Talk:Jonestown/Archive 6

Proposal for revision of table of contents
In order to improve this article I propose the the table of contents be reconfigured. By doing so, this article could meet the featured article criteria for structure. Section 3 has a lot of problems. With nine subheadings it is overwhelming. Also- the section heading is named, "Events in Jonestown before Ryan visit. A few of the subsections include Ryan's visit as well as the airstrip shootings. Some information in the sections can be moved to other sections.

The original table of contents beginning with sections three to six read as:

•	3Events in Jonestown before Ryan visit o	3.1White Nights rehearsals o	3.2Stoen custody dispute o	3.3Exploring another potential exodus o	3.4Concerned Relatives o	3.5Conspiracism o	3.6Jones' declining physical and mental health o	3.7Initial investigation o	3.8Visits to Jonestown o	3.9Port Kaituma airstrip shootings •	4Deaths in Jonestown o	4.1Survivors and eyewitnesses o	4.2Medical examinations o	4.3Notes from deceased residents •	5Deaths in Georgetown •	6Aftermath

I propose that it look like this:

•	3Spiraling Down •	3.1 Jones’ declining physical and mental health •	3.2 White Nights rehearsals •	3.3 Exploring another potential exodus •	3.4 Concerned Relatives •	3.5 Conspiracism

•	4 Visits and Investigations •	4.1 Congressman Ryan’s Visit •	4.2 Defectors

•	5Port Kaituma airstrip shootings

•	6 Jonestown suicides and murders •	6.1 Medical Investigations •	7 Deaths in Georgetown

•	8Aftermath •	8.1 (info from original aftermath section) •	8.2 Survivors and eyewitnesses •	8.3 Notes from the deceased

I believe this format would significantly improve organization.

Lalunajf (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Added Information 4/18/2020
Added content to the "Selection and establishment of Guyanese":

Although Jones, his executive partners, and congregation voiced their thoughts about moving their operation to the Soviet Union, Jones had a change of heart. He had stated that he preferred to stay within the Guyanese borders because of the sovereignty it afforded them.

An addition of content was made to "Exploring another potential exodus":

Jones was skillful in presenting the Guyanese government the benefits of allowing the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project to settle within its borders. One of the main tactics was to speak of the advantages that their American presence near the Guyanese border of Venezuela. This idea seemed promising to the People’s National Congress who feared attack from Venezuela

Guyana-Venezuela territorial dispute
An editor recently removed another editor's changes and stated, "The territorial dispute has absolutely nothing to do with this topic." While I support the removal insofar as the dispute was mentioned in an irrelevant manner (it was merely stated that Guyana's control of the region was disputed by Venezuela), it is worth noting that the dispute does in fact have some relevance to Jonestown. To quote Raven, in the eyes of Guyanese officials "a thousand or so Americans less than thirty miles from the Venezuelan border would help Guyana maintain its tenuous foothold and would lessen the possibility of a Venezuelan invasion or seizure. They would hardly want to provoke an international incident with the American government." (p. 239) --Ismail (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge
Formerly a POV fork containing huge swaths of WP:OR and uncited speculation, Jonestown conspiracy theories has been cleaned up. The remaining material can be appropriately merged into this article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd advise against it. Unlike, say, the JFK assassination, conspiracies about Jonestown are not usually discussed in books and articles about the settlement. Jonestown is a subject that happens to have conspiracy theories about it, like how there are claims the American Revolution was the work of the Illuminati or that the Catholic Church invented Islam. Compare this with the aforementioned JFK assassination which is almost synonymous with the conflicting theories contradicting the Warren Commission. --Ismail (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Jonestown conspiracy theories is a content fork for fringe views. Such a page is not for indiscriminately listing all conspiracies (notability be damned!), and yet that's all it was before a major pruning. The resulting is suitable as a small section of the parent article. Estheim (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To add onto my earlier comment, I'm against incorporating the Jonestown conspiracy theories article into this one because, to me, that'd be like having a section in the Catholic Church article covering conspiracy theories of Papist plots to take over the United States, that Jesuits are behind Communism, or all the other conspiracies associated with Catholicism. I think it'd distract the reader. Better to have a separate, detailed article on Jonestown conspiracy theories. As far as I know, while conspiracy-theorizing about Jonestown is by no means rare, such theorizing doesn't dominate media and academic discussions of Jonestown like the JFK assassination does. --Ismail (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the merge as there's not much content for a separate article when using decent sources. — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support merge, as the material makes better sense in context per WP:NOPAGE, and avoids the POV fork issue. Alexbrn (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support merge as it is a very brief article, or deletion as frankly these are absurd theories and what really happened in Jonestown is not disputed by any serious researchers, Soviet propaganda aside. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Death Tape Content Warning
I would like to suggest that the audio file of the Jonestown deathtape included in this article have a content warning placed on it. I respect that the file is a historical document and therefore can be used to provide more insight into this event. However, it is extremely confronting and has the potential to cause psychological distress. I was 24 years old when I listened to its content, and I was so disturbed I didn't sleep for three days. The file should remain attached to the article and easily accessible as it is an extremely important document. However, because Wikipedia is such a public platform with open access to people of all ages and backgrounds, placing content warnings on sensitive material allows readers to make informed decisions when engaging with sensitive content. I understand Wikipedia does not commonly use content warnings on its articles which are predominantly text based. However, nor does Wikipedia use explicit images, particularly on articles on sensitive topics (I notice no photos of the corpses at Jonestown are included in this article). As this audio is explicit, I feel in the interest of safety, a content warning is warranted, for the same reason that images of the deceased from this incident have not been included in this article. 124.149.229.101 (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't do that. See Content disclaimer. The reason there are not images of the aftermath is almost certainly because there are no freely-licensed images from that period that could be used here, not because we wouldn't use them. There are, for instance photographs of mass graves in articles about the Holocaust. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Jonestown location and the 1978 Jonestown Massacre should be two different articles
While there already exists 2 articles discussing Jonestown location + events and the conspiracy theories behind it respectively, the remote settlement has much information compared to the massacre that occurred on November 18, 1978. I say there should remain “Jonestown” and an extra page for “1978 Jonestown massacre” as one can discuss the settlement, it’s history, members, the aftermath and briefly about the massacre. While the other can discuss 90% about the massacre, the airstrip murders, “Death Tape”, aftermath of the murder-suicides and briefly about the location. CanadianOntarian (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of adding a proposed split template to the article. I assume you are looking to split it right about at what is currently section 3, "Events in Jonestown before Ryan visit"? I would add that while it is certainly possible to do you what you are proposing, you haven't really been explicit about why, so that might be helpful going forward. I would also suggest that "1978" isn't a necessary disambiguator as there was only the one massacre, if we do this it could simply be split to Jonestown massacre, which currently redirects to this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An independent article on the massacre could be added to Category:Massacres in the 1970s, but an article for the entire settlement would be out of scope. Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I feel compelled to ask that why is that? Beeblebrox (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Kellis7 16:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, what I’m suggesting is Jonestown (location) should be one article, and the Jonestown Massacre should be another. The assembly of the location and the massacre were two separate topics all together. I also agree that we shouldn’t add 1978 to it CanadianOntarian (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there's enough reliable sources to more than adequately fill two separate articles: one on the Jonestown settlement and another focused on November 18, 1978. --Ismail (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Shall we proceed with this transformation then? Jonestown (location) will contain information and sources regarding the settlement, it’s residents and geographical information. Jonestown massacre shall contain information and sources regarding the murder-suicides, a brief description of the Airstrip murders, the “death tape” and more about the killings. CanadianOntarian (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment I don't think the place and the event can be so distinctly separated. I doubt anyone would question this page's inclusion in the Massacres category either, so I'm not seeing why that would be reason for a split. Yeah, it 'can' be split, but I'm struggling to come up with why a reader would only want to read about the location in isolation from the murder-suicide-politics-etc. If it were a settlement before Jim Jones, or had any settlement since then (it's not on the census of Guyana but there is another settlement by the name: Jonestown, Mahaica) but it's not. If anything, more information about the settlement-aspect would serve to enrich this article and I don't see it adding any sort of undue weight as it is. A split makes it run the risks like the Jonestown conspiracy theories article which ought to be merged. While I understand Place vs. Event (and I've wondered the same about some articles), I'm not seeing a clear benefit for a split. Estheim (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess I would have to say I am opposed to the split at this time, for the simple reason that I have not seen a real answer that explains why it is a good idea. I'm open to changing my position should a cogent argument detailing why the reader is better served by two articles be presented. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the reader would be necessarily better off with two separate articles, but there's definitely a lot that could be said about the settlement itself concerning housing, administration, punishment, entertainment, work, relations with Guyana's government and the outside world, etc. I think if there was going to be two very detailed articles on Jonestown as a settlement and "Jonestown" as a synonym for November 18, 1978, splitting them can be justified easily enough. But as it stands, there seems to be no guarantee that will happen, so I agree there's no compelling reason to do so. --Ismail (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, when you are reading an article about a murder-suicide that was the second-largest loss of American life, people wouldn’t understand why the title is named a town; specifically, the settlement Jonestown. They’ll most likely think they are reading about the settlement only instead of the massacre. When I searched up Jonestown on wikipedia, I originally thought it an article would contain the words: “murder-suicide” or “massacre” but I was confused along with other classmates who were researching about the topic that the only article primarily about the murder-suicides is named “Jonestown” and not “Jonestown massacre”. It would simply be more informative to the reader that the settlement and the massacre were two different subjects. I can see why the majority is against splitting but I would ask for a name change to “Jonestown massacre” or making two articles regarding Jonestown settlement and the Jonestown massacre respectively. CanadianOntarian (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that the settlement is notable because of the cult and the mass suicide, literally the only things that ever happened there. If it were a real city, that existed before and/or after these events, it would be different. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * While it's accurate to say Jonestown in pop culture is practically synonymous with the mass murder-suicide, plenty of things "happened there" prior to November 1978. I also don't see the relevance of Jonestown not being a "real city." Jamestown was settled by less than 200 persons, and according to a 1620 census roughly the same number of people lived in Virginia as would end up living in Jonestown. To give another historical example, the Oneida Community at its height had less than 400 persons. Yet innumerable books and articles have been written about Jamestown and early colonial Virginia, as well as about Oneida. And indeed, plenty of books and articles discuss life in Jonestown. So while I don't necessarily advocate splitting the article into two (as explained above), there's definitely a sound rationale for doing so. --Ismail (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's an abbreviated timeline:
 * 1974: Jones negotiates the lease for the land where Jonestown will be established
 * 1975: A small group settles there, some construction takes place
 * 1977: Jones and several hundred followers arrive, there is an international custody dispute
 * 1978: the massacre. Most of the bodies are removed to the US.
 * early '80s: an unspecified number of Hmong refugees lived in the overgrown remains of Jonestown for an unspecified length of time
 * Only that last item is not directly related to the People's Temple. Both Jamestown and Oneida had lingering historical effects. Jamestown being the first "white people" settlement in what is now the United States, and the original townsite is a national historic park. Oneida, oddly, turned from a free-love cult into a cutlery company that still exists today. (In fact I have a chef's knife made by them.) Jonestown's entire history, except for the brief, under-documented later occupation by the Hmong, was only about 4 years of settlement by Jones and his followers, and is now... nothing. If the article was very long I could see the case for splitting it, but it really isn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My point wasn't to compare Jonestown's historical significance with that of Jamestown or Oneida though. It was to point out that not being a "real city" has nothing to do with whether a detailed article could be written about Jonestown as a settlement on the basis of existing, reliable sources. To give a third example, New Harmony under the Owenites lasted only two years and had less than a thousand people, yet numerous books and articles discuss life there. --Ismail (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Do numerous books and articles discuss life in Jonestown before the massacre? We aren't talking in generalities here, we're talking about if it makes sense to split this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, numerous books and articles do discuss life inside the settlement, not just the mass murder-suicide. This applies to both works by former members as well as academics. As I've explained above, I'm actually against splitting the article. I just take issue with the notion that we shouldn't split the article because supposedly nothing "happened there" besides mass death. --Ismail (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)