Talk:Jonestown/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"See Also"

For whomever was going to link "comparative examples," including "Heavens Gate" and "Waco" one odd thing about the PT is that there really aren't any great ones, and certainly none I can think of that fit enough to be in a section simply titled "See Also."

The PT is a political/personality cult centered around Jim Jones and hard core communism, looking to create a model community that would eventually serve as a light in a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist world. They actually disliked messainic cults. In fact, they disliked religion, being anti-religious atheists, believing religion to be "an opiate of the people." Their death wasn't to go to heaven or an asteroid or because of some extra-worldly belief (alien, religious or otherwise). It was political. A "revolutionary suicide" to protest the conditions of an inhumane world.

By far, the closest comparative cult -- if you had to choose one for a "see also" section -- is the cult of Kim Jong-il. In fact, there is little question about this: Jones actually openly often referred to the DPRK's work, study and compliance systems, speaking in glowing terms about Kim il-Sung. And millions have died there (some of the deaths quite bizarre, as well).

But I think its a bad idea anyway because there really isn't a comparison close enough to the PT to put it in a "See Also" category (that would seem to be the place for links to actually connected and related people and groups, and there are many of those not even in the See Also list). It is kind of its own category, and nothing remotely was like it before or since.

And, for whoever added "Heaven's Gate" and "Waco", I certainly don't blame you for thinking that at first. Sometimes, media people unaware of the Peoples Temple's history (except lots of people died in something) do so as well, so a lot of people reading/watching some summary media coverage alone get the wrong idea. Same with "drinking the Kool Aid."

Better and/or more direct candidates for "See Also" might be: DPRK, Mark Lane (the PT's top outside theorist and one of its lawyers--also there during tragedy), George Moscone (not comparative, but the PT's protecting angel in San Fran), Kim Jong-il, Charles R. Garry (the PT's top lawyer--also there during the tragedy), Willie Brown (the PT's biggest supporter) and Donald Freed (one of PT's outside theorists -- visited and purportedly worked on getting documentary) Mosedschurte (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The differences notwithstanding, Waco and Heaven's Gate are of comparative interest for being notorious instances wherein a cult ended in a mass slaying of its members.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So did several much larger Nigerian cults, and tons in the DPRK.

And, bluntly, there are no less than 10 DIRECTLY RELATED things that would go on a "See Also" list before the incredibly odd listing of "Heaven's Gate" and "Branch Davidians" which make little or no sense -- like the Temple's friggin' lawyers (both of whom have articles on wikipedia) before an extra-terrestrial group waiting for Haley's comet. Not to mention the long list of actual politicians DIRECTLY supporting the Temple. But then the list would be 20 long, and its probably not worth doing that.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The actual use of the "See also" list really needs to be considered here. If you will consult WP:ALSO, you'll find that the listing of related names, of the "Temple's friggin' lawyers" and the politicians aren't supposed to be listed in this section. It specifically says "Like links in other embedded lists, the links in the See also section should be worked into the text where possible." Since they are already included in the article and are wikilinked therein, I've removed those names from the list per the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines.

The purpose of "See also" is to provide a link to articles that are related, not to summarize links already present. Which brings me to the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Nation of Islam. If they are important to the story of Jonestown, then they should be integrated into the article, not left as an "oh, by the way" at the end. However, I'm not sure I see the specific relevance of including instances of mass suicide that occurred during battles or sieges in World War II or in ancient Israel or France, especially since the circumstances simply aren't the same, except possibly in ways that are much too complex to address in this article.

"especially since the circumstances simply aren't the same"

bullseye regarding alien worshippers Heaven's Gate (who purposefully killed themselves so that their souls could board a spaceship) and Branch Davidians at Waco (messianic religious extremists who were simply murdered by the building being lit on fire (by whom is debated, of course)). Couldn't have said it better myself.

In fact, now that you've pointed out the WP:Also rules (I honestly couldn't find that before), I now see that it specifically states "blue internal links to RELATED Wikipedia articles." You could probably generate 100 more "related" Wikipedia articles than Heaven's Gate or Waco. Or at at least 20. Most certainly Demmin, where almost the exact same number of people (almost 900) committed mass suicide falsely believing propaganda by cult of personality leader Hitler that an advancing Soviet force would slaughter them. To a lesser extent, Masada, though obviously the enslavement itself looked to be very real, but Jones actually referenced Masada specifically to PT members.

And the Nation of Islam and SLA aren't just related by vague implication. Their relation is explicit.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I'm afraid I have to agree with LoneWolf BC regarding the inclusion of articles such as Waco and Heaven's Gate, if for no other reason than in the minds of most people, the deaths of members of other modern cults that were either religion or pseudo-religion based are connected. Cults are remarkable for their extremist and idiosyncratic views, be it fundamental religious views, extra-terrestrial beliefs, or a homecooked religious/political brew such as the Peoples Temple (which did began as religious, let's not lose track of that fact). The purpose of offering the link to articles with similar outcomes is to allow the reader to determine what was relevant in its connection and tenets. I've not removed SLA, Nation of Islam, Masada, Saipan, Battle of Aquae Sextiae or Demmin, though I believe they should be. The two documentaries should probably be integrated into a media section instead of a "See also" list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding: "The purpose of offering the link to articles with similar outcomes is to allow the reader to determine what was relevant in its connection and tenets", that's an interesting take, but it's simply not the WP:Also rule. If you will consult WP:ALSO, you'll find that it simply states that "related" links not included in the article should be posted. Were one to take a broad readings such that all "similar outcomes" were posted in articles, regardless of extreme dissimilarities, "to allow the reader to determine what was relevant", one could list virtually 10,000 items for World War II alone.

This statement actually contradicts facts in the article: "if for no other reason than in the minds of most people, the deaths of members of other modern cults that were either religion or pseudo-religion based are connected" Yes, it began with a fake religious front cooked up by Jones long ago, but the Peoples Temple actively disliked religion in reality, and by the time of the Jonestown exodus (this article is Jonestown), this was openly admitted. Repeatedly.

In fact, by including pseudo supernatural cults or messianic cults like the Branch Davidians and Heavens Gate in what was a very short list of purportedly "related" items, one is not only including entirely unrelated cults, but -- it can be argued -- furthering the already INCORRECT notion about the PT that caused so many people (including former members and relatives of the deceased) to publicize the actual facts from interviews, tapes and documents when they were later disclosed. But the publicity damage of some generalized notion of it being some sort of religious/messianic cult already out there loosely portrayed in various media from November 1978-December 1979 was so powerful, that many people still actively hold that belief. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To Lonewolf: you can't delete every single related article from See Also while simultaneously including tenuously connected articles. Please see "WP:ALSO". Mosedschurte (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Edit warring is not the way to come to a decision about what does, or does not, belong in the See also section. There are obviously two diverse opinions at issue over this. Mosedchurte's viewpoint of Peoples Temple seems to be that it wholly and completely was a political counterculture movement. I see it as a religion based cult whose leader steadily became more politically radical even as his mental status deteriorated. I believe that Lonewolf BC sees it that way as well. I don't think that the religious factor can be ignored, despite what was changing in Jones' rhetoric. Peoples Temple leadership obviously was steering it politically, but Peoples Temple was not just about its leaders. You cannot convince me that 900+ people picked up and moved that far away because they believed that Jim Jones was strictly going to solve their societal problems. Nor that roughly that number chose death for themselves and their loved ones out of political loyalty. Jones and his cronies may have actively disliked religion, and their views may have been atheistic, but I don't believe the members of Peoples Temple had this same viewpoint. Jones may not have viewed himself as a Messianic figure, but I am convinced the members viewed him as such. They called him Father, they attuned to him as a teacher. Peoples Temple was a cult. Cults frequently present political agendas disguised as spiritual beliefs and guidance. I think that if one were to research it deeply enough, the average education level of the group would be quite low. It's much easier to misguide and manipulate those with less education, and Jones took advantage of it by presenting his rhetoric as moral and spiritual guidance. The typical person at Jonestown died because of their faith - that it was faith in Father and not The Father is an artifact of Jones' garbage. That's why Branch Davidians and Heaven's Gate is like Peoples Temple.

Well, that's a fairly ignorant view of the actual history (including even what you characterize as my view), on so many levels they're honestly not worth addressing, but it's also irrelevant to the "controversy" on the See Alsos. In fact, Temple members who actually died left suicide notes attacking outsiders falsely claiming they viewed Jones as a God, Jim Jones actually called up members believing in God and publicly ridiculed them (repeatedly), Tim Carter and Stephan Jones not only didn't think of Jones as a God but wanted him to DIE in November, and I don't even want to list the 1,000s of other facts consistent with the above.

However, none of that historical ignorance really matters. Rather, the issue is whether unrelated events occurring at other times in history should be included in the see also section on the basis of extremely tenuous similarities in a tiny handful of facts. Obviously, Demmin is certainly the closest, where 30 years earlier, almost 900 people committed mass suicide upon the false statement by their cult of personality leader (Hitler) that approaching forces would murder and torture them. I'm not sure it should even be included. But, for example, the deaths at the BATF raid in Waco, where messianic religious extremists burned in a building lit on fire (by whom is debated), literally only shares the similarities that multiple people in a cult died.

The point being that there is no way following the WP:ALSO rules that BATF Waco raid must be included over others' objections, while simulataneously, for instance, the similar Demmin mass suicide must actually be DELETED over others' objections.

Crossing the border over into utter silliness is actually demanding the inclusion, for instance, of the BATF raid at Waco while simultaneously demanding the deletion of, for instance, ACTUAL RELATED articles, like the SLA -- a concurrent California group not only referenced favorably by Jones but to whom Jones made a direct offer -- and the Nation of Islam, a concurrent group with which the PT actually had hostile (bordering on violent) relations which were healed in a televised 1976 (after Jonestown's creation) Spiritual Jubilee in the Los Angeles Convention Center involving thousands of participants, many of whom died in Jonestown.

And this is simply a gross misunderstanding of the events in the Pavilion on the night of November 18: "The typical person at Jonestown died because of their faith." The reality, as demonstrated on the death tape itself as just one source, is quite different. The mass suicide occurred because they believed forces (the GDF was mentioned at least once) were going to parachute in, torture them and kidnap their children after the murder of Congressman Ryan. Not to mention, there was no "typical person at Jonestown" -- they were an incredibly nonhomogeneous group from widely varying backgrounds (including doctors, laywers, a former CBS news correspondent and aged welfare recipients) with widely varying beliefs. Mosedschurte (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's a huge stretch to connect what happened in Jonestown with events in ancient history or extreme actions during WWII, whether Jones referenced it or not. Jones used things in reference to manipulate his believers into following his directives. This is also what cult leaders do: use the faith of followers, and the worst lead them into cult suicide.

In any case, a request for comment can be posted to determine a consensus opinion on this issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There will likely not be a consensus reached on the issues as framed above. There is more likely to be a consensus reached on whether the WP:ALSO "related" term should be interpreted broadly enough to include unrelated other events in history sharing 1-2 factual similarities. If so, then other such events including a similar number of factual similarities can be included, along with other actually directly related articles. Mosedschurte (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Where there is no consensus favouring particular changes to an article, the article is to stay as it was until and unless such consensus is gained. Waco and Heavens Gate have been in the "See also" for a long time, so they must stay unless there is a consensus to remove them. The new links Mosedschurte wishes to add must stay out unless there is consensus to include them. Mosedschurte plainly has some strong opinions in relation to Jonestown. I don't mean to disparage them, but they also seem quite ideosyncratic. In any case, he must convince the general editorship of this article to support the changes he wishes to make to "See also". He may not make them unilaterally, in the face of disagreement. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand from examing your talk page that you have strong views on a wide variety of issues. But you have now deleted sourced directly related materials complying with the WP:ALSO out of the see also section with no explanation. Wikipedia provides no time limit on changes, nor does it contain a prior "consensus" requirement. Mosedschurte (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me, since I'm fairly ignorant, utterly silly and grossly misunderstand everything, but you will have to show me where Lonewolf BC removed sourced materials. There were no citations connected in any way to any of the See also additions, and there is no precedent for the use of sourcing for this section. All I saw were short sentences to explain why they were being listed. As I noted, long ago and far up the page, WP:ALSO says "links in the See also section should be worked into the text where possible, and usually removed from the See also list unless that would make them hard to find." There is no foundation in the article for the inclusion of the greater part of the listings that were added, and frankly, it is beyond the scope of this article for a discussion of how Jim Jones and Jonestown relate to Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, the SLA, Nation of Islam, or Masada, Demmin, Saipan or the Battle of Aquae Sextiae. It might be within the scope of an article dealing with comparative politics and philosophies of these groups and persons.

And for this page's record, WP:NPA says to comment on the content, not the contributor. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding: "There is no foundation in the article for the inclusion of the greater part of the listings that were added, and frankly, it is beyond the scope of this article for a discussion of how Jim Jones and Jonestown relate to Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, the SLA, Nation of Islam, or Masada, Demmin, Saipan or the Battle of Aquae Sextiae. It might be within the scope of an article dealing with comparative politics and philosophies of these groups and persons."

This is why, after even entirely unrelated items were in the See Also section such as the BATF raid at Waco, I did not include the directly RELATED articles (such as the SLA and Nation of Islam) in the text of the article. Rather, they were placed in the "see also" section, per the WP:ALSO directives. After noticing that the "see also" section also contained unrelated articles of events occurring at entirely different times in history that shared some small factual similarities, I added other events sharing more factual similarities (such as Demmin).

I did not include the refs for the sources on the directly related SLA and the Nation of Islam articles because I did not think a ref should be provide in the See Also articles. There are references to both I could provide from Raven alone if necessary. Mosedschurte (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>No, there is no precedent for adding references to a See also section. My comment regarding that is in direct reply to your response to Lonewolf of "you have now deleted sourced directly related materials... out of the see also section." The point was that they weren't sourced and they should not be.

I've looked back over the article history at the See also section and I don't find a listing of articles of events that occurred at entirely different times in history. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, Waco, Heaven's Gate and Jonestown all occurred within approximately a 20 year span. That's last week compared to events during WW2 and yesterday compared to 102 BC. I don't see those as so widely scattered in history.

There is one point that is being overlooked here. It's usually a good rule of thumb to write an article, especially one that will be of interest to a wide group of people, at a level that will allow those people to understand it. I am of above average intelligence. I am a summa cum laude college graduate, but my degree is not in a political area. I suspect Lonewolf is also in that general neighborhood of intelligence. However, you are assuming that we should automatically understand and accept, on your say so, that this seemingly disparate grouping of articles that you've proposed should be obvious to us. That it isn't - means what? I'm historically ignorant? Thanks. I have not been presented with any rationale beyond "Jones referenced them" to explain why the SLA or Nation of Islam or Stalin or the Battle of Aquae Sextiae is directly related. Rather than go on the offensive against our opinion and understanding and pronounce it as ignorant, the burden is on you to convince us of why it's pertinent. Because it's obvious to you, in whatever area you study or have studied, doesn't make it obvious to the next, mutually intelligent person. It isn't a matter of a collective consciousness. The people on Wikipedia are as nonhomogeneous as you suggest the people of Jonestown were. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding: "I've looked back over the article history at the See also section and I don't find a listing of articles of events that occurred at entirely different times in history."

This included two that occurred in the 1990s: a BATF raid at Waco at which several Branch Davidians died in a building fire and the Heavens Gate attempted UFO ship boarding suicides

Regarding "Rather than go on the offensive against our opinion and understanding" -> actually every single proposed article link I made was simply deleted in its entirely. And remains so.

Regarding "the burden is on you to convince us of why it's pertinent." An interesting take, as well as implicitly setting yourself up as some sort of factual arbiter to be convinced. Rather than quibble about it or that characterization, here are some summaries:

Jonestown suicides - a group of 900 PT members (68% black) who committed mass suicide following communist cult of personality leader Jones declaring that advancing military forces would torture and/or kill them

GROUPS DIRECTLY RELATED BY EVENTS TO THE PT (through direct relation, not just vague similarities)

SLA - a Maoist cult operating in California while the PT was there, some of the members of which attended PT speeches, about which Jones made favorable political references and to which Jones made an offer to trade himself for Patty Hearst.

Nation of Islam - a primarily African American organization with operations concurrent with those of the PT in California that had several hostile encounters with the PT, ending in a May 23, 1976 "spriritual jubilee" (the NOI's name) with the PT in the Los Angeles Convention center attended by thousands of members of both the NOI and hte PT, some of whom eventually died in Jonestown.

UNRELATED EVENTS AT OTHER POINTS IN HISTORY WITH SOME FACTUAL SIMILARITIES

Demmin suicides- 33 years before Jonestown, a group of nearly 900 German civilians committed mass suicide believing their cult of personality leader Hitler's declarations that Soviet forces would kill and torture them all.

Masada suicides - just over 900 members of an extremist Jewish zealot group (including families) following leader Elazar ben Yair committed mass suicide in a mountain fortress rather than be subject to what they considered to be certain death and/or enslavement by Roman forces.

Heavens Gate suicides - 19 years after Jonestown, thirty eight UFO enthusiasts following cult leader Marshall Applewhite killed themselves in order to board what they believed to be a space ship traveling behind the Hale-Bopp comet.

Kim Jong-il - a communist leader of a cult of personality enacting similar work & study schedule and no emigration policies implemented by Jones in North Korea, a country explicitly cited by Jones as an exemplary communist community

BATF Seige at Waco burning deaths - 72 members of a breakaway of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, following Wayne Howell who claimed to be able to open the Seven Seals referenced in biblical texts, died in a building fire as the BATF raided the building with some sort of tank-like vehicles punching holes in the walls.

Saipan suicides - 34 years before Jonesotwn, hundreds of Japanese civilians committed suicide believing Japanese declarations that advancing U.S. forces would torture or kill them. Mosedschurte (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Death Quantifying and "Murder", "Suicide" and "Murder Suicide"

I've noticed that prior attempts to quantify those dying in the summary were left vague (with a note specifically saying such) because of some question as to whether it was "murder", "suicide" or the very odd "murder-suicide."

Going down that road can be avoided in the summary while permitting the numbers that died in Jonestown and Port Kaituma to be quantified. The actual facts that most (except Jones and Annie Moore) died of apparent cyanide poisoning and they termed the event a "revolutionary suicide" should suffice to describe it. One can read the article for more specificity. One can state such about the 909 dying in Jonestown, and refer to the 5 dying at Port Kaituma as murdered by gunshot.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how it was worded internally, the number of people who died was deliberately left vague because there were conflicting reports on how many there were. I'm also not sure when the YouTube clips were added as sources, and it doesn't really matter, but a YouTube cite is rarely, if ever, acceptable per WP:EL due to copyright problems. Since those clips appear to be from a TV newscast, copyright problems must be assumed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The final numbers were:

909 in Jonestown (most in Pavilion, 13 in Jones cabin, some in other places)

5 at Port Kaituma (Ryan, Harris, Brown, Robinson, P Parks)

4 at Georgetown (Sharon, Liane, Christa and Martin Amos)

So you see the numbers 909, 914 and 918 thrown around. Every now and then, another number (like 913) will squeeze in an article where they don't really check, or they're citing Temple members dying (909 in Jonestown + 4 in Georgetown).

Only the Port Kaituma victims were non-Temple members. Patty Parks was, but had defected 2-3 hours before her death.

The old youtube clip was from the TV show. I suppose the TV show itself could be cited. Or just leave it unsourced, which pecking around on wikipedia today, I'd say is probably about 80% of the sentences in most articles. I didn't really realize it until I started looking around, but this Jonestown article has got to be up there among the most sources/sentence on Wikipedia. Mosedschurte (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well-sourced articles is the goal, and the ultimate goal is to get an article to featured article status, which comprises a little under .0009% of the just under 2.4 million+ articles. Just below that is good article status, which is another .0018%. GA and FA have increasingly difficult criteria in referencing, formatting, linking, grammar, spelling, etc. I would venture to say that nearly every featured article has equally extensive referencing, depending on the controversiality of the subject and the actual source material available. Off-hand, I know Charles Manson, which isn't even good article (yet), Ronald Reagan, interestingly Natalee Holloway, and oddly, Religious debates over Harry Potter, are all (except Manson) featured articles I picked at random from the page with extensive citations.

When I spend any time on an article, I try to make it conform as much as possible to the criteria given what I have to work with, which is why I generally tag things I know need a source. The YouTube show most likely has a Library of Congress or similar type of cataloguing, so that is fine to use as the source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It might. Its a Guyanese TV show that went out to the site in 2003 with a former pilot who flew into Jonestown during the PT's occupation. I'm not really sure about a Library of Congress cataloguing. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

I noticed in the lead section two points that are possibly problematic. The first, which says it is "the largest such event in over 1,900 years of history" needs a reference to support it. The second, which says "the largest mass suicide of United States citizens by at least an order of magnitude" is undefined, as the order of magnitude is numerically meaningless without specific factors (the base number and the order of magnitude given). Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point on order of magnitude. I deleted that (I'd added it, but thought base 10). For the 1,900 years point, I added a "(see mass suicides)", pointing to the wikipedia article itself on mass suicides. The largest listed there was over 1,900 years earlier (Masada). Mosedschurte (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Length

I moved some more Temple (rather than Jonestown) related material to the Peoples Temple article. I also tried to eliminate some repetition and make some sentences summarize events. Much of what I'd moved and summarized was material I myself had added earlier.

The article current stands at around 68 kilobytes per the edit page label, but a large amount of that is because of the extensive sourcing -- almost every sentence is sourced, and there are a wide variety of sources which means that fewer relative ref name tags can be used to shorten the length. As well, there are extensive sections at the bottom of the article (other reading, etc.) In addition, it includes two maps (which take up a nice chunk of code) and other images. I think those maps and a images are helpful, which in this case was actually highlighted by prior misunderstandings of Guyana geography and Jonestown houses that caused some prior inaccurate edits.

This article size is smaller than huge number of articles on Wikipedia, such as ‎Franz Liszt's 218,000+ byte article, Jack Kemp's 166,000+ byte article and the 142,000+ byte article on the Beslan school massacre.

I also don't think it should be broken up any further. For example, it doesn't really make sense to have separate articles on the Port Kaituma murders, Jonestown before Ryan's visit, etc. While I favor such breakups in some articles, I honestly think it would just be annoying for readers here who likely would be clicking to read mostly about Jonestown itself and the infamous acts on November 18 (which clearly dominate the article).

The Peoples Temple section right now essentially serves as a separate breakout article for pre-Jonestown activity, along with the Jim Jones article.

Consequently, given the complexity of the event combined with the very quick and related nature of its various parts, it's my view that the article is probably around the right length as it stands.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing to note is that other sections, such as Further reading, See also, External links, and the like don't count toward the article's overall length restrictions, nor do references. There is a guide for determining length somewhere on WP, which basically says to click on "Printable version," open a new article window and copy and paste the body of the article into that and hit preview, and that will give the real overall length. This takes it down to around 41kb, which is well within size guidelines. I'd urge the return of the two references cut out in one of the edits tonight, mostly for the reason that they are from other sources than the ones that are more extensively used, such as the Jonestown Project. Since the refs don't add more to the article length, it doesn't hurt anything and does strengthen the broadness of referencing. I don't see the need for further breakdown either.

I did leave a tag or two on this article as well as the Peoples Temple article for verification of sources. I believe they have been on the articles for a long time, but they are somewhat vague. "New York Times. November 29, 1978." is one, I think, and it isn't specific enough for fact checkers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a specific SF Examiner article and a Seductive Poision cite for those two verifications. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Purported Inconsistencies

One more note: I would be fine knocking off the "Purported Inconsistencies" section and not adding it to anything else (it doesn't really fit elsewhere either). They don't appear to be important enough (e.g., Hyacinth Thrash received breakfast from locals --cue ominous music -- or did she?), but I don't know if this will ruffle feathers. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with removing this section, as in some respects, it could be construed as original research. The Hyacinth Thrush example is good... an old woman getting her times of day mixed up is not especially ominous or revealing. Besides, there is the Jonestown conspiracy article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll knock it off and see if anyone comments.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just took out three of the paragraphs and moved the Jim Jones death paragraph into the Jonestown deaths section. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the sentence or two that directs the reader to the conspiracy page? It should be noted somewhere (although I admit I didn't go through the article as it is now to see if it is mentioned somewhere else). If nothing else, a "Main article: Jonestown conspiracy theory" link would be enough. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a paragraph at the bottom of the eyewitnesses paragraph with a link to the conspiracy article, along with a note about the House Select Committee finding no CIA involvement (with ref to the latter).Mosedschurte (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh-Oh!

there is a small error in the "Origins" section. I myself don't know how to fix it; just thought I'd say something. Robo56 (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what the error is? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:55, 16 July 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. Note: I'm considering renaming this article the "Stoen Custody Battle". Thoughts? (I might just do this while that article is new and no one has yet commented upon it).
  
• 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) 13:13, 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) 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Largest Loss of Life till 2001

This is not true. A stipulation needs to be added, removing battles from declared wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.211.61 (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Single largest loss of American civilian life outside of natural disasters. 9-11 and Jonestown are I think now (1) and (2).Mosedschurte (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Source: Secret and Suppressed; Investigative compendium, "The Black Hole of Guyana, The Untold Story of the Jonestown Massacre by John Judge." Not a Reliable Source

The work has not been vetted by the scholarly community and is an extremist fringe source.

Actually, saying it is extremist and fringe is probably understatement. It contains such "John Judge" gems as "Jonestown was an experiment, part of a 30-year program called MK-ULTRA, the CIA and military intelligence code name for mind control."Mosedschurte (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir, please be careful attacking an another's work, (anywhere on wikipedia) mockingly, and sarcastically calling it a "gem." Your indictment of Mr. Judge's research as a "gem" is inconsiderate of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. How can you begin to expect others to work with you on a collaborative editing process for this article? ...if you're so ready to attempt to marginalize another editors' contributions and sources with an appeal to ridicule, marginalizing the work by it's allusions to the MKULTRA program.Critical Chris (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jones' false sniper attack' a false flag operational tactic

From section 3.2 Stoen custody dispute:

"The fear of being held in contempt of the orders caused Jones to set up a false sniper attack upon himself..."

Can this be considered a false flag tactic? If so should we include a wikified link to false flag? Critical Chris (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim Keith's "Secret and Supressed"

I've added this book to the list. Whithin this book is a haunting 37 page chapter, written by John Judge, which lays out a case, largely based on circumstantial evidence, that Jonestown was not a religious commune, but rather a violent and murderous MKULTRA experiment. Of note is Judges' allusion to Senator Ervin's 1974 Congressional report: "Individual Rights and the Government's Role in Behavior Modification" which suggests these agencies had certain "target populations" in mind, for both individual and mass control. Judge outlines, with over 291 reference citations, details of Guyanese troops discovering footlockers of thorazine, sodium pentathol, chloral hydrate (a hypnotic), Demerol, thallium (confuses thinking), halioparel, largital. He describes designs for the use of control techniques to create temporary and permenant amnesia, uninhibited confessions, creation of second personalities, to programmed assassins, and preconditoned suicidal urges. Especially graphic and outrageous is his description of the scene of the aftermath, where he contends bodies were stripped of identification, that the United States government took nearly a week to bring back the Jonestown dead, the corpses, rotting in the heat, made autopsy impossible. Judge also describes how the bodies were taken to a military mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, hundreds of miles from their families and friends in Northern California that might make identification, instead of using a military mortuary in Oakland that had been used during the Vietnam War. In the end, many of the bodies were crematedCritical Chris (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If I didn't mention it, Judge's work may be worth study if for no other reason than the sheer volume of reference sources it attempts to pull together.Critical Chris (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keith, Jim. Secret and Suppressed; Investigative compendium, "The Black Hole of Guyana, The Untold Story of the Jonestown Massacre by John Judge. 1993: Feral House. ISBN 0-922915-14-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

* Comment: See the section above this. Secret and Suppressed; Investigative compendium, "The Black Hole of Guyana, The Untold Story of the Jonestown Massacre by John Judge." is not a Reliable Source The work has not been vetted by the scholarly community and is an extremist fringe source. The "John Judge" idea that "Jonestown was an experiment, part of a 30-year program called MK-ULTRA, the CIA and military intelligence code name for mind control" is quite clearly well out of the mainstream view of what actually occurred at Jonestown. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir, please be careful attacking an another's work, (anywhere on wikipedia) mockingly, and sarcastically calling it a "gem." Your indictment of Mr. Judge's research as a "gem" is inconsiderate of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. How can you begin to expect others to work with you on a collaborative editing process for this article? ...if you're so ready with association fallacies attempting to marginalize another editors' contributions and sources with an appeal to ridicule, marginalizing the work by mentioning its allusions to the MKULTRA program.Critical Chris (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we get to attack others' work. We just don't get to attack them personally. We're pretty much required to attack sources being presented as reliable that aren't. Extremist fringe sources are avoided on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I stand corrected, never mind the "No personal attacks" thing, it's not a "personal attack," I copied and pasted the wrong policy, never mind that. I stand by the other part...Mosedschurte's mention of MKULTRA appears to be a appeal to ridicule, it's as though you've already written off that theory, so therefore, it's not good enough for the rest of us.Critical Chris (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to evaluate the reliability of a source (in this case, Mr. Judge) by evaluating other work Mr. Judge has done. In fact, it's hard to consider a source without considering the body of their work -- which includes pointing out questionable assertions. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For further reading on Wikipedia policies on including the MKULTRA "Fringe theory" in this article within proper context, see: Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Depending on it's notability, the theory, if properly sourced, possibly warrants inclusion, as well as, yes, quite possibly if it fits wikipedia policies, the John Judge work. I do need to do some homework on the sources and material, which is part of the reason I haven't done any edits to the body of the article yet.Critical Chris (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdent: It doesn't get much more fringe than Judge, whose central thesis is that Jonestown was all a secret CIA mind control experiment. Given that, it's not even worth the time going into the false facts in his works. And Judge wasn't the only one with extremist and/or fringe views on the topic. For example, embarrassed about their various links to Jones, the Soviets rushed out a book called "Jonestown Carnage" on the subject with similar extremist and fringe topics. It used to have an article on wikipedia, but it was deleted. As well, because the theories in those books matched many of Jones' rantings himself in Jonestown, a few former Peoples Temple members took up these views, including most notably Laurie Kahalas (who never went to Jonestown), who wrote about it on the internet in the late 90s.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To the anonymous IP that keeps adding CIA conspiracy sites to this article: Please stop. There is a page for such material. It's Jonestown conspiracy theory.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco Examiner logo?

Why is the SF Examiner's logo present on most Jonestown-related pages? The page for the image says "... and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey," but that is blatantly not true. The San Francisco Examiner is a well-known newspaper that is identifiable easily by words alone. At most, a wiki-link to the San Francisco Examiner article would resolve any questions about the identity of the newspaper in question. It seems that there has been a lot of work put into justifying the fact that this non-free content is usable, but no work put towards justifying that it is useful. 98.228.32.242 (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in this instance, I'd have to agree. MOS:LOGO doesn't support the use of a logo in this way, and MOS:FLAG doesn't support the use of the flag icons either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Article

From my perspective, I think that this article is most certainly ready for a shot at WP:GAN. --haha169 (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Escape from Jonestown - CNN

I'm not sure if this is the proper place for this, but I'll throw it in anyway. This contained some interesting interviews, but it also had some terribly shoddy research such that Soledad O'Brien appeared to be making up a lot of factual statements just for drama or shock value. I noticed this repeatedly. As just one of many many examples, in one particularly humorous incident, she stated (paraphrasing) "After taking Edith Parks' statement, Jackie Speier is seen here leaving to confront Jim Jones." First, this sounds ridiculous from the start: why would an aide confront Jones instead of telling her boss (Ryan). Second, it was obviously false and the producer didn't even bother to clean this up: literally as O'Brien is talking, you can see Speier walk away, except she walked RIGHT PAST Jim Jones in the background wearing his red shirt and then took a left. Not only poor research in the voice over material, but they didn't even clean up the editing exposing it.

There are several other just flat out falsehoods too. Too many to remember, such as Vern Gosney being forced by Jones to leave Mark behind (it was his choice and he has talked at length about the pain it has brought him since) and citing a Schacht "pig testing" cyanicde memo as "proof" that Jones knew he would for sure kill everyone six months before (this is simply false, the memo was drawn up specifically about killing everyone right after the devastating Debbie Layton defection in May, you can actually see part of the text whizzed by in a brief second, and Jim finally decided not to do it). Lots of inaccuries being cited for dramatic effect.

All of this is to say, O'Brien's various melodramatic voice over commentary is not a particularly reliable source. The eye witness statements sandwiched between it (by Carter, Wilson, Parks, Gosney, etc.) obviously are a different matter. In addition, regarding this whole monthly shipment/jeweler's license angle, not that any of this likely notable in this wikipedia article, but several witnesses (including I think Jerry Parks) saw one big shipment of cyanide come in just before the mass suicide. O'Brien oddly never mentions this, probably because it makes the CNN new angle on this jeweler's license not particularly important. I don't consider any of the shipping details of how-cyanide-got-there to be particularly noteworthy in an encyclopedic article (it wasn't really difficult to get then actually, especially in a poor country where getting things past customs was a joke), but I believe even Jerry Parks (one of the people O'Brien has as an interview subject) saw it after delivery in a barn.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I caught a reference suggesting that someone else shot Jim Jones, although this article cites a source that says he shot himself. 68.146.25.241 (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No. The article says the Guyanese coroner who examined the body at the scene suggested a wound consistent with suicide. Exact angle, burn marks, etc. It has long been suggested, even by Stephan, that Jim directed nurse Annie Moore to shoot Jones because he was "too cowardly" to shoot himself and Annie was also found with a gunshot wound (incidentally, the Guyanese coroner said that one was likely not self-inflicted, but she had also ingested poison, so it was probably a mercy shot). It's entirely speculation, but ever since Stephan made this guess out loud on film, it's been in every "documentary" on the topic. If one were to guess, and I wouldn't put this in the article since it's just a guess, it's also likely not even true, as the angle, location and distance likely would have been a bit different had Annie shot him. There's a lot of folklore and speculation around Jonestown.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Kool-Aid vs. Flavor-Aid

One of the lasting myths of Jonestown which has entered the popular vernacular is the notion of drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid as a metaphor for cult suicide. This article, however, reveals that it was in fact another brand, Flavor-Aid, that was used, suggesting that Kool-Aid has been wrongly linked with the massacre. I think this should be addressed in this article. 68.146.25.241 (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's in the article already probably suffices. Believe me, if you went into all the incredibly interesting and utterly bizarre things alone about Jonestown, the article would be about 30 times the size it is now. Getting into all of the fallacies around it would be several articles onto themselves. As an aside, part of the reason for the mixup is that on one of the Temple recruiting films to get members to go to Jonestown, Jones opens a locker and shows and mentions Kool Aid. Actually, even there, if you look next to it, you can see more boxes of "Fla-Vor Aid." It was a cheaper British knockoff more popular in Guyana. They had loads of it in their storage building. They used it instead on the final White Night. As mentioned, this is in the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(From an unregistered Wiki reader...) I had always heard it was Flav-or-aide too, however the audio in the CNN "Escape from Jonestown" has Jim Jones calling it Koolaide, and you can see both Flav-or-aide and Koolaide in the container. By the way, I would like to see the following link added:

(From an unregistered Wiki reader...) Could we please add a single word to the article to indicate that the flavor-aid was GRAPE flavored? This is an interesting fact that should be mentioned. As of Nov 17th this detail has not been included in the article, please fix it. Here is my source url: http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=93228&section=homepage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.150.151 (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the word "grape", why is the specific fruit flavoring of the Fla-Vor Aid that was mixed in notable or important? It had zero effect on the poison, their reasons for death, their ideology or even their food tastes. Seems to me like that's the sort of detail (like the types of cups, Jones' red shirt, Ryan's light blue shirt) that just bogs down an already sizable article.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Jonestown Apologists Alert, a lively discussion about Les Kinsolving, who wrote a four-part series of 1972 expose articles about the shananigans of Jim Jones for the San Francisco Examiner. The blog is hosted by his son, Tom, and it has some very valid things to say. For one reason or another, it has been suppressed from this site... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.239.196 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• The clip to which you are referring is a March 15, 1976 recruiting film Jones made to entice Temple members to move to Jonestown. In that clip, Jones shows off a wide variety of food items, including (the part always shown on TV now) opening a small foot locker (note: not the main storage shelves) and pointing to a few boxes of Kool Aid and Fla-Vor Aid in the foot locker, mentioning the Kool Aid by name (and not the cheap British knockoff). But that had nothing to do with what was used during the final White Night 2-1/2 years later. Also note that just a few people were in Jonestown back in 1976. Jim and some others were only visiting when they made the tape. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think linking the blog generally conflicts with EL policy, though the Kinsolvings' take on the events is certainly interesting given dad Lester's initial expose, which was obviously canceled after part 4. Certainly an interesting turn of events given what happened six years later. The links to the old Kinsolving articles themselves (they're in a few places), might be more appropriate.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• I just skimmed through some of Tom's posts. He seems a little off the deep end about the Moores and his comments seem ridiculously harsh, even in light of the fact that John Moore handed over Les's briefcase. It's been 33 years and they both have died of old age. You'd think Tom would be over it by now. Dr. Moore lost her only two sisters and a nephew. Her Dad had traveled to Jonestown in 1978, tried to remain positive about the place after visiting, in part, so as not to drive his daughters further away and had to live with the pain of that probably through his last dying breath. Dr. Moore's San Diego State site seems fairly well run, and contains a wide variety of primary research materials (Temple docs, tape mp3s of meetings, Government reports, etc.) They have Laurie Kahalas' (troubled) web pages on the site, but they explicitly state they are preserving them (she's a former Temple member) and make it pretty clear (without saying it out loud) they don't agree with her.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Defectors/Evans-Wilson Group

While both are mentioned, these aren't in the Jonestown "Survivors/Eyewitnesses" section because none of those groups were in Jonestown during the tragedy. The defectors were at the Port Kaituma airstrip (7 miles away) where the attack occurred (some fled into the jungle). The Evans-Wilson group that left in the morning was in Matthews Ridge (town over 20 miles away).Mosedschurte (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Old filing cabinet, not desk drawer found in jungle (as reported in this article)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fbCwTdp974&feature=related 98.111.199.226 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

They also found remnants of a piano, identifying the location of the "pavilion" 98.111.199.226 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

They also found what may have been part of a fuel pump nearby the truck, although the article claims "little else was found aside from a truck" 98.111.199.226 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Communism/Socialism and the media

Isn't it funny when you look back at old archives about Jonestown from our beloved media (i.e. ABC's 20/20) you rarely hear them talk about how Jim Jones used socialism to manipulate the people. He idolized the old USSR, North Korea, Cuba and other repressive communist governments. Could it be that our liberal media, then and now, completely ignored this massive part of the Jonestown story because they personally agree with this kind of government, frequently found in the Democratic party, and they know the Jonestown story makes their cause look really bad?

• No. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass suicide "trance-like?"

The CNN documentary Escape from Jonestown has audio of many children screaming and a woman protesting if the children should have to die. A survivor also says that many of the victims had puncture wounds in the arms or neck, which shows that many were murdered. However, the end of the DEATHS IN JONESTOWN segment of this article ends with: "However, survivor Odell Rhodes stated that while the poison was squirted in some children's' mouths, there was no panic or emotional outburst and people looked like they were "in a trance." This leaves the reader with the impression that the mass suicide-homicide was not as horrific as it may have been.

There are arguments that the CNN doc is not too reliable, but I doubt 1978 interview with a survivor is enough proof that the deaths of all these people was a peaceful experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.25.52 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't say it was peaceful. That's just a quote by Rhodes, who was one of the only people to see any of what happened.

There is only one woman protesting: Chrristine Miller. Her dissent and McElvane's counter are also addressed at length in the article, along with their photos. There are babies crying audibly in the background on tape for a long time, though we don't know why (it was a pretty long speech). Remember, there were just under 100 infants. The article doesn't say that babies didn't cry. Ijames and others address the crying of at least a few children. There wasn't any audible screams from adults on the tape, or at least I haven't heard any.

There are injection marks noticed on some bodies, which are also addressed in the article (read down the page a few more sections). There are no signs of broken arms or defensive wounds, so no one knows what happened. Those could have been (and frankly were likely) either "relief injections" for badly convulsing persons or just finish-them-off injections by Schacht, Ijames, Cobb, Moore or the other nurses to make sure that no one survived after just drinking the poison. As an example of something like this, Annie Moore was found with both poison in her stomach and a gunshot wound to the head (maybe self-inflicted) to make sure she died.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Larry Layton???

The only person who seems to be alive and witnessed the whole suicide/murder event was Larry Layton. There seems to be very little information available about this man.

If I were a Law Enforcement Officer I might be concentrating on him. I have not found any interviews about his description of events. It does seem a little strange that the last person to walk out of the compound alive was Larry Layton and he was not cooperative with disclosing the final events??? Of the little information that is available, Larry Layton would definitely be a person of interest!

A source that wishes to remain anonymous described that while serving time in prison, Larry Layton was actively recruiting and preaching to other prisoners. Larry Layton wanted to build a "Temple" in Isreal, he had his followers in prison train to build this temple.

What about Larry Layton???

Therover77 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• What about him? If you have some material worth adding to the article, that is verifiable and reliably sourced, we'd be happy to include it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Larry Layton didn't witness any of it. He was sent by Jones to the airstrip to "shoot the pilot of the plane", as Jones stated. That's 6 miles away. There, Layton was stuck in the Cessna (not the big plane) because none of the defectors trusted him. They all told Ryan and the media that he wasn't a real defector and he was part of some crazy Jones plan. Layton opened fire in the Cessna after the attack started on the big plane (the Otter). He was then held by the others at the airstrip, and then handed over to the local cops. He never saw anything that occurred in the Pavilion.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Was it "the greatest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster"?

This phrase is not cited and three other incidents could qualify. From most likely to least likely:

The Johnstown Flood (>2,200 dead). Although heavy rains preceded the dam break, enough human error was involved to classify it as a natural disaster, it would seem.

The General Slocum (>1,100 dead). As it was a population rich in immigrants, they were not necessarily citizens, but were civilians.

The Sultana (steamboat) (>1,500 dead). Many of the passengers were Civil War POWs, so they probably do not qualify as civilian, but that would require careful examination.

Unless someone wants to dispute these, I plan to eliminate this description. Novangelis (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

None of the three apply. Johnston Flood was in some part (actually, a major part--largest downpour ever recorded there then), a natural disaster. Sultana had many non-civilians. Like the Titanic, the General Slocum likely (in fact, certainly) had a substantial number of non-Americans (Germans), though no complete count by citizenship has been published.

That's why the soured material refers to Jonestown as the largest American civilian death toll not involving natural disasters.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying a legal resident of the United States is not an American civilian is weak. The word in the quote is civilian, not citizen. There is absolutely no meaningful analogy to the Titanic which was carrying immigrants who were not yet processed through Ellis Island. The General Slocum was carrying a local New York population between two points in New York and there might have been some non-residents aboard.

The Sultana was carrying numerous paroled soldiers. By terms of the Dix-Hill Cartel, the paroled POWs aboard the Sultana could not be in any form of military service. They were ex-military aboard the ship. It is a fine line. Novangelis (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) POWs aren't civilians, regardless of their ability to perform military service in the future.

(2) There is no confirmation on the number of American citizens aboard the General Slocum, and in fact, we knew that it was likely carrying significant numbers of German citizens.

Thus, there is no reason to think the listed sources on the subject are not accurate. In fact, there is rather the opposite -- they mostly presumably are correct, and the tangential speculation likely is not.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)