Talk:Jonestown

Number of suicides.. 918, 909, 912?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Image copyright problem with File:Forbes Burnham Guyana.jpg

The image File:Forbes Burnham Guyana.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Peoples Temple Agricultural Project" ( or "Mission") Was the Formal Name

There was no formal name "Jonestown." That's what the PT members called it because of their feelings for Jones, especially after the mid-1977 migration, though some called it that before hand (most referred to it as the Project, the Mission or The Promised Land).

Because of some odd drive to delete this from the article, a cite has now been provided for this otherwise obvious reality. Please stop deleting this from the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

This is another group of Jonestown victims that suffered sever PTS from the experience. Thoughts? Skipdownthestreet.

External links

Trimmed down EL sect, added {{No more links}}. Cirt (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A list of names, photos and rememberances is at

http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/WhoDied/whodied_list.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.227.59 (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"proved instrumental"

Was the People's Temple "instrumental" in Moscone's election, or was it just useful? Is there any way to estimate the scale of the assistance? (Currently, the article just references a PBS documentary, which is considerably less useful than a textual source.) -- Doom (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Cherry picking of primary sources

It purported to practice what it called "apostolic socialism."

This statement is sourced to a primary source transcript that does not make this claim. Material from primary sources must be supported by secondary sources. I've added {{Primary source claim}} until someone can support this interpretation. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In doing so, the Temple preached to established members that "those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment — socialism"

This quote does not appear to have any relation to the primary source cited. It does contain an additional source, however, from Layton 1999, p. 53. I would like to see the context of the paragraph it is used. It is highly unusual for an introductory sections on the origins of a topic to use primary sources to support specific claims. Because introductory sections on the origins of a topic are well represented in reliable sources, it is not only unnecessary, but it is an automatic WP:REDFLAG about the claims that are used. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

After Jones received considerable criticism in Indiana for his integrationist views, the Temple moved to Redwood Valley, California in 1965.[6][7]

I'm adding {{Verify source}} to this passage, as no page number is provided for reference 6 and reference seven goes to this link which doesn't say anything at all. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference 7 just needed the link updated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I still want to verify the material because there is no page number provided, so you shouldn't have removed the tag. It's ok, though, I'll add {{Page needed}} instead. Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if you want to verify the source on the link to The Religious Movement Homepage, then click it. The statement it is sourcing is on that page. There is no need for a page number because the page is right there. How about you check it before you suggest what I shouldn't have done? When you tag a source, do not make assumptions when someone fixes the issue you've tagged. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath and calm down. I added the "page needed" link in regard to Wessinger, not the Religious Movements Homepage Project. In any case, the question at hand is, does the source support the material? As far as I can tell, not really. The RMH website says, "Jones’ perception of Indiana’s intractable racism was strong enough to make him want to move the church." It does not say, "After Jones received considerable criticism in Indiana for his integrationist views" he then moved the church. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Unlike other figures considered as cult leaders, Jones enjoyed public support and contact with some of the highest level politicians in the United States.

Source for this? It reads as well poisoning, as it is followed by:

For example, Jones met with Vice Presidential Candidate Walter Mondale and Rosalynn Carter several times.[10][11] Governor Jerry Brown, Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally and Assemblyman Willie Brown, among others, attended a large testimonial dinner in honor of Jones in September 1976.

How does this translate to "enjoyed public support and contact with some of the highest level politicians in the United States", and why the heck is this in an article about Jonestown? Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article used to discuss the nature of the sealed classified records and what is termed the Jonestown_conspiracy_theory. Could someone explain why these two important points have been deleted from the article? Per NPOV, significant POV must be addressed with reliable sources. Since both of these topics have been discussed in RS, why were they removed? I'm adding a NPOV tag as a result. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to the classified records, but the conspiracy theories were spun off into a separate article. I'm not sure how that is an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is one previous version. Here are the two sources that were used: [4], [5]. The SFGate source makes it clear that the 5000 pages of classified records and the conspiracy theories are important issues. They both meet WP:V, and per WP:NPOV, significant POV must be represented. Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And not to be flip, but my main role on this article has been clean up of reference formatting and general wikignome activities. I am not really prepared, nor do I really want, to engage in discussion about the content. I didn't write the majority of it and I am not prepared to defend or discuss it, but in all due respect, I hope this isn't carryover from elsewhere. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, and if you are willing to work with me on the reference format, I would be happy to work with you. As you can see, the references are duplicated unnecessarily due to page number. All we need to do is move the duplicated refs to a reference/bibliography section and cite the page numbers using author date format. Could you help me with that? As for the "carryover from elsewhere", yes, my attention was drawn to this article due to the actions of another user who has been active here, and per WP:HOUND, "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles," which is exactly what I'm doing. The editor in question has a documented history (multiple incident reports on AN and other noticeboards) violating sourcing and NPOV. With that said, I'm not focusing on this particular editor, but rather the problems I see in the article(s) and attempting to fix them if I am able. If this isn't clear, feel free to ask me additional questions, however, I would appreciate your help with fixing the references. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy that states that somewhere around 173 references need to be changed to that format? I don't see that these are errors, but format style and I'm not aware that there is a requirement to do so. That is a major undertaking, all of the sources referenced are also listed in the further reading section and it seems unnecessary work to me. Basically, that's way more work than I really want to devote to this article after the hours I spent on it some time ago. You added tags about concerns with content but I'm not convinced this won't just fan fires that do not necessarily need to be fanned just to change around massive reference formatting. The article is stable now, which can't necessarily be said for the past and I'm not keen on seeing it become another place for a lot of disruption, and that's the honest truth. I'd rather walk away from the hours I've spent on it than get drawn into what, from what I've seen, has happened across articles. Sorry, and like I said, with all due respect, but I'm not up for that sort of stress. The article has been visited and dealt with by a myriad of editors and this is the first time someone has said "ah geez, need to massively change the way this is laid out." Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing style on Wikipedia is inherited from the most common styles we use outside the encyclopedia. WP:CITESHORT and WP:CITEX explain how this works. Shortened notes are typically used when a reference is cited multiple times, but different page numbers are used. What is your objection to using shortened notes? I don't see how this could cause any kind of stress, but if you do, I would be happy to do the work myself. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The stress would come from what I anticipate happening once much change starts on this article and from seeing a lot of work changed around and essentially undone. It's not that I object to changing the referencing, but I don't particularly see that it is a pressing and necessary thing to do, or that it is required, although I do have concerns that errors would occur with massive changing when great effort went into assuring that the refs and page numbers that are present are correct. I also do not see that the links you provided compel a massive changeover per policy. WP:CITEX shows each of the various methods on the same text, it doesn't suggest one over the other. Massive changes like that aren't particularly the same as verifying sources or expressing concerns with sourcing and it tends to obscure what would be possibly legitimate concerns over the sources used. As I said, I'd rather just walk away from the Jonestown articles and all the work I put in rather than get involved in issues going on from elsewhere. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The benefits of shortened notes is that the reference section would be cut in half, and would become much easier to read. The repeated citation of the same source over and over is unnecessary and takes up a lot of space. Simplicity and efficiency is desired in the layout. I don't understand your "concerns" with errors, as the exact opposite appears to be true. As you can see, I have been going through the article uncovering bad URL's and poor use of sources. The point I was making with the link to CITEX is that this kind of duplication in references is generally not the best method. Can you point me to a recent featured article that has this much duplication in the references? It seems to be acceptable up to a point, but considering the amount of content that can be cut in half, I don't see why you are defending this kind of reference bloat. I also don't see what you mean by a lot of work. I could fix this with one edit. Granted, it would take me an hour or so, it could easily be done. I think this just comes down to different editing philosophies. When I see something unnecessarily complex, bloated, and repetitive, the first thing I do is work towards the goal of simplicity and efficieny - in everything I do. So, tell me, what is the benefit in unnecessary source duplication and keeping the reference section at twice the size it needs to be? Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll state my issues right here with what is going on here. I don't especially get along with the other editor who worked on this page to a great degree, but quite bluntly, given your history of conflict with that editor that I looked at, I question your being the editor who comes in to pick it to pieces. What I mean by a lot of work is that I spent hours and hours and hours verifying that the content cited here to pages from the books that I obtained from the library, some from ridiculously complicated interlibrary loan, were accurate for content and page numbering. I'm quite glad you can do it in one edit in an hour. My "concern" with errors is in them being changed or reformatted incorrectly. Have at it. Since the individual page citations should not change, and the reference section doesn't count toward article size, you won't be decreasing the number of citations, unless you're planning to combine them. I would much prefer that an editor who has not been in conflict with the other editor be the one to go through and criticize and tag issues. I'm finished with it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty, but I have no conflict with the other editor. I have a conflict with the edits of the other editor, and that has no bearing on my fact-checking, a process I have implemented in dozens, if not hundreds of articles for the last five years. In regards to article size, I was speaking of section size, in that shortened footnotes would be easier on the eye and make it simpler to cross-check between content and sources. I'm glad you clarified the type of work you did, as I wasn't aware of that. Would you mind if I put a {{maintained}} template at the top with your name on it, so that other users like myself will know that you are a go-to person on this article? I think you should reconsider your position about leaving. I have not said that I'm going to implement the referencing proposal without your support, I've merely tried to discuss it with you to find out why you oppose it. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, you are correct to have had your suspicions aroused. This editor, Viriditas, unfortunateloy has exhibited a history of WP:Disruptive editing and was just blocked a few days ago for 48 hours for edit warring on another article, including false accusations of "plagarism" and "NPOV". He/she appears to openly be carrying a dispute with me (and perhaps other editors) to other articles with the overt admission that "yes, my attention was drawn to this article due to the actions of another user who has been active here". I hope this highly troubling admission does not carry with it the manifestastion of a pattern of seeking more WP:Edit Warring across mulitple Wikipedia articles.

"This article used to discuss the nature of the sealed classified records and what is termed the Jonestown_conspiracy_theory. Could someone explain why these two important points have been deleted from the article? Per NPOV, significant POV must be addressed with reliable sources. Since both of these topics have been discussed in RS, why were they removed? I'm adding a NPOV tag as a result."

An entire article has been devoted to the Jonestown_conspiracy_theory, which is also currently linked in this section of the article currently. Further reference to this one WP:Fringe theory clearly does not make the entire Jonestown article NPOV merting such a tag.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

POV content forking is not acceptable. Every major topic, GA-class and above, that has a significant "conpsiracy", "controversy", or "criticism" attached to it, also has a summary style section about the topic in the article. Against the NPOV policy, you removed this significant section from this article entirely. As for your continued plagiarism of content, that is a fact that is not in dispute. Because of your documented history of poor editing involving cherry picking of primary and secondary sources, undue weight, NPOV violations, and plagiarism (for example, see this noticeboard reports:[6], [7]) I am checking this article for errors. It is the opinion of many editors, Mosedchurte, that you "frequently cite sources incorrectly, or directly misinterpret them" and that you "make numerous factual errors." This is ample justification for a complete review of your edit history, starting with this article, and I have intend to have WikiProject Copyright Cleanup help. But, for right now, I'm doing what I've been doing for five years, which is fact-checking and looking for POV. And so far, I've found several problems. Viriditas (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Against the NPOV policy, you removed this significant section from this article entirely."

• Yet another false accusation in a troubling series of such charges in what is becoming WP:Wikihounding#Wikihounding, originating from a series of Disruptive edits in [[Human Rights in the United States] leading to you being blocked for 48 hours a few days ago for Edit warring, including these false charges of NPOV and "plagarism", such as continued false accuasations here.
• It was not "removed entirely", as there is a link to the CIA conspiracy theory in the article now, and much of the material is in the Jonestown Conspiracy theory article.
• It was not just me that removed some of the references to the WP:Fringe material covered in another article, but other editors as well.
• That you would place an NPOV tag over the entire article because of what you feel is inadequate coverage of the overtly WP:Fringe CIA conspiracy theory re Jonestown does not help your credibility in this matter.

Re: "Because of your documented history of poor editing involving cherry picking of primary and secondary sources, undue weight, NPOV violations, and plagiarism"

Not only is this flat out false, but such violations of WP:Civil are yet further evidence of WP:Wikihounding#Wikihounding across multple articles.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What I have said above is flat out true, and you have a documented history of attacking our best editors when they point out your errors, and you have been admonished for this disruptive behavior on the noticeboards. This current article contains no mention of the classified documents and the so-called conspiracy theories, two significant topics that are covered by reliable sources and are inseparable from this topic. Your removal of them from this article was a blatant violation of NPOV and does not go unnoticed. Your contribution history shows a pattern of cherry picking primary sources, plagiarizing content from books, and engaging in poor citation practices. Because of these concerns - concerns that have been echoed from many editors over the past year - your contributions are coming under closer scrutiny. Viriditas (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) And all of this is why I was concerned, arguments from other places have been brought to this talk page. If someone wants to nominate article to be checked for neutrality or source checking, then it needs to be by a totally uninterested party who does not have a history of disagreements and prior issues. It doesn't matter how long someone has been editing here for there to be bias in some given action. What's going on here begs pointiness. Before it disintegrates any further, I would suggest requesting impartial review if your concerns are legitimately neutral or requesting mediation because this does not inspire confidence in a claim of neutral review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree, as my concerns have been focused solely on the content of the article. You are the one who introduced the topic of editors, not me. And with the copyright project agreeing that there are copyright infringement-related issues surrounding the contributions of Mosedchurte and Yachtsman1, it does not require any kind of neutrality to identify such issues. And neither is it pointy in any way to observe that the primary author of this article had been brought before noticeboards and mediation cases for his inability to adhere to NPOV and for his repeated cherry picking of source material. I have been engaged in fact checking articles for years, and this does not involve any kind of editorial bias of any kind. It is beyond strange that you would object to this, as it can only improve the article, which is my goal. Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I fail to see where they agreed with your position. You asked them to look at it: [[8]] The comments were general, no "copyright violation" was found, only policies were cited to by the member of the project who left one comment. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is the ultimate goal, then why are old arguments continuing here? It doesn't matter who posted what, the only way to disengage from it continuing is to simply stop responding to anything that isn't related to this article. And why, in the interests of improving an article, would you object to having a non-involved neutral party conduct an impartial review? Perhaps you do believe that your viewpoint isn't biased in regard to the other editor, but your above postings do cast doubt on it. Someone completely uninvolved with ongoing disputes would more likely be postively accepted and considered unbiased. It's a legitimate concern based on what transpired on this page between the time I posted last night and tonight. When you come in to an article expecting to find some issue or another, you're right, you'll find it, whether or not others see it. I reference the discussion below about the Time magazine content. Are you seriously casting doubt on the status of Time as a reliable source? Does that not ring any bells for you regarding your viewpoint? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The summary style section on Jonestown conspiracy theory no longer appears in this article, nor does the discussion about the number of classified sources on the topic. These two items are covered by reliable sources and are significant aspects of this topic. Currently, there is no mention of them in this article. NPOV means that all significant POV will be described in proportion to their coverage in the sources. I cannot see any justification for their removal. Wikipedia describes all important controversies, criticisms, and "conspiracy theories" in the body of the main topic article. This has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE and everything to do with NPOV. The same sources which describe the classified documents and conspiracy theories are already being used in the article, so there is a very serious charge of cherry picking going on here. There are additional POV issues that I have highlighted above. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The lack of a single section in an article clearly does not make the entire article NPOV. Note that the statement "This has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE and everything to do with NPOV" is quite bizarre, as the theory -- first floated by Jim Jones himself -- is quite clearly WP:Fringe (though there is an entire article Jonestown conspiracy theory) and there is no link either way to "NPOV" re its inclusion or noninclusion in this article.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you reading what I am writing? It is not "fringe" in any way to assert facts about opinions. We know, per reliable sources on the topic, that there are classified documents related to Jonestown, and we know per reliable sources on the topic, that there are conspiracy theories about Jonestown. This would be fringe, if and only if reliable sources did not discuss these facts. They do, and we best represent these assertions in proportion to their coverage in the sources. If this isn't making sense, please ask questions or take a moment to read WP:NPPOV. As someone who actively removes fringe theories from Wikipedia, I am well-acquainted with what it means, and this has nothing to do with it. You are confusing inclusion of fringe theories with the NPOV requirement of describing the existence of such theories as described by reliable sources. There's a big difference there. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would mention of the mere existence of WP:Fringe theories held by some merit more than the one sentence already devoted to them in the article? More importantly, how could the the alleged lack of a number of sentences devoted to the mere existence of such Fringe theories based on Jones' old CIA accusations possibly justify including an NPOV tag over the entire article?Mosedschurte (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Comment: I see no npov here, As stated, the lack of a single section in an article clearly does not make the entire article NPOV, and the Jonestown Conspiracy Theory is dealt with in a separate article. I concur with the other two editors that this tag should therefore be removed.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Backwards sourcing

Mosedchurte, you just added this link as a source, but the content appears to have been taken from this article. What is the date of web publication for this photo gallery? Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Time magazine. Where is the link in the Time magazine article to "this article"? And that was just one of the two sources added on the basic well-known "apostolic socialism" espoused by the PT.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a link to a photo caption that looks like the information came from Wikipedia. This is very common, as Wikipedia is free content and is typically referred to as "backwards copyvio" because some people might assume that the information came from the source before being added to Wikipedia. Again, what is the date of web publication for this photo gallery? Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How does it "look like it came from Wikipedia"? The text isn't the same, and the info is just about the most basic info on the PT and Jonestown out there virtually everywhere.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. Point me to some sources on Google Books, and I will stop harping on this specific claim. FYI... many organizations actively use Wikipedia content on their websites. "Backwards sourcing" refers to, let's say, Time magazine picking up our content, and then someone, later on, using the Time source as a reference to our content. This happens quite a bit. So, if this material is easy to source, please do so with a book from Google books. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, since there is zero indication in Time Magazine of any backward sourcing to Wikipedia, and there is another Google Books source (just google the term for massive references in any regard), then the issue is done.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked you, here, to provide one. Please do so. As for the indication, the specific words in quotes are the red flag. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What "specific words"? "Apostolic Socialism" is the People's Temple's own term, not Time Magazine's. And more sources in addition to the two that are already in the article?Mosedschurte (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Time magazine is a wp:rs. The objection appears to now be that Time magazine's source for its photo gallery/story is not a reliable source because it "might" be from wikipedia itself. This is not reflected in the policy. Time is itself a reliable source that has a vetting process. This latest objection does not appear valid on that basis. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a disturbing section. I'm flatly astounded that Time magazine is being questioned and a claim made that the magazine took their content from here is unfounded and ridiculous. The insistence that anyone produce a publication date that isn't specifically indicated on the webpage. It doesn't give it, but it does give an indication. The title is "Mass Suicide at Jonestown: 30 Years Later". The event happened in November 1978 - when then would 30 years later be? There is no foundation for rejecting what is considered a reliable source to insist upon another to settle anything that is essentially a non-issue. Sorry, but this is unfounded nitpicking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean well and have only the best intentions, but there is no indication that the material comes from any issue of Time magazine. What is the date of publication? I've seen reliable sources create web pages that make use of content taken from Wikipedia articles. This is a common phenomenon, and it sounds like you aren't aware of it. I'm not saying that is what happened here, but I am asking for standard publication dates to eliminate this possibility. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)