Talk:Ernest Angley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

To Modusoperandi[edit]

Faith healing is widely understood as healing through one's own faith, whether that be faith in a power or one's one power or chi. Ernest Angley has said publicly and in print that he is not a faith healer as most people describe it. He has no faith in his own power, but just prays for people in the name of Jesus and it is Jesus who gives the healing. The words "faith healing" have taken on so many definitions and have been associated with those in the 1800's that did not use the name Jesus in their prayers for others. These would claim that they personally are the healers. Ernest Angley has never claimed to heal anyone, in public or print. You can read many articles that he has written at http://www.ernestangley.org . Furthermore, the blog that you have submitted for discussion was reviewed and it is obvious that you wish to discredit Ernest Angley based on your own beliefs or disbeliefs. Wikipedia articles are not meant to reveal an editors beliefs, but just the facts about a person, place, thing, event, etc. Therefore, your discussion was removed. This Wikipedia article is based on the facts about this individual's life and we, the readers and editors, should not include our beliefs, intents to discredit or defame an individual. I hope you'll be understanding.

"The article you mentioned at beginning was inverstigated and found based on lies and removed." Can you(user:shogun7?) site the proofs that led to the removal? If the pamplet (that read in part, "Lame walk! Deaf hear! Blind see! AIDS & other Death Diseases Healed!") was a fabrication then why does his own website specifically mention "There's a person: You have AIDS," discerned the man of God. "I'm not going to point you out. But you're a man, healed right now, saith the Lord, of AIDS"/"You never thought it could happen to you; you thought you would die from AIDS," said the man of God. "In fact, you came tonight for something else, but you're now healed of AIDS."?
Whether it is, or is not faith healing is not my opinion, biased or otherwise. Semantics and opinions aside, it is faith healing. OED defines "faith healing" as "healing acheived by faith and prayer as opposed to conventional medicine". I'd link the OED site, but I'm using the paper edition as the online one appears to require a login.
I'm trying not to appear biased, originally I found some info not mentioned within his article and posted it here hoping to get confirmation or denial (coloured with comments of my hopelessly biased opinion, as I thought at the time that "talk" meant "speak freely". I have since been corrected on that matter). Instead the whole post got bumped as biased, so I self edited it and posted again. Again it got bumped, this time as biased and based on lies. So I'm trying one last time, no bias, questions only. I understand that the blog I linked was biased, I have yet to find anything that mentions the pamphlet or his trip to Africa neutrally (the closest to a neutral stance article I found was one on his 747). If the pamphlet was "based on lies", why are do the promises on match those of his website?
I'd just like, if possible, to get the whole story; siting proofs of the counterfeit nature of the pamphlet now would be a good start. Siting them before editing out posts would have been more neighbourly. Modusoperandi 19:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's now more obvious to me that you and I have a misunderstanding that I wish to correct and I apologize for not being more clear. When I stated that the blog article was based on lies I was not refering to the crusade announcement pamphlet that was used to advertise the Ernest Angley service in Lesotho. I was refering to the biased blog comment that you referenced. It was from a person who doesn't believe in God healing anyone and was seeking to discredit Ernest Angley. After investigating who the blogger is and other associated articles it was found that he was not an eyewitness to the Ernest Angley services nor did he interview anyone that attended. I did interview many who attended and was not able to prove that the Ernest Angley's claims in the pamphlet were not in fact true. There were people in Lesotho a year ago that had been diagnosed with HIV and who, after attended Ernest Angley's service, went back to the hospital and HIV was no longer found in their body. Futhermore, I believe the blogger stated that Ernest Angley was just there to take money from "these poor Africans" or something like that. It is widely known even among government officials that Ernest Angley doesn't take money out of the countries that he visits. In fact, the king of Lesotho even invited Ernest Angley for a personal meeting for the second year in a row and has made a statement that he will personally attend and speak at Ernest Angley's next service when he returns to Lesotho. That certainly doesn't sound like the same reaction that the blogger had. I wasn't going to mention any of this because I'm not trying to bring testimonials into this article or discussion since that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. But, to try to clear up our misunderstandings I felt I had to divulge this information about my own investigations. I admit, I'm a skeptic at heart when it comes to evangelists, but when it comes to Ernest Angley I haven't found anything to refute the evidence of his proclamation of miracles. Having stated all this, I still believe it is best for editors and readers to not present our own views (negative or positive) in regard to any person that is included in Wikipedia articles or discussions, nor should we include others opinions such as the blogger who obviously doesn't care for Christian proclamations of miracles. His beliefs or disbeliefs have no place in a discussion about Ernest Angley, but should remain on his own blog. Shogon7 22 April 2006

It's okay. The problem with comms by text is that humans are visual beasts so, when keyboarding (not a verb, I know), we end up missing any visual clues that denote emotion or emotional response to emotion. I too, tried to find neutral, unbiased accounts of Mr. Angley's travels, but failed.
I'll let you in on a secret; unbiased accounts of anything are just about impossible, the best that we can hope to do is get (and present) both sides of the story. Perhaps criticism would be appropriate for something under the title of "criticism"? There were pages that were less biased, but that was the first one that I found, and none were unbiased. Plus (warning! my opinion follows!) saying that one is not a faith healer when one clearly faith heals, semantics aside, irks me. It would be (warning! terrible analogy follows!) like me, from my cubicle, saying that I'm not an office drone.
It would be good if we could afford a good scientific double-blind test of Angley's work; no matter the outcome, we'd at least have a period to put at the end of the sentence.
Perhaps we could put The Amazing Randi, and a documentary crew on it? (Nuts! My skepticism has reappeared. I'm sorry, it's just that Popoff soured me on the whole concept. That Popoff is still in business sours me more. Sigh). Randi would get to the bottom of it, though...heck, I'd see Angley in person, but the worst thing I have that could use curing is male-pattern baldness (and there's no way I'd risk wasting a miracle on something so vain). Modusoperandi 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "faith healer" denotes that the person is a "healer". This article simply states that Ernest Angley doesn't claim that title as a healer or faith healer. He has never claimed to heal anyone. So, since the article is simply stating what he doesn't identify himself as a faith healer, that isn't wrong in itself. It's simply stating his statement and this Wikipedia article is about him, not me or you. You can believe whatever you want about what makes a faith healer a faith healer, but to be "irked" by someone elses belief in an article about that person is a bit odd to me (sorry if you're offended, I'm not saying you're odd). Furthermore, a discussion that you and I or anyone else should attempt to prove or disprove whether God is healing anyone at any of Ernest Angley's services really doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but rather in a religion forum on another site. This Wikipedia article (or stub) about Ernest Angley is not a place to share our own beliefs or disbeliefs. It is an article about a Ernest Angley, HIS belief and HIS mission in life. Whether you or I agree with his doctrine or not makes no difference in this article nor should it in this discussion. Shogon 7 23 April 2006

I see your point. Checking out other Wiki articles on people I found all of them to be historical context only, no criticism or outside views (talk pages excluded). Only pages that are about subjects that are "bigger" than one person seem to contain sections with views other than those of the subject of the article. I understand now that if Randi were to prove or disprove Ernest then it would be okay to discuss here.
My point that one who faith heals is a faith healer is valid however, Ernest's opinion on the matter notwithstanding.
This is part of why I leave the article pages to the experts and ask questions on the talk pages; I learn about things on the article page, then get answers to questions on the talk page. Sorry if I come off as a pest. Modusoperandi 20:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment in response to Modusoperandi and his comment about Popoff: Yes, it irks me too about people like Popoff that are conning people, but I personally found out for myself that Ernest Angley is a whole different type of person. My wife and I sat in the very back of his auditorium in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio at one of his services one Friday night. We had never discussed my wife's tumor at the base of her brain with anyone, not even with her own parents. No one knew the agony she was suffering and she wanted to keep it a secret. Well, to our astonishment, during the service after Angley had preached, he pointed right at her and told her exactly what was wrong with her right down to very specific symptoms she was having and that he knew that God was healing her of the tumor. That night I reached around to the back of her head (where the tumor had originally expanded to pushing out) and it was completely gone. She is still cured today and that happened a number of years ago. So, of course, I am a believer that God does perform miracles. There are a lot of fakes in this world, but Angley isn't one of them. I'm thankful there are some good people still in this world that are helping people find faith in God and not trying to get rich. A newspaper reported what Angley's salary is and I make more than he does (I'm considered middle/lower class). I think a lot of us have been mistaken about this man, based on stereotypes. If my comments are considered too bias then go ahead and remove them, but I thought I'd share this to help us all realize we should be careful not to judge people too quickly. Let's try not to be skeptical of everything, but keep an open mind. May 3, 2006 TruthSeek (newly registered)
You're right, he is different than Popoff. How much different is, however, a matter of debate. Apparently James Randi did investigate him, at least that's what Randi (or an acceptable facsimile thereof) said in a reply to an email I sent to Randi.org querying who was investigated in The Faith Healers. How it turned out, I don't know, as I spend way too much time working or editing on Uncylopedia and not enough time making my brain do work by reading books. I hope to pick up a copy soon (soon being, unfortunately, relative).
That it worked for you and that he's not in it for the money are two huge check marks in my good column. I'm still skeptical, and probably always will be (even if I saw him and was healed of whatever ailed me I'd still be wondering about the how and why. Truthfully, I hope to never test this theory; I wouldn't wish disease on my worst enemy, nor would I do so for myself; the first would be petty, and the second, silly.).
Although others may chafe at your (or my) bias, I believe that the "talk" pages are about talking. Good discussion is the tasty icing on the filling cake of the article page (see Talk:Theodore_Roosevelt or Talk:Homeopathy for good examples of sometimes wildly biased, but civil, dialectic). Modusoperandi 05:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Although I admire Randi for his work in exposing psychics and such as frauds, when it comes to trying to disprove God's existance or disprove that God performs miracles through good people who aren't out to get rich, I must say Randi and those like him are like those that Jesus spoke of in Luke 16:30-31. Some people will never believe in a supernatural force or supreme being even if someone rose from the dead. Randi would have been one of those in Matthew 16:1-4 that were desiring a sign from Jesus. You can read what Jesus said. On a seperate thought, I like the "tasty icing" analogy - good one. TruthSeek 4 May 2006
I'm no master of english, but I'm pretty sure that the antonym of faith would be skepticism. 22:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be bias in our editing or discussion.[edit]

I completely agree that we as editors have a responsibility to make sure our additions and discussions do not include our own bias. There are way too many articles throughout Wikipedia that are filled with people's own opinions (positive and negative) about individuals that it has really discredited Wikipedia as a whole.


Why would Hetar remove the photo of Ernest Angley?[edit]

To Hetar: Why in this world would you remove a photo of the person that the article is about? Have you not seen his website which shows a photo of him. It is Ernest Angley, therefore the photo was reinstated. Did you just not like it because he was holding a Bible? The man is a Christian minister so the Bible is certainly appropriate to be within the photo. Some people just shock me at their editing procedures. That photo can be verified by watching TV, looking at his website, seeing him in-person, etc. 3 May, 2006 Shogon7

I now realize that Wikipedia needed the photo source info so they wouldn't be violating any copyright laws, so the source has been provided, but the source info may still not have been placed in the right area so that the image is considered sourced. Can anyone help with this? I will check with the Creative Services Dept. at his ministry headquarters. 10 May, 2006 Shogon7

Who is he?[edit]

I once asked Ernest what his real name is, and he told me that was his real name. I asked for his birthdate, and he refused to answer. I asked his specific place of birth, and he refused to answer. I asked for his educational institutions, his seminary, and he refused to tell me. Wikipedia doesn't seem to know either. Do any of you? If God can heal people through his hand, why do we need hospitals and funeral homes?


To whomever posted the above question: It sounds like you may have come across to him as rude and undeserving of the answers you were seeking. I don't know what country you are from or who you are, but it's considered rude to ask a person their age and personal information. It's sounds like you were just trying to give him a hard time. Yes, that is his real name, why would you doubt that? I suggest that you get his autobiography which may answer a lot of your questions. As far as your question about healing, many people including Ernest Angley believe that medicine, doctors, nurses and hospitals are one of the ways that God has given mankind healing. God put healing in nature and wisdom to those in the medical field to use medicine to help us. There's also divine healing which takes place without man's help. As far as death, it comes to mankind because Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. God gave them a choice and the wrong choice they made meant death entered the human race and all their decendents. But, according to the Bible, God has given all of us a second chance at eternal life by accepting the sacrifice that Jesus made when he died in our place. Our souls can be redeemed, but our bodies will eventually go back to the dust of the earth. This isn't the perfect world that God had intended us to live in. It's not His fault, but our own for making the wrong choices, starting with Adam and Eve choosing to disobey God. Thank God that he has had mercy upon this world or he would have already destroyed it. I'm sure it grieves Him everyday to see death, murders, violence, etc. upon this earth. He didn't want robots to serve Him so he gave mankind free choice and He now only intervenes thru prayer. Hope this helps answer your question. There's a lot more that Ernest Angley gives in detail in His books that has helped me understand more about God and the Bible. TrumpetGirl, 20:10 12 July 2006

Does he really reach a billion People?[edit]

This article seems to be more of an advertising pamphlet than an objective article. Are there any independent references for the claim of reaching television audience of over a billion people? There also seems to be a problem with over broad phrases that could be narrowed down or cleaned up. I have listed some of the phrases that I think need to be reconsidered below: “throughout the world”, “small house” and “ministry that takes him all over the world”.

The phrase “underprivileged nations” is also fuzzy as it is not an internationally accepted term.

As for the debate about healing sick people on crusades, it seems best to leave these as unsupported claims until reasonable proof can be found. The burden of proof does not lie on those who do not support Mr Angley as you cannot prove a negative. In short it is impossible to prove that Mr Angley does not heal the sick with miracles. It is possible to prove that Mr Angley does heal the sick though examining with a single case.Timvb 10:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Claims God cures AIDS through prayer[edit]

While I understand that opinionated blog entries may be met with skepticism, two of the items provided were actual reports from news stories, noting that the advertising campaign for Angley's "crusade" had been cancelled. This is certainly unbiased, hence their being restored to the article. --Modemac 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the articles you've restored are unbiased and should be left intact. Unfortunately, the reporter didn't dig deeper to find out the rest of the story that has unfolded from March 22, 2007 through April 19, 2007. Verifiable medical documents were brought forth by alleged former HIV positive patients who now have medical proof they are now HIV negative after prayer. I've seen their testimonials and documents and cannot disprove them at this point. Therefore, as controversial as it may seem, we should keep an open mind about the unexplained or what many call a divine miracle. I was once a doubter too, but I've learned that we should at least have a balanced approach to these Wikipedia articles. --Sonet5 21:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to this article say that patients (plural) have submitted medical proof of their healing from AIDS. The referenced page only has one patient that produced documentation. This should be corrected in the article. We haven't seen the documentation, of course, but if it is going to be referred to at least the number of patients should match the referenced material. --Beirne 23:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, the documentation referred to by the woman in the clip appears to be that she was free of HIV. She did not produce documentation that she had HIV to begin with. --Beirne 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I shall attempt to look into how to reference a live television broadcast where the video and documents were shown. I was an eyewitness to the public statements and displays of the documentation (showing they once had AIDS and now do not). At this point I can only reference the live broadcast as it was seen by me with the channel and date, as I have done. The woman shown in the video (which is linked) did state in public that she had HIV and has her original medical documentation along with the new diagnosis. My question is, can public statements be referenced even if there isn't a scanned photo of the documents that are mentioned. If public statements cannot be referenced by eyewitnesses then reporters who write their columns in print or web based applications would also fall into the same group as mere eyewitnesses. Would they have to support their columns (which we generally use as references) with scanned photos of ASA's paperwork, etc. proving what they are reporting about what a government agency has allegedly stated. Of course, I'm just using that as an example, even though I don't doubt the report. Furthermore, the live television broadcast which I saw and heard did show 4 children with their documentation. I see no difference in me reporting what I saw and heard and any other reporter reporting what they saw and heard. The only difference is I'm not able to show the live broadcast through Wikipedia. Any help on the rules of referencing live public addresses thru public meetings, radio or television broadcasts would be greatly appreciated. --Sonet5 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I just played back the video of the woman in Surinam, and while she says she was diagnosed with AIDS she does not refer to the documentation saying that. She didn't read anything from the document, but says the doctor found her to be HIV negative. --Beirne 19:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I just played back the video of the woman refer to and I heard her say that she was diagnosed with HIV 7 years ago and then she was re-diagnosed recently and the doctors could not find any HIV in her blood after "God healed her". She does refer to her document she is holding in her hand. I see no reason to doubt her statements about either her HIV positive diagnosis 7 years prior and her new diagnosis. I'm sure she still has the documents from 7 years ago, but was concentrating on her new diagnosis that contained her good news. This video should certainly be left intact as a reference of the subject and Ernest Angley's proclamation that God can heal any disease. It does not mean that everyone believes what he believes, but the article is only about him and not our beliefs or doubts. If we keep going like this he'll just put more video on his website with even more documentation (past and present diagnosis) and then skeptics will just say the documents are fake. Then again, if any document or reference can be deemed fake by any of us editors then Wikipedia would just be shut down. If a person who was sick with any disease testifies that they are now healed how can anyone prove they aren't healed except a doctor, and why would they want to prove such a thing. I'm glad for anyone who once was sick and now isn't, by whatever means they were helped. If it is found that that woman in the video was putting forth a false statement, then and only then can we remove that link. --MediaReport 16:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've re-worded the section that the referenced link refers to in order to more closely match the description of the video, as user Beirne has correctly pointed out. This should eliminate any perceived discrepancies between the text and the sourced material. --MediaReport 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a good rewording of the text. I think a bit more should be done but wanted to talk about it here first.
  • The statement In response to some who require medical documentation to prove God heals AIDS reveals a POV, implying that something is wrong in wanting documentation.
  • The first mention of documentation still says that patients (plural) are producing documentation. The reference only has one patient that I could find, unless it is buried in the half-hour interview that I'm not ambitious enough to listen to. I only say this because I spent time looking around on Ernest's page trying to find the other patients. The additional patients could presumable come from the reference to the TV show, but this will take some rewriting to make the language be correct and flow properly.--Beirne 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I didn't get the same negative feeling you did when reading "In response to some...", I did revise it and the rest of the sentence to make it more concise based on your observations. --MediaReport 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm nitpicking, but was her documentation specifically in reply to the government of Suriname or was it more just something Angley started encouraging because the the issues in Africa? --Beirne 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider your question nitpicky. Yes, she brought her documents in response to a Guyana health agency's comments she had heard. I understand from eyewitnesses in Guyana that she was upset with the health agency's comments in the news and brought forth her documents to speak in public. She volunteered her information unprovoked by Angley, but simply showed up that day to his public service to speak if he would allow her and of course, as we see in the video the testimony took place. It's surprising that people are getting bold enough to come forward to even admit that they once had HIV. In the past, people risked losing their jobs, but maybe countries are changing their laws to protect HIV victims from losing their jobs. People should never lose their jobs out of misguided fears of infection. Sorry about getting off the subject; just my two cents.--MediaReport 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I reworded the paragraph to limit it to the information in the clip. --Beirne 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea of the claims made in this section, but just for future reference: "Adelphia Cable Channel 7" is actually the cable position of the ministry-owned TV station, WBNX-TV 55 Akron, Ohio. And it's Time Warner Cable, anyway. It is not a separate station, and I've corrected it as such. 76.189.88.36 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That is true. Adelphia Cable was purchased by Time Warner Cable and Ch. 7 has remained WBNX-TV 55 (Digital 30) Cleveland/Akron, Ohio. I did not mean it was seperate, just what channel it was seen on. Of course, it was seen on many other cable channels depending on where you are located. I should have included station call letters not just channel number. Sorry for any confusion on my part.--MediaReport 15:30, 13 Sept. 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaReport (talkcontribs)

3-1/2 years later I have come back and removed most of the discussion about Angley providing documents for healing. What I have learned since then is the importance of reliable sources in Wikipedia. Someone holding up a document on the stage or Angley saying he has documents does not mean that any documents have been provided to or accepted by authorities in South Africa or elsewhere. They are also basically primary sources. The African article describing the situation is an example of an acceptable secondary source, and something like it that provides followup on the documentation would be great. --Beirne (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but the now outdated article that was printed only at the time of the initial request for documentation is not enough source to say that documentation has not been presented, and therefore none of us can say that documentation has not yet been presented since we can't source that conjecture. What I do know is that according to television reports in South Africa and the independent medical facility in South Africa that examined the reported patients, the documents have been established and have been presented and made readily available (this was also reported on radio and TV in South Africa, although it's obviously difficult to source/link the spoken word on TV or radio). This was made public and in fact the following year, Angley was permitted to advertise healings. The authorities have cooperated with his organization since that time, as their main concern was with Benny Hinn's questionable activities in South Africa. This is why Angley has promoted publically that he supports the ban against such advertising unless there is medical proof, which he has since presented publically and the authorities have not questioned since. Also, Angley actually presented the patients that had documentation of both a HIV positive report and then tested negative. This was a double test by a medical facility not affiliated with Angley's ministry (I personally witnessed the documents, but cannot source a newspaper report about them). Of course, the newspaper bloggers/reporters refused to print a story on that and therefore it is unfortunate that it seems only a newpaper article/opinion counts as a proper source. We all know the biased, one way or another, among reporters and some allow there own beliefs or disbeliefs to affect the way they write or what they choose not to write about. The line "documentation has not been presented" must be removed because we don't know if that is indeed the case, but that's only a conjecture. Just because you haven't seen or heard the public reports in South Africa doesn't mean there haven't been any. Find a recent government report from South Africa that states Angley never made available the documentation and only then can we proceed with saying as such in this Wikipedia article. I've tried to find something like that, but of course cannot. I also suggest we modify the section title since the controversy that was sourced states the doubt by the reporter of whether "Jesus heals AIDS?" not "Angley heals AIDS" which of course Angley himself has never claimed. The controversy here has been stated in the sourced material as a doubt of whether Jesus can cure AIDS, not Angley who has never claimed to heal anyone. MediaReport (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Angley certainly is not the typical televangelist[edit]

I'm new to this and don't know if this belongs here in discussion, but I thought I'd share my experience. I'm not a follower of his, but got to see where he lives when I was sent to do some repair work on his house. No, I won't reveal location (that would be stupid). He certainly lives the way he says in public that he lives, quite modestly. His home is older and small, but very clean and orderly. Certainly not what one would expect of a famous television celebrity. Seems some televanglist have mansions, but not this guy! He was friendly and down to earth and didn't preach at me at all. I could tell he's not the kind of Christian that goes around in public trying to get everybody saved in a pushy way (you know the type). He saves the preaching for his church and TV. I was impressed with his humility and gratitude. So, to anyone who might think he's raking in a bunch of money for himself, I saw no evidence of that with his house. I've worked at a lot of houses (general repair, roofing, landscaping) and usually when someone has a lot of money to spend they have a big expensive house and a number a very nice cars. Looks like he had one car. Anyhow, just my thoughts in case anyone is interested. David W33 9:00, 14 Sept. 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching his television program at the moment, and he looks fairly typical to me. He begs for money and performs "healings". He just "healed" a gentleman with no sense of smell and three "deaf" people... amazing how his sort never "heal" amputees.__deleted per WP:BLP__ --71.98.105.102 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's see, a person got healed who had previously had no sense of smell and three others that were deaf now can hear? I'd say that is not typical, because if you notice those people they aren't faking it. I saw the same thing you did and I say it is genuine. I've seen fake junk before and this isn't fake. You assume those people are faking it and you probably don't believe there is a God or that He does perform miracles. But, that is your opinion and I have my own.__deleted per WP:BLP__ In fact, I thought maybe some of these healings were fake too, until I witnessed it myself. I was healed when Angley prayed for me after I had been injured in an accident. My spine was damaged and I couldn't walk properly without extreme pain. After he prayed for me (no hokus pokus, just prayed to God for my healing) I was able to instantly straighten my back, walk correctly and without any pain. It was verified by doctors that I'm completey normal now. On another note, I think this discussion page is actually supposed to be for discussing the article, not our own opinions about whether we believe God is performing miracles through Ernest Angley's prayers or not. I only added my experience because the negative comment by user 71.98.105.102 was reverted back in by Modemac. I believe the comments by 71.98.105.102 are indeed vandalism and if it and my comments are to be removed due to their non-neutrality then I would not object. But, no one should remove one without the other also being removed. Shogon7 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't expect others to add their own POV after my topic. I was simply stating facts in regard to how he lives (his house) and that I was surprised that it wasn't a luxury home. How that topic turned into a person's POV on healing is strange and could be considered POV vandalism (see user 71.98.105.102 or maybe it's actually user Modemac who just forgot to login before creating their POV comment and name calling). Again, I'm non-biased on this man and just added facts about the type of home he lives in. I recommend removal of at least the name calling __deleted per WP:BLP__ as this is purely negative POV. Name calling is not permitted in Wikipedia. David W33 19:40:00, 21 Jan. 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted a potentially slanderous term from the foregoing, but would remind everyone that none of this information is useful to the article, which is what this Discussion page is for. Wikipedia is essentially an encyclopedia of published, reliably sourced information, not a blog for personal opinion or personal experiences. JGHowes talk - 20:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
David, thanks for your character report of Mr. Angley. He seems like a genuine, nice guy and I'm glad to hear that your personal encounters with him substantiate that. Friendlyliz (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Documentation on healing[edit]

I put the sentence "It is unknown if such documentation has been provided or accepted", which discusses Angley's offer of documentation, back into the article. The specific issue in South Africa was that he hadn't provided documentation backing his claims. Angley saying he has documentation and people holding up documents in a crusade don't count. The story is left hanging because we don't know if the ministry provided documentation and if it was then able to advertise healing. For that reason I put the sentence at the end of the paragraph. Obviously someone knows the answer, but not us editors. I'm interested in knowing the answer, whatever it may be, but it needs a solid source and clear statement. --Beirne (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I answered this question in the above section on Claims Jesus heals Aids, but will state here that I have personally seen the documentation and it was indeed made available to officials. It was done by an independent medical center in South Africa and the patients had double testing to ensure proper diagnosis. This was reported on TV and radio in South Africa, but I have no way to source the particlar broadcasts. Therefore, since I know for a fact the documents were offered and Angley was indeed permitted to advertise healings the following years without further advertising disruptions, I strongly believe it's best to remove the statement (which I know to be wrong) that documents are not known to have been presented. Since no one can source that documents have NOT been presented and eyewitnesses and television reports state otherwise it's best to leave off that particular conjecture, don't you agree? Leaving it out is a more unbiased way then trying to say we don't know if they've been presented since that's attempting to speak for all of us. On another note to Beirne, I like the way you've reorganized this article. It's much cleaner and easier to read. MediaReport (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Beirne somewhat and with MediaReport somewhat, but see no problem with simply including (as has been done) what Angley has publically stated since this article is about him and not really about the debate on whether Jesus heals anyone. That's a whole other topic. Simply stating that he says he has documents now is good enough to include since a number of us editors have heard this publically. It doesn't mean we believe the medical center's reports, but Angley has made them available to officials and I believe that was the question. So, based on that it would be okay to leave out the line that states the supposed unknown. It simply is too broad to say something is unknown when it actually has been known in South Africa that those documents exist and are available. It has puzzled me that CNN nor other press haven't chosen to cover more stories like this. There are other reports of AIDS positive patients mysteriously being tested negative and that after double and triple checks both showing positive and then later negative. Some patients testify of it being through prayer and that is of course the great mystery to some of us. But, that has been in the news, so this report about Angley's claims that God can cure diseases is not entirely unusual and has been a part of the Christian and Jewish history going back a long time. There's nothing unusual about a Christian minister or priest who believes in divine intervention. If they believe in the Bible, then they should preach about this healing hope. I say this as one who doesn't necessarily follow any particlar religious leader.Labdoodle (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I let some time pass and read it again. It looks OK as is. --Beirne (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

() I'm not sure what to think of the latest changes on the topic. It is true that women did show some sort of paper on stage, but there wasn't a whole lot that could be seen or verified. While the statement is true as written, especially with the word alleged, I'm not sure that it makes a point about the issue. I don't have a problem with the statement that Angley will offer documentation to the governments, but women holding up something something on stage isn't the same as providing it to the government. What we need to round out the topic is information on whether he actually submitted documentation to a government that required it and if they accepted it. Short of that the paragraph was probably fine as is. --Beirne (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe we may be referring to two different television broadcasts or maybe two different portions of the same broadcast. The part some have referred to, in regards to documentation shown, isn't just the woman on stage which is evidently the only one/part you saw, but also a studio interview in which the actual documents were shown close up full screen (as separate still shots). These were from a South African medical clinic and were positive testings and subsequent negative testings of the same 4 subjects (double tested positive/double tested negative by the clinic with corresponding dates). And, as far as whether the S.A. government received the clinic's documents, I don't currently see anything in the article stating that documents were received, so I agree that the paragraph is fine as is. Obviously, something occurred in subsequent years that satisfied the government, as they've allowed them to advertise since that time, but no need to include that in the article. MediaReport (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It's been a while since I've seen the broadcast, so you could be right about the studio interview. My point stands, though. The issue is that the S.A. government requested documentation regarding successful healings. Ernest saying that he will produce the documentation is relevant; people showing something on TV isn't. Nothing on the show verifies the authenticity of the documentation, and people showing it just says that they have a piece of paper. If there were reliable secondary sources validating the documentation then at least we could say that, but here all we can say is that someone is holding up some documents that may or may not be valid. The part about showing the documents on the show should be taken out as meaningless as the documents aren't verified. --Beirne (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The question isn't whether you or I think its verified to our liking as neither of us are medical professionals. The case here is that the statement and proclamation was established over public airways and that is the only thing the sentence in this article is stating. It does not state anything other than what other statements are made in articles in Wikipedia when a public figure is heard saying something on TV or radio. If we are to begin removing all those public statements then it means Wikipedia will be about half of what it is now. I understand your hesitation as you didn't see the medical documents as I did (it doesn't mean anyone has to believe them and that is why the word 'alleged' was included), but no one can say that they were not submitted to the S.A. government (without sourcing), just as no one at this point can say they were (without sourcing). So, don't say documents weren't submitted unless you can source that. At this point there is nothing in the article that states that documents were submitted, only that he stated publically (as I and many heard for ourselves) that he can submit documents. There are so many articles on Wikipedia about living people that do include their public statements made on TV and their own websites without sourcing newspapers. Look at Bill Maher's article where some of his statements are presented in the article with no news source, and sometimes only from his own website. But, those statements were public and since editors like myself and others witnessed it we can elect to include them. Again, the article only states what he has stated. It does not try to convince anyone for or against the possiblity that God can heal people. This man, after all, is a Christian minister so of course he believes that God exists and that he heals, and I have no problem with his public statements being included that have been heard on TV, radio or websites. He's stating the documents are real and that is what has been included, his statement. Frankly, I think to include such a debatable section as whether God heals is just opening up more then what this article is supposed to be about. Of course, there are going to be athiests who will hate the very thought of such a proclamation. But, this is about Angley, his beliefs, his broadcasts, his life. MediaReport (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)