Talk:William M. Branham

Community reassessment

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

William branham
Large portions of this article are terribly incorrect.William Branham never had nothing to do with the klan except they paid his hospital bill when he was young and he did not promote any ministry of Jim jones 173.191.236.189 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He was ordained a minister by the Imperial Wizard of the KKK. And he held joint meetings with Jim Jones for several years. Are you saying the sources are incorrect? If you have a reliable source for, it that would be great to include in the article. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 23:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet you can’t be so sure the sources claiming all that are being honest and legit. 2603:6011:9600:52C0:55B4:215A:E03F:81C8 (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you find some of the cited sources do not meet the requirements of WP:RS feel free to point them out. We certainly would want to address that, if it were an issue. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 12:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nuage mystérieux William.M.Branham.jpeg

Length
At nearly 16k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably - see WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. The article would benefit from significant summarization to make it more accessible to the general readership. Note also that it has nearly doubled in size since its FA candidacy, so may warrant review. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would propose separating the "Teachings" section back into its own articles. It was originally part of a Branhamism article, and was merged here quite a while back. If no one is opposed I would could make the adjustment. That would reduce article size by about 30%. Although I expect the quality would suffer, as that article is less monitored and this topic receives quite a bit of vandalism. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 16:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems like a logical split. The size alone would meet the criteria for a bold split, so I don't see any issues there.   Butler Blog   (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree quality will likely suffer but it seems the split makes sense. Darlig &#127928; Talk to me 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if the editing wasn't done in the best way. I'm considering how to improve these articles. ,, ,

On the page about William M. Branham, I removed the teachings content and placed it on the branhamism page, then moved branhamism to The Message of William Branham.

I believe it's appropriate to separate the biography of the subject and the teachings, similar to how it's done with Jesus and Christianity. Good afeternoon. Fox de Quintal (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Name (article)
Should the article be transferred to William Marrion Branham? Because the current title is William M. Branham. On the 'Wikipedia in Portuguese', the article is listed as Willian Marrion Branham. Fox de Quintal (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * While I don't specifically object to a move at this point, if you're going to open discussion on this, then wait for discussion to ensue and complete before actually making the move. There's a process in place and while it could be argued that this meets criteria for WP:BOLDMOVE, it does only marginally.  If you want to discuss a move in the future, make it known using the process here: WP:RSPM.   Butler Blog   (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think a move is appropriate because the reason for moving doesn't fit the criteria at Moving a page. The name of the current page doesn't cause any confusion and there is a redirect in place from William Branham. The fact that the title includes the middle name in another Wikipedia language doesn't seem sufficient reason for moving the page.
 * Darlig &#127928; Talk to me 18:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * e What's the issue with including the middle name? The number of results on Google for the full name "William Marrion Branham" is significantly higher than for "William M. Branham". While "William Marrion Branham" yields over 400 thousand results, "William M. Branham" has only 39 thousand. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the article should be titled "William Marrion Branham". Fox de Quintal (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't title articles based on Google searches. That lacks context.  By that logic, it should be "William Branham" because that yields 823,000 results on Google.  You need to make a more convincing argument that the current page title needs to change based on some legitimate criteria of WP:TITLE.  There's presently no need to disambiguate, and there isn't any confusion surrounding the existing title.   Butler Blog   (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Darlig &#127928; Talk to me 20:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)