Talk:Jonestown/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Documents release

Moore says the classified documents were supposed to be released in 2009. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Finding consensus"

Your categories are not only wrong, but even not in alphabetical order. "Categories: 1978 | Assassinations | Cult suicides | Intentional communities | Mass suicides | Massacres in Guyana | Massacres in places of worship | Murder-suicide | Peoples Temple | Suicides in Guyana" - that's all proper ("places of worship" because it was cult community). --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see much of discussion. Yeah. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What an awesome discussion. Thank you. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Tommorow I'll declare I found a consensus (with myself) and you won't be able to revert now. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting a whole hour to find a consensus of one. This article is highly contentious at the moment, and I would advise you seek actual consensus before making any further changes. Please provide, in short, concise sentences, why you propose making these changes for each specific category. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess someone has an issue with patience. Do you expect people to sit and wait with baited breath for your next post? Neither of the categories regarding massacres are accurate, the definition of a massacre does not fit the definition of the word: The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty. Secondly, a cult community is not necessarily related to religion and the article clearly outlines that Jonestown wasn't a religious community, but a political one, although Peoples Temple originally started as a religious organization. There's no overriding rule that categories have to be in alphabetical order and it isn't considered an error. Other issues I addressed one by one. LaVidaLoca (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of suicides.. 918, 909, 912?

1. [1] |here they claim 912 suicides (see "The Visit of Congressman Ryan" in the lower part of the article)

2. [2]|here they claim 909.. (the first blue link) - in Norwegian..

3. And in [3] it's suddenly 918..

Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thymo (talk • contribs) 11:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

909 in Jonestown itself. Then Sharon Amos and her 3 kids in Georgetown (150 miles away). However, Sharon killed the two youngest with a knife, and then she killed herself (with daughter Liane's help) and then her daughter cut her own throat.

Five more people mere murdered at the Port Kaituma airstrip. But they weren't suicides.

The total dead in Jonestown & Georgetown comes to 918 (909 + 4 + 5). Most websites are frankly terrible with details. They keep adding up the various figures in different combinations. 909, 5 dead at airstrip, 2 suicides with Sharon and Liane, 4 total dead in Georgetown (Sharon, Liane and 2 kids), etc.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Suicides" is the wrong word; many were murders. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the mass peer pressure as well as the regularly enforced drills, plus the men with guns surrounding the final emergency meeting, plus Jones' announcement that the congressman had just been murdered, resulted in people feeling like there was no alternative. There had been extremely strong indications that any attempt to defect would result in likely death/injury anyway. A comparative question would be whether those who jumped from the buildings on September 11 were committing "suicide" - their fates were already written before they jumped - the only person who had direct control over their own death was Jones' himself and he is the only one that may be regarded as having committed "suicide". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.159.182 (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

By ordering that the children be killed first, Jones ensured that the adults would have little reason to want to continue to live. The whole event happened rapidly and no-one was afforded the ability to think for themselves or even have time enough to consider what action they wanted to take. I challenge anyone to a)rationally think for themselves and b)escape without being captured and murdered in such an incredibly high pressure situation.

Actually the more I think about this the more I consider that anybody contributing to this article ought to spend some time in church where peer pressure and some extent of mental conditioning takes place. Personally I've never been involved in anything like Jonestown but I know how difficult it was for me to break free of a church I was "free to leave at anytime".. (however religious teaching ensured that it would be very very bad in the outside world after rejecting Jesus' call). One has to be either very bright, very stubborn, very hurt, or any combination of the two, to break free from something like that. And at Jonestown they actively punished dissenters! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.159.182 (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides the 909, 4, 2 and 5 that are added together in various combinations by media, two more: 908 (909 minus Jones) and 907 (909 minus Jones and Annie, who both died by gunshot). The additions of these various numbers into different numbers can confuse various readers/viewers.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No kidding, I'm confused myself. After reading the introduction where there are 918 deaths in one paragraphs and 909 in the next (with only 5 more accounted for), I came here trying to understand if 918, 909 or 914 was the number. Can we somehow fix that in the introduction? Make the numbers agree? Lot 49a^talk 17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

They agree. They just measure different things. 918 is the total dead. Here are the hard breakdowns by locale:

• 909 - died in Jonestown itself (Pavilion, walkways, West House, etc.). This includes two gunshot wounds (Annie Moore and Jim Jones).
• 4 - died in Georgetown at Jones' command. Sharon Amos killed her two youngest children, then helped kill herself, then Liane killed herself. All with a knife.
• 5 - were first shot two hours or so before at the nearby airstrip, with their deaths used as the pretext for the rest having to commit suicide. Note, confusingly, Patty Parks was a PT member who had just defected, so different media sources count her still among the "cult members" dead.

Published combination numbers in the media

• 907 - died of poisoning in Jonestown (though Annie also ingested poison) (909 - 2 = 907)
• 908 - "Victims" in Jonestown sometimes -- some exclude Jim as a victim (909-1 = 908)
• 909 - Total dead in Jonestown
• 912 - "Victim" (no Jones) PT members, including the 4 in Georgetown (908+4=912)
• 913 - PT members dead -- 909 in Jonestown, plus the 4 in Georgetown (909+4=913)
• 917 - "Victims" total (no Jones)) (912 above + 5 that died at the PT airstrip)
• 918 - Total dead at all locales.

• Also, throw in the +/- 1 for the above regarding cult members dead depending on whether you count Patty Parks still as a cult member (had defected 2 hours before).

The article correctly numbers the dead by location, and also explains causes of death, etc.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

All of this makes sense. I am wondering if there is a better way to word the introduction to make it fit together numerically on first glance... Making an attempt. Lot 49a^talk 21:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why does the article relate that only 405 people died? 76.201.52.8 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted that info put in by an anon IP. The 405 number comes from a cable sent from the United Stated Department of Defense to the Federal Bureau of Information less than a week after the event, so information was still fluid and sketchy. I assume that the anon IP is unaware that DoD sent a second cable afterward updating the information to acknowledge that more bodies had been found underneath the ones that were originally counted. Mwelch (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could a section on the aftermath talk of the experience of the Army in clean-up?"

This is another group of Jonestown victims that suffered sever PTS from the experience. Thoughts? Skipdownthestreet (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"To the extent the actions in Jonestown were viewed as a mass suicide..."

Given that the mainstream consensus seems to be that it was a mass suicide and that the Conspiracy Theory has been separated into it's own article, I'm curious about why this very odd wording appears whenever people want to say that it was the biggest mass suicide. Enlighten me? Lot 49a^talk 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question. wp:bold. Make the change if you like.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue of that sentence doesn't really have to do with the conspiracy theory, but the definition of "suicide". For example, many don't consider the children to have committed suicide because they may not have had the capacity to understand their actions. Likewise, many were fed the poison, and it was squirted into infants' mouths. The same issue exists for other events labeled mass suicides, such as Masada. Same for some of the extreme elderly. Also, because the Red Brigade lined the outside of the pavilion with guns and bows, it's not clear who was acting within their own free will.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! Thanks.Lot 49a^talk 02:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, 960 people died at Masada, and 918 died at Jonestown. Even if not all deaths involved ccan be taken as suicides (which of course they can't), surely Masada was a 'larger event' of mass suicide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.193 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you are igoring the rest of the sentence: "To the extent the actions in Jonestown were viewed as a mass suicide, it is the largest such event in modern history and resulted in the largest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until the events of September 11, 2001." The siege at Masada did not occur in modern history, since it was about 73 CE and secondly, they weren't American citizens. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Kool Aid Versus Flavor Aid

In "Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple," the film at and around the 1:00:41 mark, a cask of Kool Aid is shown by Jim Jones to a cameraman during a tour of the facilities. I take this as proof that the poison that everyone drank was Kool Aid, not Flavor Aid. Is there anyone that can shed light on this conundrum? Thanks! Sean 0000001 (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and you see the discussion here. Yes, the film you saw shows Kool-Aid, but the inquest with survivor testimony says, and some contemporary pictures show, Flavr-Aid. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

All right. Thank you for your comment.

Sean 0000001 (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Thanks for asking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

was the money transferred to the ussr?

i read several excerpts in the article serving as ad-hoc wills, leaving the money to the ussr. were any of these wills honored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.99 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Potassium chloride is not an oral poison.

It's a form of nutrient. It's in many multivitamins, and any pharmacy as well as most department stores sell it as a nutrional supplement. It takes only a cursory glance at the wiki link it even points to for a laymen to figure out. Yes, in large amounts it will kill you. But so will "hydrogen dioxide" or, as we all like to call it, H20. Water. I do not dispute that this substance may have been found in the vat, but one must take into consideration the LD50 of potassium chloride is around 7 ounces for an adult. This is quite a *large* amount. Potassium cyanide on the other hand is about ~500 times more potent by weight.

At the very least I suggest it should be mentioned that this would make for an incredibly weak poison, especially considering it's relative potency compared to the other chemicals in the concoction, i.e. diazepam, various barbiturates (especially lethal when mixed with the former), potassium cyanide (extremely lethal in itself), etc. It seems to me that it may have only been a biproduct of the cyanide creation or degradation, but that's original research. However, proving that potassium (chloride) is a nutrient is not.

As an injectable formula potassium chloride becomes much more deadly, it is used in lethal injections for this reason. However, I am of the understanding that the Flavor-aid vat was used orally. It is likely that it contributed little, if nothing to the carnage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.179.29 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the dose makes the poison; potassium chloride is about as poisonous as table salt. The cite for its identification as a poison is Rebecca Moore, who probably does not qualify as an RS on the issue of whether potassium chloride is "a strong poison" (her words). I would consider her a reliable reporter of the analysis findings, however (i.e., that potassium chloride was reported to have been included in the punch). Even this seems a bit questionable to me given that potassium, sodium, chloride, and cyanide are all electrolytes; you can't really say in what combinations they might have originally been introduced. Probably no more can be said without running up against wp:nor. NillaGoon (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

CIA first to report of mass suicide

For many years, there was a mention of how the mass suicide was first recorded on a CIA log early in the morning of the day after. I can't find it now in the article and I checked the conspiracy article for it and it wasn't there either though it would have naturally fit in. Why was it removed? Was it not sourced properly? Thanks. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"First member in history assasinated"

..and then it links to a wikipedia article that shows he's actually the second last, in a list of over a dozen...

Which is one reason why citations need to be from sources outside of Wikipedia. So mistakes are not propagated. On looking at the exact wording of the article, the phrase used also includes 'in the line of duty', presumably meaning congressional duties. Everyone killed before him is killed while NOT on congressional duty. One was killed in battle, so I would assume serving in the armed forces would mean he wasn't able to fulfil congressional duties, so he also wasn't serving in that capacity when killed. MrZoolook (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Some information not included

This is generally a good and informative article, but there are two pieces of information that I think are missing. Firstly there are several mentions of people bequeathing their money to the Communist party of the Soviet Union, was this actually carried out after their deaths? Did the Soviets accept the money? Or were these "wills" ignored? Secondly there seems to be no mention of what happened to the bodies of the people who died in the event. I assume they weren't just left there, were they? Were the bodies buried in Guyana or were they flown back to the US? Or something else? This seems to be left out completely. That's about all I can think of for now, if anyone can shed light on these issues and add them to the article that'd be good. --Hibernian (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this would be a good addition. I lived in the Bay Area for several years, and I know there's a cemetery in Oakland where hundreds of the victims are buried — basically, a mass grave for everyone whose remains weren't claimed after the bodies were brought back to the U.S. (They had been first flown from Guyana to some air force base here in the States.) I don't remember the name of the cemetery or the exact number of unclaimed bodies put in there, though.

I have no idea whether the wills were honored. Mwelch (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well can you add some of that information to the article? I'm sure this stuff must be written in some book. --Hibernian (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there must be a reference to cite somewhere. I'll try to find some time to look for some. Mwelch (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, a chap at the NSA just compiled a bunch of DOD documents on this topic at http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/document-friday-the-jonestown-massacre/ 68.52.244.134 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if the wills were honored. Because of very large number of bodies and Jonestown's remote location, the bodies could not be removed for several days. The US Air Force was eventually called in to assist Guyanese Defense Forces. They were shipped to an Air Force base in the U.S. for a while. Some remains went off to relatives who claimed them. Those that went unclaimed were buried in a mass grave in the Bay Area. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that the riots following the results of the Moscone–Milk assassination trial were called 'White Night' riots. I also hadn't realized that these 2 events were separated by not even 2 weeks time. I can't begin to imagine the political/social climate and impact all of this had on southern California. J.Rly (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth (probably not much), don't you mean northern California, Jill? Paul (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Mose: I saw that section was blanked because it was obviously too long, but I will "drink the kool aid" and say Jonestown is obviously an element of popular culture right now. Perhaps we may want to consider a short section at the end of the article to that effect with cites?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo?

The following appears in the article:

In September 1977, former Temple members Timothy and Grace Stoen battled in a Georgetown court to produce an order for the Temple to show cause why a final order should not be issued returning their son, John (five years old at the time), to his mother Grace.[67] A few days later, a second order was issued for the arrest of John by authorities.[68]

Should the bolded word actually be Jones? It seems bizarre to me that a 5 year old would be "arrested". Or should it be retrieved by the authorities instead of arrested. Thanks for anyone with knowledge (and hopefully, access to the cited book). gren グレン 04:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Largest mass murder in modern history?

From the intro to the page: "To the extent the actions in Jonestown were viewed as a mass murder, it is the largest such event in modern history and resulted in the largest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until the events of September 11, 2001." Surely this can't be right? Larger numbers of people were murdered almost every *day* in the nazi extermination camps in the early 1940s. --Myk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.44.25 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Largest AMERICAN losses  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.16.87 (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 

I think that it is suppose to read "Mass Suicide" and not "Mass Murder" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

CIA, Post Office Conspiracy

I fail to see how the existence of CIA files investigating Jones and Jonestown could even imply a vast conspiracy. After all, the CIA gathers intelligence on everything. It's then blamed for just about everything it has intelligence on. Soviet propaganda aside, no sane person takes the Communist line on Jonestown seriously.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Non Natural DISASTER?

The introduction says this was "the largest occurrence of American civil loss of life during a non-natural disaster since the 9//11 attack." The use of the word 'disaster' implies an accident or something having gone wrong or amiss in some way. If someone attempts suicide, one would assume they are successful if they do indeed die. Does the word 'disaster' fit into the category of an act that was correctly borne out? Perhaps the opening could be changed into something like "the largest occurrence of American civil loss of life during a non-natural OCCURRENCE since the 9//11 attack." Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZoolook (talk • contribs) 14:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a good compromise, what I might say is the Single Greatest "Deliberate" loss of life until September 11th, since there have been other Pre-9/11 US-related events (the General Slocum accident for one) where more people died than Jonestown, but all of those were definite "accidents".

Although I think that when they mean "Non-Natural Disaster" I think they strictly mean outside of a "Natural Disaster" and not that Jonestown was a disaster in itself

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the term "non-natural" disaster is nebulous and misleading at best. Referring to a man made accident as a natural disaster is too much of a stretch. There is no question that the Burning of the General Slocum as a man made accident, not a natural disaster and it involved the loss of more American civilians (mostly women and children) than at Jonestown. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 18:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that even more American civilians died in the Johnstown flood, though it could be argued that that was at least partially a natural disaster since heavy rainfall did contribute to the failure of the dam. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 19:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Bay View La Romaine??

What is "Bay View La Romaine"? Is this supposed to be a place? I can't verify such a place exists. Is this a typo for Bay View, La Romaine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.23.90 (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Apostolic Socialism

This concept is nothing related to apostolic pentecostalism, so I have removed that absurd and misleading hyperlink.200.75.126.45 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

A final section on the legacy of Jonestown, its becoming a byword for cultic brainwashing, (just used recently by an Obama administrator in a damning reference to the GOP), and origin of the phrase "to drink the kool aid," might prove to be of some general interest. Also what books, movies, music/band names has the atrocity spawned? Orthotox (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Guns? Comment

Does anyone know where Jones and/or his followers purchased the firearms used in the massacre? The U.S. or elsewhere? User:JCHeverly 05:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I belive this is a troll commment. Can we remove it?Mantion (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a religious cult

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apparently the nature of this group was in no way a Christian or even at all religious. They may have declared themselves religious community for the tax exempt status, but the nature of their fanaticism was purely ideological/political. Their suicide was not motivated by belief in continuing their spiritual existence in some metaphysical other world, but by exaggerated fear of imagined suffering alleged unbearable emotional pain for the rest of their physical existence. I recommend removing the topic from both Christianity and Religion WikiProjects and putting it somewhere more appropriate, perhaps in some category containing Khmer Rouge, with whom it seems to have numerous parallels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.18.2 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC) I agree. I am a Christian, and I can tell you these guys were not acting as Christians. I also recommend that any connection between these events and Christianity or religion be removed. There's no point for them to be there. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 20:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Jim Jones had denounced Christianity on several occasions, and primarily preached socialism/communism. Many of this followers, however, did seem to hold to christian ideals but that doesn't make it a christian organization. It should also be noted that, though many contemporary accounts described Jones as a "fundamentalist" he was certainly not. Also, his political views were decidedly leftist. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 21:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Very odd that we are censoring these comments, I think the discussion is valid and worth reading, what is wikipedia trying to hide? This is a talk page, the talk was on the article and the subject of the article and would only make this poorly written article better.Mantion (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Flavoraid vs Koolaid

One topic that keeps coming up, and is often the subject of inappropriate edits is the fact that it was Flavoraid not Koolaid used to mix the poison concoction. We know if was Flavoraid because empty Flavoraid packages were found on the scene.

Quite frequently people point to footage from several months prior in which Jones points out that they had Koolaid and opens a container that contains Koolaid packages. This container also contains Flavoraid packages as well, something many sharp eyed viewers have pointed out. This is really beside the point anyway. Even if we ignore the direct evidence found at the scene, the fact that they had Koolaid several months earlier has no bearing on what was used to make the concoction. They also had Flavoraid available and had many fruit trees available (some of which still survive on the site) from which they could have made their own home made punch.

The only meaningful evidence for what the concoction was made out of is what was found at the scene, empty Flavoraid packages. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 12:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to wonder if people are using the generic term "Koolaid". Like when people use the term Velcro. We all know what Velcro is and does, sadly most of the Velcro we describe is not Velcro, but hook and loop fasteners. Velcro is a name brand, but we use the term generically. Personally I think the generic term Koolaid is more useful than flavoraid, but that is just me. I genuinely think it is irrelevant, plenty of books and news paper articles call it Koolaid. If people edit it to Koolaid perhaps you could add a notation in the article that it was "often refereed to as Koolaid but was believed to be Flavoraid based on the used packets found". But in the end it really doesn't matterMantion (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The articles on this subject (of which there are several) already acknowledge the frequent abuse of the trademark Koolaid but it is still a valid trademark, so in otherwise factual writing it should not be misused. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 12:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Michael"

The five-year-old boy named "Michael" who supposedly survived appears to be a hoax comment. I've read one of the supposed sources, and checked the other one cited. Neither had any reference to him, nor have I seen any reference to a child survivor in any other primary or secondary source. I've deleted the reference unless someone can find an actual, verifiable reference to him. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC))

Jim Jones closet bi-sexual

I have seen the documentary The Life and Death of the Peoples Temple and according to surviving accounts the shootings and suicides happened because Jones was a closet bi-sexual.

Are you sure that's what you heard? The move to Jonestown was, in part, due to the increasingly negative attention the Peoples Temple was getting in the USA (which included allegations that Jones was bisexual), but his sexual orientation otherwise had nothing to do with what went down on the day of the mass murder-suicide. --Ismail (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of either of these opposing claims. A source would be nice. I believe his socialist beliefs had the greatest impact on his thinking and the evidence in the article supports that. Maybe he was shamed by his bi-sexual condition but how do we know that led him to murder? It seems speculative but if is reliably sourced it could find a place under possible causes but that seems like a stretch. 208.54.38.226 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Jim was having sex with both male and female church members is not in dispute, but there is no evidence that it would be considered a cause of the murders. The reasons are inherint in the story - Jim's narcissism, socialist leanings, drug addiction and increasing paranoia. EyePhoenix (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"Bi-sexual condition"? Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Article structure needs improving

Overall this article contains an excellent amount of accurate sourcing and detail regarding the event of Jonestown. However, in its current state the article is quite inaccessible for people wanting a relatively high level overview of key events, due to how much interesting minutae/details are getting interspersed between critical facts of the event. Moving most of this article's content into a Chronology of Events type section could be an improvement. Then after it, an Aftermath, Impact and possibly Anaylsis section inclusing some portions of the existing article together help tie the event's coverage together. 99.232.28.130 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggested pointer

"After a slew of legal and fiscal issues, CAN disbanded in 1996."

This needs a pointer to a Wikipedia article. However, I don't think can add the pointer. If anyone who is not under this restriction would like to do so, I can provide details. Keith Henson (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Odd, contradictory, sentence

Hello. While reading the article I came across a very odd sentence, considering the sentence after it, and the rest of the article, contradict it:

"Though its roots and teachings shared more with biblical church and Christian revival movements than with Marxism, it purported to practice what it called "apostolic socialism"

and then...

"those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment — socialism."

I guess what is attempting to be said is that people that have studied Jonestown believe that their beliefs were more "Christian" than "Marxist"...even though the cult believed that religion was an "opiate" and moved to Guyana to build a Socialist utopia? A better sentence may read, "It's roots were in the Evangelical revival movement, but it's doctrine was avowedly Marxist."

--73.46.60.31 (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing Marxist in this. This was clearly a very American Evangelical cult, where the special flavor was vague claims of "socialism". The article tries to sling mud to socialism and Marxism, that's why it mentioned them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.227.243 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Peoples Temple started out as a more or less "normal" Protestant church, just with a heavy emphasis on Social Gospel and desegregation. The key thing is that, according to Jim Jones and his wife, he considered himself a Marxist and felt the best way to "demonstrate" his Marxism was to (in his own words) "infiltrate the church." As the years went by the Temple clearly became a cult around Jones and his leftist politics became ever more apparent in the Temple's practices, to the extent that by 1977 its newspaper gave front page coverage of Jones visiting Cuba to meet Huey Newton. In Jonestown itself there were "socialism classes," the settlement brought in literature and videos provided by the Soviet and DPRK embassies, Jones spoke about Marxism-Leninism, etc. This doesn't mean Jones was a brilliant Marxist (he acknowledged that his knowledge of Marx's writings wasn't great), and you can obviously dispute Jones' claims that Jonestown was a great example of socialism, but there was nonetheless something Marxist in all this. --Ismail (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

jonestown.sdsu.edu as a reference vs http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/Jonestown_com/home.htm as a reference

Jonestown.sdsu.edu is used as a reference throughout the article. However, this site does not meet WP:RS as it is WP:QUESTIONABLE/WP:UGC content that features conspiracy theories based upon the author's own experiences and other unreliable sources.

Additionally, the author of the site, Laurie Efrein-Kahalas, has written a book, Snake Dance: Unravelling the Mysteries of Jonestown, that is a "Publish On Demand" book that has not been affiliated with any acceptable book publisher/editor. This further qualifies her website and book as sources that fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE/WP:UGC.

Before removing all content sourced throughout the article from this site and to gain a consensus, do other editors have opinions based upon this link and comments for or against whether or not it meets WP:V and WP:RS? 19:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The site jonestown.sdsu.edu as a whole does have reputable and properly sourced information. It also has opinion essays, member recollections, and an archive of the jonestown.com website. The /home.htm URL you give is for the archived jonestown.com site of that one author, but her thoughts are not representative of the new site jonestown.sdsu.edu. I recommend treating the links people cite on an individual basis rather than condemning them because of their domain. 2001:4898:80E8:2:0:0:0:95 (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Visitor to the Wikipedia page

:95 is correct. The jonestown.sdsu.edu site as a whole is full of reputable and properly sourced information; WP:RS is met. It also has opinion essays, member recollections ... and an archive of the jonestown.com website. The /home.htm URL you give is for the archived jonestown.com site of that one author, but her thoughts are not in the least representative of the overall site jonestown.sdsu.edu. I recommend treating the links people cite on an individual or sectional basis rather than condemning them because of their domain. I've edited the title of this section to keep from misleading folks.--Elvey^(t•c) 04:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

During the early days, "miracles" would atract some. Later, social justice would be the cause... In fact, Lifton and Singer mention that the doctrine, while a necessity in a cult, is totaly adaptable, and only used to promote the leader's status. Jones self image slowly evolved from Pastor, to leader, to prophet, to God. Everything was good, providing HE was the center of attention. 69.159.204.81 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The FCC has jurisdiction in Guyana?

From the article: ”Jonestown's primary means of communication with the outside world was a shortwave radio.[52] All voice communications with San Francisco and Georgetown were transmitted using this radio, from mundane supply orders to confidential Temple business.[52] The FCC cited the Temple for technical violations and for using amateur frequencies for commercial purposes.[52] Because shortwave radio was Jonestown's only effective means of non-postal communication, the Temple felt that the FCC's threats to revoke its operators' licenses threatened Jonestown's existence.[53]”How could the FCC have threatened anything after they moved to Guyana? Beeblebrox (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

FCC could, presumably, cut off radio contact between Peoples Temple in San Francisco and Jonestown. --Ismail (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible source

First-person account by Jackie Speier of the massacre that might be useful: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/10/jonestown-massacre-first-person-speier-ryan-jones-222222. —howcheng {chat} 20:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Political Party affiliation?

There is a long list of elected U.S. politicians--local, state, and national--who benefitted greatly from their association with Jim Jones and the Temple prior to their move to Guyana. However, not once is their political Party mentioned. I wonder if that was an oversight?

I looked up each one in turn, and they are all--depending on the favored term of the day--progressive, socialist, democratic socialist--but all are leaders of the Democrat Party. It's just curious that the word "Democrat" or "Democratic" does not appear once in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6B87:CE00:C421:EFC6:BA7F:DB27 (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Jones tried to influence Republican politicians when he was in conservative areas and Democratic politicians in liberal areas. In Mendocino County he would point out he was a Republican and praise Nixon when talking to local GOP officials. In San Francisco he switched his registration from Republican to Democratic (Klineman, The Cult That Died, p. 150.) The Guyanese government was first introduced to Jones in the form of two letters from two separate Congressmen (one Republican, one Democrat) praising him (Klineman, pp. 280-281.) So in terms of Peoples Temple itself it wasn't Democratic or Republican, it was whatever Jones thought expedient at the time (while privately its politics were a mix between utopian socialism, Marxism, and "socialistic" Christian doctrines.) He would criticize Democratic politicians in private while talking to his congregation just as he'd criticize Republican politicians, considering just about all of them hypocrites, racists, etc. If the article doesn't note the political affiliations of politicians, it's because it isn't really relevant to the subject of Jonestown (as distinct from Peoples Temple in Indiana and California.) Jones didn't care if Leo Ryan was a Democrat or Republican. Ryan had also intended to bring along a Republican colleague to visit the settlement with him, but those he asked said they couldn't due to other commitments. Democratic vs. Republican party politics don't matter when discussing the settlement itself. --Ismail (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

What matters is that Jim Jones was an ardent leftist that promoted multiculturalism and racial integration. 105.12.5.50 (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, first off this artcle is about Jonestown, not Jones himself, and his personal politics are discussed at length in his own article, so his perosnal politics aren't really a subject we should be discussin on this talk page at all. Secondly, if you are here to make a point about how this one particular sociopathic cult leader was a leftist, that really ins't what Wikipedia is for at all. All Wikipedia does is report, it does not interpret. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Total deaths

The first paragraph says that 918 people died.

The second paragraph says that 909 people died.

Which is it?

-- That Guy, From That Show!¿

Oops, I see that they're including other nearby deaths in the first total, my mistake. -- That Guy, From That Show! 15:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)