Talk:William M. Branham/Archive 4

Cult comments
I refer to these comments added on 18:38, 25 May 2008 by "130.179.152.65"

Current Followers Beliefs

Those who currently follow the teachings of William Branham are often referred to as 'Branhamites' by other Christian denominations, as a way of detaching and disowning it as anything more than a cult practice. "Branhamism" is a label used to highlight the devotion of the Follower's cult like devotion to William Branham and his Message.

I do not deny that some religious organisations regard the followers of William Branham as belonging to a cult ...and some religious organisations regard the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon. However, this is an encyclopedia and people's opinions cannot be stated as fact even if they are based on "extensive experiential knowledge".

If the "cult" accusation is to be included, then it needs to be properly referenced and presented as an opinion only Rev107 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This comment should definitely be sourced. At the the very least, the comment should be qualified, as only some of Branham's followers would fall under the cult label. The majority, if not the overwhelming majority, are not much different than any other alter-christian group like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. The comment should probably be removed if no source is available. Charles Edward 12:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is strongly biased
This article is obviously biased in favour of people who support or sympathize with Branham's life of preaching to gullible, uneducated people. There is no balanced argument about a doctrine which is clearly heretical - eg: Devil's spawn (ridiculous!) - and a photo from a scratched negative which was supposed to make him a messenger of God! (ridiculous!) He predicted his own death - yet died much earlier - therefore not predicted. He gave out anecdotes about how popular he was because nobody could verify the truth. In short, he was a conman of the most despicable kind. Francis Hannaway (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The article uses appropriate neutral Wikipedia language such as "Branham claimed ..." or "Branham believed ...". It does not state anything as a fact that is not verified by secondary sources such as Weaver, Harrell, Hollenweger and some newspaper reports..  Rev107 (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I rest my case - Rev107 is a self proclaimed collaborator in the Branham sect. If he is an interested party, then probably most of the other editors will be blind to the neutral path of editing. Francis Hannaway (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Your case must rest on the language used in the article, not your personal opinion of me or any other editor. Rev107 (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Francish7. Rev107 uses wikilawyering to wear people down that disagree with him. He is strongly biased and the language of the article reflects that. Taxee (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The point that Francish7 makes about the devil's spawn being ridiculous ignores several scriptures of the Bible. The first is that of St. John 8:33-47, where Jesus himself distinguishes between the Son's of God and the Son's of the Devil, with 'of' representing lineage and that this lineage is not in the natural but spiritual - as they were Abraham's seed in the flesh but yet were not the Seed of Abraham. Paul later explains that the Seed of Abraham are those that have the faith of Abraham. Later John also, referring to Cain in 1 John 3:12, indicates that he was 'of (again referring to lineage) that wicked one and not the son of Adam, and that there are 'children of God' and 'Children of the Devil' ( John 3:10). To say that the devil does not have any offspring is to discount the Bible, which would make any argument pointless, as all of the doctrines taught with reference to Christianity should have a biblical backing or it is not a biblical doctrine. William Branham himself indicated that every revelation and vision he received was not accepted unless it had a solid biblical foundation. The teaching of the Devil having offspring, the serpent's seed, has a biblical backing. 190.80.119.21 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not taking sides, but if there's a neutrality dispute, that needs to be tagged at the top of the article. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the disputed tag because 3 weeks had elapsed since the person who started this discussion had made a contribution. The personal comments by other editors seem to be inappropriate and irrelevant in resolving a dispute.  Rev107 (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with articles about such quackery is that sensible people see them for being such,and because of that they avoid editing them. Why is there no record of the photograph as being described as a scratched negative? ... because people see the scratched negative photo and think "Uh-oh! Loonies! Anyone can see that it's a scratched negative and not a halo." To say that he was uneducated - that he had dipped into varyious heretical texts - should be emphasised in this article. You could say ... it's a "made-up" religion like the ones that say the aliens are telling them what to do. Let's take the example of the "Devil's spawn" concept ... which only a fool ... I repeat, a fool, would believe. This is what is on the Wikipedia page about Devil's spawn: QUOTE Serpent seed, dual seed or two-seedline is a controversial doctrine, according to which the serpent in the Garden of Eden mated with Eve, and the offspring of their union was Cain. This belief is still held by some adherents of the white-supremacist theology known as Christian Identity, who claim that the Jews, as descendants of Cain, are also descended from the serpent. name="Borgeson">ref name="Martin"> The idea has also existed in several other non-racial contexts, and major proponents include Daniel Parker (1781–1844) and William M. Branham (1909–65). END OF QUOTE This is just one of the doctrine that should be prominent in the article. Another is that he claimed that people were cured, even though there is evidence to say that people died after so called healings. This should also be prominent in the article. I could go on .... My point is that the article is written by Branhamists and any conflicting edits are removed. Francis Hannaway (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I speak this from personal experience: I had suffered from a disease called Ankylosing Spondylitis. It had affected my hip joints making it difficult to move them. One day, while in a church service, I was healed. It was an experience that I felt as much as believed. I was able to walk out the church without crutches. An hour later, after being plagued by many thoughts and doubts, I was again unable to walk without crutches. So I know from experience that a man can receive healing and then lose it when his faith fails. Was there medical proof of my healing? No. But there was visible proof - my walking. 190.80.119.21 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Removal of a tag when there's a clear dispute is inappropriate and doesn't assist efforts in resolving it. There's no pre-requirement for an edit war to place that tag.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 11:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Stevie, how long should a disputed tag remain on an article after the person who placed it there fails to respond? F H has now re-entered the dispute after five weeks but from what I see his comments are simply expressing a personal opinion about the subject and those who follow beliefs he considers to be quackery.  Rev107 (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A dispute is a dispute, and your characterization of others' opinions provides a strong indication that there continues to be one. There is no specific timetable that I know of for when a dispute has to be resolved.  I would recommend that the various parties come together, decide all the passages that are in dispute, then work on each passage one by one until it's all ironed out.  Of course, guidelines must be applied, and positions that are based on reliable sources must take the lead.  I noticed somewhere that some sources people talked about are self-published ones -- of course, these must ordinarily be rejected as WP:OR.  I'm not going to be a part of any specific discussion here, as again, I don't want to take sides.  Someone has to play neutral.  :)  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 20:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My "characterisation" of others' comments refers to the use of words such as "fool" and "quackery". Everyone has a bias, however, the focus should not become personal but address specific changes to the article.  It is very difficult to resolve an issue when the other editor is not prepared to engage in ongoing discussion.  I will seek further advice on how long an article can remain tagged in the absence of the person who placed the tag.  My impression is that it is 14 days.   (In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time. NPOV dispute) Rev107 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Francis, please edit your post to include your references with your last comment. I would prefer you avoided the use of words such as "quackery" and "fool" and concentrate on specific changes you are proposing.  The "serpent seed" doctrine is included in the article, along with a source providing criticism (Weaver).  The article also includes criticism from Hollenweger concerning not as many were healed as was claimed.  Many people were healed in WMB's meetings and many people weren't.   Peter walked on the water (some would call that quackery too :) but when he doubted he sank.  Rev107 (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct that everyone has a bias and, as has been pointed out yours is unmistakable. In any event, removing a disputed tag after 3 weeks in the middle of the summer when people are on vacation is another clear sign of bias.  I would suggest leaving it up for 3 months and see what happens.  As indicated, I am in agreement with the dispute tag remaining and have reinstated it. Taxee (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem confused as to whether you are supporting the first tag used by FH (neutrality) or the second placed by STM (factual accuracy). You have not advanced any argument that supports the tag you have used. Please read "Adding a tag to a page" at NPOV dispute and Accuracy dispute. I will accept another 14 days without an ongoing discussion before removing the tag. Please note that Tagging pages for problems defines a reasonable time as "a few days"  Rev107 (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that this article is primarily based on Branham's own words, the factual basis of this article has to be questioned. Weaver clearly states that Branham's "autobiographical stories were often embellished and sometimes contradictory" (p.21.22). Taxee (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Factual errors re "Early Life" Comment
Rev107 revised my comment on the grounds that it reflected POV. The problem with his revision is that the offending word - dubious - is one used by Weaver in his book. The original wording in the article was as follows:


 * ''At the age of twenty-two he had a conversion experience and later was ordained as an assistant pastor at a Missionary Baptist Church in Jeffersonville. When he disagreed with the pastor about the role of women preaching, William Branham held a series of revivals on his own in a tent.  Later, the meetings moved to a Masonic temple until they were able to construct a building in 1933 which the congregation named 'Branham Tabernacle'.

There are a number of problems with this passage from a factual perspective. This is one of many reasons why I support the notice of dispute re factual accuracy.

The problems are as follows:


 * 1) Weaver's research uncovered the fact that the church pastored by Roy Davis in Jeffersonville was not a Missionary Baptist church but rather was the First Pentecostal Baptist Church. This is corroborated by advertisements in the Jeffersonville Evening News and by listings for the church in the Jeffersonville Directory.
 * 2) According to both Angela Smith's "Generations" book and the Jeffersonville Evening News, the original name of the Branham's church was the Pentecostal Tabernacle.

So in 3 sentences, we have 2 serious factual errors.

Rev107, since you didn't like my edit, I would invite you to edit the above 3 sentences in a manner that accurately reflects the facts. However, I do find the present wording as revised by yourself unacceptable as it does not accurately reflect the facts. Taxee (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "The First Pentecostal Baptist Church" was a Missionary Baptist church. It is something like saying the "Cloverdale Bibleway Church" is a Message church. There were two main divisions among the Baptist churches: Missionary Baptists and Primitive Baptists.  See also National Missionary Baptist Convention of America.
 * Roy Davis was not Pentecostal as it is understood today. "First Pentecostal" refers to the belief that their church could be traced back to apostolic times. He wrote in a letter: I had been a Baptist preacher for many years, and had been taught to disregard such ideas and concepts of spiritual things ... (Voice of Healing, Oct 1950)
 * WB called the church he started "The Pentecostal Tabernacle". The board of the church, with the support of the congregation, later changed it to "Branham Tabernacle". Rev107 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your statement that "The First Pentecostal Baptist Church" was a Missionary Baptist church disregards the words of the letter of Roy Davis that you refer to. Roy Davis stated in that letter that:


 * I am the minister who received Brother Branham into the first Pentecostal assembly he ever frequented. I baptized him, and was his pastor for some two years... I was the first man on this earth whom Billy ever saw anoint and pray for a sick person. I feel I can write more intimately of Billy Bran­ham than any living minister, as he also received his Baptism of the Holy Ghost in my humble home in Jeffersonville, Indiana.


 * Does that sound like a classical "Baptist" church? No!  The emphasis was on Pentecostalism.  It is for this reason that Weaver states the following in his book:


 * Branham's assertion that the "holy roller" caricature was his only previous understanding of Pentecostalism is dubious. Though Branham described the Baptist church to which he belonged as the Missionary Baptist Church,... the actual name of the church was First Pentecostal Baptist.  The congregation was "a Holy Ghost church where they worship God in Spirit and not the fleshly denominations."


 * That is my problem. As a follower, you believe every word William Branham said.  Weaver looks at his statements critically.  The article should reflect Weaver's doubt about William Branham's veracity on this issue.  Taxee (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you understand that "Missionary Baptist church" refers to a Baptist affiliation, not the name of Roy Davis's church?
 * All churches of every denomination believe in the baptism with the Holy Spirit in some form or other, and every denomination has always prayed for the sick, even Catholics, but they do not accept that a person received the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues which is the general belief of Pentecostalism. In the letter you refer to, Roy Davis clearly identifies himself as "a Baptist preacher for many years, and had been taught to disregard such ideas and concepts of spiritual things as visions, talking with the Lord, and kindred things."
 * I do not object to Weaver's opinions being included in the article as long as the comments are identified as his opinions. Weaver does not say it is dubious WB "was ordained as a Missionary Baptist" (as you wrote in the article) but rather Weaver thinks it is dubious that the Oneness Pentecostal meeting WB attend in 1936 was "his only previous understanding of Pentecostalism". Weaver includes this in a footnote as his opinion though in the text of his book he clearly states: "Branham's first exposure to Pentecostalism occurred in 1936. While on a vacation, by coincidence he attended a gathering of Oneness Pentecostals."  Rev107 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Intro to biography section
I am proposing that an introduction to the biography section include wording as follows:


 * Much of the information about Branham's life and ministry seems to have been from Branham himself or one of his followers, and that different versions of the same incident that he himself told are sometimes either difficult to reconcile or are contradictory.

This is almost a direct quote from Sheryl, J.Greg, (2013, July), The Legend of William Branham, The Quarterly Journal, The Newsletter Publication of Personal Freedom Outreach, Vol. 33, No. 3, p.10.

Weaver makes essentially the same point on page 21 of his book when he states that


 * Branham's autobiographical stories were often embellished and sometimes contradictory. Other sources, written by his associates or followers are apologetic and hagiogroaphical in nature.

Given that the information in this article is primarily from Branham's sermons, a note regarding the potential factual problems in this information must be given to the reader. Taxee (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your proposed statement is POV. Reword it to be NPOV and include it in the criticism section if you must.  BTW, the PFO journal is a self published source and under WP policy is only acceptable as reliable source for information about themselves. Rev107 (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not POV, this is a conclusion from the journal article. Editing from a neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The view expressed above is represented in several sources and so should be expressed.  It should not be ignored.


 * Weaver makes the same point. If it suits you better, I will simply directly quote from the article. But it is not POV, it is a conclusion of both Sheryl and Weaver.  Taxee (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You can quote from Weaver but you cannot use the PFO journal as it is a self published source and can only be used as a reliable source in articles about themselves. Keith Morse, who is PFO’s vice-president and serves on the Board of Directors, is the journal's editor and is responsible for preparing for publication all the material that appears in this periodical. Rev107 (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What makes a scholarly journal with an editor, numerous contributing authors, a board of directors and a separate board of reference which includes several well known theologians, a self-published source?  Taxee (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * When a religious group with a very specific agenda publishes its own journal, it is a self published source and therefore not a reliable source (other than about itself) according to Wikipedia guidelines. Rev107 (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you please identify and reference the specific Wikipedia guideline that states this? Taxee (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. WP:V WP:RS Rev107 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In the Public Ministry section paragraph 2, should we include a link to the article in the June 2, 1933, issue of Jeffersonville Evening News identifying 14 conversions as a result of his tent meetings? Bus-stop3 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made this change. The newspaper article appears on at least one other website, does it make sense to reference this website as well? Bus-stop3 (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The date of the article in the Jeffersonville Evening News that indicated 14 converts is June 02, 1933. This was near the beginning of the revival. The baptismal service was June 11, 1933. That was 9 days later, and so by that time there may have well been a significant more (even hundreds) converted and/or baptized than the 14 converts mentioned in the June 2nd article. This comment misrepresents the facts and is framed in such a way as to suggest the account of a 17th convert is not truthful, therefore the comment should be edited or removed.Electseed (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Such a comment is interpretive in nature. Given the newspaper report of June 2, 1933, one would have thought that there would have been additional reports in the news if anything else significant had occurred.  Taxee (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Original name of Branham Tabernacle
The original name of William Branham's church was the Pentecostal Tabernacle. It is first referenced in an advertisement in the Jeffersonville Evening News on August 17, 1935. Rev. Wm. Branham is listed as the pastor of the Pentecostal Tabernacle. Hope Branham's obituary in the Jeffersonville Evening News of July 22, 1937 also refers to her memorial service being held in the Pentecostal Tabernacle. The 1937 Jeffersonville City Directory lists Rev Wm M Branham as the pastor of the Pentecostal Tabernacle. The "Messenger" book published by the Branham family also acknowledges on page 7 that it was originally called the Pentecostal Tabernacle.

The name of the church was changed to the Branham Tabernacle at some later date. Taxee (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This statement of yours is also POV: However, from Weaver's description of the church, it appears that it was as much or more a Pentecostal than a Baptist church. This is an interpretation of what Weaver said.  Stick to the facts, keeping in mind that Weaver clearly states in the text "Branham's first exposure to Pentecostalism occurred in 1936. While on a vacation, by coincidence he attended a gathering of Oneness Pentecostals."  Rev107 (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * How can stating a historical fact be POV? The church was originally called the Pentecostal Tabernacle based on verifiable historical sources.  Perhaps you could explain this to me because i certainly don't understand where you are coming from on this issue.   Taxee (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have never questioned that WB's church was originally called "Pentecostal Tabernacle". I am glad you added it to the article. My comment above refers to the nature of Roy Davis's church ("as much or more a Pentecostal than a Baptist church"). This is POV. I have reworded the article to reflect what Weaver actually says about the "First Pentecostal Baptist" church.
 * You have added extra information but you have still not identified anything in the article that justifies the tag disputing factual accuracy. Rev107 (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for misunderstanding your comment. I was perhaps under the wrong impression that each discussion section dealt with a different subject.


 * On the issue of the factual dispute, I am just getting started. There is a new 350+ page book on Branham that was published earlier this year that contains a lot of pertinent information relating to his life as well as the journal article from 2013.  The example of the name of the church being wrong is simply one example of a factual error that was never previously corrected.   I previously gave up my attempts to edit this article in any meaningful way because of the constant need for dispute resolution.  However, if that is the way we will have to proceed then we will take this slowly, one issue at a time until we have exhausted all of the issues.  Only then will I support removing the dispute notice.   Taxee (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The article said the church was named Branham Tabernacle. That was not an error. Your addition of the original name is a minor detail that was not included previously ... and I am glad you included it as it lends support to the fact that when WB first established his church he did not name it after himself.  Sorry, my friend, you have not corrected anything.  Keep trying  :)


 * As I stated above, self published sources can only be used for information about themselves. Since Owen Jorgensen is recognized as "a dedicated member of the Branhamite sect" by BTS, among other critics, his books can be used as a source for the article.  Rev107 (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with your interpretation. Jorgensen's book is a perfect example of hagiography and should not be used as a reference source for this article.  Taxee (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. WP:V WP:RS
 * Under this guideline Jorgensen qualifies but the PFO journal does not. Primary sources can be used for simple statements (such as the name change of Branham Tabernacle) but not for "exceptional claims". You need to carefully look at how the source is being used before discounting it. On this basis I have reinstated Jorgensen's comment about the name of BT Rev107 (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is not logical. Jorgensen's book is hagiographic and can't be relied on.  The issue regarding who named the church is an immaterial detail that should not be in the article  Taxee (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is not based on Wikipedia guidelines concerning primary sources. The issue regarding the original name of Branham Tabernacle is a minor detail that did not need to be included in the article.  Rev107 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And why is who named it more important? The issue is raised by Weaver and was important to Weaver as an indication that Branham's claims regarding the timing of his introduction to Pentecostalism was dubious (Weaver's words).   Taxee (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not say it was more important. I said I was glad you included the name of Roy Davis's church as well as the original name of Branham Tabernacle.  These are not disputed statements.  Weaver compares WB's "first exposure to Pentecostalism" (Oneness Pentecostals) with his "only previous understanding of Pentecostalism" (First Pentecostal Baptist). The article reflects that understanding so can we say this issue is resolved? Rev107 (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Primary vs. Secondary Sources
Rev107, I think that we need to arrive at an agreement with respect to how we should move forward with this article. If we can't arrive at an agreement (which might require compromise on both of our parts), then I can't see how we can avoid a dispute.

The NRM Manual of Style states that


 * Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources. Editors also should not use primary sources for explicit or implicit advocacy for or against a new religious movement, unless they cite a reliably published secondary source using the same primary source in the same manner.


 * In the NRM field, primary sources include:


 * Writings or other media published by an NRM;
 * Writings or media recordings of a movement's founder;
 * Self-published writings of members and ex-members;
 * Websites of members, ex-members and critics.


 * Primary sources can be cited to support specific statements, but the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.

In my view, the article as it currently reads is based on primary sources with some commentary from secondary sources. That is problematic.

I would suggest that we work on an agreed list of reliable secondary sources and a list of primary sources and then figure out how we move forward from there. If that is not acceptable, then I would be interested in how you think we should proceed. Taxee (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No Wikipedia guideline supports the removal of primary sources. The solution is simple:  add more genuine secondary sources.
 * You need to remember that sources can qualify for some purposes and not for others, this applies particularly to primary sources such as Jorgensen.
 * With all that you have written thus far you have still not identified a single factual error in the article. The language used in the article is careful to say what WB claimed - it does not say what he claimed was true.
 * The best way to move forward is for you to start at the beginning of the article and identify the first disputed statement. Rev107 (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I was quoting a wikipedia source. That's why I provided the link.  Re facts, we can start with Branham's birthdate.  Here is one fact that should be mentioned - William Branham listed April 8, 1909 as his birthdate on his marriage certificate to Hope Brumbach.  He later changed it to 1908 as a result of a fortune teller he met.  This is outlined in Peter Duyzer's new book - Legend of the Fall - which is a recently published book that is not self-published. Amazon listing  Taxee (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the Wikipedia source you quoted. I said, and say again, no Wikipedia policy supports the removal of primary sources that are used correctly.
 * The two most authoritative secondary sources (Harrell & Weaver) have concluded that WB's birthdate was April 6, 1909. (BTW, other critics do not agree with your dates!  Don't you know the latest "discovery" is March 10, 1907?  Time you guys got your story straight ... LOL)
 * ISP is hardly in the same league as Harrell's & Weaver's publishers and Duyzer is far from being a third party - he has an obvious conflict of interest that precludes his book being used as a reliable secondary source. (See Identifying and using primary and secondary sources).
 * Next "error" please.  Rev107 (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Duyzer's book is from a recognized publisher and is not a self-published source. Weaver wrote a recommendation of the book which appears on its back cover.  The issue relates to Branham signing his marriage certificate with a date in 1908 and then later changing that birthdate because of the comments of a fortune teller.   Taxee (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Bergen & Collins also recommend Duyzer's book but they claim a different DOB. ISP is for books that reputable publishers won't touch.  Duyzer is not a third party because he is a disaffected "Branhamite" and because he has a conflict of interest he is not a reliable secondary source.  The consensus of Harrell & Weaver settles the question for the purposes of this Wikipedia article.  Move on.  Rev107 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What Bergen & Collins think is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that in a well-researched book by Peter Duyzer, a copy of Branham's marriage license is reproduced which his signature attesting to the fact that his birthdate is different from that used in the Wikipedia article.


 * Independent Scholar's Press is not listed in the Wikipedia list of list of self-publishing companies. Furthermore, other books published by Independent Scholar's Press are listed as references in other Wikipedia articles.  So your claim above, is completely baseless.


 * The primary problem with this article is that it relies PRIMARILY on primary sources. This is against "no original research" Wikipedia policy which states:


 * ''Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only ifthat has been published by a reliable secondary source.


 * ''Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.


 * This is my major concern with this article and why I believe that there are factual problems.  Taxee (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What you believe is not relevant. You must identify and substantiate specific errors.
 * I have added Weaver's comment to the criticism section where it belongs.
 * You cannot ignore the consensus of Harrell & Weaver regarding WB's DOB.
 * Duyzer's book is not published by a well recognized publishing company - even ISP admit this on their website. And he is not a third party.
 * Please identify a paragraph in the article you think relies too heavily on primary sources so we can address a specific problem?  Rev107 (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I repeat my concern with this entire article. There is a relegation of secondary sources to the criticism section while primary sources predominate the article itself.  Weaver's conclusion should not be in the criticism section.  It is a conclusion that he reached regarding the Branham's primary source material.  That belongs front and center, not as a postscript.


 * It is Wikipedia policy that articles come primarily from secondary sources which is again being ignored. Taxee (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your opinion about the use of primary sources in this article is meaningless without the identification & substantiation of specific examples and specific paragraphs. It is the same with "factual errors". And let me remind you yet again you still have not identified & substantiated a single error.
 * Weaver's comment is a criticism and belongs in the criticism section. Rev107 (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the motivation for relegating secondary sources to the criticism section? Weaver puts it in his book as a clear warning about the nature of the biographical material.  Taxee (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Show me one precedent for what you are trying to do. Criticism belongs in the criticism section.
 * If you want to remove primary sources concerning WB's claims then you will need to remove this recently added comment:"Branham claimed that this event happened while he was baptizing his 17th convert"; however, the Jeffersonville Evening News reported only 14 converts as a result of his meetings..
 * It has been established in previous discussions on this Talk page that primary sources are reliable sources for claims that a person has made. Take this to a WP noticeboard for resolution and place a link to your action here.  Rev107 (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What transpired previously on this talk page is irrelevant if it is not in line with clear Wikipedia policy. If you aren't willing to even discuss how we can bring this article in line with the Wikipedia policies that I referenced above, then I suppose the only option is to engage in dispute resolution.  Taxee (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

To put it short, the problem of this entire article is that it is highly biased. There are mainly two types of books, those written by harsh critics ("enemies") and those written by followers or admirers ("friends"). Since you are not allowed to quote "friends", you are left with "enemies" - and anyone knows that an article written by an enemy will never be neutral. And here we are today, left with an article almost solely based upon a baptist theologian's work, a book that is everything but objective. Eforsund (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume from your comments, Eforsund, that you are a follower of Branham.  And to a follower, an objective analysis of Branham's life and ministry will seem critical because it looks at the facts and not the views of Branham or his followers.  I appreciate that may be problematic to someone who's worldview is based on Branham being a "biblical" character.  However, it is important to understand how articles on Wikipedia should be written.


 * This article should not be based on primary sources, which includes self-published websites that are highly critical of Branham or websites that are glowingly positive. similarly, hagiographic, self-published books (the books of Lindsay, Stadsklev, Vayle, and Green) cannot be used as a basis for this article.  The article must be based on secondary sources and we must restrict any analysis to those independent sources. Taxee (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is largely based on a highly critical book about William Branham written by a baptist theologian. It goes without saying that his personal faith and connections to the baptist denomination will heavily impact his level of objectivity. His negatively loaded language is a clear giveaway. To put it another way, it would be like letting the pope write Jeanne d'Arc's biography, had Wikipedia been around in those days. The result is the direct opposite of a hagiographic text, which is just as big a problem. Do you see my point? Eforsund (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I deleted the material referenced to Oosthuizen and Crowder as it is not properly referenced and therefore cannot be validated. As such, it must be assumed to be a primary source.


 * Taxee: In what way are these sources not properly referenced? Eforsund (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * With respect, the book by Weaver must be considered the most reliable source of information on the subject of William Branham. The most reliable sources are:
 * Peer-reviewed journals
 * Books published by university presses
 * University-level textbooks
 * Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
 * Mainstream newspapers


 * You may not like Wikipedia standards and policy but that is what an encyclopedic article must be based on. Weaver's book is published by a university press and that fact that you don't like his analysis does not give you the right to exclude it.  Taxee (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Taxee: I am discussing these policies with you now. Is there really no policy that considers balance? When more than 50% of sources come from one book, the balance is no longer there. Is there really no policy that also allows one to question or critic sources? Eforsund (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: "the book by Weaver must be considered the most reliable source of information on the subject of William Branham", and given that a large degree of sourcing comes from the book, wouldn't that come into conflict with WP:RS and WP:UNDUE? It's not like Weaver has some kind of special right to "hold the floor" on this subject, right?  As for balance that Eforsund speaks of, there should be well-referenced representations of what the subject thought of himself, as long as it's secondary, or written by the subject himself.  It's not hagiographic to present someone's views, even if most considered such views flawed.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 13:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Stevie is the man!, if primary sources from the pro-Branham side are included then one must also include primary sources that are highly critical of Branham (there are plenty of them). The article in its present state avoids both of these extremes.  This problem is clearly spelled out in the NRM Manual of Style which states that "Wikipedia's articles on new religious movements (NRMs) have frequently proved contentious. The key to stable, neutral articles in this contentious field is good sourcing: focus on using the best, most reputable sources, above all scholarly sources, and avoid the use of primary sources – both movement and countermovement sources."  This is even more critical here because Branham is not well known; hence the dearth of good materials.


 * One must also pay attention to the Wkipedia policy that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. For example, the followers of William Branham claim that a picture was taken of Branham with a supernatural being hovering over his head.  Opponents to Branham challenge that claim.  The policy on exceptional claims states that one must use extra caution when challenged claims are supported purely by primary or self-published sources.  That is the case here.  Weaver and Harrell deal with this issue objectively, which is the proper treatment.


 * There are really only 2 academic books that devote significant attention to Branham, Harrell and Weaver. Weaver is the only in-depth analysis. BUT there are 16 other secondary sources on the subject of Branham and, while they only devote a couple of pages to Branham, none of them contradict or are opposed to Weaver's conclusion and many of them reference him as a reliable source.


 * The only other solution would be to significantly scale back the article in such a way as to keep the details regarding Branham to the minimum found in all of the secondary sources. That would probably be more in keeping with Branham's importance in 20th century Pentacostalism but may not be acceptable to Eforsund.


 * I am certainly prepared to leave the article as is or to work with Eforsund to scale it back. But I think it would be in opposition to Wikipedia policy to simply allow this page to be based on primary sources favorable to Branham while not allowing the opposing view.  That is a slippery slope that will lead to a common outcome on NRM pages.  The NRM topic area is among a very small number of topic areas consistently generating several intractable disputes per year that require the intervention of Wikipedia's arbitration committee. As a result of these arbitration cases, over the years dozens of editors – both committed members and committed opponents of new religious movements - have received topic bans, even site bans.   I really don't want to go there.   Taxee (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's rather simple. Let a minimal piece of the article be Branham speaking for himself -- after all, he's the subject.  I'm not talking about what others said of him, pro or con.  You don't have to have directly challenging information against what the subject says about themselves -- you're just presenting their views.  We have other articles reproducing quotes and thoughts of their subjects, and this article should be no different.
 * Also, I don't think we should pretend to be comfortable with the apparent lack of secondary sources, and we shouldn't be giving extra-heavy weight to one person's analysis, even if one thinks it's spot on. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Stevietheman and Taxee. It seems like we are moving in the direction of a more balanced biography that also allows the subject to speak for himself. What we have right now is "Branham according to Weaver", and the whole article is heeling over. Please advise on how to proceed further. Thanks! Eforsund (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Stevietheman, your suggestion is unlikely to work for the simple reason that Branham made a significant number of exceptional claims about himself. An article solely based on Branham's claims would be hagiographic in nature.  That's not the point of articles in Wikipedia.  This is the primary area of dispute in all NRM articles.  If Eforsund is prepared to accept an article with zero exceptional claims, then it may work but I don't expect that this would be acceptable to him.  That is precisely the value of secondary sources, they look at exceptional claims objectively.  I would think that a better approach would be to eliminate much of the detail on Branham's life and ministry and only include those exceptional claims that are dealt with in multiple secondary sources, including Weaver and Harrell.  As I indicated, we have 18 secondary sources listed, however, virtually all of them restrict the comments on Branham to a few paragraphs because in the grand scale of things he is not particularly relevant.  If that is acceptable to Eforsund, then we can probably make it work.  Taxee (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First, please stop pinging me, as I watch this page, and this convo isn't exactly high-priority for any reason. Secondly, it doesn't matter if Branham's claims about himself are exceptional -- if he said them about himself, and he's notable enough for an article, a summary of them should be included.  It's not hagiographic to say what a notable person said about themselves in their own writing. Also, it isn't entirely necessary that the limited secondary sources respond to all of his claims.  Respect the intelligence of the reader to sort it out.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 11:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging you? Not me. I didn't even look at the talk page until last night.   I don't even know how to ping someone . I don't really understand how it's beneficial to ignore basic Wikipedia policy in an article and go with primary sources. Do you have a reference to a policy so that I can understand where you are coming from, particularly given the NRM manual of style?  Taxee (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)