Talk:Peoples Temple/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Peoples Temple

"The Peoples Temple, originally incorporated as the Wings Of Deliverance in 1954, was a religious organization founded in 1955 by Reverend James Warren Jones (Jim Jones). In 1960 the organization affiliated itself with the protestant denomination, Disciples of Christ. This affiliation was a successful attempt to both raise the dwindling membership and restore the reputation of the cult. The Peoples Temple is widely known for the mass murder/suicide that occurred in Jonestown, Guyana, on November 18, 1978.

He ate babies." Internet slang?

I'm not "disguising" anything, this article is right and if People's Temple says "Kool-Aid" it's wrong [1].

I won't dispute that people say "Kool-Aid"; genericization is a powerful thing. "[M]ost people would have called a drink of that kind Kool-Aid even if was made from Flavor-Aid or whatever." --Lars Eighner. I'll be happy to write that on a Kleenex and Xerox it for you. However, facts are what they are, whatever the slang term is. --Charles A. L. 14:42, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

what the bloody hell are you two on about?

Anti-religious nature of the group

Jones of course was a Marxist through and through - his control over every aspect of his followers' lives closely resembled a Soviet commissar's control over the average Russian. [2]

Haha, priceless. - FrancisTyers 15:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Jones was obviously a communist (repeated probably thousands of times on tape, memos, etc), but his control over members was vastly different than that of the USSR, though there are similarities with certain Stalin era tactics. And, obviously, his collective property and "no leave" policy mirrors the restrictive emigration policies of several communist countries (USSR, North Korea, East Germany, etc.). However, the similarities end pretty quickly there. If you had to pick one, North Korea is the closest of any country, and even that's a stretch, though Jones greatly admired North Korean internal policies on his daily "News & Commentary" audio tapes. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

People's Temple

The People's Temple is seen as the most notorious example of a cult by the media and the public. They almost unanimously agree that if there is one group that deserves the negative connotations associated with the word cult then it was this one. Mary McCormick Maaga argues in an essay that appeared in her book the Voices of Jonestown (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1998) that the People’s temple was three groups in one, using the sociological meaning of the terms i.e., a cult/new religious movement, a sect, and a denomination. [3]

Sodomy

The article claims that Jim Jones practiced "sodomy" with male Temple members. If this is anal sex, the article should say so. If not, it should explain what acts took place. "Sodomy" is not a particularly useful term. —Guanaco 03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Further, the article seems to imply that "practicing sodomy" is among his repressive and evil characteristics. I assume the editor meant to say unconsensual (or at least not entirely wanted) sodomy, but I admit to not knowing the details, and hope someone can clear this up. Deleuze 10:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

sodomy is a perfectly acceptable legal term used widely as a synonym for anal sex. raining girl 17:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

More complicated than that, Raining Girl. From the sodomy page: "Sodomy is a term of biblical origin used to characterize certain sexual acts that were attributed to citizens of ancient Sodom. The term is most commonly used to describe the specific act of anal sex between two males or a male and a female. The term "sodomy" also may include non-coital sexual acts ranging from oral sex to paraphilia. It is sometimes used to describe human-animal sexual intercourse (a.k.a. bestiality, zoophilia), and in the German language, this is the primary use of the term. Sodomy laws forbidding certain types of sex acts have been instituted in many cultures. The English term buggery is very closely related to sodomy, in concept, and often interchangeably used in law and popular speech. In the various criminal codes of United States of America, the term "sodomy" has generally been replaced by "deviant sexual intercourse," which is precisely defined by statute. The remaining criminal interest is largely confined to acts where the victim did not or could not legally consent." I know wikipedia's not an academic resource, but I'm just using it to show that it's not "a perfectly accetable" synonym.

Earthbound0 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of good information on Jim Jones and his sex life at: http://www.jonestownlegacy.com/ and http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/ . There is an especially good article, "Sex in the Temple" by David Wise at: [4]. There is also access to lots of stuff at http://www.maebrussell.com/Jonestown/ . The short story is that Jim Jones was apparently Bisexual, and used sex as a weapon against many individual followers, while creating a church that welcomed GLBT in General. He stepped up his sexual activity within the church when he got arrested in the Tenderloin for some type of sex with a man. After this incident, he also tried to convince everyone in his church (with middling success, it seems) that EVERYONE was homosexual except him. And that he was having sex with both men and women to keep them from deserting the church, or to get emotionally close enough to "heal" them. What an amazing con. --Spyderdiva 02:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

GLBT? explaination please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.73.47 (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

People's vs. Peoples

I just moved this article to the apostrophe-less name, since that's what's on the incorporation documents [5] and most references. I just wasted several edits moving to what I thought was 'correct', before I checked offsite. nae'blis _(talk) 18:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, peoples temple is the correct form. It took me some time to figure this out too.

Paul Vandecarr stated that he added the apostrophe to the play's title in part to distinguish it from the church, The Peoples Temple. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0429/p16s01-almp.html --Spyderdiva 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonestown was not a concentration camp

When I read the article then the reader may be left with the mistaken impression that Jonestown was a concentration camp. This is untrue: people went there, stayed and committed suicide there voluntarily. Only a few defectors (14 out of >900=1.6%) joined senator Ryan. I dunno how to correct this quickly. Andries 22:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is horrible in quality. Please help. Thanks. Andries 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a hard subject. After reading hundreds of books, interviews, articles and scholarly papers about the subject, the truth is probably close to this: Many of the members of PT were happy to be there, but there were always a percentage that were afraid to leave-even in Ukiah and San Francisco. That number only increased when these mostly city dwellers moved to the jungles of Guyana, with extreme heat, bugs, odd food and interpersonal issues being the main problems at first. Once Jones moved there with most of the rest of the church members, more stresses were added in the form of sleep deprivation, odd and sometimes barbaric punishments, reductions in rations and the pressure of Jones increasing drug addiction and paranoia. At the end, there were folks who were happy. There were folks who were unhappy. The vast majority of the membership was blissfully unaware of much of the Machiavellian plotting and drama going on in the background. They just thought they were suffeing a bit to build a better life for themselves and their children-and thumbing their noses in the faces of the "White Establishment". Jones spent YEARS developing an Us vs Them mentality amongst his church, and in the end, that is probably what kept most folks from rebelling against their conditions-and against the poisoning of their families. --Spyderdiva 02:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read A LOT on the subject, and I must say, bullseye. There are people like, for instance, Tim Carter who loved Jonestown (especially pre-Jim) and actually wanted Jim to just die so that the place could have a chance to thrive more efficiently. Then there were people like Jerry Parks, who thought the place was a "communist prison camp" and badly wanted out. Then there are others, like many voices on the death tape (Q 42), that say they were very happy living in Jonestown and sound honest saying so.

One thing that's difficult for people to wrap their minds around now after such a historically huge tragedy is that, up until November 18, they hadn't killed anyone (at least in Jonestown itself) and Jim had blustered about "war", "revenge" and "revolutionary suicide" probably 200+ times without a single thing being actually done. People saw this as just dramatics from an old fairly silly (at times) man trying to rally his group. Jones attacked people who were even cruel to animals. He came across as all-talk-no-action in the violence department, except actions against specific individuals that crossed the PT and were thrown in the box, etc., and even then, he spoke with a flutter in his voice, like he hated doing that to people (it's tough for me to type such things about Jones, but it is objectively true listening to the tapes). That's why all of the survivors sound so utterly shocked about the events of November 18, even though many "rehearsals" for such things took place. NO ONE though he'd actually ever go through with doing something that lethal and crazy. Even people like Debbie Layton weren't sure he'd actually ever tip over the edge. But he did. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeannie Mills

I know it says that she was murded (Jeannie Mills) in the quote section of this page, but does anyone know HOW she was murdered? Was she killed by the cult? KellanFabjance

No, I have a text that states that this is an unsolved mystery. Andries 19:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats kind of interesting. I would suspect that it was a cult murder. KellanFabjance

According to the Monterey Peninsula Herald at : http://www.maebrussell.com/Jonestown/Millses%20Murdered.html

Al and Jeannie Mills (aka Elmer and Deanna Mertle) and their daughter Daphene Mills were murdered in their own home on 02-28-1980. Their son, Eddie Mills, aged 17 was also in the home, but was unharmed.

According to the AP on December 9,2005, charges were dropped against Eddie Mills in the murder of his parents and sister due to lack of evidence. http://www.rickross.com/reference/jonestown/jonestown38.html

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple (2006)

I just saw this documentary on the subject Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple (2006) and found it extremely interesting and informative. I am certainly not an expert on the subject, but the writer/director gave an amazing view into the topic.

Directed by Stanley Nelson

Writing credits Marcia Smith

--Colin Greene 19:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful when editing

I noticed that for the following sentences references are requested

"The highest actual membership of the Peoples Temple was around 3,000 members, in spite of exaggerated claims by the Temple."

I had inserted the references but they were removed. Can the editor who removed them please re-insert them?. Do not expect other to clean up your mess. Thanks. Andries 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

need more info.

they should have a section on the cult's beliefs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.10.60.226 (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Cult suicide

Can anyone provide an argument for why this group should not be categorized in "category:cult suicides"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well because of neutrality concerns - Categorizing a group as a cult is non-neutral and stems from POV. Sfacets 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any viewpoint that we can source that disputes this group was a cult? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

From the article: "sociologist John Hall described Peoples Temple as a "charismatic bureaucracy"" - but that is besides the point - 'cult' is non neutral and a WP word to avoid. Sfacets 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA does not ban the use of the word. What's the source for the Hall quote? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See article. Also I notice that you do not dispute that the term is non-neutral, and yet are still ready to defend its use - why is that? Sfacets 00:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citation. However Hall does not call the Peoples Temple a "charismatic bureaucracy", at least not on page 95 of the cited book. He does use the word "cult" repeatedly in another book, "Apocalypse Observed: Religious Movements and the State in North America".

• The "negative cult" of Jonestown thus stands as an ominous monument to an arsenal of manipulations that persist in wider institutional practices. (p. 42)
• After the murders and mass suicide, People Temple became the quintessence of the "cult", sterotypiclaly portrayed as an organization that drains both property and free will from its members and "brainwashes" them into a "group mind". (p. 43)

As for neutrality, the term "cult" is applied almost universally to a number of groups, including this one. When groups meet a neutral criteria for being a cult then it is neutral to call it a "cult". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually he does call the group a "charismatic bureaucracy" -

If the temple is a harbinger for things to come[...] it is doubtful that such organizations will tale the form of a charismatic bureaucracy like their communal precursor.

There is no set criteria for calling a group a cult - the most we can do her on WP is note who describes the group as a cult, and for what reasons - it is Original Research to blatantly categorize a group as a cult. Sfacets 01:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research? I'm sure I can find a dozen sources in as many minutes that call the group a "cult". As for your quote, I don't thiinkyou transcribed it correctly. The sentence reads:

"Come what may in that regard, it is doubtful that such organizations will take the form of a charismatic bureaucracy like their communal precursor."

Even if he did call it a "charismatic bureaucracy", that isn't the same as saying it isn't a cult. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no controversy over whether the Peoples Temple was a cult, so there is no POV issue over categorising it as a cult. -- Lonewolf BC 04:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that there is no legitimate question that the subject qualifies as a "cult" in the conventional use of the term and that we should say so on the article, the categorization is a different matter. The category:cults has been re-purposed as a category for cult-related topics, not for cults themselves. While some cases, like this one, are obvious to anyone without an agenda, others are more debatable. In the long run those debates are tiresome and it's easier to avoid them by not using that category for groups themselves. Category:Cult suicides is different because these events are thankfully rare and the cases are not marginal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As the one of the archetypal examples of the cult suicide, this article definitely has relevance to the topic of cults, so the category should be included. Arkalochori 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The mass suicide of the Peoples Temple pretty much gave the word "cult" its perjorative connotations. If you want a case study of a destructive cult, the Peoples Temple is pretty much it. As the issues with the word "cult" stem from such groups as this one, it is not a problem for us to refer to such groups as cults--indeed if we were to call the Peoples Temple a "new religious movement" or some other politically correct somesuch, we would be tarring the legitimate NRMs with the suicide cult brush, contributing to those terms gaining the same perjorative connotations as the word "cult". --Pvednes 16:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that most people's internal definition of "cult" differs from the very broad-based technical definition, which is any cultural or social group devoted to beliefs outside the mainstream. Under this broad and vague a definition, you could arguably include many large religions, biker gangs, 9-11 conspiracy groups, etc. On the other hand, characteristics associated with the "man on the street" definition of a cult usually involve: religious zealotry (the PT members were atheists who made fun of people that believed in "sky gods"), belief in end-of-world philosphies (the closest thing for the PT was that they were going to die by "Imperialists" hands, not the rest of the world) and where everyone worshipped the leader (in the PT, even insiders like Tim Carter wanted Jones to die so that Jonestown could move on without his drugged lagging existence). The problem is whether you take this "man on the street" definition of "cult" into consideration when determining whether to use the term on wikipedia. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In order not to offend anyone with the use of the word cult, I think we should take whatever term all of you prefer to use for the Roman Catholic church or the Methodist Church or some similar organization and use it to describe the Peoples Temple. Would that be "NPOV" enough for you?JGC1010 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Old Indianapolis building, now

I've deleted the bit on what has become of the Temple's old building in Indianapolis, because the information on that seems to be wrong, outdated or both. According to this, from Rick Ross' website, republishing a 2003 article from the Indianapolis Star, the building stands (or at least stood) "at [East]15th and North New Jersey streets". The Phoenix Theatre is, rather, at 749 N Park Ave (see the "contact us" at the theatre's own website. At the time the 2003 article was written, the building was, truly, home to Abundant Faith Apostolic Church, which was planning to move to the suburbs and had the building up for sale. However, that was four years ago. I can find no current information on whether the building yet stands, and if so what it is being used for, and by whom.

(By the by, this webpage notes that a different building, at "10th and Delaware Streets", was "used ... for a short time [by] Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple", presumably around 1958, before which it had been a Jewish temple. I suppose that Jones' congregation shortly moved to the E 15th & N New Jersey building.)

-- Lonewolf BC 20:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding References

I was attempting to add reference for the items requesting citation but having trouble with one in particular. In section "Controversy" I found a reference to former members making allegations of abuse. However, every time I enter the reference it comes out wrong on the main page regardless of how it appears on the preview. I am entering(hypenation not in actual entry, placed only so the proper link to article appears here in this request for assistance) <r-ef>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6353579</-ref> a format that worked on addition of other references. Not sure why this is happening but maybe someone more experienced can correct it. Thanks. OneHappyHusky (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First Line "Cult" Change (Wasn't a cult in 1955)

I don't want to re-open any "was-a-cult" versus "wasn't-a-cult" controversies, but I don't think anyone is arguing that the PT was a cult way back when Jim first started preaching in 1955. So I changed it to the more generalized and neutral "organization" in the first sentence.

I'm not sure when one could say the group really broke off into its own separate social circle enough to be called a "cult" (and I know there's a big argument in the Talk page above whether it could be called that at all). Mosedschurte (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In reading the archived Religious Movements Homepage, under Principal Beliefs, it seems to outline how the organization progressed, from a religious Christian based group to a sort of messianic centered group where Jones purported himself to be the second coming; then changing after the group moved to California to a more socialist based grouping. It makes it clear that the religion left totally with the move to Jonestown, with the practices becoming more outside the mainstream. (It also states fairly clearly the belief that at least older members in Jonestown retained traditional Christian beliefs, which would lead one to think that some of the members in Jonestown may not have realized the extent to which the Jones rhetoric changed.) In looking at the cult article, depending on one's interpretation, cult could be applied here at any point after which Jones had begun to assert himself as the leader of a movement with supposed powers of healing, which seems to be around the time of the California move, although I suppose it could be argued that this was Jones' goal from very early on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure just the old late 60s-to-mid-70s fake healings/recruitment phase also makes them a cult. A lot of churches likely would have qualified back in the 60s.

I think the argument could actually be made earlier than even the fake healings. When Jones began informing certain Temple insiders of his real plans to use the Church to recruit members to his odd communist rebellion/uprising he was planning. I think an argument could at least be made then that those willing to follow this odd rebellion would be a social group well out of the mainstream that would have had a negative perception. Though, problematically there too, one could say the same thing about members of various tight knit radical CPUSA groups during the same period (and earlier).

The whole argument also gets into the amorphous area of "what is a cult" (obviously discussed above), and where does one draw the line.

I figured it would be safe in that first line to use the more general "organization" because they likely weren't a cult (at least in total) back in 1955.

On the other hand, there would seem to be little problem referring to them as a "cult" when they later form a tight knit social group out of the mainstream. I know there are other connotation to the word "cult" in many peoples' minds that didn't exist with the PT, but because that's the broad one used in many definitions, I'm not sure there's a problem using it regarding the period after which their societal split off happened. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you just reminded me about something I've been meaning to put in the PT section: the faith healing/bible stomping/sky god rants, etc. period from the late 60s to mid-70s. We have transcripts of those, too. They're pre-Jonetown by a good margin, but worth noting in this PT article. I'm going to try to draft up some ref'd paragraphs tonight. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've no strong opinion on when it became a cult, but in my mind, at some point it did. Perhaps there is a way to waffle it ambiguously and say that by the time Peoples Temple [fill in the blank], it had become a Jones centered cult.

I was about to do some reference format work, but I'll wait until you've added the faith healing etc. before I start. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree on it being a cult. By 1978, it lacked SOME characteristics the man on the street might think for a cult (leader looked at by all as a God or God-related, some sort of divine or planetary apocalypse, etc.), but aside from that perhaps more narrow and focused man on the street image of a cult (e.g., Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate), the PT seems to fit very squarely within the actual definition of a cult. They were very surely about as socially isolated and out out of the mainstream as it gets in Jonestown. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I put in the additional sourced info. There's now more information on Jones' earlier preachings and the faked faith healings. Interestingly, Debbie Layton's mom (sadly, a holocaust survivor, who couldn't survive Jonestown) was brought in with one of these fake healing demonstrations (by Jones' wife Marcy) while Debbie and the members, of course, knew it was bulls**t the whole time and participated. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Project templates

I'm surprised there are no project templates here - they're useful for organizing articles. I just added the Bay Area one. Is there any reason non so far - did someone delete them? Wikidemo (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can tell. Maybe no projects want to claim it (smile). I'd add them, but I'm not clear on what projects it should be under. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the somewhat humorous obsession by another poster in another Bay Area politician's article of deleting every mere mention of (a rather deep) involvement with the Temple, I'd have to agree with the smile.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of this should be the subject of Wikipedia articles, but there really is a tremendous amount of interesting Bay Area involvement with the Temple, such as:
--Jones worked to support the campaigns of Moscone, Freitas and Hongisto, three fairly colorful San Francisco politicians. They become convinced, whether or not accurate, that Jones could command not only thousands of votes but, more importantly, thousands of workers to turn out many more votes (driving people to the polls and other get out the vote efforts). This is how Jones became the Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Commission, which was a much bigger deal in the mid-70s than it is today.
--Jones actually had a central role at one point over the famous International Hotel dispute which raged for decades. Jones had his Housing Commission attempt a takeover of the property, which was shot down by a federal judge in January of 1977, leading to some of the famous mass riots (many Temple members also just happened to be involved here). Hongisto, a political ally of Jones, then refused to execute the eviction orders of the judge and actually served time in his own jail over the matter on a contempt charge.
--Before the political implosion in 1977, Jones had been working behind the scenes with Lieutenant Governor Dymally to secure a larger State Office appointment for himself. He already had Temple member Tim Stoen appointed as Assistant DA in San Fran after the 1975 election victories of Moscone, Freitas and Hongisto. Lieutenant Governor Dymally not only supported Jones, but actually flew to Jonestown twice.
--The Temple had repeated involvements with another notorious Bay Area group, the Symbionese Liberation Army. Jones spoke favorably of them in sermons, some of them attended sermons and Jones had offered to exchange himself for Patty Hearst.
--Jones and the Temple had repeated run-ins with the Nation of Islam. This led to a healing "spiritual jubilee" between the NOI and the PT held down in the Los Angeles Convention Center where thousands attended. Jones spoke at the podium to thousands in front of a large semicircle of formidable NOI "Fruit of Islam" guards and Peoples Temple "Red Brigade" guards standing guarding him.
--The entire idea of the cult's San Francisco existence if fairly fascinating. I sound like an urbanite snob here, but this wasn't rural central Texas or some retreat in mountain hills. He perpetuated this odd cult in one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. It was one thing that drew me to begin researching the topic in the first place, in that it sort of shattered my initial image of typical cult members. The more digging one does on this topic, the more fascinating things arise. Much of it was never really the object of huge media focus largely because Jonestown happened just before the rise of cable news networks and a decade and a half before the internet.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte, you can hold off your veiled accusations that I would bother to delete a wikiproject template. Ironically the opposite is true; I have a reptation for adding them. Please take the focus off me and keep it on the articles. Banjeboi 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No one made accusations, veiled or overt, about anyone removing templates from any article. That you believe it may be an accusation towards you and your posting here is the only focus on you that has been brought to this page or discussion. Please do not bring issues from other pages to this one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This was only in response to "Given the somewhat humorous obsession by another poster in another Bay Area politician's article of deleting every mere mention of (a rather deep) involvement with the Temple" - as long as we stick to current policies I think all will be fine. I support adding any appropriate wikiprojects. Banjeboi 22:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Political alliances

I see that as a response to an issue on a non-PT page, a new article has been created to discuss political alliances and Peoples Temple. While I have no fundamental issues with that creation, it certainly would have been proper procedure for the creator to have broached the subject on this page prior to cutting a large amount of this article for the new page. But then apparently, because some of us aren't involved in the other dispute, our opinions aren't warranted for changes here. This isn't how things are supposed to be done on Wikipedia. Bad form. This message is being left on the new page, Political Alliances of the People's Temple. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not bad form, just normal editing process in line with WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS so please don't scold. There are already several related articles about the People's Temple so it's a simple matter of content organization. The material (sloppily worded, I should add) is a distinct subject that affects several different articles here, and it was already cut-and-pasted in nearly identical form in those articles. Consolidating it to one place only makes sense and improves all of the articles involved. If you have any concrete suggestions I'm all ears, as I imagine everyone is. Wikidemo (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not keen on entering into their battle on the Milk article. I left my opinion on the request for comments, and was then lumped in with single purpose accounts. I apparently have missed where consensus was reached that this should be broken out from this article. I have a couple mundane comments. It should be Political alliances of Peoples Temple. No capitalization on alliance and there is no apostrophe in Peoples. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:52, 5 August 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) 13:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the Timothy Stoen article and I'd urge you to reconsider renaming the article. The scope of the article is wider than just the custody battle and retaining the name as it is would allow for the more comprehensive coverage. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement attributed to Marx does not come from Marx

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," had already been a common saying when Marx quoted it. 72.66.55.210 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Marx was the first to use it.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the heaviness of Marx being mentioned as well. It doesn't seem relevant and there is a lot of bias in mentioning Marx in connection to a massacre that may have had nothing to do with Marxism at all. I don't know how to edit on wikipedia, but someone who does should go through and try to find other sources than the "Raven" book which 90% of this article seems to be citing. It seems to be an attack on Marxism more than an explanation of the People's Temple. 98.211.129.152 (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that, if there is a bias towards mentioning Marx, it would have been Jones' bias, not the article. Jim Jones used/believed/quoted (pick your verb) Marx and thus it can't be avoided. Marx is mentioned four times, once in the opening paragraph addressing his early life, once in mentioning from where he took his quote, in the image caption and finally in the comment made by Jones' wife: "...of Jones' wife, Marcy, openly admitted to the New York Times that Jones had not been lured to religion because of faith, but because it served his goal of social change through Marxism."

The article cites multiple sources in the 100+ separate citations. 42 are from the Raven book. Other sources are cited multiple times as well. The problem is that there are a limited number of reliable direct knowledge sources available that can actually give an objective view of this group. It can't be avoided that Marxism was part of the Jones ideology. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The allegation that the article discussed "too much," of all things, Marx or socialism is pretty laughable. Believe me, if one wanted to look at all of the times Jim references Marx or communism, you'd have hundreds of pages of it straight. And there are thousands of pages of Temple documents littered with it. And not just Raven (essentially the factual bible on the Peoples Temple) but also Seductive Poison, a book written by one of the only inner circle members to escape (Debbie Layton). Actually, Seductive Poison has even more, as it includes more inner circles conversations with Jim littered with salty language of "capitalist [insert curse word here]" and how we "socialist [n-word]s" are fighting back "reactionaries."

Communism, whether or not labeled with the "Marxism" (and it was many times), was talked about at length regarding virtually every move Jim made. He wrapped it into all of his various conspiracy theories (they were picking on socialists, etc.), why they were being investigated, why members misbehaved (giving into capitalist tendencies), how they were a grand dialectical materialist experiment, etc. Into why they chose socialist Guyana and how wonderful it was, etc. He talked a LONG LONG LONG time at nights to the crowds every night about all of the various merits of communism, why they were the best "Marxist-Leninsts", how Stalin was right, how wonderful Cuba and North Korea were, etc. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious that Mosedschurte is hellbent on giving the connection as much credit as possible. But obviously, if Jones did not know the differences between Marxism, Socialism and Communism, then he was just crazy altogether. Which means that his actions should not be implied to be "Marxist" in nature the way that the article comes across to the unassuming reader. People are already horribly uneducated about Marxism and Socialism, and wikipedia seems to be fueling these misunderstandings in many articles. As an example, It would not be fair to imply that Jeffrey Dahmer is representative of Christian Scientists just because he spoke frequently about his Christian Science beliefs. One sentence with a citation could describe that Jone's was obsessed with his misguided approach to Marxism, if in fact, that is the case. I'll end my rant with a quote from Truman Capote: "I believe in the scissors more than I do the pen." 98.211.129.152 (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning

Something about the People's Temple Choir album He's Able, released in 1978? [6]. Chubbles (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

83.244.223.194 (talk)"pseudo-religious" why is Peoples Temple a 'psuedo' religion? who appointed themselves the arbiter on whether a religion is 'real' or not? on what authority do they make this claim? —Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

Actually, I did. Perhaps the link to pseudo-religion will make it more clear, but my authority here is Jim Jones himself, who openly admitted that it was a fake religion. He stated (more than once) that his "religion" was merely a front, and that he himself was an atheist.Eaglizard (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

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

Tenants of atheism?

In the move to California section, we have the statement "loosely mixed tenants of atheism and socialism". The provided "note" includes references about religion being the opiate of the people, which could be better described as a communist tenant of atheism as it is a direct quote from Karl Marx (see Opium of the People).

As accurate as these statements may seem on their surface, I suspect that this presentation subtly alters the meaning and challenges the NPOV of this article.

68.227.241.135 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Tragedy"?

This seems a peculiar term to describe a mass murder/suicide. I would have described it as a "crime", a "massacre", or an "atrocity." 192.12.184.2 (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And that's you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

IN RESPONSE

So by this philosophy, could we also deduce that "tragedy" would be a "peculiar term" to describe the 911 or 711(London Tube) bombings as these were both mass murder/suicide? I think not. Of course "tragedy" is an appropriate term where the loss of innocent life is concerned, I see nothing peculiar in is use what-so-ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.234.250 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Largest non-natural disaster

How about the Civil War. Pretty sure >918 people died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.102.133 (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Civil War was a WAR, not a disaster. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of diaster: “(a) An occurrence causing widespread destruction and distress; a catastrophe; (b) grave misfortune.” How is war not a disaster? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Better candidates: SS Sultana, PS General Slocum. Though the Sultana victims were Union soldiers, they didn't die in combat, but on a ship after they were released from Southern prison camps after the end of the war. The General Slocum victims were indeed civilians. --Tkynerd (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

only congressman murdered in line of duty

Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long a counter example? Or maybe any of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_members_of_Congress_wounded_or_killed_in_office —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.140.97 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See talk:Leo Ryan. Please discuss there. Andries (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2011 (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) 02:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias/editorialising?

I find sentences this this somewhat worrying:

"However, the Temple had little luck converting most midwesterners to communist ideals, even when disguised as religion", as they don't seem dispassionate or impartial in nature, and I feel that they risk becoming editorial in nature. What do others think? 123.3.79.158 (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Atheist or agnostic?

I just reverted an edit that involved Jones' statements regarding his religious beliefs. In the interview that is used as the source, he states both that he is an atheist and an agnostic. I have to ask how Wikipedia would handle such an issue. Jones clearly uses the term "atheist" more (or derivatives) in regard to himself, so should that be considered his primary identification or do we include both terms in the article? JayHubie (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Judging by all the comments made by Jones about wishing to destroy the Bible and references to God as a 'Sky Fairy', I think he is pretty heavily in the atheist camp. Regardless, I have altered the first section to reflect the fact that his 'church' wasn't religious, regardless of what Jones wanted his potential members to think. Bearing in mind what they did and believed, labelling Peoples' Temple a religious organisation is borderline insulting. Hadashi (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Jones's so called "atheism" is very specific. He was certainly atheistic about Christian God. However you can't draw conclusions like, "he is pretty heavily in the atheist camp," just out of his statements about one god. His statements were frequently incoherent and contradictory (f.e. "atheistic" "theology" of Peoples Temple).

However, religious affection of his church can be shown on what they did and believed. Labeling Peoples Temple as non-religious organisation is bordeline insulting (bear in mind that churchs and cults like Westboro baptists, Children of God, Heaven's Gate, various satanistic cults etc. were/are also religious. Religious doesn't mean good).Mrkv09 (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Atheist assertion inadequately sourced.

The suggestion that a cult leader who was an ordained minister and wore a clerical collar was not a religious figure is not supported by the record, and smacks of disinformation.

I am noticing more and more right-wing Christian defacement of Wikipedia pages. (The New Deal page is also full of all sorts of disinformation.) If these editors are going to assert that Jim Jones was really an atheist communist who just tricked the 900+ people into killing themselves, it had better be backed up with some reliable sources. It is an insult to the families of the victims to do any less.

As of now, those sources are not present. Such notions, if the editor wishes to express them (and they do seem to be his or her original expression), belong in a subsection of the Jonestown conspiracy theory page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown_conspiracy_theory - not in the opening paragraph about the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.102.136 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Introduction Text

I have changed the introduction text to reflect evidence given in the article. Jim Jones himself called the People's Temple a Marxist organisation. Please read this section at least before reverting! If people want to revert my edit I would really like them to provide a proper reason and talk about it on here. All I have done is properly classify the Peoples' Temple so that it stands in line with the rest of the article. I realise there are some people out there who would like to see the Jonestown massacre blamed on some kind of fuzzy non-specific 'religious impulse'. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is for facts, and what I have written is factual and non-confrontational. Hadashi (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I realise the guy who keeps reverting my edits probably won't read this but here is the reason I should be allowed to use these sources:

• primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
• A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

What I have written is taken directly from the evidence with no interpretation whatsoever. Hadashi (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A discussion thread on this topic has been started at WP:NORN#Jonestown Transcripts. TFD (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The made up dichotomy between Christianity and Socialism in the article doesn't reflect the complexity of Christianity

For example, the section " 2.3 Organizational Structure" contains the line "Most made the leap from Christianity to the Temple's quasi-socialism [because of certain reasons]" However, there doesn't have to be a leap from Christianity to quasi-socialism, because "leftist" or "quasi-socialist" interpretations of christianity have always existed. I'm gonna change that line and want to encourage others to do so with other inappropriate lines, to improve this already pretty informative article.--JakobvS (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

Shouldn't it be "People's Temple" with an apostrophe? Brigade Piron (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Apostolic Socialism

That hyperlink to pentecostalism is confusing and misleading. Apostolic socialism isw no related in any way to apostolic pentecostal church. So I have removed it.200.75.126.45 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit

It should be clear to most people that the Peoples Temple was the epitome of a cult. The edit that suggested they were not a cult because a cult does not require a commitment is a clear case of using a cult definition rather than the widely accepted definition. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 01:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Cult

The reason, it seems, we can call this organization a cult and not the others lies in the fact that it has no adherents anymore. Chrisrus (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I was alive at the time and recall the reaction it got, and I can assure you even when it had numerous adherents, nobody else ever called it anything but a "cult". So logically the reason you gave must be false, keep searching. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

'Cult' is a pejorative, and a contentious label - the (more) neutral term NRM is used by Sociologists. Zambelo (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

To reply to your first point, so is "Mafia" a pejorative word, but that doesn't stop us from calling organizations that.

To the second, maybe so, but there's no sign that they've ever called this referent by that name.

Third, we only don't call organizations "cults" when not everyone agrees they are one. Chrisrus (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any disagreement in calling certain groups 'Mafia', since this simply alludes to the organized crime element of the groups. In the case of NRMs though, the word 'cult' is a highly charged absolute, which carries highly negative connotations, and is not a neutral word to use - which is why it was dropped by Sociologists in favour of NRMs. The meaning of cult also carries different meanings depending on who you ask - for instance the word means a different thing to The Christian Countercult movement (any new religion that isn't Christian) as it does to the anti-cult movement, which has a number of different (and sometimes conflicting) definitions.

Zambelo (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Book suggestions.

I am looking for books suggestions on The Peoples Temple and JIM JONES.

I am looking for something that is accurate to what happened when the church was started, what happened during the church's heyday and finally the demise and aftermath of the church.
I am open to any and all book suggestions.
        Thanks for your help,Beth Carpenter  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carp2468 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC) 

Defected

The use of the word "defected" throughout this and other related articles implies those leaving the cult were doing so in order to join some other opposing group. While many/most did become opponents of the cult, this was often not in the formal way suggested, and many of the "defectors" didn't do anything but flee.

It seems that it would be more NPOV to use more neutral words such as "leaving", which are not taken from the cults own us-them narrative, and reserve the use of "defected" for where it is used in the context that this was the Peoples Temples perception of their actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.221.254 (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree "leaving" is a more neutral word than "defected," and looking at the definition of "defect" it is true that it means usually to join something else in its place. The wording should be changed. Spudst3r (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

On further consideration, replacing the word defections might get a bit messy. Here is [a list of synonyms for defection](http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/defection) shows its a bit of an awkard word to replace for sections such as "Defections". So far the most neutral replacement words seem to be: "withdrawing", "parting", "separating" and "rejection." These could work in many places but "Defections" as a section lead title still sounds better. Spudst3r (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

confusing statement about newspaper editor being threatened

Under the heading "Kinsolving Series", it reads "The Temple picketed the Examiner, yelled at the Examiner's editor in a car (seated between burly Temple 'Red Brigade' security guards)..." This is confusing. It sounds as if the Temple itself yelled at the Examiner's editor (which would've been quite an organizational feat) and that the Examiner's editor was somehow seated in a car between two of the Temple's henchmen while he was being yelled at. Can someone make sense of this mess? Occam's Shaver (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Punctuation

Sources are mixed on whether the name used an apostrophe ("People's Temple") or not ("Peoples Temple"); IMO we should go with standard usage. If the current title has consensus, the inconsistency ought to be noted in the article. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The only instance in the article with an apostrophe was in the infobox. All 55 other instances use no apostrophe. I've changed the infobox to match the other references throughout the article. AldezD (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Peoples Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070320074839/http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/18/jonestown.anniv.01/ to http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/18/jonestown.anniv.01/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140522000300/http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=16577 to http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=16577

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Peoples Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101231015534/http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/p/peoplestemple/madman.htm to http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/p/peoplestemple/madman.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070426045331/http://www.opb.org/radio/archives/2007/04/there_was_no_ch_1.php to http://www.opb.org/radio/archives/2007/04/there_was_no_ch_1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Bias: Communism? Not really.

Throughout the article Jones's teachings are presented as communism. His teachings were not communism, just inspired by it. Maybe he called it communism, he also called it Christianity, but in reality it was neither. Most of the things he preached were not communist at all, they were just weird cult ideology.

For example, a quote from the article is: "While Jones had always spoken of the social gospel's virtues, before the late 1960s, Jones did not reveal that his gospel was actually communism." This statement is just incorrect. His gospel was not communism. His gospel was his own. It was indeed inspired by communism and Marxism, but it was not communism or Marxism. I don't think that Lenin believed in prophets, or that Marx considered all people homosexual.

Another example: "The Temple had little luck converting most Midwesterners to communist ideals, even when disguised as religion." It was not communist ideals, it was a weird religion with socialist elements. This sentence is written with bias.

I think statements like the ones above should be changed. There are many. Maybe the article shows the political views and biases of a writer who considers everything "bad" to be communism (imagine his/her delight when something "bad" even calls itself communism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123popos123 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Jones' religious and political beliefs were indeed a mishmash based on what seemed useful or practical to him. In general I (and it seems most sources) use the word "socialist" when talking about the politics of Jones, Peoples Temple and Jonestown because it's a sufficiently general term that can easily incorporate his idiosyncratic ideology, whereas readers associate the word "communist" with much more specific subjects like communist parties and countries like the USSR and Cuba. On the other hand any discussion of ideology should note that Jones considered himself a communist. --Ismail (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

There has never been a unified communist ideology, not unexpectedly. Mao’s version differed considerably from that of Lenin. Trotsky earned Stalin’s enmity (and eventually an ice axe) for his deviations. There is no litmus test for ideal communism. Nicmart (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There's clearly a difference between the men and "versions" you mention on one hand, and Jim Jones on the other. No one on the planet adheres to Jones' interpretation of communism, and Temple membership "was never more than 3,000." (Jeannie Mills, Six Years With God, p. 45), not to mention that many members joined not because of ideology, but because of stuff like faith healings or drug rehabilitation. So while the fact Jones called himself a communist should be mentioned, it should be presented with qualifications (as a number of authors do.) It'd be somewhat like characterizing Trofim Lysenko as a Darwinian geneticist since, after all, he called his theories "creative Darwinism." --Ismail (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No ideology exists independently of the people who espouse it. The validity, or invalidity, of an ideology has nothing to do with the number of people who adopt it. That many people who joined the Temple didn’t subscribe to any or all elements of Jones’s ideology is irrelevant to whether he was a communist. The Temple’s adherence to communism was hardly a secret, and it greatly impacted the operation of the organization. There can be no objective way to determine whose communism is more authentic, anymore than it is impossible to prove who whose religion is more authentic. There are many people who claim that there has yet to be any real world communism. It’s possible to prove that Lysenkism was wrong, as has been done, through scientific methods. Nicmart (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The point isn't how "authentic" Jones' professed communism was, I'm saying that it makes no sense to equate Jones with internationally recognized theorists like Lenin, Mao and Trotsky, or simply write "Jones was a communist" without further clarification. Jones' politics were undeniably a vital part of the Temple, but it's still important to recognize, as one author notes, "From the standpoint of Marxists, Jones could best be described as a 'crude communist' who had little theoretical understanding of the labor theory of value, class conflict, or a host of other issues that Marxists use as touchstones for their debates and strategies." (John R. Hall, Gone From the Promised Land, 1987, p. 26.) The comparison with Lysenko wasn't about the authenticity of his methods either, but about the fact that just because he called his views "creative Darwinism" is not sufficient reason to write "Lysenko was a Darwinian geneticist." We would say Lysenko claimed to be a proponent of "creative Darwinism." We can say that Jones either was a communist or identified himself as such, but in either case we should clarify (as a number of authors do) that he had his own take on Marxism unique to him and obviously not shared by anyone else on the planet except a bunch of his followers. And as I said, it seems most reliable sources refer to Jones as a socialist in a catch-all manner. --Ismail (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

What a terrible mess!

This article is biased and confused too far to easily be able to find the ends of the f*c*d up threads. The article confuses Communism and Marxism! Don't! There are Christian Communists, namely the Hutterites, that would never ever think of imposing their system upon others. The following biases are blatant:

• that Jones' connection of Acts to the Gotha program is artificial, which it isn't since socialism was probably inspired from Christianity during a long time,
• that the People's Temple religion wasn't Christianity but instead a nebulous "New Religious Movement", a "communism disguised as Christianity",

It seems the editor favored citations of non-socialist interpretation of Christianity that want to whitewash Christianity from the bad reputation of Peoples-Temple-ism from an anti-Communist stance. That is biased. Preaching "freedom from religions" is not unique to Peoples-Temple-ism, it is known from Jehovas Witnesses and from Blavatskyan Theosophy too, and per se that's not a sign of Atheism. Atheism states zero God, zero supernatural things. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong. Retracted. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

There are books on the specifically "religious" aspects of Peoples Temple (most notably Salvation and Suicide and Peoples Temple and Black Religion in America) that could be cited in the article, but whether the Temple can be classed as Christian seems to be a rather contentious subject. Marceline Jones told the New York Times that, "Jim has used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion." Another problem is that Jones' theology was far more unconventional than the average Christian socialist: he argued that the Bible was literally written under King James' supervision and therefore contains a whole bunch of lies to deceive people, Jones believed in reincarnation, etc. On the other hand Jones clearly got most of his theology (in however distorted form) from the Bible and was an ordained minister. --Ismail (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Including the "Death Tape"

I recently reverted an edit which sought to remove the audio of the "Death Tape" from the article. The reason given by the anonymous editor was that the audio was "inappropriate" and "should not be in the public domain." I argue that it is nonetheless public domain and is clearly the single most famous primary source associated with Jonestown. However, quickly thinking about it, I've decided to undo my own reversion for a different reason: the audio already exists in the Jonestown article and is more appropriate there. --Ismail (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Serial Position Effect, Objection to the term "American New Religious Movement"

Perhaps the terms "communist" and "socialist" should not be way down in the introduction, bracketed by other terms. As written it seems to me to be the least memorable part of the description, and I think you could assert that that's not merely opinionative, given widespread understanding of the serial position effect. Yet the People's Temple was chiefly distinguished from other cults for taking the form of a revolutionary socialist commune.

Also the term American New Religious Movement doesn't make sense to me given it was comprised of people who hated America and renounced their American citizenship to move to the jungle and live like communists. That would be like calling British people moving to ISIL a British Religious Movement. (No it isn't.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

In regard to calling Peoples Temple socialist, I think that's fair insofar as "socialist" encompasses a broad array of ideologies (including self-proclaimed communists like Jones and utopian socialists like the Owenites and Icarians who set up their own American settlements.) As for your objection to "American" in "American New Religious Movement," keep in mind Peoples Temple spent only two of its 20+ years in Guyana, the religious doctrines Jones borrowed most heavily from were recognizably American (Pentecostals, Father Divine), and once in Guyana his followers still had American citizenship (which is partly why Jones had their passports confiscated) and continued to be monitored (albeit not very effectively) by the American embassy in Guyana's capital. The congregation was told to leave not so much because they "hated America," but to avoid internment and/or extermination in concentration camps that Jones claimed would be set up under a fascist regime in the near future. Comparing it to British citizens joining ISIL (a non-British group) doesn't make much sense. --Ismail (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

As the article stand, by 5 April AD 2021, it sounds like a right-wing explanation with no scholarly backing, using the Peoples Temple as a horror example of communist and socialist ideology. Communism is an idea, and one may call it an ideology, but socialism is pertaining to an economic theory. Many historical revisionists tries to link and blame the international socialist movement, fighting for a non-imperialist post-capitalist world, with national socialism backed by industrial magnates like Henry Ford in order to win the working class leaning towards a globally coordinated revolution in the years after the Great War. Already at this point it is clear that the article is way beyond any sobriety in regard of political bias. The formulation is not backed by sources. It is sad for Wikipedia that suchness can be standing unedited for such a long time. --Xact (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple academic works that discuss the socialist outlook of Peoples Temple, such as Gone From the Promised Land by John R. Hall and Salvation and Suicide by David Chidester, to say nothing of numerous other sources such as Raven. Do you have examples of the article citing the Temple "as a horror example of communist and socialist ideology"? --Ismail (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No one was injured?

Were there no injured people at the airstrip on November 18, 1978? There used to be a mention of Jackie Speier, but it seems to have disappeared.

The way the article is written now makes it seem as though everyone died and Bob Brown's tape miracled itself back to the US. Mentioning the 9 survivors seems too important a detail to skip over.2603:8000:2942:4A00:6482:172E:1465:D317 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

concerned relatives

This article does not mention at all the concerned relatives group. --AliceBzh (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

In its present state, it doesn't really need to. It doesn't discuss Jonestown in detail, evidently because there's already a separate article on it. The activities of the Concerned Relatives were focused on Jonestown. --Ismail (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)