Talk:Billy Graham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Princeton Theological Seminary

The theological seminary in question is located in princeton, but is not affiliated with the University. It should therefore be referred to as "Princeton Theological Seminary", not "Princeton's Theological Seminary", which is misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sidap (talk • contribs) 11:25:15, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Death

I recently found out from a friend close to the family that Billy Graham has passed away a short time ago, hence the addition.

Why is the above post not dated? This rumor is definitely not true! -- as of this post on June 14, 2007 Calatayudboy 07:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Calatayudboy

according to abc news, he celebrated his 90th birthday today with close family. it was said his mind is still working well and quoted as saying that he missed his wife who passed away last year. it was terrible that when a website such as msn paid tribute to those who passed away in 2007, they forgot her. but billy is still alive. there is much proof of this, not only via his ministry, but media as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

another article siting he's alive november 7, 2008 on his 90th birthday: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_re_us/billy_graham Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)funwisconsinguy2007Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

old comments

This section should remain in tact. Either you stand up for what is right in the Oval Office where it REALLY matters, or you don't. Billy Graham didn't. His reputation will be washed of this when he gets to heaven. Here on earth, we need this to be a learning experience for the rest of us. DavidPesta (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

there are plenty of books by billy and from others about quotes and questions/answers regarding mr. graham and his view on issues. it may be worth checking those out to add "good info" about him and dispute the controversial remarks he's made in the past (straight from his mouth so-to-speak). if you need titles, i can give you some, as i admire him and have several books about and from him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC) please keep this article unbiased and professional... i realize this is a discussion page, but opinions and judgments about him or anyone, doesn't belong in the article. be mature, not juvenile about reporting info here. if you want to bicker about your views and finger-point, do it in another forum or website, not this one. all those without sin, cast the first stone. respect what he has done, you be you and let him be him. update truth, even if you don't agree with it. Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)funwisconsinguy2007Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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 "intelligent 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

"Much of what is defended as 'christian doctrine' does not survive reasoned analysis." Many Christians would disagree with you. Therefore, you are being as dogmatic in rejection of "Christianity" as you are accusing Dr. Graham as being toward non-Christian viewpoints. Ultimately, you're just saying you're right and they're wrong. Make that argument, but don't pretend that your view is inclusivistic. Ironically, though, many within the Christian evangelical and fundamentalist community view Dr. Graham as being way too nice and inclusivistic to non-evangelical and fundamentialist viewpoints, and even to non-Christian viewpoints.John ISEM 23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... John suggests that, because many of those who accept christian doctrine disagree with my analysis, my analysis is unsound. And then he reduces my careful argumentation to 'I'm right and they're wrong', and rejects it as dogmatic. I trust the readers to evaluate the soundness of my writing, and the hollowness of John's. jeroboambramblejam

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)

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.

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?

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)

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)

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).

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

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.

RE: Did it happen? Then it should be in here. I'm certain Nixon apologized for Watergate, and probably hasn't bugged any democratic conventions recently. You want to delete that article, too?

"... 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)

Dude, if you get offended over that, that is just lame. The "Good News of Jesus Christ" is simply another way of saying Christianity and is not controversial in the least. CG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.52.126 (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How is the term "good news" NOT non-neutral?Vonbontee (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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."

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

That's very nice but I'm afraid that that doesn't belong on a Wiki discussion page. Gay15boy 13:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

They are Sodomites, so how is that homophobic? 69.181.156.67 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sodomite" is considered an offensive term in the LGBT community ... its almost as bad as calling homosexuals "faggots", "fags" or any number of offensive gay slang. And I agree, I was interested to see that not ALL evangelists were Leviticus-preaching conservatives. Gay15boy 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It was my impression that he said "All homosexuals should be castrated.". However I haven't been able to find a reliable source, only entries in books of quotes. Copana2002 (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know the term "sodomite" was derogatory. The homosexuals I know (a minister included) just think it's a funny word. Now "fag" is derogatory. I was under the impression that sodomite meant something... else. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Somewhat longer ago (1957), Billy Graham was on the cover of the Mercury, then much in decay and under control of Texan John Russell Maguire. Maguire and the Mercury were then openly critized by the ADL for anti-semitic overtones. --LC 00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you keep emotions and personal biases out of this topic, what Billy Graham said to Richard Nixon regarding people of Jewish heritage and ownership in the media is very accurate. If you look at the large media companies today (CBS, Washington Post, etc.) and look at the individuals who held key management positions at these companies during the 1970's, you will see mostly people of Jewish heritage. This is still true today. Anyone that speaks out against Jewish people are immediately branded as anti-Semitic and fed to the lions. Billy was no exception. Rather than "crawl to them for forgiveness" he should have politely told them "Yes, I said it. It was based on fact and not racially motivated." 76.190.230.62 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Hey there~ jeroboambramblejam here~ May I gently point out that you reveal a POV when you say "...that, in contrast with all the good he's done..."~ An objective observer may rightly ask for particulars, since much evangelicalism consists of prejudicial attitudes toward outsiders, couched in disingenuous appeals to love and community~ (See also my entry ibid) Jeroboambramblejam 00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC) jeroboambramblejam

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)

Awards and Honors

I find it hard to believe that Mr. Graham's awards and honors only started in 1999. I quickly searched for a page that lists more and came up with this: http://www.religionlink.org/tip_040614a.php. Perhaps someone can rewrite the awards section so that it doesn not appear that Dr. Graham only started receiving awards in the twilight of his career.66.188.76.130 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)mrathel

Citations

I'm not sure if this would be usable, but the article says it needs a citation for the part about never being photographed alone with any woman except for his wife. Actually, Professor William Martin, author of one of the major biographies of Billy Graham, told us about this many years ago, probably around 1979. I don't think he'd even started the biography at that time, though he'd known Billy Graham for many years. The policy was not just for photos, but that Billy Graham would *NEVER* be alone with any other woman. They would do stuff like send his security people into his hotel room first to search an make sure that there was no woman hiding in the room. This was because he had determined that many preachers wound up getting involved in that sort of scandal. He also isolated himself from the financial aspects of the business for similar reasons. Shanen 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It needs a citation from a reliable, published source, as in a news outlet or book, not someone writing on a talk page, no offense meant. That's just the way it goes.---Gloriamarie 00:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Charismatic Christianity

May I ask why is this page categorized as of the Charismatic Christianity project? Billy Graham is evangelical, and as the article states, a Southern Baptist, so what connection does it have with Charismatics?

And why is he listed with a "CBE" (Commander), while in the awards section he's said to be awarded a Hon KBE?

Dga471 08:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed both and cited a reference for KBE. ++Arx Fortis 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the KBE from his name; the KBE at the end of the name and Sir at the beginning can only be used by British citizens who receive the actual designation from the Queen, not foreigners who are given honorary knighthoods.--Gloriamarie 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, a Commonwealth citizen (not just a British citizen) can call themselves Sir. Those who are non commonwealth citizens can use the postnominal letters KBE. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3428673.stm 188.220.16.145 (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am hearing that his death is coming close —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.185.92 (talk) 23:19, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Oct. 7 edits

Here are the reasons for my Oct. 7 edits. Knowing that religious leaders of any sort can inspired extremely devoted followings that might affect neutrality (such as the person who today replaced the entire Controversy section with the word "None"),l I ask for discussion of these points by the community, rather than any blanket revert.

In the intro's second paragraph, the first part of the sentence about a poll was redundant with the Gallup Poll information of the previous paragraph. The second part of that sentence was impermissably vague, referring to supposed second poll without giving name or date; the source used for it, additionally, requires registration in order to read the whole article. If this unnamed second poll is a significant one, there will be other sources that can be cited. In any case, intro references to polls should be consolidated.

Technical fixes, presumably non-controversial, include subhead levels and wikidate overlinkage. Also, the references sections were retitled as per WP:CITE. "External links" are "for further reading" links only, and "References" includes sources used for the writing of the article, such as official sites, which provide basic biographical background, facts and figures. When there is a "References" section, footnotes go under "Notes" or "Footnotes". Also, Wikipedia policy for websites (as opposed to newspaper/magazine archives) is one link to a site's main page, or to one specific page in a site -- not to multiple pages in a site.

There were essentially two sections on politics, "Politics" and "Statement on political views." I combined the sections and removed the three paragraphs of press-release statement, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does not publish press releases. I also removed the press-release portion of the section on the burial site, and paraphrased its pertinent point instead. --69.22.254.111 15:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lifetime audience

The estimate of two billion is a bit misleading, is this calculated by adding up the audience of each broadcast, counting some people many times? Otherwise, surely two billion is pushing the limits of the number of adults alive at the right time who understand/-stood English and have/had access to radio/television... I can't see all of the source given but the preview doesn't inspire much confidence: it says "He was the first Christian to preach behind the Iron Curtain after World War II" which seems pretty unlikely given that most (all?) of the countries behind the Iron Curtain were mainly Christian. Bistromathic 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For the second part about the Iron Curtain, you're technically incorrect about countries being Christian. In Communist countries, religion is banned or severely repressed, because they provide other influences other than the government's propaganda. The countries behind the Iron Curtain may have been historically Christian (even practicing religion underground), but according to the government, religion didn't exist. I do share your concerns over the validity of the source (a better one is needed), and I think the sentence should be changed to "the first Christian to preach OPENLY behind the Iron Curtain", if sourced. Boznia 05:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, already found something here[2] from Time that says he was the "first evangelist of any stature" to penetrate the Iron Curtain, visiting Hungary in 1977. I'll be adding that source and rewording it soon. Boznia 05:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that (I hadn't realised the stuff about the iron curtain was mentioned in the article). For the record, I did say "mainly Christian", though I don't really know whether that is accurate anyway. Bistromathic (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Some information: Graham about the war in Iraq

• [3] should be mentioned on the mainpage I think. George Bush, the War against Iraq, and the New World Order

Austerlitz -- 88.72.31.98 19:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The full text of the above mentioned section is:

During a March 12th, 1991 CBS broadcast of Billy Graham's Long Island, New York crusade, Graham said in reference to the war, "As our President, President Bush, has said, it is not the people of Iraq we are at war with. It is some of the people in that regime. Pray for peace in the middle east, a just peace."

The night that the "New World Order" coalition began its saturation bombing of Iraq, Billy Graham spent the night with George Bush at the White House.

"In a speech January 16, 1991, Billy Graham declared: "There come times when we have to fight for peace." He went on to say that out of the present war in the Gulf may "come a new peace and, as suggested by the President, a new world order."" (March 1991 CIB Bulletin)

I cannot recognize whether all the quotations are sourced by March 1991 CIB Bulletin.?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.78.143 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

controversy?

The article states that Graham takes a salary far below what would be expected and reasonable. How exactly is this controversial? taking an excess salary would be controversial, I think.

--I agree. I also do not see how the Modesto Manifesto is controversial. A group of evangelist's agreed not to engage in behaviors that the media might construe as controversial. I read somewhere that this group of men even avoided ever being alone with a woman so they could not be accused of adultery. This seems like wisdom to me. I don't get the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.0.106 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

--Second, the part about the Modesto Manifesto doesn't even explain what the document contains, and doesn't say what the 'controversy' about it was. Upon looking up what it was in other sources (the ones cited in this Wiki are useless) I can't see how it is in any way controversial. If I'm missing something please correct me, but I vote for it to be removed from the controversy section and either put someplace else if it could be explained better, or removed from the page entirely.-Austin G (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Over All Status

billy grahm made some comments that were unacceptable but he was to mystudies the best evangelist ever which covers up that other stuff. he helped fight racism and helped in president elections but no one knew him for that, they knew him for his integrity and power to help others accept God. Every one knew his eyes could stare through lead and keep going on, and on. He had a wonderful smile and posture which is what helped him get a wife and preach to millions. I strongly belive that Billy was the best of the modern time and for a while to come. well thats all i have to say for now .'"iceman signing off"'.

Kennedy

I recently completed reading "Just As I Am", Billy Graham's autobiography. Graham may not have "counseled" Kennedy, but they were definitely friends. The wiki article downplays their relationship, and is in need of being be tweaked. I will check the autobiography and use it as a source for any minor adjustments. There is also the well-known statement that Graham was the only Protestant minister Kennedy trusted. --Baxterguy (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A Press man who heard that Dr Graham had telephoned President Kennedy just before he left for Dallas begging him not to go to Texas, asked Dr Graham if he had heard the Presidents life was in danger. Dr Graham had said; 'not 'specifically' in danger, I just felt the atmosphear in Texas was so ugly at the time it was too dangerous for him to go'.It is obvious that Dr Graham cared for President Kennedy as a friend. Johnwrd (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The current phrasing of 'Graham and Kennedy weren't close, but Kennedy was a Catholic' seems in poor taste, I agree that something could be put in there about how their relationship was different from that of other presidents, and if there is some evidence that Kennedy being Roman Catholic influenced this (which is very possible) then that should be mentioned. But the way it is now makes it seem like the reason the reason they may not have been as close as others is that Catholics don't trust evangelicals, and that hardly seems neutral.-Austin G (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Southern Baptist Convention

The article states that Graham "is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention." This is incorrect. A person is a member of an individual Baptist church. The Baptist church may or may not be a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. A person is not a member of the Southern Baptist Convention.

John Paul Parks (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What Mr. Parks says is right about the Southern Baptist Convention. I am Southern Baptist as well. From what I understand about Billy Graham, however, he was Presbyterian. I think that we Southern Baptists would be very, very happy to claim him. I was surprised when I read that he was Presbyterian. Maybe that's why it stuck with me. 207.119.195.239 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Carla Vornheder

Billy Graham's wife was a Presbyterian. I can't remember if Graham was raised Presbyterian or Methodist, but he became a Baptist when he was a teenager, and has identified himself as a Southern Baptist ever since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.69.159 (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Why is there only one picture? Commons has several more that are useful. Would it be okay if somebody (I could, I made this article in simple English) add some pictures to this article. Thanks, AmericanEagle 21:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Age

The age is one year off. Needs to be fixed.--Tribe12 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where his age is listed incorrectly. Could you be more specific? --Onorem♠Dil 17:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

DOB checks to the Biofile cited in the external links, and the math is correct. I don't see a problem with the age. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

I have withdrawn this article's FAC nomination as the nomination was not completed, the procedure for consulting regular editors of the article was not followed, and the article appears unready for FAC, particularly due to numerous paragraphs without citations. Peer review would be a good next step. Maralia (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Scandals and link with eugenics

I read in some internet sites, some bad things about Billy Graham.At first, they claims, that in his crusades there was racial segregation , in the USA, until late 1950 decade.Other sites claims that he gave money to his son (also a precher) buy cocaine in 1960 decade.Agre22 (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

Racial segregation is quite different from eugenics! There is also a difference between de facto racial segregation and segregation that is orchestrated. Please specify (with sources).--Gloriamarie (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Some requests

1. This article suffers from some repetition and odd placement. Under "Ministry" there is a repeat of some of Rev. Graham's education history. Why the repeat, and why should this be under "Ministry"?

2. Another repeat is under the title "Hearst Intervention", repeating the longer than expected "run" of the 1949 Los Angeles meetings. Plus, the title of this is misses the heart of this section, which is the time of Billy Graham's promotion to a national figure. The issue of Hearst's support I found interesting, but seems more words than is warranted. Seems like someone trying to make a point, but I can't quite figure out what.

3. I'm not sure about Wikipedia policies on this, but it seems odd to me to mark this article as "part of a series on Southern Baptists". While I'm sure he's glad to be a Southern Baptist, it sure seems like his importance to the history of the 20th century is not about his denomination but his work as an evangelist. Why not identify the article about George W. Bush as a "part of a series on Methodists"? Or, better, a series on "evangelists" which would include Billy.

4. I recall, but can not find, an article in Newsweek indicating that Rev. Graham no longer spoke in terms of Biblical Inerrancy, and instead speaks of Biblical Authority. billygraham.org declares the Bible "infallible", and if you can believe the wikipedia article on Biblical infallibility, this is not the same as "inerrant".

A note -- I respect Billy Graham for his confession of humanness regarding his comments regarding "jews in the media". This response is his legacy, not the original comments nor even the denial that he made them. bobskiwobski (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed a sentence that was repetitive under the Hearst intervention section per your suggestion- I actually am the one who originally added all the Hearst information to the article so I can address your concern that it is like "someone trying to make a point" -- it's not. Like any other public figure, it's simply interesting to find out how they were "discovered" and why Graham happened to become famous rather than the countless other preachers out there who may have been just as talented. Because Graham's worldwide ministry would not have existed without these events, I personally think they're a justified section of the article. In addition, since Graham is a Southern Baptist and makes no bones about that, I don't know why the article would not be included in a series on Southern Baptists. He's probably the most famous one. George W. Bush is certainly not the most famous Methodist or even popularly known as a Methodist, but it would be appropriate to include him in a series on famous Texans because he is widely known as a Texan.--Gloriamarie (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

streets with guns?

"According to streets with guns, then Billy Graham Center, Billy Graham was converted in 1934 during a series of revival meetings in Charlotte which were led by evangelist Mordecai Ham.[5]"

what does this sentence mean? i read the article in reference but do not see a statement about 'streets with guns'... is that a name of a place that should be capitalized? whoever wrote this, is it a grammatical error? "streets with guns, then Billy Graham Center"??? can this sentence be omitted before: "Billy Graham was converted in 1934 during a series of revival meetings in Charlotte which were led by evangelist Mordecai Ham.[5]"? perhaps the sentence is combined by mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

p.s. please keep personal opinions to yourself, this isn't the type of forum to use bias or judgemental opinions in the article. be professional and truthful, not juvenile and finger-pointing. use another site or blog forum to bicker over your thoughts and self-righteousness, not an article about the life and times of a significant man. this goes for any article via wikipedia. if i don't like the women on The View, i can't say in the article about how i think they are "bitches" or "annoying". that may be true, but that is an opinion, not a fact. that goes for this article. you may hate the guy, but that doesn't belong in an article. there are plenty of books by him and others that dispute alligations that he answers publicly, but also that give more details that the media sometimes miscommunicates. unless you have truth, please omit it! (whether rumor or dislike of this remarkable man. good or bad opinions, keep it to yourself... this is for facts only!) Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)funwisconsinguy2007Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's minor vandalism that went unnoticed, the kind that sometimes shows up in articles pretty much at random. It's now fixed. No need to write a book about it! Mike Doughney (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

41 crusades?

The article originally stated that Graham has conducted more than 41 crusades since 1948. Forty-one? I'm only forty-one years old, and I know Graham has conducted far more than forty-one crusades in my lifetime. I don't know how many he has actually done, but I'm sure the number is several hundred at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.69.159 (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Many sites against this American preacher

I found many sites, agaisnt this american preacher.Some examples:[[4]] and [[5]].This other site: [[6]] has these sentences:"Despite his popularity, Graham has not always avoided controversy. In a 1993 sermon in Columbus, Ohio, he commented, "Is AIDs a judgment of God? I could not say for sure, but I think so." and:"Like many American families, they have had their share of problems. One son became a motorcycle hippie, another was into cocaine" Agre22 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

The AIDS thing was verified, but tabloids, YouTube, etc. are loaded with people such as Doctor Phil, George Bush, etc. who are all "drug/cocaine addicits", have bad children, divorces, etc. You can't cite just ANYTHING and call it a verification.The cocaine and motercycle-hippie sound like they came straight off the National Enquirier. --74.184.188.59 (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Views on John Paul II

It might be a good idea to note Graham's praise of John Paul II, which some have interpreted as indicating his broad support for the ecumenical movement. [7] [8] [9] ADM (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

MLK's birth name

I removed[10] the sentence

King and Graham became friends, with Graham becoming one of the few whites allowed to call King by his birth name, "Mike."

The citation given redirects to a highbeam.com page excerpting the article BILLY GRAHAM: A MAN WITH A MISSION.(SPECIAL SECTION) from The Cincinnati Post (Cincinnati, OH) Article date: June 27, 2002, by Barry M. Horstman. I looked this article up on ProQuest and it mentioned that Graham invited King to lead Madison Square Garden in prayer in 1957, but it didn't say anything about their becoming friends and it didn't say anything about King's birth name being "Mike". Wikipedia's biography Martin Luther King also doesn't say anything about MLK's birth name being Mike. I didn't bother looking for the diff where this claim was originally inserted. I leave it to other editors of this article to decide whether and how to research the issue further. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I,M Guy from south sudan i love Jesus i,m in US army i just came back from iraq i been playing guspl music for 20 years. thouht lot of brothers back home at time and i always do the same here in united state to help kids in my comminty churches to flow lord jesus i need you to support me to study bible school and that music so that i can bring more to christ like God use his servent man of God Billy Graham all this time. what i now so far music of God can bring more to God/here is my Email address marmbory@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.124.250 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dr." Billy Graham

Is it appropriate to have "Dr. Billy Graham" in the infobox on this page rather than "Billy Graham"? All the degrees Billy Graham has are honoris causa, i.e. honorary degrees. Even for people who hold doctorates, we don't put "Dr. So-and-so" in the infobox. (See, for example, Martin_Luther_King,_Jr. or Henry_Kissinger.)

Further, even for people who hold doctorates and are generally referred to as "Dr. So-and-so" in everyday speaking, we still don't put "Dr." in the infobox. (See, for example, Phil_McGraw.)

So, I'm taking out the "Dr." from this article's infobox. -- Jalanpalmer (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of Birth

So, what is his real birthdate? The lead says "born June 6, 1908". The infobox say "November 7, 1918". Eastcote (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

<br /

ALL BELIEFS GO FOR GRAHAM

== > ALL BELIEFS GO FOR GRAHAM ==

What many do not know of the largely praised Billy Graham is that for him all gods and beliefs are fine. Once in Asia he encouraged monks to go back to their practices and beliefs, and to remain in them. The same has happened several times with Catholic monks and nuns. Just have a glimpse to these sites and learn what usually is not told of the "all beliefs go" religion of Mr. Graham:

http://www.cephas-library.com/evangelists/evangelists_graham_and_the_pope.html (cronology of his love affair with Catholicism);

http://www.catholicireland.net/spirituality/saints-and-great-people/813-just-as-i-am-billy-graham (catholic site praising Graham);

http://www.atruechurch.info/graham.html (praising all religions; with excerpts of interview with Larry King in June 2005);

http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Misc/Graham3.htm (praising falic gods);

http://www.hissheep.org/catholic/billy_graham_politician_preacher_prophet_heretic.html

Non-evangelical evangelism?

I'm not going to profess to be an expert on the subject, and judging from the intensity of some of the comments on this discussion page, I'm sure somebody will somehow find a way to take exception to this, but does anybody else see a problem with the first sentence of this page?

For reference, the sentence states that Billy Graham is "is a Christian evangelist and an Evangelical Christian."

First, I do understand and recognize the difference between the terms "Christian evangelist" and "Evangelical Christian." The former is a job/position/hobby/practice description, and the latter is a religious belief. The problem I see, though, is that I can't imagine how one would be a Christian evangelist without being an evangelical Christian. Think about it conversely: would you have a non-evangelical evangelist? If you read the definition and description of Evangelist on the Evangelism Wikipedia page, it would seem that the one term necessarily includes the other. The way it is currently written, it seems to imply that the two terms are wholly independent of each other.

Can anybody show any reference to a non-evangelical evangelist?

At any rate, if the sentence simply stated that Billy Graham is a Christian evangelist." I think it would convey the exact same message. In fact, it would work especially well if the term "Christian evangelist" were linked to the "evangelism" page.74.228.64.159 (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely one can be a non-evangelical evangelist. Evangelical Christianity is a specific branch of Protestant Christianity, whereas an evangelist is anyone spreading a particular message. I could be a technology evangelist, for example, or a Catholic Christian evangelist. YardsGreen (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we delete this article

Normally I don't condone the destruction of information, but I think the only way we can get Billy Graham to go away is to ignore him, starting with the deletion of this article. He can't hurt us if we don't believe in him! 214.13.82.22 (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No we can not delete this article. Billy Graham is a notable person and there is no policy reason to delete the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

... please? It's not so much a matter of policy as a matter of principle.214.13.82.22 (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Billy becoming liberal in his old age?

I was surprised to see this Youtube video (from 1997) where he said people of other faiths and non-believers could all be saved. I am not sure how much of a controversy it caused at the time? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axxlXy6bLH0&nofeather=True —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlando098 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A transcript of the interview (which appears to be edited somewhat in the video version) is here:http://www.ondoctrine.com/10grahab.htm

Extract: "What God is doing today is calling people out of the world for His name. Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts they need something that they don't have and they turn to the only light they have and I think they're saved and they're going to be with us in heaven."

He also says something similar in this 2006 Newsweek article: http://www.newsweek.com/2006/08/13/pilgrim-s-progress.html

Extract: A unifying theme of Graham's new thinking is humility. He is sure and certain of his faith in Jesus as the way to salvation. When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: "Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't ... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have."

See, this kind of information was what I came to his Wiki page to find out. Shouldn't some kind of analysis of his theology feature in this article? After all, the work of philosophers and authors is part of what makes them notable; it seems like what Graham actually preaches should at least be briefly noted. 109.246.248.133 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's not original research. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Salary

I believe it is important to put Billy Graham's salary compared to other ministers. Just wanted to check here before adding a section. Graham, compared to other ministers, is paid modestly. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What does his salary have to do with anything? 64.234.0.101 (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, but Billy's salary is low compared to other evangelists of his stature and I think it's not an attempt to be negative but positive. I would caution though and suggest that User:Cmguy777 might want to check to see what WP:BLP has to say before adding salary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The salary has allot to do with Christian evangalism. In a sense it shows character and integrity. His salary is around $100,000 a year. That shows that he is not in the ministry just for the money. Thanks for your input. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"Evangelical christian evangelist"? isn't that a double meaning. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Evangelical is a theological position as opposed to Roman Catholic, Orthodox, fundamentalist, liberal, or other such positions. Evangelist is an office or role as opposed to missionary, pastor, deacon/bishop, prophet, etc. In this case Christian is an adjective since, in the 1980s, Apple computers co-opted the term evangelist for people who spread the good news about their products. Other computer companies have used the term as well. So please explain what you mean. The phrase makes sense to me, but I suspect that evangelical could be moved to another position in the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs, I thought Evangelical & Evangelist were the same thing. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought that you may have actually clicked on evangelical Christian in the article and read what it said. My mistake. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I was too lazy to look, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Modesto Manifesto

Can anyone explain precisely what the controversy was with the Modesto Manifesto, which is mentioned under "Moral Leadership" in the Controversy section? Three references are offered; one of them seems to be invalid, one seems entirely supportive of Graham and the other is offline in books I have not read. The current wording of the article makes it sound like Graham and the others signed the Modesto Manifesto specifically to avoid controversy. Is there more to the story that made it more controversial? YardsGreen (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

KBE

WP:MOS states that "KBE" should only be used when the article's subject uses the title as part of his name. Dr. Graham does not sign his name with "KBE". Therefore, it should be omitted from the lede and covered in the body of the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pneumonia

Graham was hospitalized on May 11th. I'm assuming this is sufficiently notable because it got headline billing on CNN.com and news articles are popping up every minute. Rklawton (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Religious views?

I think there should be a section that discusses his religious views. 68.104.173.148 (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd

It is odd that Graham could not remember a conversation with a President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

See note 43. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Many conversations, limited storage for memory. Only the unusual would stand out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

2.2 Billion

Have 2.2/7 billion people really heard Billy Graham speak? I find that to be amazingly high. The cited article is behind a paywall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.168.217 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Google lists several other sources, which ultimately return to Graham's organization, that state similar numbers.The statement is not that 2.2 billion different people listened, rather that this was the cumulative audience. The TV broadcasts were quarterly, I believe, and in prime time and the weekly radio program ran for 50 years. So if the same person listened to the weekly program alone for the entire fifty years that would be 52 X 50 = 2600 "listeners". And then if you add his monthly events (or were they quarterly as well?) in stadiums, where 50,000 or more people would attend nightly for six days, you get a sense at how quickly the numbers can add-up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

wordy...

Is there a better way of saying "evangelical evangelist"? This just sounds weird... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you offer a way to indicate his theological affiliation and his spiritual calling? Evangelicalism is a theologically conservative position in Christianity. It is identified in the Western branch of Christianity and as non-Catholic. It identifies him as non-Liberal and non-Fundamentalist. As for his calling, he's an evangelist. So if you can find a better way to state this, fee free to suggest it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If I had one, I would've just changed it. Maybe just not place the two words in the same phrase? I'm not talking about word-choice about talking the evan-evan following each other so closely... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that to someone who doesn't know what the terms mean it can be confusing, and I did have a back-and-forth with another editor over this a while ago. As it currently reads, "is an American evangelical Christian evangelist", there are links to both terms to help clarify the meanings. They're not immediately next to each other, and they both nouns are required to describe who he is. It's important since many modern-day evangelists are Fundamentalists or Charismatic. It would do a disservice to the subject and the community to remove it from the opening sentence. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its function is to use words correctly, I'm not sure that I see a major issue here. If this were the Simple English version I would "fix" it, however even they list it as "is an American Evangelical Christian minister and evangelist". May I suggest lobbying the lexicographical community to come up with words that don't use the root word "εὐαγγέλιον" (euangelion = good messenger = "the Gospel") to describe the theological bent and the calling? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Over-reliance on few sources

One article, briefly called "When Worlds Collide", is cited 12 times, and a 1993 TIME article more than that. These seem to give UNDUE WEIGHT, looking at Graham's achievements in terms of the number of people he preached to. In addition, editors have sometimes gone beyond the article in using it, for instance, ascribing meaning to Truman's dislike of Graham that is different than that found by his biographer in Truman's quote. I have deleted content that was not in the article. There appear to be good scholarly sources that provide more of a critical overview, and these should be used. Parkwells (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Foreign policy views

This section needs secondary sources, not just Graham's quotes. There are scholarly works about him that should be used.Parkwells (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Parkwells (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Relations with Jews

Part of the article suggests that Graham built positive relationships with Jews, unlike some other evangelists, but content is mostly about the controversy following release of tapes capturing his very anti-Semitic remarks with Nixon in 1972. There needs to be content from secondary sources that provides a fuller picture, and why the tapes were such a shock.Parkwells (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Graham and Harry Truman

The article incorrectly referred to Plain Speaking as Harry Truman's "autobiography". That is not true. Plain Speaking is allegedly an oral biography of Truman written and edited by Merle Miller. Unfortunately, the book is notoriously inaccurate (for instance, the "account" of Truman's meeting with MacArthur at Wake Island is markedly different from eyewitness accounts of the event). In fact, I believe members of Truman's own family have said that the book contains distortions. Thus, there is reason to question the accuracy of Truman's "comments" about Billy Graham. It's quite possible that Miller simply made it up.97.73.64.173 (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not "allegedly" an oral biography, it IS an oral biography for which President Truman was interviewed for hundreds of hours over a period of several years in the early 1960s. If you're going to call it "notoriously inaccurate" kindly cite your sources. As Truman is quoted verbatim throughout (since the sessions were audiotaped) there can be little doubt as to what he actually said. As to MacArthur and Truman: they spoke alone so the only witnesses to what was said were the two men themselves. I don't believe (though I could be wrong) that MacArthur ever gave his account of the meeting. It is a fact, however, that Truman had no use for Graham and viewed him as an opportunist. A quick read through the section of this article relating to the presidents will make it pretty clear that Truman was correct.Gillartsny (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's enough to accurately show Truman's opinion as quoted by Miller.Parkwells (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Scottish descent

Billy Graham is also a Scottish American on both sides of his family. His mother was a Bell and his father a Graham (both surnames of Scottish origin) and his geneology can be seen on this site [11] his ancestor Matthew Stewart, born 1720 in Scotland as were his ancestors with other Scottish surnames like Harris and Stewart.Uthican (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The URL provided does not work. Rklawton (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

okay thats strange as it worked just as I searched for it, how about this book "Billy Graham, the preacher James E. Kilgore Exposition Press, 1968 - Biography & Autobiography" states his father was of Scottish descent. "Narratives of the religious self in early-modern Scotland

By David George Mullan p27 Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2010" states Graham was born in 1918 near Charlotte, North Carolina of Scottish descent. Are they ok? As I have yet to find his ancestry os of English or Irish I'll remove those until someone finds an article to wiki standards and re-edit the Scottish descent in.Uthican (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the URL. It's not a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My real concern is how many generations back do we go? I don't know of a policy, but I would argue that two generations (grand-parents) would be the maximum.

Basing genealogy simply on family name is not sufficient. Country of origin may not be sufficient as a person's heritage and descent may be involved in more than names, particularly when it comes to Americans.

I would also argue that any geological category that does not have support in the article should be removed. Perhaps we should have someone from the appropriate project(s) advise on the subject. Those projects would be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy. Perhaps someone watching the various nationality categories: Category:American people of English descent, Category:American people of Irish descent, and Category:American people of Scottish descent. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The word "geological" seems to be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is. How about I spell genealogical and not let my spell checker "fix" it for me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to Uthican's point: James E. Kilgore, Billy Graham, The Preacher, Exposition Press, 1968 and David George Mullan, Narratives of the Religious Self in Early-Modern Scotland, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2010, p27, appear to be sufficient RS to establish that Graham was of Scottish descent. I added it to the text and in categories. In addition, the Presbyterian Church was strongly associated with Scottish immigrants and their descendants in the US. Parkwells (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Need authors

Editors should provide full cites with authors identified for articles.Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)