Talk:Branhamism

message: The following comments below are from someone who wants to mislead people. Go to www.branham.org and find out for yourself and not let the ramblings of a former Message believing backslider influence you.
Go straight to the source and see for yourself.
_________________________________________
Someone who believes the doctrines of William Branham will be 'religously opposed' to merging 'message of the hour' into Branhamism as they would be 'religously opposed' to anything representing denominationalism.  To keep these ideas separate, it is suggested that this article be recreated under 'Message of the Hour' rather than the controversial 'Branhamism'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.255.242 (talk) 21:41, July 10, 2006
:I completely disagree. If you have any knowledge of this group you would understand how impossible it would be to create an article that would be accepted by them as legitimate. I think this artcle should be kept as an abstract outside view of Branhamism and The Message of The Hour kept as a more detailed look at them from the inside. To just be plain and frank about his teachings and statements, even if not being judgement, would be ripped to pieces as soon as certain ones of them got ahold of the page. Just read the quote alittle further down the page from the one respondig to a statement about another point on branhamism being from branham. Cool10191 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging articles

message: Use the term or not? Can't tell from the above messages.  NLOleson 18:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment in the immediately preceding section.   Taxee (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what is the end result of what you are saying? 

message: This is about tag cleanup.  As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed.  This is not a judgement of content.  If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made.  This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: According to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
Other than Doug Weaver's book, The Healer-Prophet: William Marrion Branham (Mercer University Press) which is considered a "reliable source" in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on No Original Research, there is not a lot of good secondary source material on the followers of Branham. 
However, that does not mean that primary material can be used to do original research or create an article that has a biased POV.
The best outcome would be to merge this article with the article on the movement's founder, William M. Branham. Taxee (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was merged into William M. Branham (relevant contents were moved into that article) after there was no discussion on the issue for over a month.  Taxee (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal