![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
There are four different articles on this topic:
Should they be merged? -- 217.158.203.194 08:20, 2 June 2003 (UTC)
Merged Jonestown mass suicide with Jonestown and moved text about the temple to People's Temple. So now we have articles just on the person ( Jim Jones), place ( Jonestown) and thing ( People's Temple). If the "Mass Suicide" section of this page gets long enough, then we can summarize that event here and put the details at Jonestown mass suicide. But there isn't enough text for that yet. -- mav 07:21, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think the current situation works well. Perhaps we should remove it from the Duplicate list? -- Wolf530 02:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I reverted the changes in which a user added that "Some believe the victims were injected with poison." While that may be the case, the reader is still left wondering: Who believes that? Where did this rumor begin? What is the evidence of this? Unless the user would like to contribute to answering these questions, I don't believe that statement belongs in the article. -- Wolf530 06:19, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed people were injected with poison. After watching a documentary, a father spoke about his infant son being injected. Perhaps, before you chose to revert things, you should find the facts yourself. It DID happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.182.253.82 ( talk) 14:09, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Where can I find information on the changes in Mr Carter's account? 212.242.105.145 ( talk) 11:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at Carter's original FBI testimony, then listen to him in interviews today. In addition, one problem is that people originally reading the Guyana Inquest and FBI accounts immediately assumed every reference was to a needled syringe, when it later turns out that many syringes without needles were used to squirt fluid into mouths. See, for example, even the original Odell Rhodes interview. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to ask: does the "CIA involvement" section really belong into a serious entry? --bas ( 193.166.89.77) 05:20, 18 November 2004 (UTC)
There's something else that's not brought up often enough .... many of the sources that are listed that deny or go against the CIA involvement claim use the State Department as the source for much of their information. Not to mention the fact that the US Government didn't do autopsies on the bodies, "assuming" they had all commited suicide. Now whether that assumption is correct or not, it should still at least be mentioned in the article. (source - john judge's book on the subject) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slashslap ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There were hardly armed guards. There were only 37 weapons found on a total of 930 inhabitants. Andries 21:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seem rude here, but this whole conversation about the number and the whereabouts of guns and crossbows is poorly uninformed. In the first place, almost every person who knew anything about the guns is dead. Secondly, Jonestown was burglarized by local Amerindians between the mass murder/suicide and the arrival of Guyanese soldiers. The most obvious thing to carry away would be a rifle. Thus we have no real souces to help us decide how many guns were in Jonestown when the mass deaths occured. We'll never know, and so we should just say, "we'll never know." When people debate why the JT residents did or did not oppose the guards, as far as concerns firearms and crossbows, they are missing half the story. They were trained for many years to be afraid, and when the moment came, they were afraid. Guns didn't cause the tragedy to happen. BobHelms 03:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
My suspicion has always been that the guns were hauled off either by survivors or by people rummaging the community after everyone was dead. The fact of the matter is that there are affidavits signed under threat of perjury that claims it was an armed camp. The fact that there were only 37 guns found afterwards says very little. Either the armed guards didn't kill themselves and took off with their guns or someone could have stolen them afterwards. In "Awake in a Nightmare" it is told that Stanley Clayton ran to a friend's house nearby and told them everyone was dead and they could go take tools from the community. He says they came back horrified and with tools, although it is never specified what they came back with. It could have very well been in this manner that the guns turned up missing. You cannot take the writings of places like "Jonestown.com" or even "Alternate Considerations of Jonestown" at face value. They are writing from the perspective of either survivors of the cult or from family members of those who perished. They are attempting, as much as possible, to clear Jim Jones and their loved ones of as many charges as possible. Their contention that Jonestown was not an armed camp based only on the fact that only a few guns turned up after the fact shows a massive overlooking of the obvious of how guns can turn up missing. The painful truth is that Jonestown was most likely more like what the media portrayed it as before and after the actual suicides than what survivors and relatives of the dead would like to believe. There is just no evidence, outside of uncritical conjecture that Jones had any benevolent intents when he took his clan to Guyana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajy11 ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC) ~
the above comment is in my view not quite fair to the alternative considerations website. I think they do a pretty good job in terms of making it clear that they do not represent the final Truth about Jonestown, also when it comes to the number of weapons in the community. I think that is a lesson we should all learn: to be very careful about presenting the things we really cannot say for sure as fact. For example: "the painful truth is that Jonestown was most likely more like....." - that cannot really be said to be a truth can it? Isn't it more of an opinion? 212.242.105.145 ( talk) 12:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The last two comments (above) are spot on. Sworn affidavits are best source, not what was left to count. Jonestown was a shambles after looting by nearby natives. Guns are valuable and easy to carry away. Blakey swore that many many guns were brought in from the US illegally, at the bottom of crates, sometimes hidden under tampons and such to evade inspection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.166.252 ( talk) 01:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
EVERYTHING HERE IS RESOLVED. WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE ARCHIVE IT. (I don't know how)
There are several other mistakes, inaccuracies, doubtful opinions in the article.
The article as well as the discussion page does not throw much light on the allegation of CIA involment in the Jonetown tragedy. I remember reading a book titled Jonestown Carnage: A CIA Crime published by one of the official publication groups in the erstwhile
Soviet Union. It was published in the eighties. The book details the moral support Jonestown received from
USSR and has photographs of Jim Jones with certain USSR officials. The conculsion of the book is that the Jonestown was an egalitarian set up on the lines of communist ideology and the residents were massacred by the CIA for their association with USSR.
The copy of the book is not immediately available with me as I stay in one part of India leaving the book away at home in another part of my country.
Can somebody provide some information on this book?
MANOJTV 11:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No one disputes the Peoples' Temple leanings to the Soviet Union. In fact, Jim states exactly that, claiming it to be their "motherland." Their meetings with Feodor Timofeyev are documented in openly avaiblable documents and discussed at length in several books. Timofeyev from the USSR embassy came to Jonestown and his speech is on tape and transcribed available at the SDSU site. The members took Russian langauge classes, socialism classes and Soviet Constitution classes in their nightly classes, the filled tests for which (and lesson plans) are contained in public documents. Jim describes them as both socialists and communists probably over 500 times on the recovered tapes. Long discussions are undertaken about it.
HOWEVER: this does not mean -- or even come close to meaning -- that the CIA somehow murdered these people. There is absolutely zero proof of anything like this. The "Jonestown Carnage" book, merely takes the openly available facts about the Peoples Temple being communist and very pro-USSR and makes outlandish leaps of logic, which is hardly unusual in the old Soviet Union.
Mosedschurte (
talk)
04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Today I got hold of the book I wrote about in my earlier communications. I uploaded the image for the benefit of he wikipedia users. The information given in the book seems to be reliable though it is entirely possible that the book also was part of USSR propaganda. I am now re-reading the book in the context of the on going discussion in wikipedia pages. If any of the users are interested I would be willing to give some information on the contents of the book. In any case, if there is anything in the book I find very relevant, I will be adding them to the wikipedia page on Jonestown. MANOJTV 07:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE ARCHIVE THIS. OR BETTER YET DELETE IT. IT WAS ERRONEOUS, AND IT'S LONG GONE.
The article says:
I am old enough to remember this tragedy. It took a considerable time for a team to arrive. Initial observation (by helicopter perhaps?) was only able to count about 500 bodies. And it was thought that hundreds of survivors -- or loyalists -- were hiding out in the bush. It was only after a body recovery team arrived that the mystery was solved. The reason that the count was short was that bodies were lying on top of other bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 February 2005
The link http://www.geocities.com/oldsayville/jones.htm is currently in the external links section, with the text "Jim Jones inspiration for his ideology and cult control techniques". The page claims that Jones was personally acquainted and inspired by Father Divine of Sayville, New York. However, pages from the site http://www.geocities.com/oldsayville/ have been added to other articles and have proved to be very problematic; actual facts ( Melissa Joan Hart grew up in Sayville and knows Sarah Michelle Gellar) blended with improbable speculation treated as factual ( Joss Whedon called the town in the " Buffy The Vampire Slayer" series "Sunnydale" because it sounded like "Sayville" and because Gellar regarded Hart as the "Chosen One" who would fight back against the bullying in the Sayville public school system.) So if someone with access to research materials could check whether the alleged link between Jones and Father Divine is plausible, and deal with the link accordingly, it'd be good. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sayville NY, which is near my home town of Centereach, has nothing to do with the tale of Jim Jones. Father Devine spent most of his career in Philadelphia. That city happened to be one of the cities where the PT would have some success in recruiting new members. Thus Buffy is not part of the story, for pity's sake. All the Jones/Devine business happened in Philadelphia. Jones got the idea of presenting himself to his followers as God from Father Devine. This is a basic piece of information. BobHelms 03:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the more interesting elements of popular culture that arose from this horrible tragedy is the idiom "drinking the kool aid". This is quite well known in the US but I would ask other wikipedians if they have heard it before. The expression means to blindly or brazenly accept the claims or beliefs of an individual or organization. It's often used to describe a supsicously enthusiastic corporate culture: "I've got to stop drinking the kool-aid". Shouldn't this be referenced in this article?
Oh, and yes, I know it was Flavor-Aid but the expression is exclusively used with "Kool Aid". Robbyslaughter 18:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Suggest something like: " Perhaps the most lasting effect on popular culture to come out of Jonestown are idioms related to Kool aid (e.g. "don't drink the Kool aid", "he drank the Kool aid", etc). The idioms refers to an unquestioning following or overenthusiastic culture or ideology (usually corporate culture). The drink used at Jonestown was actually unsweetened Flavoraid." 72.220.166.252 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The article says the five minute shooting where the congressman and the reporters were killed
was captured on camera, where is this footage?
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
200.204.147.108 (
talk •
contribs) 14:21, 23 November 2005
The footage is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2BrQkPPBlY among other sites. Searching "port kaituma guyana shooting" will bring up multiple other sites with the short tape.-- Spyderdiva 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The video described here on youtube has been removed by the owner. Does anyone know of another video link?
Bhuish
11:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)bhuish
Jones had several children but only one with his wife Marceline. Andries 17:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Jones and Marceline had one natural son (Stephan Gandhi Jones) and (by adoption) Agnes Paulette Jones; James Warren Jones, Jr.;Stephanie Jones; Lew Jones; Suzanne Jones; Timothy Glenn Tupper Jones This information is taken from various articles on the “Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple" site, including the lists of those who died, and of who survived the events of 18 November 1978 at:
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~remoore/jonestown/
--
Spyderdiva
06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
He also had at least one, probably more, illegitimate children. One child, Kimo Prokes, was Jones natural son with Caroline Moore Layton. Information found at the http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/ “Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple" site, article “The Deaths of Two Daughters: Grieving and Remembering” by Barbara Moore-- Spyderdiva 13:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Jones and many other members of the Peoples Temple saw themselves as a family that had the right and the duty to stay together. Like most families they felt that they had the duty to defend themselves against people who tried to take away their members.
Whether the product of bad writing or "religious freedom advocate" apologism, this needs to go.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.38.221.39 (
talk •
contribs) 06:29, 17 March 2006
I heard a German radio documentary on the Jonestown tragedy the other day and wanted to read up on Deborah Layton. Now I am thoroughly surprised to find out that the Wikipedia article on Mrs. Layton has been "redirected" to this site, but here I can find no information whatsoever concerning her or her book. I presume Mrs Layton may appear to some people a controversial figure - but a "conspiracy of silence" about her would seem to me rather ridiculous and quite below Wikipedia's standards.
Robert Schediwy (Vienna)
19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
agreed,anyone with enough info to start a new page with a link?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.46.49.98 ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Her website is http://www.deborahlayton.com/ and there are also articles by, and information about, her (including her contact information) in various articles and writings on "The Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and the Peoples Temple" site at http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~remoore/jonestown/ -- Spyderdiva 06:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This article (and the People's Temple article) provide no rationale as to why Jones justified this suicie to his followers, or more generally, what the group's beliefs were. I'm very interested in what purpose the members believed that their death served; were they going to heaven? Was the world going to end? Etc.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Happywaffle (
talk •
contribs) 18:38, 3 May 2006
I have come to the conclusion that there is no one reason. After reading loads of books, and scouring the internet for articles by survivors and family members, the reality is that there was probably no one single reason. Jones' psychosis, the cultivated fear, and the deprivation of both calories and sleep from most members on the site were probably the most important issues, but there were literally dozens of other contributing factor's as well. Even folks who were there at the PT Compound on November 18, 1978 have conflicting stories, memories and explanations.-- Spyderdiva 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This whole article is missing a slew of sources...including the most recent edits by Mtloweman. That edit needs a source as well as the second paragraph under "Mass murder suicide". In fact everything under that heading needs a damn source. This is one of the most horrific incidents in Guyanese and American history...for whichever path you choose to believe. Locate the documented sources. If you can't, then put it under a hypothesis or conspiracy heading. Or something else. I'm not touching this anymore but hopefully a more seasoned wiki-member will get some sense of npov out of this article.
Dear Wikireaders,
I researched a film on the Jonestown tragedy a few years ago, and here's what I can tell you about selected paragraphs from this article --I make my comMents within the text in [ALL CAPS INSIDE BRACKETS]:
1 "Before the Cessna took off, Layton took out a gun and started shooting at the passengers. He killed [WOUNDED!] two people, including defector Monica Bagby, before his gun was taken away by another defector. Jones's armed guards, or "Red Brigade," then emerged in a tractor pulling a wagon, pulled up within 30 feet of the Otter, and proceeded to open fire while circling the plane. Leo Ryan, three journalists, and one 18-year-old [44-YEAR-OLD] Jonestown defector were killed in the five minute [I'D SAY LESS] shooting, which was captured on camera. Camera operator Robert Brown was among the dead while Jackie Speier was injured from five bullets. The Cessna was able to take off and fly to Georgetown, leaving behind the gunfire-damaged Otter. They carried with them filmed footage of the surprise attack [THEY CARRIED NO FOOTAGE WHATSOEVER, BECAUSE THE FOOTAGE WAS BY THE OTTER, WHERE THE NEWS CREW WAS], a first glimpse of Jonestown for the outside world" [WHY ARE SOME NAMES MENTIONED AND OTHERS OMITTED? HAVE YOU READ ONLY A FEW SHORT PASSAGES ON THIS SUBJECT? HOW COME I KNOW EVERYBODY'S NAME --EVEN THE GUYANESE PILOTS?]
2 "Among the wounded at Jonestown [HE GOT ONE IN THE BUTTOCK AT PORT KAITUMA] was U.S. embassy official Richard Dwyer, who was also an agent of the CIA [TRUE --OH AND WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT NEVILLE ANNIBOURNE?]. At one point on the taped audio recording, as the killings began, Jones's own voice commands, "Take Dwyer on down to the east house" and a short time later, "Get Dwyer out of here before something happens to him."" [AND THEN SEVERAL FOLLOWERS STARTED SAYING 'HUH?' BECAUSE DWYER WAS NOT PRESENT. JONES WAS TOTALLY STONED AND HE MEANT TO SAY "GARRY" --HIS LAWYER, WHO WAS PRESENT AND WAS THEN ESCORTED AWAY FROM THE PAVILION. GARRY AND DWYER WERE OF SIMILAR ENOUGH DESCRIPTIONS]
3 "Older children were said to have been tied naked and electrical shocks would be administered to their genitalia. Guyanese officials had attempted to investigate these allegations but they were denied entry to the compound." [THESE ARE TWO OF MANY WILD EXAGGERATIONS: "SAID" BY WHOM TO HAVE DONE IT? AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY A GUYANESE OFFICIAL WOULD ACCEPT BEING DENIED ENTRY? IT'S HOGWASH. THERE WERE MANY ABUSES BUT THIS ONE IS APOCRYPHAL. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CONCERNED RELATIVES ALSO THREW SOME CURVE BALLS --UNDERSTANDABLE MAYBE, BUT THE INFO GETS WARPED.]
5. "bibliography... True Crime (series): Death Cults by various authors," [YOU MUST BE JOKING] "...Raven: The Untold Story of the Reverend Jim Jones and His People Tim Reiter" [YOU SHOULD READ THAT BOOK SOME DAY, AND THEN SPELL THE AUTHOR'S NAME RIGHT.]
[YOU'RE JUST SKIMMING THROUGH RANDOM MATERIAL AND NOT WEIGHING ONE PIECE OF TESTIMONY AGAINST THE OTHER. YOU, LIKE TOO MANY OTHERS, ARE EATING UP ALL THE TABLOIDY STUFF --POPULAR CULTURE??? YOU FORGOT TO MENTION WHAT THE STUPID MUSIC AND JOKES DO TO THE SURVIVORS AND RELATIVES!! --AND YOU'RE NOT OFFERING ANY OF THE HUMAN SIDE, THE RESISTANCE TO JONES, AND THIS PRESENTATION IS SO SHORT THAT YOU'RE LEAVING OUT CRITICAL PIECES, INCLUDING THAT ABOUT 15 MEMBERS DEFECTED IN THE MORNING, BEFORE JONES EVEN WOKE UP. TO BE FAIR, THIS PAGE IS FAR BETTER THAN SOME OF THE RELATED PAGES.]
Thanks for reading that, if anyone bothered.
--
Robert Helms
07:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I am very new to Wikipedia, still so green that I pulled a new article I'd put up because I couldn't figure out how to wikify it (I got one of those notices). The whole operation is great and everyone's been civilized. But I've spent a million hours on the phone, and in a few dozen cases met in person with survivors and families of Jonestown victims. The pop culture page, to me, is something like a racist joke-sheet would be if I felt at home with the targeted minority. There was a TV film about Jonestown in 1980. A guy who was there and lost loved ones told me that he was never able to get beyond the first 5 minutes of it, as he'd just start to go wild and his family would intervene. People went into hiding for ten or more years in loads of cases. Try to picture it: almost everyone you know just died in perhaps the strangest way possible, and every reporter on earth wants a piece of it, and what they write is almost always all wrong, all sensationalized, and all bad. The guys who were building Jonestown, before Jones brought the whole mob down there, they look back on it as the happiest days of their lives. I'd find two people who were both on the same little bus trip or some scene, and they'll have two opposite emotional renderings of the very same set of facts.
What I have not yet gotten down to with Wikipedia is that I know things in some areas that no one else knows, or that no one else wil ever write down in this encyclopedia. So how do I avoid "contributung my own stuff?" And I no longer have the stack of books on hand that I'd need to give proper citations at every step, nor can I just drop names all over the place after talking with people for the purposes of the film only. I just got mad when I saw how sloppy and truncated the article is. As I learn the ropes I'll do more, but hey, I've gotten encyclopedia entries published before, so this democracy is a bit tedious in a way. I like it but this subject is one case where a comittee may not be the best approach. Thanks for writing to me!
--
RH
20:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Robert, there are scads of mistakes on this page, written by folks who have read a webpage or two, or read a book at some time in the past.
For anyone who is interested, There are a lot of primary source documents at the Alternative Considerations site at: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~remoore/jonestown/ including articles from most of the survivors who will write or give interviews about it. There were some questions in my mind about the possible slant of that webpage, but they were put to rest by the fact that they post articles that attack them, as well as agree with them. Very even handed. And the Primary Documents speak for themselves.-- Spyderdiva 07:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
From the mass suicide section, I removed the last sentence. It used to read:
The Jonestown deaths were among several incidents from about 1978 to 1982 that greatly undermined cults in the United States. Another one was an incident where Synanon "Imperial Marines" placed a rattlesnake in the mailbox of an attorney named Paul Morantz, causing him to be seriously injured. [8]
I don't see how the rattlesnake incident is in any way relevant here. - 193.110.108.67 06:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear readers ad Wiki-editors, I have done what I can to improve the section that relates to Leo Ryan's visit to Jonestown, up to the point where the story comes to the shootings at Port Kaituma and the evacuation of the wounded on the following day. I do not have regular citations at hand, but as you may observe, there are no disputable facts offered. Unless I am told by Wiki that I'm just wasting my time and that a former film researcher who has interviewed eight of the persons present at Kaituma --as well as other people close to those who were at the scene --should not inform the public about those tragic events, I will correct more sections of the entry. Please understand that what I can tell you will not leave you liking Jim Jones. I certainly don't care for the guy. -- Robert Helms 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Sections_.22In_popular_culture.22_for_tragic_events. Andries 14:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the extended quote from Sheila Yohnk's paper on Jonestwon should be removed and the paper should not be linked from this wikipedia entry. This is because Sheila has apparently partially plagiarized one of her sources, a Psychology Today article (1992) by Harrary (which incidentally shares the same title as her paper, "The Truth About Jonestown").
Currently Sheila is cited as having said: "First to drink were the infants and children, and many mothers poured the poison down their child's throat ... Two hundred and seventy-six children do not calmly kill themselves just because someone who claims to be God tells them to ... Proof of this is one little girl that seemed to know what was really going on. A witness saw this little girl keep spitting out the Flavor-aid until one of Jones’ assistants held her mouth closed and forced her to swallow ... Next the adults of the community were ordered to drink the poison. Many were held under gun point as Jones forced them to drink the Flavor-aid. When the FBI investigated Jonestown they found proof that many adults had not willingly drunk the poison ... One surviving member also testified to the FBI that he had been physically restrained and poisoned. He had held the poison in his mouth and started walking through the town shaking hands, pretending to be helping, until he reached the forest, spit it out and hid ... This information proves that 913 people didn’t die willingly. The people only had two choices, to drink the poison or to be shot. The Jonestown massacre is an example of mass murder, not mass suicide."
Indeed, her paper does have these lines in it: http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume6/tapeyohnk.htm
However, several of these lines appear originally in the Psychology Today article she references, see for yourself:
"The fact that some members held guns on the others and handled the syringes meant that what occurred in Jonestown was not only a mass suicide but also a mass murder. According to the witnesses, more than one member was physically restrained while being poisoned. A little girl kept spitting out the poison until they held her mouth closed and forced her to swallow it--276 children do not calmly kill themselves just because someone who claims to be God tells them to. A woman was found with nearly every joint in her body yanked apart from trying to pull away from the people who were holding her down and poisoning her all. All 912 Peoples Temple members did not die easily."
Unfortunately Sheila did NOT plagiarize the original author's conclusion: "Yet even if all the victims did not take their own lives willingly, enough of them probably did so that we cannot deny the force of their conviction." Thus her contribution to this section is both plagiarized and factually deceptive.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
169.229.151.154 (
talk •
contribs) 00:42, 4 September 2006
Why is it important to the article that Gosney and Bagby were "homosexual"? There were quite a few members of the Peoples Temple who were gay or lesbian.
Jones, himself, had sexual relations with both men and women, however I don't think mentioning Gosney's and Bagby's sexuality adds anything of value to the story. To speak of Jones and his obsession with sex (as well as his many dalliances with members of both sexes) might provide a great deal of insight into the lunacy of his leadership and control of his followers. Also, his seeming obsession with sex is well documented, not only by those who were members of the Peoples Temple but also in the transcripts of the hundreds of audiotapes found in Jonestown after the mass murder/suicide.
I removed the reference to Gosney's and Bagby's sexuality. While true, and documented in the press, it has nothing at all to do with what happened in Jonestown. (By the way, Vernon Gosney lost his son at Jonestown; his wife, who was in a coma during these events, and who subsequently died as a result of a botched cesarian, was not at Jonestown).
Some were angry and saw the Congressman's visit as trouble brought in from outside, while many went on with their usual routines. Two Peoples Temple members (Vernon Gosney and Monica Bagby) made the first move for defection that night, and Gosney passed a note to an NBC journalist, reading "Vernon Gosney and Monica Bagby. Please help us get out of Jonestown." (Vernon and Monica were reportedly both homosexual.[citation needed])
-- Zmizrachi 12:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear friends at Wikipedia,
I have replaced the earlier section with what I know to be true, and without the ancient rumors and conspiracy theories (which all derive from Jim Jones' own rants from November 18).
I personally met and spoke to eyewitnesses Tim Carter and Stanley Clayton during my former role as a documentary film researcher. During my research on the Jonestown tragedy, I also read books that included testimony from Hyacinth Thrash, Odell Rhodes, and Stanley Clayton.
The earlier section mentioned John Judge as a source. I have actually sponsored a lecture by Judge, who last wrote about Jonestown around 1980. He based his theories on that of Jones' lawyer Mark Lane, who in turn parroted Jim Jones. To rely on John Judge is to be quite gullible.
I will contribute more on Jonestown in the near future.
Thanks very much,
Robert P. Helms
01:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Jakcheng's edit (02:38, 16 October 2006) to the introduction changed "...nearly its whole population (nine-hundred-and-some people out of roughly a thousand) died..." to "...nearly its whole population (nine-hundred-and-nine people) died..." I undid that edit for these reasons: The 909 disagrees with the number given elsewhere in this and other WP articles, which is usually 913 though I believe I've also seen 914 and 911. So there are slight discrepencies as to the exact body-count -- and it can always be argued whether or not the would-be cult-leavers who were gunned down along with Congressman Ryan should be included -- which is why I chose to write "nine-hundred-and-some". This shows the scale of what took place, without getting into quibbles about the exact tally. Likewise, "roughly a thousand" for the total population takes into account the people who avoided or survived the mass killing, one way or another. I can't make out their exact number from what's on WP, and thus can't make out the exact population of Jonestown at the time. But, again, I think that the EXACT number is not significant. Especially for an introductory summary, a non-committal "roughly a thousand" makes more sense. Lonewolf BC 05:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to sign before, about half an hour ago)
I have added several names and corrected a few small errors that I had left in the last time I wrote. My changes give more dimension to the scene, I believe. SOURCES are the "Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple website (under "who died" and "who survived,"
and my notes as a film researcher (see above comments). This page is looking better but there's a lot more work to be done.
Respectfully,
Robert P. Helms
02:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
who really cares if some loser band mentioned jonestown in a song? who cares if someone on a tv show makes a throw away comment about jonestown? should you remark on every time joe blow on the street says DRINKING THE KOOL AID? hardly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.15 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 December 2006
There was a play performed at the Guthrie Theater a few years ago about the People's Temple (of the same name), but there doesn't seem to be any mention of it. Is there any place for it in any of the articles about the People's Temple -- 64.131.32.78 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, loser band references and throw away comments are about all we get--they are the main extent of jonestown's influence on pop culture (aside from cult bashing). And Kool aid idioms are not invented by joe blow; the idioms are in the culture and mentioned on tv programs as well as news programs. These ought to be on the page, as they reflect the popular connotation given to the event and the extent of cultural memory. 72.220.166.252 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added two items in the Popular Pulture section, most importantly the play "The People's Temple." Please note that the play's title has an apostrophe, and it's there (correctly) to distinuish it from the name of the church in question. This is to counterbalance what I consider a totally lame list of irrelevant garbage with the most important presentation on the subject since the 1982 book Raven (btw I just corrected the spelling of the author's name and added in the co-author for that one), and Alternative Considerations website. How did I become the fist person to upload this central information? Wiki has many qualities, but this gets weird sometimes. It would be great if contributors took the subject more seriously than goofy drink recipes they've come across over the years. Also, I added another documentary film from 1998 that I've seen. Also, I added a name to the Port Kaituma airstrip shooters. Robert P. Helms 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
one paragraph says...
"Before the Cessna took off, Layton produced a gun he had hidden under his poncho, and started shooting at the passengers. He wounded Monica Bagby and Vernon Gosney, and he tried to kill Dale Parks, who disarmed Layton."
and then the next paragraph says...
"...The Cessna was able to take off and fly to Georgetown, leaving behind the gunfire-damaged Otter (the pilot and copilot of the Otter also flew out in the Cessna). The Cessna carried one fatality, 18-year-old Monica Bagby."
So did Monica die or was she wounded? If she was wounded and it led to her death by the time the plane took off (or got back to Georgetown), then it might as well say she was killed by Layton in the plane since it says she was shot by Layton in the Cessna and then that the Cessna carried one fatality (Monica Bagby). So unless they took her wounded body out of the Cessna and then put her back in where she eventually died from being "wounded" by Layton... then she was killed by Layton on the plane. Right?
But actually I'm not even sure if she died at all... I just watch the Jonestown: Paradise Lost on the History Channel and I'm 99% sure they said both Vernon and Monica lived (of course Vernon did because he's interviewed for the show). I could be wrong but I think they said she lived... and then I tried to Google more and basically the only other non-wiki info about Monica I could find was this quote found here ( http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume8/helms.htm) ...
"Monica Bagby, who was wounded at the airstrip, has been pronounced dead by Wikipedia, even though she's said to be alive today by people who know her (the confusion seems to lie in a change from “casualty” to “dead”)."
So is she dead or alive? Either way I think this article needs a correction to one of those 2 paragraphs.
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Robk6364 (
talk •
contribs)
08:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
Also, to add on, i'd like to ask who exactly said the quotes. There should be citations for every quote and who said it. Otherwise it's just a saying to me.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.81.102.199 (
talk •
contribs) 02:51, 1 June 2007
(wounded only. resolved. archive please.) 72.220.166.252 02:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
in an associated link with Jonestown, belonging to the actual group, Peoples Temple, there is mention of a person named Jeannie Mills, aka, Deanna Mertle, [9], who was an early defector of the group. She started a sort of support group for relatives of "cult" members and the entry states that she & her husband & daughter were murdered in 1980.
Does anyone have any further information on this topic? I only ask because there were several mentions of murders and other connected activities well into 1982. Perhaps shedding some light on this could add info. to the Jonestown entry.
-- HatchetFaceBuick 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
i am just an enduser who wanted to learn more about what i saw on The History Channel today. I know everyone here is working hard on this article and i appreciate that. i just wanted to point out that the article is really confusing and hard to follow- it's very hard to keep track of all the people and who was on what side (i imagine that's difficult even when you know a lot). Maybe some kind of table or something could be developed? Anyway, i just thought you might like some feedback from an outsider. Thanks.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.21.67.253 (
talk •
contribs) 10:39, 21 January 2007
A disproportionate amount of this article has been devoted to conspiracy theories which seemingly have no merit, and if they do, no evidence for them has been provided in this article. The best part is that they're presented as "alternative explanations." "Explanations" for those of us who choose not to adhere to logic shouldn't be presented alongside factual information unless they're placed in the proper context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.160.51 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 January 2007
1. Removed reference Judge, John (1985), Dr. Julius Mader quoted in The Black Hole of Guyana as it linked to a reference in a web page that was not a citation for the three items it purported to support. The link in question lead to the following reference in another page: "White Night, p. 231 (Schuler quote), Children of Jonestown, p. 197 (unaware); Strongest Poison, pp. 182-89 (autopsy problems); NYT, 11/26/78 and 12/5/78 (no autopsies, reluctant), 11/26/78 (Mootoo's work unknown). " THis is not support for CIA involvement. 2. Removed reference [url= http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol29i4/page04.htm Revisiting the Jonestown Tragedy] as the source referenced has no sources or verification of its claims. 3. Removed unsourced allegations and conjecture from the 'conspiracy' section. 4. Merged 'conspiracy' section with 'aftermath and scandals' section where it fits better -- Chuck Sirloin 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The pbs frontline show Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple has film of Christine Miller asking about Russia, not Cuba, so I believe the following text, from this article, should mention Russia instead of Cuba:
-- Lbeaumont 02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct, Russia. Cuba was a previously dangled carrot. Resolved. Archive please. 72.220.166.252 02:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Changing this by swapping <references/> if favour of {{Reflist}} is not only needless but detrimental. The smaller font produced by {{Reflist}} is harder to read. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no advantage in saving space, and the references section of this article is not remarkably long, anyhow, much less oppressively long. -- Lonewolf BC 23:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"167 escaped into the jungle..." "Four people, who were intended to be poisoned, decided not to cooperate and survived..."
One could deduce that 163 people were not intended to be poisoned if but the article says "Five people claim they were given assignments by Jones or his staff that did not call them to their deaths..."
So clearly, one of the first two quotes is incorrect.
Can someone who is INFORMED on the matter please clean up and clarify the fact in this article. this is one of the more incoherent and rambling articles on Wikipedia, especially the suicide section. Well below our usual high standards.
Cult. POV. Pejorative. Non-neutral. Words to avoid Why is it being used? Sfacets 10:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets would like to remove the word 'cult' from usage in this article because it is pejorative and does not apply to this group. Instead he/she would like to call it a 'religious group'. We have had a similar discussion at Talk:Heaven's Gate which is still ongoing, but has generally reached a consensus to call it a cult (maybe? discussion is still going on). It seems to me that Jim Jones was the one that redefined the word cult and caused to become a negative thing. But anyway, we should maybe wait until the discussion at Heaven's Gate reaches some conclusion before doing something here. -- Chuck Sirloin 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The Peoples Temple is the epitome of a cult, in the usual modern sense of that word ("cult"). That many people nowadays -- most people, I suspect -- take a dim view of cults is neither here nor there. Many people likewise take a dim view of serial- and other mass-murderers, of rapists, of racists, of neo-Nazis, of whores, and so forth. That is no reason not to call a thing what it is. If Peoples Temple was not a cult, then there are no cults -- which is perhaps the point-of-view being advanced by Sfacets. But there is no considerable debate over whether it was or was not a cult, so we should not shy away from calling it one. "Religious group" , while also true, is needlessly vague -- alike to saying that the sky is "coloured".
--
Lonewolf BC
19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The actions and deeds of the people at Jonestown defined what the Peoples Temple really is. Anyone reading the article will draw the natural conclusion anyway. Insisting upon using the word "cult" in the article will do nothing but invite otherwise-sensible people to disagree with it. Let's let it go. Tim Pierce 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
(de-indenting)
No, we should not drop the broom out of fear it that it shan't sweep clean. You're quite right: If we were to avoid using "cult" in this article, anyone familiar with the term would easily discern, from the other facts of the matter, that the Peoples Temple was a cult -- and wonder why the hell the article tip-toes around calling it one, and perhaps even get the false impression that there is some question about its being a cult. There are bound to be agruable (or at least argued) cases, no matter how categorises things. For those, we have the principles of "reliable sources" and "consensus". For the cases that surely fall to one side or the other of a divide, we have the principle of not making an issue over the obvious.
--
Lonewolf BC
22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What does everyone think of saying "The Peoples Temple, widely described as a cult"? That at least is irrefutable (even without explicit sources, frankly) and does not put Wikipedia in the position of deciding which groups are cults and which are not. Moreover, since the Peoples Temple article does not define the group as a cult, it is somewhat jarring to see it defined that way here. Tim Pierce 13:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have not read anything that explains clearly why the use of the word "cult" here would be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, especially in light of the "Words to avoid" guidelines. Moreover, the WTA guidelines specifically use "cult" as an example in which "described as a cult" is the recommended wording. I am making that change here, and ask that other editors not revert it unless they can identify some other Wikipedia policy or guideline which contradicts its use. Thanks. Tim Pierce 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
As the person who originally wrote a fair portion of the text about "cult" in Wikipedia:Words to avoid - the point is that the word "cult" has multiple meanings and is rather vaguely defined and emotive, and so we should avoid using it without being clear which meaning we intend. That doesn't mean we can't use the word "cult" at all. But I think, to be NPOV, rather than calling a group a cult directly, quote sources which call it that, being careful to understand what that source understands the word "cult" to mean.
I think the best approach would be to look for published works (especially scholarly works from fields such as psychology, sociology, etc.) which address whether Jonestown is a "cult" and why, paying careful attention to which definition of "cult" they are using. Scholarly works are particularly useful, because some popular works tend to throw the word "cult" around without being defining it first, whereas scholarly works tend to be more careful in that regard. -- SJK 14:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If a group's reputation would be in jeopardy, or slander is a possibility, then excessive couching can be necessary. But in this case, it's just really strange diffusion around one concise 4-letter word. The story of Jonestown screams a reality orders of magnitude worse than some ordinary outer-limits sect. I don't know who could be offended on this. How about this: "Jonestown put the word 'cult' on the minds and tongues of people around the world." Is that indirect enough? Please tell me this sort of nonsense isn't common on wiki. 72.220.166.252 11:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Lonewolf BC and I do not seem to be able to come to an agreement or find a compromise on this issue (see above). I am sure that we are not the only editors with an interest in this matter, and I would welcome feedback from other editors to get some idea of how widespread the disagreement is at this point. Tim Pierce 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Seriously? A "religious organization"? That is POV. It's Wikipedia's job to report what the sources say not what we make up for the sake of political correctness, there's a reason the stuff about "cult" and its use on Wikipedia is a guideline. IvoShandor 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about all of the uses, but I'd think generally we would want to avoid it, except to point out that it has often and widely been deemed a cult. Other than that, "religious organization" sounds a bit off, but there should be other ways to minimize use of the word "cult" as a neutral descriptor. Mackan79 03:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Objectivity doesn't cater to a majority - if "most people " call it a cult then you can add this information to the article (with suitable references) - but categorizing it under a non-neutral term is not objective. Sfacets 05:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
How about generally referring to it as a " sect" while also noting it was widely regarded to be a "cult"? I appreciate the concerns raised about this, but I don't think "religious organization" has a enough meaning to be useful. Cult, and I think sect as well, implies a relatively small united group whose religious practices deviate from tradition. Although both have negative implications for anyone who values traditional religion, I think sect does not have the extreme associations which cult does. Although I do think even the most negative implications in the word cult (i.e. members cutting off outside family, violent resistance, mass suicide, etc.) are accurate in regard to Jonestown.-- BirgitteSB 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)This does, however, need more input. IvoShandor 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It has been more than five days since IvoShandor and I agreed on the following approach:
Since then there has been no disagreement with that approach. I intend to make this change to the article in the next couple of days and to remove the {{ NPOV}} tag. If any editors intend to revert those changes then I would like to hear your feedback now. Thanks -- Tim Pierce 17:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no POV issue with calling this a cult, because there is not controversy over its being a cult. The word is not pejorative or POV where it surely applies. It is simply the most accurate and straightforward description. -- Lonewolf BC 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
How about calling it a "congregation generally labeled as a cult?" It is not ONLY a cult, but THE example most commonly cited as an example of what is WRONG with cults.
Wowest 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The authors who still feel that it is wrong to follow Wikipedia guidelines exclusively for this article are welcome to Request comments by editors not involved in editing this article. Until then, I have changed the word "cult" to 'group' and made a few other suggested changes. PLEASE DO NOT REVERT, as this accomplishes nothing i resolving the dispute. Sfacets 14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
In the last month there has been a great deal of debate at Talk:Jonestown over whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to refer to the Peoples Temple as a "cult." Most of the editors involved have agreed to compromise on saying that it was "a group widely referred to as a cult." However, one editor continues to revert any change made to that effect, without responding to requests for discussion.
At this point I am inviting other editors to read some of the background and arguments for and against the use of the word "cult", beginning with Talk:Jonestown#Cult and going forward. Tim Pierce 19:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think "a congregation generally referred to as a cult" would be closer. The problem with the word "cult" is that is often used to create a sort of guilt by (free) association. People's Temple was a bad organization which which gives the term "cult" a bad name. When the term was later applied to the Branch Davidians, along with the word "compound" to describe their commune, you could tell there was going to be a problem in Waco. Wowest 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think "a group often referred to as a cult" is fine. Or even "religious group." Readers can determine for themselves what type of religious group these people were. Katsam 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to refer to PT as a religious group, then cult is the appropriate name. No doubt there are cults that don't deserve the moniker's ugly connotation, but (unfortunately) that connotation has no better example and causative than Jonestown itself. The good people of PT deserved better, but for lack of a word that fully describes what Jones did to his people, and what sort of bizarre organization he built, PT was a cult. If you want to be accurate about it, it was more of a secret society, mimicking and utilizing the classic control facets of a cult. It was in reality NOT a religious organization, since by the mid-70's they had totally eschewed and banished religion from their belief systems. In the late 60's Jones was preaching against the bible, throwing it, and stomping on it. And by 1977, the people were literally using bibles as toilet paper. They were espousing communism and atheism. It was widely known and believed in the group that religion had just been a prop; just another means to the end. Just like the faked healings. 72.220.166.252 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wiki says cult:
Etymology. etymonline.com says cult:
Do we have the right to eradicate a venerable word in reference to the very example that (regrettably) helped redefine the word to be seen as negative?? It is what it is. 72.220.166.252 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, we get into judgement calls - we are not qualified (and if we are cannot directly assert our opinions) to make these calls which is why we must rely on sources - meaning that while we cannot directly call a group a cult, we can mention that it is refered to as one, and provide sources. Perhaps in 1617 the word 'cult' had a neutral connotation, but today it is a pejorative. Sfacets 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"Church or "cult"? Remember people are human beings first. If you aim to destroy people, or use measures as coercive as those you claim to oppose, you may wind up with a tragedy you could never have foreseen. Talk to people. Love them. Don’t label them. Don’t trap them." [11]
In the same way that we cannot unanimously categorize the group as a cult - since the isn't universally accepted. A sure way not to violate NPOV would simply not to categorize it using a non-neutral term. Sfacets 06:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually think it is relevant whether there are reputable sources arguing that Peoples Temple was not a cult. I think Peoples Temple was clearly a cult. But that doesn't mean I think Wikipedia should say so. The problem I have is that the word "cult" is so heavy with value judgement that Wikipedia shouldn't use it as an unqualified descriptor. It doesn't make any sense to me that it would be okay to use this word if the label "clearly applies" to a given group -- if that was all we needed to worry about, we wouldn't need a guideline like WP:WTA at all, since it would be equally okay to say that someone is a "murderous lunatic" if they had murdered someone and been found insane. That clearly isn't okay (and I dearly hope no one here thinks it is). We should likewise treat an emotionally loaded word like "cult" with equal care. Tim Pierce 21:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, there are no new or valid arguments. Wikipedia maintains a strict neutrality principle, which will not be followed if the word is used to directly describe the group here. Sfacets 10:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a noun: "group". Easy, neutral... I have nothing against using the word 'cult' - but only to mention that it has been referred to as such by various individuals. Sfacets 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
How about if we provide some references calling it a cult? There's an interesting read at http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume6/tapeyohnk.htm - probably not worth citing itself but you may want to take a look at it if you think cult is too NPOV... personally I think that refusing to call Jonestown a cult is akin to refusing to call Stalin a communist because it might be inflammatory. Epthorn 08:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, Britannica calls it a cult. No, wiki doesn't have to be Britannica, but it's a good indication that an encyclopedia need not be neutered of all potentially nasty terms. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9043954/Jonestown Epthorn 08:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've read a great deal about Jonestown and Peoples Temple. I cleaned up the murder-and-suicide section, with a lot of rephrasing and rearranging. Fixed several facts.
"But this time, Dr. Laurence Schacht, Nurse Annie Moore, and others mixed cyanide and Valium into a metal vat full of grape Flavor Aid. Before the murder-suicide got under way, Jones argued with two Temple members who actively resisted his decision for the whole congregation to die. One was 60-year-old Christine Miller, who repeatedly suggested alternative strategies, such as taking all the children to Russia[17] along with Jones himself. Another dissenter was almost certainly Jones’ own wife, Marceline.[18]"
False. Three were allegedly given assignment to carry money. Lawyers were not on assignment.
and
Moved to aftermath section.
I also added several references and links.
Problems remain, but hopefully it's much easier to read now.
72.220.166.252
09:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the testimony of Prokes, spokesperson of the Temple, should be included in the article - however Lonewolf BC has consistently removed it saying "unreliable source, as flack for the PT & of unsound mind at the time" - could you please expand on this rationale, Lonewolf BC? Sfacets 21:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted Lonewolf BC's edit (contrary to concensus) and moved the quote higher up close to the sentence about the notes and away from the part about the press conference - does this have the desired effect? Sfacets 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I think Prokes note can be used if it is properly sourced. However I do think we are giving too much space by including the note in such length. I think the quotation should be pared down to a couple of sentences at best. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel it makes the article feel like a conspiracy theory page rather then being encyclopedic. We shouldn't be asking the reader questions I don't believe. Riffsofcobain 17:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that the actual, specific issues have been brought forward by Sfacets (albeit in an edit-summary instead of on the talkpage). Taking them in turn:
"The organization was widely referred to as a cult - not the settlement."
That is a non-issue because the version I wrote says "generally regarded as having been a cult" about the the Peoples Temple, not about the settlement of Jonestown.
"Please don't change consensed wording"
I suppose that this is an objection to changing "widely referred to..." to "generally regarded...". This is pretty much six of one and half a dozen of the other, to me. I don't think that it breaks the spirit of the as-was "consensus" -- it certainly was not meant to -- and see no reasonable cause for hair-splitting insistence on word-for-word rigidity. However, I've swapped "widely" back in for "generally". I hope that satisfies. If not (or even if so), let's see what other opinion has to say.
If this objection is meant to apply to the article at large, I can only say that, no, editors are allowed to "be bold": They need not discuss every edit ahead of time. This is especially so when, as in this case, an edit is fundamentally one to presentation, not information.
"+ tag weasel"
"Somewhat" is not a weasel-word, here. The number of the slain is purposely left imprecise in the lead because sources vary somewhat on it, and it depends on whom one chooses to include. I've inserted a comment (<!-- -->) into the article, explaining this. (As with accusations of vandalism, please be cautious about crying "weaseling". It's a narrower concept than mere use of an imprecise word, and implies dishonesty on the part of the supposed "weasel-worder".)
-- Lonewolf BC 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
What did the Government of Guyana think about all this? They can't have been unaware of such a huge settlement, were they? BillMasen 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The point of remembering Jonestown is to learn what was done, how the public was royally dupped, and how it cost nearly a thousand lives. (300 of which were children.) The story began long before November, 1978. This article must consider the facts of how this awful thing was designed, organized and financed. How "we the people" were complicit. The links below are perfectly valid informational points. Those who refuse to study the lessons of Jonestown are doomed to repeat them...:
I am simply stunned by the opening statement. Jonestown was a small blah blah blah. It seems to really minimize what happened. I believe this article can describe events (just like the holocaust) as "Jonestown was the site of one the deadliest massacres of the 21st century while not being a military action" while still reading like an encyclopedia entry....also people not affiliated with this religion were murdered right before the "kool-aid" was ingested. Does anyone agree? Pandagirlbeth ( talk) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely this article is quite good and well sourced, I apologize for making it seem as though I was criticizing the entire article. My critique is only with regards to the intro/lead in. Thank you for your response. Pandagirlbeth ( talk) 17:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement as to the exact death count at Jonestown. For example, according to this BBC article, 914 died, while according to this source, 913 died. Which figure should we include, or do we just include both?
Exact "numbers" is very relevant. Each individual who died should be counted. But 287 chlldren did die. It doesn't matter if 914, 913, or 912 people died.
The adults who died, chose to die! --The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 05:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The kids were innocent - 287 Children died at Jonestown.
It's reported they were wards of the state of California.
But the adults who died - chose to die. The Guianese government reported that all but three were murdered. Those three were reported to be the murders.
How can three kill about 1,000. All adults were guilty of being goofs and earned their right to be in the congration of murderers.
Unfortunatly 287 children died because of their ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxdave ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Ryan's Jonestown Visit" the sentence " Some were angry and saw the Congressman's visit as trouble brought in from outside, while many went on with their usual routines." Is followed by a request to "specify". I launched an extensive search of the internet (investigating 25 different resourse on the issue) and could not only find no activities to specify, but no actual reference to anyone behaving other than uncomfortably and staged activities. Not sure what to do with information but felt I should at least make my findings known. OneHappyHusky ( talk) 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The uncited (and unsourced) allegation that "Jones used many brainwashing techniques" is hardly neutral. In fact, Larry Layton attempted to employ the "brainwashing" defense he'd successfully used in a Guyana courtroom and it was shot down in the U.S. on all counts. There were psychological experts employed by both sides disagreeing on that issue. Mosedschurte ( talk) 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions: (1) Move The "Jim Jones' Psychological Decline in Guyana" to the "Jim Jones" article. (2) Delete the Paragraph in "Origins" that starts "In 1961" and the two old history paragraphs after that (late 60s/early 70s), because the old stuff isn't necessary here and it repeats the "Jim Jones" and "Peoples Temple" articles. As long as the reader knows the basic Temple philosophy, high level political support the Temple received for the move and reasons for the move to Jonestown, the old history is not particularly germane to Jonestown itself. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
There are four different articles on this topic:
Should they be merged? -- 217.158.203.194 08:20, 2 June 2003 (UTC)
Merged Jonestown mass suicide with Jonestown and moved text about the temple to People's Temple. So now we have articles just on the person ( Jim Jones), place ( Jonestown) and thing ( People's Temple). If the "Mass Suicide" section of this page gets long enough, then we can summarize that event here and put the details at Jonestown mass suicide. But there isn't enough text for that yet. -- mav 07:21, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think the current situation works well. Perhaps we should remove it from the Duplicate list? -- Wolf530 02:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I reverted the changes in which a user added that "Some believe the victims were injected with poison." While that may be the case, the reader is still left wondering: Who believes that? Where did this rumor begin? What is the evidence of this? Unless the user would like to contribute to answering these questions, I don't believe that statement belongs in the article. -- Wolf530 06:19, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed people were injected with poison. After watching a documentary, a father spoke about his infant son being injected. Perhaps, before you chose to revert things, you should find the facts yourself. It DID happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.182.253.82 ( talk) 14:09, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Where can I find information on the changes in Mr Carter's account? 212.242.105.145 ( talk) 11:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at Carter's original FBI testimony, then listen to him in interviews today. In addition, one problem is that people originally reading the Guyana Inquest and FBI accounts immediately assumed every reference was to a needled syringe, when it later turns out that many syringes without needles were used to squirt fluid into mouths. See, for example, even the original Odell Rhodes interview. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to ask: does the "CIA involvement" section really belong into a serious entry? --bas ( 193.166.89.77) 05:20, 18 November 2004 (UTC)
There's something else that's not brought up often enough .... many of the sources that are listed that deny or go against the CIA involvement claim use the State Department as the source for much of their information. Not to mention the fact that the US Government didn't do autopsies on the bodies, "assuming" they had all commited suicide. Now whether that assumption is correct or not, it should still at least be mentioned in the article. (source - john judge's book on the subject) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slashslap ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There were hardly armed guards. There were only 37 weapons found on a total of 930 inhabitants. Andries 21:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seem rude here, but this whole conversation about the number and the whereabouts of guns and crossbows is poorly uninformed. In the first place, almost every person who knew anything about the guns is dead. Secondly, Jonestown was burglarized by local Amerindians between the mass murder/suicide and the arrival of Guyanese soldiers. The most obvious thing to carry away would be a rifle. Thus we have no real souces to help us decide how many guns were in Jonestown when the mass deaths occured. We'll never know, and so we should just say, "we'll never know." When people debate why the JT residents did or did not oppose the guards, as far as concerns firearms and crossbows, they are missing half the story. They were trained for many years to be afraid, and when the moment came, they were afraid. Guns didn't cause the tragedy to happen. BobHelms 03:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
My suspicion has always been that the guns were hauled off either by survivors or by people rummaging the community after everyone was dead. The fact of the matter is that there are affidavits signed under threat of perjury that claims it was an armed camp. The fact that there were only 37 guns found afterwards says very little. Either the armed guards didn't kill themselves and took off with their guns or someone could have stolen them afterwards. In "Awake in a Nightmare" it is told that Stanley Clayton ran to a friend's house nearby and told them everyone was dead and they could go take tools from the community. He says they came back horrified and with tools, although it is never specified what they came back with. It could have very well been in this manner that the guns turned up missing. You cannot take the writings of places like "Jonestown.com" or even "Alternate Considerations of Jonestown" at face value. They are writing from the perspective of either survivors of the cult or from family members of those who perished. They are attempting, as much as possible, to clear Jim Jones and their loved ones of as many charges as possible. Their contention that Jonestown was not an armed camp based only on the fact that only a few guns turned up after the fact shows a massive overlooking of the obvious of how guns can turn up missing. The painful truth is that Jonestown was most likely more like what the media portrayed it as before and after the actual suicides than what survivors and relatives of the dead would like to believe. There is just no evidence, outside of uncritical conjecture that Jones had any benevolent intents when he took his clan to Guyana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajy11 ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC) ~
the above comment is in my view not quite fair to the alternative considerations website. I think they do a pretty good job in terms of making it clear that they do not represent the final Truth about Jonestown, also when it comes to the number of weapons in the community. I think that is a lesson we should all learn: to be very careful about presenting the things we really cannot say for sure as fact. For example: "the painful truth is that Jonestown was most likely more like....." - that cannot really be said to be a truth can it? Isn't it more of an opinion? 212.242.105.145 ( talk) 12:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The last two comments (above) are spot on. Sworn affidavits are best source, not what was left to count. Jonestown was a shambles after looting by nearby natives. Guns are valuable and easy to carry away. Blakey swore that many many guns were brought in from the US illegally, at the bottom of crates, sometimes hidden under tampons and such to evade inspection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.166.252 ( talk) 01:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
EVERYTHING HERE IS RESOLVED. WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE ARCHIVE IT. (I don't know how)
There are several other mistakes, inaccuracies, doubtful opinions in the article.
The article as well as the discussion page does not throw much light on the allegation of CIA involment in the Jonetown tragedy. I remember reading a book titled Jonestown Carnage: A CIA Crime published by one of the official publication groups in the erstwhile
Soviet Union. It was published in the eighties. The book details the moral support Jonestown received from
USSR and has photographs of Jim Jones with certain USSR officials. The conculsion of the book is that the Jonestown was an egalitarian set up on the lines of communist ideology and the residents were massacred by the CIA for their association with USSR.
The copy of the book is not immediately available with me as I stay in one part of India leaving the book away at home in another part of my country.
Can somebody provide some information on this book?
MANOJTV 11:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No one disputes the Peoples' Temple leanings to the Soviet Union. In fact, Jim states exactly that, claiming it to be their "motherland." Their meetings with Feodor Timofeyev are documented in openly avaiblable documents and discussed at length in several books. Timofeyev from the USSR embassy came to Jonestown and his speech is on tape and transcribed available at the SDSU site. The members took Russian langauge classes, socialism classes and Soviet Constitution classes in their nightly classes, the filled tests for which (and lesson plans) are contained in public documents. Jim describes them as both socialists and communists probably over 500 times on the recovered tapes. Long discussions are undertaken about it.
HOWEVER: this does not mean -- or even come close to meaning -- that the CIA somehow murdered these people. There is absolutely zero proof of anything like this. The "Jonestown Carnage" book, merely takes the openly available facts about the Peoples Temple being communist and very pro-USSR and makes outlandish leaps of logic, which is hardly unusual in the old Soviet Union.
Mosedschurte (
talk)
04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Today I got hold of the book I wrote about in my earlier communications. I uploaded the image for the benefit of he wikipedia users. The information given in the book seems to be reliable though it is entirely possible that the book also was part of USSR propaganda. I am now re-reading the book in the context of the on going discussion in wikipedia pages. If any of the users are interested I would be willing to give some information on the contents of the book. In any case, if there is anything in the book I find very relevant, I will be adding them to the wikipedia page on Jonestown. MANOJTV 07:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE ARCHIVE THIS. OR BETTER YET DELETE IT. IT WAS ERRONEOUS, AND IT'S LONG GONE.
The article says:
I am old enough to remember this tragedy. It took a considerable time for a team to arrive. Initial observation (by helicopter perhaps?) was only able to count about 500 bodies. And it was thought that hundreds of survivors -- or loyalists -- were hiding out in the bush. It was only after a body recovery team arrived that the mystery was solved. The reason that the count was short was that bodies were lying on top of other bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 February 2005
The link http://www.geocities.com/oldsayville/jones.htm is currently in the external links section, with the text "Jim Jones inspiration for his ideology and cult control techniques". The page claims that Jones was personally acquainted and inspired by Father Divine of Sayville, New York. However, pages from the site http://www.geocities.com/oldsayville/ have been added to other articles and have proved to be very problematic; actual facts ( Melissa Joan Hart grew up in Sayville and knows Sarah Michelle Gellar) blended with improbable speculation treated as factual ( Joss Whedon called the town in the " Buffy The Vampire Slayer" series "Sunnydale" because it sounded like "Sayville" and because Gellar regarded Hart as the "Chosen One" who would fight back against the bullying in the Sayville public school system.) So if someone with access to research materials could check whether the alleged link between Jones and Father Divine is plausible, and deal with the link accordingly, it'd be good. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sayville NY, which is near my home town of Centereach, has nothing to do with the tale of Jim Jones. Father Devine spent most of his career in Philadelphia. That city happened to be one of the cities where the PT would have some success in recruiting new members. Thus Buffy is not part of the story, for pity's sake. All the Jones/Devine business happened in Philadelphia. Jones got the idea of presenting himself to his followers as God from Father Devine. This is a basic piece of information. BobHelms 03:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the more interesting elements of popular culture that arose from this horrible tragedy is the idiom "drinking the kool aid". This is quite well known in the US but I would ask other wikipedians if they have heard it before. The expression means to blindly or brazenly accept the claims or beliefs of an individual or organization. It's often used to describe a supsicously enthusiastic corporate culture: "I've got to stop drinking the kool-aid". Shouldn't this be referenced in this article?
Oh, and yes, I know it was Flavor-Aid but the expression is exclusively used with "Kool Aid". Robbyslaughter 18:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Suggest something like: " Perhaps the most lasting effect on popular culture to come out of Jonestown are idioms related to Kool aid (e.g. "don't drink the Kool aid", "he drank the Kool aid", etc). The idioms refers to an unquestioning following or overenthusiastic culture or ideology (usually corporate culture). The drink used at Jonestown was actually unsweetened Flavoraid." 72.220.166.252 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The article says the five minute shooting where the congressman and the reporters were killed
was captured on camera, where is this footage?
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
200.204.147.108 (
talk •
contribs) 14:21, 23 November 2005
The footage is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2BrQkPPBlY among other sites. Searching "port kaituma guyana shooting" will bring up multiple other sites with the short tape.-- Spyderdiva 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The video described here on youtube has been removed by the owner. Does anyone know of another video link?
Bhuish
11:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)bhuish
Jones had several children but only one with his wife Marceline. Andries 17:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Jones and Marceline had one natural son (Stephan Gandhi Jones) and (by adoption) Agnes Paulette Jones; James Warren Jones, Jr.;Stephanie Jones; Lew Jones; Suzanne Jones; Timothy Glenn Tupper Jones This information is taken from various articles on the “Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple" site, including the lists of those who died, and of who survived the events of 18 November 1978 at:
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~remoore/jonestown/
--
Spyderdiva
06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
He also had at least one, probably more, illegitimate children. One child, Kimo Prokes, was Jones natural son with Caroline Moore Layton. Information found at the http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/ “Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple" site, article “The Deaths of Two Daughters: Grieving and Remembering” by Barbara Moore-- Spyderdiva 13:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Jones and many other members of the Peoples Temple saw themselves as a family that had the right and the duty to stay together. Like most families they felt that they had the duty to defend themselves against people who tried to take away their members.
Whether the product of bad writing or "religious freedom advocate" apologism, this needs to go.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.38.221.39 (
talk •
contribs) 06:29, 17 March 2006
I heard a German radio documentary on the Jonestown tragedy the other day and wanted to read up on Deborah Layton. Now I am thoroughly surprised to find out that the Wikipedia article on Mrs. Layton has been "redirected" to this site, but here I can find no information whatsoever concerning her or her book. I presume Mrs Layton may appear to some people a controversial figure - but a "conspiracy of silence" about her would seem to me rather ridiculous and quite below Wikipedia's standards.
Robert Schediwy (Vienna)
19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
agreed,anyone with enough info to start a new page with a link?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.46.49.98 ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Her website is http://www.deborahlayton.com/ and there are also articles by, and information about, her (including her contact information) in various articles and writings on "The Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and the Peoples Temple" site at http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~remoore/jonestown/ -- Spyderdiva 06:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This article (and the People's Temple article) provide no rationale as to why Jones justified this suicie to his followers, or more generally, what the group's beliefs were. I'm very interested in what purpose the members believed that their death served; were they going to heaven? Was the world going to end? Etc.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Happywaffle (
talk •
contribs) 18:38, 3 May 2006
I have come to the conclusion that there is no one reason. After reading loads of books, and scouring the internet for articles by survivors and family members, the reality is that there was probably no one single reason. Jones' psychosis, the cultivated fear, and the deprivation of both calories and sleep from most members on the site were probably the most important issues, but there were literally dozens of other contributing factor's as well. Even folks who were there at the PT Compound on November 18, 1978 have conflicting stories, memories and explanations.-- Spyderdiva 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This whole article is missing a slew of sources...including the most recent edits by Mtloweman. That edit needs a source as well as the second paragraph under "Mass murder suicide". In fact everything under that heading needs a damn source. This is one of the most horrific incidents in Guyanese and American history...for whichever path you choose to believe. Locate the documented sources. If you can't, then put it under a hypothesis or conspiracy heading. Or something else. I'm not touching this anymore but hopefully a more seasoned wiki-member will get some sense of npov out of this article.
Dear Wikireaders,
I researched a film on the Jonestown tragedy a few years ago, and here's what I can tell you about selected paragraphs from this article --I make my comMents within the text in [ALL CAPS INSIDE BRACKETS]:
1 "Before the Cessna took off, Layton took out a gun and started shooting at the passengers. He killed [WOUNDED!] two people, including defector Monica Bagby, before his gun was taken away by another defector. Jones's armed guards, or "Red Brigade," then emerged in a tractor pulling a wagon, pulled up within 30 feet of the Otter, and proceeded to open fire while circling the plane. Leo Ryan, three journalists, and one 18-year-old [44-YEAR-OLD] Jonestown defector were killed in the five minute [I'D SAY LESS] shooting, which was captured on camera. Camera operator Robert Brown was among the dead while Jackie Speier was injured from five bullets. The Cessna was able to take off and fly to Georgetown, leaving behind the gunfire-damaged Otter. They carried with them filmed footage of the surprise attack [THEY CARRIED NO FOOTAGE WHATSOEVER, BECAUSE THE FOOTAGE WAS BY THE OTTER, WHERE THE NEWS CREW WAS], a first glimpse of Jonestown for the outside world" [WHY ARE SOME NAMES MENTIONED AND OTHERS OMITTED? HAVE YOU READ ONLY A FEW SHORT PASSAGES ON THIS SUBJECT? HOW COME I KNOW EVERYBODY'S NAME --EVEN THE GUYANESE PILOTS?]
2 "Among the wounded at Jonestown [HE GOT ONE IN THE BUTTOCK AT PORT KAITUMA] was U.S. embassy official Richard Dwyer, who was also an agent of the CIA [TRUE --OH AND WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT NEVILLE ANNIBOURNE?]. At one point on the taped audio recording, as the killings began, Jones's own voice commands, "Take Dwyer on down to the east house" and a short time later, "Get Dwyer out of here before something happens to him."" [AND THEN SEVERAL FOLLOWERS STARTED SAYING 'HUH?' BECAUSE DWYER WAS NOT PRESENT. JONES WAS TOTALLY STONED AND HE MEANT TO SAY "GARRY" --HIS LAWYER, WHO WAS PRESENT AND WAS THEN ESCORTED AWAY FROM THE PAVILION. GARRY AND DWYER WERE OF SIMILAR ENOUGH DESCRIPTIONS]
3 "Older children were said to have been tied naked and electrical shocks would be administered to their genitalia. Guyanese officials had attempted to investigate these allegations but they were denied entry to the compound." [THESE ARE TWO OF MANY WILD EXAGGERATIONS: "SAID" BY WHOM TO HAVE DONE IT? AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY A GUYANESE OFFICIAL WOULD ACCEPT BEING DENIED ENTRY? IT'S HOGWASH. THERE WERE MANY ABUSES BUT THIS ONE IS APOCRYPHAL. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CONCERNED RELATIVES ALSO THREW SOME CURVE BALLS --UNDERSTANDABLE MAYBE, BUT THE INFO GETS WARPED.]
5. "bibliography... True Crime (series): Death Cults by various authors," [YOU MUST BE JOKING] "...Raven: The Untold Story of the Reverend Jim Jones and His People Tim Reiter" [YOU SHOULD READ THAT BOOK SOME DAY, AND THEN SPELL THE AUTHOR'S NAME RIGHT.]
[YOU'RE JUST SKIMMING THROUGH RANDOM MATERIAL AND NOT WEIGHING ONE PIECE OF TESTIMONY AGAINST THE OTHER. YOU, LIKE TOO MANY OTHERS, ARE EATING UP ALL THE TABLOIDY STUFF --POPULAR CULTURE??? YOU FORGOT TO MENTION WHAT THE STUPID MUSIC AND JOKES DO TO THE SURVIVORS AND RELATIVES!! --AND YOU'RE NOT OFFERING ANY OF THE HUMAN SIDE, THE RESISTANCE TO JONES, AND THIS PRESENTATION IS SO SHORT THAT YOU'RE LEAVING OUT CRITICAL PIECES, INCLUDING THAT ABOUT 15 MEMBERS DEFECTED IN THE MORNING, BEFORE JONES EVEN WOKE UP. TO BE FAIR, THIS PAGE IS FAR BETTER THAN SOME OF THE RELATED PAGES.]
Thanks for reading that, if anyone bothered.
--
Robert Helms
07:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I am very new to Wikipedia, still so green that I pulled a new article I'd put up because I couldn't figure out how to wikify it (I got one of those notices). The whole operation is great and everyone's been civilized. But I've spent a million hours on the phone, and in a few dozen cases met in person with survivors and families of Jonestown victims. The pop culture page, to me, is something like a racist joke-sheet would be if I felt at home with the targeted minority. There was a TV film about Jonestown in 1980. A guy who was there and lost loved ones told me that he was never able to get beyond the first 5 minutes of it, as he'd just start to go wild and his family would intervene. People went into hiding for ten or more years in loads of cases. Try to picture it: almost everyone you know just died in perhaps the strangest way possible, and every reporter on earth wants a piece of it, and what they write is almost always all wrong, all sensationalized, and all bad. The guys who were building Jonestown, before Jones brought the whole mob down there, they look back on it as the happiest days of their lives. I'd find two people who were both on the same little bus trip or some scene, and they'll have two opposite emotional renderings of the very same set of facts.
What I have not yet gotten down to with Wikipedia is that I know things in some areas that no one else knows, or that no one else wil ever write down in this encyclopedia. So how do I avoid "contributung my own stuff?" And I no longer have the stack of books on hand that I'd need to give proper citations at every step, nor can I just drop names all over the place after talking with people for the purposes of the film only. I just got mad when I saw how sloppy and truncated the article is. As I learn the ropes I'll do more, but hey, I've gotten encyclopedia entries published before, so this democracy is a bit tedious in a way. I like it but this subject is one case where a comittee may not be the best approach. Thanks for writing to me!
--
RH
20:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Robert, there are scads of mistakes on this page, written by folks who have read a webpage or two, or read a book at some time in the past.
For anyone who is interested, There are a lot of primary source documents at the Alternative Considerations site at: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~remoore/jonestown/ including articles from most of the survivors who will write or give interviews about it. There were some questions in my mind about the possible slant of that webpage, but they were put to rest by the fact that they post articles that attack them, as well as agree with them. Very even handed. And the Primary Documents speak for themselves.-- Spyderdiva 07:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
From the mass suicide section, I removed the last sentence. It used to read:
The Jonestown deaths were among several incidents from about 1978 to 1982 that greatly undermined cults in the United States. Another one was an incident where Synanon "Imperial Marines" placed a rattlesnake in the mailbox of an attorney named Paul Morantz, causing him to be seriously injured. [8]
I don't see how the rattlesnake incident is in any way relevant here. - 193.110.108.67 06:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear readers ad Wiki-editors, I have done what I can to improve the section that relates to Leo Ryan's visit to Jonestown, up to the point where the story comes to the shootings at Port Kaituma and the evacuation of the wounded on the following day. I do not have regular citations at hand, but as you may observe, there are no disputable facts offered. Unless I am told by Wiki that I'm just wasting my time and that a former film researcher who has interviewed eight of the persons present at Kaituma --as well as other people close to those who were at the scene --should not inform the public about those tragic events, I will correct more sections of the entry. Please understand that what I can tell you will not leave you liking Jim Jones. I certainly don't care for the guy. -- Robert Helms 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Sections_.22In_popular_culture.22_for_tragic_events. Andries 14:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the extended quote from Sheila Yohnk's paper on Jonestwon should be removed and the paper should not be linked from this wikipedia entry. This is because Sheila has apparently partially plagiarized one of her sources, a Psychology Today article (1992) by Harrary (which incidentally shares the same title as her paper, "The Truth About Jonestown").
Currently Sheila is cited as having said: "First to drink were the infants and children, and many mothers poured the poison down their child's throat ... Two hundred and seventy-six children do not calmly kill themselves just because someone who claims to be God tells them to ... Proof of this is one little girl that seemed to know what was really going on. A witness saw this little girl keep spitting out the Flavor-aid until one of Jones’ assistants held her mouth closed and forced her to swallow ... Next the adults of the community were ordered to drink the poison. Many were held under gun point as Jones forced them to drink the Flavor-aid. When the FBI investigated Jonestown they found proof that many adults had not willingly drunk the poison ... One surviving member also testified to the FBI that he had been physically restrained and poisoned. He had held the poison in his mouth and started walking through the town shaking hands, pretending to be helping, until he reached the forest, spit it out and hid ... This information proves that 913 people didn’t die willingly. The people only had two choices, to drink the poison or to be shot. The Jonestown massacre is an example of mass murder, not mass suicide."
Indeed, her paper does have these lines in it: http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume6/tapeyohnk.htm
However, several of these lines appear originally in the Psychology Today article she references, see for yourself:
"The fact that some members held guns on the others and handled the syringes meant that what occurred in Jonestown was not only a mass suicide but also a mass murder. According to the witnesses, more than one member was physically restrained while being poisoned. A little girl kept spitting out the poison until they held her mouth closed and forced her to swallow it--276 children do not calmly kill themselves just because someone who claims to be God tells them to. A woman was found with nearly every joint in her body yanked apart from trying to pull away from the people who were holding her down and poisoning her all. All 912 Peoples Temple members did not die easily."
Unfortunately Sheila did NOT plagiarize the original author's conclusion: "Yet even if all the victims did not take their own lives willingly, enough of them probably did so that we cannot deny the force of their conviction." Thus her contribution to this section is both plagiarized and factually deceptive.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
169.229.151.154 (
talk •
contribs) 00:42, 4 September 2006
Why is it important to the article that Gosney and Bagby were "homosexual"? There were quite a few members of the Peoples Temple who were gay or lesbian.
Jones, himself, had sexual relations with both men and women, however I don't think mentioning Gosney's and Bagby's sexuality adds anything of value to the story. To speak of Jones and his obsession with sex (as well as his many dalliances with members of both sexes) might provide a great deal of insight into the lunacy of his leadership and control of his followers. Also, his seeming obsession with sex is well documented, not only by those who were members of the Peoples Temple but also in the transcripts of the hundreds of audiotapes found in Jonestown after the mass murder/suicide.
I removed the reference to Gosney's and Bagby's sexuality. While true, and documented in the press, it has nothing at all to do with what happened in Jonestown. (By the way, Vernon Gosney lost his son at Jonestown; his wife, who was in a coma during these events, and who subsequently died as a result of a botched cesarian, was not at Jonestown).
Some were angry and saw the Congressman's visit as trouble brought in from outside, while many went on with their usual routines. Two Peoples Temple members (Vernon Gosney and Monica Bagby) made the first move for defection that night, and Gosney passed a note to an NBC journalist, reading "Vernon Gosney and Monica Bagby. Please help us get out of Jonestown." (Vernon and Monica were reportedly both homosexual.[citation needed])
-- Zmizrachi 12:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear friends at Wikipedia,
I have replaced the earlier section with what I know to be true, and without the ancient rumors and conspiracy theories (which all derive from Jim Jones' own rants from November 18).
I personally met and spoke to eyewitnesses Tim Carter and Stanley Clayton during my former role as a documentary film researcher. During my research on the Jonestown tragedy, I also read books that included testimony from Hyacinth Thrash, Odell Rhodes, and Stanley Clayton.
The earlier section mentioned John Judge as a source. I have actually sponsored a lecture by Judge, who last wrote about Jonestown around 1980. He based his theories on that of Jones' lawyer Mark Lane, who in turn parroted Jim Jones. To rely on John Judge is to be quite gullible.
I will contribute more on Jonestown in the near future.
Thanks very much,
Robert P. Helms
01:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Jakcheng's edit (02:38, 16 October 2006) to the introduction changed "...nearly its whole population (nine-hundred-and-some people out of roughly a thousand) died..." to "...nearly its whole population (nine-hundred-and-nine people) died..." I undid that edit for these reasons: The 909 disagrees with the number given elsewhere in this and other WP articles, which is usually 913 though I believe I've also seen 914 and 911. So there are slight discrepencies as to the exact body-count -- and it can always be argued whether or not the would-be cult-leavers who were gunned down along with Congressman Ryan should be included -- which is why I chose to write "nine-hundred-and-some". This shows the scale of what took place, without getting into quibbles about the exact tally. Likewise, "roughly a thousand" for the total population takes into account the people who avoided or survived the mass killing, one way or another. I can't make out their exact number from what's on WP, and thus can't make out the exact population of Jonestown at the time. But, again, I think that the EXACT number is not significant. Especially for an introductory summary, a non-committal "roughly a thousand" makes more sense. Lonewolf BC 05:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to sign before, about half an hour ago)
I have added several names and corrected a few small errors that I had left in the last time I wrote. My changes give more dimension to the scene, I believe. SOURCES are the "Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple website (under "who died" and "who survived,"
and my notes as a film researcher (see above comments). This page is looking better but there's a lot more work to be done.
Respectfully,
Robert P. Helms
02:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
who really cares if some loser band mentioned jonestown in a song? who cares if someone on a tv show makes a throw away comment about jonestown? should you remark on every time joe blow on the street says DRINKING THE KOOL AID? hardly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.15 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 December 2006
There was a play performed at the Guthrie Theater a few years ago about the People's Temple (of the same name), but there doesn't seem to be any mention of it. Is there any place for it in any of the articles about the People's Temple -- 64.131.32.78 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, loser band references and throw away comments are about all we get--they are the main extent of jonestown's influence on pop culture (aside from cult bashing). And Kool aid idioms are not invented by joe blow; the idioms are in the culture and mentioned on tv programs as well as news programs. These ought to be on the page, as they reflect the popular connotation given to the event and the extent of cultural memory. 72.220.166.252 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added two items in the Popular Pulture section, most importantly the play "The People's Temple." Please note that the play's title has an apostrophe, and it's there (correctly) to distinuish it from the name of the church in question. This is to counterbalance what I consider a totally lame list of irrelevant garbage with the most important presentation on the subject since the 1982 book Raven (btw I just corrected the spelling of the author's name and added in the co-author for that one), and Alternative Considerations website. How did I become the fist person to upload this central information? Wiki has many qualities, but this gets weird sometimes. It would be great if contributors took the subject more seriously than goofy drink recipes they've come across over the years. Also, I added another documentary film from 1998 that I've seen. Also, I added a name to the Port Kaituma airstrip shooters. Robert P. Helms 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
one paragraph says...
"Before the Cessna took off, Layton produced a gun he had hidden under his poncho, and started shooting at the passengers. He wounded Monica Bagby and Vernon Gosney, and he tried to kill Dale Parks, who disarmed Layton."
and then the next paragraph says...
"...The Cessna was able to take off and fly to Georgetown, leaving behind the gunfire-damaged Otter (the pilot and copilot of the Otter also flew out in the Cessna). The Cessna carried one fatality, 18-year-old Monica Bagby."
So did Monica die or was she wounded? If she was wounded and it led to her death by the time the plane took off (or got back to Georgetown), then it might as well say she was killed by Layton in the plane since it says she was shot by Layton in the Cessna and then that the Cessna carried one fatality (Monica Bagby). So unless they took her wounded body out of the Cessna and then put her back in where she eventually died from being "wounded" by Layton... then she was killed by Layton on the plane. Right?
But actually I'm not even sure if she died at all... I just watch the Jonestown: Paradise Lost on the History Channel and I'm 99% sure they said both Vernon and Monica lived (of course Vernon did because he's interviewed for the show). I could be wrong but I think they said she lived... and then I tried to Google more and basically the only other non-wiki info about Monica I could find was this quote found here ( http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume8/helms.htm) ...
"Monica Bagby, who was wounded at the airstrip, has been pronounced dead by Wikipedia, even though she's said to be alive today by people who know her (the confusion seems to lie in a change from “casualty” to “dead”)."
So is she dead or alive? Either way I think this article needs a correction to one of those 2 paragraphs.
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Robk6364 (
talk •
contribs)
08:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
Also, to add on, i'd like to ask who exactly said the quotes. There should be citations for every quote and who said it. Otherwise it's just a saying to me.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.81.102.199 (
talk •
contribs) 02:51, 1 June 2007
(wounded only. resolved. archive please.) 72.220.166.252 02:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
in an associated link with Jonestown, belonging to the actual group, Peoples Temple, there is mention of a person named Jeannie Mills, aka, Deanna Mertle, [9], who was an early defector of the group. She started a sort of support group for relatives of "cult" members and the entry states that she & her husband & daughter were murdered in 1980.
Does anyone have any further information on this topic? I only ask because there were several mentions of murders and other connected activities well into 1982. Perhaps shedding some light on this could add info. to the Jonestown entry.
-- HatchetFaceBuick 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
i am just an enduser who wanted to learn more about what i saw on The History Channel today. I know everyone here is working hard on this article and i appreciate that. i just wanted to point out that the article is really confusing and hard to follow- it's very hard to keep track of all the people and who was on what side (i imagine that's difficult even when you know a lot). Maybe some kind of table or something could be developed? Anyway, i just thought you might like some feedback from an outsider. Thanks.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.21.67.253 (
talk •
contribs) 10:39, 21 January 2007
A disproportionate amount of this article has been devoted to conspiracy theories which seemingly have no merit, and if they do, no evidence for them has been provided in this article. The best part is that they're presented as "alternative explanations." "Explanations" for those of us who choose not to adhere to logic shouldn't be presented alongside factual information unless they're placed in the proper context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.160.51 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 January 2007
1. Removed reference Judge, John (1985), Dr. Julius Mader quoted in The Black Hole of Guyana as it linked to a reference in a web page that was not a citation for the three items it purported to support. The link in question lead to the following reference in another page: "White Night, p. 231 (Schuler quote), Children of Jonestown, p. 197 (unaware); Strongest Poison, pp. 182-89 (autopsy problems); NYT, 11/26/78 and 12/5/78 (no autopsies, reluctant), 11/26/78 (Mootoo's work unknown). " THis is not support for CIA involvement. 2. Removed reference [url= http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol29i4/page04.htm Revisiting the Jonestown Tragedy] as the source referenced has no sources or verification of its claims. 3. Removed unsourced allegations and conjecture from the 'conspiracy' section. 4. Merged 'conspiracy' section with 'aftermath and scandals' section where it fits better -- Chuck Sirloin 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The pbs frontline show Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple has film of Christine Miller asking about Russia, not Cuba, so I believe the following text, from this article, should mention Russia instead of Cuba:
-- Lbeaumont 02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct, Russia. Cuba was a previously dangled carrot. Resolved. Archive please. 72.220.166.252 02:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Changing this by swapping <references/> if favour of {{Reflist}} is not only needless but detrimental. The smaller font produced by {{Reflist}} is harder to read. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no advantage in saving space, and the references section of this article is not remarkably long, anyhow, much less oppressively long. -- Lonewolf BC 23:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"167 escaped into the jungle..." "Four people, who were intended to be poisoned, decided not to cooperate and survived..."
One could deduce that 163 people were not intended to be poisoned if but the article says "Five people claim they were given assignments by Jones or his staff that did not call them to their deaths..."
So clearly, one of the first two quotes is incorrect.
Can someone who is INFORMED on the matter please clean up and clarify the fact in this article. this is one of the more incoherent and rambling articles on Wikipedia, especially the suicide section. Well below our usual high standards.
Cult. POV. Pejorative. Non-neutral. Words to avoid Why is it being used? Sfacets 10:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets would like to remove the word 'cult' from usage in this article because it is pejorative and does not apply to this group. Instead he/she would like to call it a 'religious group'. We have had a similar discussion at Talk:Heaven's Gate which is still ongoing, but has generally reached a consensus to call it a cult (maybe? discussion is still going on). It seems to me that Jim Jones was the one that redefined the word cult and caused to become a negative thing. But anyway, we should maybe wait until the discussion at Heaven's Gate reaches some conclusion before doing something here. -- Chuck Sirloin 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The Peoples Temple is the epitome of a cult, in the usual modern sense of that word ("cult"). That many people nowadays -- most people, I suspect -- take a dim view of cults is neither here nor there. Many people likewise take a dim view of serial- and other mass-murderers, of rapists, of racists, of neo-Nazis, of whores, and so forth. That is no reason not to call a thing what it is. If Peoples Temple was not a cult, then there are no cults -- which is perhaps the point-of-view being advanced by Sfacets. But there is no considerable debate over whether it was or was not a cult, so we should not shy away from calling it one. "Religious group" , while also true, is needlessly vague -- alike to saying that the sky is "coloured".
--
Lonewolf BC
19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The actions and deeds of the people at Jonestown defined what the Peoples Temple really is. Anyone reading the article will draw the natural conclusion anyway. Insisting upon using the word "cult" in the article will do nothing but invite otherwise-sensible people to disagree with it. Let's let it go. Tim Pierce 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
(de-indenting)
No, we should not drop the broom out of fear it that it shan't sweep clean. You're quite right: If we were to avoid using "cult" in this article, anyone familiar with the term would easily discern, from the other facts of the matter, that the Peoples Temple was a cult -- and wonder why the hell the article tip-toes around calling it one, and perhaps even get the false impression that there is some question about its being a cult. There are bound to be agruable (or at least argued) cases, no matter how categorises things. For those, we have the principles of "reliable sources" and "consensus". For the cases that surely fall to one side or the other of a divide, we have the principle of not making an issue over the obvious.
--
Lonewolf BC
22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What does everyone think of saying "The Peoples Temple, widely described as a cult"? That at least is irrefutable (even without explicit sources, frankly) and does not put Wikipedia in the position of deciding which groups are cults and which are not. Moreover, since the Peoples Temple article does not define the group as a cult, it is somewhat jarring to see it defined that way here. Tim Pierce 13:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have not read anything that explains clearly why the use of the word "cult" here would be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, especially in light of the "Words to avoid" guidelines. Moreover, the WTA guidelines specifically use "cult" as an example in which "described as a cult" is the recommended wording. I am making that change here, and ask that other editors not revert it unless they can identify some other Wikipedia policy or guideline which contradicts its use. Thanks. Tim Pierce 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
As the person who originally wrote a fair portion of the text about "cult" in Wikipedia:Words to avoid - the point is that the word "cult" has multiple meanings and is rather vaguely defined and emotive, and so we should avoid using it without being clear which meaning we intend. That doesn't mean we can't use the word "cult" at all. But I think, to be NPOV, rather than calling a group a cult directly, quote sources which call it that, being careful to understand what that source understands the word "cult" to mean.
I think the best approach would be to look for published works (especially scholarly works from fields such as psychology, sociology, etc.) which address whether Jonestown is a "cult" and why, paying careful attention to which definition of "cult" they are using. Scholarly works are particularly useful, because some popular works tend to throw the word "cult" around without being defining it first, whereas scholarly works tend to be more careful in that regard. -- SJK 14:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If a group's reputation would be in jeopardy, or slander is a possibility, then excessive couching can be necessary. But in this case, it's just really strange diffusion around one concise 4-letter word. The story of Jonestown screams a reality orders of magnitude worse than some ordinary outer-limits sect. I don't know who could be offended on this. How about this: "Jonestown put the word 'cult' on the minds and tongues of people around the world." Is that indirect enough? Please tell me this sort of nonsense isn't common on wiki. 72.220.166.252 11:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Lonewolf BC and I do not seem to be able to come to an agreement or find a compromise on this issue (see above). I am sure that we are not the only editors with an interest in this matter, and I would welcome feedback from other editors to get some idea of how widespread the disagreement is at this point. Tim Pierce 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Seriously? A "religious organization"? That is POV. It's Wikipedia's job to report what the sources say not what we make up for the sake of political correctness, there's a reason the stuff about "cult" and its use on Wikipedia is a guideline. IvoShandor 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about all of the uses, but I'd think generally we would want to avoid it, except to point out that it has often and widely been deemed a cult. Other than that, "religious organization" sounds a bit off, but there should be other ways to minimize use of the word "cult" as a neutral descriptor. Mackan79 03:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Objectivity doesn't cater to a majority - if "most people " call it a cult then you can add this information to the article (with suitable references) - but categorizing it under a non-neutral term is not objective. Sfacets 05:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
How about generally referring to it as a " sect" while also noting it was widely regarded to be a "cult"? I appreciate the concerns raised about this, but I don't think "religious organization" has a enough meaning to be useful. Cult, and I think sect as well, implies a relatively small united group whose religious practices deviate from tradition. Although both have negative implications for anyone who values traditional religion, I think sect does not have the extreme associations which cult does. Although I do think even the most negative implications in the word cult (i.e. members cutting off outside family, violent resistance, mass suicide, etc.) are accurate in regard to Jonestown.-- BirgitteSB 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)This does, however, need more input. IvoShandor 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It has been more than five days since IvoShandor and I agreed on the following approach:
Since then there has been no disagreement with that approach. I intend to make this change to the article in the next couple of days and to remove the {{ NPOV}} tag. If any editors intend to revert those changes then I would like to hear your feedback now. Thanks -- Tim Pierce 17:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no POV issue with calling this a cult, because there is not controversy over its being a cult. The word is not pejorative or POV where it surely applies. It is simply the most accurate and straightforward description. -- Lonewolf BC 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
How about calling it a "congregation generally labeled as a cult?" It is not ONLY a cult, but THE example most commonly cited as an example of what is WRONG with cults.
Wowest 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The authors who still feel that it is wrong to follow Wikipedia guidelines exclusively for this article are welcome to Request comments by editors not involved in editing this article. Until then, I have changed the word "cult" to 'group' and made a few other suggested changes. PLEASE DO NOT REVERT, as this accomplishes nothing i resolving the dispute. Sfacets 14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
In the last month there has been a great deal of debate at Talk:Jonestown over whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to refer to the Peoples Temple as a "cult." Most of the editors involved have agreed to compromise on saying that it was "a group widely referred to as a cult." However, one editor continues to revert any change made to that effect, without responding to requests for discussion.
At this point I am inviting other editors to read some of the background and arguments for and against the use of the word "cult", beginning with Talk:Jonestown#Cult and going forward. Tim Pierce 19:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think "a congregation generally referred to as a cult" would be closer. The problem with the word "cult" is that is often used to create a sort of guilt by (free) association. People's Temple was a bad organization which which gives the term "cult" a bad name. When the term was later applied to the Branch Davidians, along with the word "compound" to describe their commune, you could tell there was going to be a problem in Waco. Wowest 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think "a group often referred to as a cult" is fine. Or even "religious group." Readers can determine for themselves what type of religious group these people were. Katsam 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to refer to PT as a religious group, then cult is the appropriate name. No doubt there are cults that don't deserve the moniker's ugly connotation, but (unfortunately) that connotation has no better example and causative than Jonestown itself. The good people of PT deserved better, but for lack of a word that fully describes what Jones did to his people, and what sort of bizarre organization he built, PT was a cult. If you want to be accurate about it, it was more of a secret society, mimicking and utilizing the classic control facets of a cult. It was in reality NOT a religious organization, since by the mid-70's they had totally eschewed and banished religion from their belief systems. In the late 60's Jones was preaching against the bible, throwing it, and stomping on it. And by 1977, the people were literally using bibles as toilet paper. They were espousing communism and atheism. It was widely known and believed in the group that religion had just been a prop; just another means to the end. Just like the faked healings. 72.220.166.252 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wiki says cult:
Etymology. etymonline.com says cult:
Do we have the right to eradicate a venerable word in reference to the very example that (regrettably) helped redefine the word to be seen as negative?? It is what it is. 72.220.166.252 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, we get into judgement calls - we are not qualified (and if we are cannot directly assert our opinions) to make these calls which is why we must rely on sources - meaning that while we cannot directly call a group a cult, we can mention that it is refered to as one, and provide sources. Perhaps in 1617 the word 'cult' had a neutral connotation, but today it is a pejorative. Sfacets 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"Church or "cult"? Remember people are human beings first. If you aim to destroy people, or use measures as coercive as those you claim to oppose, you may wind up with a tragedy you could never have foreseen. Talk to people. Love them. Don’t label them. Don’t trap them." [11]
In the same way that we cannot unanimously categorize the group as a cult - since the isn't universally accepted. A sure way not to violate NPOV would simply not to categorize it using a non-neutral term. Sfacets 06:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually think it is relevant whether there are reputable sources arguing that Peoples Temple was not a cult. I think Peoples Temple was clearly a cult. But that doesn't mean I think Wikipedia should say so. The problem I have is that the word "cult" is so heavy with value judgement that Wikipedia shouldn't use it as an unqualified descriptor. It doesn't make any sense to me that it would be okay to use this word if the label "clearly applies" to a given group -- if that was all we needed to worry about, we wouldn't need a guideline like WP:WTA at all, since it would be equally okay to say that someone is a "murderous lunatic" if they had murdered someone and been found insane. That clearly isn't okay (and I dearly hope no one here thinks it is). We should likewise treat an emotionally loaded word like "cult" with equal care. Tim Pierce 21:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, there are no new or valid arguments. Wikipedia maintains a strict neutrality principle, which will not be followed if the word is used to directly describe the group here. Sfacets 10:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a noun: "group". Easy, neutral... I have nothing against using the word 'cult' - but only to mention that it has been referred to as such by various individuals. Sfacets 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
How about if we provide some references calling it a cult? There's an interesting read at http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume6/tapeyohnk.htm - probably not worth citing itself but you may want to take a look at it if you think cult is too NPOV... personally I think that refusing to call Jonestown a cult is akin to refusing to call Stalin a communist because it might be inflammatory. Epthorn 08:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, Britannica calls it a cult. No, wiki doesn't have to be Britannica, but it's a good indication that an encyclopedia need not be neutered of all potentially nasty terms. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9043954/Jonestown Epthorn 08:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've read a great deal about Jonestown and Peoples Temple. I cleaned up the murder-and-suicide section, with a lot of rephrasing and rearranging. Fixed several facts.
"But this time, Dr. Laurence Schacht, Nurse Annie Moore, and others mixed cyanide and Valium into a metal vat full of grape Flavor Aid. Before the murder-suicide got under way, Jones argued with two Temple members who actively resisted his decision for the whole congregation to die. One was 60-year-old Christine Miller, who repeatedly suggested alternative strategies, such as taking all the children to Russia[17] along with Jones himself. Another dissenter was almost certainly Jones’ own wife, Marceline.[18]"
False. Three were allegedly given assignment to carry money. Lawyers were not on assignment.
and
Moved to aftermath section.
I also added several references and links.
Problems remain, but hopefully it's much easier to read now.
72.220.166.252
09:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the testimony of Prokes, spokesperson of the Temple, should be included in the article - however Lonewolf BC has consistently removed it saying "unreliable source, as flack for the PT & of unsound mind at the time" - could you please expand on this rationale, Lonewolf BC? Sfacets 21:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted Lonewolf BC's edit (contrary to concensus) and moved the quote higher up close to the sentence about the notes and away from the part about the press conference - does this have the desired effect? Sfacets 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I think Prokes note can be used if it is properly sourced. However I do think we are giving too much space by including the note in such length. I think the quotation should be pared down to a couple of sentences at best. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel it makes the article feel like a conspiracy theory page rather then being encyclopedic. We shouldn't be asking the reader questions I don't believe. Riffsofcobain 17:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that the actual, specific issues have been brought forward by Sfacets (albeit in an edit-summary instead of on the talkpage). Taking them in turn:
"The organization was widely referred to as a cult - not the settlement."
That is a non-issue because the version I wrote says "generally regarded as having been a cult" about the the Peoples Temple, not about the settlement of Jonestown.
"Please don't change consensed wording"
I suppose that this is an objection to changing "widely referred to..." to "generally regarded...". This is pretty much six of one and half a dozen of the other, to me. I don't think that it breaks the spirit of the as-was "consensus" -- it certainly was not meant to -- and see no reasonable cause for hair-splitting insistence on word-for-word rigidity. However, I've swapped "widely" back in for "generally". I hope that satisfies. If not (or even if so), let's see what other opinion has to say.
If this objection is meant to apply to the article at large, I can only say that, no, editors are allowed to "be bold": They need not discuss every edit ahead of time. This is especially so when, as in this case, an edit is fundamentally one to presentation, not information.
"+ tag weasel"
"Somewhat" is not a weasel-word, here. The number of the slain is purposely left imprecise in the lead because sources vary somewhat on it, and it depends on whom one chooses to include. I've inserted a comment (<!-- -->) into the article, explaining this. (As with accusations of vandalism, please be cautious about crying "weaseling". It's a narrower concept than mere use of an imprecise word, and implies dishonesty on the part of the supposed "weasel-worder".)
-- Lonewolf BC 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
What did the Government of Guyana think about all this? They can't have been unaware of such a huge settlement, were they? BillMasen 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The point of remembering Jonestown is to learn what was done, how the public was royally dupped, and how it cost nearly a thousand lives. (300 of which were children.) The story began long before November, 1978. This article must consider the facts of how this awful thing was designed, organized and financed. How "we the people" were complicit. The links below are perfectly valid informational points. Those who refuse to study the lessons of Jonestown are doomed to repeat them...:
I am simply stunned by the opening statement. Jonestown was a small blah blah blah. It seems to really minimize what happened. I believe this article can describe events (just like the holocaust) as "Jonestown was the site of one the deadliest massacres of the 21st century while not being a military action" while still reading like an encyclopedia entry....also people not affiliated with this religion were murdered right before the "kool-aid" was ingested. Does anyone agree? Pandagirlbeth ( talk) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely this article is quite good and well sourced, I apologize for making it seem as though I was criticizing the entire article. My critique is only with regards to the intro/lead in. Thank you for your response. Pandagirlbeth ( talk) 17:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement as to the exact death count at Jonestown. For example, according to this BBC article, 914 died, while according to this source, 913 died. Which figure should we include, or do we just include both?
Exact "numbers" is very relevant. Each individual who died should be counted. But 287 chlldren did die. It doesn't matter if 914, 913, or 912 people died.
The adults who died, chose to die! --The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 05:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The kids were innocent - 287 Children died at Jonestown.
It's reported they were wards of the state of California.
But the adults who died - chose to die. The Guianese government reported that all but three were murdered. Those three were reported to be the murders.
How can three kill about 1,000. All adults were guilty of being goofs and earned their right to be in the congration of murderers.
Unfortunatly 287 children died because of their ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxdave ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Ryan's Jonestown Visit" the sentence " Some were angry and saw the Congressman's visit as trouble brought in from outside, while many went on with their usual routines." Is followed by a request to "specify". I launched an extensive search of the internet (investigating 25 different resourse on the issue) and could not only find no activities to specify, but no actual reference to anyone behaving other than uncomfortably and staged activities. Not sure what to do with information but felt I should at least make my findings known. OneHappyHusky ( talk) 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The uncited (and unsourced) allegation that "Jones used many brainwashing techniques" is hardly neutral. In fact, Larry Layton attempted to employ the "brainwashing" defense he'd successfully used in a Guyana courtroom and it was shot down in the U.S. on all counts. There were psychological experts employed by both sides disagreeing on that issue. Mosedschurte ( talk) 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions: (1) Move The "Jim Jones' Psychological Decline in Guyana" to the "Jim Jones" article. (2) Delete the Paragraph in "Origins" that starts "In 1961" and the two old history paragraphs after that (late 60s/early 70s), because the old stuff isn't necessary here and it repeats the "Jim Jones" and "Peoples Temple" articles. As long as the reader knows the basic Temple philosophy, high level political support the Temple received for the move and reasons for the move to Jonestown, the old history is not particularly germane to Jonestown itself. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)