Talk:William M. Branham/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Request edit on 26 March 2021 I deleted the latest addition to the William M. Branham page but it has been put back by Darlig Guitarist

• What I think should be changed:

The exact prophecy of Kenneth Hagin is this: “At the end of ’65, he who now stands in the forefront of the healing ministry as a prophet will be taken out of the way. He’ll make a false step and Satan shall destroy his life, but his spirit will be saved, and his works will follow him. Ere ’66 shall come, he shall be gone.”

Kenneth Hagin later said that he thought it was because of false teaching but that was just his thought. It wasn't part of the prophecy Many thought that Branham's teachings were wrong but there is no proof. Probably his main doctrine was baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. In the book of Acts there are 3 or 4 baptisms listed and all of them were in the name of Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus, so the doctrine is right and organized Christianity has it wrong.

If anyone has confidence in Kenneth Hagin as a teacher, I invite you to look at one of his last meetings where he is hissing and acting like a madman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2AvmyzuNIE I notice that Wikipedia makes no mention of this false doctrine of hissing at the end of his ministry.

• Why it should be changed:

This addition needs to be removed because it isn't true. If Branham did make a false step it was in the matter of the Brown Bear Vision as witnessed by Ed Byskal in Canada. Danpeanuts(talk)Danpeanuts (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC).

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Danpeanuts (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done There are three secondary sources supporting the current phrasing. Interpretations of primary sources is not something Wikipedia editors should be doing. --bonadea contributions talk 13:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Bonadea: I have asked Wikipedia to look into this matter. You don't understad prophecy at all. When a prophet makes a prophecy it is supposed to be under direct inspration from God. You can't add your own thoughts to it later. It has to stand as spoken. I don't know if you are able to believe the Holy Scriptures or not but some of what Jesus said was in parables so not all who heard it would understand. In Matt. 28:19 Jesus said to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (which is what nearly all Christians do) but 10 days later in Acts 2:28 Peter said you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (which is the name of the whole family in Heaven and earth). It is proven by everyone doing just that in the rest of Acts. Please take a look at the Prophet(?) Kenneth Hagin hissing like a snake and really acting wierd at the end of his ministry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2AvmyzuNIE Now you tell me which one is the false prophet. Please!Danpeanuts (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Danpeanuts(talk)

Danpeanuts, none of that has anything to do with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. We have already been over this, and I am not going to comment on what I personally believe or don't believe, since that has zero bearing on whether content is verifible or not. --bonadea contributions talk 11:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Danpeanuts - in Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people can check that the information comes from a reliable source. As Bonadea stated, the article reflects what is found in reliable sources. I understand that you disagree with the reliable sources but you edit constitutes original research. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information from reliable sources rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. As a result, I must concur with Bonadea. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Darlig, The question remains "Is Kenneth Hagin a reliable source?" You can see from the YouTube clip that he evidently lost his mind or is controlled by Satin. Also, if the majority of us make the decisions then why was the Jim Jones article left here? The majority of us said it should be deleted. Collins made an assumption that since they both held a meeting in the same building that Branham must have influenced Jones to kill all those people, which is ridiculous. Why do you keep adding unproven articles by unreliable people in this page? The man did have faults and he openly admitted them when he became aware of them. Please don't do like CNN reporting on Trump. Danpeanuts (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Danpeanuts(talk)

That is not the issue, Danpeanuts. The simple issue is you cannot override reliable sources with your own opinion. I appreciate that, for example, you may disagree with Weaver's analysis. But the only way to rectify that is to find another reliable source and reference that source. The problem in this case is that such reliable source does not exist (to my knowledge). And even if you found a reliable source that agreed with you, you would still have to give due weight to the other reliable sources. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Photos

Editors: If there is anything you need for this article regarding images, feel free to ask. We have an extensive archive and would be happy to give any needed permission(s) for the article. *I work for William Branham Ministries. DEvans (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

    Brother.  Someone put a terrible picture of Wm. Branham at the top of his page that doesn't even look like him.  I tried to change it but guess I don't know how.  I'm sure you have something that at least looks like him.  Could you please change it?  Also, in the past this whole page has been changed by a man who has a different belief and he has put a whole lot of quotes in here from Weaver, who has written a lot of books about his Baptist belief and is very critical of Wm. Branham.  One of the worst articles in here was written by someone else who says Wm. Branham influenced Jim Jones who killed his followers.  Several of us attempted to delete this article.  In fact, we outnumbered the others but they insisted on keeping it there without a shred of proof.  Wikipedia openly admits that they don't require the truth--only what someone else has written.  Danpeanuts(talk)≈≈≈  — Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC) 

The issue is trying to find an image that is verifiably in the public domain. The image used at the top of this article is one we can verify is public domain. It was published in a book which has an expired copyright. If you can find a better picture which we can verify is in the public domain that would be great! That is the best one I have been able to find. The halo picture was originally in the lead, but that image is fair use and not public domain. During the featured article review there was concern that using it as the lead image when we had a public domain alternative violated fee use policy. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

1941-1946

Why is there such a big gap in his activities at this time? Why wasn't he drafted? 114.38.85.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Marriage maybe. If you have a reliable source with an explanation, please cite it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

There is not very much in the sources about that time, as far as I know. Only detail I could find in the sources was that he was holding small revivals during that time at least in Indiana and Kentucky. And he also remarried in that time too. Not much else in the sources. Both of those details are in the article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Consensus for removing Jim Jones paragraph

There appears to me that there is a historic consensus to remove the Jim Jones paragraph, with 7 editors in favor or removal, and one in favor of keeping. I am starting this section to determine if that consensus still exists. The paragraph in question follows:

Among Branham's emulators was Jim Jones, the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple.Seeking a means to catapult his fame and earn followers, he invited Branham to a religious convention organized by Jones' church and held at the Cadle Tabernacle auditorium in Indianapolis from June 11 through June 15, 1956. Jones counted on Branham's wide popularity to draw a large crowd to help launch his own career. Branham critics, Peter Duyzer and John Collins, reported that Branham "performed numerous miracles" drawing a crowd of 11,000.Jones became later known for the mass murder and suicide at Jonestown in November 1978. According to Collins, Jim Jones and Paul Schäfer were influenced to move to South America by Branham's 1961 prophecy concerning Armegeddon.

References

To quote this articles GA reviewer: "the Jones piece is more of a side thought and shouldn't have too much prominence in this article since Jones wasn't famous for the suicide at that time." I agree with this statement. As part of my efforts to improve the quality of this article for featured article status, I found that none of the biographical or healing revival works from this article mention a connection between Branham and Jones. A connection indeed existed, as established in Reiterman, but was no more noteworthy that Jones connection to Bill Graham, the NAACP, the Urban League, etc.. As a result, I believe its inclusion here is undue weight. Per WP:Undue, the manner in which to determine the appropriate amount of weight to give any element is by a review of the body of sources. A review of Kydd, Hanegraff Harrell, Weaver, Larson, Babinski, and Moriarty reveal that they gave no weight at all to this fact. This fact has weight to the Jim Jones article, it has little or no weight here. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC

• Support remove of this paragraph due to undue weight —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Changed my mind on this, I have came across several more reliable source references. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not supported This source [1] Gone from the Promised Land: Jonestown in American Cultural History by John R. Hall says "Jones drew on techniques he apparently had learned from Hoosier evangelist William Branham years earlier” Theroadislong (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I lean towards supporting the removal of Jim Jones from this article as I have not found references to Branham in many of the online biographies found online such as this one:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/history/retroindy/2013/11/18/peoples-temple/3634925/?from=new-cookie I have not yet read Jeff Guinns book, Road To Jonestown, which seems to be very comprehensive concerning Jim Jones, I will try to obtain it this weekend and see if it mentions Branham at all. I will reserve my final judgement till then. Idealee (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes he features in that book see here [2] Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

After reading the mention in Jeff Guinns book and also researching local Indianapolis newspapers, my opinion is that the Jim Jones mention should be removed.

Though Guinn and Reitterman do agree that co-headlining with Branham and seemingly using his draw and popularity to build his own base was a significant event in Jones life the same does not seem to be true in branham's life. From what I can gather this was just another meeting similar to his hundreds of others sponsored by a young, relatively unknown pastor (at the time).

In all fairness, I don't believe you can make a single sentence statement regarding someone with as much notoriety as Jim Jones and not have it at undo negative weight to the person it's being attributed to. The only way to then bring it back to appropriate balance would be to put the statement into proper context which would require devoting at least a paragraph to this one brief point in Branham's life, which I feel is unwarranted because of the brevity of the encounter and of it's meaningless nature as it relates to Branham. Idealee (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not supported - Reiterman's book is very clear on Branham's role in Jones' start in the ministry. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to make sure I am be clearing - I agree this is factual. My point is this is undue weight. Not a single one of Branham's biographers, and there are six neutrally published biographies on Brahnam, and none of them mention this as noteworthy. There is not a single Branham Biography that makes this point. Even the most critical, like Hanegraaf, make no connection to Jones. If none of his biographers, including the most critical give this fact any weight in their biographies, why should we do so here? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Because we use reliable sources what ever they may be, NOT just biographies. Theroadislong (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Biographies are an excellent way to determine what is and what is not undue weight for a wikipedia biography. The fact is worthy on inclusion on the sources you have given, because this fact has weight to those topics. Their topic not Branham though. The biographies on Branham are the best way to establish what is worthy for inclusion in his biography, and what is not. We will just agree to disagree. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)}

• Not supported - Because of the fact that William Branham did have such a large impact in the life of Jim Jones as conceded by those who would remove the reference, and because of the fact that Jim Jones gained a following by using the same methods used by William Branham and similar teachings with regard to leadership and submission of followers, it stands to reason that such an important consequence following from those methods and teachings should remain in an unbiased article. To remove it would be to whitewash the legacy of the Branham movement. Clearthinker (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)— Clearthinkercontribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. --

• Support -Here's what I wrote in a different section, but I think it is important to weigh in on the discussion for removing the Jones section. I changed my comment a bit from the original.

Including Jones in the article makes WB “guilty by association.” Other than Jones attempting to use famous evangelists to boost his ministry, neither Reitterman nor Guinn put any significant weight on the supposed connection. Guinn gives one sentence in his entire book, and even gets the dates wrong. Reitterman gives a little more, but it's also trivial. An obscure mention does not justify inclusion in this article.

WB was a very gracious person and almost always mentioned the organizing ministers where he spoke. He did not mention Jones at all while in Indianapolis (the transcripts are readily available). However, he did mention Joseph Boze many times (Boze was an organizer of the Indy events). The only time WB ever acknowledged Jones in 1,206 recorded sermons was one sentence at a Chicago convention (again, organized by Joseph Boze). It looks to me like Boze was the contact with WB in Indy, which makes sense because Boze/WB were close associates. Further, the meetings were held at Cadle Tabernacle, which was an independent rented venue for public events, not Jones’ church. There were a lot of different people involved in the planning of the Indy conventions not mentioned in Reitterman or Guinn. Note that no credible publication about WB mentions Jones.

People’s Temple (Jim Jones) also advertised a convention hosting famous evangelists such as TL Osborn and FF Bosworth in 1957, the following year. Note that this is not on the WP pages of those two evangelists.

Imagine if Eleanor Roosevelt’s WP page said that her message inspired Jones to move forward in his ministry (Reiterman pg37), that Billy Graham’s WP page said that he gave Jones career advice (Jones’ sermon transcripts http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=62945 ), or that Martin Luther King’s WP page said that MLK inspired Jones’ mass suicide? (Jones written communication https://www.nytimes.com/1978/11/26/archives/jim-jonesfrom-poverty-to-power-of-life-and-death-arrested-for-lewd.html ) Of course, those things are ridiculous, but so is putting Jones on this page.

The bottom line is that Jim Jones had no significance in the life or ministry of William Branham. Including him makes a very bold statement. Unfortunately, that is what the reader will remember when he/she is finished with the page. That's a shame, considering all the hard work that has gone into this lately. *I work at WB Ministries. DEvans (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Jim Jones had no influence or connection with Branham in any way. As I mentioned previously, Collins, who hates Branham is the one who published this opinion in the first place. Danpeanuts (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2018Danpeanuts (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but we have 5 dependable, independent sources that say there was a connection with Jones and Branham, whether we add that to the article is another matter, but you can't deny what the sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

As you know, I am not in favor of using Collins as a source. There are sources that Branham and Jones held a meeting together once. But Collins is the only source to say Branham played some role in influencing Jones in adopting cultic ways. However, in reviewing his material I also found this: [3], in which Collins also asserts that Jones believed Branham was dishonest and not preaching truthful sermons... I just find it perplexing, the same author is saying Branham had a great influence on Jones, but at the same time Jones thought Branham was a dishonest preacher. These facts do not really add up.. Just one more reason I think Collins should be discounted. In meantime though, I will add this conflict to the article. Its not fair to just present the first half. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support There is no connection between Jim Jones and William Branham other than in the minds of conspiracy theorists. Eforsund (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2018 — Eforsund (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I really think we need to bring the back and forth arguing on this issue to rest if we expect to make this a featured article. I think Charles Edwards has laid out the best argument for or against and I am in complete agreement. I think the majority of editors here agree that there was in fact a connection as far as holding meetings together but the fact that none of Branham's respectable biographers mention Jim Jones speaks volumes as to the insignificance this connection has in relation to Branham. The only biographers that expound on that connection and give it a sinister twist are the books written by former followers who actively participate in anti-Branham web sites (which doesn't invalidate their opinions, but does call into question their neutrality) This reference should perhaps be mentioned on the Jim Jones page but I don't think it has any place here. Currently there are 5 in support of removing and 3 in support of not removing. Some editors here are concerned about the single issue editors voicing their opinion and voting on this issue but let me remind everyone that it was a single issue editor that initially placed this material here and also on the Jim Jones page (swiftredvette). I am removing this from the article, if you revert it please place a better argument than Charles Edwards, in favor of keeping it. Idealee (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus does not exist to have it removed. The biographers of Jim Jones think the connection was very important. It is understandable why the hagiographic biographers never mentioned the link. Given the imporance of Jim Jones to US religious history, it is worthwhile that the connection is mentioned. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 16:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not referring to the hagiographic books, I am reffering to Weaver and Harrel, which are the two most referenced works in this article. Even Hank Hanegraaff, fails to mention this connection and his book certainly is not hagiographical.

This is worthwhile on the Jim Jones page but I just don't see how you make a case for it here when the two most respected books on the subject and a multitude of others fail to mention it.

And how does the opinion of 5 editors supersede the opinion of 3?Idealee (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Because one of those editors is a sock with only one edit to their name and another is SPA, we have multiple sources that cover Jones and Branham in-depth it just looks like cherry picking to say we are only going to use the biographies. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

there are several SPA editors who voted to not support, I never once called their validity into question. If you feel there are editors who voiced their opinion unfairly or violated policy then perhaps you need to take this to a resolution noticeboard and have them figure out who has a voice regarding this question. I honestly think this is turning into a very well written article but just agree with Charles Edward regarding this particuar reference. Idealee (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not supported Those in favor of removing this is due to them trying to undo the many paper trails that show this ministry adversely affected lives. These same people are putting too much emphasis on this man's ministry and refuse to see any fault. Efforts must be continued to preserve the FULL history of this man and those associated with him. To lose this would be to open the door for removing anyone we didn't like connected to our own favorite person in history. The good and bad must be kept and shown to all so that objective reasoning can be achieved. This is not the only dangerous man to come from Branham's ministry but this is an excellent beginning point for those that will recognize the name Jones before Branham. Keep these factual statements in this article.

Aarynn7 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)— Aarynn7contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. --

References

I have delete the comments of 10 sockpuppet accounts used by Aarynn7, but have left his original comments, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE(see the SPI here) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow! I am appalled! 5 "not support" votes from accounts created within an hour of each other! I guess that's one way to win an argument. Idealee (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not a vote based on a numerical count. The comments from obvious sockpuppet accounts will be disregarded. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

thank you, I am a long time user but relatively new to editing. It wasn't my intention to start this whole thing, I thought several of us editors were in agreement to remove this paragraph, I apologize if I was in the wrong. Idealee (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of NRM's, Idialee. I have an interest in them and this was the first article I have tried to get classed as a GA. Not sure which one I will work on next but Charles Edward is doing a good job in moving to FA status. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 20:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears we have some sock puppets here. :) I am going to ask for a sock puppet investigation. Just wanted to give a head ups on that. (see here) I will respond briefly to the comments on here, which I assume are all from a single editor. No one is attempting to cover up anything, certainly not me. And I have no intention of removing the paragraph without consensus. The fact remains: there is not even one Branham biographer who includes Jones connection to Branham. Of course the connection is factual. But it is unimportant, as witnessed by the fact that none of his biographers - including multiple critical biographies - make no mention of the connection. Here is the facts as I currently see it: there are indeed several self published blog like articles and primary sources that do indeed allege that Branham is in some way responsible for the the mass murder at Jonestown. But none of them meet the criteria for reliable sources and are ultimately dishonest in that they ignore all the investigative work. There was a congressional investigation, among others. None of them mention Branham as a factor in anything. I took time to read all the source before I jumped into this article... It is not a secret why there was a mass suicide at Jonestown - it was all recorded on tape. There is no guessing. It is known fact. They committed suicide because they had just murdered a US Congressman, among others, and they believed the US Army was enroute to arrest them all and break up their families. Not because they missed the rapture in 1977... Branham was controversial, his doctrines were not mainstream, but he was not a cause of the Jonestown Massacre. It is my opinion, though I have no proof, that it the very same people or person publishing those blogs who added this information to this article in an attempt to give legitimacy to their claims. There are numerous people who had far more impact on Jones than Branhan. Jones may indeed have copied Branham's style, and may indeed used Branham to launch his own career. But Jones was in a league of evil all his own. I think the article captures and properly balances all these facts as it currently exists. But I still honestly believe it is a violation of the WP:UNDUE policy to include the Jones information at all because Branham's connection to Jones was a completely unimportant event in Branham's life. (I have never actually dug through the article history to figure out who added what, so I could be wrong about who added the Jim Jones paragraph) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Quick followup, all the sock puppet accounts where indefinitely blocked (see here) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I took a few days off because honestly, I got a little frustrated the last time I was here. But after looking at my actions and doing a little reading into the Wikipedia definition of “consensus” it appears that I was in the wrong. I made the mistake of assuming that “consensus” meant just a number vote but now I understand that that was a misunderstanding on my part. Everyone, please accept an apology from a “newbie” that was trying to be bold but ended up being a little more reckless than bold :) Idealee (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick note: consensus still seems to be lacking for removal. 5 support removal, and 3 oppose (after discounting socks). Maybe we will get a few more editors to weigh in during FAC review. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I am a little surprised that you are coming back to this issue. The connection between Branham and Jones is very strong from the secondary sources on Jones. To have it included in the article on Jones but not in the article on Branham seems a bit strange. I do appreciate that the followers of William Branham would like it removed but I think that should be discounted in favour of a more balanced view. I would not be opposed to reducing the scope of the comments but the facts are clear from Jones' biographers that the meetings with Branham were pivotal in launching Jones ministry. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 06:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I continue to stand on policy. There is not a single Branham biographer who notes Branham's connection to Jones as significant. There is only a single reliable source I have located that notes the connection at all, and it is the one I found to cite what the article currently says. I am not saying the connecting did not exist, I am saying per WP:UNDUE, it should not be included because the coverage it is given in the article is disproportionate to its importance to the subject. Which, while there is not consensus yet, is the majority position of the editors commenting on this page this far. A brief read through this talk page history will reveal and additional four editors who agree with my assessment, but who have not yet commented in this new section. Added with the present count, that would be (11 to 4). WP:UNDUE says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." The Jones connection is only in one reliable source, and thus of minor importance. Additionally, WP:Proportion states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." (This is a Branham biography, thus the body of work applicable would be other Branham biographies). It is my assertion that there not a single reliable source on the subject of William Branham who give any attention whatsoever to the approximately two days of time Branham and Jones spent together, at a time Jones was an unknown and nonfamous person. In short, Branham is somewhat relevant to Jones, but Jones is not relevant to Branham. The only places that assert this connection is noteworthy are self published blogs and other non-reliable sources. And quite interestingly the Jones information entered this article about the same time those blog entries were created, making it a fairly safe assumption that either the same person made both, which is a ban-able violation of policy, or those blog article influenced someone to add the information to this article. (Note it had zero reliable sources used as citation when I first began working on the article. I had to go hunt just to find the single Reiterman source.) So it is quite clear the inclusion of the Jones connection in this article is to try and promote a minority viewpoint that Branham is connected to Jonestown Massacre. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

' Support ' I want to ask why this Jim Jones article was not removed long ago. Most of us agree that Jim Jones had no connection with Branham at all. Just because John Collins (who hates Branham) wrote that they once held separate meetings in the same building on the same day in no way connects the two. In 2,000 hours of preaching, I don't believe Branham ever mentioned Jim Jones at all. According to the FBI tapes of Jim Jones (from communicating with John Collins) I understand that Jones said that Branham told him (Jones) that he would be in trouble someday. Jones talked disrespectfully about William Branham, Billy Graham, and Oral Roberts, so he was no friend of either of them. Please remove this paragraph or I will. This is nonsense. Why was it ever put in this article in the first place? Danpeanuts (talk 07:35, 11 Oct. 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Theroadislong: Why did you put the Jim Jones article back? As you can see, most of the opinions say it shouldn't even be here because there is no connection between Jones and Branham. Please answer me! I believe you've gone against the Wikipedia guidlines. Danpeanuts (talk 08:16, 13 Oct. 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Theroadislong: I do not want to be warring on this matter but this is a settled subject. The consensus is that the Jim Jones article should be removed. It was published by John Collins and if you will look at his website you will see that Collins' goal is simply to trash Branham. Since you haven't responded, I am again removing the Jones article. I want to hear from you why you insist on keeping this in opposition of the general consensus of the other editors. Danpeanuts (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2017Danpeanuts (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is not a majority vote. There was no consensus to remove it. Given the importance of Jones to American history and the fact that Branham now appears to have held several joint meetings with Jones and is credited with having helped Jones launch his career (see the articles at https://jonestown.sdsu.edu), it should remain. If you take the time to read Jones' biographers, you will see the important Branham connection. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Darlig, I need to know why you insist on controlling this website. Also Theroadislong seems to agree. You two continually support negative things to put in the Branham page. There was one minister who said he thought only a few were healed in the meetings (You have his opinion in the article), although I have a copy of the South Africa newspaper that says multitudes were healed in the meeting in Durban, S. Africa. I would like to know why one man's opinion outweighs a large city's newspaper with pictures. Why can't there be a balance? If a negative opinion is offered, there should also be an actual truthful report. This seems to be like CNN reporting on President Trump (about 90% negative). What is your motive? I see that the general consensus is to remove this Jones article. Why can't it be done? Do you have seniority in Wikipedia? Danpeanuts (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2018Danpeanuts (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understand Wikipedia. Care must be taken to avoid original research by editors and to avoid giving undue weight to particular observations, views or experiences. Wikipedia articles should rely on published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. I do not control Wikipedia but I have spent a lot of time learning to understand how to write a good Wikipedia article. None of the secondary sources state that healings ocurred. The fact some people believe this to be the case does not provide weighting. If you can provide a good secondary source that backs up your viewpoint, then it should be included in the article. But if you don't have support, then those views should not be included. There are multiple secondary sources that clearly state that Branham helped launch Jones. I understand you don't like that but that does not negate the fact that those secondary sources exist. I spent a lot of time getting the article to good article status but I was not the editor that applied for and spent the time getting feature article status for the Branham article. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Darlig; you told me that care must be taken to avoid giving undue weight to particular observations. Yet that is what you are doing on this whole Jim Jones article and other places too. I saw the newspaper ad that shows that Jones was to be at Cadle Tabernacle on a certain date and below it the ad said that William Branham was to be at Cadle Tabernacle on a certain date. That's all there was. It could have been a coincidence that they both held meetings on the same dates. Since John Collins is an enemy of Branham (see his website), may I assume that he second-guessed the whole idea that Jones held his meetings on the same date to gain popularity? As far as I can read, Jones never said such a thing. You can email Collins if you want and he will answer you. The only transcript that Collins gave me was where Jones said that Branham told him he (Jones) would someday be in trouble and that he (Branham) would be blessed. Then he (Jones) went on to talk disrespectfully about Billy Graham and Oral Roberts too. If you've read Rick Joiner's book "The Vision", you may have noticed on page 179 that while he (Rick Joiner) was in heaven he saw Branham there on one of the thrones, so it would appear that what he (Branham) said was true. Branham never mentioned Jones in public that I am aware of. You are doing wrong by putting John Collins' assumption in this article because that is giving undue weight to Collins' observation. This whole idea has no solid backing to it at all. It needs to be removed. Does Wikipedia have an authority that will settle this matter? Danpeanuts (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2018 Danpeanuts (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah...that's OK then... "while Rick Joiner was in heaven he saw Branham there on one of the thrones" that is the most bizarre comment I have ever seen on Wikipedia! My response is pointless against such strong evidence. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(outdent) I would disagree on one point with Darlig - there is only one (1) secondary source which makes note of Jones\Branham connection. That would be Reiterman. All other sources so far presented have been primary sources. Collins' articles are all primary source, as Collins himself is directly involved and seems to be one of Branham's followers... None of his work is peer reviewed. His coauthor (Duyzer) is also (former) Branham follower. Both are closely associated with the subject. I purchased and read both of their (self published) books when I updated the article and I found neither as passing muster as a secondary source. I would also argue that we are very close to having consensus to removing the Jim Jones information, but agree that it is still not quite there. Consensus is not majority vote, but generally 2/3 support is accepted as consensus in most other wikipedia forums. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)