Talk:Billy Graham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] old comments

Look I am not saying that you should not include the anti jewish remarks about Billy Graham, but that was one thing in a life that has span 80 years. Why not include some of his good points too?

Feel free to add anything you wish, as long as it is from a NPOV. Tuf-Kat

God's Own Quarterback. Williamv1138

I find Billy Graham's anti-jewish comments grossly unacceptable. But given the length of Graham's service, both negative and positive, his remarks are only one relatively small footnote in the full complex story of who Graham is and what is does or doesn't do. The paragraphs here should either be in a far longer article on Graham or if in a stub sized piece, reduced to a line to two with an explanatory footnote. In the current format, they dominate the article and (no doubt unintentionally) POV it by making one issue dominate and be given an importance far beyond what it should have in a balanced article. If this was an article on Billy Graham and anti-semitism, then they would be OK, but on Billy Graham the man they are unbalanced. ÉÍREman 04:22 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

In this edit, marked as "minor" and given the edit summary "(fixing links typos, etc)", user:Stevertigo made a number of changes, several of which were not minor and intended to slant the article in an anti-Israeli direction. I reverted. AxelBoldt 21:23 17 May 2003 (UTC)

wikipedians interested should begin adding the good points of Graham's 80 years of service. Kingturtle 21:25 17 May 2003 (UTC)


Looks like there is some vandalism on this page may need to be reverse

Whether or not the man is anti-Semitic, the section of this article dealing with his alleged anti-Semitic remark is sloppy, sloppy, sloppy -- unworthy of Wikipedia. For instance, take a look at this pap:

In a 1994 book, the author H. R. Haldeman recalled a White House conversation between Graham and then president Richard Nixon...

Nixon was president in 1994? That's news to me! I suppose the contributor meant that Haldeman wrote about a conversation he overheard between Graham and Nixon when Nixon was president. And by the way, why do we have to take the contributor's word that Haldeman wrote this in some book. What book? Does it have a name? An ISBN?

And take a look at this error in the use of quotation marks:

He said the Jewish stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain" and went on...

Is the second clause an exact quote from Graham? If so, why doesn't it begin with a quotation mark? If not, why does it end with a quotation mark?

And by the way, where do all these quotes come from? Are they the contributor's own transcription from the tapes he/she listened to him/herself? Are they from transcriptions someone else made? Are the transcriptions published somewhere, where someone else could check them for accuracy? And what about the denials and excuses the contributor quotes Graham as making: where did they come from?

All this should be documented.

And if the contributor has such ready access to quotes by Graham, I wonder why the reader has to rely on the contributor's summation of what Graham said about Jews and the media and pornography.

Don't play at being a journalist, BE ONE. ô¿ô 23:53, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

I think reference should be made to the antisemitic charges. Omitting such a reference is contrary to the idea of npov too.

The link is sufficient. It's time to remove the section, which is ridiculous when viewed with a little perspective. Graham grew up in a redneck culture, and the remarkable thing about him is how much his lifelong career has been free of typical redneck prejudices. If you try to hold me to every remark I made thirty some-odd years ago, you and me are gonna fight. Pollinator 06:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
There has been zero response to this point made months ago. The charge is ancient history. And, when viewed in the context of his background and his life since then, it is insignificant. As to the documentation, the link is more than enough. As with any famous person, it's possible for find someone who'd say just about anything. It degrades the article to have this point included, and I am deleting it. It is true that he has been criticised by some Christian fundamentalists, and this has been a continuous and vociferous objection, so I'll leave it, but the writer who added "evangelicals" simply doesn't understand the difference. The link needs disambiuation, but I'll leave it at that. Pollinator 08:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted unsubstantiated remarks re 'anti-semitism' written as if they were fact. If they are the views of one contributor, that's one thing - this is an encyclopedia which, it is hoped, will eventually have some credibility for being independent and factual. Agendum 00:20, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--- I've written a new section on his anti-semetic remarks. It is very well-documented what he said, and I don't believe you'll find any factual errors in my addition, nor, I think, will you find it to violate NPOV. As for those who argue that such submissions don't belong in an article about him, his remarks are an important element in how many people think about him, and bear weight on his message.

[edit] the prejudicial essence of evangelism ...

Christian evangelicalism - like many absolutist dogmas - has as its essence an authoritarian and dismissive prejudice against contrary beliefs and philosophies. To refer to Mr. Graham's disparagement of jews as anti-semitic is not only stating the obvious, but arbitrarily distinguishing it from his prejudicial remarks about many other beliefs and holdings. As a secular humanist, I find the very idea of original sin to be prejudicial. I would encourage seekers to reject any doctrine which disparages any inocent, loving and peaceful person or group, and to embrace beliefs and philosophies that further the goal of a peaceful and just world. regards, jeroboam bramblejam


^^^ Well then, wouldn't ANY ideology that disparages ANY form of beliefs and philosophies (including Christian evangelicalism) be inherently prejudicial; or is prejudice only defined as an ideology that defies the thinkings of secular humanism and their Gods, ruling the Empires of Earth? ~Firestorm

Hunh?... jeroboambramblejam

Translation of what Firestorm said: "Doesn't your own dogma has at its essence an authoritarian and dismissive prejudice against contrary beliefs and philosophies, ie: Christian evangelicalism?" Or in other words, your own viewpoint is that all philosophies are inherently equal, and thus any philosophy, such as evangelicalism, that claims to be absolutely true is wrong. Firestorm points out, that your own viewpoint implicitly assumes itself to represent an absolute truth above all other philosophies, and is thus self-contradictory. 152.23.79.74 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Reason is, by its very nature, non-dogmatic. Humanism embraces reason as a tool for distinguishing between what is good and what is not. Reason is what validates the findings of ethics, which subjects claims - even religious claims - to analysis in universally defensible terms. Just as the findings of science are subject to refutation, the philosophy of humanism welcomes reasoned criticism and correction. Humanist philosophy shares many of the precepts of many religions insofar as they are also supported by the fruits of reason. By the same process, it rejects claims from the same quarter that are counter to the good. There are parallels here to the rejection of "philosophical naturalism" by advocates of "intellegent design": Reject the foundational principle (reason), and the argument (secularism) becomes invalid. Much of what is defended as "christian doctrine" does not survive reasoned analysis. A first step might be for christians to weigh their holdings against Jesus' own guidance offered during his sermon on the mount. 70.179.77.19 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)jeroboambramblejam

[edit] presidential funerals

IIRC Graham spoke at the Nixon funeral in 94Smith03 01:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Graham presided over and spoke at the Nixon funeral. In the case with Johnson, he presided over and spoke during the burial service. It was the Rev. Dr. George Davis, pastor at the National City Christian Church, who presided over Johnson's because it was in Washington. (See National City Christian Church) SNIyer12 17:51 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Later Years

Why not make a section about Rev. Graham's later years? And possibly mention the NYC crusade that very well may be his last.

[edit] Prayer

this prayer was added to the bottom of the page. If someone thinks there's a better place to put it, go ahead.

Dr Billy Graham's Prayer at the Inaugural of President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore

Our God and Our Father, we thank You for the moral and spiritual foundation which our forefathers gave us, and which are rooted deeply in Holy Scripture. Those principle have nourished and guided us as a nation in the past. But we cannot say that we are a righteous people, for we are not. We have sinned against You. We have sown to the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind of crime, drug abuse, racism, immorality, and social injustice. We need to repent of our sins and turn by faith to You. And now we commit to You President Clinton and Vice President Gore, whom You have permitted to take leadership at this critical time in our nation's history. Help them always see the office to which they have been elected as a sacred trust from You. We pray that You will bless their wives, who will share so much of the responsibility and burdens. May President Clinton know that he is never really alone, but that the eternal God can be his refuge, and that he can turn to You in every circumstance. Give him the wisdom You have promised to those who ask, and the strength that You alone can give. I pray this in the name of the One who was called “Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” Amen!

Do we really need this in the article?

[edit] NPOV tag.

Let's begin with the introduction. First of all, the phrase "decisions to accept Jesus Christ into their lives" seems hardly objective due to its floridity and wording which smacks of a televangelist's sermon and might be suited by being rephrased along the lines of "He is reportedly the catalyst in the decisions of numerous individuals to convert to his brand of Evangelical Christianity." This is clear regardless of the fact that there are no sources noted for the number of conversions claimed in the introduction. In fact in the same phrase as the one quoted above, the author makes a claim to Mr. Graham's "great[ness]."

Onto the Politics section, and an example of further editorialising with:"[...]but he is still very close to the powerful Bush family." Furthermore their is a lack of consideration for his views which are apparently not important to list on separate issues (even though the section is called "Politics" there is scant mention of actual policy, just a few phrases attesting to his choice in party).

Unfortunately I am not a theological/political expert and have little resource to rewrite this page without coming to similarly vague conclusions. I would hope that someone with the necessary qualifications might deal with this in an expedient manner.

I can't find any of these in the article so apparently they've been omitted or rewritten. While the article could stand more improvement, these objections seem to be satisfied. Removing POV tag

I disagree. You have removed anti-semite category and NPOV tag. I replaced them. --68.217.110.143 13:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Billy Graham grew up in Ku Klux Klan territory, in a culture which believed that racism was an integral part of Christianity. He attended Bob Jones University. The one incident, thirty years old, is the only such comment that anyone has presented to Wikipedia. Would you want to be held responsible for a statement you made 30 years ago, when your whole life since then has been obviously in a different direction? Betcha we all have some things that we're glad the tape wasn't running. The point is that over his lifetime he remarkably moved away from that racism of his home culture. If you disbelieve that, look at the writings of Bob Jones, Sr. who never did break away and the topic comes up frequently to the end of his life. This is something that may be hard to understand for someone who did not grow up under the influence of the ever-present Klan and the slavery/reconstruction/Jim Crow culture that produced the Klan. It is biased and unencyclopedic to try to "extract a pound of flesh" (how's that for a racist stereotype?) from the guy. Pollinator 14:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon note moved from my talk page

82.143.162.72 23:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Whether you like it or not, Billy Graham was recorded talking to an American President in an anti-Semtic manner. It is information and is as relevant to the wider picture as any other single event. If a reader believes it is 'negated' by anything else in Mr Graham's life, that is for them to conclude. One could equally draw conclusions from the fact that Mr Graham had not admitted it before it had been revealed. Both are opinions and neither would be suitable for an 'encyclopedia'.

Its constant deletion is one of many examples of why readers should take Wikipedia with a fairly liberal pinch of salt.

It's not a matter of whether I like it. Actually the constant harping on a petty criticism based on a single event many years ago is quite unencyclopedic, and is a more likely reason why readers would question Wikipedia. Look also at my comments above. Furthermore, the link is still there, so the pulp magazines can have at it if they wish. Pollinator 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No, we cannot just pretend this didn't happen. This was a pretty shocking statement to millions of his supporters and made world headlines in the most respected news outlets thirty years after the fact. This was not something that Billy Graham said as a young man before he became a public figure, but as a confidante to the President of the US. As for the counterpunch link, well that's pretty useless, I would suggest this BBC story instead.--Pharos 06:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice picture!

Here's a question. He advised a bunch of presidents, why present him with Mr. Watergate in particular? What end does that pursue, hmmmmmmm? (pssst: not so subtle.) I'm tempted to stick a neutrality tag. CubOfJudahsLion 01:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Anti-semitism?

Anon keeps adding a petty arguement of anti-semitism based on one 30-year-old remark, then accuses me of making an advert for Graham when I've removed it, which is silly; I am opposing taking something out of context.

The charge, when viewed in the context of his lifetime is clearly false. One statement made while sucking up to a powerful and virulently anti-semitic President does not make him an anti-semite when viewed in his lifelong context. One could accuse him of weakness at that point, but not anti-semitism.

A Google search reveals many references to this which can be generally divided into two obvious categories. One group obviously and gleefully reports the quote as an ad hominem attack against his message. The other, including some Jewish authors, place the remark in the context of a lifelong pattern in the opposite. Graham grew up in the middle of Ku Klux Klan influence and Jim Crow laws, but his lifelong pattern is a movement away from racism.

He has alway supported the nation of Israel, and his organization gave assistence to oppressed Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel. He has often made pro-Jewish statements in his ministry. When the Southern Baptist sought to emphacize conversion of the Jews, Graham opposed the program. Pollinator 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Though I think we should keep the part about anti-semitism, I don't think the "Jews swarm around me..." should be listed as a quote. So can I remove it, or is anyone opposing this? - Áki

[edit] Re:

...This tape thing is sure getting annoying. He apologized, didn't he? He's helping the Jewish people isn't he? He's not hurting any of them nowadays, is he?

Nope; and he's asked forgiveness of that event and changed his ways...There's no need to keep those articles about his convos in the White House with Nixon. It's petty junk--and useless.

I vote that we remove those articles about the recordings....who's with me?

--JJ

PS What kind of love do you have if you insist and put up a fight in order to keep the remembrance of something bad someone did to you when they've apologized and never did it to you again?

...I certainly hope we haven't forgotten what Jesus had to say about forgiving each other.


RE: I edited "allegedly anti-semitic" to "anti-semitic. The fact he did apologize for the comments shows they are anti-semitic. There is nothing alleged about it. It is not useless. Tapes are about as factual as it gets. And while he may have apologized for the comments, it is important not to gloss over factual history. If his legacy as a whole makes up for this discrepancy, than that legacy should be written about, not have parts omitted that speak to the contrary.

[edit] "... has preached the good news of Jesus Christ ..." NPOV

I'm quite new to Wikipedia, but it appears to me that the following line breaks the NPOV policy. I also don't see any source for this; it seems difficult to verify.

"Billy Graham has preached the good news of Jesus Christ to more people in live audiences than any one else in history."

Unless this can be supported, I suggest removing this line outright. If it can be supported, replace "the good news of Jesus Christ" with "evangelical Christianity" to reach a NPOV. Bluepdx 07:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section: Weasle Words

I'm an admirer of Dr. Graham. I'm also an inerrantist and a Baptist, a staunch supporter of credobaptism. But I'm also a Wikipedian who is able to recognize my own baises. I tagged this section as NPOV vis à vis weasel words. This could be a textbook example of weasel words (and other NPOV writing as well), but I'll highlight what I find most objectionable:

  • "Graham has been criticized for years by many Christian Fundamentlists..." not just "some" but "many"
  • "Funadementalism emphasizes doctrinal purity" I'm a fundamentalist, so I agree, but come on, let's strive for objectivity.
  • "scriptural baptism" What is "Scriptural baptism?" My opinion that any baptism that is not performed on a born-again Christian by total immersion with the understanding of both the baptizer and baptizee that it is non-regenerative is not a baptism. Is this is what is meant? Or is this a Church of Christ writer who thinks that there are no valid baptists outside the CoC?

Actually, the section on Scriptural Baptism was written by myself, a Southern Baptist minister who also admires Billy Graham, but wants to point out that he is far from a traditional Southern Baptist. It was a reference to believer baptism by immersion. Infant baptism is not Scriptural... Dr. Graham's tolerance for other religions is well known.. he has made statements that indicate that he believes some Islamic people will get to heaven without faith in Jesus Christ. Once again, not Southern Baptist doctrine.

  • "groups that claim to be Christian" This is kind of like "I'm sorry if I offended you" (read I'm sorry that you so petty and easily offended."
  • "has been accused" (weasel words) "of a lack of tollerance for other religions." (NPOV) How are we defining tolerance? I'm highly tollerant of other religions, while still holding the opinion that those who die apart from a saving faith in Christ are damned. Is there a difference between intollerance and indifference?
  • "questions were raised about the morality and wisdom of the Reverend Graham's counsel."
  • "Some people have said that Graham has received excessive financial compensation from his ministry." "Some people" (Weasle Words) "excessive" (NPOV). The citation is spurious...a blog site that anyone can edit... without oversight.

I would edit it, but I'm not going to take the time to sort out the "some people said" to find the references. I think it is valid in the discussion of Graham's life. Much as I support the man, I don't want the article to be a halography of him, so I don't want it removed. I'd just like to see it cleaned up. SonPraises 23:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! The page has a lot of problems. Here's another - the statement that Graham "absolved" Bush. I suspect it was written by a Roman Catholic (or ex-Roman Catholic), but it's not part of any Protestant belief, so the statement is nonsensical. Pollinator 02:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Webster Unabridged - ABSOLVE is a general word

ab·solve �(ab zolvÆ, -solvÆ), v.t., -solved, -solv·ing. 1. to free from guilt or blame or their consequences: The court absolved her of guilt in his death. 2. to set free or release, as from some duty, obligation, or responsibility (usually fol. by from): to be absolved from one's oath. 3. to grant pardon for. 4. Eccles. a. to grant or pronounce remission of sins to. b. to remit (a sin) by absolution. c. to declare (censure, as excommunication) removed. [1525–35; < L absolvere, equiv. to ab- AB- + solvere to loosen; see SOLVE] —ab·solvÆa·ble, adj. —ab·solÆvent, adj., n. —ab·solvÆer, n. —Syn.1. exculpate, clear. ABSOLVE, ACQUIT, EXONERATE all mean to free from blame. ABSOLVE is a general word for this idea. To ACQUIT is to release from a specific and usually formal accusation: The court must acquit the accused if there is not enough evidence of guilt. To EXONERATE is to consider a person clear of blame or consequences for an act (even when the act is admitted), or to justify the person for having done it: to be exonerated for a crime committed in self-defense. 2. liberate, exempt. 3. excuse, forgive. —Ant.1. blame.User:David Cruise

David Cruise has a point; to "absolve" someone is an action that can be taken by any person or group. A nation can be absolved of debt, a judge can absolve a defendant of charges, or I can absolve the cat for spilling Friskies on my rug. I would assume that the Roman Catholic sense carries a very different weight, to the extent that Roman Catholics may believe priests have authority from God to absolve others of sins. In that case, to say that a priest absolved the President could be an assertion of tremendous moment. Regardless of whether Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree on a priest's authority to absolve of sin on God's behalf, they all do agree that Jesus has the authority to do so.
So here is where the problem with the word, as applied to Billy Graham, might arise. Because an evangelist is viewed by some as a kind of representative for God, to say that he "absolved" a person invokes a subtle wordplay. "Absolved" is so often used in the theological context of salvation that the term nearly qualifies as Christianese, and may therefore be somewhat less neutral than one of the other terms that David Cruise kindly presented in the above Webster definition, such as, for example, "excused." Billy Graham may have publicly excused Bush, based upon his own judgement and on his own behalf or that of his organization, but Billy Graham's judgement of the President is not to be confused with God's. The term "absolved" does slightly confuse this, perhaps in a wryly humorous way. I suspect that established publishers of a printed encyclopedia would avoid using the term in this context, if for no other reason than to maintain a tone of professional scholarship. Speaking on my own behalf, the way the term is used in the Billy Graham article doesn't strike me as a very big deal, since I imagine most intelligent people would realize that it only conveys a dry note of sarchasm.
As for whether such a tone is appropriate for use in Wikipedia, it's likely that the matter will eventually be addressed when somebody comes along to do a general cleanup of the prose, regardless of whether it happens now. Projection70 22:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


  • "* Graham has been criticized for years by many Christian Fundamentalists for his inclusive message and his close relationship with the Catholic Church (especially for his friendship with the late Pope John Paul II). Christian fundamentalism emphasizes doctrinal purity, scriptural baptism, and separatism, while Graham has taken a more evangelical position of cooperation wherever possible with other groups that claim to be Christians."

The word evangelical seems to be a mistake. Did they not mean Ecumenical?172.147.39.175 10:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In the classical sense of ecumenical, yes. But modern ecumenism has been largely concerned with uniting various bodies, whereas Evangelicals like Graham promote working together, while being careful not to compromise core beliefs. Graham does not advocate physical union of churches. Pollinator 03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This still reads like an error. Graham's position of cooperation is not specifically evangelical, even if other aspects of his ministry are. I agree that it is not ecumenical either, and have applied a different wording.Mooncow 09:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Introduction

A user named Rogerman(talk) has used numerous reverts to accentuate his concerns over the antisemitism charges through inappropriate inclusion in the basic introduction to the article. A respected publisher would not use an encyclopedic introduction to introduce one, particular controversial item as taking precedence over the rest, and as a suggestion that that item is what primarily defines the notariety of the individual about whom the article is written. There are other charges against Mr. Graham that deserve no less coverage than the one that Rogerman(talk) so adamantly champions, serious though indeed it is. This editor's concerns were already addressed and detailed in two different sections of the article before he added it yet a third time. Notwithstanding the redundant nature of this insertion, it betrays that editor's desire to use its placement to build a case in favor of his personal opinion of Graham. This is in direct opposition to Wikimedia protocol, as will be any of his continued efforts to drive home his POV through reverts to or replacements of his inappropriate interjection. He is encouraged to pursue his personal concerns only by adding factual and valid data to the appropriate sections of the article. Projection70 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -Will Beback 09:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, it turned out that the user was engaged in several forms of ongoing abuse at Wikipedia, and his account has now been indefinitely blocked by an admin, along with the user's sock puppets and/or meat puppets, for abuses to other articles. If anybody spots further activity in the Billy Graham article that resembles his initial vandalism, be forewarned that it might be the same blocked user/s, re-registered under new user names. Please report such edits to Syrthiss(talk), the admin who handled the problem. Meanwhile, the damage that he did to this article can be reversed. One of his practices was to label various public figures as being controversial, in the introductions to their biographies. This is inappropriate spin for encyclopedic biographies, and he had been previously warned by another editor for doing it elsewhere, prior to his visit to this article. No public figures are without controversy, so to label them as controversial in the introductions to their biographies is to suggest that the primary basis of their notariety is their deliberate intent to be controversial. Unless they are professional shock jocks, etc., whose careers are built upon professionally cultivated controversy, controversy deserves its fair mention in the proper section devoted to representing the documented viewpoints on controversy, and not in the introduction. Projection70 01:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Quotations

Out list of quotations is growing long. Quotations belong in our sister project, Wikiquote. We should have no more than five or so here. -Will Beback 23:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by the last quotation:

"His remarks were not as forthright a witness for Christ as I had wished for, but I rationalized that he was extremely tired from carrying many burdens."

Are these words spoken about Graham? If so, by whom and in what context? Or are they words spoken by Graham? In which case, about whom and in what context? --Stratocastermagic 07:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graham's Academic History

Sorry to add in such a mundane edit to an otherwise lively discussion...

The following is incorrect:

   "he transferred to the Florida Bible Institute, now Trinity College of Florida,"

It should read:

   "he transferred to the Florida Bible Institute, now Florida College, in Temple Terrace, Florida."

[edit] Graham and Kim Il Sung

I added a couple of sentences to the Politics section detailing some of Graham's comments about his relationship with Kim Il Sung. Source may be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SohmJW_rdc. BarrettBrown

[edit] Deleted a sentence

I removed the last sentence in the Awards and Honors section since it was a repeat of a fact mentioned in the first paragraph of the article--his placing number 7 on most admired people of 20th century.

[edit] POV words--always inappropriate??

I've seen examples cited of POV words in this article such as "accepting Jesus Christ as Savior" and "preaching the Good News of Jesus". I have to dispute the contention that these words and phrases are always inappropriate, as seems to be the opinion. When writing of a particular worldview, religion, or an organization or individual that espouses a particular philosophy, it must be understood that certain phrases and words are used in these groups that have a particular meaning to them and distinguish them from others. It's not wrong to use these words and phrases provided that they're understood in the proper context. For example, I'd never use the phrase "accept Jesus as Savior" when writing about Buddhism or Madalyn Murray O'Hair because this phrase would be irrelevant to the subject. However, with a Christian evangelist, this phrase is very appropriate. As long as it's understood that the phrase is peculiar to the subject being discussed and a meaning given for it, I see no problem with using it. Another reason we shouldn't unconditionally exclude these types of phrases is a particular one may be familiar to a reader, but he/she never understood its meaning. For example, using the phrase I used before, a person growing up in the "Bible Belt" of America may have heard this phrase used a lot but never comprehended it. By using it in its proper context and giving the meaning, the reader can be enlightened. As long as Wikipedia allows articles of topics, some of which are, by their very nature, considered biased, then liberty must be given to properly disseminate the information. That necessarily includes using words and phrases peculiar to it.Jlujan69 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very biased

Other issues is very biased against Graham. I'm not too fond of him either, but this is really in bad shape. Someone needs to watch this article very painstakingly. Aaрон Кинни (t) 05:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy

Has anyone actually talked to Billy Graham? He is amazing! He talks to you straight, he just is in a close walk with God. He is truly inspirational. --66.218.12.221 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocating War Crimes.

"According to some, targeting infrastructure in the manner suggested by this context may have meant a breach of international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions, even perhaps constituting a war crime if the advice was followed." -- There is no 'perhaps' about it, German officers were prosecuted and executed after World War II for opening dikes.

[edit] Unclear about homosexuality

I don't quite understand: He had that one line where he called them "sodomites," but aside from that, he hasn't been as homophobic as I'd expect an evangelist to be. Someone clear this up for me? --Jnelson09 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] irresponsible AIDS edit

A recent edit went like this:

In 1993, Graham said before a record-breaking crowd in Columbus, Ohio "Is AIDS a judgment of God? I could not say for sure, but I think so." After seeing letters criticizing that comment, Graham later said "I remember saying it, and I immediately regretted it and almost went back and clarified the statement," and "To say God has judged people with AIDS would be very wrong and very cruel."[3]

And of course the source link given is broken. Well I poked around and found this was the WHOLE piece at the same source:

Cleveland--The Rev. Billy Graham has expressed deep regret for saying that AIDS may be God's judgment for people's sins. "Is AIDS a judgment of God?" asked Graham before a record-breaking crowd in Columbus, Ohio. "I could not say for sure, but I think so." After seeing letters criticizing that comment, Graham contacted the Cleveland Plain Dealer to retract his statement. "I remember saying it, and I immediately regretted it and almost went back and clarified the statement," said Graham in a telephone interview. He said he never intended to make the remark, explaining that he was tired during the sermon and forgot to retract or clarify his statement. "I do believe God stands in judgment of all sins...but AIDS is a disease that affects people and is not part of that judgment," Graham told the newspaper. "To say God has judged people with AIDS would be very wrong and very cruel."

What is in the article now is OBVIOUSLY quote mining and POV are both discouraged at Wikipedia. I could care less about Graham or his views on AIDS but I'm deleting the entire POV quote mine, smear that was done in this article. Feel free to add whatever Graham's thought on AIDS are as long as it is not obviously quote mines POV, smear. This is aliving biography, we have a duty to be responsible editors. Mr Christopher 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I read some more of the article and there seems to be quite a bit of POV and original research. Well, as I mentioned, I am not interested in the man so maybe others will try and improve it. I just saw the glaring quote mining on the AIDS subject and had to revert it. Mr Christopher 03:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who have a legitimate interest in this article and subject I would suggest you seek a peer review where you can get experienced editors to provide some feedback and guidance as to how the article can be cleaned up and improved. There is a lot of original research, unsupported claims, quote mining, and some obvious attempts to smear him. That's my $.02. Whether you like him or not, Graham is an intersting subject. Mr Christopher 03:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Mr Christopher...you obviously have some strong feelings about this issue, having posted about it three times in less than 20 minutes. You should know that quote was originally added by Tim Long [1]. It read simply:
"In 1993, Graham said before a record-breaking crowd in Columbus, Ohio "Is AIDS a judgment of God? I could not say for sure, but I think so."
The link worked (and still does) so I read it and found that the quote was misrepresented - making no mention of the retraction. I felt it was extremely POV, bordering on a smear. I added some context to the quote by adding:
"After seeing letters criticizing that comment, Graham latter said "I remember saying it, and I immediately regretted it and almost went back and clarified the statement," and "To say God has judged people with AIDS would be very wrong and very cruel."
I felt this removed the obvious bias of Tim Long's edit, by showing that Rev. Graham does not think AIDS is God's judgment. I think the quote, as I left it, makes that quite clear. ++ Arx Fortis 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Arx Fortis, you had indeed cleaned up the entry and either you or someone else provided a better link (than the original one cited). I think I had a knee jerk reaction when looking over the history and did not realize you had fixed it. My apologies. I'll restore your version in just a few. Mr Christopher 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemetic section and quotes

Have been unsourced and in this article since 2003 (according to the top of the talk page). I think that has been long enough. This is a biography article and information of this sort Needs to be sourced. These quotations and section will not be put back into the article without proper sourcing. Jasper23 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jasper23, you were entirely correct in removing the unsourced info. However at least some of the material is easily sourceable. I don't know why no one bothered to find them (I suppose I'm as much to blame as any other editor). Nixon, Billy Graham target Jews on tape, Graham regrets Jewish slur, or Nixon and the Jews. Again., for example all corroborate the Jewish remarks. (There are also many sources for the Vietnam bombing remarks, but I can't find a properly reliable, NPOV one at the moment.) May I suggest that we restore the Jewish material with these sources? -Will Beback · † · 02:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, as long as the text matches what the sources say. That is usually the most difficult part in situations such as these. But you shouldn't bother with the quote section as that should all be moved to wikiquote anyways but feel free to integrate the quotes into the antisemitism section. So as long as the sources match the text go ahead and put it back in. Thanks. Jasper23 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added the anti-semetism section back...with sources. While I'm a supporter of Rev. Graham and his message, I support truth and accuracy more. This is not some obscure reference to a comment made my Rev. Graham. This was a major news story covered by numerous media. It took very little searching to find these two references. Both of which have the text referenced in their respective paragraphs. ++ Arx Fortis 01:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please realize I have no interest in Rev. Graham whatsoever. I could care less. I do care about verifiable and well sourced information in articles. As you are the editor that keeps putting this back into the article when it is removed by others, I am sure you have decently strong feelings on this issue. However, this must be fully and accurately sourced. Throwing random citations on the end of these paragraphs won't cut it. Sources absolutely must match the text. As you mentioned, this has been covered by many in the news media. Therefore, it should be easy for you to accurately cite this section and word it as to meet those sources. This is a biography article and unsourced info of this nature will be removed, by me, immediately. You seem to be quite angry about the situation, please try to be civil in all future correspondence. If it upsets you too much please contact an admin. Jasper23 01:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
OK..I will move the citations next to the exact text. Please do not revert the paragraphs until I have done so. ++ Arx Fortis 01:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
OK Jasper23 01:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Next to each quotation, I have placed its source. I also added additional sources. ++ Arx Fortis 02:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Additionaly, there is no uncivility in my edits or comments. Any "anger" you sense must be a issue of faulty perception. I made no personal attacks and simply stated facts as I saw them and added appropriate emphasis. ++ Arx Fortis 02:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"faulty perception"? So I guess it is just your personality. Anyway, good job with the edits. Jasper23 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If you must bring into the discussion my personal traits, I think you will find that I am usually an all-business type of person, yes. Moreover, I think you will find that my edits are unbiased. I am also the person who added the {{unreferenced|date=January 2007}} tag to the top of the article. I also brought balance to the AIDS section (as discussed in the talk section just prior). Anyway, thank you for prompting accurate sourcing of information. ++ Arx Fortis 02:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, if the page is 41 kilobytes too long. - While I would or would not support Billy Graham, because of his anti-Jewish slurs, which the Jews called it anti-semitic, and also he accused the media, which the article does prove. --4.160.45.93 05:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Um...huh?? I've read your post several times over and can't make sense of it. Please explain your point/question more clearly. Thanks ++ Arx Fortis 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] POV

This section is for the general Point-Of-View-ness of the article. I feel it is still all over it; even over half the quotes chosen make him look like an idiot. Think: If everyone was in the spot light, most people sure would make an all-get-out of a lot more mistakes than he did. Yet there are probably most of his big mistakes there, that, in contrast with all the good he's done, it makes him look as if he hasn't done anything good. I would point out other particular things, but their are so many that it doesn't make any sense to try to. The Editor 2 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Graham and infant baptism

To: 71.81.201.117 (talk • contribs)

Cc: Talk:Billy Graham

I reverted your addition to the Billy Graham article because there is a policy that unsourced contentious material should be removed. Your addition was

Although Graham is a Southern Baptist some reports have claimed he accepts the doctrine of infant baptism, which is accepted by the majority of Christians (but not Southern Baptist). All of Graham's children were baptized as infants. Lifeway Christian Resources of the SBC have planned on placing a memorial of Graham at their headquarters, but some SBC pastors have objected because his view of baptism.

I believe you can find sources for your statements.

  • The first sentence says "some reports". If you can track down the report to a magazine article, you can attribute the sentence to a reliable source and thus include it in the article.
  • The last sentence says "some SBC pastors have objected". You can probably find a source for this in the "letters to the editor" column in a SBC magazine.

If you have problems adding source information, I am happy to help. --Kevinkor2 08:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/l/Talk%7EBilly_Graham_58b0.html"