certainly doesn't help the article have a NPOV. I have now changed this part of the article to more accurately reflect what Mr Lacy actually wrote. Malachi456 09:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I've seen here is the letter that George J. Lacy wrote
http://www.prisonministries.net/Web%20pages/George%20J%20Lacy%20Report.htm —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.100.131.93 (
talk)
04:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the link to the photo on the LOC web site...
I have taken this out of the first section, until someone can produce evidence that Branham was a Mason. I cannot find any evidence of it in his transcribed sermons, and I am pretty sure that he was not associated with the Masons in any way -- Malachi456 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This should help:
And he said, "Brother Branham." He said, "You know," said, "when..." He was a Nazarene, and he said, "You know, when--when you first started preaching," said, "I thought sure you was a Nazarene." He said, "And then I seen so many Pentecostal people along," said, "somebody told me you went Pentecost." And said, "Now," said, "I heard you say that--that you was a Baptist." Said, "I--I don't understand this." I said, "That's easy." I said, "I'm a Pentecostal, Nazarene, Baptist." So that's the way we are. We just represent the Lord Jesus Christ in His mercy. That's right. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body and become one people." And that...
Brother Branham also refers to himself as a Pentecostal Baptist on several occasions, but most of all he calls himself a Christian, because God doesn't judge by what church you follow, he judges you by your heart. But, of all things, he never claimed to be a mason! SplinterCell37 12:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
From a number of Branham’s comments, particularly in his later sermons the definite impression is given that Branham had personally gone to the palace to pray for King George and that this resulted in a instantaneous healing:
King George of England with multiple sclerosis, when I went over and prayed for him. Couldn't even set but just a few minutes at a time. Next day, played twenty-eight holes of golf. (‘Jesus of Nazareth Passeth By’, 24/5/58)
And I been in king's palaces, went to prayed for King George of England. I was with the Gustavus up in Swi--Sweden. And I been in many king's palaces, and King Farouk, and--and many other places, and great potentates and monarchs. Some of the greatest the world has today, I've had the privilege of going in and talk with them, interview. I've been in lovely homes. (‘Seal of God’, 16/2/61)
And as you know that when I went there and prayed for King George when he had multiple sclerosis and he was healed instantly; the next day he played eighteen holes of golf, and he couldn't even set up for just a few minutes at a time. (‘Why’, 13/4/61)
I've been in kings' palaces. I prayed for King George of England, you know, when he was healed from multiple sclerosis. I prayed for other kings, potentates, monarchs. (‘Uncertain Sound’.14/7/62)
Oh, my. I've been in Hollywood, and I've prayed for King George in the palace, and Gustav up in Sweden, and different places. (‘God Hinding Himself in Simplicity’, 12/4/63)
However earlier he had been more specific in claiming that he had actually prayed for King George without traveling to him, though he did claim that he went to England later to see him (on his way to Finland in April 1950):
And he was a friend to the king's private secretary, and through there King George of England sent word to me. I have his statements and have his letters of his fields and every... To come pray for him of multiple sclerosis, and so I couldn't go up that time. So I just wired back and told the king that I would pray for him here, that God would hear here just the same as he would over there. And so, then another telegram come through and wanted me to come on over immediately. Later when I went to England, over there, to see him, and the Lord healed him. He was--couldn't even stand up over five minutes at a time, and he... I believe the second day he played eighteen holes of golf, and never was bothered with it no more until the very day he died. And I was in Africa when he died. They found a little tumor here on his lung. They started to cut it open and air got to it some way, I don't know, and caused a blood clot to go to his brain and killed him instantly. So very fine man... (‘Testimony’, 29/11/53)
In other accounts of his visit to London he would refer to going off to Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey, however on at least one occasion (‘Testimony’, 29/11/53) he admitted that "The king wasn't in at the time". It is sometimes claimed that Branham prayed for King George in person on some other occasion, however it does not seem that Branham ever described an actual meeting with the King. The visit to London was mentioned in ‘A Man Sent from God’ (p208) however no mention was made of any royal visit. The probability that no such meeting occurred is reinforced by the fact that when the topic of the Royalty came up he would often remark about having seen the King and Queen as they were driven past in a carriage when they were visiting Canada, rather than any face to face meeting.
Branham's claim to have seen the King and Queen in Vancouver Canada is also dubious. On a number of occasions he claimed to have seen the King and Queen whilst in the company of Ern Baxter:
It was the Queen of England. Why, you would've felt honored, because she's a great woman. I got to see her once. I saw the old mother queen. I got to see them when King George just when he still had his multiple sclerosis, 'fore he sent for me come pray for him. And when we passed down the street in Canada, and standing there, there was the queen in her beautiful blue dress, and King George with his, setting up, great suffering with ulcers in his stomach and multiple sclerosis, which they said he was suffering tremendously that day. But you'd have never knowed it: sit just as straight. Why? He was a king, and he conducted himself like a king. And I noticed Mr. Baxter, which used to be my campaign manager; he just wept when he seen them pass. And I said, ‘Ernie, what you weeping about?’ He said, ‘Billy, there goes the king and the queen.’ Said, ‘Oh, aren't they lovely?’ I said, ‘Yes, Mr. Baxter, they are.’(Jesus at the Door, 29/5/58)
Sometime ago I was standing in Vancouver, British Colombia, and the King George of England had come over to visit Canada. And he was making his way down along the street in the carriage, and his beautiful queen setting by him... And Mr. Baxter, one of my associates, he was weeping, because he said, "Just think, Brother Branham, our king passes by. (Message to the Laodicean Church, 9/6/58)
King George's only visit to Vancouver occurred in May 1939. There is no record of Branham visiting Canada prior to 1947 and significantly it was only around this time that Branham met Ern Baxter who subsequently became a campaign manager for him. From Branham's accounts it is apparent that he considered Ern Baxter a reasonably close acquaintance, not just someone he might have met once, who would have subsequently have forgotten the meeting. While it might be conceivable that Branham could have made a trip to Vancouver in 1939, unrecorded apart from these comment about seeing the King and Queen, his claimed association with Ern Baxter at the time is rather less plausible. A close association between Ern Baxter and Branham in 1939 is not likely to be something that Ern Baxter would have forgotten or failed to have mentioned. Aside from these implausibilities, there are major inconsistencies in his various accounts. On some occasions he said that rather than actually seeing the King and Queen, he and Ern Baxter were listening to a radio broadcast:
And a good friend of mine, Brother Ern Baxter, as we were listening to it on the broadcast as it came through, him and his lovely queen setting there... And we were setting in the room and I'll never forget it. Ern got so overcome that he jumped up out of the chair and threw his arms around me and started weeping. And I said, "What's the excitement all about, Brother Baxter?" He said, "Brother Branham, that's my king.(Door in a Door, 23/2/63).
The likely explanation is that Branham was repeating a story told by Ern Baxter of seeing the King and Queen and over time began to believe he had witnessed it himself.
Aside from the rather misleading statements regarding the circumstances of Branham praying for King George there is also the questions of whether he was actually cured and whether it had anything to do with Branham. Firstly it should be noted that King George never had multiple sclerosis. In 1948 King George was diagnosed with arterio-sclerosis (‘hardening of the arteries’) which was probably a consequence of his heavy smoking. This is a quite different condition to multiple sclerosis (presumably Branham did not use the discernment of the ‘angel’ to make a diagnosis on this case). By the end of 1948 the blood circulation in King George’s legs had deteriorated to the point that he was significantly incapacitated. On 12 March 1949 a operation was performed to improve the circulation in his legs. This proved successful and he improved significantly, however this was not a cure but a partial relief for some of his symptoms and King George continued to suffer from arterio-scleroris up until his death. Branham evidently heard reports of King George’s improved health following the operation and attributed it to his prayers. It is true that answer to prayer can come in the form of a successful operation, however it is somewhat presumptuous of Branham to claim the credit for it, considering the many other Christians that would have been praying for him (prayers for the health and wellbeing of the monarch is a common feature of liturgy in the Anglican Church and numerous other Christians would have been praying without prompting). The only thing that appears to connect Branham with the King is a claimed telegram requesting prayer, though it is more probable that it was actually from his private secretary on his behalf, whom Branham claimed was a friend of someone he healed. In summary Branham’s claims to have healed King George are inaccurate and show signs of embellishment. Rather than providing evidence of his healing ministry, the idea he had anything to do with King George’s state of health is reliant upon his reputation. The rather shameless name dropping, in repeatedly mentioning the King, should be considered when claims are made for Branham’s humility.
Rev107 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC) http://www.biblebelievers.org/lkgeorge.htm This website describes the healing of King George. Skeptics need only contact those who hold William Branham's records to ascertain the truth of the incident, and examine the evidence. http://www.branham.org/BranhamDefault.asp?lbi=0 Ken O'Dwyer
One of the more dubious claims that Branham made regarding his life story was that he had been a professional boxer including the claims "I won fifty-two straight professional fights. And I lost my fifty-three to Billy Pritchard" (Faith Without Works Is Dead, Aug. 22, 1950) "I had the undefeated title of bantam weight championship of the three states" (Expectation, Feb. 20, 1954) and "I'd won the Bantam Weight Championship in the Golden Gloves." (Results Of Decision, Oct. 08, 1955). With contemporary boxers typically not having much more than ten professional fights a year (often rather less) 53 fights would have taken a few years, typically 4-5 years or more yet there appears to be no point in his life in which to fit this career as a prize fighter (which is puzzling even to Branham's supporters who accept his claim that he was one). Furthermore attempts to find any mention of Branham in contemporary Boxing records, including the Golden Gloves championship shows no mention of him. Winning 52 straight professional fights would certainly be a noteworthy achievement. Branham did remark that as a boy he had ambitions of being a prize fighter: "I finally got me a little girlfriend, and like all little boys, about fifteen years old, I guess. …I wanted to be a prize fighter; that was my idea of life." (Life Story, Apr. 19, 1959). Quite possibly the boyhood fantasy of being a prize fighter became blurred with reality in his mind (there are several other examples of this, including meeting King George VI).
Removed this portion of text from the bottom of the article to clean it up a bit so that it is more NPOV. Might add it later (after it is edited).
Rev107 As has already been noted, some of the old audio tapes have poor quality. The boxer's name was not Billy Pritchard, but Billy Frick. This can be quite easily verifed by listening carefully to the tape (50-0822). The early tape transcripts occasionally contain such errors. The lastest up to date Message Search is correct. http://www.branham.org/MessageSearch.htm Another skeptic's rash claims bite the dust :) Ken O'Dwyer
I tried editing this article in 2013 but gave up after being embroiled in a dispute over content. I ended up with the distinct feeling that one needed to be a lawyer to edit anything on Wikipedia. So I walked away.
I came back recently after reading a new book on the subject of Branham that was published earlier this year which contained a lot of information on Branham that had not previously been published. It became readily apparent after a short time that things had not changed with trying to edit this article. While I wish compromise could be reached, it does not appear that this is likely to happen without third party intervention at some level.
I should also add that, while I formerly attended a church that followed Branham, my aim is to present a fair and balanced picture of Branham. I do appreciate that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy in favour of or in opposition to a movement. What I would like to see is a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature of Branham. I do not believe that the article currently reflects this.
I have done a fair amount of reading of the relevant Wikipedia policies and believe that to make this article factually correct and NPOV, we need to arrive at a reasonable consensus on the following:
If Rev107 is willing, I would like to suggest trying the use of a third opinion. This is neither mandatory nor binding. Rather, it is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal mechanism through which two editors currently in dispute can request an opinion from an uninvolved third editor.
Trying to edit the article in any reasonable fashion is a complete waste of time if the majority of substantive edits are simply reverted without any willingness to compromise or undertake a reasonable discussion on the merits of the edit. Taxee ( talk) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I am going to clean up the footnotes in the article which could take some time. The current footnoting style makes editing the article difficult. Using a bibliography and small footnotes will make editing easier and should also help those that are interested in doing further research.
I have started with Weaver (as he was the first footnote) then will go through the entire article. I will not be making any edits other than the footnotes while doing this.
I will also be going through the article and removing embedded links in the footnotes. Embedded links are to be avoided as outlined in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links:
This article has been tagged since 21 June. Since that time not one disputed statement has been identified & substantiated. Only two disputed statements have been raised and both have been resolved: (1) WB's date of birth has been established by 2 authoritative secondary sources (Weaver & Harrell), and (2) the name of the church in which WB was ordained has been clarified (the name was "First Pentecostal Baptist" church which was a Missionary Baptist church).
The editor currently maintaining the tag is not discussing disputed statements. He/she is only adding new material and discussing the use of sources. In these circumstances the tag cannot be maintained. The tag is not used to indicate an editor's reservations about the use of primary & secondary sources. Rev107 ( talk) 02:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a place where recent disputants can either Support or Oppose removal of the tag that begins with "This article's factual accuracy is disputed." I will not be a participant. Please explain why you support or oppose. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I oppose the removal of the tag - "Facts must always be presented to counter Branham's fiction." User:Vindicated1 — Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I oppose the removal of the tag. The source documents from which this information is taken are taken primarily from the words of William Branham himself. Yet, when these words are closely examined, a pattern of inconsistencies between them and the known facts are observed, as well as a tendencey to extremely exaggerate and embellish the accounts. Extensive research has been done recently and is published on several websites that demonstrate this. These websites include www.believethesign.com, www.seekyethetruth.com, and www.searchingforvindication.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth or Fiction ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I OPPOSE THE REMOVAL OF THE TAG. Almost all of the biographical material is drawn from Branham's own telling of his life story. The telling of his life story changes dramatically from account to account, and is embellished dramatically. Most of the third party references on the site do not independently verify his claims, but rather assume his telling of his biography is accurate and reference his claims verbatim. For example, the Biography section claims that he had a boxing career and was a cowboy in Arizona. However, the boxing records from the locations, time periods and the weights he said he fought in contain no record of him. His claims of being a cowboy in Arizona conflict with instances where he claims to be a cowboy in Kansas. His stories from this period are suspiciously similar to the plots of popular western shows of the time. There are various websites such as www.searchingforvindication.com and www.believethesign.com and others that have worked hard to reconcile his stories with historical records such as newspaper clippings and birth and marriage certificates, that show his Wikipedia biography to be significantly inaccurate and factually incorrect. These websites have become more accurate in compiling a biography that matches (and is based upon) recorded and documented history. Bus-stop3 ( talk) 18:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I oppose the removal of the tag William Branham's own words often contradict each other and his stories change over time. There is legal documentation proving that he lied about his birth date, the church he attended, and many statements he made concerning events in his life. You may view the documents at www.searchingforvindication.com. Blittzer ( talk) 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Blittzer
I have removed the tag based on the edits over the past 2 months which relates everything in the article to secondary sources, primarily Weaver and Harrell. Taxee ( talk) 19:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that the William Branham page has been edited over the past year or so and articles and negative opinions have dominated the page. The original page which was likely written by his family or people who knew and loved him. Since the recent edits have been placed into the page the true story of the man and his ministry have been clouded by skepticism and borderline hate literature. One must understand why certain people would be motivated to write a book or a chapter of a book to discredit the ministry of William Branham it is because William Branham disagreed with what that person believed. Any person could write a book or an article and self publish it which neither makes the book true or false, it is just merely one person's opinion put into writing. So to constantly quote a book written by Weaver who was an obvious critic of the man and to imply that because it came from a book it must than be true would be naive. The page now is riddled with skepticism and needs to taken down and rewritten. There have risen certain groups of former followers of the message of William Branham that have made it their mission in life to discredit this man and his ministry. They have been allowed a free for all on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.G. Perkins ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I am an avid user of Wikipedia, which I believe is a fantastic project that provides Internet users with unbiased information on a vast range of topics.
I was therefore surprised to find the opposite when I read this article about William Branham, which could be best described as a synopsis of Douglas Weaver's book: "The Healer-Prophet".
The current article has no less than 49 references to Douglas Weaver's book, which in itself is not the problem, although these references account for more than half of the references put together.
The problem is that Douglas Weaver is not a reliable source of unbiased information.
The mere fact that he is a baptist theologian (and former baptist pastor) working as a professor in a private Baptist university (Baylor) implies that his agenda would be to defend the baptist faith, theology and tradition in an apologetic manner.
Take into account that Wililam Branham started out as an independent baptist minister and later left the denomination.
In light of this:
In its current state this article is heavily biased against William Branham, it is based on highly biased sources and should be taken down and rewritten.
Eforsund ( talk) 06:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually when you compare Branham's stories all through his sermons, you will find the man contradicted himself many times.A good indication he was making things up. You only have to look at his complete different life stories . One version is that he was raised to a young man in the mountains of Cumberland,Kentucky together with his siblings . In another version he says the Branhams moved to New Albany,Indiana when he was still very little (about 290 km/180 miles westward!). And was raised there , which is confirmed by US census records.He was 3 years when they moved to Indiana! This is something we see going on with all his stories. Also the miracle healing stories. A good example is the king George VI case. There's nowhere any record of him visiting the king or the king suffering from multiple sclerosis . In fact he had arteriosclerosis and died in 1952. /info/en/?search=George_VI . Here we see Branham was confusing names of diseases , probably had read about the king somewhere. After the king's death he still claimed he was healed by his prayer. Argus52Genesis ( talk) 20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Whose comment is this? No signature? 86.62.143.189 ( talk) 19:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry I'm learning to work with this Argus52Genesis ( talk) 20:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Instead of engaging in an edit conflict, I'm going to list problems with the content/headings being added back:
Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Footprints on the Sands of Time:, in addition to the above issues I outlined, I want to address the edit summary you last used: "These Headings are very useful and don't break any rules". Some of them actually do break one of the pillars of Wikipedia called WP:NPOV, also a core content policy. As I stated above, a couple of them are so subjective that in no possible way will they stay in this article. Also, your added paragraph breaks another core content policy called WP:V. You may want to read the pages I've linked to, as they are very important to this encyclopedia. And that's no matter what I have written on my user page about guidelines. We're not talking mere guidelines -- we are talking the hard policies of this site. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This article has become a battle field of opinion due to it's conflicting nature. I would like to suggest we add substantial information to this article and allow the reader to decide what he/she would like to read about William Branham. If an Individual is looking for something to criticize William Branham on then they will find it here. On the other hand if someone is looking for a more positive read on his life they will also find that here. This never the less is only possible if we stop fighting and allow both Positive and Negative things to appear on this page for the Reader to find. If neither side is willing to compromise in this way this page might as well be pulled from Wikipedia altogether. Thank you for Considering this Idea-- Footprints on the Sands of Time ( talk) 02:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the following addition be made to the article:
The seven major events of the 1933 vision were:
Reference provided is ”Branham, W,, Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, William Branham Evangelistic Outreach, 1965" with no page number.
There are several problems with this proposed edit:
1. It is based on primary source material
2. Because the primary source material disagrees with itself in several places, listing this material without listing the other versions of these visions is inappropriate.
3.. This primary source material is not a direct quote. Therefore, given that other primary source material is at odds with this information, the proposed edit must be considered original research. Original research is not permitted per Wikipedia policy.
4. Given that these "prophecies" are dealt with in Weaver's secondary source material, that is where the information in the article should come from.
Taxee ( talk) 00:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's NPOV section states under "Assert facts, not opinions" : When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.[1]". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to weight policy, and they should be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it.
The statement "The reliability of William Branham's biographical material should be viewed with caution. This is because Branham's autobiographical stories were often embellished, and sometimes contradictory." Is a assertion of opinion, and although it is a cited opinion it is asserted as fact. This is not dissimilar to the statement "John Doe is the best baseball player" in the example above. Instead it should includes the words "According to Weaver" or other such inline attribution.
That is an overly biased statement that could be asserted to any religious leader of any religion who has had biographical work written about them. This statement also tells the reader what attitude to take towards the material of unsaid number of books. The term "biographical material" could encompass every book ever written on the man and any future books to be written. This is a biased and unfair generalization. The statement "This is because Branham's autobiographical stories were often embellished, and sometimes contradictory" makes a unneccessary point with no citation to specifics. By saying "often embellished" are we to assume the author has omnipotent information of every autobiography written or will ever be written on the man? How does he know? What does he mean by "often"? These are natural objections. Without specifics this opinion is not verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionram ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Display name 99 ( talk · contribs) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I know you've waited a while, but I'm starting this now.
General
Lead
Biography
Teaching
Sourcing
Notes
Darlig Gitarist, I see you said that you hoped to get to this in early August. You did a few things on August 3, and a couple more on August 16. But there are still plenty of things that need to be done. Since August 16, I haven't seen much of anything on the article aside from some edit wars. (Maybe applying for semi-protection wouldn't be a bad idea if all of the IP edits are disruptive.) Any idea when you can get to this? Display name 99 ( talk) 01:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
As I have reverted changes I thought I have started a discussion. (I have no opinion) Red Jay ( talk) 11:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
“ | The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements contains these comments:
"The person universally acknowledged as the revival’s 'father' and 'pacesetter' was William Branham. The sudden appearance of his miraculous healing campaigns in 1946 set off a spiritual explosion in the Pentecostal movement which was to move to Main Street, U.S.A., by the 1950s and give birth to the broader charismatic movement in the 1960s, which currently affects almost every denomination in the country" While it is sometimes claimed that other groups in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements were partially influenced by Branham (including the Latter Rain Movement, Manifest Sons of God, and Kingdom Now theology) there is little resemblance between the current theology of these groups and what Branham taught. |
” |
The article states:
On the night of January 24, 1950, an unusual photograph was taken during a speaking engagement in the Sam Houston Coliseum in Houston, Texas. As Branham stood at the podium, an apparent halo of fire appeared above his head. A photograph of this phenomenon was produced, the only one of its film roll that developed an image. George J. Lacy, an investigator of questioned documents, subjected the negative to testing [1] and declared at a news conference that, "To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world's history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated." The original of the photograph is in the archives of the Religious Department of the Smithsonian Institution.
However, a search of the Smithsonian's archives returns no results. I'm having a little trouble seeing anything especially extraordinary about the photo (as a photographer, it looks like a light on the ceiling to me).
The claims about the photo being housed at the Smithsonian are untrue (it seems to be an urban legend that follows the photo around - I've heard it before) and the only sites I can find that reference George J. Lacy are Branhamist.
I don't think the claims belong here as fact, as a statement of myth surrounding Branham, maybe. But it's not fact.
Wisco 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not know where the writer of the article about the photograph got his or her facts from. George J Lacy did not, as far as I can ascertain mention anything about 'a supernatural being' and 'scientifically vindicated'. It would pay people to read the actual words of his report on http://biblebelievers.org/gjlacy.htm It is indeed unfortunate that some, both those who agree and disagree with the ministry of William Branham will misconstrue and misquote facts. This does nobody any good, and certainly doesn't help the article have a NPOV. I have now changed this part of the article to more accurately reflect what Mr Lacy actually wrote. Malachi456 09:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I've seen here is the letter that George J. Lacy wrote
http://www.prisonministries.net/Web%20pages/George%20J%20Lacy%20Report.htm —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.100.131.93 (
talk)
04:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the link to the photo on the LOC web site...
I have taken this out of the first section, until someone can produce evidence that Branham was a Mason. I cannot find any evidence of it in his transcribed sermons, and I am pretty sure that he was not associated with the Masons in any way -- Malachi456 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This should help:
And he said, "Brother Branham." He said, "You know," said, "when..." He was a Nazarene, and he said, "You know, when--when you first started preaching," said, "I thought sure you was a Nazarene." He said, "And then I seen so many Pentecostal people along," said, "somebody told me you went Pentecost." And said, "Now," said, "I heard you say that--that you was a Baptist." Said, "I--I don't understand this." I said, "That's easy." I said, "I'm a Pentecostal, Nazarene, Baptist." So that's the way we are. We just represent the Lord Jesus Christ in His mercy. That's right. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body and become one people." And that...
Brother Branham also refers to himself as a Pentecostal Baptist on several occasions, but most of all he calls himself a Christian, because God doesn't judge by what church you follow, he judges you by your heart. But, of all things, he never claimed to be a mason! SplinterCell37 12:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
From a number of Branham’s comments, particularly in his later sermons the definite impression is given that Branham had personally gone to the palace to pray for King George and that this resulted in a instantaneous healing:
King George of England with multiple sclerosis, when I went over and prayed for him. Couldn't even set but just a few minutes at a time. Next day, played twenty-eight holes of golf. (‘Jesus of Nazareth Passeth By’, 24/5/58)
And I been in king's palaces, went to prayed for King George of England. I was with the Gustavus up in Swi--Sweden. And I been in many king's palaces, and King Farouk, and--and many other places, and great potentates and monarchs. Some of the greatest the world has today, I've had the privilege of going in and talk with them, interview. I've been in lovely homes. (‘Seal of God’, 16/2/61)
And as you know that when I went there and prayed for King George when he had multiple sclerosis and he was healed instantly; the next day he played eighteen holes of golf, and he couldn't even set up for just a few minutes at a time. (‘Why’, 13/4/61)
I've been in kings' palaces. I prayed for King George of England, you know, when he was healed from multiple sclerosis. I prayed for other kings, potentates, monarchs. (‘Uncertain Sound’.14/7/62)
Oh, my. I've been in Hollywood, and I've prayed for King George in the palace, and Gustav up in Sweden, and different places. (‘God Hinding Himself in Simplicity’, 12/4/63)
However earlier he had been more specific in claiming that he had actually prayed for King George without traveling to him, though he did claim that he went to England later to see him (on his way to Finland in April 1950):
And he was a friend to the king's private secretary, and through there King George of England sent word to me. I have his statements and have his letters of his fields and every... To come pray for him of multiple sclerosis, and so I couldn't go up that time. So I just wired back and told the king that I would pray for him here, that God would hear here just the same as he would over there. And so, then another telegram come through and wanted me to come on over immediately. Later when I went to England, over there, to see him, and the Lord healed him. He was--couldn't even stand up over five minutes at a time, and he... I believe the second day he played eighteen holes of golf, and never was bothered with it no more until the very day he died. And I was in Africa when he died. They found a little tumor here on his lung. They started to cut it open and air got to it some way, I don't know, and caused a blood clot to go to his brain and killed him instantly. So very fine man... (‘Testimony’, 29/11/53)
In other accounts of his visit to London he would refer to going off to Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey, however on at least one occasion (‘Testimony’, 29/11/53) he admitted that "The king wasn't in at the time". It is sometimes claimed that Branham prayed for King George in person on some other occasion, however it does not seem that Branham ever described an actual meeting with the King. The visit to London was mentioned in ‘A Man Sent from God’ (p208) however no mention was made of any royal visit. The probability that no such meeting occurred is reinforced by the fact that when the topic of the Royalty came up he would often remark about having seen the King and Queen as they were driven past in a carriage when they were visiting Canada, rather than any face to face meeting.
Branham's claim to have seen the King and Queen in Vancouver Canada is also dubious. On a number of occasions he claimed to have seen the King and Queen whilst in the company of Ern Baxter:
It was the Queen of England. Why, you would've felt honored, because she's a great woman. I got to see her once. I saw the old mother queen. I got to see them when King George just when he still had his multiple sclerosis, 'fore he sent for me come pray for him. And when we passed down the street in Canada, and standing there, there was the queen in her beautiful blue dress, and King George with his, setting up, great suffering with ulcers in his stomach and multiple sclerosis, which they said he was suffering tremendously that day. But you'd have never knowed it: sit just as straight. Why? He was a king, and he conducted himself like a king. And I noticed Mr. Baxter, which used to be my campaign manager; he just wept when he seen them pass. And I said, ‘Ernie, what you weeping about?’ He said, ‘Billy, there goes the king and the queen.’ Said, ‘Oh, aren't they lovely?’ I said, ‘Yes, Mr. Baxter, they are.’(Jesus at the Door, 29/5/58)
Sometime ago I was standing in Vancouver, British Colombia, and the King George of England had come over to visit Canada. And he was making his way down along the street in the carriage, and his beautiful queen setting by him... And Mr. Baxter, one of my associates, he was weeping, because he said, "Just think, Brother Branham, our king passes by. (Message to the Laodicean Church, 9/6/58)
King George's only visit to Vancouver occurred in May 1939. There is no record of Branham visiting Canada prior to 1947 and significantly it was only around this time that Branham met Ern Baxter who subsequently became a campaign manager for him. From Branham's accounts it is apparent that he considered Ern Baxter a reasonably close acquaintance, not just someone he might have met once, who would have subsequently have forgotten the meeting. While it might be conceivable that Branham could have made a trip to Vancouver in 1939, unrecorded apart from these comment about seeing the King and Queen, his claimed association with Ern Baxter at the time is rather less plausible. A close association between Ern Baxter and Branham in 1939 is not likely to be something that Ern Baxter would have forgotten or failed to have mentioned. Aside from these implausibilities, there are major inconsistencies in his various accounts. On some occasions he said that rather than actually seeing the King and Queen, he and Ern Baxter were listening to a radio broadcast:
And a good friend of mine, Brother Ern Baxter, as we were listening to it on the broadcast as it came through, him and his lovely queen setting there... And we were setting in the room and I'll never forget it. Ern got so overcome that he jumped up out of the chair and threw his arms around me and started weeping. And I said, "What's the excitement all about, Brother Baxter?" He said, "Brother Branham, that's my king.(Door in a Door, 23/2/63).
The likely explanation is that Branham was repeating a story told by Ern Baxter of seeing the King and Queen and over time began to believe he had witnessed it himself.
Aside from the rather misleading statements regarding the circumstances of Branham praying for King George there is also the questions of whether he was actually cured and whether it had anything to do with Branham. Firstly it should be noted that King George never had multiple sclerosis. In 1948 King George was diagnosed with arterio-sclerosis (‘hardening of the arteries’) which was probably a consequence of his heavy smoking. This is a quite different condition to multiple sclerosis (presumably Branham did not use the discernment of the ‘angel’ to make a diagnosis on this case). By the end of 1948 the blood circulation in King George’s legs had deteriorated to the point that he was significantly incapacitated. On 12 March 1949 a operation was performed to improve the circulation in his legs. This proved successful and he improved significantly, however this was not a cure but a partial relief for some of his symptoms and King George continued to suffer from arterio-scleroris up until his death. Branham evidently heard reports of King George’s improved health following the operation and attributed it to his prayers. It is true that answer to prayer can come in the form of a successful operation, however it is somewhat presumptuous of Branham to claim the credit for it, considering the many other Christians that would have been praying for him (prayers for the health and wellbeing of the monarch is a common feature of liturgy in the Anglican Church and numerous other Christians would have been praying without prompting). The only thing that appears to connect Branham with the King is a claimed telegram requesting prayer, though it is more probable that it was actually from his private secretary on his behalf, whom Branham claimed was a friend of someone he healed. In summary Branham’s claims to have healed King George are inaccurate and show signs of embellishment. Rather than providing evidence of his healing ministry, the idea he had anything to do with King George’s state of health is reliant upon his reputation. The rather shameless name dropping, in repeatedly mentioning the King, should be considered when claims are made for Branham’s humility.
Rev107 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC) http://www.biblebelievers.org/lkgeorge.htm This website describes the healing of King George. Skeptics need only contact those who hold William Branham's records to ascertain the truth of the incident, and examine the evidence. http://www.branham.org/BranhamDefault.asp?lbi=0 Ken O'Dwyer
One of the more dubious claims that Branham made regarding his life story was that he had been a professional boxer including the claims "I won fifty-two straight professional fights. And I lost my fifty-three to Billy Pritchard" (Faith Without Works Is Dead, Aug. 22, 1950) "I had the undefeated title of bantam weight championship of the three states" (Expectation, Feb. 20, 1954) and "I'd won the Bantam Weight Championship in the Golden Gloves." (Results Of Decision, Oct. 08, 1955). With contemporary boxers typically not having much more than ten professional fights a year (often rather less) 53 fights would have taken a few years, typically 4-5 years or more yet there appears to be no point in his life in which to fit this career as a prize fighter (which is puzzling even to Branham's supporters who accept his claim that he was one). Furthermore attempts to find any mention of Branham in contemporary Boxing records, including the Golden Gloves championship shows no mention of him. Winning 52 straight professional fights would certainly be a noteworthy achievement. Branham did remark that as a boy he had ambitions of being a prize fighter: "I finally got me a little girlfriend, and like all little boys, about fifteen years old, I guess. …I wanted to be a prize fighter; that was my idea of life." (Life Story, Apr. 19, 1959). Quite possibly the boyhood fantasy of being a prize fighter became blurred with reality in his mind (there are several other examples of this, including meeting King George VI).
Removed this portion of text from the bottom of the article to clean it up a bit so that it is more NPOV. Might add it later (after it is edited).
Rev107 As has already been noted, some of the old audio tapes have poor quality. The boxer's name was not Billy Pritchard, but Billy Frick. This can be quite easily verifed by listening carefully to the tape (50-0822). The early tape transcripts occasionally contain such errors. The lastest up to date Message Search is correct. http://www.branham.org/MessageSearch.htm Another skeptic's rash claims bite the dust :) Ken O'Dwyer
I tried editing this article in 2013 but gave up after being embroiled in a dispute over content. I ended up with the distinct feeling that one needed to be a lawyer to edit anything on Wikipedia. So I walked away.
I came back recently after reading a new book on the subject of Branham that was published earlier this year which contained a lot of information on Branham that had not previously been published. It became readily apparent after a short time that things had not changed with trying to edit this article. While I wish compromise could be reached, it does not appear that this is likely to happen without third party intervention at some level.
I should also add that, while I formerly attended a church that followed Branham, my aim is to present a fair and balanced picture of Branham. I do appreciate that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy in favour of or in opposition to a movement. What I would like to see is a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature of Branham. I do not believe that the article currently reflects this.
I have done a fair amount of reading of the relevant Wikipedia policies and believe that to make this article factually correct and NPOV, we need to arrive at a reasonable consensus on the following:
If Rev107 is willing, I would like to suggest trying the use of a third opinion. This is neither mandatory nor binding. Rather, it is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal mechanism through which two editors currently in dispute can request an opinion from an uninvolved third editor.
Trying to edit the article in any reasonable fashion is a complete waste of time if the majority of substantive edits are simply reverted without any willingness to compromise or undertake a reasonable discussion on the merits of the edit. Taxee ( talk) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I am going to clean up the footnotes in the article which could take some time. The current footnoting style makes editing the article difficult. Using a bibliography and small footnotes will make editing easier and should also help those that are interested in doing further research.
I have started with Weaver (as he was the first footnote) then will go through the entire article. I will not be making any edits other than the footnotes while doing this.
I will also be going through the article and removing embedded links in the footnotes. Embedded links are to be avoided as outlined in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links:
This article has been tagged since 21 June. Since that time not one disputed statement has been identified & substantiated. Only two disputed statements have been raised and both have been resolved: (1) WB's date of birth has been established by 2 authoritative secondary sources (Weaver & Harrell), and (2) the name of the church in which WB was ordained has been clarified (the name was "First Pentecostal Baptist" church which was a Missionary Baptist church).
The editor currently maintaining the tag is not discussing disputed statements. He/she is only adding new material and discussing the use of sources. In these circumstances the tag cannot be maintained. The tag is not used to indicate an editor's reservations about the use of primary & secondary sources. Rev107 ( talk) 02:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a place where recent disputants can either Support or Oppose removal of the tag that begins with "This article's factual accuracy is disputed." I will not be a participant. Please explain why you support or oppose. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I oppose the removal of the tag - "Facts must always be presented to counter Branham's fiction." User:Vindicated1 — Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I oppose the removal of the tag. The source documents from which this information is taken are taken primarily from the words of William Branham himself. Yet, when these words are closely examined, a pattern of inconsistencies between them and the known facts are observed, as well as a tendencey to extremely exaggerate and embellish the accounts. Extensive research has been done recently and is published on several websites that demonstrate this. These websites include www.believethesign.com, www.seekyethetruth.com, and www.searchingforvindication.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth or Fiction ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I OPPOSE THE REMOVAL OF THE TAG. Almost all of the biographical material is drawn from Branham's own telling of his life story. The telling of his life story changes dramatically from account to account, and is embellished dramatically. Most of the third party references on the site do not independently verify his claims, but rather assume his telling of his biography is accurate and reference his claims verbatim. For example, the Biography section claims that he had a boxing career and was a cowboy in Arizona. However, the boxing records from the locations, time periods and the weights he said he fought in contain no record of him. His claims of being a cowboy in Arizona conflict with instances where he claims to be a cowboy in Kansas. His stories from this period are suspiciously similar to the plots of popular western shows of the time. There are various websites such as www.searchingforvindication.com and www.believethesign.com and others that have worked hard to reconcile his stories with historical records such as newspaper clippings and birth and marriage certificates, that show his Wikipedia biography to be significantly inaccurate and factually incorrect. These websites have become more accurate in compiling a biography that matches (and is based upon) recorded and documented history. Bus-stop3 ( talk) 18:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I oppose the removal of the tag William Branham's own words often contradict each other and his stories change over time. There is legal documentation proving that he lied about his birth date, the church he attended, and many statements he made concerning events in his life. You may view the documents at www.searchingforvindication.com. Blittzer ( talk) 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Blittzer
I have removed the tag based on the edits over the past 2 months which relates everything in the article to secondary sources, primarily Weaver and Harrell. Taxee ( talk) 19:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that the William Branham page has been edited over the past year or so and articles and negative opinions have dominated the page. The original page which was likely written by his family or people who knew and loved him. Since the recent edits have been placed into the page the true story of the man and his ministry have been clouded by skepticism and borderline hate literature. One must understand why certain people would be motivated to write a book or a chapter of a book to discredit the ministry of William Branham it is because William Branham disagreed with what that person believed. Any person could write a book or an article and self publish it which neither makes the book true or false, it is just merely one person's opinion put into writing. So to constantly quote a book written by Weaver who was an obvious critic of the man and to imply that because it came from a book it must than be true would be naive. The page now is riddled with skepticism and needs to taken down and rewritten. There have risen certain groups of former followers of the message of William Branham that have made it their mission in life to discredit this man and his ministry. They have been allowed a free for all on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.G. Perkins ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I am an avid user of Wikipedia, which I believe is a fantastic project that provides Internet users with unbiased information on a vast range of topics.
I was therefore surprised to find the opposite when I read this article about William Branham, which could be best described as a synopsis of Douglas Weaver's book: "The Healer-Prophet".
The current article has no less than 49 references to Douglas Weaver's book, which in itself is not the problem, although these references account for more than half of the references put together.
The problem is that Douglas Weaver is not a reliable source of unbiased information.
The mere fact that he is a baptist theologian (and former baptist pastor) working as a professor in a private Baptist university (Baylor) implies that his agenda would be to defend the baptist faith, theology and tradition in an apologetic manner.
Take into account that Wililam Branham started out as an independent baptist minister and later left the denomination.
In light of this:
In its current state this article is heavily biased against William Branham, it is based on highly biased sources and should be taken down and rewritten.
Eforsund ( talk) 06:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually when you compare Branham's stories all through his sermons, you will find the man contradicted himself many times.A good indication he was making things up. You only have to look at his complete different life stories . One version is that he was raised to a young man in the mountains of Cumberland,Kentucky together with his siblings . In another version he says the Branhams moved to New Albany,Indiana when he was still very little (about 290 km/180 miles westward!). And was raised there , which is confirmed by US census records.He was 3 years when they moved to Indiana! This is something we see going on with all his stories. Also the miracle healing stories. A good example is the king George VI case. There's nowhere any record of him visiting the king or the king suffering from multiple sclerosis . In fact he had arteriosclerosis and died in 1952. /info/en/?search=George_VI . Here we see Branham was confusing names of diseases , probably had read about the king somewhere. After the king's death he still claimed he was healed by his prayer. Argus52Genesis ( talk) 20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Whose comment is this? No signature? 86.62.143.189 ( talk) 19:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry I'm learning to work with this Argus52Genesis ( talk) 20:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Instead of engaging in an edit conflict, I'm going to list problems with the content/headings being added back:
Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Footprints on the Sands of Time:, in addition to the above issues I outlined, I want to address the edit summary you last used: "These Headings are very useful and don't break any rules". Some of them actually do break one of the pillars of Wikipedia called WP:NPOV, also a core content policy. As I stated above, a couple of them are so subjective that in no possible way will they stay in this article. Also, your added paragraph breaks another core content policy called WP:V. You may want to read the pages I've linked to, as they are very important to this encyclopedia. And that's no matter what I have written on my user page about guidelines. We're not talking mere guidelines -- we are talking the hard policies of this site. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This article has become a battle field of opinion due to it's conflicting nature. I would like to suggest we add substantial information to this article and allow the reader to decide what he/she would like to read about William Branham. If an Individual is looking for something to criticize William Branham on then they will find it here. On the other hand if someone is looking for a more positive read on his life they will also find that here. This never the less is only possible if we stop fighting and allow both Positive and Negative things to appear on this page for the Reader to find. If neither side is willing to compromise in this way this page might as well be pulled from Wikipedia altogether. Thank you for Considering this Idea-- Footprints on the Sands of Time ( talk) 02:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the following addition be made to the article:
The seven major events of the 1933 vision were:
Reference provided is ”Branham, W,, Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, William Branham Evangelistic Outreach, 1965" with no page number.
There are several problems with this proposed edit:
1. It is based on primary source material
2. Because the primary source material disagrees with itself in several places, listing this material without listing the other versions of these visions is inappropriate.
3.. This primary source material is not a direct quote. Therefore, given that other primary source material is at odds with this information, the proposed edit must be considered original research. Original research is not permitted per Wikipedia policy.
4. Given that these "prophecies" are dealt with in Weaver's secondary source material, that is where the information in the article should come from.
Taxee ( talk) 00:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's NPOV section states under "Assert facts, not opinions" : When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.[1]". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to weight policy, and they should be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it.
The statement "The reliability of William Branham's biographical material should be viewed with caution. This is because Branham's autobiographical stories were often embellished, and sometimes contradictory." Is a assertion of opinion, and although it is a cited opinion it is asserted as fact. This is not dissimilar to the statement "John Doe is the best baseball player" in the example above. Instead it should includes the words "According to Weaver" or other such inline attribution.
That is an overly biased statement that could be asserted to any religious leader of any religion who has had biographical work written about them. This statement also tells the reader what attitude to take towards the material of unsaid number of books. The term "biographical material" could encompass every book ever written on the man and any future books to be written. This is a biased and unfair generalization. The statement "This is because Branham's autobiographical stories were often embellished, and sometimes contradictory" makes a unneccessary point with no citation to specifics. By saying "often embellished" are we to assume the author has omnipotent information of every autobiography written or will ever be written on the man? How does he know? What does he mean by "often"? These are natural objections. Without specifics this opinion is not verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionram ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Display name 99 ( talk · contribs) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I know you've waited a while, but I'm starting this now.
General
Lead
Biography
Teaching
Sourcing
Notes
Darlig Gitarist, I see you said that you hoped to get to this in early August. You did a few things on August 3, and a couple more on August 16. But there are still plenty of things that need to be done. Since August 16, I haven't seen much of anything on the article aside from some edit wars. (Maybe applying for semi-protection wouldn't be a bad idea if all of the IP edits are disruptive.) Any idea when you can get to this? Display name 99 ( talk) 01:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
As I have reverted changes I thought I have started a discussion. (I have no opinion) Red Jay ( talk) 11:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)