Talk:William M. Branham/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Use of the word "halo"

Darlig, Do you realize that you are warring? This site does not belong to you! It is for others to add information too. Harrell said that it wasn't just a light, but a "supernatural halo light" over his head. I left out the word "supernatural" just so you would leave it alone (You went ahead and reverted everything back to what it said before anyway (light instead of halo light), In fact, you have deleted every post I've made). You are trying to misrepresent the statements of the historians with your own fake information. I deleted Weaver's reference because Weaver is always critical of Branham. In fact, I notice that about half of all the new references say: Weaver, Weaver, Weaver, Weaver. There are others who wrote more balanced information. This site had balanced information on it a few years ago and now you, and I don't know who else, have slanted much of it to be critical rather than just state facts. Weaver's beliefs should be left completely out since he wrote a very critical report with his opinions rather than the facts. Danpeanuts (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2017

I am not the one who has been taken to task by other editors for your failure to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. I am happy to have you quote Harrell PROVIDED you don't delete Weaver. As I said, Harrell wrote the preface to Weaver's book. But if you delete Weaver's info then I will not support your edit. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the Help request for now. I believe the original wording said "halo light" and not just "light". Were you the one that removed the word "Halo" in the first place? Please allow it to be put back. Also, since you commented in my talk with Bonadea, you probably noticed that she said the statement about checking the picture could be removed since there is no basis for it. George J. Lacy, who often examined documents for the FBI gave it every scientific test he had and verified that the "halo" light did strike the lens. He even made the statement that it was probably the only photograph ever taken of a supernatural being. I still say that all the edits of Weaver's statements are to discredit the man, since he is a Baptist and doesn't believe in Divine healing. Can we come to a compromise? Danpeanuts (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2017

The problem i have is that you make statements that have no source and cannot be backed up. Did Lacy make "every scientific test he had" and did he state that the light was a "halo"? If so, where did he state this? Does Harrel call it a "halo"? If Lacy is not mentioned in any of the secondary sources then he should not be mentioned. That is the way Wikipedia works, even if you don't like it. I don't have Harrel's book in front of me as I am travelling but will by week's end. Weaver is objective and so is Harrel. If Harrel calls it a halo then I am happy to include the reference, but if he does not, then it should not be included because it adds something to the article that cannot be found in the secondary sources. I have deleted Weaver's statement. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a source to my statements. Here's where I read that Lacy had made every scientific test that was available to him in 1950: George J. Lacy, Investigator of Questioned Documents, and often hired by the FBI in that capacity, subjected the negative to every scientific test available. At a news conference, he stated, “To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world’s history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated.” Mr. Lacy added, “Rev. Branham, you will die like all other mortals, but as long as there is a Christian civilization, your picture will live on.” The original of this photograph is kept in the archives of the Religious Department of the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.

The word "Halo" needs to be put back in place where it was. Were you the one that deleted it? This is a quote from David Harrell: "A shot taken of Rev. Branham upon development showed a supernatural halo of light above his head." . Since both Harrell and the document expert used the words "supernatural", what's wrong with using the same words? Why use "fake" information from bias people? Danpeanuts (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2017

You still don't understand what a reliable source is. Neither of the websites you refer are reliable sources. If you use the word "supernatural" it will get reverted and not by me. Someone else will revert it. That is what happened to a number of your edits. Secondary sources establish due weight and not any editors opinion. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hope it's ok to start without indenting because we're running out of room. It's good that you added the tax case was settled out of court. It would be best if the whole story was told about him not using the money on himself. Here's the rest of the story from "Epherma of William Branham" from Billy Graham's archives: "By 1955, Branham's teaching and preaching ministry came under severe attacks over doctrinal disagreement with the pentecostal denominations that had previously supported him. Also at this time, the IRS accused him of evasion of taxes on gifts he had been receiving, although he had not kept the money for himself. Eventually, the case was settled out of court. However, Branham continued his work despite the criticism until 1965, using a blend of preaching and healing services. In one year alone, he reported over a half-million conversions -- thirty thousand in one meeting in Durban, South Africa. Thousands of supporters believed in his ability to heal, foretell the future, and even raise the dead."

I may go ahead and put the extra info there myself about him not using the money if you don't mind. Also, I'll ask you again: were you the person that deleted the word "Halo" from the report? I want to put it back and I'm asking you to leave it alone. I won't say "Supernatural".

Since you or someone put so many Weaver opinions on this site and he says that Branham Embellished things, didn't tell the truth, can't be trusted, and so many other accusations, I would also suggest we add "In Weaver's opinion" to all of the places where he expressed his opinion. Please check Wikipedia’s NPOV section under “Assert facts, not opinions”: "When a statement is an opinion, it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Also, it needs to be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it." Danpeanuts (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2017

Please do not add more minor details, and definitely do not add editorial comments such as "In Weaver's opinion" - attributing opinion does not mean saying "this is an opinion", it means making it clear what the source of something is. In any case, why do you believe that Weaver's statements are "opinions" to a greater extent than other assertions (such as those of Branham's followers)? What is your source for that? --bonadea contributions talk 19:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, you still do not understand what secondary references are, even though I have repeated this multiple times. Please look at Wikipedia:No original research and try to understand what it says. This is a direct quote from the article - "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Here is another quote - "In general, the most reliable sources are... Books published by university presses..." Both Weaver and Harrel's books are published by university presses. But you don't seem to understand that, as such, they carry weight, even if you don't like them. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

First, Bonadea, Why am I not to add reliable secondary source material and you and Darlig can? Do you have exclusive rights to this site? I suspect that Darlig is the person who deleted the word "halo" in the first place and I should have a right to put it back. In fact this entire site has been filled with Weaver's comments and opinions and many are just that--opinions that misrepresent the man and just plain call him a liar. There must first be proof that he practiced not telling the truth before any such statement should be made. It was after a debate with another Baptist theologian (like Weaver) that the "Halo" picture was taken in the first place. I'll admit that I'm new to Wikipedia, but am trying to learn. I originally asked you for help and didn't know your views.

Darlig, I'm asking the 4th time: Are you the one that deleted the word "halo"? Danpeanuts (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2017

Danpeanuts, you do not seem to understand what reliable secondary source material is. That is one reason why so many people revert your edits. I give up trying to explain this to you. I'm not sure why you don't understand it but you clearly don't.

I have made so many edits to this page as a result of the GA review that I can't remember if I reverted the word halo or not. Why is the word halo so important? I will check to see what Harrel says but give me a day or so. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the GA review? I think I understand Wikipedia policy now--I just added Billy Graham foundation's comments for you to see, because they respected each other and tried to be truthful about their fellow-laborers in the Gospel.

The "halo" was a sign to the world that this man was in God's favor and the religious expert wasn't (should show that Divine healing is from God).

In the Bible, Jesus just went around doing good and healed many people. The common people loved Him, but the religious people hated Him. I can't understand this. Here's someone who did the same things and religious people like yourself have contempt for him and can't find enough bad things to accuse him of. Why? Danpeanuts (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2017

Danpeanuts has been warned about not assuming good faith from other editors. @Danpeanuts: Do not make assumptions of other editors' beliefs or values, and please take some time to read and understand the information about verifiability and sources that has been provided to you. While it is important to respect the personal beliefs of all editors, it is equally important that those beliefs do not unduly influence article content. As for GA, it means Good Article, which in turn means that the article has been reviewed according to a specific set of criteria on Wikipedia. If you look at the top of this page you'll see a link to what that means. --bonadea contributions talk 12:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, in response to your suggestion that the word "halo" be used in the article, I do not think this is a good idea. I looked at Harrel's reference to this and he is simply quoting someone who's view of Branham could be described as hagiographic. It is not a description that Harrel uses himself with respect to the photograph. Because the word "halo" has a specific connotation in religious iconography. I do not think its use in the article is warranted. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darlig Gitarist: who was Harrel quoting in this statement? Doctor^G  (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doctorg:, he was quoting Gordon Lindsay who wrote a self-published book on Branham in the early 50's. The problem with the book and other primary sources is that they all tend to be hagiographic. They assumed Branham was telling the truth and simply repeated his claims verbatim. But the bloom went off the rose, so to speak in the latter part of Branham's ministry and most of his supporters distanced themselves. I think it is appropriate as Weaver and Harrel have done to talk about the photo but they are both careful not to ascribe supernatural attributes to the photo. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 22:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm very familiar with Branham. He has some issues later in his ministry. Where do we stand on the use of the halo word? Did we agree to use it as a "claim?" Doctor^G  (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, How do you know why Harrell chose the word "halo"? That is also the word used in the description to the man who worked for the FBI ("a streak of light in the position of a a halo above his head") and it's also what nearly anyone else viewing the photo would say. "Halo" is the word the historian used and no one has the right to change it because "the photograph became perhaps the most famous relic in the history of the revival".

Please put the word "halo" back where you deleted it from or I am going to do it and report a dispute if you take it out again. To me, this is like bleaching out Hillary's emails for her. Bonadea says I must use good faith, so I want to believe that you have only made a mistake and that your beliefs don't unduly influence article content. Danpeanuts (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2017

As I stated above, I think the word "halo" has religious iconographic connotations which are inappropriate. Harrel does not use the word himself but rather quotes someone who believed it to be a supernatural halo. But Harrel does not say that it is. I would suggest we ask some of the other editors to comment. I am happy to live with the consensus of some of the other editors that have been involved in this article recently if they think it appropriate to add. @Bonadea, Cullen328, Doctorg, and Dammitkevin: Would any of you care to comment? Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 03:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I am completely opposed to using the word "halo" in Wikipedia's voice. A halo in this sense is a supernatural phenomenon and there are no reliable sources that say that halos actually exist. The article can say that certain persons believed it was a halo but others were skeptical and believed that is was lens flare or some other mundane cause, as long as those statements are properly referenced. No editor's personal beliefs should shape article content and that includes you as well, Danpeanuts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article could include something similar to what @Cullen328: suggested. It's such a polarizing event/photo that the halo piece is worthy of mentioning in some format. Doctor^G  (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Neither Harreell or Weaver refer to it themselves as a "halo". I think it is important when using Wikipedia's voice that we don't use wording that the secondary sources themselves don't ascribe to it. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 22:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I fear we are falling back to where this discussion was a few days ago. I joined in because you mentioned that you would be happy to live with the consensus of some of the other editors that have been involved in this article recently if they think it appropriate to add. Maybe I misunderstood @Cullen328:, but it seems we are both saying the same thing about the halo. Doctor^G  (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This wording claims that there was a halo, not that some commentators believed that there was one, and as such it is not acceptable. Since there are apparently no secondary sources commenting on this except to quote primary/affiliated sources, I would not include the word at all, even with a more neutral phrasing. The next sentence tells the reader that Branham thought it was a supernatural light, and there are mentions of the photographer's reaction. Dwelling more on the picture would give it undue weight. --bonadea contributions talk 06:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Just FTR, I removed a sentence about the photo which failed WP:NPOV and also misrepresented the source - the whole sentence was a quote, not just the noun phrase which had been placed inside quotation marks. As such, the claim would have to be placed in context, and since the context is that this is a claim made in one source, and there was (IMO) already undue weight on the photo, removing the sentence appeared to be the best solution to fix the NPOV issue. --bonadea contributions talk 19:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Danpeanuts:, it would probably be worthwhile for you to read Wikipedia:Consensus, which outlines the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia. You may have an opinion that differs from mine but the way edits are accepted depends on reaching consensus. This is what has been demonstrated through the comments above. I appreciate that you may not agree with the decision but it is consensus. The community decides which edits are acceptable: not me or any other individual. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 20:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea, Cullen328, Darlig Gitarist, and Dammitkevin: What a fun conversation! OK, I am travelling at the moment but I do have a stack of books in my library at home about Branham. I'll see if I can find a better reference for this image. But, in keeping with NPOV standards, I think it is wise, as someone else already suggested, to state something to the effect of, ...the photo was examined by an expert who reported the light in the photo was legitimate, but others have asserted there was likely a scratch on the lens...something similar to this would provide for both points of view and that would be the most appropriate. I'll look for some references when I get home, I think I have one specifically on this topic, but it will be a few days. On a side note, I personally think the light was a manifestation of the angel standing next to him, and I think that is probably what the references I have at home say, but I need to double check it. Doctor^G  (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Doctorg, when you write "I personally think the light was a manifestation of the angel standing next to him", I surely hope that you realize that your personal religious beliefs have no place in this article. The problem with a formulation like "the light in the photo was legitimate" is that there are countless possible explanations for this "light" other than tampering with the negative, and other than the light being a supernatural halo. Another problem is the credibility of the "expert". Who was this person, what was their training, what other unusual photos did they analyze, and was there any expert criticism of their work? In other words, any source used to say that a supernatural event took place must be subject to rigorous review. The same thing applies to the book that Julius Stadsklev wrote about Branham's trip to South Africa. Who was Julius Stadsklev, and what was his training and education? Why should anyone accept him as an expert on healing? What else did he do other than write this book? Who was the publisher of the book and what is the reputation of that company? Was this book widely reviewed, and if so, what did those reviews say? My Google search did not answer those questions, but I am willing to evaluate offline sources. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far the evidence looks really weak to everyone except true believers.

To whoever wrote the above comment. I was not suggesting that my personal opinion be added to the article. Doctor^G  (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a good thing this is the talk page where we can discuss the article, good references, etc. without arguing with each other. Notice I said I have some references at home that I think point to the angel theory and that I will look them up in a few days. I'll wait until then to comment any further. Doctor^G  (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A minor but significant problem here is that these talk page sections are excessively long and are meandering to new topics. Going forward, editors should stick to the topic of each thread as identified in its header, and start new threads to discuss new issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Doctorg, try doing a google search on - branham houston photo - and you will find some interesting research on the subject that debunks the "angel" theory. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 02:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And yet the angel piece, as part of the story of his life and ministry, is a central part. Some of the material I have read regarding the Bosworth debate mention that the light moved from the balcony down to the stage where Branham was standing just before this photo was taken; but it wouldn't be a good source for Wikipedia. Doctor^G  (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that even Branham claimed to have seen the light, so I am not sure where your reference is coming from. In fact, Branham claimed that all of the negatives on the camera were blank except for the picture of the light but this is clearly an embellishment given my research on the subject (there are other pictures from the debate). I think there is a good case to be made that the light appearing over Branham's head is simply a floodlight. It's a great shot that apparently even surprised the photographer but, to the best of my knowledge, there is no "evidence" that it was supernatural. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 22:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised at what you said, Darlig, because you say that using an unreliable source is taboo. The article you are referring to was written by Jeremy Bergen, who is openly a Branham hater the same as Collins, who wrote the Jim Jones article that you have posted. If you will take a close look at the photos you will see that the basketball player's hand was high in the air to be able to see the horizontal lights in the top of the coliseum, while the picture taken of Branham wasn't up in the air and the light was at a 45 degree angle. Sorry to have to debunk your debunk, but this man is doing all in his power to discredit Branham. The man who scientifically examined the photo was often hired by the FBI to examine their documents. He was the expert in his field--not Bergen. Danpeanuts (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2017

I have not used any of the sites that you refer to in the article and I am not advocating to do so. But being aware of them is beneficial just as being aware of the hagiographic material is beneficial. Being aware of it does not mean that I advocate using the information in the article However, I also don't think you understand photography. The focal length and aperture of the lens, the angle of the shot, the dynamic range of the film used, these factors all go into what a photograph ultimately looks like. To say that the Branham photograph was supernatural or thatit was a "halo" is simply not warranted based on the secondary sources. The primary sources are on both sides of the issue - some say that is was a flood light and others say that it was a supernatural being. Occam's razor would argue for a non-supernatural cause. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 17:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

All this talk seems fruitless. You seem to know more than George J. Lacy, the man the FBI uses for these cases. He should know a flood light from a scratch on a negative so I have filed a dispute. There are several other matters that you and the other 2 wont allow to be told by deleting nearly everything I post. There are a lot of positive things that the historians have written that need to be told. Danpeanuts (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2017 == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

The dispute was closed for two reasons:

"The first is failure to provide the proper notice. The second is that the discussion on the article talk page doesn't seem to focus on what changes should be made to the article. The discussion seems to consist of one editor saying that the subject was a holy man or miracle worker, and other editors discussing the need for extraordinary proof of extraordinary claims. (Anyway, any statement in the voice of Wikipedia that the subject worked miracles would be contrary to Wikipedia policy.)"

Based on the above, I do not think there is any support for having Wikipedia state that Branham worked miracles or had a "halo" over his head. There was a light on the photograph but making supernatural claims in respect of Branham is not something that Wikipedia can or will do. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 15:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I admit that I don't understand many of Wikipedia's policies and therefore didn't file the above dispute correctly. Also, I wrote to Doctorg on his own page. I thought I could talk to other editors on their personal page, but according to Bonadea, I can't ask for help there either. Since Bonadea says she took out the statement that "the photograph became perhaps the most famous relic in the history of the revival", can it be reworded and then put the ref. and page number after it? This photograph with the light in the position of a halo is probably the most important relic of the entire revival, and to take that information out is definitely not right. The photo is at the upper right hand corner of the William Branham page and is used all through many Christian books and literature. In fact, it's even on the cover of Weaver's book.

This is not the only problem with this Wiki site: Jim Jones is mentioned here too that infers that because he spoke at the same tabernacle that Branham spoke at, that makes Branham responsible for what Jones did. In all the recorded sermons of Jones that the FBI has, he only mentioned Branham once and that was in a derogatory way along with Oral Roberts and Billy Graham. Why are not the people who really were influenced by Branham mentioned, like Oral Roberts, Jack Coe, T. L. Osborn, and several others? When you read all the articles above you'll see that I'm not the only one who noticed the strong bias on the Branham site. Here's just one of the quotes above:

This article is extremely biased

I am an avid user of Wikipedia, which I believe is a fantastic project that provides Internet users with unbiased information on a vast range of topics.

I was therefore surprised to find the opposite when I read this article about William Branham, which could be best described as a synopsis of Douglas Weaver's book: "The Healer-Prophet".

The current article has no less than 49 references to Douglas Weaver's book, which in itself is not the problem, although these references account for more than half of the references put together.

The problem is that Douglas Weaver is not a reliable source of unbiased information.

The mere fact that he is a baptist theologian (and former baptist pastor) working as a professor in a private Baptist university (Baylor) implies that his agenda would be to defend the baptist faith, theology and tradition in an apologetic manner.

You know, anyone can write a book, but that doesn't mean what they write is the truth. Over half the references on Branham's page are Weaver's. To me, this is plain deception and trying to have me blocked (as Bonadea suggested) isn't going to fix it. Someone needs to go through the entire page and put in the correct, unbiased information. Weaver's opinions can be listed too, but his thoughts shouldn't be the main emphasis.Danpeanuts (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2017

You can of course talk to other editors on their user talk pages, but when a content discussion is carried on in several places at the same time, it becomes difficult to follow, and it means that most of us will not see the parts that don't happen here. I asked you to come here and discuss, I did not mean to imply that talking to other editors elsewhere isn't allowed (it would be very inappropriate for me to try to prevent anyone from doing that!) Thank you for re-joining the discussion here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There are 2 issues here, Danpeanuts.

1. The way an article is written is based on this policy - Wikipedia:Consensus. The majority of editors here are in agreement that the article, as is, is a good article. That is consensus.

2. The article is based on secondary sources. This is critical because the article is a biography of the deceased founder of a new religious movement. NRM articles are often contentious and the key to a stable, neutral article 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 counter-movement sources. There are 2 key secondary sources on William M. Branham - Harrel, whose treatment of Branham is quite short as he deals with multiple individuals in his book, and Weaver, whose book focuses on Branham. Both of these books are scholarly secondary sources published by university presses Harrel wrote the preface to Weaver's book. Because Weaver's treatment of Branham is much more detailed, it contains commentary and analysis on issues that Harrel did not have the time to deal with. The point is that both Harrell and Weaver are reliable sources by Wikipedia standards.

I think the article is balanced and neutral, dealing with both sides of the various issues. So does the reviewer who did the GA review. So do the majority of editors that you have discussed the article with. I really am quite sorry that you can't seem to see our point of view. I would suggest that you try editing other articles as this will help you become familiary with Wikipedia's policies. I also agree with Bonadea that you should discuss any issues relating to the article on its talk page. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 15:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Durban Sunday Times?

There has been a lot of discussion about a supposed 1951 article in the Durban Sunday Times. I have been unable to verify that any such newspaper has ever existed, although The Sunday Times (South Africa) has been published in Johannesburg since 1906. I see no evidence that any editor commenting here has actually read this article. Unless we can review the actual article, it is a waste of time to discuss it further. It seems that some editors believe that it reports on faith healing events that Branham held in South Africa . So what? We already know from many other reports that Branham held many such events. Suppose this newspaper article says he actually healed people. So what? Why would a random Durban newspaper article published in 1951 in racist South Africa be a reliable source for such an extraordinary claim? We would need multiple sources of vastly better reliability to make such a claim in Wikipedia's voice. There is a really big difference between saying that "Joe Smith reported that Branham healed people although Jack Jones disagreed", and saying in Wikipedia's voice that "Branham healed people". That second type of claim is completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 15:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I don't think I have ever read this article (or this paper) and agree we would need multiple mainstream sources to validate an exceptional claim. Though I'm not sure what bearing racism has on this discussion, unless the paper was known for being racist (I don't think a racist nation automatically disqualifies its newspapers). At any rate, I checked the Library of Congress's microfilm collection of foreign newspapers and they don't have this one listed so it's probably a moot point. Doctor^G  (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's the address of the Sunday Tribune in Durban, S.A. that had the story of the cripple that walked normally for the first time in his life. Since it is probably not digitized you will need to have the archives man get the article for you the same as the Natal Mercury archives man did for me with the story of the mass healings. It is exactly the same story that you can see in "A Prophet visits South Africa" p.125. Just curious: Why try to disprove everything concerning this man? Danpeanuts (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2017

Danpeanuts - one more time - Wikipedia policy requires that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Please see WP:EXCEPTIONAL. A single newspaper article that an editor like myself or Cullen328 can't not easily verify does not qualify as multiple high=quality sources. If Harrel and Weaver agreed on an issue like this, that would qualify as multiple high-quality sources. We don't have that. So since we do not have multiple high-quality sources, it can't be accepted as an edit under Wikipedia policies. It's that simple. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, the term "disprove" is not present in my Wikipedia vocabulary. All I care to do is to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic. Wikipedia will not state in its own voice that Christian miracles or Muslim miracles or Hindu miracles or Jewish miracles or Buddhist miracles are true. No reliable source on the question says that any of these "miracles" ever happened. On such matters, we neutrally summarize what advocates and adversaries say, as reported in reliable sources. The one thing that I can assure you is that this article will never be transformed into a Branham tract. Not gonna happen. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

References