Talk:José Luis de Jesús

Previously Poorly Formatted Comments
Some people insist on violating wiki policy ith this article, so to quote:

"Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [2] He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." [3] "

Dr U 08:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am very familiar with WP:BLP and read the comment from Jimbo some time back. I have sourced the claim from named authorities, which was not difficult. Guy 06:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

--Reburris 12:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added my notes from his Today Show appearence. Please forgive me if my method is a little too informal. I'm trying to expand the article with the little time that I can spare. I think this article will be worth keeping.

This Gives Me An Idea
I propose to merge this article with "stupid shit that people come up with when they are stoned" Niubrad 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A FORUM TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION you idiot, I do not care if you believe this or not but this is a biography article

Edit by anon
- anyone know if this is correct? JoshuaZ 04:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This Wiki artile is EXTREMELY PLAGARIZED from www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840066/site/newsweek/

A little more
I'm not a religious person and well obviously even if he's a fraud well wanted to request this article to be removed since it's pure BS but i doubt it happens since he has shaken the medias greatly. So here is a little more data for you guys to implement

He's from Ponce, Puerto Rico, he has a son who have also denied the fact that he is "jesus", he was a drug user and he also used heroine, he admitted it in the program "A Calzon Quitao" aired in Wapa TV(Puerto Rican Media), interviewed by Ruben Sanchez.

The story he gives to Ruben is that, his son a few years ago told him that jesus was going to come tonight, that he couldn't believe what his son said till the so called apparition happened.

A woman, that have followed him, in a previous interview broke a picture of The previous Pope, calling him a liar. (Sorry I forgot her name, she says she follows his teachings).

According to Jose luis, he says all the churches are lying always going in the same loop, that his words is full of truth and that people shouldn't listen to the catholic church anymore. He also mentioned that he stopped the Colombian government to stop giving money to catholic churches.

Maybe I can add more but I need to gather a few names from here and there.

--64.237.221.115 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he's a fraud is not really up for discussion on the wiki page, being that he's a religious figure and well... religion has a nasty tendency to evade any attempts on it by logic, reason, or common sense.

Besides, if someone believes Jesus came once (2008 years ago) it would be hypocritical not to believe that this man is the second coming. After all, it is written in the Bible that he would return, and that's all anyone requires for their whole-hearted belief in the first coming. And besides, a lot of people (a LOT!) allegedly accused the "original" Christ of fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanni421 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

- Blanni421 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanni421 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Christ
I don't speak much Spanish, but it certainly appears that in this video (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4adc1e71fd), he appears to be claiming the mantle of the Anti-Christ. Can somebody who knows the language verify this? GutterMonkey 04:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol... Yeah. I just read a newsweek article, which said the same thing. Lol... His explination is pretty foolish as well. Personally, I think this article should be removed from wiki. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840066/site/newsweek/ The less attention he receives, the less likely he will become an anoying bug.


 * According to Newsweek he is in fact claiming to be the Anti-Christ in addition to being the Christ. Here is a quote from the article: "The lectern is emblazoned with a near replica of the U.S. presidential seal, except that it reads in Spanish, government of god on earth." The article also says he has control over his followers in much the same way Jim Jones did. Like Jones, Miranda says anyone is free to come and go as they please. | Meet the Minister who says he is Jesus Christ Anynobody 21:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

______________

Followers appear to mainly be lower-class Hispanics. Observe the millions of lower-class Hispanics illegally invading the USA. Make of it what you will. Personally, I fear for the future of the USA. ip68-13-191-153.om.om.cox.net
 * Well, Mr. Omaha, what you are contending is that the antichrist is going to be a McDonald's manager or a meatpacking manager?68.152.95.130 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not religious, but I think that this article is going to spawn a ton of controversy. It should be locked down for a while.
 * Oh and your allegations that the illegal immigrants causing trouble are completely untrue. Instead of trying to stop illegal immigrants, the U.S. should make legal immigration easier on the poor.

70.63.133.20 18:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The US is the easiest Western democracy to enter legally in the world, so no, I think you are not correct. However, this is certainly not the place for this debate. Just Another Fat Guy 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fat Guy. There are places for debates on immigration; they are called forums and a blogs. To tie illegal immigration to this nitwit Miranda is to avoid the subject. This article should not be locked as it would be censorship on no good grounds.

de Jesus or Miranda
The article should be consistent. Which one should it use? RB972 04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like Miranda better, but I don't have any real reasoning behind that. --Mears man 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In latn american countries two last names are used. Father's last name and then mother's maiden name. they are part of you official and legal name, so the correct way would be to use de Jesus or de Jesus Miranda, but neve just Miranda. Cjrs 79 05:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Miranda is his family name. The other three are given names. You can have as many given names as your parents want, but only one or two family names (dad, dad & mom, mom & dad), according to where you are born.--Kim Kusanagi 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but "de Jesus" is part of the first name(s). It's an old fashioned thing you hardly see anymore; a way of sanctifying someone's name. In other words, someone like that would be called "Jose" or "Luis" or more commonly -with a name like that- "Jose Luis" by family and friends, but never really "de Jesus" alone and by itself. Miranda is the only last name. *Philosopher2king 3/24/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher2king (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

NPV
Although I am not a Christian, I note that this article is incredibly biased in favor of Mr. de Jesus. There are some "allegations" that are refuted with unsourced evidence, and the grammar is poor. If this was Uncyclopedia I would NRV it, but it's not, so I'm going to give people a chance to fix it before I renominate it for VFD. Railcgun 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just remember that his surname is Miranda, not de Jesus. De Jesus is not a surname in the Spanish languages, hasn't been and certainly it will never be. Unless it becomes possible to pull out a Vito Corleonesque move and rename so where it is legal.--Kim Kusanagi 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Christians are the only ones offended by this guy. Miranda offends anyone who looks at him- Let me get off my opinion and state, the article is biased, and I'm gunna apply the ol' brain cells to fix what I can. IronCrow 22:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Worthless Comments (but NOT this Article)
Is there (yet) a policy allowing us to delete utterly worthless comments made by obvious non-editors (such as that directly preceding this one)? Why do people come to religion related articles to declare their faith (or lack thereof)? FYI, people: nobody cares what you believe, ok? Nobody. This is an encyclopedia; your religious belief constitutes original research, and is neither wanted nor needed here.

On a more useful subject, why on Earth would this article be constantly nominated for deletion? This guy is, in fact, an actual extant human being, who appears (occasionally) in the news, and does indeed have a large number of followers and (according to the Dallas Morning News) a substantial media network. Very, very encyclopedic, if you ask me. Ofc, it is utterly essential that all references to "Jesus" and the like be sourced and described uniformly as his claims. No other "special treatment" is needed. (Well, except for the inevitable edit-wars when one or more of his followers discover Wikipedia ;). Eaglizard 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just did. 134.134.136.4 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Today Show
Here is the clip of him on the Today Show if anyone wants to use it for citing.--Twintone 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed and un-cited comments.
I have moved lots of the un-cited comments here for now; there are so many of them that they make the article falicious by their sheer volume. Please feel free to move them back if you find a citation. The intention of this move is not to censor the article, it is merely to remove uncited (and therefore potentially wrong) items from the article. If you can find any appropriate citation for any of these items, please move it back to the original article and include the citation (please remove it from this list also to make life easier for other editors). Thank you.

From the Early Life part of the article:
 * He was forced to enter a long term residential drug treatment program in New York City.
 * De Jesús declares to have converted to Christianity while in prison.
 * Immediately following his conversion he became a self-taught student of the Bible.
 * In a recent program on ABC, he told of the experience that led him to become this controversial "messiah": Allegedly, praying one day, two angels appeared to him and endowed him with the calling of being the second coming of Christ.

Second paragraph:
 * In 1999, he declared himself as "the Other" who would pave the way for the second coming of Christ.
 * In 2004, he started to refer to himself as God, returned in human.
 * He explained that, in 1973, the resurrected Christ "integrated" himself within him.

Third paragraph:
 * In the mid-1980s and the ministry currently has a physical presence in thirty countries, however statistics show that more than 103 countries tune in every time he talks to the world through his live conferences on Wednesdays.
 * The Ministry CEG reports to have centers in 12 States within the United States, including locations in Hartford, Connecticut, and Miami, Florida.

From the Notes on De Jesus TV segment part of the article:
 * Much to critics' surprise the show generated the highest ratings of any TV show in the month of December, even surpassing the ratings of the live broadcast of the Latin Grammys in November by a substantial amount of viewers.
 * On November 17, 2006, Puerto Rican newspaper El Vocero announced that Miranda planned a visit to Puerto Rico on December 17th of that year. Univision's Que Suerte show allowed thirty minutes without commercial interruptions to "the Man Christ Jesus" (as de Jesus Miranda is called by his followers), causing even more controversy because such uninterrupted airtime has never been allowed to anyone in the history of Puerto Rican television.


 * Actually, most of that is true, well, true as in he has said that. The third paragraph is overstating and the "notes" section just isn't true at all, he's spread his so-called "ministry" to like three or so countries and his show never gets good ratings, aside from hecklers and actual devotees. Anyway, I just watched Primetime (ABC) and the show itself implied most of paragraph 1 and 2. Also in 1997 he got a DUI or something after stating he never got drunk after "becoming" Jesus. There's also the very controversial statement he made when he said that murder and stealing wasn't wrong, that only society made them wrong. http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2925021&page=1 IronCrow 03:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed this...
 He is also a giant toolbox, liar, scumbag, and should be dealt with as soon as possible. While I agree with that point of view, and I also think that he deserves to be shot in the kneecaps, it is opinion, and, therefore, does not belong in this article if it is wanted to be encyclopedic. Therefore, gone. Be more professional with yor POVs, the one who wrote that.--Kim Kusanagi 19:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you know? The user with the following IP, 75.71.67.90, reverted my edit and called me a vandal at my own talk page. Don't you understand, you stupid @s$h0le!? This wiki is trying to be a neutral encyclopedia! Not your own personal site to express your or my views about the man! As I said before, I wouldn't expect any less from someone who prefers to remain anonymous. Grow up, man. Don't troll and let this site grow up scientifically and enciclopedically.--Kim Kusanagi 05:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous? Hardly. You have the IP address. You can do a lot with that. This article IS favourable to the man, but that can change, you brave wiki editors! NPOV away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.168.119 (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that he/she is hardly anonymous because of the IP, but what pisses me off is that he/she refused to sign the comment with an username. I don't see it totally biased; it still can be perfected, true, but as it is now is going the right way.

BTW, although you're expressing yourself in a decent, polite way, you should sign with your username, too. There is nothing to fear.--Kim Kusanagi 19:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's what I think. Miranda is a liar and, as ABC implied it, "Con-Man." I believe he is an idiot and deserves, like Kim Kusanagi has said, to be shot in the kneecaps. A user's opinion, however, has no place in Wikipedia. Miranda may be an incredibly stupid guy (he does know how to make money though), he may look like he eats children, and he probably should be "dealt with as soon as possible," but that is only your (and my) opinion. The only dumber people out there is his followers, which I am soooo glad they aren't Wikipedians. If you want to make a "Jose Miranda Eats Small Children" website, then by all means, do so. Just don't do it on Wikipedia, please. IronCrow 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You said: The only dumber people out there is his followers, which I am soooo glad they aren't Wikipedians. Well, don't be so sure about that... :0 - Mtmelendez (Talk 01:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hehe, you're right. Forgot the original creation of this article was... errrrrr, yeah... biased. Meh, either way, lets make sure this doen't go back down that sink hole, huh? I think I meant that the person does not parade around Wikipedia in his underwear... if you get what I mean. IronCrow 20:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Rick Ross a cult expert?
I fully agree that Miranda is leading a cult. However, I find it absurd to call Rick Ross a cult expert. He's a convicted felon who labels even fairly mainstream Christian sects as cults. I'm not even remotely religious but I find Rick Ross' positions highly offensive. --Caja do Queso (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CajaDeQueso (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how you define the man (I would agree with you at points, he is kind of ridiculous), but he is considered an expert by many. You also forget the guy was a felon at 22, many people who were felons at a young age at least grew to their senses (somewhat). IronCrow (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ross is controversial. He is also notable. He has his own wikipedia page: Rick_Ross_(consultant). He was also used as a named source in the Fox News reference used in this article they grabbed from AP. As far as the crimes go, Im not sure how relevant they are as they occurred forty years (!) ago and there is no indication of more recent or related criminal activity. It appears he has a new hustle, shall we say. Caja do Queso I share your point of view, as I do not agree with Ross or Miranda. That said, AP is using Ross' commentary. We should be able to use it too. Maybe there is another reason to leave him out? ATM I dont see any quotes from Ross in the article, but frankly this article needs a lot of additional content. It would be nice to get comments re: Miranda from all types of people we might agree or disagree with. Jay Dubya (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism
Diff. Who's watching this page? --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was... But my main concern is other articles. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 00:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Greek?
Maybe he might be referring to the fact that in the original Greek "anti-" had a number of meanings (it did not always mean what it does in modern languages -- e.g. Antipater definitely does not mean "against the father", etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. Im not familiar enough with his work to say one way or the other (Im just doing research and adding references here). A "Theology of José Luis de Jesús" could be one awesome article, though (or just as easily a rotten one). Jay Dubya (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dead link repaired (MSNBC/Newsweek)
The original (now dead) link:



Replaced with:



Spare links in case the above ever goes dead too:


 * https://richarddawkins.net/articles/583
 * http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=https://richarddawkins.net/articles/583

Note: the WebArchive has failed to archive MSNBC properly, as well as it has failed to archive RichardDawkins.net and the Newsweek.

—&thinsp;6birc (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Current movement" blather
Under "Current movement", it states "De Jesús has gained attention worldwide. He counts with an unprecedented communication powerhouse which is tuned in by over 103 countries every Wednesday and Sunday when he speaks. His worldwide reach counts with:

Live transmission every Wednesday at 8:00 pm ET through: www.CreciendoenGracia.com His own Satellite Channel 24/7: www.TeleGracia.com which is broadcasted in 16 countries by over 600 cable companies His own Radio Station: www.NetGracia.com 355 education centers in 30 nations 225 radio programs 600 cable companies that transmit TeleGracia 300 TV programs More than 80 music artists around the world Millions of people who voluntarily offer their lives to make his word spread

In early 2007 he acknowledged others' claims that he was the Antichrist and explained that the term is true."

Clearly, whatever objective information might be contained here is infected by a hefty dose of hyperbole. "Gained attention"? "Unprecedented communication powerhouse"? "...to make his word spread"?! It's obvious this was written by one of his devotees, rather than by a dispassionate editor, and one who is English-challenged at that. Consequently, I'm going to prune most of the nonsense out. Bricology (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bricology. Miranda does seem to have a large following, but this is clearly peacocking. The "Millions of people" bit in particular I have found no evidence of. Jay Dubya (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

YOU'RE KIDDING ME NO?
This men have mental problems! no no PERSONALITY problems! but.. That's not the problem, the problem is that THOUSANDS of STUPIDS FOLLOW HIM, PEOPLE WITH LITTLE FAITH, LOST, TRAPPED BY THIS DEMON, THIS MENTALLY DISABLED PERSON ... BUT THERE ARE OTHER THEORY, THIS MAN DOES NOT HAVE MENTAL PROBLEMS IF THAT IS A SWINDLER! I THINK NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA SO OUTSTANDING AS SPACE IS GRANTED TO THIS FAKE! RESPECT BECAUSE I THINK THE RELIGIONS OR MOST OF THE ATHEISTS ATHEIST WOULD AGREE THAT THIS AREA HAVE A THIEF IN THE WIKIPEDIA! IN NO! IS A DAMN! and excuse me for the words ... --Soyescritor (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia strives to contain articles on every notable, high-profile person from a neutral point of view. Inclusion within the encyclopedia in no way communicates that wiki editors condone the behavior of a subject or agree with that subject's beliefs. We include articles about even the most unpopular of viewpoints in order to create a true free market of ideas; one where informed readers can expand their understanding of those ideas and contribute to any conversation concerning those ideas they find valuable.


 * We do this because, in a free market of ideas, bad ideas are exposed for what they are. Good ideas (over time) become widely accepted. Our knowledge and understanding, as a whole, moves forward. We get better at solving problems.


 * None of that works if we censor. If we say that some ideas are too awful to even discus, over time, people forget why those ideas were so bad. Those ideas start to become attractive; some feel like they were misunderstood, suppressed by people in positions of power who were afraid those ideas would hurt them. Diseased ideas, like every other disease, can only grow in the dark.


 * If you feel this man is truly wrong, this is the time and the place to demonstrate that. Use reasonable, unbiased propositions backed by careful research of neutral sources to expose this man as a charlatan. If what you say is true, that is not a tall order. And if what you want to do is to take the poison from this man's ideas, if you in fact want to stop the conversions and the exploitation, calm rational argumentation is what you must do.


 * Censorship will never achieve what you want it to. Wikipedia, and projects like it, can. Why would you be silent - why would you force others into silence when you can SPEAK instead? Jay Dubya (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

He's dead
Univision just announced his death. The Spanish article also states his death, but strangely on the 8th of August this year. Been searching on the internet but since he's not notable outside of Puerto Rico no site that I trust has his death. Will look for more.Hitmonchan (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

His death is denied by his personal website and the only references I've seen about it are in Spanish language tabloids. Something reliable is needed here before we start announcing he's dead. NtheP (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ex-Wife of Man Claiming to Be 'Immortal Jesus Christ' Confirms His Death --Racklever (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Univision is an RS IMO, but you're right we need as much as possible. Here is Virginia Commonwealth University confirming. Will update with additional info http://www.has.vcu.edu/wrs/profiles/GrowingInGrace.htm Jay Dubya (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

He died by nov 15 UPDATED: Date of Death now stated Aug 8th
Someone who can translate it into English please view it, I'm too lazy to do it hehe http://www telegracia com /enlaces-varios-completos/2013/12/8/video-mensaje-de-lisss-para-la-amada-de-melquisedec.html (copy and paste the link, also add the dots, because telegracia is banned by wikipedia) http://www.joyasdegracia.com/2013/11/una-nueva-familia-parte-120.html http://infocatolica.com/blog/infories.php/1311281028-anuncian-la-muerte-ahora-si-d


 * The dates here are wrong. He dies prior to this, in August. The church did not announce his death until November; the ex-wife in this case is a more reliable source than the church, because the church is claiming in multiple sources that Jose Luis is immortal. Frankly IMO the church should only be used with an inline explanation (i.e. his church states that...) because of the nature of the claims and relationship. Here are my RS confirmations of this (soon to be added):

http://www.has.vcu.edu/wrs/profiles/GrowingInGrace.htm http://www.christianpost.com/news/ex-wife-of-man-claiming-to-be-immortal-jesus-christ-confirms-his-death-102555/ Jay Dubya (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Consolidation
I have started a reflist at the bottom of the page. In order to more easily manage references and citations, I am reformatting to place all the references here with ref names, then use ref names for inlines. This makes confirming, adding and modifying citations 1000x easier than the current haphazard method, which also makes it difficult to simply add copy because the references obscure the text when editting. Please try to use this method moving forward (its recommended per the style guide, and almost required for GA status) Jay Dubya (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "1000x easier" - that is your personal opinion. The ref list structure was put in place years ago and, in fact, the current list type you put together and left there made a little mess of the ref list section to the point refs are impossible to verify. I see no need to change the article's ;ong-standing struictire that scores of editors are familiar with simply to satisfy your personal preferences. I suggest you adjust to the de facto structure already tacitly supported by the rest of the editors. Per WP:V, reverted to last stable version. Mercy11 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of making the modifications. Your revert just broke an hour worth of work. Thanks. Jay Dubya (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, this is the structure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes#WP:LDR
 * The conflict was caused by a double usage of – . Im putting my work back in now that it is fixed. Since it the article will appear identical after the change, please reserve your judgement and revert until then.
 * Alright, fix completed. As previously stated, all references are completely visible. I have also provided names, dates and publishing information to numerous sources that lack it. I will be compiling a list of sources used that do not meet RS criteria and posting them in a subject below so that the community can discuss consensus on them. About half the sources are either personal blogs or deadlinks. Jay Dubya (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubious
I've placed a "dubios claim" and "dubious Inline" tag on this statement: "Roberto Piñeiro died on December 9 of 2010 of a stroke, much to the delight of Miranda's followers." The citation provided only makes one reference to Jose Luis' followers. I have translated it here: "Pineiro said he was entitled to that money because the church of Miranda, was a personal matter, not a religious nonprofit. Followers of Miranda - stamped using "666" shirts - later protested outside the courthouse but it was in vain." Here is the URL so you can view the text in its original Spanish: http://www.noticiacristiana.com/sociedad/sectas/2010/12/muere-juez-quien-se-burlo-de-la-doctrina-de-jose-luis-de-jesus-miranda-video.html

1. The reference is a "dubious inline" because the reference text in no way supports our claim.

2. Even if the text *did* support our claim, it would be wrong to do so. Jose Luis has thousands of followers. We have no way of knowing what even a plurality of them have to say about Roberto Pineiro. There is a good chance that most have never heard of Pineiro and never followed Ruis' divorce. At a bare minimum, we must qualify the statement by saying "some followers" and backing that up using direct quotes. If we fail to do so, the graph indulges in pure libel.

In its present form I cannot think of any reasonable defense for this, however I will not revert without consensus as this article is prone to controversy. Please share your thoughts here. Jay Dubya (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Current Problematic Citations
I've roughly tripled the number of references with functioning links, using only newspapers and university websites. I also expanded the documentation for all the original references, save a few that have serious issues. To avoid edit warring, I am going to list the references here and what the issues are. In a nutshell, these cover dead links, self-published blogs, and religious blogs without NPOV. Note that some religious publications are very much RS, for example Christian Science Monitor. Needless to say, the links below are not to the Christian Science Monitor. Also, because this is en.wikipedia.org, we should really try to focus on english sources where they are available. If we have a spanish-only site that adds new or critical information we cant find from an English RS, we should translate and use it. However, I've already updated one reference that was cited as Spanish that was actually a Spanish translation for an English website. If you find yourself editing here and you're more comfortable with Spanish than English, you may want to consider helping move this article to es.wikipedia.org - just as much help is needed there! Anyway, if you can fix a dead link below, great. Otherwise lets try to reach consensus about removal and replacing these. Thanks. Jay Dubya (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Self published blogs
 * website=Blog de Christo|title=La Secta Creciendo En Gracia|language=Spanish|url=http://www.blogdecristo.com/2011/01/la-secta-creciendo-en-gracia.html}}{{Self-published source

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on José Luis de Jesús. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131215003404/http://www.joyasdegracia.com/2013/12/melquisedec-rey-de-gloria.html to http://www.joyasdegracia.com/2013/12/melquisedec-rey-de-gloria.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100506082930/http://www.cnn.com:80/video/ to http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/02/15/zarrella.man.jesus.cnn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on José Luis de Jesús. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070508194443/http://www.local6.com:80/news/13265407/detail.html to http://www.local6.com/news/13265407/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on José Luis de Jesús. 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://archive.is/20131215001259/http://www.joyasdegracia.com/2013/11/una-nueva-familia-parte-122-melquisedec.html to http://www.joyasdegracia.com/2013/11/una-nueva-familia-parte-122-melquisedec.html

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) 00:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)