Talk:Uebert Angel/Archive 1

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
J bh 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." 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. J bh 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.

Ok so we can delete the talk about this particular issue then.
 * 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. J bh  Talk  13:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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  and  which I removed here  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. J bh 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. J bh 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. J bh Talk  14:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A thread has been opened at the BLP noticeboard
See WP:BLPN J bh  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" 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. 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 is pure puffery and sourced to a blog. This 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 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. 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. J bh 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. J bh  Talk  16:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted the BBC addition because the source says only 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.  J bh  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. J bh  Talk  17:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not true Simon. Your public social media pages say you are a church member and you regularly post images with him. You also say on LinkedIn you are his Public Relations Manager.
 * ProfitBeast100 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The source is from google scholar how is it promotional though? Or may be you only accept reliable sources from certain countries e.g. the BBC from the UK? Most sources mention his business acumen as well as the religious side of things? A national online newspaper is reliable source? Unless you say only online newspapers from certain countries then? Simon Mugava (talk) 18:01, 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? J bh  Talk  17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Struck. Sorry, short temper lately. Last edited: 19:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have explained repeatedly why I find those quotes inappropriate. The BBC article mentions him in one line of the article. The Forbes quote, particularly without additional context, is used simply for aggrandizement. Why did you choose that rather than anything else in the article? Why do you think those two quotes are so important that you would edit war to keep them in? J bh  Talk  18:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If thats the case I can add more quotes from the forbes article, which i think is unnecessary? The fact that the one line was mentioned it means it is important surely? I can certainly quote the whole article but it is not necessary fro me. I'm including it because it's there, the source is there. It's true. I don't know you tell me why you it is war whether I only mentioned that quote or not. It is true. Articles from Google Scholar support the facts. Both his business acumen and religious leadership has been mentioned. Whether we start with the religious side or business side it doesn't change the facts! I prefer starting with the business side because that is how he started and then got into ministry.Simon Mugava (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, in point of fact just because it is mentioned does not mean it is important or appropriate for an article. It must also comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines both in content and presentation. Things like due weight, whether a supernatural claim of explanation is being used, being compliant with Wikipedia's policy regarding living people, whether it is presented in a neutral manner, whether it is promotional in content or tone, whether the sense of the source - in content and tone - is reflected etc. J bh  Talk  19:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed some unsourced material please do not re-insert it again without a reliable source. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Third opinion request
Are these quotes appropriate for the article:"A BBC Journalist has called him 'young and charismatic'.[2] He has featured in Forbes Magazine and was described as 'one of those entrepreneurs who are making a million dollar fortunes. These do not inherit riches, they earn it'." J bh Talk  18:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes they are because the BBC is a reliable and well known source. The fact that they mentioned it means it is important. I'm including it because it's there, the source is there. It's true Simon Mugava (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Simon Mugava (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am removing the Third Opinion request. If this is a dispute between User:Jbhunley and Simon Mugava, then there is no dispute because Simon Mugava has been topic-banned from this article pursuant to ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions.  If the dispute involves other editors also, there are more than two editors already involved.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Why am I banned? This is ridiculous. Banning an editor because of true facts that exists? Simon Mugava (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Clean up
, sorry I just edit-conflicted you with my own attempt at cleanup of the article. I'd be happy to discuss compromises here, rather than get into a revert war. Can I point out that the Zimbabwe Daily News claims to be "Zimbabwe's leading daily newspaper, a source of balanced and unbiased news on Zimbabwean issues", so should be a reliable source. I'm not sure why they might invent a story and attribute it to Forbes, but I don't see anything in their article that raises a red flag for me. I think the source should stay. --RexxS (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Forbes
Can anyone confirm that the "Forbes article" that was cited actually exists? The linked sources appear to be glorified press releases by the subject of the article (or his organization). I went looking for the actual article but turned up nothing. Let's not include the source/claims until it can be confirmed that they're legit please - it looks to me like rather transparent self-promotion. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The source quoted is the Daily News (Harare):
 * That in itself, should be a sufficiently reliable source. I don't wish to be rude, but I'm afraid that you seem to be disputing the claim of a reliable source by your own original research. I know it's galling not to be able to find the Forbes article that the Daily News refers to, but your inability to find it is insufficient grounds to remove the source and text. If you dispute the reliability of the source cited, then please feel free to ask for another opinion at the WP:RSN. Would you be kind enough to self-revert, please? --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Chill out RexxS, I've been busy looking and turned up this - so the article does appear to exist, my mistake. I'll revert my removal. I still think it's very odd to cite a copy-pasted version of the article in another publication rather than the article itself though. We should probably also clarify that the article appeared in Forbes Africa, not Forbes. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm chilled, if a little embarrassed: It looks like the Daily News is not a reliable source, after all:
 * My apologies, you were right all along! Please don't self-revert Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I've just reverted your self-revert as I no longer have faith in Daily News. It won't hurt the article to leave out what I wrote for a while pending a conclusive check on what Forbes actually wrote. Can you see inside that issue and check the full text? Otherwise it will probably need a trip to a big library to find Forbes Africa May 2014. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your efforts here! I was able to get a copy of the Forbes Africa article (It is a "Forbes Life" bio on pp 52-54 of the May 2014 issue) via Zino. The text is, as far as I can see, the same as provided in the Daily News. My concern about it is that it seems very credulous in its tone - it claims fulfilled prophecies at face value and overall reads like a PR/puff piece. The article calling it into question though has its own problems - describing him as a "necromancer" and making unsupported claims of academic fraud as well as its claim that the article does not exist being simply untrue. The popular press surrounding this person seems to be either hagiographical, trivial or scandalous.   J bh  Talk  19:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was just coming back after further digging to say that I'd found a copy of the article too. I agree that it still needs to be used carefully though, as it seems almost like promotional content (eg, "he has presidents and the rich on speed dial"). Fyddlestix (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If we do end up using it, here's a proper citation for the Forbes piece:
 * Thank you both for your efforts here! I was able to get a copy of the Forbes Africa article (It is a "Forbes Life" bio on pp 52-54 of the May 2014 issue) via Zino. The text is, as far as I can see, the same as provided in the Daily News. My concern about it is that it seems very credulous in its tone - it claims fulfilled prophecies at face value and overall reads like a PR/puff piece. The article calling it into question though has its own problems - describing him as a "necromancer" and making unsupported claims of academic fraud as well as its claim that the article does not exist being simply untrue. The popular press surrounding this person seems to be either hagiographical, trivial or scandalous.   J bh  Talk  19:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was just coming back after further digging to say that I'd found a copy of the article too. I agree that it still needs to be used carefully though, as it seems almost like promotional content (eg, "he has presidents and the rich on speed dial"). Fyddlestix (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If we do end up using it, here's a proper citation for the Forbes piece:

One issue is that as a charismatic preacher with a huge following in a very traditional region, there is likely 'capture' of most of the popular press either for or against him. He preaches the "prosperity gospel" so one side wants to show his wealth, business success and influence while the other wants to primarily denigrate/minimize his wealth. The press sources all have that in common from the $400,000.00 Valentines Day present and the $2,000,000.00 property to "he has presidents and the rich on speed dial" and being reported as "visiting" the "Rothschild heir" and Nelson Mandela but with no context or details. I, personally, doubt that any popular press coming out of the region is not going to have a strong bias one way or the other which is why I've been trying to locate academic sources which are likely to be more detached. J bh Talk  19:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm particularly interested in what I think of as "bald facts" that I read in the online transcript in Daily News, namely: Angel's education (degrees from Salford and Bolton?); his initial ventures (concierge services?); and his real estate and media interests. I think that relating those, with dates, fleshes out some of Angel's biography without getting into the love/hate relationship that he seems to have with the African press. Do others think we have good enough sources to mention those as I attempted to previously? --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't revert if you want to put them in but my sense of that article is it is more a regurgitation of facts provided by Uebert Angel or his PR people than it is independent, fact checked reporting. It is Forbes Africa though so it is more or less presumed RS and my personal distrust of the article's independence and quality is just my personal opinion. J bh  Talk  20:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't revert if you want to put them in but my sense of that article is it is more a regurgitation of facts provided by Uebert Angel or his PR people than it is independent, fact checked reporting. It is Forbes Africa though so it is more or less presumed RS and my personal distrust of the article's independence and quality is just my personal opinion. J bh  Talk  20:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Potential sources
Corral for sources:

Tendentious editing
In this edit, has once again removed the birth name, Uebert Angel Mudzanire, a well-documented fact. There is a suggestion that he dropped his last name following an exposure "for academic fraud" according to ZimEye. That may turn out to be inaccurate, so I don't propose adding it to the article, but his birth name is indisputable and should be included as is normal for all BLPs where the subject's name at birth differs from that which they are commonly known by.

In addition, the same edit reinstates the hagiographic phrase A BBC journalist has called him "young and charismatic", which is not only an inaccurate quote, but misrepresents the single sentence found in the BBC article: In Zimbabwe, 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. The point of the sentence is that Angel is unusual for a preacher because he travels by helicopter and tells people that God wants them to be rich. Cherry-picking certain words just to cast Angel in a good light is not how Wikipedia articles are written.

To compound this, the edit removes the fact that he is a preacher (arguably his main claim to notability) from the opening sentence, but overlinks prophecy and prophet - links to which are not going to improve a reader's understanding of Angel. I've reverted the edit. --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Name change
The source for his birth name primarily focuses on a BLP sensitive question that is not otherwise discussed in the article. The current ref attests "Uebert Angel Mudzanire" while the new one says "Uebert Mudzanire" and that it was changed to "Uebert Angel". I suspect this is correct since I have seen his name written as "Uebert 'Angel' Mudzanire". Do you have proof that he bought a fake degree? Or its just speculation from one bogus article? 80.176.89.168 (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Should this be added as a ref for the name birth name? Should the (born Uebert Angels Mudzanire) simply be have "born" struck and the source now in the article used and this one ignored? I think that placing a ref with a title essentially accusing him of academic fraud is questionable. There are several scandals surrounding him besides this but all run up against BLPCRIME so giving further context would be difficult. Opinions? J bh Talk  21:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear from what you say just what sources say what. Perhaps you could make a list here of the differing independent sources that you have seen, so that we get an idea of what the different views are. I'll try to make a start below. --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear from what you say just what sources say what. Perhaps you could make a list here of the differing independent sources that you have seen, so that we get an idea of what the different views are. I'll try to make a start below. --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * - "Uebert Angel Mudzanire" x2; "Uebert Angel" x22.
 * Nehanda Radio and BBC's Letter from Africa both use Uebert Angel.
 * He is definitely now "Uebert Angel" the issue is how to address his former name some sources call him "Uebert Angel Mudzanire" while ones that address the name directly (so far also the ones that talk about the fake degree) refer to him as "Uebert Mudzanire" and specifically mention a name change.
 * It seems like the name change has some part in his shtick:
 * J bh Talk  00:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, BLP subjects don't get to decide on the facts in their biography. Reliable sources do, no matter how well-anointed they are: even Pope Francis has "born Jorge Mario Bergoglio" in the opening sentence of his article. The sources from the article that I looked at show that Angel was still referred to as "Mudzanire" by some sources even while he was in Zimbabwe. I wouldn't have any qualms about changing "(born Uebert Mudzanire)" to "(formerly known as Uebert Mudzanire)", if we're uncertain that it's his birth name. There's no doubt that he used to be known as Mudzanire, so that might be a better formulation. --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Either works for me. My concern was that the only source I had for that name was one that accused him of buying a fake degree in its title. The Uebert Angel is an Anoited Man source, which is specificly about his former name, can be used so that is not an issue now. J bh  Talk  21:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms about using any relevant, reliable source no matter what its title is. Wikipedia is not censored, although if we can find an alternative to an article with a prejudicial title, then it's kinder to do so. I've just amended the 'born' to 'formerly known as' to avoid the wiki-lawyering about birth certificates, etc. I consider the 'aka' abbreviation to be slang (or at least unencyclopedic), so I hope you don't mind me removing it. --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That works for me. J bh  Talk  23:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * J bh Talk  00:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, BLP subjects don't get to decide on the facts in their biography. Reliable sources do, no matter how well-anointed they are: even Pope Francis has "born Jorge Mario Bergoglio" in the opening sentence of his article. The sources from the article that I looked at show that Angel was still referred to as "Mudzanire" by some sources even while he was in Zimbabwe. I wouldn't have any qualms about changing "(born Uebert Mudzanire)" to "(formerly known as Uebert Mudzanire)", if we're uncertain that it's his birth name. There's no doubt that he used to be known as Mudzanire, so that might be a better formulation. --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Either works for me. My concern was that the only source I had for that name was one that accused him of buying a fake degree in its title. The Uebert Angel is an Anoited Man source, which is specificly about his former name, can be used so that is not an issue now. J bh  Talk  21:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms about using any relevant, reliable source no matter what its title is. Wikipedia is not censored, although if we can find an alternative to an article with a prejudicial title, then it's kinder to do so. I've just amended the 'born' to 'formerly known as' to avoid the wiki-lawyering about birth certificates, etc. I consider the 'aka' abbreviation to be slang (or at least unencyclopedic), so I hope you don't mind me removing it. --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That works for me. J bh  Talk  23:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That works for me. J bh  Talk  23:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhurnley is right in saying """Mudzanire" is irrelevant because from what I understand his name is Uebert Angel on his passport. Here is a link to a screenshot of his passport. It is false to say he was formerly Mudzanire, because he is and always was named Uebert Angel Formerly known as or aka is irrelevant. If he has the most reliable sources like the BBC or Forbes calling him "Uebert Angel" then Wikipedia should reflect that.Leigh01 (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not my position at all. The name is well sourced and appropriate for inclusion. The wishes of the article subject or his followers are completely irrelevant here. Do not post links to or pictures of personal documentation like passports, birth certificates or other identification documents. They contain the private information. Also, they have no weight in this discussion because when you change your name your identification documents change as well so the most they can speak to is the owner's name at the time of issue. J bh  Talk  15:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The source mentioning name change is not reliable come on. You are better than that. Uebert Angel has a finance degree from Salford University in the United Kingdom. How does one buy a fake degree in the UK? You can't base the name change according to this article i'm sorry. 80.176.89.168 (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC) If I may ask all you editors here, do you have proof that he bought a fake degree? I like what one said, now there is no doubt his name Uebert Angel, why not use that instead of the Mudzanire you don't have enough source about? Someone gave an example about the Pope, his page is a verified biography. Why not then get in touch with individual being discussed and get his full history and biography so that you can right a fair article or biography so to speak? 80.176.89.168 (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2016
Leigh01 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017
"Uebert and his wife BeBe Angel are internationally sought-after conference speakers and as global leaders, they are highly regarded for their vision, innovation and boldness. As the founders of THE GOOD NEWS CHURCH (Spirit Embassy) they have impacted millions of lives worldwide through their passion to win souls by bringing the revelation of the Good News of God’s grace (Euagellion) to the world." 185.65.210.93 (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Edit is obviously promotional, non-neutral, and encyclopedic. Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2017
105.232.255.195 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Prophet Angel is believed to be the pioneer of prophecy in Southern Africa, a claim he has proven countless times with mind boggling prophecies. some of the prophecies he has made before they happened include the deaths of Michael Jackson, and Margret Thatcher. He is well known for foreseeing the Kenyan Mall shootings that left countless dead leaving many people wondering why they didn't listen to the man of God. When he came to Africa to set up a ministry then called Spirit Embassy, he says that God told him when he was on board the plane to Africa to make His (God's) children rich which has been the center of his message ever since. His church has grown from 3 members to become a worldwide ministry with branches in the UK, USA, Australia, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia, Namibia, Zimbabwe and many more. The most popular of his spiritual sons Prophet Shepherd Bushiri runs his church in South Africa thanks to the inspiration of Prophet Angel. His ministry has transformed from Spirit Embassy to Spirit Embassy The Good News Church. Many now refer to him as the Good News Man due to his thrust and message that Christians must always attract good news. In one of his sermons he is reported to have said that "You can't use the mouth which the God I serve created to bring bad news to me" which is part of the core message of his church.

His signature Millionaire Academy has given birth to thousands of Christian Millionaires across the world and his Good News Nights are filled with the prophetic and miracles.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments in May 2017
I have moved these comments down from where they were put, in the middle of the old thread "Stubbed article again, where nobody's going to see them, after conferring with Rikki.doolan. RexxS, if there's an issue with reference tags, could you fix it please? Bishonen &#124; talk 15:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC).

I believe Forbes and BBC are extremely important and reliable sources as the African media sources you are using are definitely unreliable as they do not to me have any credibility or reliable sourcing. They are not known internationally like Forbes and BBC is, surely thats reason enough to exclude the 'unknown' African media's and include the 'well known' international medias, thats just common sense to me as the African ones because of their uncertainty they could be simply anyone writing anything, people with a serious agenda against the person, at least with Forbes and BBC we know them and can trust them more. I believe the African media sources should be removed 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Rikki.doolan (talk • contribs) 10:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that you socking again, ? Strangely enough, the criteria for reliable sources doesn't include your opinion about credibility. From what you say, you want to get rid of all of the the content from: (1) NewsDay Zimbabwe; (2) Nehanda Radio; (3) a scholarly article published by Verbum et Ecclesia; another scholarly article published in Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae published by the Research Institute for Theology and Religion, University of South Africa; and (4) The Angel Organisation - Angel's own website? It wouldn't leave much left. It's always possible they may not be reliable sources, but they do seem to have some appearance of reliability, for example, why would University of Bamberg Press be OK, but not Research Institute for Theology and Religion, University of South Africa? Similarly, do "people with a serious agenda against the person" get a free hand to publish on the Nehanda Radio website? It looks to me like Sharon Muguwu is a staff writer for Nehanda Radio, judging by the 700 or so results I get for a search on {"sharon muguwu" "nehanda radio"}. Anyway, if you want more than just my opinion there's a noticeboard where you can ask for more input: Reliable sources Noticeboard. Why not try your luck there? --RexxS (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

\Have come across this article and therefore researched online this individuals name I have failed to find any single source where the individual 'claims' to have supernatural powers, unless you have found somewhere? I have found articles of other people claiming he has supernatural powers such as: I am also very questionable about the African online media publications, they are wild and unreliable, but surely if the article is going to include them then these claims to supernatural abilities can not be cited as coming from Uebert Angel himself as my sources have proven but the articles should represent the claims coming from the 3rd parties mentioned in my sources. Look forward to hearing your view. RDPaul 16:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) Read Identifying reliable sources. When you have, try to see if there are any criteria that says your opinion on the source ("wild and unreliable") is a valid reason for removing the sources. When you can't find that, give it a rest and stop wasting our time.
 * (2) Why on earth do you think it's a good idea to keep removing the reflist-talk template that cleans up your refs? Stop removing it. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (2) Why on earth do you think it's a good idea to keep removing the reflist-talk template that cleans up your refs? Stop removing it. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of sourced content
It looks like the disciples are back, trying to remove Angel's former name from the opening sentence. Perhaps it's time to re-instate page protection? --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Difficult to assess, but I somehow doubt that Legion X has COI related to this BLP as the user edited various other BLPs related to Christianity; that editor also added much more material than removed, including an update of Uebert's bibliography. On the other hand some of the added material did appear to have been removed before, the account also seems rather recent...  —  Paleo  Neonate  — 20:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's always the possibility of most edits being to achieve autoconfirmation, although they were not obviously dummy edits. —  Paleo  Neonate  — 20:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the six-month semiprotection won't expire until tomorrow; I'll reinstate it if problem edits from non-autoconfirmed users resume then. Legion X has been active for two months and is good and autoconfirmed. As PaleoNeonate says (I keep reading that as "PaleNeonate", stupid of me, I know), they seem to be interested in biographies where Christianity is a theme. Their edits here were somewhat problematic, so I've given them a discretionary sanctions alert. I don't think we'll see actual disciples until the semi expires. OTOH, that'll be in a few hours now. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC).
 * I'm pale anyway Face-smile.svg — Paleo  Neonate  — 06:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given Legion X's comments on their talk page, I've done my best to re-incorporate as much of the content added as I could. Hopefully, that will diminish the desire of any POV-pushers to try to turn it back into a hagiography. --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Super, thanks for that, pinging for their input.  —  Paleo  Neonate  — 16:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Super, thanks for that, pinging for their input.  —  Paleo  Neonate  — 16:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Replace: Pentecostal ministry – with Christian ministry
He is not part of the Pentacostal church. There is no reference for this claim and it is unfounded. It is Christian Ministry. - Here is a description of the church on their website http://www.uebertangel.org/the-goodnews-church they do not mention Pentacostal anywhere. - It says the ministry is in Zimbabwe, however it has 20 locations around the world and Zimbabwe is only one of them. Here is a link to where the different locations are listed with their addresses:- http://www.uebertangel.org/the-goodnews-church- Change to international Christian Ministry not Pentacostal Church in Zimbabwe Where it mentions Millionaire Academy, it has a link to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maadad (talk • contribs) 10:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, it is very well founded. Of course there are references in the article for anybody who can read English:
 * : "... the current discussions surrounding prophets and prophecy in Zimbabwe are largely inspired by another brand of Pentecostal prophets, the mega-church prophets. Among this class are Emmanuel Makandiwa and Uebert Angel, founders of the United Family International Church and the Spirit Embassy respectively."
 * : "Thus, Pentecostal-charismatic churches make a significant contribution towards meeting the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of African people. During a miracle conference at Wanderers Stadium in Johannesburg (28–30 August 2015), many people claimed they had received miracles of healing and material success after prophet Uebert Angel Mudzanire11 of Spirit Embassy in Zimbabwe prayed for them."
 * It might help your case if you could spell "Pentecostal", but the article is not claiming that Angel's church is part of a bigger organisation called the "Pentecostal Church" – if you knew anything about religion, you'd know that there is no such organisation. Pentecostalism is a movement, not an organisation. Angel's ministry is clearly part of the revivalism classified by outside sources as "Pentecostal-Charismatic", and of course they are Christian, Protestant ministries. The article describes the Spirit Embassy as founded in Zimbabwe. Just as the British Sub-Aqua Club has branches in many countries, it's still the British Sub-Aqua Club.
 * So what are the sources for your requests? Angel's own site? Here's a description of me on my site. It's just as reliable a source as the one you suggest, and at least it has the good grace to be brief. --RexxS (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So what are the sources for your requests? Angel's own site? Here's a description of me on my site. It's just as reliable a source as the one you suggest, and at least it has the good grace to be brief. --RexxS (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

More attempts to remove sources
I've just reverted the edits of who is yet another editor who is trying to remove sourced material. His edit summaries indicate either an inability to read English or deliberate deception: The source removed, http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2074-77052016000100036&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en states:
 * "This source doesn't mention about him"
 * "Spirit Embassy is not belong to Pentecostalism. It is a Christian Church. http://www.uebertangel.org/the-goodnews-church"
 * "This source doesn't referred to him or his name, i was unable to find any single mention about him on the source"

Not only does that place Angel's ministry in the Pentecostal-charismatic tradition, but it quite clearly names him, giving the lie to LorengoK's assertions. --RexxS (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2018
Please remove "(formerly known as Uebert Mudzanire,[4] or Uebert Angel Mudzanire[5])" because it is not appropriate. Source : https://www.uebertangel.com/uebertangel Adney123 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The sources are clear. That was his original name regardless of the long expressed desire of his followers at this article to suppress that knowledge for whatever reason. Wikipedia reflects what is written in independent reliable sources. Specifically we do not use an article's subject's statements about themselves when it appears self serving and contradicts what is said in independent reliable sources. See WP:ABOUTSELF. Please follow the blue links for an explanation of what those terms mean on Wikipedia. Jbh  Talk  12:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2018
Remove "formerly known as Uebert Mudzanire,[4] or Uebert Angel Mudzanire" Reference Source :- https://www.pazimbabwe.com/main-news-38001-five-things-didnt-know-uebert-angel.html

Remove "a Pentecostal ministry in Zimbabwe" to which based in London, UK and has branches all over the world. Adney123 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To save you and your compatriots time in the future, due to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines the change you request will not be made. WP:V for instance says "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. " In this case not only do we have several independent, third party reliable sources which states he was born as "Uebert Mudzanire" we have, if I recall correctly, sources which also mention he does not like to admit that he changed his name. As to your other request re"Pentecostal" etc  took the time to explain twice, in detail and with citations to source material, why they declined your earlier, identical, requests. I fully support them in their response.  Repeatedly making the same requests will not change the outcome. It is also disruptive, albeit minimally so. I strongly suggest that before you, or your compatriots, make another edit request you (all) read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, the policy on biographies of living persons and about reliable sources. I also advise you to read about sock puppets and meat puppets.  ❌   Jbh  Talk  15:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018
Add "http://nehandaradio.com/2018/03/20/pastor-chris-and-uebert-angel-strengthen-ties/" in the References Adney123 (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018
Add "http://nehandaradio.com/2018/01/30/prophet-uebert-angel-wealth-exposed/" in References Adney321 (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Adney321, the references aren't independent of the text. You need to suggest some new text, for which your link can serve as a reference; it can't be added on its own. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018
Add "Prophet Uebert Angel's wealth exposed http://nehandaradio.com/2018/01/30/prophet-uebert-angel-wealth-exposed/" in References Adney321 (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is getting silly. Propose some viable WP:NPOV text or stop with these useless requests.  Jbh  Talk  13:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Uebert Angel.jpg

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Uebert Angel .jpg
 * Uebert Angel with Pastor Chris Oyakhilome in 2019.jpg