User talk:Darlig Gitarist

Holy Ghost vs. Holy Spirit

In regard to the recent edit you made to Oneness Pentecostals (which I did not revert), by way of explanation: the reason that individual had changed Holy Spirit to Holy Ghost, I believe, is because, among Oneness Pentecostals, the term Holy Ghost is almost universally used rather than Holy Spirit. So while Holy Ghost may seem archaic to most Christians, it is the preferred terminology of the Oneness denominations. BroWCarey (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Taxee. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Seven seals

Fixed the incorrect cot/cob tagging. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of William M. Branham

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William M. Branham you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DrStrauss -- DrStrauss (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:William M. Branham/GA1

Taxee, the above review, which was not done based on the GA criteria and had initially been failed, has been reverted—your nomination has been returned to the pool of unreviewed nominations to await a knowledgeable reviewer. The transclusion of the invalid review on the article's talk page is being removed.

However, when I reverted that failure, I did post some issues I did see in the article in a quick scan, which will certainly be picked up by a competent reviewer, so I advise you to address them soon, much like you did those that were mentioned by that reviewer. Best of luck with everything. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 need to familiarize yourself with that I believe are the reasons that myself and others have problems with 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.

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 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 favour 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 Weaver is unreliable. Based on my research, Weaver is the most reliable secondary source in existence. It is an independent, peer reviewed, academic publication and so must be given appropriate weight. In other words, it cannot be ignored.

Take a look at WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:RS and WP:VERIFY which should help you understand why many of your edits are reverted. You may think it 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)[reply]