Talk:Ernest Angley

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does he really reach a billion People? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Ernest Angley certainly is not the typical televangelist

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I let some time pass and read it again.  It looks OK as is.  --Beirne (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Documentation on healing 

message: "This year Rev. Angley will be turning 99, he has taken a leave of absence from the services and Rev. Machamer and Rev. Millar have taken over his duties. Rev. Angley is now able to get the time off that he needs." 
"Facebook Messenger Reply - 2:18 pm 7/31/2020 - from https://www.facebook.com/ErnestAngleyMinistries/ Leonbible (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020 

message: I don't have any sources to prove it. But I believe John Byner on Bizarre (TV series), did play a few Ernest Angley inspired characters. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Byner on Bizarre