Talk:Smith Wigglesworth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity Portal This article is part of WikiProject Charismatic Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement and its relatives and offshoots on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Factual information? 2 Raising the dead and daughter's hearing loss 3 Half the sources this article references don't provide sources themselves 4 NO information on this page? 5 Evaluating claims of healing according to mainstream Christian theology of healing 6 Needs a scholarly touch 7 Miracle claims should at least be mentioned

[edit] Factual information?

In order to preserve the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia, I highly suggest that someone edit this page to either delete or substantiate these fantastic claims (the dead were raised?). Unchecked fanaticism has no place in an academic forum.

Montana 01:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Montana: It is a well known fact that several people were indeed raised from the dead under the ministry of Smith Wigglesworth. For a modern example of this type of miracle look into the ministry of Reinhart Bonke, a German evangelist. He offers a video documentary of a man that was raised from the dead during one of his meetings. And there is absolutely NO doubt that the man was dead. He had a death certificate and had been clinically dead for many hours.

Again, there is no doubt that people have been, in this last century, raised from the dead. And that, my friend, is not unchecked fanaticism but glorious truth! If you consider yourself to be academic, don't just blindly dismiss what I have said but take the time to discover the truth for yourself. Thank you.

I rewrote the entire article. Эйрон Кинни (t) 09:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You removed[1] a citation where he claimed to "raise the dead" and heal the sick. He had a daughter with a "serious hearing loss" he did not cure. Either he did not care for his daughter or he couldn't faith heal. So you either he was incompassionate or a fraud. The fraud tag will remain in unless you can prove that he did in fact defy science and logic to raise the dead.

"which leds one to the question: either he did not have faith healing abilities or he did not care enough for his daughter to fix this." This statement doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. That's why I removed it. I just wanted to clear that up. Aaрон Кинни (t) 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove cited sources and call that POV. That is called white washing and its vandalism. Arbusto 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That was not a citation. Your so-called "citation" had no bibliography (etc.), therefore is not a credible source. I will continue to revert your edits. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(from the Arbustoo talk page: "Excuse me? I emailed the maintainer of that webpage asking for his source, and he provided none; he didn't even reply. So until you get a better source (your source had no source) I will continue reverting your vandalism. Do you have any other sources for your claims? Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)") Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe your POV is leaking out, Sir, because you have a link to an anti-Christian and humanist website on your userpage, and you are making claims that Wigglesworth's healing was false even when I deliberately stayed away from his healing so as to prevent this sort of thing. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See below for other citations. Don't excuse me of POV when I'm dealing with science and citations. Your edit summary admittly shows you know you should stay away from making claims about faith healing[2] Arbusto 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also please don't remove vandalism warnings[3]. Arbusto 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I will remove them from my talk page if I please. Because I did not vandalize that article. That's why the warning didn't belong on my page, so I took the liberty of getting rid of it and I will persist in doing so. Эйрон Кинни (t) 22:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raising the dead and daughter's hearing loss

It is well established he claimed he could raise the dead [4][5] [6] [7][8][9][10], and here it puts the claim at "raising fourteen dead people"[11], and here it claims he raised his wife from the dead[12]. Wiggelsworth also wrote books about raising the dead.

He had a daughter named Alice with a hearing loss [13]. Here it claims he "frequently" prayed for his daughter's hearing loss.[14] However, healing his daughter never occured.[15] Never healed her[16] ever[17].

Stop removing cited sources. Arbusto 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It rather depends on what you mean by proven, doesn't it? I would suggest that any claim of raising the dead which was scientifically proven after the mid-Victorian era would be the subject of legend and massive medical documentation. Just zis Guy you know? 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So I added the fraudster tag back in. Arbusto 21:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if you don't believe Wigglesworth's claims to have raised the dead, the fraudster category is still inappropriate as it's POV, so I'm going to remove it again. It should only really be applied to people who have been convicted of fraud by a court of law. (See The fraudsters category talk page). Jammycakes 13:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Half the sources this article references don't provide sources themselves

I emailed the author of this website asking him to provide sources on his statements about Smith Wigglesworth and I received none. This website doesn't provide sources either. Just because you have a source for a statement doesn't make it necessarily true. Will someone address this issue, because I want to see better sources. Aaрон Кинни (t) 01:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Wigglesworth ever raised anyone from the dead although several sources (including Frodsham's biography) claim he did. It would not be POV to relate the fact that these unproven assertions were made by some. I am surprised Word-Faith adherents have not tried to claim Wigglesworth as a forefather in this article or on the discussion page. Actually, there are significant differences in theology between Wigglesworth and the faith movement.--Loudguy 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS gives guidelines on what are reliable sources and what aren't. Jammycakes 09:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO information on this page?

I have a friend who I discuss theology with and he is very into SW. The main thrust of who he was were his healings, mass conversions and raising folks from the dead. Why is there no mention of that here? Even if you do not agree.. something should be said about his claims. --DjSamwise 04:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluating claims of healing according to mainstream Christian theology of healing

See faith healing. Mainstream Christian theology holds that prayer is the appropriation of God’s power, not a push button machine. Thus prayer only achieves positive results when it is done according to God’s will. This includes prayer for healing. Mainstream theology of Christian healing states that it is God who heals, not the faith healer himself. Claiming a gift of healing does not imply that everyone you pray for will get healed.

To show that a faith healer is a fraud, it is necessary to demonstrate that the faith healer is deliberately faking either the healings or the testimonies of the healings.

Thus statements that a faith healer could not heal his own daughter and was thus a fraud demonstrate faulty theology and a hostile POV to boot. I will edit the article to neutralise it. Raffles mk 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't check the external links from my internet connection. Could someone do that to see if they still make sense in the paragraph that I edited? Raffles mk 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a scholarly touch

I just did some stylistic cleanups to this article, but I agree with most of the other comments here in talk: the references are a mess. Is there nothing at all scholarly written about this guy? No citable biographies? Beyond that, I couldn't tell whether the links listed as "external links" (which I changed to "further reading") were meant to be used as references. I wish somebody would find something truly citable for this article (some scholarly books and articles that cite their own sources). —LonelyPilgrim 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miracle claims should at least be mentioned

Also regarding Wigglesworth's more incredible miracle claims — I've read the debate here, and here's what I have to say. I grew up hearing all about Smith Wigglesworth and these claims, and I think they're rather important to who he was and his reputation today. They need to be at least mentioned in the article, not excised completely just because some people don't believe them. Some people don't believe the stories about Christ himself, and there are no sources for his miracles but the Bible itself, yet you'll find oodles and oodles and articles about him here. So what I'm suggesting is not to include unproven, unprovable data, but rather to find some sources for these claims (as I see some people have been giving here) and write into the article language (perhaps even a whole section) describing these claims, but making it clear that that's just what they are — claims. —LonelyPilgrim 06:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What I mean to say is, it's entirely provable and citable that he made these claims. I haven't checked the history, so I don't know how it was written before, but miracles are the kind of thing that you can't write about as proven fact in an encyclopedia. They are matters of faith. Read Jesus's article. It's all about how he is "said to have performed various miracles" and "according to the Gospels." And it's a good, encyclopedic article that covers a lot of different points of view. We're not here to evangelize. What we're here to do is to present citable fact. Wigglesworth's miracles, like Christ's, have to be taken on faith. —LonelyPilgrim 06:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The person who removed then did it to the detriment of the article and failure to heed the previous discussion. Arbustoo 05:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)