Talk:Azusa Street Revival

removed the following as extraneous:

"C.S. Lewis discusses speaking in tongues in his collection of essays, The Weight of Glory."Transposition" in "The Weight of Glory" In his writing, he both confirms the human's potential for uttering hysterical gibberish and rebutts those who would eliminate the possibility of divine impartation."

I tagged the main article with all the citation tags. I'm going to try and clean up this article some and cite sources, and hopefully add images and expand things a bit. Here are some of the sources that I plan on using:

• http://www.ag.org/enrichmentjournal/199904/026_azusa.cfm
• http://www.icfsr.org/history.html
• http://www.azusastreet.org/ (maybe?)
• http://www.answers.com/topic/azusa-street-revival (the article is essentially a copy + paste of this...)
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401421.html
• http://www.spirithome.com/histpen1.html
• http://www.twelvetribes.com/pdf/freepapers/azusa-street-revival.pdf
• http://www.cbn.com/special/AzusaStreet/index.aspx
• http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/usnews/060424a.aspx
• http://www.letusreason.org/Pent57.htm
• http://arc.iphc.org/timeline/azusalinks.html
• http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3321
• http://www.religionlink.org/tip_060130.php
• http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/HTALLANT/courses/his338/students/asample/WJSASIMP.htm
• http://demo.lutherproductions.com/historytutor/basic/modern/stories/azuza.htm
• http://atheism.about.com/b/a/066076.htm
• http://ctlibrary.com/4276
• http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-47092/Azusa-Street-revival
• http://latter-rain.com/eccle/azusa.htm

Please contact me on my talk page if you have any comments or suggestions. Nswinton\^talk 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article is currently undergoing a re-write. If you come in and find it jumbled and unintelligible at points, please be patient with me. Nswinton\^talk 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've finished re-writing the background section. Hopefully I'll be able to finish the rest of the article tonight. Nswinton\^talk 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Update: I'm about half done with the article now. I'll be out of town for the weekend, but hopefully 'll be able to wrap up all the text by Monday night (May 21). I'll be adding images shortly afterwards.

Update: I'm done with the rough draft of the full article at this point. I'll be doing some heavy proof-reading for the next few days; adding sources, moving around text, wikifying, cleaning up structure, spelling, grammar, etc. Please feel free to contribute or contact me at any time if you have any comments or suggestions. I hope to start adding images after I get done with proof-reading in the next 2-3 days. Nswinton\^talk 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Update: I've got 9 images on the article now. I need to go back and properly source them next, then I'll be doing some library work in the next few days to get some more good sources to back up some of the weaker online ones. I started the "worship" section, but it's currently only a stub. I realized that the article has very little description of the actual revival events that went on, so I plan to make that section give a more complete picture of what it would have been like in 312 Azusa Street during the fall of 1906. Nswinton\^talk 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Update: The article is up to 24 sources now, and I'm still working on finding a few more images. I've fleshed out several sections, and I've got a bunch more stuff to add, so the article is still far from finished. I'll be adding much more over the next few days. Nswinton\^talk 04:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I took a long break for work, and to refresh my mind. I made a few minor style changes today, and I'm thinking of migrating all the info that has to do with just Seymour to Seymour's article, which will shorten this one by 2-3 sections. I'm planning to be doing that and improving the flow of the "services and worship" section. Nswinton\^talk 16:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have taken on Azusa Street Revival for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by User:Wikihermit. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.

Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1Well written FAIL

1.1 Prose

This is generally good, and flows in a logical, readable way. The only minor points I noticed were:

• "His notions about speaking in tongues didn't go over well at the storefront church in L.A. that he had been asked to lead as pastor" - contraction; change 'didn't' to 'did not'
• "Hutchins eventually spoke in tongues herself as her whole congregation began to attend the meetings" - who is 'Hutchins'? This is the first mention in the article of this person; it needs to explain who she is.
• "People of all ages participated in the happenings.[14] They flocked to Los Angeles with both skepticism and spiritual hunger.[2] What is particularly notable about the intermingling of races is that 1906 was the height of the "Jim Crow" era of segregation.[5] Also noteworthy, was the groups encouragement of women in church leadership,[13] as women in the United States did not receive the right to vote until 1920, and the Equal Rights Amendment was not even proposed until 1972." These last few sentences of the Conditions section do not read as well as the rest - it needs a copyedit for grammar, clarity and POV.
• "...wished to instate segregation in their meetings" - spelling of 'instate' (Charles Parham section)
• "A. G. Garr and his wife were sent from Azusa Street as missionaries to Calcutta, India, where their "speaking in tongues" did not enable them to speak Bengali, the native language" - rewrite for POV; this comes across as a slightly sneering attempt at humour.
• "The Southeast United States was a particularly prolific area of growth for the movement, since Seymour's approach gave a useful explanation for things that had already been rumored to be taking place in those areas." - copyedit for clarity; I can't follow what this sentence is trying to say ;)
• "Nearly all of these new churches were founded among the poor and/or immigrants.[7]" - reword; avoid 'and/or'

1.2 Manual of Style

Again this is generally good. Citations are appropriately formatted, the section order seems logical, the article is well wikilinked, the lead is a fair summary of the article, and headings mostly follow the MoS. However, there are a few issues:

• Change Criticisms section header to Criticism (normally we should not use plurals in headers)
• Links need to be removed from the text and, if appropriate to the article, inserted into an 'External links' section after the references. For example: "You can find digital copies of all of the Apostolic Faith publications here", and the bible text links (although these may be better as footnotes).
• Definitely remove the link to " Japanese-American Cultural and Community Center in Los Angeles"; this is only marginally relevant and probably does not even belong in External links.
• Delink most of the linked dates - it is really only appropriate to link a date if quoted in full (ie day, month and year), because it will then display in the format set by the user preferences. Linking partial dates rarely adds anything to the article IMO (although to be fair this is not policy but a preference).
• Remove "(See article on Charles Parham for the clarity on the sodomy mention)" from the (renamed!) Criticism section, and add {{main|Charles Parham}} to the top of his section.
• "2,400 square feet (60 feet by 40 feet)" - these should be given in SI units as well (the template Template:Convert might be useful here). Also see WP:UNITS for the correct use of unit abbreviations.

2Factual accuracy PASS

The article is well cited, and refs are provided for most statements that could be challenged. One or two that could do with a direct ref are given below, but this is more in the nature of suggestions for further improvement than part of this GA review.

• "Charles Parham was also sharp in his criticism, largely due to his racism"
• "Seymour and the others saw their experiences with speaking in tongues as confirmation of his sermon on Acts 2:4."

3Coverage WEAK FAIL

The article covers the subject in appropriate depth. However, it occasionally teeters on losing focus:

• The Welsh revival section in particlular comes across as out of place, because none of the people or places in this section are mentioned again in the article. It goes into too much detail, disrupting the flow and potentially confusing the reader. IMO it may be better to merge Welsh Revival reaches America and North Bonnie Brae Street under Background, removing most of the content of the former. Also, if you decide to keep this sentence, check the dates: "In 1904, the 1908-1978 Welsh Revival took place..." ;)

On this, I disagree (but not strongly). Joseph Smale brought back to the US... "seeds" of what would become the charismatic movement in the US. The smaller revivals in Minnesota, North Carolina, and Texas helped to set the stage, and many of ASR's visitors and participants were from those places, and the ASR gave validity to many of those small movements. The Welsh Revival did set the stage for ASR's success. I'm not sure how or where to work that in, though...

Historians do not consider the Welsh Revival to contribute to the Azusa Street Revival, or to the origins of Pentecostalism. The origins of this misperception seems to be a misreading of Cecil Robeck Jr.'s book .^[1] The account on pages 57-60 that recounts the Welsh Revival and Joseph Smale only says that "they seemed to anticipate the message that William J. Seymour would bring to the people of Los Angeles." (59) Robeck is not saying that they literally anticipated the ASR, but that they seemed to. The subtlety of Robeck's observation was lost when repeated by Gary McGee on the AG website, hence the misconception. The entire section should be eliminated. JMDoran (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• The article can't seem to decide in places whether it is about William Seymour or Azusa Street as per the title (I realise they are inextricably linked and to be honest I can't think of an easy way around this, so it's not a fail criteria!)

Good point here. I'm not sure how to handle this, either. I use this phrase in the loosest sense, but it was sort of a "cult of personality" so I think it's largely appropriate that Seymour be woven through it's main parts. I've had a similar difficulty with his personal article, I just don't know how to really write it without just repeating a lot from this one. This article covers pretty thoroughly who he is.

4Neutrality PASS

The article is neutral and unbiased, giving a fair and factual coverage of the events discussed (other than those few minor POV issues mentioned above).

5Stability PASS

There is no evidence of instability in the edit history.

6Images PASS

All images used are appropriately captioned and have a suitable copyright status.

The outcome of this review is that I have placed GA status on hold, pending the above points being addressed. Editors now have up to a week to make the required improvements, although in rare cases the hold period can be briefly extended.

To help with tracking, editors may like to paste the following template after each recommendation as it is dealt with: {{done}}. Once editing is complete you can let me know on my talk page, and I will re-review the article. In any case I will check back here next Monday (6th August). All the best EyeSerene^TALK 09:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for the review! Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to you on many of these weaknesses. I'm sure that the article can still be greatly improved in many ways, but I think that I've addressed all of the issues that you've raised. The "Seymour visits Los Angeles" section I think may be one of the weaker areas now, because of the issue you raised above of Seymour being such a major part of the whole article. I think it's a justifiable section because it sets the tone and immediate background for the revival, but may be a bit long. At some point, I'd like to see those first two sections trimmed, or see the rest of the article grow. Anyways, thanks for the review, and let me know what I can do to further improve the article :) Nswinton\^talk 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed the article as meeting the GA criteria, and have listed it as such on the Good Articles page. For the record, editing for GA status was undertaken by Nswinton (only editors with 5 or more major edits in the last 50 are recorded). Well done! EyeSerene^TALK 09:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

For future improvement, the initial Background sections could do with further work. I think your edit has definitely improved them though - there is no longer so much of a disconnection between the Welsh Revival and the introduction of Seymour later on. I'd be happy to have a go at copyediting this bit if you like (it does really need trimming!).

I agree that it is extremely difficult to separate Seymour from the ASR, as the story of one seems to be largely the story of the other. This is always a problem where a person is notable for one major event, but I think you have probably got the balance about right.

One point I ought to check with you: whilst wikifying the headings (per WP:HEAD), I decapitalised 'movement' in Birth of Pentecostal Movement. However, if this is a proper noun, this should be changed back ;) Also on this subject, I'm not sure if 'Street' should be capitalised in the section headings (I'll check on this). All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 09:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

the Pentecostal Church of God was formed in 1919 at the Sharon Bible School (which later became a starting point of William Branham's ministry in the late 1940s).
The comment was removed because it is not factually correct. ("Let us Reason" is a dubious source for facts about other people and other beliefs because of its strong bias.) In 'The Healer Prophet' (Mercer University Press, 2000, p45-47) arguably the most academic - and negative - examination of WB's ministry, C D Weaver states that his evangelistic ministry began in earnest mid 1946. Branham visited Vancouver over 12 months later. According to author Richard Riss, in an article entitled "The New Order of the Latter Rain," which appeared both in Pneuma magazine of Spring 1982 and later in A/G Heritage magazine in Fall 1987: The Latter Rain Movement was catalyzed, in part, by the campaigns of healing evangelist William Branham in Vancouver, B.C., in the Fall of 1947. His demonstrations of the gift of healing accompanied by [the word of] knowledge of the illnesses of those present made a deep impression upon the teachers of Sharon Bible School in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, who precipitated a revival at their school after their return from the Branham meetings." As a spark, which ignites an explosion, what began as a sincere personal quest for deeper truth in the Spirit there at the Sharon school is even today regarded as a focal point of what came to be called the Latter Rain Movement. George Hawtin

William Branham distanced himself from the Later Rain movement Latter Rain
Rev107 10:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have two questions; does anyone have any knowledge of persons from other revivals (such as the Wales revival,etc) that directly affected the revival at the Apostolic Faith Mission on Azusa Street? Secondly; I am a bit confused as to why there are so many sentences struck out in this discussion page. Would it not be easier to simply delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachida10z (talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not really. This is a talk page so its a record which wouldn't make sense if large portions were deleted. It especially would hurt the Good Article nomination discussions, as the struck parts show later readers what was wrong with the article. Hopes this helps. Ltwin (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see section "Apparent conflict of fact" on discussion page of article Alexander_Boddy. Since this (Azusa Street Revival) article is referenced and that one isn't it seems likely that it is this article which is correct.

Hedles (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024054505/http://atheism.about.com/b/a/066076.htmtohttp://atheism.about.com/b/a/066076.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

„The revival was characterized by spiritual experiences accompanied with testimonies of physical healing miracles“

I want to check the seriousness of the reports in the book "True Stories of the Miracles of Azusa Street and Beyond" by Michelle Griffith and Tommy Weel - and you use this book as a source. --149.172.108.9 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply