William M. Branham is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 27, 2020.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 31, 2017 Good article nominee Listed October 10, 2017 Good article reassessment Kept May 15, 2018 Peer review Not reviewed July 22, 2018 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Charismatic Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (assessed as Mid-importance). Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. United States: Indiana / Kentucky / Louisville Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (assessed as Low-importance).

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Already closed AIRcorn (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was part of the discussion to provide GA status to this article. At that time, it was not clearly apparent that an edit conflict existed, but after working on the article for the past month, it is now clear that there is a small edit war occurring regarding acceptable sources and content. This has made the article unstable and unable to meet all 6 of the WP:Good article criteria. Visitors to this page may find it in flux from day to day. I recommend it be delisted until consensus can be achieved in the areas where there is currently disagreement. I have contributed to the article enough that I cannot provide a unbaised review and would like the community to reassess (just in case I am way off base). Please review the article’s history and talk page for evidence of the ongoing conflicts. Thank you!  Doctor^G  (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, @Doctorg:. I think the edit conflict you are observing is common to articles on NRM's. To quote from a Wikipedia essay on writing good articles on NRM's - "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." I don't think newspaper articles are sufficient secondary sources for a claim with respect to divine healing.

The issue currently in question is whether Wikipedia can support claims of "faith healing". The best way to resolve such an issue is to engage a broader audience of editors. This is an issue that is much broader than the article on William Branham. I have suggested that those in support of including claims of faith healing take this issue to a broader article such as Faith healing but this has not been done to date. I think it is a better way to resolve this issue - that there are sufficient secondary sources to support faith healing in the context of Wikipedia. I am not sure why they don't want to improve the article on Faith healing in this way, if they think they are correct.

Alternatively, I propose to copy the edits dealing with faith healing to the faith healing article and, if they disappear from that article by consensus, then I will feel at liberty to remove them here. I do think that it is a way to engage multiple editors who may not be interested in the Branham article, to comment on the greater issue. Personally I think the current approach, which is to re-review the GA status of the article is wrong, because the issue in question deals with a fundamental issue with Wikipedia sources which can more easily be resolved by the way I have suggested. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 10:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darlig Gitarist: This is only one fo several issues but I will refrain from going into a long discussion here. Please read my latest post on the talk page, I took this particular issue to the teahouse and made adjustments based on their reccomendations. Doctor^G  (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is quite biased against Branham. It seems like any "good" thing mentioned of him is mentioned in a bad light. There were discussions above regarding whether or not miracles (or healings, or however you want to mention them) should be included. There are several sources citing proven healings - specifically one involving a United States Congressman named Upshaw. I am writing now, after having worked with Upshaw's grandson (Thomas Upshaw Tuten - a physician living in SC) for years (who is not a practicing Christian nor follower of Branham) and he, himself, absolutely verifies the authenticity of the congressman's account of being raised from a wheelchair he was confined to since a young boy.

He wasn't wheelchair bound. See http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/Congressman_Upshaw

Less wrong daily (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main sources mentioned in the article are all biased in themselves. How can an article written by someone with an agenda, not be biased? People writing about Branham all write using hearsay. Quoting a old writing full of hearsay does not make it a fact. If you are going to speak about his doctrine, surely you can quote him in context, as I understand many of his sermons are recorded. If he's like any normal human being, he probably does have trouble recalling things the same each time he talks about them. Obviously, he wasn't God, I'm sure he did get stuff switched up occasionally (as do we all).

Hearing from eye witnesses (as there are many, though aged) Branham rarely, if ever, took up an offering of money in any of his campaigns. There's certainly something to be said for that, as that's the agenda of most preacher "personalities" today. What would be his motive for such deception as the article states?

There's too much conjecture from what I've read and who I've spoken to, to consider much of the information provided as "reliable" information (whether good or bad.) If he was such an evil person, where are the sources from the time period he was living that discredit his character? Was he involved in affairs? Did he get charged with abuse? Rape? Did he beg for money?

It's much easier to point out disagreements when people aren't around to defend themselves. It's also much easier to embellish stories once someone has passed on. This entire Wiki page can never be settled.

Actually, I do believe there are enough records to settle most of these issues. What's challenging is locating secondary sources that are based on records rather than hearsay. It's remarkable how unmiraculous his ministry was once you remove the hearsay and hagiographical content.

Less wrong daily (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple secondary party sources that critically analyze Branham. Weaver and Harrell are the primary sources used in the article now, and they are both written by people who state they are non-beleivers in what Branham stood for and they offered a critical and fair review of his life. Because they are balanced they are the main sources used for the article. Kydd is also a reputable source, but more sympathetic to the subject, and the use of this source is balanced by the use of Hanegraaf who looks at the entire evangelical movement as a cult and accuses Branham of effecting a hoax on people. There is not one source in this article that is wrote by Branham's followers, in fact every source opens their book stating their own personal disagreements with Branham. We are only putting in this article what these secondary sources have said. Duyzer and Collins are the only two primary sources still in use in the article, and they are used in such a minor way (except the Jim Jones part) that they are not impactful at all on the article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the GA reviewer is on a wikibreak, I am goign to close this reassessment. There seems to be three people in favor of closing: Me, Darlig, and Less wrong daily. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that this warring seems to be insurmountable. I have tried many times to add documented content to give this article a balance only to have it reverted. I admit that I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia and don't know all the ropes, but there are opinions here that are completely contrary to what most of the historians say and although there are many books written by historians about the supernatural aspects, only Weaver's opinions are favored and he is a Baptist who has written 3 books about the Baptist Church (Baptist doctrine is against the gifts of the Spirit today). The only reason I can see that he even wrote a book about Branham was to discredit him. So far this is not a Good Article and until more positive information is allowed to be told it will remain completely out of balance. Right now, over half the references are from Weaver. Danpeanuts (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2017

At nearly 16k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably - see WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. The article would benefit from significant summarization to make it more accessible to the general readership. Note also that it has nearly doubled in size since its FA candidacy, so may warrant review. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose separating the "Teachings" section back into its own articles. It was originally part of a Branhamism article, and was merged here quite a while back. If no one is opposed I would could make the adjustment. That would reduce article size by about 30%. Although I expect the quality would suffer, as that article is less monitored and this topic receives quite a bit of vandalism. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a logical split. The size alone would meet the criteria for a bold split, so I don't see any issues there. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree quality will likely suffer but it seems the split makes sense. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if the editing wasn't done in the best way. I'm considering how to improve these articles. Nikkimaria, Charles Edward, Butlerblog, Darlig Gitarist

On the page about William M. Branham, I removed the teachings content and placed it on the branhamism page, then moved branhamism to The Message of William Branham.

I believe it's appropriate to separate the biography of the subject and the teachings, similar to how it's done with Jesus and Christianity. Good afeternoon. Fox de Quintal (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be transferred to William Marrion Branham? Because the current title is William M. Branham. On the 'Wikipedia in Portuguese', the article is listed as Willian Marrion Branham. Fox de Quintal (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fox de Quintal: While I don't specifically object to a move at this point, if you're going to open discussion on this, then wait for discussion to ensue and complete before actually making the move. There's a process in place and while it could be argued that this meets criteria for WP:BOLDMOVE, it does only marginally. If you want to discuss a move in the future, make it known using the process here: WP:RSPM. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a move is appropriate because the reason for moving doesn't fit the criteria at Wikipedia:Moving a page#Reasons for moving a page. The name of the current page doesn't cause any confusion and there is a redirect in place from William Branham. The fact that the title includes the middle name in another Wikipedia language doesn't seem sufficient reason for moving the page.

Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 18:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butlerblog e Darlig Gitarist What's the issue with including the middle name? The number of results on Google for the full name "William Marrion Branham" is significantly higher than for "William M. Branham". While "William Marrion Branham" yields over 400 thousand results, "William M. Branham" has only 39 thousand. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the article should be titled "William Marrion Branham". Fox de Quintal (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't title articles based on Google searches. That lacks context. By that logic, it should be "William Branham" because that yields 823,000 results on Google. You need to make a more convincing argument that the current page title needs to change based on some legitimate criteria of WP:TITLE. There's presently no need to disambiguate, and there isn't any confusion surrounding the existing title. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why William Soto Santiago shouldn't be cited in the topic "Branham's followers".

First: He is a Branham follower. One of his cult's core beliefs is the existence of seven "special" preachers, where Branham is the last of them.

Second: His "religion" has already been denounced as a cult in Argentina, being cited by credible sources such as El Tiempo. He has also been into meetings with a member of the Colombian Ministry of Defense, that is also the founder of the Church of Scientology in Colombia.

Third: Many names, such as Joaquim Gonçalves Silva, Vinworth Dayal and Pearry Green, are cited in the article, even though they are "minor" cases confirmed by only one or two sources. Pachequis (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your third point is correct, and I have taken the action of removing much of the excessive detail regarding non-notable followers that has accrued over recent years. If you believe there is sourcing sufficient to demonstrate the notability of Santiago, I'd advise creating a standalone article that could then be added to the Branhamism category. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]