Talk:Angels of Mons

True or False
The likelihood of any story for or against a spiritual occurence being proved with material evidence, is slim. References to supporters are completely missing. As the article points out, WW I soldiers had poor survivability in the long run, so their stories were never recorded.

But the Wikipedia article on Mons does record a German's expectation that they should have won the battle, and wonders why they didn't (think Dunkirk and the missing carriers at Pearl Harbor here). My thought would be divine "intervention," a materialist would say, "they were just lucky." Isn't that usually the case?

Granted there was hype, but it wasn't all hype. Student7 03:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "NPOV" shouldn't assume that angels don't exist. I have been present when people have seen angels, on one occasion the person counted 28 of them. This account mentions none of the evidence cited in "Miracles and Angels" by Victor Pearce. Robert Cleaver supposedly swore an affidavit that he had seen it with his own eyes. -- Keith


 * I suppose an army of angels also helped Rommel kick the shit out of the allies during WWII then...--Threedots dead (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know that this can be leveled indiscrimately at every battle in history. I suppose Montgomery beat Rommel in Africa. And Rommel was at his wife's birthday party during the Normandy invasion. The Germans lacked a crucial leader at a crucial time. So maybe it applies to Rommel as well. At least in two instances. (We need to take care that this disussion doesn't deviate too far from Mons). Student7 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I just wanted to point out the sillyness of having god send out angels to fight on anyones side. It would just make him a total prick. And what do we get when we mix that with how and and when the story originated? Propaganda hoax.--Threedots dead (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keith wrote "Perhaps 'NPOV' shouldn't assume that angels don't exist. I have been present when people have seen angels, on one occasion the person counted 28 of them." Uh-huh. Were they Christian angels? -Muslim angels? -Mormon, Baha'i or Sikh angels? Many different religions believe in angels, but most of them are mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, anecdotal claims can't be used to support supernatural claims, and "sworn affidavits" don't get any more traction; I'm sure that I could easily find someone to swear out an affidavit claiming that they've seen leprechauns, which would prove nothing more than the ability of humans to believe nonsense. Regardless, ambiguity about the existence of "angels" does not belong in an encyclopedia, since encyclopedias are compendiums of facts, not fancy. I'm tweaking the sentence in question to reflect this.Bricology (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating!
From a sociopsychological and a religion-psychological perspective, this article is a pearl made from materialized fascination! It has everything: the needs of the warring sides, the visioning of the severely mentally stressed soldiers, the urban legend processing that reformulate and modify the visions to fit a certain point of view (which here is the England side of war), the cynical "master-minders" behind, i.e. the secret service, the debunkers who detective and reduce the "visions" to virtually nihil. This is a neat article! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Angel of Mons is true
I'm wild about the current form of this article!

There were people at the time claimed to have seen it. Why did the Germans in that sector recoil and their horses turn around and bolt?

58.164.34.60 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Angels of Mons. 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/20070818132117/http://netowne.com:80/angels-christian/angels/index.htm to http://netowne.com/angels-christian/angels/index.htm/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818132117/http://netowne.com:80/angels-christian/angels/index.htm to http://netowne.com/angels-christian/angels/index.htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angels of Mons. 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 tag to http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2386/is_2_113/ai_95107633/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316005857/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/213/the_angel_of_mons.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/213/the_angel_of_mons.html
 * Added tag to http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2386/is_2_113/ai_95107633/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://netowne.com/angels-christian/angels/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)