Talk:Billy Graham/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Little qualitative evaluation

There is so much emphasis on events and numbers, that it is like reading his organization's press releases. What did his revivals accomplish? Did people increase charitable giving, save children, start schools, provide health care, or just listen to him? It's probably an issue with all evangelists, but there have been critical works about him that should be referred to for his historical legacy, and not just opinion polls.Parkwells (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Alleged death in November 2011

An editor recently added a death date of November 2011. This is incorrect, as shown by this story about a false report of Graham's death. I will remove the death date from the article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need to notify us about someone who is clearly alive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Lausanne Movement

(Billy Graham's role in the Lausanne Movement has not been mentioned in this article. The intention of this section of the talk page is to document that role and demonstrate its importance for the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"The Lausanne movement came into existence as a result of the vision and support of the most respected evangelist in our day, Billy Graham." The movement came out of the International Congress on World Evangelism (ICOWE) held in July of 1974. Graham led in the convening of that congress. "Time magazine called it 'possibly the widest-ranging meeting of Christians ever held.' "

It needs to be reworked since it doesn't read smoothly or appropriately and should include material from Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. It should also be correctly wikilinked. I tried to reconcile the two sources but don't understand the subject sufficiently to do that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nostly, get rid of the two direct quotes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of Evangelical Christian in the infobox

"Evangelical Christian" is, I suppose, no denomination. It seems to me, that I have read he is a Baptist. Is it so? 86.115.5.194 (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes he is a Baptist, a Southern Baptist to be specific. No, Evangelicalism isn't a denomination: It's a collection of ideas that defines a number of denominations and would qualify as a religion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with Walter on the religion, this brings up a question: there is a parameter for denomination, shouldn't it be used with Southern Baptist? --Musdan77 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Graham's support of a North Carolina Amendment appropiate in the Controversy section

While the issue is a wedge issue, Graham's position on it was hardly controversial, especially since it is a common one for example the amendment passed with 63% of North Carolinians supporting. Just because the position generates disagreement hardly means it generated controversy, I mean from my point of view it would be controversial if the longtime evangelical leader came out against it. To judge a position on a wedge issue controversial while the opposite position would not be called controversial, for example in Former Governor Bev Perdue's article it doesn't seem to me her position against the amendment would be categorized as such. It is the Wrong section it belongs in another unless I missing something here we can’t call it a controversy. John D. Rockerduck (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You are misreading it. It was controversial in the public eye and to other Evangelicals. If he had come out in favour of gay marriage, as Steve Chalk has, that would be controversial as well. However, the reasons would be polar opposite to the controversy that he raised by taking the side that he did on this issue. Look at it this way, if he had come out in favour of Dr. King and the civil rights movement, that would have been controversial with those opposed to the movement. If he had refused to accept the principles of the civil rights movement, that too would have been controversial with those in favour of it. The same occurs here. Since this issue is perceived as a political and not a religious issue, even though I disagree with that opinion, any religious figure who takes a stand on this perceived political issue is courting controversy. 04:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Evangelical Christian is not the same as Christian and it's not the same as an evangelist.

If you look at evangelism, the hat note currently reads "Not to be confused with Evangelicalism." This seems to be something that at least one editor is doing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Walter, didn't we go through something like this before with Carman? Now with Billy?

Again, there is no religion called "Evangelical Christianity." Sometimes in an infobox in Religion, it could be written as "Christianity (evangelical)" (like for Rick Perry), but for Billy Graham, it says Evangelist and Southern Baptist. Just one of those means that he is evangelical. Evangelicalism is not a sect. The word "evangelical" should also not be in the lead. A person can be evangelical and not be an evangelist (one who evangelizes), but a person cannot be an evangelist and not be evangelical (one who believes in evangelizing). --Musdan77 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There is is a movement within Christianity known as Evangelicalism. People identify themselves within the movement. They are known as Evangelicals or Evangelical Christians.

These people are not evangelists, which is an office is the church.

He is not a fundamentalist, which many prominent evangelists are. He is not a charismatic, which other evangelists are. He is an evangelical. It should be firmly in the lede because it identifies who he is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I will concede that there's a difference between evangelical and evangelistic (though the lines do often cross). And there are different definitions for fundamentalism, as there is for evangelicalism -- and charismaticism, for that matter, but I'm not going to get into that here. But when it comes to the Religion parameter in the infobox, like I said, there is no religion called "Evangelical Christianity," and should not be listed as such. All Christians, no matter what the doctrine, are a part of the religion called Christianity. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I will concede your point here if you go to all of the infoboxes of Governors General in Canada and change the religion parameter there so that it doesn't list a denomination but rather lists Christianity as well. I have been told that religion doesn't mean religion in those discussions. I don't know if the template backs that point or if it's consensus, but it's standard practice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Among seminary circles (including Gordon-Conwell which he co-founded with Harold John Ockenga), Billy Graham is heralded as one of the architects of Evangelicalism (a.k.a., Neo-Evangelicalism or "The Mid-Twentieth Century Evangelical Revival") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.76 (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Mid-Century Crusade

I believe that Wheaton College (Mr. Graham's alma mater) has archives of a mid-century Crusade. It isn't certain whether he started this in Grand Rapids, or at Dr. Harold John Ockenga's request -- when he both preached at Park Street Church and the then-Boston Gardens. It wasn't until 1951 when it returned to Los Angeles when it was recognized by Time Magazine as the first Transcontinental Crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.19.122 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Presidential Candidate and LGBT Material Adds

Hello, the edits being added are not cited and are inflammatory. The must have citations if they are to remain and not be reverted.--TRL (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Was Graham a critic of Catholicism because he opposed Kennedy's candidacy?

I don't know that being against Kennedy makes him a critic of the denomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair question. I certainly agree that being against Kennedy because, e.g., you were a committed Republican, or thought Nixon was better on the issues, or whatever, would have nothing to do with being critical of Catholicism. However, the sentence in this article (which was added long before I ever showed up) states that Graham "was opposed to the candidacy of John F. Kennedy because he was Catholic" (emphasis added). This is backed up by the linked source for that sentence, a transcript of an interview on PBS, where Rev. Randall Balmer, a historian of religion at Barnard College at Columbia University whose research specialty is squarely in this area, states that Rev. Graham was "very concerned about the prospect of a Roman Catholic in the White House...."

Rev. Graham is an exemplary human being, and has certainly become admirably ecumenical in his later years. Personally, I admire him as a man and as a Christian.

However, at one time in his life he was opposed to the prospect of a Catholic, qua Catholic, being President, as the PBS source proves. I'm trying to add people to the category "Critics of Catholicism" so that someone doing, e.g., a research project on the topic has a handy list of people who've been notably critical of Catholicism, the Catholic Church, or Catholics qua Catholics. That's the kind of thing that, in my mind, makes categories useful for readers of Wikipedia. That Rev. Graham, one of the most prominent Christians in 20th century U.S. history, once held the views he did is notable, and it might be useful to readers for us to note it. And the history backs it up. It's notable and it's reliably sourced. That's my rationale. I respect that you may still differ. All the best, Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Flawed logic. He was opposed to John F. Kennedy because he was Catholic. That makes him anti-Catholic, not a critic of Catholicism. If he had preached a sermon that stated why Catholicism was wrong and then ended it by stating that for this reason alone you should not support John F. Kennedy, then he would be a critic of Catholicism. However the logic here does not follow. You're making a leap of logic not supported by any statement in the article. And even if he were simply against Catholicism, that too doesn't make him a critic of it. The fact that there's no category for that is not an issue to discuss in this article though. Luther was a critic of Catholicism. Calvin also. Tyndale, Knox and especially Jack T. Chick were all critics of Catholicism. Graham never was. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well argued. I see your point. I'll revert my change. Thanks for arguing so cogently. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Superstar Billy Graham

FYI, the usage "Superstar Billy Graham" is under discussion. you may be interested, see Talk:Billy Graham (wrestler) -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Which George Bush delivered the eulogy for Ronald Reagan?

The sentence This was mentioned by George Bush in his eulogy is found towards the end of the section Pastor to presidents. In my experience, the name 'George Bush' when used by the media or persons of some renown has always referred to George H. W. Bush but as you can see, the internal link is to the George W. Bush article. I would change the link as appropriate but the sentence lacks a citation so I can't easily find out which of them delivered the eulogy. (I assume it was George W. Bush as he was POTUS at the time but I shouldn't make an edit based on an assumption.) Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Evangelical Christian evangelist?

I see Mr Graham is described as an "evangelical Christian evangelist". Is this not redundant? Please excuse my ignorance, I'm unfamiliar with the finer gradations of American Christianity.

Is there such as thing as an evangelical Christian nonevangelist (or a nonevangelical Christian evangelist)?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not redundant.

Evangelicalism is a division of Christianity.

Evangelism is an occupation.

Hope that helps.

I am an evangelical Christian who is not an evangelist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you: nice and concise. Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikiquotes

I know it sounds daft: but I’ve noticed the Billy Graham has a Wikiquote page.

Would it be worth while putting a link to it in the ‘See Also’, or ‘References’ section: or where-ever is felt appropriate?

I know it sounds daft, but I know I’d find something like that, useful … 

Cuddy2977 (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's already there. It's on the right side of the external links section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, didn’t spot that! My NEXT questions … ? Are ‘Are there similar links on other biographical entries?’ And ‘couldn’t they be a BIT more prominent … ?’ Just as a thought … Cuddy2977 (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There are two templates that could be used, {{Sister project links}} and {{Wikiquote}}. You can see what links to each by clicking on the "what links here" link on the left side. The latter has thousands of links. I won't even try to figure out how many the former has. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry

It should be made more clear that Tullian Tchividjian, so the children of "Gigi" (Virginia) have lived up to their grandfather's (Billy Graham) dynasty. I think there is too much focus on Will Graham, and the eldest son of Billy (even though rightly so because he is the heir of the Billy Graham Ministries group) 182.255.99.214 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Not NPOV?

This article sure has a pro-Christian slant to it.

'According to his staff, more than 3.2 million people have responded to the invitation at Billy Graham Crusades to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, many to the altar call song "Just As I Am".' Doesn't exactly sound neutral to me. How about '...have responded to the invitation to convert to Christianity' or 'have become christians' at Billy Graham Crusades?

203.109.246.72 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well considering he's probably the most well-known living Christian I'm not surprised that it's pro-Christian. The problem with your suggested changes are that he invites them to accept Jesus as their personal saviour. They may already have faith positions that could be characterized as Christian such as any one of the various forms of Catholicism. So you can't assume that they're not already Christian or that they are becoming Christians. Then on the other side of the coin is the position that they haven't actually become Christians as that involves discipleship. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, "have become 'born again' Christians at Graham's behest" or "have become Baptised (according to whatever convention he preaches) as a result of his works." There's more than one way to skin a cat. It may not be surprising it has a pro-Christian slant, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed so it doesn't. "...have responded to the invitation to accept Jesus as their personal saviour" seems subtly to suggest that he actually is their saviour and these people have come to accept that 'fact' when it hasn't been established as such. It just occurs to me that it could be said better, preferably by someone other than me, who knew nothing about Graham until he stumbled on this article last night. Also, Billy Graham better known than Pope Ratzinger, Barach Obama and Queen Elizabeth II? I doubt it, somehow. 60.226.45.225 (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say to the article critic, seeing this from a logical wikipedia POV, are you serious?

The particular individuals in question inside the article have responded to an invitation which was "invitation X". So therefore the article states that a specified number of people responded to "invitation X". I mean, are you seriously criticizing this article on this basis?

I believe introducing a bias into this article is wrong, and if the article is stating that Rev. Billy Graham has had Y number of people respond to his invitation X, then this is the appropriate stating of the facts. By questioning this, I believe you are introducing a anti-Billy Graham bias, and therefore your suggestions should be disregarded. I do not know Billy Graham nor have heard any of his speeches/writings, and I suggest his Wikipedia entry contain but unbiased factual data. I don't think it is wise to conclude that ["...have responded to the invitation to accept Jesus as their personal saviour" seems subtly to suggest that he actually is their saviour and these people have come to accept that 'fact' when it hasn't been established as such."] Stating that Y number of people responded to the invitation to accept Jesus as their personal saviour does not imply that it has or has not been established, that he is or is not. It is just a response to Billy Graham's particular invitation. Nothing more, nothing less. Hense I suggest, you are coming at this criticism from a anti-Billy Graham, or possibly anti-christain POV, and therefore, are unbiased. I believe it would be wise as in individual hoping to edit wikipedia, to remain unbiased while attempting to present logical influence to the further improvement of Wikipedia articles. 68.61.47.116 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster here that the chosen wording comes off as a little biased. I think it's all because of the word "accept" in this context. Maybe this is just a semantics argument, but to me, the word implies that something has already been established as true. At the same time, I see why "convert to Christianity" doesn't necessarily describe it either, for the reasons already pointed out (e.g. the conversion could be from some other sect of Christianity). WillieBlues (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the writer is anti-Billy to any degree. It's just that this "article" reads like an advertisement to become a Christian and "join the club." Blondesareeasy (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe the article is written factually. Billy's ministry was to invite people to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior. How do you write that neutrally without altering what he actually did? Most of the people did not accept this invitation until Jesus was real to them. Obviously, this is not done at a scientific or hard science level. The fact is Billy gave his invitation in just that way. How we respond to it is based on our own realities. Christians applaud it. Anti-Christians hate it and resent it. People in the middle may feel a tug to go forward, or may still resist it. Our feelings are mixed into our objective reasoning; even the most logical among us still make 70% of their decisions based on how they feel. So, it doesn't surprise me that some people are wanting to soften or alter Billy's message, but the fact remains that this is his message. He invited people to accept Jesus as their savior. Like it or not, reject or accept it, that's what he did. And that is what is true for any evangelist from any religion, and even from marketing gurus pushing products. Alrich44 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Need help in the section "Early Life"

This sentence, "Graham grew up on a family dairy farm, near Charlotte, North Carolina, with his two younger sisters and younger brother, after they had moved there, in 1927, that Graham was only eight, where his entire family lived in a red brick home, after his family left the white frame home, about 75 yards (69 m)." simply doesn't make sense! It isn't really a sentence; just a collection of words.

I think, because there is a footnote [8], the sentence may have been lifted from a source and either got damaged in copying or was poorly written at the source.

I do not know enough about the Rev. Mr. Graham to make the correction myself. I apologize in advance if my comment might be considered contentious, but . . . .

Cadillac84 (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Charles Moore

YouTube and copyright

Please explain how using a YouTube video is a copyright violation but using a video from Today show or using a copyrighted book is not. I'm not doubting you, but would like an explanation. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.174.158.201 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The video in question is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR2L8E_hCcg. It's posted by someone named David Carroll who does not appear to have anything to do with either the Graham organization or Chattanooga Baylor as that account currently posts "found videos", or what Wikipedia would call videos with other copyrights. WP:WP:COPYLINK addresses that issue. And the fact that it's not clear where in the video the information, the first integrated crusade in the South was at Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1953, at the Warner Park pavilion, but that's a secondary issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Billy Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110119143909/http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/graham_billy/ to http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/graham_billy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131211081713/http://crossmap.christianpost.com/news/billy-graham-nelson-mandela-united-by-apartheid-opposition-7290 to http://crossmap.christianpost.com/news/billy-graham-nelson-mandela-united-by-apartheid-opposition-7290

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

First integrated crusade in South: Chattanooga, Tennessee

On YouTube, by entering "Billy Graham Baylor" in search bar, you see Graham giving a speech at a prep school in Chattanooga. At the 8:45 mark, he mentions that Chattanooga was the first place in the South where he had an "integrated" crusade. That is, blacks and whites sitting together. Seems like this is noteworthy. Could/should this be added to the article and could the YouTube video be used as a reference? The person who uploaded the video is David Carroll, the preeminent televison personality in Chattanooga. He mentioned in local news that the person who shot the video allowed Carroll to upload it.BillVol (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

But that's the opposite of what "segregated" means; perhaps you're confusing segregation and integration? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. Brain fart. Corrected (I think).BillVol (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Presidential pastor

There seems an emphasis on proving he was influential with presidents, but every encounter or reference does not need to be listed. It is speculation to write that he would have officiated at two high-level funerals except for illness, and I have deleted that. Parkwells (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that I could find in the referenced source or elsewhere that indicates any special law that was passed. All references I could find online state "a(n) [unprecedented] special law was passed [on his behalf] in 1952" almost verbatim in every source.
The only documented case of a differing view was that it was "an unprecedented move, permission for the use of the Capitol steps and plaza was obtained to hold a meeting on February 3rd, 1952." --Charlesshrawd2 (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Billy Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525223201/http://www.in70mm.com/news/2005/5th_dimension/chapters/credits.htm to http://www.in70mm.com/news/2005/5th_dimension/chapters/credits.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Award and honors

Section "Award and honors" is a result of random edits of random editors. It should be improved. "Congressional Gold Medal" is mentioned twice in different paragraphs, but according to you it is correct. Some sentences are wrongly referenced. For instance this one:

"He has received the Congressional Gold Medal from the United States Congress and the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Reagan, America's highest civilian honors."

It is referenced to this site, but there is nothing about these two medals. It needs correct references. Why you do not want to improve this article? There are plenty of dead links. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't hide discussions about articles on the talk pages of individual editors. I have no problems with fixing the article, so I'll go clean-up the mess you made and maybe you can stop thinking your edits are perfect.

OK Now that I've read everything you've said I can only conclude you're not familiar with the Internet or the technologies around web pages. The previous reference wasn't duplicated. An anonymous editor just added it and you mangled it even worse minutes later. I reverted all of it. Then you added your edit back. The reference you were looking for was on the second page. http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/07/The-Billy-Pulpit.aspx?p=2.

As for dead links, I'm not sure what you're talking about? I just ran it through a tool that checks for them and it didn't find any.

So now I get to ask you: do you want to improve the article or just push your POV? I'm reverting to where it was 12 hours ago. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did not read this page carefully, I was only looking for word "medal" (only 30 seconds), but there are more important things. Perhaps you can add more references, there are some unreferenced paragraphs. The lead should be expanded (every article longer than 30k should have at least three paragraphs. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't see the big "Continued on Page 2" when you reached the bottom?

Where did you pull that stat about ledes from? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in that case I did not see it, and I do not know why. Sometimes I use much more advanced Internet technologies, you can see that in my manuscript articles. Wikipedia:LEAD#Length - basic wikipedia standards. Are you unfamiliar with wikipedia standards? I know it happens. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen that section of that MOS page, but I have seen "Continued on Page X" multiple times. You use more advanced Internet technologies? Perhaps you should stick to browsers that render the page correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions that Billy Graham received an honorary degree from the University of Northwestern -- St. Paul, a school that does not grant honorary degrees. It is true Northwestern named a building after him, but they did not give him an honorary degree to my knowledge. I looked for lists of his honorary degrees and found that he received honorary doctorates from Baylor University, Bob Jones University, and numerous others, but not Northwestern. 198.174.0.30 (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)JM

Conversation with Nixon

In the section "Discussion of Jews with President Nixon", it is stated that the conversation took place in 1972, and this is the year given by the cited sources. However, in the conversation Nixon and Graham discuss the Israeli shoot down of Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114, which occurred February 21, 1973, and the January 22, 1973 issue of Time Magazine, which featured an illustration of Marlon Brando on the cover and a story about his role in Last Tango in Paris. As such, this recording could not have been from 1972. Although the cited sources erroneously state that the recording was in 1972, the tape itself has been widely published, and is available for anyone to verify that the recording was from 1973, rather than 1972.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Upon further review, the article was correct as it was. The 1973 recording is the one released in 2009, where he mentions "the synagogue of Satan". The USA Today article used as a reference correctly states that this recording was from 1973.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

South

We are told that Graham played the part of the "Southerner". This might be true, but there seems to be no Biblical basis for this. There is a lot of flat, American rhetoric and spam in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.96 (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Billy Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817195823/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2553945.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2553945.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

BLP violation; section trying to smear Graham as anti-semitic deleted

A segment of article tried to smear BLP Graham for saying that Jewish persons controlled the media. Segment tried to smear Graham as having made anti-semitic remark. Whether or not (or to what extent) Jewish persons (like Murdoch) control the media, is a matter of fact or non-fact, or extent, not a matter of being against Jewish persons for this alleged control or deploring it. Thus I deleted the segment. (PeacePeace (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC))

Extent of notability - overstating the case

I adjusted one of the opening sentences to make it a less wild claim, and more in keeping with the source that was being quoted. It had said, "Widely regarded as the most important preacher of the 20th century and most notable in history". In other words, more notable than Jesus, Martin Luther and John Wesley! Whether you consider him important or not probably depends on whether you are evangelical rather than, say, Roman Catholic, so the "widely regarded" is also not so helpful. No one one is disputing that he was one of the most influential of the century, so I left it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northtowner (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hypocorism in lead

@Walter Görlitz: I don't like reverting back and forth, so I'd like to discourse here. "Bill(y) is a common hypocoristic term for William." (Shipley, Joseph Twadell (2001). The Origins of English Words. JHU Press. p. 24.) Per the Manual of Style (MOS:HYPOCORISM), hypocorisms aren't included in the lead. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

While it is in the article of hypocorisms next to William, it is not sufficiently common. It also has other uses: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/billy https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/billy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/billy. Since it could have multiple meanings, it's not sufficiently common. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with your assessment. While there are other meanings to "Billy", writing it in William Franklin "Billy" Graham is superfluous, because Billy, as a name, is obviously short for William. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree with my assessment. I clearly disagree with yours. I would argue that to many who were alive a half century ago, it would be clear, but that's not the case today and so it is not superfluous. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And if a reader actually has to follow a wikilink to know that Billy is a hypocorism if William, it's likely not common. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Because his full name includes "Jr.", it seems reasonable to write out the common name in full as part of the prose. I've made this edit to reflect that. What are your thoughts? --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Billy Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070131004400/http://www.billygraham.org/mediaRelations/bios.asp?p=1 to http://www.billygraham.org/mediaRelations/bios.asp?p=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=32770
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080904064456/http://www.billygraham.org/News_Article.asp?ArticleID=358 to http://www.billygraham.org/News_Article.asp?ArticleID=358

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Billy Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.californiality.com/2011/12/billy-grahams-california.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://myhopewithbillygraham.org/what-is-my-hope/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717191016/http://veclip.com/tag/song-about-billy-graham.html to http://veclip.com/tag/song-about-billy-graham.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526194544/http://www.michaelwsmith.com/bio.html to http://www.michaelwsmith.com/bio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102194014/http://www.unwsp.edu/web/10141/1611 to http://www.unwsp.edu/web/10141/1611
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/Graham-B/GrahamB.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"part of a backlash"

This sentence "He was criticized by feminists as being part of a backlash for these statements" is unclear to me, and the source doesn't help. Spec. the part "being part of a backlash". Does it mean "He was criticized by feminists for these statements"? That would be up there with "the sun rose this morning".--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Billy Graham has been very ecumenical

I added a bit on that and corrected a misleading statement like on his core constituency. Graham certainly has not attempted to gather merely a core of conservative protestants at his meetings. That idea is really has been anathema to him. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC))

KBE

Regarding your revert of a removal of KBE from Billy Graham, Walter Görlitz indicated that MOS:POSTNOM indicates the initials should be included. I looked at this edit earlier and wasn't sure either way, but after your revert I read it again, and I do think they should be removed, based on the phrase when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated, which I don't think applies to Graham. I can see the first part of the sentence applying, but when you add this extra bit, it seems they shouldn't be included...no?  Frank  |  talk  21:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Graham hasn't been involved with the United Kingdom? He has conducted many "Crusades" in England (16)—most notably the 1954 crusade in London—Scotland (more than a dozen) and one in Northern Ireland. Depending how you count it, that would be second to those in the US (see list of Billy Graham's crusades). Of course, he did many in West Germany, East Germany and the combined nation, but I don't think it's cumulatively more than in the UK dates. It's my understanding that the knighthood is only given to British nationals, or someone who has made a significant achievement for the United Kingdom, so I don't think it was just handed out to a visitor. What would you consider a close association? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The guideline reads closely associated, not involved, and he's an American, not a British subject. Traveling throughout the world doesn't mean one is closely associated - even if one is working rather than just visiting. In the other direction, I can see some British subjects being closely associated with the US (think British Invasion), and certainly there are some American citizens who are more popular outside the US (right now, only David Hasselhoff comes to mind but there are others). I just don't think Billy Graham is on that list; his overwhelming primary fame is in the US. As for not just handing out to a visitor, I certainly agree with you, but the reason for bestowing the honor need not be specific or unique to the British Empire; for examples, see Alan Greenspan, Vicente Fox, and George H. W. Bush. (Note that Greenspan's article does carry the post-nominal letters; I believe it shouldn't.)  Frank  |  talk 

In addition, according to list of Billy Graham's crusades, well more than half (226 of 417) crusades listed occurred in one country - the United States. To your point, though, there were a number of them in Commonwealth countries other than England and Scotland, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and any number African countries that are (or were) Commonwealth nations, which would help explain the award in the first place. Still - I think he's primarily associated with the United States.  Frank  |  talk 

I agree with Walter and disagree with Frank. It is also noteworthy to remind everyone that Graham had a personal audience with the Queen of England, Elizabeth. That is significant since the KBE is awarded under her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.171.2 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain on what basis you form this opinion with respect to MOS:POSTNOM? I am asserting that Graham is not closely associated with the Commonwealth as that guideline calls for, and have provided reasoning for this assertion.  Frank  |  talk  21:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll assume here, but expect the anon to answer, and I'll reply to an earlier idea you posited.

Most citizens of the United Kingdom, and even fewer foreigners, have an audience with the Queen. I would argue that all who have been knighted have had an audience with her, as that is required for knighthood. I don't know the nature of the audience with her in this instance, but if it were for more than the knighthood, that would make him more closely associated with her than 99% of her subjects. I don't think they are on a first-name basis, but then again, even her son, the heir to the throne, refers to her as "Her Majesty" (except on a few rare occasions) so that's no measure if closeness. So I'd ask, what would you consider a close association to be? This ad hoc rule you create here must apply to other knights of the same order where POSTNOM currently applies.

I don't believe this order is conferred by the commonwealth nor is it exclusively for members of the commonwealth, but it is conferred by the UK.

Please don't directly link to other articles. It causes unnecessary noise when you click on "what links here" on those pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I feel like my point is being missed here. Conferring these honours does not imply or presuppose a personal relationship (or audience) with the Queen, and to my understanding, such is irrelevant to the matter, as the honours are for service to the Crown or to the Commonwealth, not to the Queen. To me, close association is a pretty clear term, and I don't think it means a relationship with the royal conferring the honour. Billy Graham is not, from anything I've read, closely associated with the UK. Similarly, and, I think, of relevance, I do not think the other individuals I mentioned are closely associated.  Frank  |  talk  00:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Your point is not being missed. Since close association is a clear term to you, and it seems to be a different definition to what anon and I are thinking, you should clearly define it. You earlier defined as Commonwealth, and now only "with the UK". Yet I think I showed how Graham does have an association with England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but apparently having an impact by running crusades in those locations doesn't constitute a close association for you. So what does? Living in those locations? Engaging in physical warfare for those nations? Performing sports for those locations? What exactly does it mean to you that Graham doesn't have and others do? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think my point is being missed. It's not that Graham "doesn't have and others do" - I assert that quite a number of people who carry the honour do not have a "close association" with the UK or the Commonwealth and therefore should not have the letters stated after their name in the lede of the article - as recommended by the applicable guideline. Two additional good examples are George H. W. Bush and Alan Greenspan. I'm not trying to make any new policy here, and I'm not trying to redefine any words. I'm saying that Graham - despite holding a number of revivals in UK and Commonwealth countries - does not have a close association with those countries; he is closely associated with the United States. In addition, you seem to be seizing on my use of both "UK" and "Commonwealth" as if it is a changing definition, but our article on the subject states that "Nominations continue today from Commonwealth countries that participate in recommending British (Imperial) honours." It is not limited to the UK.  Frank  |  talk  04:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you're point is completely missed. Still is. You might want to request comment from others because two editors state that there is sufficient association. You don't think there is and you haven't made the case that our contention is invalid. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is this big news?

this is hardly front page news. A pastor died who was completely unknown outside the USA. How can this be in the top 5 in the news articles? A 99 year old died that's hardly shocking is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

He was very well-known outside of the United States. I suggest you read the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest this section be deleted- the rhetorical question posed is not more than obvious trolling- the presence of which here burdens users of this space with more noise to separate from the substance.Mavigogun (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.182.194 (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism from Christopher Hitchens

Hello all, at the suggestion of StAnselm, I wanted to ask whether people think we should include details of Christopher Hitchens's critique of Graham, and subsequent response. The text that I suggest using can be found partway down this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Graham&oldid=825663810 Jono1011 (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

it much too heavy-handed ("What a horrible career") and uncharitable ("I gather it's soon to be over. I certainly hope so."..."evil man") to be included--as well as exaggerated (eg the money claims) and unsourced ("fraud") It repeatedly violates BLP Rjensen (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, I'm not suggesting that the Hitchens's comments be cited as a reliable assessment of Graham's work, and the suggested section would include a response to some of the points raised by Hitchens. However, I think that the comments merit inclusion because they provide readers with information about how Graham's work has been perceived by an especially high-profile religious critic. It would be left up to readers to make their own mind about whether Hitchens's comments are accurate. I'd be interested to hear what other people think.Jono1011 (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

the BLP rule is ironclad--Wikipedia cannot call Graham an evil fraud. This discussion violates the rule :Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. " Rjensen (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, this discussion concerns contentious material about a living person which is clearly sourced, you may disagree with what that source - namely Hitches - states, but it is not accurate to describe it as unsourced. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the article should call Graham an evil fraud. Instead, I'm asking if people think it is appropriate to include the opinions of a high profile commentator concerning the work of Graham, in addition to providing readers with a information produced in response to that opinion. Wiki is replete with BLPs which include the comments of critics and supporters of the subject matter of the article, this suggested edit aims to continue this precedent. I suggest that this material merits inclusion as it serves as a high profile example of how Graham's work has been received, I am not suggesting that the quotes attributed to Hitchens be presented as an accurate assessment of Graham's work. I am happy to remove the inflammatory comments, but I think it is worth mentioning that Graham's work has been singled out for criticism by certain high profile figures. Jono1011 (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It's clear that Wikipedia is not saying these things about Graham but that Hitchens is. The response from a different source balances it and makes it clear that Hitchens did not do his homework. Since it's more of a comment on Hitchens' lack of research, why should we include it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The suggestion is made that "it is worth mentioning that Graham's work has been singled out for criticism by certain high profile figures." which figures are we talking about??? The Hitchens comments were an unpublished off-the-cuff commentary on a talk show by one person. He was attacked in the media for his mistakes and no one defended Hitchins. His comment does not meet the standard definition of a reliable published secondary source. The BLP rules are clear and are violated by including the screed.: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, ....Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all'.--that is from WP:BLPSTYLE Rjensen (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to think about this. I'm happy to concede that this page may not be the place to include Hitchens's comments and so the talk page has served it purpose. If at a future date it is decided that these comments do merit inclusion, I think that the BBC article would constitute a reliable secondary source to cite. While Hitchens's comments are not, to my knowledge, widely supported I felt that his prominence meant that the remarks merited inclusion. I think a helpful comparison could be drawn with the Mother Teresa page, which does include examples of criticism made by Hitchens, although I acknowledge that in that instance Hitchens's comments form part of body of criticism from different figures, including a paper from a several Canadian academics. With this in mind, I'm happy for Hitchens's comments re: Graham not to be included in the present article, but if at a later stage criticism are levelled at Graham/sources emerge in which criticism from prominent cultural figures surface, I think that it would be worth revisiting this issue. Jono1011 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Nominated at ITN

Template:ITN nom -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a pretty strong consensus favoring posting his passing as a blurb on the main page. However there are some gaps in referencing that need fixing. In particular the Other Honors section is not adequately backed with citations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Poor sourcing

Hello. This article praises Graham as follows:

He was widely regarded as the most influential preacher of the 20th century.

Neither source given supports this statement. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

As the admin who posted the final altblurb2 for WP:ITN on the front page of Wikipedia, I went with this phrasing, which I would encourage editors here to consider: "Billy Graham, one of the most influential evangelical preachers of the 20th century, dies at the age of 99." It sticks with the factual, avoids an absolute, and is supported by sources. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Fuzheado, thank you! Not an easy task to post. Yours is a blurb I can agree with. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Graham's Quote on Death

The quote:

"Someday, you will read or hear that Billy Graham is dead. Don't you believe a word of it. I shall be more alive than I am now. I will just have changed my address. I will have gone into the presence of God."

is not sufficiently cited. The reference given is from an article written after his death. I can find no credible evidence that this is an actual quote of Graham's. It bears a striking resemblence to a well-known D.L. Moody quote. Graham used that Moody quote in several of his books, but he always attributed it to Moody. The quote on the page is contained in two published books that both appear to cite this book: https://www.amazon.com/Billy-Graham-Gods-Ambassador-Lifelong/dp/1887656650 but I have no way to check that book out. At that very least, I think there needs to be a tag on this quote. 24.101.31.180 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The best source on this is a book of quotes edited by Franklin Graham. The quote is here, the citation is here. 24.101.31.180 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Graham's letter to Nixon on Vietnam

The entire section on Vietnam is based on Alexander Cockburn's articles in Counter Punch, which are themselves excerpts from his books. The books as far as I can tell do not cite how to locate Graham's letter/memo to Nixon, which he dates as April 15, 1969. The letter, entitled, "Confidential Missionary Plan for Ending the Vietnam War," is located in an unscanned box at the Billy Graham Center Archive at Wheaton College. Perhaps someone with page editing privileges (I'm a new user) can include the citation. Himsenior (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I am also a new user. I was also very troubled by this. Billy Graham recently passed away and I usually trust Wikipedia. I found where this added in the history of the "Billy Graham" article. Listed in the history is the user who added it. This user sports a badge claiming Barack Obama to be the best president ever and advocating the impeachment of the current president Donald Trump. Because of this, I feel the user seems very biased towards a particular political system.

I don't know what else to do or if I am adding this comment appropriately but I hope someone gets to the bottom of this. I am genuinely curious if this is true and if it is not true I think it should be hastily removed, particularly given Graham's recent passing. I am disappointed in the Wikipedia community for allowing such a heavy claim to be levied against such a person as Billy Graham without better citation. I have confirmed what the user Himsenior wrote before me and was able to find a couple other bits of information.

I was also able to dig up a CIA paper that says the dikes were very resistant to bombing. I find it hard to believe that Billy Graham or the missionaries wouldn't be aware of the same doubts that the CIA put forward, namely that the Vietnemese people had a lot of experience dealing with damaged and destroyed dikes arising from the frequent flooding that they (the Vietnamese) experienced. See the section titled "Resiliency to Flooding." At the very least, this calls into question Cecil Bothwell's claim that the government "knew" that the destruction of the dikes would have killed a million people. I have also added an article that looks like it was published by Cecil Bothwell that was published just today (21 Feb 2018) where he again says that the government "knew" that bombing the dikes would have killed a million people. It is still unclear in his current article where he is getting the information. I also don't see why Billy Graham would have listened to his claim. josiahb (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

I agree. The cited source is anything but neutral and we should not base factual statements on the contentions of a polemicist. And if Graham was not aware of projections of a million deaths then it is not relevant. I will remove the section. 21:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me add this: support for President Obama, and opposition to President Trump, does not in any way invalidate an editor's contributions. Those contributions are to be judged on their own merits, without exception. Kablammo (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the first time I have commented on a Wikipedia article talk page should I remove the bit about that user (honest question I don't know, my reasoning follows)? I think making a claim of support or opposition to a president is different from claiming a recent former president to be "the best ever" and advocating for the impeachment of the current president in the same line. If he sported a badge that said "I supported Pres. Obama" then I wouldn't have mentioned it. I specifically mentioned it because this users page says that this user thinks President Obama is "the best ever" and that we should "Impeach Trump" in the same line. To claim both in one badge really detracted from that users legitimacy in my opinion, particularly given that the website he sited "CounterPunch.org" seems to be a biased source. josiahb (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

For future authors or people interested in investigating this further, it is also questionable that the CIA mentioned the economic impact of these bombings because of anything Graham said. I talked to a friend of mine who teaches military history. He pointed me to a book by Mark Clodfelter "The Limits of Air Power: The American Bombing of North Vietnam." On page 125 it talks about how military leaders were used to considering this economic impact of bombing infrastructure from World War II. In my opinion any mention of the economic impact of bombing the dikes would have come from generals who had done similar things in World War 2 as Clodfelter suggests, not missionaries or an evangelical preacher.

---

https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/billy-graham-was-a-dangerous-influence-on-the-white-house/

https://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM43_exc_nixon_graham.pdf

https://carolinapublicpress.org/21103/newly-released-white-house-diaries-reveal-more-about-billy-grahams-alliance-with-richard-nixon/

Edit to lead

Hi. Is it possible to omit the last sentence from the lead? "Grant Wacker reports that by the mid-1960s, he had become the "Great Legitimator".[11]" I don't care about Grant Wacker and I don't know what a legitimator is. What you had before this was lovely. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Your rationale seems WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Slightlymad 01:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Fair enough regarding Mr. Wacker (I did indeed dislike his other contribution of "multiple roles"). The rationale, however, is that the vocabulary sounds like some lingo from sociology. I have no idea what it means. It seriously detracts from the subject of this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit to lead

'American evangelical Christian evangelist' is a bit of a mouthful, and is the same thing. I don't think we need this kind of repetition.  — Calvin999 09:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

See the "Evangelical Christian evangelist?" section above (way above). Maybe it sounds repetitive to some, but it's not redundant. "Evangelical" and "evangelist" have two separate meanings. 24.101.31.180 (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Billy Graham: U.S. military draft classification, local boards

This wiki article needs some referenced materials pertaining to Billy Graham's U.S. military draft classification during 1940 and throughout World War II (Graham was born during 1918) and information as to which local draft boards to which Graham registered.Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

He is exactly at an age where one would have expected him to have served in the war. The article says nothing about why he didn't, and the omission is peculiar.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a source that discusses it? I don't see any discussion in the obituaries I've read. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I did a brief check and didn't see much.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitol Rotunda

BG will lie in honor next week. 2600:1702:1690:E10:79B7:6E7:FBD7:EA6E (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Motorcade 24th. Repose Monday 26th and Tuesday 27th. In honor Wednesday 28th and Thursday March 1st. Funeral/burial March 2nd. 2600:1702:1690:E10:79B7:6E7:FBD7:EA6E (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

References

There should be reactions to his death and a legacy section added as well as the details of his funeral and capitol honor. 2600:1702:1690:E10:49C2:7AB3:98DD:B165 (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Book redirects

I'm sure some of these could be expanded into articles, but for now, I've redirected the following book titles to this article:

• Calling Youth to Christ (1947)
• America's Hour of Decision (1951)
• I Saw Your Sons at War (1953)
• Peace with God (1953, 1984)
• Freedom from the Seven Deadly Sins (1955)
• The Secret of Happiness (1955, 1985)
• Billy Graham Talks to Teenagers (1958)
• My Answer (1960)
• Billy Graham Answers Your Questions (1960)
• World Aflame (1965)
• The Challenge (1969)
• The Jesus Generation (1971)
• Angels: God's Secret Agents (1975, 1985)
• How to Be Born Again (1977)
• The Holy Spirit (1978)
• Evangelist to the World (1979)
• Till Armageddon (1981)
• Approaching Hoofbeats (1983)
• A Biblical Standard for Evangelists (1984)
• Unto the Hills (1986)
• Facing Death and the Life After (1987)
• Answers to Life's Problems (1988)
• Hope for the Troubled Heart (1991)
• Just As I Am: The Autobiography of Billy Graham (1997, 2007)
• Hope for Each Day (2002)
• The Key to Personal Peace (2003)
• Living in God's Love: The New York Crusade (2005)
• The Journey: How to Live by Faith in an Uncertain World (2006)
• Nearing Home: Life, Faith, and Finishing Well (2011)
• The Heaven Answer Book (2012)
• The Reason for My Hope: Salvation (2013)
• Where I Am: Heaven, Eternity, and Our Life Beyond the Now

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic Language about JFK

Under the politics section, I find some language that appears to be unfair, or at least non-neutral to Catholic President JFK.

It says "In 1960 he was opposed to the candidacy of John F. Kennedy because as a Catholic he was bound to follow the Pope. Graham worked "behind the scenes" to encourage influential Protestant ministers to speak out against him."

I think more appropriate language would say that Graham believed that Kennedy was bound to follow the Pope as a Catholic. While many protestants, or anti-Catholics in general, were worried at the time that John F. Kennedy would follow the Pope because he was Catholic, that is still an opinion. It is not a fact that all Catholics running for office feel they are bound to follow the Pope. It may be a fact, if cited properly, that Billy Graham was opposed to a JFK presidency because he felt that JFK's religion would make him bound to follow the Pope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.176.173 (talk) 21:48, February 25, 2018

I changed it to read "In 1960 he was opposed to the candidacy of John F. Kennedy, fearing that because Kennedy was a Catholic, he would be bound to follow the Pope." I think that accurately describes the situation. Indyguy (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Views on Women

I think that two short paragraphs in this section seem less encyclopedic to me, almost anecdotal. They are not sourced, but I don't know if we should look for a source, rewrite them into some coherence, or just remove them. I'm thinking about these sentences:

"Billy talked his future wife, Ruth, into abandoning her ambition to evangelize in Tibet in favor of following him- and that to do otherwise would be 'to thwart God’s obvious will'.

After Ruth agreed to marry Billy, he cited the Bible for claiming authority over her, saying “then I’ll do the leading and you do the following.”"

St.nerol (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The comments in question are sourced- explicitly -to a Washington Post article. I encourage any concerned to invest the measure of time deemed worthwhile for discovering other sources for the material. As Billy Graham's disposition regarding women have both historic and contemporary significance, I judge the brief depictions here topical and appropriate. I further encourage any who would more gracefully integrate them in the presentation- if able to do so without promoting a particular conclusion or judgement.Mavigogun (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sceptical about including these broken pieces of conversation between the engaged Grahams as a controversy regarding his views on women. It seems petty and gossip-like. (The source was clarified in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Graham&type=revision&diff=827409947&oldid=827398555)

I do wonder, though, where they got the information. Some biography? St.nerol (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The controversial nature of Grahams views on women are well documented; these anecdotes speak directly to the degree those espoused views manifested and impacted the people closest to Billy Graham. I encourage any who deem the effort worthy to secure additional sources; characterizing reports as "gossip-like" asserts a lack of basis- a claim that best be validated before acting. Frankly, I'm a bit tired of digging up available sources in response to complaints- dig first, then bring complaints based on the effort.Mavigogun (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

Billy Graham supporting conversion therapy needs to be removed. The sources provided don't support that claim. Davahn (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, certainly the second source fails - it's Franklin Graham who pushes conversion therapy. But the first reference says "Graham was a firm believer in the power of so-called gay cure therapy..." StAnselm (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Agree. The first source simply pointed to the website to support the claim that Graham was a firm believer in it. This has Franklin all over it. The organization was taken over by Franklin including expunging all mention of Mormonism being a cult when Franklin wanted Billy to support Mitt Romney's presidential bid in 2008. The second is more clear that only Graham's words were used, like about "the power to change" which was a movement he had, but that was related to change in mores and "turning from sin" in general, not specifically "conversion therapy", which has been discredited. Unless another source can be found to support Billy's position, I have removed it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Graham was a firm believer in the power of so-called gay cure therapy". Seems pretty clear statement that he supported it and is a RS source. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/billy-graham-dead-evangelist-homophobic-barack-obama-justin-welby-a8223561.html That plus the other sources showing his works were used seem pretty clear and supported. Even Rolling Stone talked about it in their piece about him here. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-soul-crushing-legacy-of-billy-graham-w517067 ContentEditman (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems is the operative word for it, yet not a single other source can be found to put those words into Billy's mouth. The Rolling Stone piece talks about Billy's words on spirtual conversion and the writer then conflates that with conversion therapy. Not even close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps- perhaps not: his organization has a history of advocating conversion. Considered in the context of any other chief executive and their relationship to the deportment of the company they established/head. Deeds are as explicit as words; "show me where he said that" is a preposterous standard when/if his organization has weighed in- regardless of any claim of silence form Billy Graham.Mavigogun (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

In the latter stages of his life, at least, I wouldn't assume the organization accurately reflected his views and priorities. StAnselm (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church Picket of Graham Funeral

It seems to me that the entire section on the Westboro Baptist Church is WP:UNDUE, especially since there is little criticism of his theology in this article from other other theologians and Christian leaders. Having come to this article for the first time today, I don't know the history of this section, or I would be bold and just remove it. Any thoughts? Indyguy (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That section is entirely about the church itself and not about Graham. It should be remove. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, not sure why this is on Grahams page? I don't see enough that has been posted to attach the 2 to add to this page. Them picketing is not enough IMO. If they had some type of relationship/contact then maybe, but I don't see that. ContentEditman (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I just looked over the references and this is to much a mess so I removed it. If others want to add it back then needs better RS references and also more explanation why it should be on Grahams page. ContentEditman (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus of other editors is to remove the content then so be it. It is important to note that Graham's teachings garnered significant criticism from many hard line religious groups. He is also going to have his funeral picketed by this westboro group, which is notable. I realize they target a lot of folks but Graham and Fred Phelps worked together during Grahams early years. The Refs were all reliable sources, so please don't shoot the messenger. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Fred Phelps worked for Billy Graham but that alone is not really notable for Grahams page, at least for its own section. It is notable for Phelps page and I see its already there and written well for what little crossover there is. If there are good references from reliable sources showing a much more strong and intertwined relationship then it may be notable forn Grahams page. But all I keep finding is minor relationship at best and little crossover. ContentEditman (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I cannot locate this specific content you refer to in either Fred Phelps or Westboro Baptist Church. Where exactly did you see this content about Westboro picketing Graham's funeral? Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Its in the Religious beliefs section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps#Religious_beliefs Its very small and short but seems well written for Phelps page. ContentEditman (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that. It makes no mention of the planned picket, but does elegantly state Phelps notorious hate speech towards Graham. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I also think it should be removed. Phelps church consists of a couple of dozen members of his family. They depend on controversy and seek publicity. We should not give it to them. From a wikipedia standpoint, this trivial and contributes nothing to the subject. Kablammo (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that Westboro should look elsewhere for its free publicity. Let's wait an see if the picket of the funeral gets press coverage, if so, then it may make sense to include a short mention of it. If it results in yet another lawsuit against Westboro, then I would be of the position it needs mention in Graham's article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Westboro press release regarding Grahams funeral. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It ain't for us to supply or deny 'publicity' to any- only to judge topical significance. Despite small numbers, the Westboro Baptist Church has garnered infamy; I say it remains to be seen whether any plans for protest at the Graham funeral rise to the level of noteworthy. We should not prejudge the event- rather, record as appropriate when the significance (or lack there of) is made clear. Mavigogun (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The topical significance is nil. Kablammo (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)