Talk:Jonestown

Articles on this topic

There are four different articles on this topic:

• Jim Jones
• Jonestown
• Jonestown mass suicide now a redirect to Jonestown
• People's Temple

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 think it's a little odd that the article about historical event is listed under the name of the place they occurred. I know some things are known for where they happened (Nuremburg, Hiroshima, etc.), but I really tend to think of the events at Jonestown as "that time the cult got poisoned with Kool-Aid". Brendan62442 13:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Injected with poison?

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)

NOTE: I'm not a regular contributer but the "injected with a poison" thing originated from an medical examination conducted in Guyana. Here's the quote and the link:
"The results of pathology examinations conducted by Guyanese coroner Leslie Mootoo however, revealed his belief that as many as 700 of the victims were murders, not suicides. Mootoo claims that in a 32-hour period he, and his assistants, examined the bodies of 137 victims. They had all been injected with cyanide in areas of their bodies, which could not have been reached by their own hand, such as between the shoulder blades; many other victims had been shot. Charles Huff, one of the seven Green Berets who were the first American troops on the scene following the massacre, claimed that “We saw many bullet wounds as well as wounds from crossbow bolts.” Those who were shot appeared to have been running toward the jungle, away from the compound, at the time they were shot." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.88.90 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 March 2005 (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)

The father you saw in the documentary was Tim Carter, and his claim (which has changed over the years) is that poison was squirted in the child's mouth, not injected. But you are right--many people were injected with poison, as Mootoo documented, and countless syringes were scattered all over the site.

CIA involvement

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)

If you take note of one of the external links at CNN.com, the question on CIA involvement really was a serious issue. This was also mentioned in a book on cults. (see bibliography, book #3) --Andylkl 05:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that you are correct that "CIA involvment" needs to be a section, but it needs to be integrated better. Right now, it just seems to be a stub tacked onto an otherwise excellent article. But, I am not good enough to figure out how to do it yet. Can anyone else help? -- Simon 21:46, 4 January 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong. Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting crackpot conspiracy theories. Vidor 19:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it belongs here. I myself believe in that theory, and those who wish to close their eyes to the truths mmay do so but the section dpes belong here as it is a debated and widely thought alternative answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor18 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely it belongs. It's not proven of course, but it is known that some 30,000 pages--the majority of all documents related to Jonestown--remain classified almost 30 years later, as a matter of "national security". For that reason alone it is valid speculation, if nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.166.252 (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Armed Guards?

There were hardly armed guards. There were only 37 weapons found on a total of 930 inhabitants. Andries 21:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back that up? --Andylkl 07:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mary McCormick Maaga's book Hearing the Voices of Jonestow (that has to be read with some caution because it has a feminist and an anti-anti-cult slant) ISBN 0-8156-0515-3 but I read it online too, somewhere on Alternative considerations etc.. The book may be fully accurate though: after all even the worst cult is often more complicated and more normal than most people and many anti-cult activists think. critical book review by the excellent online magazine salon.com Andries 09:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This realisation just "blipped" into my head last night: If there were no armed guards there, then who started out the shootout at the airstrip? --Andylkl 14:23, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote hardly. Most of the armed guards were away during the suicide because they belonged to a basketball team that was playing somewhere else. In total, 85 people of Jonestown survived the mass suicide. Andries 14:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, based on the info at hand, there were 2 squads of guards at that day, one in the basketball game (obviously unarmed), the other started the shootout and later accompanied Jones for the mass suicide. Btw, the basketball players were just assumed to be part of the guards [1]. But regardless of the number of guards, there still were armed guards in the area. Call me thick, but I don't quite understand what exactly is the problem here? --Andylkl 18:24, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Stephan Jones, his natural son, asserted in the book that people did not need "help" from armed guards because they wanted to be loyal to the group and not be a traitor. Andries 18:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

His relationship with his father was not good, he might have not get what he asserted for. Souces from google [2] indicated that there indeed were armed guards there. Might be few, but they were still there. --Andylkl 20:00, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

I still think that the current article is somewhat misleading about people who alllegedly were hunted down by armed guards. [3] Andries 15:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Stephen Jones (his son) did say he thought many of the people felt a loyalty to the group, but he wasn't even there during the "mass suicide" he was in Georgetown for the basketball game and where he later found Sharon had murdered her family in the house in Georgetown at which point he knew that "something terrible" was going on back at Jonestown. Vernon Gosney was not there either during the "mass suicide" because he was a defector at the airstrip, but according to the accounts on his History Channel interview he says there were armed guards surrounding the pavillion at all the "white night" emergency meetings called and that the guards were aiming the guns in toward the Jonestown followers. As for 37 guns... let's be realistic, they are MILES into the middle of the jungle, so whether there were 5, 10, 25, or 250 people with guns... those with the guns are going to be in charge. Even if a few people had tried to stand up and "revolt" against the few people with guns... once those people are shot as an example everyone else is going to be too scared to do or say anything. So I think the issue of how many guards is irrelevent when you consider they are in the middle of the jungle and can't just escape, those that tried were/would be shot and so no one is going to try. Sure they don't have enough guns and bullets to kill them all but who will be the first brave 50-100 people to get shot while the rest scurry into the jungle. And let's not forget that many of these people really were "loyal to the group" if not loyal to Jones himself so the would-be defectors didn't know who they could trust. In fact as far as number of guns goes, if there had been more like 300 guns in Jonestown instead of 37 (as mentioned above) then it would be EASIER for a group of defectors to get some guns of their own to try to force their escape. So half of them were brainwashed and half were scared to death and knew they were going to die one way or another (which many were shot or injected with the poison too) robk6364 08:48, 16 January 2007 (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 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)

Mistakes, inaccuracies and doubtful opinions

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.

• After Indianapolis Peoples Temple did not move to San Francisco directly but first somewhere else in California (I forgot where)Andries 10:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, will research on that part. --Andylkl 14:27, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

It was Redwood Valley, California. Andries 14:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it was also considered in Mendocino County, California, google searches have indicated that Redwood Valley is in Mendocino County. --Andylkl 18:45, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Added the piece of information. The dispute over this point is settled. --Andylkl 20:00, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

• They went to Guyana so that Jones could continue to have absolute power. This seems dounbtful to me. Jones lost power in Jonestown See charismatic authority. I think they felt threatened by investigations and they thought that Guyana was safe in case of a nuclear attack. Please provide references. Andries 10:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True Crime: Death Cults (see bibliography #3) --Andylkl 14:23, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)~

My aforementioned book clearly challenges the success in Jones' alleged attempt. I have admit that I have to re-read the book about the question whether this was his intention. Andries 14:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I reread my book. The move to Redwood Valley was to avoid the nuclear fallout in case of a nuclear attack. The move to Jonestown was the one already stated in the article. --Andylkl 18:45, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

After re-reading my book, I have to admit that it does not contradict your version so I retract that dispute. Andries 18:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I do not think that Jonestown was established by Jones. It was established by pioneers in 1974, years before Jones went to live there in 1977 or 1978. Andries 10:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You said that you "think" that that fact in the article was inaccurate. How could Jones bought/leased the land from the government if there were residents living on it already? Again, please cite your source. --Andylkl 14:23, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Jonestown was established by members of the peoples temple, not by Jones. Andries 14:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jonestown was established by Jones in 1974. The book, CNN [4], and other websites [5] [6] cite that the founding year was 1974 while the same CNN page and another site [7] indicates that Jones had encouraged his members to move to Jonestown in 1977. --Andylkl 19:08, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

All the building work was done between 1974-1977 without Jones presence, who went to live there only in 1977 after most of it was ready so Jones did not establish Jonestown but some of the members of the peoples temple. Andries

Added mention about it already. Dispute over this point settled. --Andylkl 20:00, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

CIA involvement

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)

I do not know about the book. Its conclusion is rejected by historians, who generally assert that the mass suicide was due to Jones, his paranoia, and the internal failings of the group. Peoples temple started as a church denomination but became an almost socialist group. Jones claimed to be the reincarnation of Lenin and request support from the Soviets.
Andries 15:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are the information availble with the US government still classified documents? If they are, why? Somehow I find it difficult to completely reject the possibility of a CIA involvement in the whole affairs. Because CIA is such a terrorist organization that you can not thoroughly rule out such a possibility. MANOJTV 08:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This collection of paraniod fantasies should deleted. Pretty decient article until you get to these crackpot suggestions. MarsRover 07:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "CIA involvement" section really detracts from the rest of the article. It's a good article until you get to that section. Yes I'm sure the USSR was going to undermine US imperialism by sponsoring a nutcase cult in the jungle of Guyana. They weren't massecred by the CIA, but were administered poision by J. Jones and his cohorts.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.0.11 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pleased to see the section on CIA involvement removed from the current version of this page. It is very hard to uncover the truth of the event, so I feel that these opinions do offer alternatives theories that do, in some cases, have standing, especially compared to the "official story," which I have very little faith in these days. Hopefully someone can put these back in. Maxim 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you knew anything about the CIA, you'd feel really silly for being so naive. They are a secret organization, operating largely without oversight. The majority of government Jonestown documents--some 30,000 documents--remain classified 30 years later. Until you can explain that, you have no right to speak of nutcases or paranoid fantasies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.166.252 (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jonestwon Carnage: A CIA Crime

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)

I remember buying a few "Progress Publishers" books in the 1980s for amusement. Yep, pure propaganda. What makes you think that any information in there is reliable? -Willmcw 07:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What makes me think the information in the book is reliable? The history of CIA itself as a terrorist outfit. As well as the McCarthy era in USA.
Anyway, I am reading again the book which I read almost two decades back. I will add something from that book in the pages of wikipedia, atleast as a different reading of Jonestown carnage/suicide. MANOJTV 02:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, just please be careful to identify the source. Good luck, those Progress Publishers books used to put me to sleep faster than anything. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The search for survivors

PLEASE ARCHIVE THIS. OR BETTER YET DELETE IT. IT WAS ERRONEOUS, AND IT'S LONG GONE.

The article says:

Hours after news of the mass suicide got out, local authorities found 913 of the 1,110 inhabitants dead, including 276 children...

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 (UTC)

Check this external link

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)

It's more than likely untrue, or some sort of extrapolation of a minor coincidence. James Earl Jones played a character named 'Father Divine' in a 1980 TV movie about Jonestown, but I'm not sure if that's the same Father Divine or if there is any connection whatsoever. The site in question is run by someone who is clearly irrational, so take whatever you see from there with a grain of salt.--Tpanarese 20:47, 28 June 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Anyone who knows even the most minor detail about JJ knows that he met with Father Devine, when to his "compound" several times, and after FD died, Jones attempted to take control of the group. IN the end, all Jones did was pull some of FD's flock into his own church.......check out one of the few books that isnt entirely GARBAGE (read:full of sensational crap and lies).....RAVEN.....look in the index in the back for all the FD references you need..... josefjoey 08:32, 28 July 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)

"Drinking the Kool Aid"

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)

I've heard it before, and I'd say it's an idiom well-known enough to mention; it demonstrates that Jonestown wasn't just something that happened but something that left an impression. http://www.wordspy.com/words/drinktheKool-Aid.asp documents it as a phrase in use going back to 1987, so 18 years is not a bad longevity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Didn't the expression come from the "Electric Kool Aid Acid test" by Tom Woolfe? Basically involving LSD spiked Kool aid (as was often done by the Yipees in the mid 60's acording to the book), and the saying "Drinkng the kool aid" meaning basically "Your tripping man!" (ie, your crazy!). -- Duckmonster 19:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No. It means "To quickly become a devout follower." —XSG 23:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I live in the US and I wouldn't exactly say it's a popular phrase here either, but I think it's orgins would probably be from this incident. Whether "Drinkng the kool aid" means your crazy for tripping on acid or your crazy for listening to Jim Jones, either way you are crazy! Don't drink the Kool-Aid! -- robk6364 08:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you watch the news enough, you'll hear it now and then. They love puns and idioms. I added a paragraph to "aftermath". Can we archive this now?72.220.166.252 01:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Footage of the shooting

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 14:21, 23 November 2005 (talk • contribs) 200.204.147.108 (UTC)

i just caught the History Channel's show, "Jonestown: Paradise Lost" and some of the footage shot before the assault on the airstrip was shown. I don't recall if it was 5 minutes worth, it was interspersed between testimonies & the reinactment, but near the end of the show, they do show the camera running, the "Red Brigade" shooting at others and then the camera cuts off.
--HatchetFaceBuick 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Only one child with Marceline

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)

"Like most families..."

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 (UTC)

What about Deborah Layton?

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)

But why did they do it?

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 (UTC)

I think it's simple really. When the outsiders/officials/family members entered the camp and took out a few people it was only a matter of time before everyone was set free. Then the People's Temple and Jones would have the worst reputation ever. Jones knew this and I feel was the mastermind behind the mass murder, the last act of a desperate man. Dead men don't talk is the phrase that comes to mind. The reasons for the mass suicide may be debatable for some, but for me logic is my source cited.
270 children died. This is just terrible and to think they had to work from 7am to 6pm 6 days a week in the burning sun while Jones ate meat!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.71.69 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Sources

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.

Btl 03:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let Me Count The Mistakes

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'm not a regular contributor to this article (my one contribution was to remove a single false pop culture reference) but it's still on my watchlist. It sounds possible you have a lot of valuable material to contribute, but I'm not sure why you didn't edit the actual article with this information instead of its talk page. Most of your arguments sound perfectly reasonable and could have been simple edits without conferring. And I agree that the article needs a lot of cleaning up, but I have too little knowledge of the Jonestown incident to benefit such a cleanup myself. Are you new to Wikipedia? I ask because you have signed your name without a username ref. If so, welcome aboard. One warning: I argue against your last point if you are suggesting we either remove the popular culture section or needlessly weigh it down with POV material about the potential emotional effects of pop culture references on relatives of Jonestown victims. Also, what do you mean by "the human side"? That sounds dangerously like a wedge for POV material. Anyway, I hope you sign up for an account to make your suggestions contributions, it sounds like the article could benefit from your research. jdbartlett 00:08, 25 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)

Irrelevant Synanon reference taken out

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)

I have edited the section entitled "Jonestown."

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 (UTC)

Gosney and Bagby

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)

I have edited the section "Mass Murder Suicide."

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)

Number of deaths and population at the time

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)

Besides those who died at the compound during the mass suicide there were others that could be considered "deaths at Jonestown". A few people had died of natural causes earlier that year, several people died at the airstrip, and also there was an additional murders/suicide in Georgetown when the events at Jonestown became known. Once you decide which of these deaths you wish to include in the total, then an actual number can be sourced. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 05:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but my point was really that the EXACT numbers are moot and immaterial, especially in an introductory summary. In other words, I suggest that the inexact wording in the article's introduction ought not be changed in favour of some precise but arguable figures. Lonewolf BC 05:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the section called "Investigation."

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)

pop culture sections

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 (UTC)

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)

Another few short edits

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)

Monica Bagby - Dead or Wounded??

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).

According to this page, http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/ she survived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.73.199.69 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear friends, Monica Bagby was wounded, and not killed, during the Port Kaituma shooting of November 18, 1978. I researched a film on this subject a few years ago, and Monica's friend Vernon Gosney told me that she is alive and well, but that she never talks to reporters about the Jonestown affair. Monica was shot in the back, and evacuated in the same plane (the Cessna) in which she was shot. She was the only wounded person who was evacuated on that day. The others were taken out on the following morning. (sorry, I forgot to sign) BobHelms 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I actually removed a couple of months ago the lines in this article that had erroneously reported Monica Bagby as having been killed, so I think the article is square in that department now. Definitely, though, let it be known if there's other info still in the article which does not jibe with what you have turned up in your research. Mwelch 21:37, 13 March 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 (UTC)

Jeannie Mills, early defector

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)

Article is confusing

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 (UTC)

Too much conspiracy-theory

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 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I lack the strength of will to engage in one of those edit-revert-slander wars that always break out when someone's pet idea gets "P'wnd". I've settled on merely wiki-linking conspiracy theories to give some perspective on what a conspiracy theory actually is. "Allahu Akbar!" and all that. -- Brother Dave Thompson 19:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the conspiracy theory crap to its own page. I will try to make a NPOV article about the CT view, but it's hard. I just saw an excellent documentary about the event, with eye-witness reports from actual cult members, none of which supports ANY of this CIA BS. The true believers will have to polish the conspiracy article themselves.
Farcast 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mar 2007 Changes

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)

Cuba or Russia?

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:

"...Christine Miller, who repeatedly suggested alternative strategies, such as taking all the children to Cuba along with Jones himself."

--Lbeaumont 02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not in this tape. [10] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.62.0.252 (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Format for "References"

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)

How many escaped? This article gives two numbers.

"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.

First quote is bunk. There were 4 survivors at Jonestown that night. (ref: Reiterman pp561-580) Around 80(?) more survivors were in Guyana, but they were in Georgetown, not at Jonestown.

Clean Up Please

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.

Please be specific; mark "citation needed". One thing is fact-checking, another things is unrambling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.166.252 (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cult

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)

I agree with you to the extent that _I_ think they are the definition of a cult and the majority of people do as well, but the argument put forth at Talk:Heaven's Gate seems to be that we don't have to say they are a cult but say "they are a religous group whom most media and people call a cult (with refs)". A fine distinction I know, but a distinction still. --Chuck Sirloin 19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, does this mean we can replace all the "cult" categories with "cat:religious_groups_considered_by_many_to_be_cults"? --Chuck Sirloin 19:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that most people "take a dim view of cults" is precisely the issue at hand. Our role isn't to tell people whether something is positive or negative, or to choose words which specifically make those implications. It is to describe what happened and allow them to draw their own conclusions. It's safe to expect that most people who read "The Peoples Temple settlement at Jonestown drank Kool-Aid laced with cyanide because their leader told them to," will in fact conclude that the group was a cult. Adding an emotionally charged word like "cult" is likely only to weaken the article. Tim Pierce 19:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, actually we should call things what they are, and let people take whatever view they will of the things, on the basis that forthright calling (or of other straightforward, factual presentation). It is not our right role to obscure what a thing truly is just because some people might dislike it for being what it is. The dislike is a function of the being, not of the calling. Certainly we should use "cult" with caution, not applying it to groups where there is considerable (even if minority) disagreement that the group is a cult. Here, there is no doubt: Peoples Temple was a cult. We should call it that because that is what it was. -- Lonewolf BC 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a fine position to take, but you should really be taking it up at Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is extremely clear on this subject that words like "cult" and "sect" should be avoided except in very specific technical contexts. Until someone persuades the MoS editors that it's okay to say "The Peoples Temple was a cult", I don't think it's appropriate to use the word here. Tim Pierce 20:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd already read the guideline. It's a "use only with care", not an "avoid absolutely" -- and I mean that leaving aside "Cult of Isis" type usage, which the guideline explicitly exempts. The point of the guideline is that "cult" should not be used to disparage what might or might not be one. The point of the guideline is not that what is indubitably a cult oughtn't be called a cult. -- Lonewolf BC 20:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this, like Heaven's Gate, is exactly the situation for which the Manual of Style rule was written. That the sole exceptions they list are for ancient history and sociology articles, and the article specifically rejects the use of the word "cult" in contexts like the Church of Scientology, only confirms this. I believe this is exactly the point of the manual: it is not the role of Wikipedia to declare which groups are and aren't cults. It is the role of Wikipedia to observe that an organization has widely been referred to as a "cult," no more and no less. Tim Pierce 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well enough, but while we disagree on the intent of the guideline, appeal to its authority only begs the question. Further, each case it its own. If there is some considereable debate over "Scientology" -- and I doubt that there would be, were it not for the continued existence of Scientology itself, to determinedly oppose the obvious conclusion -- there is no such disagreement over the Peoples Temple. -- Lonewolf BC 21:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider what would happen if we agree to apply the "cult" term to some certain groups that are just too far off the map, like the Branch Davidians or the Peoples Temple. By labelling these groups "cults" but conspicuously refusing to use the same word to describe more widely contested cases like the Church of Scientology, the astute reader will quite legitimately infer that the Wikipedia community considers there to be legitimate doubt that Scientology is a cult. It sounds to me like you do not want to raise that implication, but that is exactly what will come of drawing a distinction between "possible" cults and "indisputable" cults.

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)

As long as Wikipedia consistently refuses to use the word to describe any religious group, I do not think there will be any confusion about the reason why, any more than there is confusion over why Britannica declines to refer to the group as a cult (noting only that the community "was identified as" a cult after the Jonestown massacre). Tim Pierce 22:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the potential for confusion. Regarding Britannica, to say that something "was identified as" being of some kind is to say that it was of that kind -- with an implication that the fact was not generally realised till later (or till too late, in this case) -- but look here: "A religious cult group..." (emphasis mine). -- Lonewolf BC 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about what the majority say. We could mention that people call it that in the article - but referring to it as such ourselves is POV and biased. This idea is mentionned in the WP:Words to avoid, where it is mentionned that "If the author wants to indicate that there is something wrong with a group by applying the cult label then the article in Wikipedia should focus on the question of what is wrong with the group." (and not label it). Sfacets 00:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the agreement in the world at large that the Peoples Temple was a cult is precisely what matters, here. "Words to avoid" is a caution against using those words tendentiously -- a warning to use them only with care, where they surely apply. It does not forbid our calling something what it plainly is. (It is also only a guideline.) The use of "cult", here, has nought to do with trying "to indicate that there [was] something wrong with [the Peoples Temple]". Rather, said use is a simple matter of accuracy -- of using the straightforward term, not some euphemistic generalism. -- Lonewolf BC 00:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is to sy that it 'surely' is? POV issue. Sfacets 01:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Who's to say that? Only all the world. Peoples Temple is the epitome of a cult. Find evidence of considerable disagreement on the point, by reliable sources, and then there might be something to talk about. -- Lonewolf BC 01:45, 18 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)

That's just so many excess words -- also an understatement. One might as well say that Sumatra, say, is "widely described as an island". -- Lonewolf BC 15:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary: it is both the recommended and, I think, the best approach for Wikipedia to take. I don't think Wikipedia should avoid the word entirely -- it would be inappropriate for the article not to acknowledge that the group is widely recognized as a cult -- but it would also be inappropriate for the article to say that the group is a cult. We are clearly not going to agree on the latter approach, but we are both reasonable people and ought to be able to find a middle ground. :-) Tim Pierce 19:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "implied viewpoint" involved, here. Peoples Temple was a cult, plain and simple (like Sumatra is an island, not a very small continent, or an Asian penninsula). This is just going around in circles. As I said before, find evidence of considerable disagreement on the point, in reliable sources, and then we might have something to talk about. Meanwhile, the only reasonable course is to call it a cult, straightforwardly, without implying the viewpoint that it might have been something else. -- Lonewolf BC 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is never anything "plain and simple" about using subjective or value-laden terms -- and while there may be more widespread agreement that the Peoples Temple is a cult than, say, the Jehovah's Witnesses, it is still a subjective term.

Going back to an earlier comment: "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." Are you suggesting, then, that it would be consistent with a neutral point of view to say, "David Duke was a racist governor of Louisiana" or "Mata Hari was a whore"? I rather suspect you will not find a widespread consensus that those would be appropriate, even if they are almost universally agreed. Tim Pierce 15:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Around and around we go. I'm saying that it is not tendentious to call Peoples Temple a cult -- because that's what it was, plain and simple. Not calling it a cult is what would imply a point-of-view. Other cases are their own. -- Lonewolf BC 19:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You also said, with respect to these other words, that even though most people take "a dim view" of them, "That is no reason not to call a thing what it is" -- implying that they, like "cult", are acceptable words to use when they accurately describe a thing. I think you were exactly right in that, but I come to the opposite conclusion -- that it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to say either "David Duke was a racist governor of Louisiana" or "The Peoples Temple was a cult," regardless of how universally agreed these positions are. Tim Pierce 00:44, 20 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)

NPOV dispute

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)

I can't imagine any reason to dance around the fact that this was a cult. No one who was serious about studying the Jonestown affair would try to characterize them as religious group, in my opinion. IvoShandor 04:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically if all the major sources call it a cult, it would be POV not to do it here. IvoShandor 04:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Most sources refer to Peoples Temple as a cult, but since Wikipedia guidelines indicate that this word has a disputable meaning, it would be best to label the group as a "religious organization". Nishkid64 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all religions are a 'cult'. You don't have to have mass murders/suicides to be a 'cult'. GoodDay 21:46, 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)

If there's more sources calling it a cult, then there isn't calling it cult? use cult. GoodDay 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor, in what way does "religious organization" indicate POV? Nishkid64 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He is correct, actually. It is a point of view: a neutral point of view. I am trying to understand this argument in favor of saying "cult," but it seems always to boil down to "Wikipedia should not be neutral on this subject," and I am having a lot of difficulty with that. Tim Pierce 03:22, 21 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)

How many reliable sources call this group a "religious organization"? If we just pick a term at random, that hasn't been used to describe them, then that is a POV, and no, its not neutral. Religious organization has connotations that come with it just as cult does. I agree with Mackan that we can limit the use but to leave out the obvious (and citable) descriptor for NPOV is a bit ridiculous and would violate undue weight. There probably aren't many serious scholars that wouldn't call this group a cult. Yeah it should be avoided, just as the word "massacre" should be (but is often the best word to describe an event: Columbine massacre; Virginia Tech massacre etc.), but you can't call apples, oranges. Just because something represents a POV doesn't mean it isn't NPOV to mention it, and give it appropriate weight based on sources. Call it a church or religious organization without mentioning that it is widely regarded as a cult, would absolutely be a POV. IvoShandor 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're clear, I absolutely, unquestionably agree that Wikipedia should note that the Peoples Temple was widely regarded as a cult. I just don't think it should say that the Peoples Temple was a cult. Tim Pierce 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To borrow one of your examples, your position is alike to insisting on WP must say that Mata Hari was "widely regarded as a courtesan", instead of saying straight out that Mata Hari was a courtesan, and insisting so on the grounds that courtesans have an ill reputation. -- Lonewolf BC 05:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that my position is closer to saying that we should avoid the word "whore" (which was your example, don't forget) and use a less judgmental word like "prostitute" or "courtesan." In fact, that is exactly my position. :-) The fact that "whore" is a technically accurate term does not mean that it's suitable when the writer is trying to remain objective. The same applies to "cult." Tim Pierce 05:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are making a false analogy, while denying or at least ignoring the true analogy to the same case. You said near the outset that you "think [the fact] that most people 'take a dim view of cults' is precisely the issue at hand." In other words you think that because cults are of ill repute, we should not directly call a cult a cult, but must dance around its culthood with phrases such as "widely regarded as a cult". So you would do in the case of Peoples Temple.
Courtesans are likewise of ill repute. Thus the genuine parallel would be to insist, on that basis, that we mustn't call Mata Hari a courtesan, straight out, but must dance around the fact by saying that she is "widely regarded as a courtesan".
Cases are each their own, though, as I said before, which is why drawing analogies between them may be treacherous: In the case of Mata Hari we could also truly call her "prostitute" or "whore", but "courtesan" is more precise, courtesans being whores of a particular kind. (I am assuming for argument's sake that Mata Hari was a courtesan, and neither a common whore nor not any kind of whore at all. I will agree with you in so far as that "prostitute" is a better word for use in an encyclopedia article than is "whore", because they are denotatively synonymous but the latter is generally seen as somewhat vulgar and abusive. This is, in my view, an unfortunate fact of contemporary English usage, but there it is and Wikipedia articles are not the place to try to restore "whore" -- the word -- respectability.) Equivalents to these considerations are lacking in the case of Peoples Temple: "Cult" (unlike "whore") is not regarded as vulgar, nor is it abusive when truly applied (in which it is alike to "prostitute" or "courtesan"). It is also the most precise term, and there is no "politer" word of the same meaning (unlike "whore"/"prostitute"). -- Lonewolf BC 16:51, 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)

Tim: The only problem I see with your example is that the terms "whore" and "prostitute" have basically the same historical meaning. "Cult" and "religious organization" does not. IvoShandor 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should strive for neutrality but not if it's going to attempt to change history. Using religious organization is a bit much in my opinion. I don't think we can compare The People's Temple with, say, the Knights of Columbus, which I think using "religious organization" would do. I don't think "religious organization" is a non-neutral term either. IvoShandor 14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you describe what point of view you feel is represented by "religious group"? I don't see what makes that term non-neutral but I'm certainly open to alternatives. I also think that identifying the Peoples Temple, the Knights of Columbus, the Unification Church, the Branch Davidians and the Jehovah's Witnesses all as "religious groups" makes it clear that Wikipedia is not making a statement about the relative legitimacy of any of these groups, which seems like exactly the right thing for it to do. If you feel differently, I'd like to know what you think would make more sense and why. Tim Pierce 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you really think that the average reader doesn't see the label of religious organization as making a statement about the religious legitimacy of a group based on what I have said then I don't think anything else I will say will change your opinion. Calling a group that is widely regarded as a cult a religious organization seems dishonest. IvoShandor 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As for alternatives, how about just "group"? The article would make it clear what type of group they were. IvoShandor 15:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A sentence like: The People's Temple was a group blah blah blabh. The group is regarded as both a cult and religion..

Obviously would be better worded but then we could represent the main viewpoints and avoid making the call ourselves through the rest of the article by just referring to the Temple as a group or The People's Temple. Am I being clear, probably not huh? : ) IvoShandor 15:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I think "a group widely regarded as a cult" works well there. Tim Pierce 15:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am interested to see how others involved in this dispute feel about the sourced mention and then the use of a neutral term like "group" through the rest of the article. I would be okay with this. IvoShandor 15:35, 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)

It's a good idea, but is it really accurate? A "sect" traditionally refers to a small offshoot of a larger, well-established religion, and I don't think the Peoples Temple started out as part of a more mainstream church. I was under the impression that it shot forth fully formed from Jim Jones' forehead, as it were. Tim Pierce 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is why I argued that the term cult shouldn't be avoided for what I called political correctness. But that won't be accepted, sect is a good alternate that is more useful than "religious group," "religious organization," or "group."

(additional comment)If the case is that it shot out of Jim Jones' forehead, then what do you propose? Religious group isn't going to work I don't think.IvoShandor 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Even under traditional meanings this group could probably be broadly described as a sect of Christianity, they even had an affiliation with the Disciples of Christ at one time according to this article. IvoShandor 16:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If we think that mainstream Christians and scholars of Christianity would not dispute characterizing the Peoples Temple as a Christian sect, then I suppose that would work, but I'm skeptical. I wouldn't block its usage or anything but I'd feel more comfortable seeing more support for that term. Tim Pierce 16:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really imply ownership of the group by the religion, I don't see the problem. It's origins do lie within the Christian religion (which is pretty broad, really really broad), the term Christian describes billions of people of all different types of faith. IvoShandor 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)This does, however, need more input. IvoShandor 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am interested to see how others involved in this dispute feel about the sourced mention and then the use of a neutral term like "group" through the rest of the article. I would be okay with this. This sounds right to me. Mackan79 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV resolution?

It has been more than five days since IvoShandor and I agreed on the following approach:

• Identify the Peoples Temple simply as a "group" throughout the article.
• In the opening of the article observe that the Peoples Temple was "widely regarded as a cult" and give some solid references. (Personally, I do not even feel that it is necessary to give sources for that statement, since it is so widely agreed that no one will have any trouble finding a corroborating reference.)

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)

Of course there is disagreement, for reasons already given. It was a cult; we should call it one. (There is, however, no need to harp on "cult" throughout the article, so I agree in so far as that, though I have not noticed any such harping, either.) -- Lonewolf BC 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we are going to have to compromise, all of us. IvoShandor 20:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly aware that there has been disagreement on this point, but I did say that since then no one has expressed disagreement with this proposal. That's why I'm asking now. :-) Are you so dissatisfied with this proposal that you would stand in its way? What would you suggest instead that has not already been discussed? Tim Pierce 21:06, 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)

This is very frustrating. I have tried many times to find a middle ground and, by working with other editors, have found a middle ground with them. I have given you many opportunities to explain your position more fully in the hope of achieving a mutual understanding. You have not objected when I announced my intent to act on what appears to me to be consensus, yet you consistently revert the article when I do act on them. I want very much to treat your actions in good faith, but that assumption has become sorely tested. Tim Pierce 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest checking the criteria in this web site before using the term "cult" and citing it when you do: How Cults Work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.42.46 (talk • contribs) 07:45, September 1, 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)

Request for Comment: use of the word "cult"

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)

In response to the RFC: If reliable sources actually verify that it was called a cult there is certainly no problem with using the word. That's one of the reasons we demand such verification. Having said that, the consensus compromise, "a group widely referred to as a cult" should be accepted. This seems to be a case of many people being right, so let's allow the consensus to rule. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 01:20, 14 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)

While I think this group is a cult, I am willing, as stated above, to go with consensus, it appears that LoneWolf above is truly alone in his opposition with the consensus, thus overruled, imo.IvoShandor 10:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• If this wasn't a cult, then the word has no meaning whatsoever. However, that's just my POV. If there are reliable sources that argue that it was not a cult, then that view should be included. The phrase "a group widely referred to as a cult" implies that there is some controversy over the issue - does such controversy exist? What reliable source cites the viewpoint that this was not a cult? Dlabtot 19:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)