Talk:Jim Jones/Archive 1

Untitled Conversation

User talk:82.35.153.30 Hi where is your reference that at the mass suicide at Jonestown people were injected with poison? I have never read it. I will revert your change unless you give the references. Andries 18:59, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't make the edit, but there is ample evidence for this:

"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."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/jonestown/connections_5.html?sect=8

How many areas does a human body actually have that can not be reached by ones own hand? Jcbos 01:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Big Sentence

There is a large run-on sentence in this entry that needs to be trimmed up. There are parenthesis in it and without the words in the parenthesis (and even with them) it makes little sense.

Origins and influences

Sociologist Gordon Melton wrote:

Jim Jones was the pastor of the Peoples Temple, a large California congregation of the prominent liberal Protestant denomination, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Jones had become an advocate of a radical form of Marxist liberation theology, then a popular perspective in liberal Protestantism. However, while he was praised within his denomination and other Protestant churches, for his social outlook and work on racial harmony, he was not without his harsh critics. In 1977, he moved with hundreds of his church members, mostly African Americans, to Guyana, where the church had previously established a small agricultural colony [1]

So I think the article should mention his previous connection to mainline Christianity, as well as any influences (such as Marxism) which prompted him to depart from the mainstream. The media makes him sound like an independently spawned monster. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:14, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

you should also mention that JOnes was one of the first pastors to integrate blacks into a mainstream congregation....something that didnt fly well in Indiana.....

joeyjosef@yahoo.com

I think this article is so awful because allot of kids had died without no say so in it i feel really bad because they went through so much before there death.There was told to be no kid servitor's only 10 adults survived and no of them had kids because all the parents with kids died with them because the parents felt they needed to leave with there kids! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camellia Johnson (talk • contribs) 19:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Claim to be a reincarnation of Father Divine?

Father Divine died in 1965 after Jones was born. So the assertion that Jones claimed to be reincarnation of Father Divine does not make sense to me. Any explanations? Andries 21:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Jones didnt claim that he was FD reincarnated....he said that FD's spirit came to rest on him....that he was FD in a new body.......(Raven, pg. 140)

joey joeyjosef@yahoo.com

Joey, could you please edit this article and use reliable references (Raven?). U seem to know a lot about the man. Thanks. Andries 22:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is this article so awful?

I mean, really. There's more about whether or not he was gay than about the whole Jonestown business. There's stuff in the Jonestown article which could be imported. john k 14:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I admit that this article is really bad. I had put this article on requests for expansion months ago but to no avail until now. Andries 17:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wiki Folks, This article is not "awful." It is preposterously and horrbly bad. I researched a film on Peoples Temple and Jonestown a few years back and let me tell you, any survivor or relative of a deceased member will be very insulted by it. I got pretty insulted myself. I don't know where to begin with the mistakes and gross misunderstandings, but I can see that none of its authors, nor all of them collectively, have even a basic knowledge of the subject. This is a very large subject, friends. Dabbling in it will come to no good and will only mislead. Please don't expand it. Kill it and replace it. --Robert Helms

---

Jones met Father Divine a few times in person and attempted without success to take over Divine's operation after his death. Philadelphia, where Divine was based, was one of the cities visited many times by Jones' traveling bus tours, and where many converts were brought in. The idea presented by Divine, that he was God, was attractive to Jones because it brought the followers under more full control. That's why he adopted that line. --Robert Helms

---

Was Stephan Jones murdered? Please provide references

Please provide references within one week for the following sentnence or I will remove it. The sentences looks doubtful to me because Stephan is described in the quite recent book Hearing the voices of Jonestown by Mary McCormick Maaga as alive and kicking. Thanks.

"[Stephan Jones] died when someone put a bullet into his head from a close range shotgun shot, apparently because of revenge by a Mundy whose family was killed in the suicide."

Also, what does the word "Mundy" mean? It is not in two dictionaries that I checked. Please use only standard English: this is an international encyclopedia in English language. Andries 09:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Steve Jones was not murdered. I saw him last year and he looks fine. --R. Helms Stephan Jones is still alive. He is married and has two kids.

Autopsies

I read in the book by McCormick Maaga, in contrast to what had been written in this article that only about a dozen corpses received autopsies. I have corrected this. I do not remember the exact nr. so I wrote "less than twenty". Andries 14:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Citations and keeping the untruths out of this article

In general, I urge all contributors to this article to read reliable sources and to cite them accurately because there seems to be many myths about the man and we have to be strict to keep the nonsense and disinformation out of this article (the autopsie mistake hereabove is a good example). I am aware that there is much to improve regarding citation and attributing opinions, and dates in this article and I am co-responsible for this, but I cannot do it alone. Thanks. Andries 14:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Dear Friends, The two best sources for information on Peoples Temple are:

1. Raven: The Untold Story of Reverend Jim Jones and His People by Tim Reiterman. E P Dutton, New York, New York, 1982.

2. The website “Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple” whose URL is http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/

Please, everyone, read as much of this material as you can (set aside a few weeks) before you expect any person who knows a lot about this topic to take what you say about it seriously. --Robert Helms

CIA

Any connection between Jones and the CIA? My first clue was a Michael Franti lyric that goes, "the CIA runnin’ like that Jones from Indiana but they still won’t talk about that Jones in Guyana", and web investigation revealed that the LaRouche people connect him to CIA mind-control operations. That bunch is pretty nuts but a lot of their research is solid (even though their conclusions may not be). Is there anything to this? Or are we just going to have to wait till the documents are declassified?--Rockero 20:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no solid evidence as to whether or not Jones was a member of the CIA. It is mainly a theory presented by conspiracy theorists whose only backing is speculation..

Advice or order?

I think that Jones word about the suicide was an advice, not an order. Of course, Jones had big authority so the followers have seen Jones' advice as an order, but he voiced his view on the suicide as an advice. Here is the transcript of the final speech, just before the suicide. [2]

"JONES: (Inaudible.) ... Don't, don't fail to follow my advice. You'll be sorry. You'll be sorry. If we do it, than that they do it. Have trust. You have to step across. (Music.) We used to think this world was--this world was not our home--well, it sure isn't--we were saying--it sure wasn't.

He doesn't want to tell them. All he's doing--if they will tell them-- assure these kids. Can't some people assure these children of the relaxation of stepping over to the next plane? They set an example for others. We said --one thousand people who said, we don't like the way the world is.

VOICE: Take some.

JONES: Take our life from us. We laid it down. We got tired. We didn't commit suicide, we committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world. "

Andries 21:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Jim Jones the Rapper

I hope you guys are aware that there's a rapper called Jim Jones, and his name leads here with no redirects to his page at Jim Jones (rapper). I Am Ri¢h 01:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Whom did Jones murder?

This article categorizes Jones as a mass murderer and murderer. But I think there is no evidence that he personally ordered mass murder. Yes, he advised suicide, but mass murder? Where is the evidence? I also think that the evidence that he was a murderer is doubtful. He has probably ordered the murder of members of the Ryan visiting party, though I do not think this is proven. Does ordering someone to murder make someone a murderer? I do not know about this. Comments and references are requested. Thanks Andries 21:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that there were almost certainly people who resisted the mass suicide at Jonestown and were force-fed or involuntarily injected with the poison, as well as it being fed to children who had no idea of what they were doing, it is reasonable to call him a mass murderer. And yes, legally, someone who orders another to commit a murder is responsible for it. And if you don't think Jones was aware of what was going to happen to the senator Ryan, listen to the suicide tape.24.151.79.108 06:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many examples of someone being responsible for the orders they give, from murder-for-hire to Adolf Hitler. How many people did Hitler himself personally kill? A few, grant you, but he is generally regarded as being responsible for millions of deaths -- he did not personally kill every one of them. When you are in authority and it is expected others will carry out your orders, ordering the death of someone is itself an action that kills and makes one personally responsible for the act of killing. --Chibiabos 10:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

yes this Jim Jones was a rapest and thats why he wqent to jones town because someone caught him and the h.r.s. came to the church because he was said to be molesting the kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camellia Johnson (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Monkey Salesman

"Jones was selling pet monkeys to raise money to start a church." (from the San Francisco Chronicle)

"After working as a hospital orderly and a methodist minister, he founded his own church in 1953, which he at first financed by working as a door-to-door monkey salesman."

"A failed door-to-door monkey salesman, Jim Jones (1931-1978), founded his own church in 1953, which he later renamed The People's Temple Full Gospel Church."

A photograph of Jones with a pair of monkeys.

Biography did a Jim Jones episode in which they state that he was a door-to-door monkey salesman.

My conclusion is that Jim Jones was a door-to-door monkey salesman. Ecto 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, such ready made sources really help to improve the article. Many thanks again. (I had read that Jones sold monkeys but to collect references and links etc takes time) Andries 21:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I removed it again, because my request for a cite in the article was not done. If you would put a cite in the article, please re-add it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here. I don't know how to make a cite. Could you please point me in the direction of a manual? Or maybe you could do it, if it's not too much effort. I suggest the above San Francisco Chronicle link. Thank you.Ecto 05:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, removing contents that are not yet referenced in the article itself, but abundantly referenced in the talk pages does not strike me as constructive. I willl re-insert it incl. the reference. Andries 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The assertion without a cite was repeatedly inserted despite requests to cite evidence. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The assertion was removed despite the immediate availability of evidence to cite. Going through the effort of removing it when there was a citation ready-made on the talk page was a waste of time, regardless of your request. No worries. Ecto 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks. I fixed your monkey salesman link problem. Pschelden

Huge penis: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

The article states that Jones had a huge penis. I think this is an extraordinary difficult to verify claim that requires extraordinary evidence. There is a citation for it, but I think that we need at least two independent citations for that. Thanks. Andries 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd call that vandalism. I removed the following:

'Jones had a massive penis which he used "in the name of Christ". {{fact}}

---

No, it was John Dillinger and Jimi Hendrix that had the huge penises. A fixation on sex will be the saddest of many possible ways to misunderstand the Jonestown affair. --Robert Helms

---

Even if his penis was the largest in the world it was still dwarfed into insignificance by the size of his ego, which seems to me the spectacular feature here. We can witness this in his own words many times: Casual statements such as "I'm going to tell you, Christine, without me, life has no meaning. I'm the best thing you'll ever have." That there are a few guys around openly flaunting their pathologically overgrown egos with utterances like this is not so much a surprise or a puzzle as that this particular one managed to find 1000 people (well perhaps not all 1000 of them but at least the ones holding the guns) who would voluntarily associate themselves with an ego the size of Texas and allow its owner to make their decisions for them. The lesson for survivors is that that's a dangerous choice to make.

Date of death

According to one of the audiotapes found at the Jonestown compound, Jim Jones was apparently alive long enough on November 19 (the day following the massacre) to record shortwave news reports about the massacre. This site, which is clearly the authoritative non-government source of knowledge about the entire event, conclude that it may or may not be Jones' voice on the Nov. 19 tape, and apparently some survivors who knew Jones have identified the muffled male voice on that tape as Jones'. That being the case I'm going to alter his date of death to "November 18-19(?)".

Audio tape

According to the reviews(I don't have the stomach to listen to it) on this audio tape which was recording upto and including the start of the mass suicide Jones claims to have been the one who shot Leo Ryan. http://www.archive.org/details/ptc1978-11-18.flac16

I believe the quote in question was something like "Are you going to separate yourselves from whoever shot the senator? I won't--I don't know who shot him, but as far as I'm concerned, I shot him." Meaning that Jones, as well as everyone else at Jonestown, was equally responsible for the senator's death, and they all had to face the consequences. 24.151.79.108 06:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

LGBT categories

I removed the two LGBT categories. In part, it is because the article provides insufficient information to imply that Jim Jones was actually homosexual or bisexual. I see no reference to him identifying as homo-/bisexual (in fact he said he was the only true heterosexual). I also see no evidence saying that his same-sex acts were frequent enough to merit him being labelled otherwise. Having sex with a man once does not necessarily make you bisexual, as odd as that may sound to some. I'm not saying he wasn't, but in order for the cat to make sense there needs to be more information given or everyone who was ever curious will suddenly appear in the cats. - BalthCat 04:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Having sex with a man once does not necessarily make you bisexual" that's a POV. Devilmaycares 23:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As is saying it does. The wiktionary definition is "being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex", and speaks nothing of actions. Actions may imply but do not certify bisexuality. So, in the absense of self-identification and evidence it isn't an isolated incident... unless there's a source that has analysed his actions and defined him as bisexual or repressed homosexual, I'm thinking it's inappropriate to add the cats. - BalthCat 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• grumbles* well I'll grant that this is a point of view on both our parts and you've been very nice about it so I'll go with your stance on this article. Devilmaycares 04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of the word "cult"

• As anybody who has read the first sentence of this article, as I found it today before my edit, can tell you, the first sentence of this article states that the Peoples Temple is/was a cult. Now, as anybody who has read the Wikipedia article on cult can tell you, that aricle states that "In common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of reasons."

Is Wikipedia the "oppenent" of the Peoples Temple? I would surely hope not. I emplore someone who feels brave enough to suffer the slings and arrows of a revert war to delete this the word "cult" from the firs sentence of the article, unless it can be proven that it belongs. Zombiebaron 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the word cult to group (which is used elsewhere in the article consistently) and linked the first sentence with the second. I also removed the Neutrality tag. Izaakb 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would call a group which is responsible for the death of 900 odd people including ca. 300 children a cult rather than a church. But that's just me. Maikel (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

His death

The article is not particularly clear. Did he commit suicide? Was he killed by someone else? Was it never clear how the gunshot wound was inflicted? Nil Einne 17:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

People's Temple There is no evidence to prove that Jones had committed suicide or that he was murdered. We will probably never know. - Christina 20:03, 13 November 2006

History Channel

An editor posted this information and I removed it for unencyclopedic information. Please wikify and provide source information and clean it up if it is to be re-added. (i.e. "History Channel recently made...") This is not a 'current events' article.

History Channel Presentation

The History Channel recently made a presentation of real film mixed with reenactments of the building of Jonestown, the horrors within the town, and the end to it. It was presented in a timeline fashion. Within two hours, the viewer would see five days (Nov. 15-19), including the day of the mass suicide. It also contains interviews from survivors, including Jim Jones' son, Stephan.

Suicide and Children

Its a widely held belief that persons too young to tell right from wrong cannot be responsible for life or death decisions, and based on that, the statement "909 inhabitants of Jonestown, 276 of them children, committed mass suicide" might be somewhat contradictory: can it really be suicide if an individual is unaware (such as a child would be unaware) that drinking something made to taste like a kid's drink could kill them or even what death is? Isn't suicide the intentional taking of one's own life? -- It is a good point philosophically, but aside from the legal discussion, if you put a gun you think is unloaded to your head and pull the trigger -- and it fires and you die -- you may not have had the intention to kill yourself (proximate cause) but you DID in fact kill yourself (actual cause). "Suicide" is both a legal and a non-legal term, each having a different definition. I think the use of "suicide" with regard to the children is appropriate even if they were unaware they were drinking poison or could legally choose to die.Izaakb 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? So when someone poisons a drink and gives it to a child without telling the child it's poison, it is called suicide. I call that murder.Azn Clayjar 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Drug Abuse

To my knowledge Jim Jones abused meth and other hard stimulants, not marijuana and LSD. You can't really "abuse" marijuana and LSD in the same way other drugs are abused. No other person has every become this "wacko" from psychedelic use, at least not in the way Jim Jones went crazy. Meth is more known to make people angry and rant in the way he often did (much like Hitler and his amphetamine abuse). Please cite evidence for what has been claimed. Zachorious 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Indeed, I have no historical knowledge about Jones' substance habits, but I do have quite a bit of knowledge about marijuana and LSD. I will assume that the word abuse means addiction here. It is debatable whether marijuana can cause addiction, since user can go "cold turkey" after years of use with no withdrawal symptoms. LSD, on the other hand, severely discourages addiction, since after about 3 days of frequent use its effects start to diminish rapidly.

The statement

"His drug abuse (including various LSD and marijuana experimentations)..."

taken from the Jim_Jones#Jonestown_and_mass_murder-suicide section, is both judgmental and self contradictory. (Please excuse my poor Wikipedia quoting skills.) It is selfcontradictory because, by the time experimentation becomes abuse, it has ceased to be experimentation. It is subtly judgmental because it implies that any entheogen use is abuse, and abuse itself is a loaded word. To me, being so close to a tally of the dead (including the a separate tally of the dead children), it seems to shift the blame for Jones' character flaws onto the drugs. Coming from a land with a strong tradition of entheogen use for ritual, religious and medicinal purposes, this is quite unacceptable to me.

I would like two changes. Firstly, I think that the drug use issue merits its own paragraph. Secondly, the word abuse ought to be substituted for addiction (which is fairly impossible with LSD), if such was the case, and if so it needs to be properly documented. I am not contesting his use of these entheogens, but a convincing case is only made for pentobarbital addiction.Apwith 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of homosexuality info

I do not think that removal of information is a good or acceptable way of balancing the article. I do not have the impression that the focus on his homosexuality here is used to defame homosexuals if that is reason of the removal. Andries 18:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of information is not the same as removal of irrelevant information. This is an encyclopedia, not autobiography of every single thing about this person. Encylopdedias are for concise, important, relevant history of a person, not a book about anything and everything for mile long articles that have little value. More should be focused on his impact on the world and not so much his sexuality. -Anemos 07:24 04 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think his sexuality is relevant information.

Really? In the article on Jerry Fallwell, there's not a single mention of him being HETEROsexual, so why should this article say anything about Jones's homosexuality? It seems that some deem it important because (consciously or otherwise) they seem to equate his insanity with his sexual orientation.

Given his assertion of heterosexuality, and allegations of his agressive punishment of a homosexual Temple member, this is totally relevant information. (this unsigned comment was made by 134.84.220.32 16:43, 4 April 2007 )

Political life

We need some information on his political ties in San Francisco (his appointment by Mayor George Moscone as Housing Commissioner, apparently (needs citation?) as a reward for helping elect Moscone). 198.150.76.150 18:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The flavor of the drink mix

folks, i know all the current histories say it was grape, but the contemporary news sources only identified it as being purple. The only reliable academic source I found lists the actual flavor as Cherry which may in fact be purple in color, I dont know. I won't change it from grape back to Cherrys until we can discuss this, but please, don't just assume you know it's grape becuase that's what you recall. Remember, all the sources that tell you it's grape also tell yuou it was Kool Aids which is also wrong. it was Flavor Aids. - LiPollis 13:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have never seen purple colored cherry mix, from any brand. It just wouldn't make sense. That doesn't mean they didn't add purple food coloring to cherry teabags mix after they poisoned it, but that would be a different type of weird. Prgrmr@wrk 15:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus from sources, let's just leave it with Grape. I'll see if I can do a survey of all the reliable academic sources and see what tallies up the most. there are also survivors who run a page on Jonestwon and I may be able to ask one of them.LiPollis 04:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent with article People's Temple

The People's Temple article states that the reason for Jim Jones moving to Guyana was because of claims of abuse and fears of the outside world trying to destroy the group. This article states it was for Tax Evasion. Which is correct?

---

Leo Ryan brought a laundry list of complaints with him to Guyana, which came from various government agencies and private individuals. In other words both are correct and there's more. --Robert Helms

---

i also read that Jones so "holy" with his psychic powers that many believed he had, from his knowledge of particular followers private information. They believed he could see into the future and he claimed that a major nuclear war was immenant, based on Jones' increasing insanity, researchers believe he actually believed this was going to happen

The number of deaths is stated to be 914, whereas in the Jonestown and Peoples Temple articles is 913 (or 911). Which number is correct?

---

The article on the People's Temple states that the poison's flavour was grape, while this article states the flavour as cherry. Sorry for remarking on such a trivial point. Apwith 10:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! LiPollis 20:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I'm surprized that there's absolutely nothing on conspiracy theories regarding this whole affair, given that the US government still refuses to hand over some of the relevant documents? Arahmim1 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are at least four different and substantial conspiracvy theories about Jonestown. Of those, 3 link up with other world/govt conspiracy theories. I've managed to find a couple of good academic sources on them and I do plan to put in a brief section on it. I don't want to go hog wild though. The theories are elaborate and since they tie back to others, I think just a little bit about what they are with wikilinks to related topics should be sifficient. Of course, i'll cite my sources. I found a great site with lots of survivor narratives and it has good info about the tragedy itself that I'd like to include in the main article. JIm and Marcheline's biological son Stephan survived becuase he was away from Jonestown playing basketball. His narratives are heartbreaking but insightful. LiPollis 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because the gov doesn't "hand over" documents doesn't imply a conspiracy. Seems kind of silly to me, why would there be a conspiracy anyhow? He left the country and wanted to be left alone... US Gov doesn't "hand over" documents anyhow, have you made a FOIA request? I've heard of no such thing, and there is no record of a FOIA denial regarding Jim Jones or Jonestown in the FBI's records.IzaakB(my Talk)contribs 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Today on ESPN's Outside the Lines, there was an article on Jones' grandson playing basketball, and there was old footage of the building of Jonestown. Jones' opened a trunk and showed (label visible) boxes of Kool-Aid. Bunnygod888 13:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Date inconsistency...

In November 1978, U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan led a fact-finding mission to the Jonestown settlement in Guyana after allegations by relatives in the U.S. of human rights abuses. Ryan's delegation arrived in Jonestown on November 29 and spent three days interviewing residents. They left hurriedly on the morning of Saturday November 18 after an attempt was made on Ryan's life.

I am curious how Congressman Ryan visited Jonestown November 29, 1978 and interviewed residents and then left on November 18, 1978. Not only is November 29 later than the date of the mass suicide, it is also later than the date he supposedly arrived there.

If someone with knowledge about the incident could correct these dates that would be appreciated. Tha*Lunat!k 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

no it was red not purple or what ever eles if u look at all the pic you will see a pic. of him giveing it out and there was red boxes of flavor aid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camellia Johnson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jones's death

I've seen a photograph of Jim Jones's body as it lay when he was found dead. From the position of his body it doesn't look like he shot himself and instead shot by someone else. This is also what Jones's biological son thinks happened. Also, he's not sitting on a chair, he's lying on the floor with two other bodies around him. There also isn't a gun on his left hand (the one closest to his head) that I can see, though it's impossible to know if someone picked it up before the picture was taken. I don't want to dabble in original research but how do others feel about this? - 75.38.27.131 19:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

this man truly could not of known too much about us black brothers because if he did he wouls not of have had given them flavor aid he would of gotten them some red kool-aid--71.110.216.114 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)bob thorton

This article needs to be semi-protected

We are seeing vandalism every day or two on this article. I don't know how to get a page protected. It would be helpful if another more experienced editor would get this page semi-protected against new users and accounts under 4 days old. ThanksLiPollis 04:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Contact a adminses. 205.240.144.220 06:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

lol the person who said that he didnt know the black brothas that is so funny and true!

Kool Aid

That shit was KOOL AID. I heard this on the NEWS. 205.240.144.220 06:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry to disagree but it was not Kool Aid. Follow the reference links I just added and you will see thhat it was Flavor Aid. Remember, there were survivors there and they know what supplies were on hand. Sorry the inline cites weren't there before, they ae in other articles about this topic. The Univeristy of Virgina Article is a particualry good overview of the whole storyLiPollis 14:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

its flavor aid alright, but like Q-tips, Kleenex, Jello & similar products the name is synonomus with the product regardless of brand. Kool Aid got lumped in, though not part of the story. Just happens to be the most common but not only instant drink powder. --Xiahou 01:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The new TV document by Stanley Nelson showed material from Jonestown, and mr. Jones was showing the town to reporters and opened one box. It had a lot of boxes with text "Kool Aid", and he said "and here we have Kool Aid". As a non-american, I didn't know what it was, but now I see. Atleast they had Kool Aid there but they switched to Flavor Aid? --Pudeo⺮ 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah but there was cyanide in the flavor-aid i have done alot of reseach on this and it was flavor-aid!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camellia Johnson (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 

Bill O' Reilly

Find on his two shows that he refers to liberals AS "KOOL AID" drinkers. That refers to what THIS guy has done. 205.240.144.220 01:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And that makes Bill O'Reilly once again, wrong. The survivors and the rescue workers confirmed that it was NOT Koolaid. it was a similar drink called Flavor Aid. It is true that the term "Koolaid drinkers" is now used to describe anyone who follows instruction s without questioning them but this may be a case of false etymology. It's a mix up of this incident at Jonestown and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Tests by Ken Kesey's Band of Merry Pranksters that may be the real source of the Koolaid references. it's an interesting phenomenon though!LiPollis 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Like a high school term paper

This article exhibits some of the worst writing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's written with simplistic and often incorrect sentence structure, poor grammer, and a slightly hyperbolic tone. Someone needs to do a major revision, and get the facts straigh while you're at it. The PBS documentary I just watched said that 908 people died there, by the way.

We often have probelms with people vandalizing this article with incorrect info, homophobic nonsense and scatalogical references. I have been unsuccessful in my requests to get the page semi-protected so for the time being - every junior high kid with a warped sense of humor can anonymously vandalize this article. If you see something wrong BE BOLD and fix it! You'll be helpings us all.LiPollis 07:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture references?

Has anyone thought of adding a "References in Popular Culture" section? Off the top of my head, I can think of the famous phrase "Drink the kool-aid", the band The Brian Jonestown Massacre, and their song, "The Ballad of Jim Jones. I'd be very surprised if there weren't many more. Night1stalker 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

sometimes ppl add them and they get deleted because it is not considered relevant to the topic. it's hit or miss. if you can do it in an 'encyclopaedic' manner, then i guess it will fly Izaakb 18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What would make it more or less relevant or encyclopedic then similar sections in countless other articles on wikipedia? Night1stalker 07:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, it depends on the nature of the pop references. A common phrase like "drink the kool-aid" that derives its meaning directly from the events, that sort genuine impact on culture is very relevant, I think. On the other hand, that one thing alone isn't enough for a new section; it should be integrated. Well, unless you can flesh out description of the impact and use of that phrase to a full paragraph or two, in which case I think the phrase would deserve a section all unto itself. But, a half-dozen links to episodes of Simpsons and South Park is just pointless, imo. Besides which a list of song titles and show quotes for "drink the kool-aid" would be in the wrong article, this article is about Jim Jones. Eaglizard 21:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

The early life section talks about "Travis Jones", was this his real birth name and if so, when and under what circumstances was it changed?

Education

Someone should verify this but I have heard Jim Jones is an IU Grad from the Kelly School of Business.

Age at which he memorized the New Testament has been vandalized. Kohl Gill 02:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim Jones did not receive a Bachelor's Degree from Joliet Junior College. It is a two year college and never issues Bachelor's Degrees.--Norma rae (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I have reverted this page back to include the comments on the arrest and alledged homosexuality. My understanding is that the arrest took place in a movie theatre although a later edit has changed this to a park (I will have to check this further). The comment about being the "one true hetereosexual" is, I believe, true (although I did not make this edit).

Adding confirmation to the "one true heterosexual" comment, as reference per documentary. --WilliamACopeland 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I will look to provide sources, however, I would say that a Google search on the relevant keywords should provide some evidence to support these facts. TigerShark 07:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beginnings

The article is too short on his early life. Maikel (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I added significantly more material on the formation of the Temple decades before the mass suicide (1951-1975). Regarding Jones childhood, there is quite a bit from his mother Lynetta on audio tape, but it is frankly incredibly boring to listen to, even for the most devoted of Jonestown researchers. Such as B.S. stories of animals following Jones around, his childhood pretend church services and like stories. About the most interesting thing is that his mother was a labor activist and that was probably what helped form Jones' worldview, and eventually, the Temple's worldview, but that's speculation.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Where and in what way was his mother a labor activist? I'm from the Richmond area and I find this curious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a look in Reiterman's Raven just now, and it just said that she worked in a cannery and then other "factory" jobs, "unions eventually became her cause and she did some organizing" and was considered a "troublemaker" by other workers and management. There is more on some of the audiotapes, and I remember seeing some manuscript by her, but (hate to sound mean) she's honestly one of the most boring speakers I've ever heard. A joke like this sounds horrible on a serious subject, but my first thought 15 minutes into listening to her was "now I know why Jim was suicidal." Mosedschurte (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I don't know where a cannery would have been around here, but that doesn't mean that particular job was in this area. There was a fairly contentious union issue at the Perfect Circle Corporation in 1955, which involved the acceptance/refusal to unionize the plant by the UAW, and the use of scabs. It got the notice of the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine, which is fairly significant for a small manufacturer in Indiana. Before that time, labor relations and unions weren't much heard of around here. Just curious about it, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The placement of the "Other Issues" section interferes with the continuity of the article because the article jumps from telling about Jones's death in the previous section to talking about specific instances in his earlier life when it gets to the "Other Issues" section. For this reason, I propose that "Other Issues" be moved right below "Early Life," or done away with and incorporated into "Early Life." ~Anon1

Category: Self-declared Messiahs

I eliminated this because it's a common myth about the PT. In fact, it was so false (they were actually atheists) that Jones used people claiming Jones declared himself a messiah to "prove", in speeches to the Temple members, that those making those accusations were "liars" about everything. For example, Annie Moore even stated her anger at these false claims that they looked at Jim as a God (they didn't) in her suicide note. Part of the confusion here was caused by Jones' early 70s healing services to try to draw people into the Temple to convert them later to socialism. But he didn't even declare himself the messiah there, and instead, said he believed (parroting New Age theory) that an "energy" in the human body lived after death that could be reincarnated and that he was reincarnated, claiming he believed to be a re-incarnation of Lenin (mostly), and also others like Christ and Mao. But he made clear he wasn't actually them, and said people were getting "carried away with" the old reincarnation words during speeches in Jonestown. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Category: Communist rulers

I'm actually not sure that Jim Jones should be considered an actual "Communist ruler" (although he certainly acted like one). I mean he took his people to the middle of nowhere in Guyana, and set up the community on the ideals of Communism, it's not really like Jonestown was a mini-nation or at the very least, an an illegal sovereign nation.Uglyguy2006 (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree they weren't a completely independent state (though Jones believed them to be), but ruler doesn't just mean the head of an independent state. They were a sovereign territory in Guyana (they also didn't have to comply with many Guyanese dictates under a special Guyanese act) and Jones was undoubtedly the ruler. Actually, the Temple referred to him as the "D of the P", "Dictator of the Proletariat", but I didn't think that was worth including in the article. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

SDSU references

It seems SDSU changed it's internal link system so it doesn't show a new address for its different pages. It *all* falls under http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/ and you can't get a separate page listed for the different areas. This is going to create a referencing problem. --MartinezMD (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian?

This article randomly refers to Jones and his wife as "Caucasian", mentioning nowhere else that either is of Armenian/Azerbaijani/etc heritage. Perhaps this was written by some American under the erroneous assumption a few of them seem to have that "Caucasian" somehow means "white"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.59.92 (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's no more "erroneous" than using "white" which is not a single group either. It's a 200 year-old term still in use. Read Caucasian race and White people. --MartinezMD (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also added a note in the Family section explaining Jones' Cherokee claim through Lynetta and the contrary claim by Lynetta's cousin.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Buddhism?

The Temple really wasn't Buddhist.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Peoples Temple related articles

Over the last few months, I've added a lot of sources and material to several articles that lacked sourcing, stated incorrect facts (and conspiracy theories) and skipped over large sections of the most notable history.

As it stands now, the current articles most heavily related to the Peoples Temple and surrounding events:

• Jim Jones - major focus - the personal life of Jim Jones, the Jones family and Jones' leadership of the Peoples Temple. Summary only for other material. This article needs major expansion on Jones' early life and I am going to start working on that.
  
• Peoples Temple- major focus - the creation, organization, operation of the Peoples Temple, as well as life therein. Summary only for other material. This article needs major expansion on 1955-1975, and I am going to start working on that.
  
• Timothy Stoen - major focus - the life of Timothy Stoen, with a description of the key John custody battle & Concerned Relatives. Summary only for other material.
  
• Peoples Temple in San Francisco - major focus - The Temple's move to urban San Francisco, as directed by Jones in 1975 for a variety of reasons and the changes that occurred, the political support and election material (old Political alliances article partially merged), the Temple's activities at the Housing Authority, major San Francisco defections that significantly effected its history, it's National of Islam/ Symbianese Liberation Army issues, the various conspiracy theories it saw there (Blackwell Wright, Dennis Banks/Conn and Stennis), the increasing urban media scrutiny that eventually caused the exodus, what happened to Geary Boulevard facility and members post-exodus, what happened at that facility after Jonestown, etc.
  
• Jonestown - major focus- the creation, activities at and tragedy at Jonestown. Summary only for other material.. Note: I'm considering creating a specific "Tragedy at Jonestown"(see below) article that will go into more detail about that (Nov. 15-18), and then expanding Jonestown to include more of the 1974-October 1978 material, because there is a lot that happened there.
  

New articles coming:

• Either Tragedy at Jonestown or Jonestown before the tragedy (one of these two only) - as discussed above, the "Tragedy at Jonestown" (if that's chosen) would focus on the large number of events that occurred between November 15 and November 18. Lots of events occurred in both Georgetown and Jonestown that are not at all in the article or covered now in only a very summary matter. More importantly, this would allow the expansion of the Jonestown article to include all of the events that occurred there between 1974-Nov. 14 1978 (with the obvious emphasis on Sept. 1977-Nov.1978). Possible Alternative -Jonestown before the tragedy - this would instead focus upon the 1974-Nov. 14 1978 events, and they would be reduced in the Jonestown article to just a summary. The Jonestown article would remain the main article addressing the events of November 15-November 18.
  
• Concerned Relatives (Peoples Temple) - this would focus upon the group of Concerned Relatives (Katsaris, Mills', Stoens, etc.), the many lawsuits brought against the Temple (and the Temple's defense with Garry, Lane, etc.), with additional coverage of individual efforts to oppose the Temple by relatives and former members (Gang of 8, Sandy Rozynko, etc.) before the Concerned Relatives began to come together in Sept. 1977. It would probably also touch upon the odd Joe Mazor incidents.
  
• Michael Prokes - Prokes life, from CBS reporter to Jones right hand man in politics, public relations and administration, relationships (with Jones himself, Carolyn Layton, etc.), eventual bagman for over $7 million in funds to the Soviet embassy on the day of the tragedy and his eventual suicide at a press conference he called in Modesto in 1979 reading a statement siding with Jones and the Temple.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 release

This article is one that has been selected to be included in the Wikipedia 0.7 disk release. That is based on importance scores from WikiProjects, number of page visits and the quality of article assigned by the relevant WikiProjects. It might be advisable to delay any major overhauls until after the October 20 deadline. It's a good thing to have been included! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I might give a shot at creating Peoples Temple in San Francisco article (lots occurred there), with some merged material from the Political alliances and PT articles in the meantime, which shouldn't really effect this article as it stands because it has very little on the topic right now. It's an area widely addressed in the literature that is largely skipped over in the current articles. It would likely include a "see" or "main" link to that article. in a section.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, as an FYI, a lot more eyes are going to hit this page over the next two months. The thirtieth anniversary of Jonestown is approaching, and there will likely be significant media fanfare.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why persist in calling this a mass suicide?

The bulk of the available reputable sources on this event state that most of the people who died in the event were murdered. To call this a mass suicide, without any modification, is grossly inaccurate. To call it a mass murder/suicide would be more accurate, and would provide room to clarify that many of the people who died did not in fact commit suicide.

sign your posts and if you show some sorces maybe we can change it 24.16.180.125 (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, "the bulk of the available reputable sources" state that people drank the poison, either from cups or needleless syringes. Some needle marks were found on people, but it is not clear whether those were relief injections to speed death while they were convulsing violently after already orally taking the poison. No medical examiner found any gunshot victims in Jonetown outside of Jones, Annie Moore and maybe one other individual. In fact, none of the huge number of people there afterwards has stated anything to the contrary, except Charles Huff. Whether, for adults, given the presence of armed guards, people shouting dissenters down and mental rigors of living in Jonestown, drinking the poison was technically "murder" or "suicide" is at least debatable, though many people have strong feelings in either direction. Outside of old Soviet era propaganda (Jonestown Carnage) and John Judge conspiracy books (and perhaps Mark Lane -- shudder), no one seriously believes the CIA was involved in murdering anyone. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No one's saying that the CIA murdered the people, Jones forced people to commit suicide, he was a control freak and wanted his way. No doubt many would have protested to killing themselves regardless of circumstances since it was a cult that was mainly focused on making the world a better place (or at least that is what most members thought).

I recently saw a history channel documentary on the subject which is why I became interested in it, it had an interview from an alleged survivor and eye witness who stated people were being forced to drink the poison or where injected with it against their will.

Either way it is certain that many children died as well, and their deaths are definitely murders.

Feyre (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's sort of a question regarding most events history labels "mass suicide", as well. For example, like most, one of the most historically well known (though we don't if its accurate per Josephus), Masada, also involved kids. They theoretically lack the capacity to consent. Moreover, the kids and women might have also died unwillingly. Then men killed them after drawing lots. A few women and children purportedly escaped.

But the term "murder suicide" as a generalized description is certainly inaccurate at Jonestown in that it describes someone killing others then committing suicide. This is definitely the case here, as no one disputes that many members did willingly take poison.

In fact, everyone else on the tape is against Miller (who argues against suicide), even after the poison is being taken. No one was found fleeing with gunshot or crossbow wounds. They'd also practiced this before, and people had taken what they were told was poison without being forced. Some also wrote suicide notes expressing their reasons.

The term "mass suicide" is often used to describe instances where multiple people commit suicide, even if it is not clear they all had the capacity to consent (or were even willing to consent).

Some children had it injected in their mouths, usually with needle-less syringes. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely, it would be better to say that 'Jonestown' has gone down in history as a 'mass-suicide,' but, given the quantifiable evidence, this is not an accurate description of events. The bodies of 276 infants and children were recovered from 'Jonestown'. Indeed (disregarding, the adults who died at 'Jonestown'), there can be no argument that, at the very least, approximately 30% of the victims were slaughtered. Interestingly, Jones also ordered that his pet animals be slaughtered, or do they count as 'suicides' as well? In reality, no one travelled to Guyana with Jones in the first place as a result of their fully-informed consent. The medical reports demonstrate that the inhabitants of 'Jonestown' were already slowly starving to death due an almost total lack of protein in their diet. Protein restriction is also a physical procedure designed to facilitate the shutting down of individuals' critical and evaluative faculties. Jones steadfastly pretended that his 'agricultural project' would feed thousands of individuals and produce a surplus to be sold in order to buy vital supplies. In reality, Jonestown was the grandiose fantasy of a megalomaniacal psychopath, miscalculated by an enormous margin. The 'project' was built in a tropical zone only a few hundred miles north of the Equator which had never been used for agriculture. There was no way 'Jonestown' could feed the poor souls who were there, let alone thousands more and produce a surplus. From the start it was doomed to fail. Anyone challenging the authenticity of Jones' fantasy was systematically categorized as evil. This is why he ordered the murder of Leo J. Ryan and his party. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC).

And... this is a page for discussing improvements to the article, not to discuss the events at Jonestown or our opinions on Jim Jones. Please limit your discussion to how to improve the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And... how pray is it possible for one to discuss 'improvements' to this article about Jim Jones without discussing the psychology of Jim Jones or the events at the place which he arbitrarily defined as 'Jonestown'? It would be helpful if you limited yourself to an accurate deconstructed use of language. Given the mountain of quantifiable evidence, it is an axiomatic statement to describe the so-called 'Jonestown Agricultural Project' as the grandiose fantasy of a megalomaniacal psychopath, not an opinion. On the contrary, to describe my axiomatic statement as opinion is merely your opinion. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I did not say it was opinion, what I said was that the page was for discussing article improvements while simply discussing events at Jonestown or opinions regarding Jim Jones was not the purpose of this talk page. Having said that, however, unless you can produce reliable third-party sources that have published conclusive findings from valid professionals that have categorized Jones as a megalomaniacal psychopath from the mountain of quantifiable evidence which - what? you are readily and thoroughly familiar? - he cannot be described as such in the article without it falling into the category of either opinion or original research. In the absence of that, it is less axiomatic to assert such, and much more an observational opinion. There are several Jones related articles on Wikipedia, which cover a multitude of individuals involved who did not, at the time, regard Jones as anything but what he purported to be. A fact-based encyclopedic article does not rely on axioms, it relies on verifiable references. Meanwhile, please confine your discussion to the subject and do not focus comments on other editors. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the concept of a statement being more or less axiomatic simply does not exist. A statement is either axiomatic or it is not. e.g.:

"The community arbitrarily defined by its instigator and self-appointed sovereign leader as the 'Jonestown Agricultural Project', was situated in a tropical zone fundamentally unsuited to argiculture because of its proximatey to the equator."

This is an axiomatic statement written in accurate deconstructed terms. It would be crass in the extreme to exclude it from this discussion on the grounds that it is 'original research.' Take a look at any good encyclopedia or atlas. There is no agriculture in this region of S. America. Therefore, to persist in calling the community Jones created, using his own thought-stopping terminology, is nonsense.

There a list of highly-qualified medical professionals as long as your arm who have categorized Jones as a megalomaniacal psychopath, but we'll start with just one. The late Margaret Thaler Singer Ph.D, formerly emeritus adjunct professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkley. A megalomaniacal psychopath, is a person suffering from a chronic mental disorder, especially when resulting in paranoid delusions of grandeur and self-righteousness, and the compulsion to pursue grandiose objectives. The would seem to be a perfect description of Jones.

We are not living in 1978. With the benefit of hindsight, the fact that, at that time, various individuals took Jones at face value, is an extraordinary argument to put forward in support of a fact-based encyclopedia. The point is that hundreds of unquestioning individuals wound up dead simply because they took Jones at face value - conclusive evidence that Jones, like many psychopaths, was a dangerous manipulator with the ability to shut down people's critical and evaluative faculties. His paranoid delusions were self-evidently contagious.Eric Arthur B. (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend much more time on this. I see where you have been directed to Wikipedia guidelines and policies in the past and apparently you have not availed yourself of that information. I'm not even sure at this juncture what point you're trying to make. If it does not concern changes you are proposing to the article, then kindly don't waste my time. I will not engage in further discussion if you are only interested in a debate and are not making constructive suggestions. As for the statement which I assume is from something published by Singer, unless it was written expressly about Jim Jones, then your statement that it is a perfect description of Jones is your extrapolation of the description. It can't be included in the article as Singer's description of Jones in whatever publication. That you found a description and are, yourself, relating it to Jones qualifies as original research as it is described in Wikipedia policy. If you are arguing that this article should not call the settlement the "Jonestown Agricultural Project" because it wasn't in an agricultural area of Guyana, then that is completely irrelevant. That it was called such is all that is relevant regarding its name. There is no purpose in arguing that point. Again, please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing and citations, reliable sources, original research and synthesis of material. If your contentions cannot be referenced directly from reliable third-party sources, then the points, and the discussion thereof, are moot. Let me repeat once again to make it clear: if your intention is to engage in a debate over points regarding Jim Jones, Peoples Temple or Jonestown, in the absence of specific suggestions for improving the articles, then there is no point in the discussion, which by Wikipedia policies, is a misuse of the article talk page, and is better suited for a bulletin board or forum discussion site. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric Arthur B: In short:

(1) The discussion regarding possible malnourishment article additions for should go on the Talk:Jonestown page. This Jim Jones article contains only summary talk on Jonestown. This article focuses on Jones' life. The Jonestown article would be a place for that addition, were it to happen. As an aside, I can tell you 2 things: (a) there never were any medical studies on the bodies for malnourishment; in fact, there were only 7 autopsies total performed and none even mentioned malnourishment; and (b) the talk of malnourishment was talked up by the Concerned Relatives (particularly Debbie Layton) to try to get investigative action, but the visitors (including the Ryan CODEL) didn't really see it.

(2) The discussion regarding possible article additions for Jonestown's self-sufficiency would also be for Talk:Jonestown (this page is only summary for Jonestown). As an aside, Jonestown was not self-sufficient at the time (the Temple bought lots of food for residents instead), but they had only cleared 1,000 of the 4,000 acres so far. There is some debate whether it could ever become self-sufficient. In addition, they had started to produce other goods for sale, and might have transformed part of their economy into producing other goods or services (e.g., medical, which they provided to locals) and become self-sufficient through trade. That's really more of an academic discussion, because the Temple was purchasing food from outside during the short 1-1/2 years after the mass exodus.

(3) The discussion regarding possible article additions for "mass suicide" is also more of a discussion for Talk:Jonestown (this page is only summary for Jonestown). As an aside here, nearly all events labeled as such include the death of large numbers of people like children, who can't consent. In Masada, for example, in addition to the sect's kids, adult women may not have even consented, and just had their throats cut. The term is frequently read to broadly include events where large numbers commit suicide and includes when parts of the dead don't consent. Mosedschurte (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cult

I hate to sound like one of those people who insist on putting "Hitler was evil" on said article's lead, but this article doesn't really say a lot on how People's Temple progressed into an abusive cult. I mean, I read a book which dedicated a whole chapter to it, and really it was the reason that the whole tragedy eventually took place. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, but that is because it is covered in depth in the corresponding articles Peoples Temple and Jonestown, and is essentially summarized for this page. Both of those articles are linked in this article with "Main article: Peoples Temple" and "Main article: Jonestown". Much more depth would have made it very redundant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I added much more to the Peoples Temple article recently. This article focuses more upon the life of Jones personally.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Butler Education

Someone needs to do further research on his education... I am a Butler University grad and it has been my understanding that he NEVER received a degree from there. This is coming from professors who taught there during the time he would have attended. I'm not 100% sure on this and don't have time to do the research myself right now, but just putting it out there for someone to confirm. Thanks! 69.5.35.146 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. If you'll check the reference, this information comes from a published journal article ("Mass Suicide: Historical and psychodynamic considerations." Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 32(1):91-100, 2002. Mancinelli, I. et al.) and my experience has been that such research papers are fairly solidly researched and fact checked before publication. Or at least that's true of the Journal of Sociology which was edited at Ball State when I was a grad research assistant there. Since Jones first attended in 1951 and took 10 years to complete the requirements, perhaps they were simply not aware of him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim Jones did make 900 people kill themselves

Instead he had people working in the background killing for him. Why isn't this mentioned? It was discussed on an episode of Most Evil by a well known psychologist. YVNP (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The details of what happened at Jonestown are in the Jonestown article, which is linked several times in this article.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pentobarbital levels

Posting in case it is an issue: An IP editor said in an edit summary: "Note the autopsy says brain levels of Pentobarbital might not have been fatal." However, the autopsy also says "The tissue levels of pentobarbital are within the toxic range, and in some cases of overdose have been sufficient to cause death. The liver and kidney pentobarbital levels are within the generally accepted lethal range." This supports the article statement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

CIA connection

Why is nothing in this entry about the connection between Jim Jones and the CIA? This suspected connection is well-known, and has been discussed in several TV documentaries and written pieces about Jim Jones and Jonestown. There is also no mention Jeanne, Al, and Linda Mills, survivors of the cult, who were murdered in their homes right before they were supposed to start speaking on the lecture circuit about this connection. I realize nothing has been proven definitively, but the controversy about the possible connection to the CIA is certainly well-known enough to be included in this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.16.162 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) In the real world, there is zero reliable source evidence of any notable connection between Jim Jones and the CIA:

(2) There is zero reliable source evidence of any connection with the Mills' murders and any lecture (or, in fact, anything Temple related);

(3)There is a Jonestown conspiracy theory article for conspiracy theory nuttiness, most of which was raised by Jim Jones himself to Temple members before his death, and has been carried on by conspiracy theorist grand daddy Mark Lane, a trio of Soviet authors, conspiracy theorists John Judge and Jim Hougan, and others.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this is not a "nutty conspiracy theory". This theory has been in almost every documentary made on Jonestown, one documentary I saw actually showing in the audio recording of Jim Jones exhorting his followers to kill themselves where he makes references by name to a man who was known to be a CIA agent and who was there while the massacre was going on. (I don't recall the specifics of it.) This isn't some far-out theory. Like I said, every documentary made on the Temple, i.e., the ones shown on A&E, Discovery, MSNBC, etc. bring up this possible connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.16.162 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And as an added response to you, for shits and giggles, I went and looked up the entry for the Apollo moon landing, and there's a section there for the theory that it was faked. You want to talk about nutty conspiracy theories?? At least Jim Jones and the CIA is a theory that has a reliable and well-researched backing to it. If the moon landing hoax is considered a theory that passes the smell test here, then Jonestown/CIA is certainly publishable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.16.162 (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) Nowhere in the PBS, MSNBC, CNN or Discovery documentaries did they say, or even remotely imply, that Jim Jones was notably connected with the CIA. This is simply a lie. And a rather poor one at that. The only thing on TV I've even seen implying as much was an episode of a crazy decade and a half old basic cable show called "American Justice" (Bill Curtis VO) that implied some sort of wacky MK-Ultra/CIA connection. This is, by the way, straight out of the playbook of Jim Jones himself -- the crazy things he was telling Jonestown residents. For the last decade and a half, it has been cut up on Youtube and repeated (usually with cheezy music in the background) by every conspiracy nut out there.

(2) Regarding the reference by Jones on the tape to the Deputy Chief of Mission Richard Dwyer, who accompanied Ryan on the trip: (a) he wasn't in the Pavilion and Jones (on enough drugs to kill an elephant) likely mistook Charles Garry for him -- Dwyer was being shot in the buttocks at the airstrip at that time in front of about 20 witnesses, including NBC and the Washington Post; (b) in any event, there is absolutely zero reliable proof that Richard Dwyer was also in the CIA--and no, Kit Nascimento, who is about as credible as the three Soviet authors who wrote "Jonestown Carnage" doesn't count; (c) even if he were (and, again, there is zero proof) it would also be completely non-notable if he also simultaneously served a CIA function (they were in a country that was a quasi-enemy of the U.S.).

(3) The Jonestown CIA/MK-Ultra conspiracy theories and Jonestown Dwyer allegations are addressed in the Jonestown conspiracy theory article, not an article on the life of Jim Jones. "For shits and giggles", try reading through the related articles first before posting about such nuttiness on the Jim Jones talk page.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I never said the documentaries stated Jones was "notably connected" to the CIA. I said that the documentaries all bring it up as a theory, which is true. So before you go accusing people of lying (as if I would feel the need to lie outright about something as trivial as this), pay attention to what's being said.

Secondly, what's on the audio tape is what's on the audio tape. You giving your little theory on what "probably" happened is no less of a theory than the the other explanation. So in effect what you're doing is saying that one theory isn't valid because your own personal theory doesn't match up with it. Get over yourself.

And lastly, the fact that you even know all the players involved shows that you're aware of the CIA theory, which only proves my point that the theory is in the public arena enough to be noted in a biography about the head of the cult. Your flimsy rationalization that it somehow doesn't belong here because it's about Jonestown and not Jim Jones (the FOUNDER AND LEADER of Jonestown), is just that: flimsy beyond belief, and is a case of you grasping at straws to make your case. Obviously, theories and information about one would logically tie to the other. Don't be a dope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.16.162 (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) All of those documentaries do not "bring it up as a theory". Again, this is a lie. Most documentaries entirely ignore even the existence of these crazy theories.

(2) The tape is 45 minutes long. It includes Jones final instructions, statements, dissent,etc. The least notable thing on it is his 2 second mention of the word "Dwyer", which he, by the way, screwed up because Dwyer wasn't even there (was 2 hours away at the airstrip getting shot in front of 20 witnesses). Even if he didn't screw it up, it's not even remotely notable compared to the rest of those 45 minutes, most of which can't be discussed at length in a encyclopedic article because of length.

(3) "And lastly, the fact that you even know all the players involved shows that you're aware of the CIA theory". It gets no more silly than this. Of course I'm aware of the "players involved", i.e., the people that were simply in Jonestown on the final few days. And the CIA conspiracy theory. I'm also aware of Jones' theory that the U.S. Post Office was out to destroy him. And that some people believe that aliens destroyed Jonestown.

(4) Lastly, this article focuses on the 47 year life of Jim Jones. The Jonestown material is discussed only summarily here (a few paragraphs). Jonestown has its own article where the four year life and death of that town it is discussed in detail. And the conspiracy theories about Jonestown have their own article: Jonestown conspiracy theory. To even begin to properly address additions to Wikipedia, you have to at least start with commenting on the article that deals with your proposed topic in the most detail.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Birth and Death data Jones' parents

I just posted a query about Lynetta Putnam's date of death, as the date listed was AFTER the mass suicide. Several sources indicated this was not the case. Helpful correction was posted almost immediately, altering the year to 1977 (was 1978 before), listed under the same reference source.

However. I'm still wondering about actual dates, because of the following:
1. Deborah Layton (author of 'Seductive Poison') refers to the death of Jones' mother in 'late 1977'. This could be December 1977, of course, but note (2) below.
2. In the journals of Edith Roller (http://jonestown.sdsu.edu), her entry for June 9th 1978 refers to the 'monthly' memorial service held for Lynetta. No reference is made to the precise date of death, i.e. whether the memorial was always on the precise day of the month on which she had died, or at some other date, close.
3. There's a statement on the (Wikipedia) site which says that birth records for Lynetta Putnam have been destroyed. Does anyone know what was the source for her birth data? And also for Jones' father? And his death date?
This is a very interesting site - thanks to all who have been working on it. whitestarlion (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: While the footnote posting wasn't correct, rather than just revert it and go on, it would be nice to see the questions raised here addressed in some manner. There has been a lot of stark reversions lately and no discussion, which isn't how things are supposed to work around here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am new to posting on 'talk' and I am perplexed. Surely the correction of one wrong figure which was probably a typo is not a 'stark reversion'? This response sounds exaggerated to me, and completely off topic, but maybe it is referring to background Wikipolitiks and customs, of which I am ignorant. I posted questions about facts and data sources, not editorial behaviour. If you want to comment on the correction, why not track it back and speak directly to the person who did it? Or is that not how things 'work around here'???. whitestarlion (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My note wasn't about what you did or what you've asked. It was posted as a side note to your question about the death date, in response to the reversion that was done on the main page by someone else as well as other reversions of changes that have occurred on the Jones related articles lately. Since that editor was the one who removed your post, I was suggesting that he answer your questions. I'm sorry if you thought it was about you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert the footnote, so it's not me being discussed (the last 8 reverts have been by 8 different editors, none being me).

After the date problem was pointed out, I changed the date to December 11, 1977 (it used to incorrectly state December 11, 1978) and took out the comment about that incorrect date in the reference, since the change to the correct date answered that particular query. Raven says December 1977, and I know from reading elsewhere it was purportedly December 11, but didn't try to go hunt down an additional source for the exact day of the month. As a matter of perspective, although I added the Lynetta photo, I don't view the exact Lynetta and James Thurman birth and death dates as vital to the Jim Jones article and am ambivalent about whether they're retained.

I just provided the correct death date in answer to the query previously posed in the reference.

With regard to the queries above, there may be some confusion, because I changed it to the correct date (1977) an hour before the questions were posted above. I thought that would answer the question. Lynetta died 11 months before the suicides, on December 11, 1977. Jones also discusses it on audio tapes and members make references to her death as the passing of the advance guard of socialism and the like. Even though she had some sort of odd animal obsession (like Jones), she was too weak to walk around Jonestown before her death. I think she had arrived there in September.

Regarding the original source of the birth and death dates, I don't know. They were added by another user here. Given the incorrect Lynetta death date, they may have come from this site, but I don't know.

I hope that answers the questions.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, everyone.
Re: perspective - I can appreciate that this information is not of interest to everyone, but it is to me, and I'm probably not the only one!
I have noticed a number of wrong dates on various Wiki sites, and if I have reliable source, I do change them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitestarlion (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also not just of interest to you because another editor added it -- that's at least two of you. I wouldn't be totally surprised if the James Thurman birth date was wrong, but I didn't add it. Generally, unless I know something is wrong or suspect that it is inaccurate, I won't throw a fact tag on it.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As a Heads Up, Snake Dance is About As Unreliable/Fringe Theory As A Source Can Get

Someone added this to the "Bibliography". It has serious WP:Reliable sources and WP:Fringe issues -- so much so that it might be used as the definitive example of such issues.

The book is a culmination of the website writings of Laurie Efrein Kahalas, a former Peoples Temple member who never went to Jonestown and began a website in 1988 espousing various fringe theories (to put it mildly), mostly comporting with the rants of former leader Jim Jones, such as that the CIA was behind numerous conspiracies (with secret agent Tim Stoen, of course), including the murder of the citizens of Jonestown, along with the Green Berets. SDSU basically asked permission to preserve her old web pages as the writings of a former member who was still sort of a true believer. Interesting as a subject of study for them, but not as a source on Wikipedia given the reliability and fringe requirements of this encyclopedic site.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Query of Reversion - discussion please

I'm not sure that this is the right place for querying a recent reversion. Please set me right if not! I did read Wiki 'guidelines' etc, and after due reflection decided to post here.

I recently added to the 'bibliography' the title 'Snake Dance' by Laurie Efrein Kahalas, and it was reverted, soon after, with a comment that this book 'is Almost the Definition of an Unreliable Source/Fringe Theory'. I admit I have not read the book. However, I have read every single one of Kahalas' postings here[3]. This site now archives the entire website which Kahalas created (c1997-2004), and includes contributions of hers as recent as 2008. The material includes full mention of the book itself, the circumstances out of which it arose, the fact that it resulted in a conflict with Jim Jones himself, with catastrophic consequences for her.

While I can accept that the person who reverted my comment might not have a world view which can encompass some of the more unusual personal experiences which Kahalas documents, I think that this reversion doesn't honour the NPOV principle, at least as I understand it. If you read Kahalas carefully, you will find a tour de force of meticulous detail, astute questions which nobody else seems to have asked, and a commitment to transparency. How can a known insider be 'fringe' when lots of people who were not involved at all have their points of view accepted? On one hand, to lose a book from the Bibliography is not a big deal, truly! On the other hand, I think there is an important issue represented here. I am assuming that the person who made the reversion was not personally involved with Jonestown ... so on what basis is this judgement being made, please? Is it personal opinion, collective prejudice, or what? What is 'fringe', really?

Sorry, forgot to sign. Also, perhaps I should have added this to comment above, which I didn't see at first, thinking that recent 'talk' topics would be listed at the top of the page. whitestarlion (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kahalas, a former Peoples Temple member still loyal to much of Jim Jones' conspiracy theories, espouses WP:Fringe theories (read that page for the explanation of the policy), such as that the CIA killed everyone at Jonestown, along with the Green Berets and that Tim Stoen was a secret right-wing zealot aligned with the CIA to destroy Jonestown.

On the SDSU site, while they saved her pages, they actually placed a large box above her old web pages she preserved that states: " In the interest of preserving the information from the site for future generations of Jonestown scholars and researchers, the managers of the Alternative Considerations site asked Ms. Kahalas for permission to archive her work in its entirety."

She's sort of become a working study in progress of the old Peoples Temple, but her views are seriously WP:Fringe, and even less well researched than the conspiracy theories of others like John Judge at ratical.org and the book published by the old Soviet Union just after Jonestown (likely a little embarrassed by their negotiations and emboldening of Jones). There is a Wikipedia page for Jonestown conspiracy theory. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so fully ....
Listing a book in a bibliography does not equate with endorsing it as 'The Truth' surely? That would be intellectual fascism of a kind. By that token, no article in Wiki can/should claim to be 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. Noting the title, as I did, as 'controversial' and from an 'insider' suffices to both respect Wiki's attempt to log the 'mainstream' view, and also to alert the reader to other views. This is not 'promoting' conspiracy theory, but rather an attempt to be realistic. 'Big' events are so complex as to appear kaleidescopic, and I think that the Wiki entries should reflect this fact, but be as un-partisan as possible. The 'truth' is that we will probably never know how/whether the CIA were involved. The nature of such things is that the tracks are well covered, not least by confusion. It is true, however, that the truth is not always popular, so I believe one must be cautious in unreservedly endorsing the 'prevailing view' of anything. whitestarlion (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the viewpoint, but Wikipedia isn't an internet bulletin board for discussion of conspiracy theories. Rather, it's an encyclopedia. It requires WP:Reliable sources and for those sources not to be WP:Fringe. Re: "The 'truth' is that we will probably never know how/whether the CIA were involved,", one can say that (or related interventions by anyone else) about anything -- perhaps the Kenyan Secret Service is shooting mind control lasers at Britney Spears now. The reliable sources don't indicate anything remotely like the above (in either regard). As an encyclopedia, sources listed must adhere to Wikipedia policies.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Unless I've missed it, I don't see a link from this article to the 'Conspiracy Theory' pages ... shouldn't there be one? whitestarlion (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The link to Jonestown conspiracy theory is in the Jonestown article.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not regard Wiki as an 'internet bulletin board for discussion of conspiracy theories', of course not. (This remark of yours is leaning into the accusatory, which I do not accept.)It is precisely BECAUSE it is an encyclopedia that I think mention of this material should be included. i.e. the FACT that such material is 'out there', is surely a true and valuable comment? (This rests on my point as to whether Wiki aspires to be regarded as the 'sole arbiter of truth'.)For example, if a researcher comes to a subject for the very first time, mention of alternative views could be useful. I believe that my brief comment served this purpose, and is worded in such a way that is does not actually promote anything. It is entirely factual. whitestarlion (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think again (and I'm not accusing you of thinking its a bulletin board), just because "the FACT that such material is 'out there' " doesn't merit mention in Wikipedia, which requires reliable sources and not fringe theories. It's an encyclopedia, not a storehouse of every person who has ever discussed a subject. There are probably 20 different sources of wacky conspiracy theories on Jonestown alone. There is a page devoted to Jonestown conspiracy theory discussing such fringe theories, and this would be the place for any such material. Perhaps you should place the Kahalas link in the bibliography of that page. Mosedschurte (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. Thanks for discussion. whitestarlion (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection for this Page?

Most of the recent history for this article concerns repeated vandalism by unregistered IPs, with registered (and unregistered) editors having to revert the vandals.

The Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection states that "on average 5% of edits to a page are vandalism. So, 5% is the level of vandalism to be expected, and semi-protection should not be applied in this case. More than usual levels of vandalism occur when anything over 5% of edits constitute vandalism."

We're WAY over that. I would guess in the 60-70% range (not including reverts), though most of the time its not marked as vandalism, even when it regularly includes such scholarly edits as "james nipp was a cock sucking bitch with a virgina".

How do we go about getting the page semi-protected so that only registered users can edit, as has been done with many other pages, such as World War II? Is it a request on ANI?Mosedschurte (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Map showing locations of Peoples Temples in error?

The map in this article (as well as in the Wiki article on the Peoples Temple) entitled: Some of the Peoples Temple's locations in California, lists Fresno and Bakersfield as two of these locations. I have lived in this part of California all my life and have never heard of the Peoples Temple being located in these cities. Nor can I find any collaborative evidence for this elsewhere on the web. I would like to learn what evidence this is based upon. I suspect the listing of these two cities is some sort of error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PNeel56 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

Added {{No more links}} to EL sect. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cam'ron link

The link to Jim Jones on the wikipage for 'Cam'ron' is supposed to go to the hip hop artist Jim Jones and not this guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.239.159 (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Um.. fix it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure Jones was not Gay or an atheist. Please remove these categories and consider locking this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.99.110 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, you're wrong. See Jim Jones#California Eden at the beginning of the 4th paragraph where it is reliably sourced that Jones stated he was an atheist. Also see Jim Jones#Other issues where his activities with men is discussed and reliably sourced. He perhaps wasn't gay but he was at least bisexual. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is slanted.

This article is grossly biased. It tries to claim that Jones's group was not a religious cult and does not even mention that Jones was an ordained minister of the Disciples of Christ. Instead, someone with a political agenda is using it to smear Democrats and liberals through guilt by association.

Source:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahabarbara (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Think that all you want. This article is well referenced and whether or not Jones went through ordination does not take away from the fact that he guided his little group into Communism and completely away from religious based activities. That those political persons used their association with the group in California does not it biased, except on their part. This is, after all, a group that committed mass suicide and murder. All of this is covered. It was a perversion of religious AND political beliefs. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mahabarbara (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)I didn't say the article wasn't factual. However, it's obvious that the author has a partisan political agenda and is, shall we say, over-emphasizing some facts, adding associations of minor importance and leaving out other facts that some might think are more significant to promote that agenda. In other words, this article isn't about Jim Jones as much as the author's political biases.

I guess there's no longer a way for a lowly reader to challenge the great master wikipedia editorial overlords. Might as well check the Britannica. Mahabarbara (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And I think lowly readers come in with a biased view, "this was a church, it wasn't political" or "he was a preacher, not a Communist" or "he was political, it wasn't a church". This article has dozens of authors and no one person wrote it, so the impressions from the sources touched everyone. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There has always been mob rule on Wikipedia. Varied and inconsistent application of rules and policies. It may be comforting to think otherwise, but it's true. There have been absolutely ridiculous pages like: "List of groups referred to as cults" that hung on for years despite their abject "bogosity". Although in truth, I'm not sure how or if it could be better. 75.91.102.14 (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. Comdemning the project doesn't address why you think this article is slanted. Are you sure you're not just taking this opportunity to slam the project as a whole? Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a full video about this disaster

I'm 26yrs and somuch interested in researching about human madness. This was one of the highest oder. These articles posted on this web say that there is no video about the suiside but i have seen a full video of right from 14th up to 18th the day of the disaster.

This video was shown on 20th/3/2010 on Discovery Channel(seoul Korea) at around 23:00-1:30am. You guys need to see that video. Its unbelievable, it's shocking, there was no mercy it was total insanity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.88.65.199 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no video of what happened that night, only recreated incidents. Having said that, there are many documentaries out there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Jones' anti-racism

One interesting aspect which should be mentioned a bit more is that Jones was fervently anti-racist. This is perhaps one of his better features and why many people flocked to him.

He adopted a black son, and two East Asian daughters, and the Temple was also racially mixed.--MacRusgail (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute neutrality of first section

The comments about Jim Jones Jr. may be true but are not verifiable and seem to point to a non-neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.52.10 (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you quote and point directly to the items you see as "not verifiable"? I see everything in the opening as factual and verifiable. Dragonmacwiki (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the "disputed" message should be removed. Reason: User's cheese has slid off his cracker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.59.85.25 (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag. No discussion by the person other than general statement of why they feel the section isn't neutral. Even after being asked. ~~ GB fan ~~ 05:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think he has the inkling of a point. The phrase "forcefully made to ingest cyanide" makes it sound like they all had the kool-aid literally poured down their throats as they struggled for their lives. Was this actually the case, or were they simply commanded to drink it, and obeyed? Might be better to phrase it as "forced to ingest cyanide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.154.202 (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo of the Jehovah's Witness Assembly Hall

That is not the former home of the People's Temple on Delaware in Indianapolis. That building is located at 1201 N. Delaware; the People's Temple was located at 975 N. Delaware. I am removing the photo. 24.23.244.44 (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

913 people killed

The introduction states that he killed 913 people, whereas the source quoted for that section says over 900, and the body says 909. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.124.155 (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

conflicting categories

Is it ok that this article is in both of these categories? American atheists & LGBT Christians -Quasipalm (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no objections, I'm going to remove both until it can be sorted out. --Quasipalm (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Cadle Tabernacle, Indiana

My edit was removed, re-adding. Multiple sources state that William Branham was the headlining act that brought the people to Jones' meeting at the Cadle Tabernacle, and a large advertisement was printed in the newspaper.

Removal of that section will place this page in violation based on bias, do not remove again. Swiftredvette (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Supposed atheism

I'm not sure if the FBI transcript (cit. #2) is enought to say that Jones was really atheistic. Jones was still head of the cult and his claims were made in order to make a deal. In one sentece, He spoke about the Peoples Temple theology, in second about him being agnostic and in another that he is atheist. He speaks about how he don’t believe in any loving God, but also about "some emphasis on the terms of paranormal". This doesn't look like a typical atheistic approach. Mrkv09 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There's also the New York Times citation (38) in the California Eden section of the article (though I have been unable to find this article on the NYT website), and this [4] and this [5], and the fact that Marxism is often violently opposed to religions other than Marxism. If different sources claim his religion to be Christianity or atheism, both can be included in the article, but any caims that he was Christian probably should take into account his later claim that he had only infiltrated the Christian Church to promote Marxism (see first link). ("Cult Leader" is probably a more accurate term, if a reliable source can found that describes his religion as "cult leader".)--Wikimedes (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Racial Identity

I heard the other day that one area of interest in looking back at Jim Jones & the People's Temple is that the media never reported him as "black". However, even this Wikipedia article doesn't describe this phenomena. On this wiki article there's a mixed message in this article as to Jim Jone's racial ethnicity, for example, if his mother is from Aruba & his father is from Puerto Rico, why does this article go on to state, "Two years later, in 1961, the Joneses became the first white couple in Indiana to adopt a black child, James Warren Jones, Jr.[29]". I believe footnote 29 should NOT be removed, as it is one example of how the media portrayed Jim Jones as white. One interesting article to cite regarding Jim Jones as black AND white is : “Jim Jones and His Peoples Temple: Dual Racial Identities, Dual Results” by Brooke Agee available here: http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume10/Agee.htm

(one quote worthy of mention is this: While presenting himself as black, Jones also sought to give his congregation an all-black identity. He claimed that his parishioners were African American: "you look white, but honey, you're a nigger like Father Jim."[Jim Jones, Los Angeles sermon, transcript, 1974, Q 612.]

and:

"Reverend J. Alfred Smith later explained how Jones had both white authority, "and the rhythm and the cadence of the preaching style of black."[J. Alfred Smith, "Breaking the Silence: Reflections of a Black Pastor," in Peoples Temple and Black Religion, 152.] "

I think this Wikipedia article should briefly state this racial identity issue, and add citations to the above links.

Thank you, 63.139.128.82 (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Deaths in Jonestown

After discussing how many people were victims of cyanide poisoning, I see there's a discrepency of two - specifically denoted in the companion article Jonestown, Guyana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.150.23 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Jim Jones wiki incorrectly states no video was taken of the mass suicide

Under the Death in Jonestown section it reads,

"No video was taken during the mass suicide, though the FBI did recover a 45 minute audio recording of the suicide in progress[91]."

This is incorrect as the video is titled "The End (Enoch28 by ~GOD~)" which can be found on google search. This is only one video posting, of which I am sure there are many other's also.

Your Welcome

loagun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.137.162 (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No, there was no video taken of the actual mass suicide. The Video you are referencing is a compilation of footage from the 1980 dramatic movie Guyana Tragedy: The Story of Jim Jones and the Jonestown death (audio) tape (Q042) along with some original footage. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 17:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Leo Ryan not part of the "mass suicide"?

The opening section seems to imply that Leo Ryan died in the "mass suicide". According to the Leo Ryan wiki he was murdered by Larry Layton at the Kaituma airstrip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Balzac (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Jim Jones and Charles Fillmore Unity Church

Traslation and reincarnation was part from creed from Charles Fillmore Unity Church. Father Divine was a follower from Fillmore and an influence on Jim Jones.200.75.126.45 (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Jim Jones atheist?

He says: "But I now see it's the will -- it's the will of Sovereign Being that this happen to us." I don't think those are the words of an atheist. If it's not really clear what was his religious belief, or he wasn't consistent about this matter, maybe this info should be removed of the profile in the right. 188.86.85.197 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Mart

Sovereign Being was Himself, no God. Jones termed himself God. Jonestown was a mock religion going bad. Healing Faith sessions included, as seen in photos, to white young women with faces painted black and clothed as old ladies, as in old minstrel times. There are no way black audience was no understanding it as a charade. 200.75.126.45 ([[User talk: 200.75.126.45|talk]]) 21:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No atheist terms himself as God.

     Jones was atheist commmunist, his references to God was just poking fun, charade, mock religion, satire, parody.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.93.98.42 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 

The linked source for this assertion is a dead link, there is nothing there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.211.47 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing religion to "undetermined" until such time that a working reference can be provided for his "self proclaimed" atheism. The People's Temple remained nominally christian until the end, (http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=35399) which of course doesn't necessarily mean Jones himself truly believed, but it certainly(along with the above quote) muddies the waters. He may very well have been an atheist, but if you're going to base it on something he said, it needs a non-broken reference. If someone finds such a reference, feel free to link it and change it back if the evidence is really there. 108.237.149.231 (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The confusion here stems from the fact that even though Jones didn't believe in the existence of deities, he apparently did believe in some "spiritual" phenomena (such as reincarnation.) Whether you want to call him an atheist or not, he clearly wasn't in the same league as, say, James Randi. --Ismail (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Jim Jones studied Hitler as a child?

This article states that Jones, born in 1931, studied Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin as a child. I have a hard time believing he had a great deal of resources to study those two individuals during his childhood. There wasn't a lot of information available on the subject at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.36.241 (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There was certainly quite a bit to read about Stalin by 1931. Even years before that. Hitler was already a person of interest by 1931. And Jones would have been able to read by the time WW2 started and turned 14 the year it ended. If he read anything about the during his childhood, or the war that engulfed it, he then certainly could have studied both of these monsters.

For me the trouble with the article is his drug addiction. There is nothing about his addiction until Guyana, when it is mentioned casually as one the key reasons for locating there. It feels like a important part of his life that just gets dropped in the article shortly before describing its end.

If by "child" one assumes 14-18 years old (i.e. 1945-49) then yes, there were a number of books and articles written about Hitler and Stalin at that point, plus far more numerous books and articles on the countries they led. The first English-language biography of Stalin actually came out the year Jones was born (Stalin by Isaac Don Levine.) As for the other three figures named in the article, there were English-language materials on Gandhi and of course Marx at that point. Edgar Snow's Red Star Over China, released in 1937, could have been obtained by Jones since it was both popular and was by far the most common reference for a detailed biography of Mao for the next two decades. --Ismail (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

66.214.180.230

This IP address has added a large number of assertions to the article, many of which appear to be based on the personal experiences of "Kristian Chanin Crawford". Many of these assertions have been inserted before existing references which do not support them, some of which were even published before the dates in the assertions themselves. I've reverted their most recent set of changes, but many still remain. – Smyth\^talk 10:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The convention at Cadle Tabernacle came after he had already created the People's Temple movement

According to Raven: The Untold Story of Rev Jim Jones and his People, he first created the People's Temple and then held the convention to attract members, unlike how it is stated in the article that the People's Temple came out of the convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam99 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Better documentation about Jones' drug use?

This article first mentions drug addiction in the section on Jonestown's formation, with no lead-in or other explanation. Just out of the blue, Jones was a drug addict. The only other reference to drug addiction comes later, in the section on the mass suicide.

Are there any sources to provide any background, for example, that he began using drugs earlier in his life? I'm not challenging that he used and abused drugs, just asking if we can make a better mention of this detail, in our article.

Best regards, theBaron0530

TheBaron0530 (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)theBaron0530

"Homosexuality and Other Matters" - split these things into separate sections?

Would "Other matters" be better separated from the section describing Jones' alleged homosexuality? It doesn't seem that one has to do with the others.

Best regards, theBaron0530

TheBaron0530 (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)theBaron0530

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2016

Please remove "Jones' drug usage (including LSD and cannabis) was confirmed by his son, Stephan, and Jones' doctor in San Francisco.", as I cannot find this information anywhere, suggesting that it is incorrect. Terresire (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Contentious unsourced material like that should be removed if no sources can be found. The CN tag was not terribly old, but there's no reason not to remove it for now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: It looks like the drug usage statement was added in this edit and sourced to Hearing the Voices of Jonestown by Mary McCormick Maaga. The citation was removed here. clpo13_(talk) 00:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No comment on how reliable the source is, however. clpo13_(talk) 00:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Father Divine and homosexuality

One of Jones's sources of inspiration was the controversial International Peace Mission movement leader Father Divine.

While I agree that the above quote from the article is both true and relevant to Jones' life story, does it really belong under the section 'Homosexuality and other matters'? For that matter, should the section really be called 'Homosexuality and other matters' if the whole section only discusses Jones' homosexual acts with only a single sentence on the mentioned 'other matters'? Even if this part of the page is kept, it really should be rewritten so that there is a clear transition from the previous paragraph. Bonifate (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

POV/wording

The final section refers to a "haunting" instrumental piece. I feel this is subjective and, though a minor edit, the word 'haunting' needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarabaragaramara (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm Scottish cherokee living in the US and this happened to my whole family. They torture Scottish Cherokees to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.116.84 (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

How is it that Jim Jones says "Koolaid" and shows koolaid in a piece of archival film...if it is Flavor Aid? Where't the source for it being Flavor Air?LeVeillé (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The answer is simple: Jonestown had both Kool-Aid and Flavor Aid in stock. Any of the books will tell you that Flavor Aid was used (even Guyana Massacre, published a mere month after the mass murder-suicides, states on the back cover that a "potion of Flavour-aide and cyanide" was used.) --Ismail (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

On latest edits

I'm too busy to edit the article myself (plus if I edited it I'd want to edit huge swathes of it, not just bits and pieces) but:

1. Jones affiliating Peoples Temple to the Disciples of Christ is in virtually every book about him. He was ordained in 1964. Here's an article on the subject: https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=13778

2. Jones was never a member of the Communist Party USA. In fact, when reminiscing about his youth, he claimed he applied to join the party in the 50s but they said he'd do better as a sympathetic non-member. The authors of The Cult That Died note how in Mendocino County Jones told local Republicans that he was a registered Republican, and when he established himself in San Francisco he changed his party registration to Democratic. So he was, legally speaking, a Democrat from about 1975 onward even though ideologically he was neither a liberal nor a conservative. --Ismail (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed him from the socialist/communist categories since he was a registered Republican and then a Democrat later in his life, and there's no real evidence that he was ever a socialist or communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar Wilde scholar (talk • contribs) 03:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There's certainly no evidence he belonged to a socialist or communist party (since... he didn't), but he absolutely referred to himself as a socialist and/or communist. In fact he claimed that while he didn't join the Communist Party USA, "I entered Indiana University, and immediately became an activist. Party organizer. Didn’t belong to the Party but I organized people to join the Party." Peoples Temple and Jonestown also bore the stamp of Jones' idiosyncratic take on Marxism. Needless to say there's no shortage of reliable sources on this subject. So while treating him as ideologically equivalent to William Z. Foster or Eugene Debs would be folly, calling him a socialist or communist can be justified. --Ismail (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that it would be wrong to put him in the same category as William Z. Foster or Eugene Debs. He would be more of an equivalent to Adolf Hitler who claimed to be a "socialist" in order to scam his followers into thinking he has noble intentions when he's really just a murderous madman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar Wilde scholar (talk • contribs) 12:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Obviously Jones' "socialism" was tailored to fit his desire to be a cult leader (as was the Temple's theology), but he did seem personally appalled by racism and explicitly called himself a Marxist. He was certainly opportunistic and a mass murderer, but simply writing him off as a Hoosier Hitler obscures more than it explains. Jones built up ties with the CPUSA, Black Panthers, American Indian Movement and other leftist groups. In Guyana he had his aides reach out to the Soviet, Chinese, North Korean and Cuban embassies (among others) for publications and videos to help with political education. He was a man of the left, even if his personal blend of leftism was simplistic, self-serving and literally a dead-end. --Ismail (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"Mr. Muggs" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mr. Muggs. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. AldezD (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I see this was reverted a few times

I see this was reverted a few times. I just took a look at the website, and it doesn't appear to be somebody's blogsite, this is a University and the site has editors and researchers , so it appears to be reliable. So what was the reason for it's removal ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The website is in a rather odd position in terms of Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. The owners of the site (Rebecca Moore and Fielding McGehee) are widely recognized as authorities of Peoples Temple and Jonestown. However, the actual content outside of FAQs and other parts written by Moore and McGehee varies wildly. For example, you can find articles on the site written Jeff Guinn (author of The Road to Jonestown, a highly-regarded book published by Simon & Schuster), but you can also find articles on the site claiming Jonestown was set up by the CIA to carry out MKULTRA experiments. Moore and McGehee don't endorse such conspiracy theories, but they do include them in the name of covering different points of view. So you can't just look at the site URL, you have to look at whether the author of the particular page being cited ("The Downfall of Jim Jones" by Larry Lee Litke) qualifies as a reliable source or not. I'm not involved in inserting it into the article or reverting it, but from what I can see it isn't a reliable source. There's no books or widely-cited articles that mention Litke's text. --Ismail (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ismail. I totally get what you're saying. While the site is reliable. Some of the information isn't and as such, we can't accept the information just based on that site's reliability. I get it! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 16:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Section 2.7 "The Reason Jones fled to Guyana"

I have removed this section for several reasons, most significantly because of its inappropriate tone and word choice, and because it is 11,000 words taken almost entirely, in many places verbatim, from a single source: a 1980 article by someone named Larry Litke which portrays David Conn as an unsung hero, indeed, the only hero in the Jonestown story.

The familiarity with which the author keeps referring to everyone by their first name suggests the contributor of Section 2.7 may actually be Litke. They use phrases such as "a mere citizen who had the goods on him" and "evil ecclesiastical empire," which do not appear in the 1980 article cited, but do appear in the April 2019 letter which Litke wrote to the FBI promoting his work: https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/litke-2a.pdf

David Conn was apparently a real person, whose existence is substantiated in the Jones tapes, so he may merit inclusion somewhere in this article, but not as an 11,000-word hagiography. DongsGalore (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Litke's 1980 article and 2019 letter simply fail to meet reliable source guidelines, so I agree they shouldn't be in the article. As for David Conn, he co-authored The Cult That Died which is a reliable source, but I can't see much reason for mentioning Conn himself in this article, definitely not more than once. --Ismail (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"One could theorize"

"Other incidents occurred, but one could theorize that Jones himself was involved in at least some of them" seems like speculation only, whether it is speculation by the cited source or by the Wikipedia editor. I am removing the sentence while moving the part about other incidents, which doesn't sound speculative, to the previous sentence. The cited source does seem to have received good reviews.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_(book)Dgndenver (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's speculation, but it's worth noting there are multiple books that detail Jones fabricating incidents against himself and/or his followers. For example, "Jones had a history of staging such attacks. Once, while visiting friends in Indiana, Jones was alone in a room when a rock shattered the window. As the family ran in, he shouted that racists were trying to get him. But they discovered the rock had been thrown from inside the room; the glass lay below in the yard." (Scheeres, A Thousand Lives, pp. 27-28.) --Ismail (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

Hello, I am going through the article and updating to use citation templates throughout the article and doing a little cleanup. Just posting in here case anyone wonders what I am doing. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

In reviewing the citation, I am finding quite a few missing key info. Also quite a few primary sources, and some questionable ones. I am going to try and clean some of that up too. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I finished cleaning up all the formatting and converting the citations over sfn templates. I am thinking about doing a full review of the source material and see if I can improve the sourcing further, and possible expand the article. I would like to reduce the use of primary sources, and try to replace some of the lower quality sources that are currently used in the article. I would also like to try and update the early life section, it is primarily based on a PBS documentary transcript. Additionally, I will try to resolve the citation needed tags currently in the article. I am not sure how many watch this article, but if I get too bold in my editing feel free to interrupt me. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I finished a first full review of the sources, and most the article is well sourced now. I was able to expand quite a bit from Reiterman and get citations where needed. A bit of the article is cited from Wessinger, but no page numbers are given. I am going to try and review that next, and also include citations from Guinn. I don't really like the popular culture section, it's a little bit WP:TRIVIA. I am thinking about reworking that into a broader "Reaction and aftermath" section. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I finished a review of all the major sources in the article and have copy edited it quite a bit. I have made a request with the copy edit guild to review the article too. I am going to conduct a review of the article myself for Manual of Style standards, and I think after that I may attempt to get the article review at GAN. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Puppiesandkittens980. Peer reviewers: Kdufour5525, Garrett Philip Ross.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Title "mass-murder-suicide"

I believe the term "mass suicide" is technically not correct. If one has watched various documentations then most did not want to die (hence the "people started to cry") but were pressured/induced/forced to "drink the kool aid". The term murder is correct, in my opinion, but "mass suicide" is in my opinion the wrong title. It would be more prudent to let the survivors define which term they would think fits the most; to me it simply seems wrong to talk about "mass suicide". It's not that unlike from concentration camps and mass-death in gas chambers, and these are also not classified as "mass suicide" (even though I understand the two situations can not easily be compared 1:1, but my gripe is with the expression "mass suicide" - it seems an incorrect term if you know the history of the events.) 2A02:8388:1604:F600:A023:1A46:73DC:AD2 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I likewise prefer the term "mass murder-suicide" to "mass suicide." As one survivor noted, most of those who willingly killed themselves could still be considered murdered since "Jones asserted that the children would be taken from us, that the Guyanese Defense Force was on its way and it was armed and would be shooting, etc. If someone 'voluntarily' takes their life based on the lies of another, is that really suicide?" --Ismail (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I also prefer the term "mass murder-suicide", as it reflects both sides. Some clearly were killed against their will. Others drank the poison voluntarily, to some degree. I think it is a mixture of the two, and the sources out there reflect that reality. "Mass suicide" is the term more prevalently used in the source material I have access to, so it is valid term in the sense that it easily and widely referenceable. But "mass murder-suicide" is more nuanced and reflective of a the broader body of sources. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jim Jones/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruthgrace (talk · contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. Ruthgrace (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC) So far the article is very well written! I will keep a running tab of notes here:

1. updated in the Latter Rain movement section

• Many attendees in the campaign believed Jones's performance

to remove the extra "s":

• Many attendees in the campaign believed Jones's performance

1. updated in the image caption in the Latter Rain movement section

• William Branham helped launch and popularize Jim Jones's ministry in 1956.

to remove the extra "s":

• William Branham helped launch and popularize Jim Jones' ministry in 1956.

I think there are more of these throughout the article. I recommend doing a find and replace. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, never mind, grammar doesn't work the way I thought. I'm going to revert my edit. (reference: https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/apostrophe.html#:~:text=The%20general%20rule%20is%20that,ends%20in%20s%20or%20not.&text=The%20possessive%20of%20a%20plural,a%20letter%20other%20than%20s.) Apologies. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

3. I have a question about this sentence at the end of the Focus on San Francisco section:

• Jones's criticisms led to increased tensions with the Nation of Islam, so he spoke at a large rally in the Los Angeles Convention Center that was attended by many of his closest political acquaintances, hoping to close the rift between the two groups.

Could we add something about how speaking at this large rally was hoped to close the rift between the Nation of Islam and the Peoples Temple? Was it the content of the speech? Were people from the Nation of Islam in attendence? Ruthgrace (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Done —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)}

I read through the whole article and it is indeed well-written! I will do one more pass to check the citations. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Would you mind citing (or deleting) this sentence in Early Life? Hard to tell if it belongs with the Kilduff ciation in the next clause.

• Jones went by the nickname Jimmy during his youth.

Done, Guin, p. 20 —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

2. The text in this sentence in the Latter Rain movement section doesn't match the linked citation:

• With the support of Branham and Mattsson-Boze, Jones was elected as President of the Pentecostal Convention Board in 1957, helping Jones secure connections throughout the movement.[74]

Fixed it, looks like a link mixup: https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=81621 —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I got up to the Rainbow Family section and will continue tomorrow. So far so good! Ruthgrace (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Back at it today!

3. A sentence from the article in the Focus on San Francisco section:

• He spoke with publisher Carlton Goodlett of the Sun-Reporter newspaper about his remorse over not being able to travel to socialist countries such as China and the Soviet Union, speculating that he could be Chief Dairyman of the U.S.S.R.

The cited material says

• Rev. Jones indicated with remorse that he was never able to visit socialist countries such as the Soviet Union or China. He allowed himself to be persuaded that he could be a very good Chief Dairyman. He wondered about living in the Soviet Union, and was told he would probably be the chief dairyman.

It doesn't sound like he speculated himself that he would b the Chief Dairyman. Also I think there's some context missing here -- the reason this was said was because dairy equipment was being exported to and set up in Guayana. I recommend deleting the Dairyman part of the sentence, or rewording it to better match the citation.

I modified this a bit and moved it to the Jonestown section where it better fits in context. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

4. At the end of the Jim_Jones#Formation section:

• Jones began to propagate his belief in what he termed "Translation" once his followers settled in Jonestown, claiming that he and his followers would all die together, move to another planet, and live blissfully.

I don't see in the source where it says that the "Translation" involves moving to another planet. Maybe I'm missing it or it's from a different source or it should be removed.

Good catch, that was some older content I had not reviewed the source fully. I have it adjusted now to better reflect the source. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

5. Recommend replacing the broken link in this citation Jim_Jones#cite_note-262. Here's a working version of the same content: https://www.religionnewsblog.com/17677/jonestown-2

I adjusted this. I am not sure the religion blog is a reliable source so I clipped the sentence and source some from Reiterman. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I ran the article through copyright violation detection (https://copyvios.toolforge.org/), and it looks good. Some text from other sources were highlighted but they've been appropriately quoted and attributed in the article.

Other than the very minor points above, the article looks great -- it is indeed well-written, verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated. I'll be happy to pass it once the points are addressed. Ruthgrace (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns, Charles! Nice work. Ruthgrace (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I will work to get these issues addressed for you over the next couple days and get back with you. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all the concerns you noted. Thank you. Let me know if you have any other concerns. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Charles Edward , I think we're just missing #4 where I wasn't able to find anything about "Translation" involving moving to another planet in the source. It's possible I missed it - just let me know. Ruthgrace (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I got it now. Sorry I overlooked that one. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Just marked the article as a Good Article, and updated where it said class=B to class=GA. A bot should come along and give the article the Good Ariticle icon, but if it fails, feel free to ping me, and I can add it manually.

Congratulations! I genuinely enjoyed reading your work, and learned a lot about cults and Jim Jones's relationship to San Francisco (as well as how to use the posessive apostrophe, haha). Well deserved :) Ruthgrace (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article

Hello, just sharing my intention to continue improving this article to meet the Featured Article Criteria before submitting it for a FAC review. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Article split: Early life of Jim Jones

Hello, I am proposing to create a new sub article entitled Early life of Jim Jones to moving the first three sections there and create a more concise summary in this article, with a goal of reducing word count in this article to about 10,000 words. If there are no objections I will go ahead and make the sub article. Cheers! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud: does Jones really warrant such a (separate) article? That's something you typically see with big political figures. But this sort of thing is very subjective.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yea, I was thinking about that too. Jones has an incredible large amount of source material out there. He already has three sub articles to most of his life, but not one for the early life. I am moving some bits to Jonestown and Peoples Temple. I already trimmed back the early life section, we can afd the sub article if we decide we don't want it. I am ok either way honestly. But I think there is alot of good content in the early life section that gives alot of context to how he ended up being so crazy, and that is worth keeping. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Larry and Jim

Larry the gunman had sex with Jim Jones?Lmharding (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

WTF is "American civilian life"?

Article says at present re: Jonestown mass suicide: "This resulted in the greatest single loss of American civilian life in a deliberate act until September 11, 2001." This is philosophically debatable and conceptually bizarre. Who lost what? Where does "an act" begin and end? Do people have nationality before, during and after the moment of their death? Suggest rewriting or dropping the sentence. Wegesrand (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Aside from whether the sentence should be in the article or rewritten, the meaning seems clear to me. Almost all the inhabitants of Jonestown were American citizens who had only recently migrated to Guyana. They were civilians (e.g. they obviously weren't part of a military unit that got defeated in battle.) Their deaths were not from a plane crash, rock slide, or other accident but were instead purposely carried out on the orders of Jim Jones. --Ismail (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the point the sources are trying to make is that the event was the single biggest one-day loss of american civilians up until that point. There were bigger one-day losses of life during some of the American Civil War battles, but they were military personnel, not civilian. So, outside of war, this was the biggest one-day loss in American history until September 11. As far as whether it should be in the article or not, several sources make this point. I believe it is good to convey the magnitude comparative to other mass-death events. This may not be the best way though. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Repeated text on this page

Just noticed that some text was repeated in the Early life section of Jim Jones article, possibly from when the early life article was merged. It's the section that talks about his being an unusual child and being obsessed with religion and death. Cheers 2603:6010:9506:EC00:9B4:80C:52C2:A5E1 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)