Talk:Billy Graham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Senior posting[edit]

In the infobox, there's a section titled "Senior posting" that contains Graham's profession and personal website. This information doesn't seem related to a "senior posting", and was previously in the main section of the infobox. (Evidently, the change was made by Ltwin @ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Graham&diff=787012777&oldid=786579000.) I have a few questions:

  • Was this change legitimate? Is it standard in Wikipedia to call this sort of info "senior posting"? It feels hacky to me.
  • I didn't actually see the change in the infobox in the diff I'd referenced above. Which change introduced this section? Can it just be undone?
  • Can this section be put back into the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panmaj (talkcontribs) 09:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In describing "Graham's POV," listing how a commentator described him is inappropriate[edit]

In the part of the article on Graham's POV, an slur word was used by some commentator to describe his view. In discussing his POV, there should be no statement as to what some commentator said. You could get all kinds of comments on Graham by various persons. The article is not about what slur words commentators used for Graham. This commentator's comment was thus deleted. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Homophobic is not a slur, it sums up the opinions of many.
You also got the fact that Southern Baptists do not consider themselves protestants wrong: they have no choice as they are. Since all evangelicals are protestant, you can't split that hair. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz:: "Homophobic" is not a slur? Putting aside Billy Graham for a moment, let us suppose that, if the writer of that article for The Independent had an article on Wikipedia, and I had written a criticism of his attitudes and the things that he had said in a durably archived and reliable publication, and in that criticism had called that writer Christophobic or, perhaps (given some of the things that he said in that article) Deophobic, that would just be recognised as some objective view that would be deemed worthy of inclusion by the Wikipedia community? After all, his attitude that it is insufferable for a man of faith to believe, as Graham's faith teaches, that same-sex sexual activity is sinful, could easily be described as Christophobic (because it condemns a standard, long-standing, and sincere teaching of Christianity), as well as Deophobic (see the article that is cited for reasons why I would use that descriptor for this person). Would that be considered acceptable in an article about said writer, under a Controversy section, if such an article existed?
It is certainly quite possible that Graham was actually homophobic (that is, not just maintaining a sincere belief that same-sex sexual activity is sinful, but holding additionally contempt and/or disdain for people who engage in such activity), even in his later years, especially given some of the statements that he made that are cited in Douglas Robertson's piece (in particular, Graham's apparently uncaring comments in a response letter to a woman who wrote to him about her personal experience of same-sex attraction). It's also quite possible that Graham was homophobic given his statement on AIDS mentioned in this Wikipedia article. However, given that Robertson himself says in the cited article that "religion is so often successfully leveraged as a means of making bigotry appear somehow acceptable, even something to aspire to. There is an insidious belief that Christianity is somehow inherently “good”, that belief in a God or having “faith” is something to admire and aspire to". That sounds both quite Christophobic and Deophobic, don't you think? Not the best judge on bigotry, I would say, unless we are operating by the standard of "it takes one to know one". Moreover, the article indicates that Robertson identifies as part of the alternative lifestyle community, and has also engaged in same-sex sexual activity, so he isn't exactly a neutral party on the matter. He at the very least has as much of a dog in that fight as Graham did.
Incidentally, I'm a Catholic, so I'm not someone who thinks that Graham was some perfect messenger of God or anything like that. However, from all appearances, Graham was—though having plenty of unfortunate faults, and some clearly concerning conclusions that he reached—sincerely was trying to lead people to God, despite his incomplete knowledge of God's teachings, and some of his personal misinterpretations of God's teachings. The controversy section of this Wikipedia article ought to focus more on his statements regarding AIDS, that aforementioned response letter that he wrote to that woman who expereinced same-sex attraction, his advocacy (according to Robertson's article) for the misguided "conversion therapy" approach towards individuals who experience same-sex attraction, his concerning attitude that women ought not to obtain higher education, and the like. Those are actually troublesome things. A Christian believing that it is God's teaching that same-sex sexual activity is wrong, and deeply desiring that those who experience same-sex attraction live celibate lives, is not. You may not agree with that view. It is certainly up to you whether you agree with that view or not. Nevertheless, it is a sincere religious belief that is clearly not based on misinterpretation of faith. To call that belief bigotry is simply erroneous. Tharthan (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good logic but still wrong. It is an interpretation of scripture. It's not a slur. It's not unlike saying that he was in favour of civil rights based on his reading of scripture. But I'd be happy to have you take this to an RfC with the question of whether "homophobic" was a slur or not, and if it was, what term to use instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One thing further, I recognize that Wikipedia uses terms in an attempt to achieve WP:NPOV while groups may use other terms for reasons of spin. For instance, many Evangelicals make the claim that they are "pro life" when their stand is better described as "anti-abortion". The former term has better optics but is inaccurate as opposed to the "consistent life ethic" put forward by others. I am not opposed to a neutral term, but argue that the term for those who oppose homosexual activity is "homophobic". I do not know that there is a guideline to support that claim, which is why I suggest the RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside Billy Graham for a minute...
One cannot reasonably, for example, group an entity like the Westboro Baptist Church, which actually is homophobic, and a person of faith who merely believes —per understanding of the word of God—that same-sex sexual activity is sinful (holding no ill-will or hatred for any individuals who choose to engage in such activity), in the same category. That is not only a hate-filled action in itself, it is also simply disingenuous and inaccurate.
That is equivalent to someone grouping the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Satanic Temple, the Jacobins, and an innocuous agnostic into the same category, under "Deophobic".
Doing either of those things is totally absurd, and both suggest a conscious, deliberate animus against the individual being unjustly grouped with malefactors. That is hardly NPOV. There is no way around that.
With regard to Graham, though, I again don't dispute that (even in his later years) he may have actually been homophobic. There is clearly evidence suggesting that.
I also share your puzzlement regarding those who are merely anti-abortion calling themselves pro-life. They are overstating their actual views and commitments if they call themselves pro-life (especially when many such people continue to be advocates of things like the death penalty). Tharthan (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know of know English word that encapsulates the position though. Care to offer one? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am not sure if there is a lone word that encapsulates that position. I would say that the best thing to do would be to use phrasing like "has qualms with same-sex sexual activity (because of their sincere religious belief)", "does not believe in same-sex marriage (because of [religious_view_x] on marriage)", etc. Tharthan (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we take that to the RfC? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graham attended Bible College in Temple Terrace[edit]

The reference's title https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/local/rev-billy-graham-attended-bible-college-in-temple-terrace/67-521631530 is "Rev. Billy Graham attended Bible College in Temple Terrace". Nowhere does it or the 4-minute news piece state he graduated from the school, only that he attended there. Second, "evangelical theology" is absolutely not mentioned in the prose or the news piece. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. The second section starts, "In 1940 Graham graduated from the Florida Bible Institute." However, his field of study and his degree are not mentioned. Feel free to wither copy and paste the sentence that supports it or list the time in the video where it's stated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham lifetime audience[edit]

Somehow this statement keeps reappearing. "As of 2008, Graham's estimated lifetime audience, including radio and television broadcasts, topped 2 billion." (talk) The source quoted is not accurate and is pure opinion. [1] The source is an editorial, which not factual and doesn't present any proof to back it up. It would like my friend publishing an article saying (talk) has 1 million followers on social media. Or them publishing an article with me saying I have 1 million social media followers. The fact an article is published does not make it true. Wikipedia needs actual facts, not editorial opinions; otherwise, Wikipedia becomes a useless source of false assumption that would be no different that modern-day media. — Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SineBot (talkcontribs) 09:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dema9049: How this is being restored should not come as a mystery to you as I have publicly reverted each time you reverted and have explained it on your talk page. You claim it is not accurate and is pure opinion. It is not our job to question the source. If you have a source to counter it, feel free to supply it. Until then, we cannot simple remove the text and leave the reference in-place (as you have been doing). I will point you to WP:RS and you can argue your truthiness claims there.
There is no source to support your claim of 1 million social followers, but even if there were, it would not negate the 2 billion viewers that have been cited. At best, we should add it. In short, you have no grounds for removing the claim that is sourced to that article. However, if you insist on challenging that source, there are http://www.travisagnew.org/2013/07/22/the-chain-of-events-for-billy-grahams-conversion/ https://dartreview.com/the-reverend-billy-graham/ https://regularbaptistpress.org/2018/02/23/reflections-billy-graham-fundamentalism-legacy-godly-man/ https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/billy-graham-days-noah-are-returning-earth and the following list over 2.2. billion https://www.journal-advocate.com/2018/02/22/remembering-billy-graham/ https://bossierpress.com/billy-graham-warns-the-us/ https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/billy-graham/how-rev-billy-graham-changed-a-man-who-changed-me/83-522730818 . I am certain that there are more news sources that claim the 2.2 billion number, that were published after Graham's death. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claim of an audience of 2 billion is clearly misleading. It's obviously not 2 billion different people. I'm a teacher. If I see a 5 classes of 30 students 100 times in a year (typical figures), I don't claim to have taught 15,000 students in that year. We should not be including such silly nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, that is how cumulative viewership is calculated. For instance, FIFA World Cup viewership: in 2018 it was 3 billion viewers, 2014 it was 3.2 billion and 2010 it was 26 billion. Regardless, we have sources that make this claim, it is not us making it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can choose to include or exclude sourced content, based on whether it is good content or not. I don't teach 15,000 students every year. An article on me would never say that I do. The claim about Graham is a variation on WP:PEACOCK language. It's obviously designed to impress readers, and is doing so in a misleading way. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is good content though and not designed to impress anyone but to accurately reflect the cumulative audience. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Of course it's designed to impress people! It's NOT good content. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated, it is common practice and so not unusual in any way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I simply repeat my view that it's bad practice. It serves no useful purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48 is correct, it's bad practice. It serves no useful purpose. FYI much of what you linked above are not WP:RS, please familiarize yourself with our reliable sources policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem with this sentence and the others about audience size in the lede is that the information is not found, for the most part, in the body of the article. The purpose of the lede is to summarize the contents of the article, not to introduce new information. If these statistics are determined to be properly included in the article, they should probably be in a separate section in the body and then summarized in a single sentence in the lede rather than taking up a substantial portion of it. That would also avoid the issue of undue emphasis. Indyguy (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Was Billy Graham actually an Ordained Baptist Minister?[edit]

Wikipedia has this phrase describing Billy Graham, "...an ordained Southern Baptist minister," and identifies his denomination as "Baptist." I would have assumed that Billy Graham was Baptist, yet when one studies these schools Billy Graham went to, and the College he was President to, I think this is an assumption. Billy Graham was raised in a Presbyterian Church. From this Article. The College Billy Graham graduated from, Trinity College of Florida, is a Evangelical Bible College, founded by a Pastor of a Christian Missionary Alliance Church, not Baptist, more like John Wesley's teachings. See Wikipedia page Trinity College of Florida. Wheaton College is not a Baptist College at all, rather a non-Denominational, Evangelical College, no Baptist background at all. It shows he had connections with Presbyterians while attending Wheaton College. See Wikipedia page Wheaten College. Billy Graham was President of Northwestern, yet Northwestern is not connected with the Baptist denomination. See Wikipedia page University of Northwestern. His Friend, Charles Templeton, was never Baptist. See Wikipedia page on Charle Templeton. Indeed, when Billy Graham made the statement that Charles Templeton, "...had a shipwreck of his faith." That does not reflect the Baptist's Eternal Security theology, rather a more Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran/Wesley theoloy, (anything in Christianity except Reformed Theology). All my life I was taught Billy Graham was a Baptist, yet I do not see any proof anywhere that Billy Graham was actually a Baptist, or Southern Baptist.Easeltine (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in the body and it doesn't actually look like we have a reliable secondary source for that, we use his foundation as a primary source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary says he was a Southern Baptist - https://www.sbts.edu/graham/ Indyguy (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally doubt that Graham was a Southern Baptist but thats not a reliable secondary source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course SBTS is generally a reliable secondary source - why wouldn't it be? But I can't actually find the claim on the page. StAnselm (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its not possible for a part of an organization to be a reliable secondary source for information about the membership of that organization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think the foundation is a primary source - certainly not now that Graham is dead. StAnselm (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But did anyone try googling this? The first result for "Billy Graham SBC" is Billy Graham’s Southern Baptist ties highlighted, from Baptist Press. StAnselm (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a WP:RS in this context, nor does that article say that Billy Graham was an ordained Baptist Minister. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. StAnselm (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't independent of the Southern Baptist Convention so its not a WP:RS in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And if you need something using the word "ordained": Billy Graham supported Albert Mohler's role at Southern Baptist Seminary from The Courier-Journal. StAnselm (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That minor article in a local paper by a non-staff contributor appears to have summarized our page on the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. StAnselm (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Billy Graham: A Biography of America's Greatest Evangelist" a popular press bio by a non-expert is not a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think you totally misunderstand WP policy on reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about Walter de Gruyter? [1] StAnselm (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats a good publisher and the author is a subject matter expert. Well done, thats excellent! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that without a WP:RS saying he wasn't an Ordained Baptist Minister the primary sources are sufficient. It would be nice to have a better source, but IMO we don't strictly need one. If we can't find one its not the end of the world and IMO no changes to the current article would be warranted based on that non-result. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]