User talk:Darlig Gitarist

Quality of source material

Darlig, I have added documented newspaper information of the divine healing that took place in South Africa 3 times now and you have deleted it 3 times. Why and why is there so much negative information here? Danpeanuts (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpeanuts (talk • contribs) 12:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Danpeanuts: I don't think you have a good understanding yet of what is acceptable source material for Wikipedia. The book you are quoting by Stadsklev is considered primary source material.

There are a few things that you should familiarize yourself with to understand why myself and others have problems with some of your edits.

Wikipedia's content is governed by three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are generally the most reliable sources. With respect to William Branham, we have two such sources that are significant - David Harrell's book, All Things Are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in Modern America, (Indiana University Press, 1978) and Douglas Weaver's book, The Healer-Prophet: William Marrion Branham (A study of the Prophetic in American Pentecostalism) (Mercer University Press, 2000). Harrell's book devotes a portion of several chapters to Branham whereas Weaver's book is focused solely on Branham. There is a list of secondary source material listed at the bottom of the article.

Based on the Wikipedia essay on writing articles on new religious movements, 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. That is what the article on William Branham is based on - the best, most reputable, scholarly sources. I do understand that Weaver's book can be viewed as overly negative by William Branham's followers precisely because it is a peer reviewed objective analysis of Branham's life and ministry.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant facts and viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Due weight is established by secondary sources. Primary sources (in this case, both pro-Branham and anti-Branham) do not establish due weight; only secondary sources can be used to establish due weight in articles on new religious movements. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy in favor of or in opposition to a movement. I think that the current article is a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing secondary source material on William Branham. However, I do appreciate that both supporters and detractors of Branham may disagree with Weaver and/or Harrel, but that doesn't mean either is unreliable. Based on my research, Harrel and Weaver are the most reliable secondary sources in existence. They are independent, peer-reviewed, academic publications and so must be given appropriate weight. In other words, their views must be represented and cannot be ignored.

Take a look at WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL which should help you understand why many of your edits were problematic. You may think Stadsklev is good, believable material but, if it doesn't meet the standards cited, it is problematic. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)