Talk:Uebert Angel

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here)

This article has in all fairness stated negative and positive things about the individual named. There is no marketing involved and the story has a purpose as his many followers want to know. --Simon Mugava (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Source check

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Jbh^Talk 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

My rv

The source does not say he was cleared of the charges it says that the charges were settled out of court. Specifically the complaintent said

"I now wish to withdraw the charges against the accused on the following reasons: Accused has given me my money and I have suffered no prejudice financially or otherwise. We have all agreed to forgive each other and solve our differences outside police and criminal courts interference. "Accused has apologised for his actions and I voluntarily feel obliged to forgive him. I am a businessman and always busy such that I will not be able to pursue the matter in a criminal court, moreso considering that I am no longer prejudiced in any way." [1]

Saying he was cleared or that the charges were false is a flat misrepresentation of the source.

The other material I reverted was entirely promotional, with no context or encyclopedic value. This is a biography not a hagiography. Also, the source cited is not the original source but rather a claimed reprint on an online radio station's (Nehanda Radio) web page. Jbh^Talk 21:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 21:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The source/s clearly says he was cleared by the judge. One of the Headlines actually reads " Prophet Angel's warrant of arrest cancelled. Read carefully.

References

• I removed the section entirely. I got so caught up in the misuse of the source that I forgot that Wikipedia, per WP:BLPCRIME, simply does not put accusations of crimes in biographies. Jbh^Talk 13:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok so we can delete the talk about this particular issue then.

NPOV, PROMO and FRINGE

Please note that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion and requires that information be presented in a neutral manner. Edits that say in Wikipedia's voice things like "Uebert Angel, has been called many things that he is not but one thing that is undisputable is that he is a prophet called by God. The Multi-millionaire, Charismatic preacher and leader of Spirit Embassy The GoodNews Church has a unique gift of prophecy witnessed by thousands of his church followers" [2] and "Despite the criticism, Angel believes in the prosperity gospel and believes that you have to practice what you preach." which I removed here [3] are simply not appropriate. Claims of actual supernatural powers like prophesy are covered by WP:FRINGE and require solid, independent proof. It is OK to say he claims these abilities not that he has them. Also, based on this, I need to ask. Do you have any association with Uebert Angel? If so please see Wikipedia's guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. Jbh^Talk 20:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Stubbed article

I have stubbed the article because half of it was promotional and half discussed his profligate lifestyle based on popular press sources and I think this is not the way to NPOV and is at least questionable from a WP:BLP standpoint. I took a brief look on GScholar and there seem to be several books and papers which discuss him and his ministry which can be used to base an article on. Some of the press material may be good to bring in later when there is some substance to the article.

Yet again

We do not say "The BBC said". The BBC did not "say" a single journalist who writes for the BBC said. Jbh^Talk 19:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Prophecy revert

We can say he says he accurately "prophesied" the result but not that he did so in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:FRINGE for information on supernatural claims. Jbh^Talk 14:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A thread has been opened at the BLP noticeboard

See WP:BLPN#Uebert Angel Jbh^Talk 14:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Stubbed article again

The article as it stood violated WP:NPOV and many of the sources were poor tabloid quality sources. Some of the good sources were used only to cite "compliments" which have no place in an encyclopedia entry. 'The BBC has called him "young and charismatic".[2][3] Forbes Magazine describes him as "one of those entrepreneurs who are making a million dollar fortunes. These do not inherit riches, they earn it"' "The BBC" does not say things, "Forbes Africa" does not say things - the quotes are not the editorial opinion of either and claiming so is a misrepresentation of the sources - which is a very bad thing. "He is also linked to worlds richest family Rothschild" No one cares if he has "links" to the Rothschilds unless those "links" can be explained beyond he was seen with one of them. This quote "His name has become synonymous with miracles, healings, signs, wonders and prophecies. His prophetic gifting often reveals peoples' names, addresses and some pertinent information on the lives of members of the community" is pure puffery and sourced to a blog. This "Angel owns mansions including one in Lincolnshire United Kingdom, a Lamborghini and a Bentley.[8] He also bought his wife Beverly Angel a red Lamborghini Huracan, reportedly for $400,000.00, for valentines in February 2016" no one cares what he owns and it seems like and advert for his Prosperity Gospel preaching and is a particularly bad since his wealth is often mentioned as a criticism. This "Despite the criticism he has received for living a flamboyant life, Angel believes in the prosperity gospel and believes that you have to practice what you preach." is a self serving unsourced quote.

Elements of the problems have been mentioned before in the sections above but there has been no discussion here whatsoever by the principal author. Simon Mugava I have given reasons for my removals now please discuss why you think the material should be included. Also, please state whether you have any connection to Uebert Angel or his ministries. Based on your editing I strongly suspect you have a conflict of interest. Jbh^Talk 15:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley I have noticed the comments on this talk page. I have explained that I'm independent and not associated to Uebert Angel and his ministries. It might look like I am promoting him but I'm not. A subject of prophets has always been my interest. The Rothschild family are on Wikipedia and I think its fair to include that part. May be you can assist me in including some info on Uebert Angel.Simon Mugava (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for comming to the talk page. All the source says it that he met with someone - that is it. If there ever is some source that says what the relationship is then it would be appropriate to include it. As I mentioned before, there is likely some good information in high quality dources about Uebert Angel and his ministries but the sources and information that were in the article are basically tabloid, biased or used inappropriately. In my opinion it would be best to leave it as a stub, a place holder, until some of those sources can be found and included.

A stub, while small, is something that can be improved over time and will ultimately result in a good, policy compliant article. As it stood the article was not only non-policy compliant it was unstable - no one would want to work on an article that gets cleaned up and reversed constantly. Please read neutral point of view. It is not saying bad things to balance good things - think of what Encyclopedia Britannica would say and how they would say it. As I have time I will see what sources I can find, there is no question that he is a notable subject. Jbh^Talk 16:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I reverted the BBC addition because the source says only "Uebert Angel, a young charismatic prophet, arrives to preach to his flock by helicopter and tells them that God wants them to be rich, as rich as he is" there is nothing to suggest this is significant judgement or anything than "colour" for an article focusing on other people. I removed the Forbes Africa quote because it was promotional, and as it stands, WP:UNDUE. There is some material in that article that can be mined for content though. Jbh^Talk 17:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhurnley Thank you for the information. Again it to me his story is more of a business man who later ventured into ministry hence I start with the business profile then church/ministry. If you find the sources that would be great. I will work with the guide line of Encyclopaedia Britannica to see how i can write some if the points. Simon Mugava (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see the "business man who ventured into ministry" seems to be his PR narrative whereas the reliable sources see him as a religious leader. While he may indeed see himself as a business man first we must stick with what the sources cover. That is one of the things that makes writing Wikipedia articles hard, we stick with the sources both in terms of fact and emphasis not our own views. Jbh^Talk 17:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Christ, if you are just going to keep putting the same promotional crap in what is the fucking point to trying to improve the article? Jbh^Talk 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)