Talk:George Went Hensley

Born in VA or TN?

The first sentence says he was born in Scott County, Virginia. The second sentence says he was a Tennessee native. Only one can be true. Which is it?--Jim10701 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the truth is that no one really knows where or exactly when he was born. Records weren't well kept for poor rural families in those days. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:George Went Hensley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Two in a row, good to see you again! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My main problem with the article is all its headings. Would you mind if I changed a few? (You could always change it back.) The article looks fascinating. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine, there are quite a few of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

• Was Hensley religious before his conversion experience and was born again? After he was born again, did he retain the same religious beliefs overall for the rest of his life? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • From what I recall of the source books, he was raised in a fairly religious Baptist family, then left the church at age 21 or so. About 10 years later he had a born again experience and joined a Pentecostal Holiness church, which he stuck with for the rest of his life (in theory, at least, in practice he wasn't very holy at times). I can try to clarify these facts if you think they're not clear in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It's entirely possible (somewhat likely even) that he had a born again experience in the Baptist church as a child, but I don't think there's a source for it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Was there more that you wanted from me on this point? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Reply

• The lede does a very good job of putting the story together, I think, but the rest of the article doesn't follow the lede. All Hensley's moving around seems to be related to his arrests for snake handing, but sometimes no reason is given for the move.
• What exactly about snake handling is so compelling? Did it prove that you would go to heaven if the snake didn't bite you? The "Theology" section doesn't really explain it.
• Please feel free to revert, change anything I'm doing.

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Alright, I will check through my notes and the sources I have, but I should be able to clear those details up. I think he moved so much for several reasons that I can point out; part of it was definitely wanderlust though. His theology of snake handling is a bit tricky to pin down since he never wrote a systematic theology or anything, in fact, he literally couldn't spell theology! There are a few statements that he made that might clear it up a bit, hopefully I won't veer into WP:SYNTH. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Made a few changes, I don't have the energy right now, but I could try to look over the rest of his moves and try to match them up with a reason if possible. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Query

• What do you think of the heading changes? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me, I wrote the article in small bits at a time, so that's probably why there were so many headings before. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• Do you think "He was frequently arrested for violating bans on snake handling." should be moved to another part of the lead? It almost seemed to break up the flow for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Many factors seem to be linked to his divorces, not just arrests for snake handling. The article never says that he was frequently arrested for snake handling, does it? It just give two instances when he was. Also he was arrested for moonshine. So probably there's a better place to put that sentence. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, took a stab at clearing that up. Also, I don't think this is part of the GA criteria, but there are a couple picture of Hensley in the book by Kimbrough, (i.e. here I think since he's dead one of them would qualify under WP:NFCC #1. I might try to put one in soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• The pictures could qualify under fair use (I think) under the proviso that he is dead (hence there is no way you or anyone else could take a picture of him now.) And if you justify how a picture of him is essential to understanding the article. How about the one on page 139 of the link you gave above, showing him with a snake around his neck, demonstrating to reporters? That one definitely adds! But upload it to wikipedia, and not to the Commons. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, page 139 is not him. But the one you suggested is. (There is also one of him in a court hearing with other people.) MathewTownsend (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Looking again, I think the best option is this one, since it shows how he had an assistant read to him during the services. Will try to work on it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good choice! The fact that he was illiterate is a huge deal. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for touching up that picture, I don't know too much about that type of thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I finished my second pass through the article with your comments in mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Reply - it's really a good article already! Just a few more comments/questions that you mightn't be able to answer.

• How many children did he have altogether? Only those with Irene?
• Just a comment - the fact that he was illiterate means that his wives had to play a large role in his pastoral work - reading, writing etc. That must have had an effect on his marriages!
• Also, he must have been charistmatic! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the compliment and the help you've given. I think one of the source books does list his children, I can probably put that in after dinner. The involvement of his wives in his ministry likely did play a big role in all the marriage conflicts, keep in mind, he fought with one wife over whether to put their children in an orphanage so she could help him more. Not exactly a family man! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Wow, he had 13 children and >10 step-children, I hadn't realized it was quite that many. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Quite a guy! Americans seem to come up with these wacky but engaging people. Have you read Samuel Colt and John C. Colt for example? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've heard of Samuel Colt, but I haven't read anything about him or John. I'll check those out. It is true though, America tends to produce some funny characters and unusual religious movements. I've actually been making that my editing focus lately, pretty interesting to read about. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

File:George Went Hensley preaching.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:George Went Hensley preaching.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think I fixed the fair use rationale. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope that it is satisfactory, as it is a great picture, although I have seen some images removed that would seem to be even less problematic. The picture was evidently published at the time, and The Roots of Appalachian Christianity describes it as "famous" (Sparks, Elder John. 2005. University Press of Kentucky, p. 288) and as an iconic image. If it, as seems likely, was published without a copyright notice, then it is also in the public domain, which would answer any challenge. • Astynax ^talk 09:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in and pointing that out, I think it should be ok now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

• Note - There is a link that needs disambiguation Church of God. I have no idea which one to choose. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. There sure are a lot of Churches of God out there! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Resignation from the ministry in 1922

If he resigned in 1922, then continued to minister, I guess whether he resigned or not isn't important? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the important part is that he resigned his ordination/license from the Church of God (TN), he never rejoined another formal denomination for the rest of his life. Maybe I should revise the heading. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Marriages

Was Hensley ever divorced from his first wife? How many times did he marry?--John Foxe (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I should make those facts more that more clear. I'll take a stab at it later tonight if I have the energy. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. Was he a serial polemicist or what? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not a polemicist :) I added some details about the divorces in, hopefully it is more clear now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Born again?

• The lede says, "Hensley experienced a religious conversion around 1910; he came to believe that the New Testament commanded all Christians to handle poisonous snakes."

• Under "Early life", "Hensley likely attended in Ooltewah a Holiness Pentecostal Church of God service, led by an evangelist's teenage son, at which Hensley had a conversion experience."

• (he "likely attended" but he "had a conversion experience" there?, or "likely" had a conversion experience there?) I wish the "conversion experience" could be nailed down more.

• Under "Ministry": "Following his born again experience at the Church of God"

I'm not entirely clear about religion, but is a religious conversion in Christianity always a born again experience, or is it the association with the Pentecostal Church that makes it so? If so, I think the explanatory links should come sooner in the article.

Also, I think this sentence in the lede is rather dangling and out of place as nothing else is said about marriages until the last paragraph in the lede:

• "After separating from his wife in 1922, he resigned from the ministry."

Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think "religious conversion" is the most neutral and least colloquial of those three descriptions. (I'm not sure he considered himself "born again," but he was certainly married again.) Improving the quasi-dangler: "After he separated from his wife in 1922, he resigned from the ministry."--John Foxe (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look at this guys. a. I removed "likely" since I think that fact is pretty well established. b. I'd bet anything that he and his church would have described his experience as being "born again", but I actually can't find that wording in the sources, this is as close as I could get. So I guess I'll just stick with "conversion experience". (Also "born again" isn't specifically a Pentecostal thing, it's a very common term throughout conservative /traditional Protestantism, at least.) c. Ok, I made Foxe's suggested change. Would it make sense to change the first sentence of that paragraph to: "Hensley was reared in a large family that often moved throughout Tennessee and Virginia, and settled in Tennessee after he married."? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you could just as well leave off "after he married". He was married four times. Also, "After he separated from his wife in 1922, he resigned from the ministry." Which wife and were these two events related? All the marriage stuff is nicely covered in the last paragraph of the lede. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so does this look good to you for the second paragraph? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

“ Hensley was reared in a large family that often moved throughout Tennessee and Virginia, and settled in Tennessee. After his conversion, he traveled throughout the Southeastern United States teaching a form of Pentecostalism that emphasized strict personal holiness and frequent contact with poisonous snakes. Although illiterate, he became a licensed minister of the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) in 1915; during the next several years he traveled in Tennessee, conducting Church of God-sanctioned services. He resigned from ministry in 1922. ”

I like it better, but do the feature article people? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I made the change, I'm sure someone will say something if that made it worse. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Russell Lee (photographer)

I added info and a citation to the Russell Lee (photographer) article. He was working for the US Department of Interior during 1946 and 1947, completing a photographic survey of miners and their working conditions in the coal mining areas of the US. Appalachia is certainly one of those. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I'll note it on the FAC page. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I condensed the lead back to four paragraphs per WP:LEAD. I'm not sure where the best place to break between the third and fourth is, but I retained the order introduced in this edit. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the last 2 sentences would read better if merged into the 2nd paragraph, which contains the other mention of family life. This would also shorten the lead to 3 paragraphs, which better fits MOS:LEAD's recommendation that an article of this size (19K "readable prose size") have a lead consisting of 3 paragraphs. I went ahead and moved it up, but have no objection to restoring the former sequence (the MOS isn't fanatical about the recommended number of lead paragraphs). I do, however, think it just a bit awkward to end the lead summary with a description of family problems, rather than his last years and death, but that might not be a concern to most. • Astynax ^talk 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I vote for Astynax's version as an immense improvement! MathewTownsend (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I second that motion. Thanks Astynax! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Faith healing, speaking in tongues, and taking up serpents in the name of God!

Russell Lee photographed George Hensley's church as part of the DOI's compilation of a medical survey in the communities involved in mining bituminous coal.[1] Really gives the feel for the types of people he was ministering to. True Appalachia - one of the subcultures that Russell Lee photographed. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those pictures are really quite remarkable. I wonder if I could get something snake handling related to Featured Picture status. It really is remarkable what things were like there, I wonder how much the culture has changed since then? I guess there still are some snake handlers, not sure how much their lifestyles have changed though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

At least in the area that I grew up in (Middlesboro, Kentucky), not nearly as much coal mining was going on, due to it being high-sulfur coal (acid rain causing if burned without filtering systems). A tannery was keeping Middlesboro's economy afloat, plus being the largest town around by far (the nearest city was Knoxville, Tennessee). I don't know about the snake handling, etc - my parents were moderate Southern Baptists (a dying breed). Allens (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, so you are familiar with the area then, interesting how things change over time. I've been to Tennessee and Virginia, though never Kentucky--but I know enough to agree, moderate Southern Baptists are a declining group! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, I may know a bit about faith healing in the area. I'm willing to bet that was one reason why my father (a physician) had problems getting people to bring their kids in for vaccinations (before his retirement, he was one of the few physicians in the US who could recognize a measles case on sight), and I do remember him talking about a court case over forcing a family to allow their kid to get lifesaving care, with the family objecting for religious reasons (and it wasn't Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses, but something more oddball than those). Allens (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that does sound pretty similar to Hensley's mentality. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Practitioners of snake handling continued to view Hensley as a great man.

How prevalent is snake handling now? Does it still go on? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does, YouTube has a few clips [2] and our Snake handling article has a few claims about modern numbers. I'll check the sources I used for the article and see if they mention any numbers. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wish I could understand what Hensley believed, how he came to his way of thinking. I've been reading various articles on the Pentecostal Church, or Pentecostal churches and related articles, but nothing really explains clearly what's going on. Snake handling today:[3] There must be a rationale to all this. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In early pentecostalism, snake handling, healing and other "signs" granted to the apostles and early christians to confirm their prophetic authority were thought to have been revived in preparation for the Last Days. This view has changed among some pentecostal denominations (replaced by continuationism and other explanations). Hensley was around during pentecostalism's earliest days, and must have been affected by both the early apocalyptical rationale and the later doctrines/teachings used to support the practices. I also wish there was something clearer in the sources I've read on Hensley. Perhaps one day he'll be mentioned in a paper dealing with the bases for pentecostalism, but thus far I haven't seen anything which connects him with the evolution of those doctrines. His thinking may not have ventured beyond sticking to the interpretation that "these signs shall follow" in Mark 16:17-18 represented a command enjoined upon all believers, and anything deeper may not have been seen as important. • Astynax ^talk 21:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, I wonder how much he was affected by Last Days-style thinking. I wish he had written down more of his thoughts... Mark Arsten (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that he was illiterate, how would he have written down any of them? Allens (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was joking--all we have is people who recorded statements he made during sermons. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry

• "She was from a prosperous Lutheran family of German descent but believed that she was suffering a curse." What does this mean and what is the relevance? Was there a consequence to this belief of hers? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I figured the relevance was that Hensley kind of took advantage of a down on her luck member of a well off family. Just looked at the source again, will try to explain in text a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

cheers

The following reads to me that he who died in 1955 was also a start in Cheers. I know only of one and he could not have been, but if there was an earlier version that should be noted in the article. Quote; Hensley continued to travel around Tennessee, receiving a mixed reception from those who were aware of his past. Some who knew him were willing to forgive him and welcome him back in a ministerial role, but he remained estranged from most of his family. He did find success later in life playing Norm on Cheers; end quote from Ministry in Tennessee and final years section Edmund Patrick – confer 06:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The article was a "Today's Featured Article", and as usual there are those who spot those and insert vandalism, which is usually quickly reverted. George Wendt from the TV show Cheers is not the same person as George Went Hensley, the subject of this article. • Astynax ^talk 08:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"literal"

Construing "They shall take up serpents" as a command for all Christians to take up serpents is not a "literal" interpretation: it's an augmentation of the text rather than a literal reading. I have changed the introduction accordingly. - Nunh-huh 07:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. What would a "literal" interpretation look like if it wasn't "they shall take up serpents"? How much clearer could Mark make it? This isn't a canon or widely held interpretation, but the one thing it is is "literal". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I expect few readers were being confused, but agree that the wording was (and is to some extent) on the vague side. Certainly Hensley took the passage literally, but his departure rested in the interpretation: i.e., in applying the "shall" in the passage as a commandment ("must" and not "will") enjoined upon all true believers. That could be made clearer in the lead, though I'm unsure the change moved much toward nailing it down (literally). I no longer have some of the references, but do recall a passage that supported the commandment aspect, which should be in the body to support the lead section's statement. • Astynax ^talk 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If Mark (or pseudo-Mark) had written, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, taking up serpents and drinking deadly things wherever thou goest," then Hensley's interpretation of the text would have been "literal."--John Foxe (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think even Hensley did it wherever he went. But he did "take up serpents" in a way that is literal according to Mark, and has not been practised by preachers outside Hensley's circle. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

My point is that, unlike the directive "Go ye into all the world," this (controverted) text of Mark includes no command to pick up serpents or drink poison. If the text had said, "Take up serpents," then Hensley's practice would have been literal.--John Foxe (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)