Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William M. Branham/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2018 [1].

William M. Branham[edit]

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been awhile since I have submitted an featured article candidate, but I believe I have good one for you. :) William Branham was interesting character in the history of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement, and is credited with beginning the revival from which the modern Evangelical and Charistmatic movement emerged. A person from Indiana, my primary work on the article has been from the perspective of WikiProject Indiana and the work I have done improving content on famous Hoosiers. The subject is fairly controversial, and I have worked hard to have presented it in a balanced way by using all the major biographical works available on his life. (I give a special thank you to the article's other editors who contributed to fact checking and vetting of the article, and the multiple editors who assisted in copy editing.) I will be watching and try to address any issues you identify. Thanks and cheers! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment: First, I am struggling to understand how we can justify a non-free image of the subject in the lead when we have at least three free images further down in the article. The use of the non-free image could perhaps be justified further down in the article (as a "this is what the photograph looked like" image rather than a "this is who the article is about" photo) but I don't really want to offer an opinion on that. Second, I'm getting a lot of "Harv errors" in the footnotes and bibliography; this should be looked into. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Bad harv links are fixed or removed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an image I uploaded or placed in the lead, but I am open to removing or moving it. My argument for keeping it would be that according to all sources, this is the most iconic photo and "greatest relic" of his lifetime. This photo itself has mention within the article for its importance, so my fair use rationale would be that it meets the "contextual" requirement for fair use. It certainly adds alot of value to have it in the article to demonstrate an actual event noted in the article. While there are other available images of Branham himself to use, this particular image is the one he is most associated with and is notable in its own right for its importance to the subject. (As an aside: I have searched diligently, and I have not actually been able to verify this image is copyrighted. According to sources, the original photo was taken by a newspaper photographer in 1950. The claim of copyright on it is dubious to me, I cannot find anywhere that it was ever published by its creator, or even who the copyright holder is. I have found the image in multiple books, and none of them state the image has a copyright status, and none say published with permission of X, or any such thing. In short, the image has no verifiable copyright status that I have been able to ascertain.) Ultimately, I would agree to just remove the image rather than allow that to torpedo the article's FA candidacy. I have never used copyrighted images in other FA articles I have worked on and agree it is generally a good practice to avoid it altogether. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • File:William_M._Branham_historical_photo.jpg: since there are other images of the individual in the article, there isn't a strong rationale for {{non-free biog-pic}}
    • As noted above, the argument for keeping this particular image is because of its importance to the subject. The picture itself is refereed to as "the greatest relic of the healing revival", and it is not that there are not other images available of the subject, it is that this particular image is important. But again, I am open to moving or removing if you think that is warranted. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The move and FUR expansion definitely helped. I would advise against using {{non-free biog-pic}} under these circumstances though. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we believe the copyright for Man Sent From God is expired? There were editions of it published after 1950
    • I have the original edition, as well as two subsequent, they all state the original 1950 copyright date (including one that was published in 1981). I have found no evidence showing the copyright was renewed in 1978 as required. The copyright holder died in 1965, and his immediate successor organization dissolved in 1971. Publishing of the later editions was not actually done by the copyright holder, so it would appear they also assume the copyright has expired. I understand we should err on the side of caution, but every evidence (short of a paid for copyright validation) points to the fact that this copyright has expired. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Photo_of_the_grave_of_William_M._Branham.jpg: what's the copyright status of the sculptural work?
    • This is a tombstone. :) I do not believe this falls within the scope of copyright-able artwork. However, if you have concerns I can remove the image. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would more than pass the threshold of originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel confident the tombstone is not copyrighted, but I have no way to verify that. To err on the side of caution I have removed the image. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tag on File:Signature_of_Rev._William_Branham.png does not make sense
    • In what way? I adjusted the description. This is from a public record, it is not copyrighted. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's from a public record, yes. But the current tag makes two claims that I don't believe are supported: first, that Clark County held copyright to the signature of an individual; second, that they have released that copyright worldwide (which would be atypical for sub-federal-level US governments). The image may well be PD for another reason, but not this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large number of your harv links aren't working
      • ...sorry, this actually looks worse than it was! You might find this script helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I used the script, that is an awesome tool, thanks for sharing! I only found two which were not linked, which I fixed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest a pass for MOS issues, such as dashes, overlinking, etc
    • I have given this a once over again, and used AWB to do a link and dash cleanup. There are a fair number of editors involved in the article, which leads to this problem a bit. I hope to have cleaned it up. I did see a couple dash issues, but did not notice any linking issues or other MOS issues. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Examples include linking of United States (overlink) and "Book of Revelation 6:1-17" (should use dash rather than hyphen). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:LEADCITE - things like quotations should be cited even in the lead
    • That is a rather strict reading of LEADCITE, it says cites are neither required nor prohibited in the lead, but subject to editor consensus. All statements within the lead, including quotes, are cited within the body already. I went ahead though and duplicated the cites on the two quotations in the lead. I can add more if you feel it is needed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Hyatt a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author has a Doctor of Ministry degree from Regent University. I would say it is borderline acceptable. The book is self published though, I had not noticed that before. The source was only used exclusively on two sentences, I have removed those from the article along with all other Hyatt references. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your review, I have replied inline. In summary, I would rather just remove the disputed images rather than torpedo the review, but would encourage at least a second look at the lead image. I think there is a fair rationale for it, see my reply to Josh Milburn. If I cannot satisfy you that A Man Sent From God has an expired copyright, that would leave only two images in the article, and no picture of the subject of the biography. I have looked diligently, and A Man Sent From God is the only source of images I can find that I believe are in the public domain. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there could potentially be a case made for the lead image, but not with the biog tag and not with the current rationale - it needs to be stronger. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Nikki, but add that I don't think there's much of a case for it as the lead image. We should use a free image in the infobox, and then use this image further down with an informative caption clarifying its significance. (This isn't my main concern, but there's potentially a POV issue with using something presented as a "saintly" image in the lead anyway!) Josh Milburn (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken your advice and adjusted accordingly, I am using a free image for the Infobox and moved the questioned image into the body of the article where the image is discussed. I have also updated the fair use rationale on the image. I am open to removing it if you are still unsatisfied. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (shock! horror!)[edit]

How come that at this stage nobody has noticed "principle architect" in the first lead paragraph? (added in this edit by one Charles Edward) Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indignez-Vous! :) Your diff above is me re-adding compromise wording after the original sentence was added (which was also added by me). I am not sure I understand the context of your concern. But I assume you are worried about the term "has been called" as a potential WP:WEASEL term? The quote is attributed to its sources in the body of the article and is a partial direct quote (Moriarty and Weaver both use the term). I will add further attribution to try and address what I think your concern is. (It is referenced to both sources with footnotes already.) I will go ahead and add further attribution. If I misunderstand your concern, please better inform me. :) And to perhaps give a fuller context of explanation, the current wording is compromise phrasing with some other of the article's editors. It originally said "he is recognized as the principle architect...",Diff which continues to be my preferred way to express it. Try this on for size, it now says "...is recognized as the "principle architect of restorationist thought" for Charismatics by some Christian historians." Maybe "Christian writers" would be better? Weaver is certainly a historian, Moriarty is less so. (Again note, there are two references given and this point is fully attributed within the article in full context of its meaning.]) I am open to suggested alternatives in any event. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding my concern. I'm surprised that I have to point this out, but "principal" as an adjective is spelt thus, not as "principle". That, not anything else, is my concern, and also that such an error has been in the first lead paragraph, unnoticed, for weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood! Please accept my sincerest apology. I will do some new page patrol as penance. :) This is a quote, and I had not really thought about it. I will check the source to see how they spell it, since this is a quote. But I suspect I will find the source has it correct and the improper spelling is my fault! The horror! I will update as soon as I verify the source later today. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got to check the sources. I have discovered that "principle" is used by Weaver rather than "principal" which would be the correct spelling as you state. I was about to add a [sic] tag, but decided to check Moriarty to see if he had the correct spelling. The quote as given was from Weaver. Moriarty however uses the correct spelling, "principal". So I have altered the quotation to use Moriarty instead, thus resolving the problem. Let us breath a collective sigh of relief! Thank you, that is a really good catch and much appreciated! I hope you don't mind my humor. :) I really appreciate the feedback! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 23:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Overall an informative, comprehensive and neutral article. Just things I notice on my initial read of the article.

  • In the 2nd lead paragraph, "His ministry spawned many emulators and set in motion the broader healing revival that later became the modern Evangelical and Charismatic movement." Can we really say that William Branham "set in motion" what became modern Evangelicalism? Evangelicalism is much broader than the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements. This language needs to be more precise, even for the lead.
    • Based on the sources, he seems to be able to definitely have that credit as it relates to the modern charismatic movement, but as it relates to the evangelical movement I would agree that he is not a central figure there. Upon review of the article itself, the article only makes the claim as it relates to the charismatic movement, and not the evangelical movement. So I have removed "evangelical" from that sentence as it is not really supported by the article or references. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue in the 3rd lead paragraph, "Unlike his evangelical contemporaries, who followed doctrinal teachings known as the Full Gospel tradition ..." Once again, simply stating "evangelical" is misleading because it makes it seem as if all evangelicals in the 1950s and 1960s were in the holiness and Pentecostal camps.
    • Ditto, remove the word "evangelical", I think in this context it is referring to his fellow evangelists rather than "evangelism". The word can be safely removed without losing any context. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue in the Background subsection, "Some, like critic and radio personality Hank Hanegraaff, rejected the entire healing revival as a hoax and condemned the subsequent evangelical and Charismatic movements as a cult." Which "subsequent evangelical" movements were being condemned as cults? Is it just the charismatic evangelicals? If so, stating "evangelical and Charismatic" is redundant. Hanegraaff himself was a self-described evangelical Christian at the time.
    • I removed the word "subsequent", which I think resolve the issue. Hanegraaf is truly opposed to both evangelism and charismatic. Hanegraaf is currently an Eastern Orthodox Christian (I am not sure about the time of the writing of his book). Though he does not state it himself, he appears to view evangelistic and charismatic and interchangeable labels (while you are correct, they are not), so it is safe to say he is indeed speaking directly about evangelical charismatism. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1st paragraph under "Early campaigns", the article mentions the "word of knowledge" gift and then moves on abruptly. Later, the article explains it under the "Style" section. The first use is linked, but it feels abrupt to just move on without giving a brief explanation of what the gift was. It would be better to move the entire sentence to the Style section.
  • Done, agreed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing inconsistent styling of the Voice of Healing magazine. Sometimes "The" is italicized and sometimes not.
  • In the last paragraph under "Style", "neo-Pentecostal" redirects to Neo-charismatic movement, but in the 1970s, when Harrell was writing, neo-Pentecostal was a synonym for the Charismatic Movement. Please double check what Harrell means by the term neo-Pentecostal.
    • I have checked the source, and my subjective opinion is that he is referring to the entire pentecostal movement of the 1950s. I would probably direct the link instead to Pentecostalism, but there is already a link there. So I have just delinked it. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence under "Restorationism" needs some work: "Branham's teachings on Christian restorationism have had the most lasting impact on modern Christianity of his teachings"
    • I have adjusted to the following? "Of all of Branham's doctrines, his teachings on Christian restorationism have had the most lasting impact on modern Christianity. Charismatic writer Micheal Moriarty described his teachings on the subject as "extremely significant" because they have "impacted every major restoration movement since"."
  • Under "Legacy and influence", the 2nd paragraph has this sentence, "Charismatics are apologetic towards and Branham's early ministry and embrace his use of the "sign-gifts"." Something has been left out here, and the sentence does not make sense. Ltwin (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking time to review the article. I appreciate your feedback! I have addressed each of your points inline. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo[edit]

I am a labour historian by training, but Fifelfoo (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is Sims, Patsy (1996). further reading not cited? UPK isn't partisan, but scholarly? Does it set the contexts?
    • This is not a source I have access to, which is the only reason I have not used it. I was not able to verify online if it actually has any reference directly to Branham. I will try to get a copy though this week and check it out. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers for doing this! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was able to get a copy of this books. Branham was not discussed in depth in the book, though she does give about five pages to discussing his impact on Charismatic movement and the racial makeup of his meetings. So I have added some of he useful information I found there. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consideration: locations often help readers evaluate sources for presses they don't know intimately
  • Checked PRIMARIES and John Collins and Peter M. Duyzer (October 20, 2014) etc for appropriate use and HQRS and very satisfied
    • Thank you, I have tried to limit their impact on the article. There were previously more prominently used. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation out of style: Collins, John (October 7, 2016). see "John Collins and Peter M. Duyzer" for your footnote only cite style.
  • How is Trevin Wax's book review a HQRS for the claim, "according to which, loyalty to Christ requires rejection of non-Christian culture; an opinion not unique to Branham."?
  • Notes section, consider linking to the bibliography? ex: Weaver based his estimate on numbers reported by Branham's son. The estimate included 50,000 in the United States, with a considerable following in Central and South America (including 40,000 in Brazil), India, and Africa; particularly in Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (See: Weaver, pp. 151–153)
    • I have tried to do this, but could not figure out how. If someone could offer guidance, I'd be glad to do so. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is primarily a theological article, and more praise to that scholarly discipline, but to the extent that it is historical: is there a historiography, or for that matter an interesting scholarly debate amongst the theologians worth mentioning in itself? And from the social history perspective: were workers, women and black people raised individually in the scholarly sources? This is largely a pro-forma question, but a challenge to consider in your research.
    • Your point is well taken. I have tried to use as many reliable sources on the topic as I could find. You are correct, it is primarily theological. There is a huge wealth of primary sources and hagiographical sources on the subject of the article, but surprisingly few detailed third party non-religious sources. Many sources can be found mentioning the topic in passing, but there are really only two (that I could find) that give an in depth third party account of the topic - Harrell and Weaver. I have avoided using any of the hagiographical sources in order to keep the article as neutral as possible. I would certainly love to find more third party source material, the subject is certainly very interesting to read about. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes needs some typography work, "Spirit".(See Johns, p 154)" as an example.

Thank you for you review, it is much appreciated. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from A. Parrot[edit]

I hope to review in more depth over the next few days, as this is a solid article but seems in danger of being archived for lack of reviews. The only major flaw I've noticed so far is that the article doesn't make clear what the Charismatic movement is and what relationship it has to Pentecostalism. By looking at the article I can find out, of course, but given that Branham was one of the major figures in the emergence of the Charismatic movement, I think it needs to be explained in this article. A. Parrot (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had added two sentences cited to Grenze that hopefully can address this. Thanks for your comments, and I look forward to your full review. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to Latter Rain (post–World War II movement) in the see also section looks like it could be integrated into the article text without much difficulty.
    • Branham's connection to the Latter Rain movement is not really explained in any detail in any of the sources. This is a see also that predates my work on the article. They were contemporaneous and related, but just how I am not sure. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of the notes, with "See Grenz, p 90" and the like, is odd. Are these meant to be citations for the text in the note?
    • I think I have adjusted these to resolve this issue. Yes they are citations for the footnotes. I had a hard time getting nested footnotes to work, but I think it is all working now. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The church flourished at first, but because of the Great Depression it was often short of funds, so Branham served without compensation. Branham believed the stagnation of the church's growth was a punishment from God for his failure to embrace Pentecostalism." Saying the church flourished but was short of funds seems to imply, but doesn't state as clearly as I'd like, that it had plenty of congregants even if it lacked money. "Stagnation of the church's growth" implies that it stopped attracting congregants after an initial boom, but that needs to be stated explicitly. If I'm wrong in what I'm inferring in either of those sentences, they need more significant adjustment.
  • "Crowder suggests Branham's gradual separation from Gordon Lindsay played a major part in the decline. Harrell attributed the decline to the increasing number of evangelists crowding the field and straining the financial resources of the Pentecostal denominations. Weaver agreed Pentecostal churches gradually withdrew their support for the healing revival, mainly over the financial stresses put on local churches by the healing campaigns. The Assemblies of God was the first to openly withdraw support from the healing revival in 1953." Weird mix of past and present tenses there.
  • Maybe briefly explain the content of the message to the Laodicean church, given the importance that Branham assigned to it.

There may be a few more comments to follow, and I hope to spot-check some citations in coming days, but this looks close to receiving my support. A. Parrot (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Apologies for the delay. I've spot-checked a bunch of citations, mainly through Google Books, and found no faults. I've looked around for other possible RSes on Branham, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage of him in reliable sources. Some of the sources used here are non-academic writers, but they seem to be Christian critics of Branham (demonstrating how controversial he and his beliefs are even among American Protestants) or, in the case of John Crowder, Christians sympathetic to him. With a shortage of academic coverage of him, I suppose these kinds of sources are necessary.

I do, however, have one last suggestion. The description of Hanegraaff, "critic and radio personality", is vague. "Christian author and countercult activist" would better explain how he's relevant to the topic of Branham and better match the lead of our article on him. A. Parrot (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dudley[edit]

  • I see four error messages in the footnotes, missing url in 17 and 'Uses authors parameter' (see [[Category:CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter]]) in 103, 105 and 106. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are fixed now. Please note #17 is not available online from a reliable source. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should not have an access date. This is only for online sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_M._Branham/archive1&oldid=851568567"