Talk:Jonestown/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

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)


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: [1], [2]. 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:[3], [4]) 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."
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: [[5]] 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)
Both the content noticeboard and the copyright cleanup board agreed that you and Mosedchurte are engaging in plagiarism, however, that is not the focus of this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 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)
I agree with this proposal.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The "old arguments" are continuing here because you are discussing them. When I arrived here, I began by focusing on the content, and I intend to return to that task. You've been discussing editors and encouraging off-toipc discussion. You still haven't replied to my question about shortened foootnotes. I've been doing fact and reference checking for almost five years. And along with copyright cleanup, these tasks are often spurred by an editor making a series of bad edits. After these edits are identified, the contribution history of the editors in question are often examined. This does not involve any kind of bias, it's how we accomplish the task and it is perfectly acceptable as I previously discussed. As for Time magazine, there is no indication it is unreliable; I expressed a concern that the URL was simply a website that had scraped content from Wikipedia, a common phenomenon on the web. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 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)
Please actually read Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The guideline explicitly allows for the discussion of the classified documents and the conspiracy theories in this article. Please actually read it before responding. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 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)
    1. You're right, there's no NPOV here. We agree for once. However, the tag will remain as not a single one of my concerns has been addressed, and a noticeboard incident concerning the NPOV problem will be posted. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
      1. As no npov exists by your own admission, the tag will be removed. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
        1. Please educate yourself on what "no NPOV" means. It means no Neutral Point of View. Do you understand? If there is no neutral point of view, the tag remains. Is this making sense to you? If not, feel free to ask questions. It's a good idea to learn what words mean before using them. Wikipedia articles must be written from the NPOV. If there is no NPOV, then we have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
            1. Then we do not agree. Do you understand? There is no violation of WP:NPOV, and that appears to be the consensus at this time, aside from your positions as stated above, which ignores any response to your points.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
              1. You have not addressed any of my points. Let's begin: 1) Why doesn't the article discuss the classified documents as it did in prior versions? This discussion is found in reliable sources. 2) Why doesn't the article discuss the so-called conspiracy theories? NPOV means that all significant POV are presented in proportion to their significance. The reliable sources discuss these theories and as result, does not meet WP:FRINGE. 3) Why does the article focus on material that is cherry picked from primary sources without secondary source support? This is just some problems from the first section. More to follow... Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a great scholarly journal article published in Nova Religio that discusses all aspects of the conspiracy theories and talks about the classified documents. Why isn't it used in this article? The author, Rebecca Moore has a biography online that reads: " Rebecca Moore is chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. She is co-editor of Nova Religio: The Journal of New and Emergent Religions, and served on the Steering Committee of the New Religious Movements Group of the American Academy of Religion for six years. She has published extensively on Peoples Temple, her interest stemming, in part, from the loss of three family members in the mass deaths in Jonestown, Guyana, in November 1978. Her most recent book on Peoples Temple is as co-editor of a volume titled Peoples Temple and Black Religion in America (2004).[6] Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you try adding it? Why are you discussing this, finding sources, and not adding it? Isn't this supposed to be about "improving the article?" If so, improve away.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Because, Yachtsman1, controversial edits are best discussed on the talk page before being introduced into the article. This is common courtesy for all parties. And since related material has been removed from the article in the past, it is best to discuss it first. In any case, I would be interested in hearing about any objections from Mosedchurte. Yachtsman1, I'm here on Wikipedia not just to improve articles, but to edit in a harmonious fashion. If that means waiting a bit longer to make my edits, I'll do that. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No, edits are edits. If you want to place this item into the article then do it, so long as it comes from a reliable source. No discussion necessary. See WP:BOLD. Indeed, I am quite certain Mosedchurte and I would prefer it that way, and we could avoid these discussions all together. Would you like me to assist? Perhaps create a new section where you can add your new-found materials? By all means, just let me know.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You are always welcome to assist. That's why I posted the link to the journal article. The full PDF is available at that site and it covers the entire issue of classified documents and conspiracy theories and does so in a very comprehensive fashion. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No, you can add it, I insist. Indeed, you found it, you came here to improve this article, you started this discussion, go ahead and edit away. Add that cite.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I just got finished saying that I'm going to wait for feedback from Mosedchurte, since he objects to the material. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Just be bold, obviate this argument. That's all I'm saying. If you have a source, and you deem it should be added in the name of improvement, just improve the article.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that works for you, but I prefer to engage in discussion on the talk page with those who disagree, first. What this means is, I'm going to wait for Mosedchurte to give his opinion since he does not agree with inclusion. Thanks for your advice, though. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No, by what I see above he disagrees with your tagging this article as NPOV, not including these materials in the article.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, unless you are Mosedchurte, and you are using two accounts, I'm going to wait for his opinion on the matter. Thank you for your concern. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(OD (1) There is no need to add more to the article already than the one sentence that already exists in this article on the mere existence of an agreed WP:Fringe theory, which already has its own article, the Jonestown conspiracy theory, and is already linked in this article. Note that the origins of the CIA theories -- Jones charges of such himself to the PT members -- are earlier also disussed in this article already. Much like Apollo 11 and the even more publicized Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, which not only have been the central subject of several books, but garnered an entire network prime time TV show 8 years ago. Note that the the conspiracy theory received one brief link in the "See Also" section of the Apollo 11 article.
(2) No one denies the very existence of these CIA conspiracy theories even 30 years later, when one can google up Jonestown and CIA and there are probably thousands of hits, and their very existence is mentioned in some articles, especially those by survivor group leaders such as Dr. Moore and Fielding McGehee. There are literally thousands of publications on Jonestown, the largest non-natural disaster death of American civilians until 9-11, 99% of which are not cited by this article. Somewhat oddly, a description of Dr. Moore's bio is included above when her most prominent book on the topic is already included multiple times as a source in the article.
(3) Re: the false charge that "Both the content noticeboard and the copyright cleanup board agreed that you and Mosedchurte are engaging in plagiarism, however, that is not the focus of this discussion.", anyone can read the discussions here, where Viriditas was specifically told the opposite: "If it's paraphrased sufficiently, it isn't plagiarism. It is paraphrased sufficiently." and here.
(4) Whether or not the three editors above or Viriditas are correct on the matter, the inclusion or non-inclusion of yet more text on one WP:Fringe theory in the article does not justify tagging the entire article with a POV tag.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not addressed the NPOV issue under discussion, and I do not understand why you have removed the NPOV tag. I have discussed the problem and you have ignored it completely. I have therefore, added a {{disputed}} tag to the article. Please use this section to directly address why you are refusing to allow the current article to discuss the classified documents and the conpsiracy theories, two topics that appear in almost every reliable source on the subject. This is not WP:FRINGE in any way, and I suggest you read that guideline very carefully. This is a classic case of NPOV, and preventing these topics from being discussed in the article when they appear in most reliable sources on the topic is unacceptable. As you know, Wikipedia relies on the best reliable sources, preferring academic and scholarly peer-reviewed articles. Please explain, then, why you will not allow this scholarly article which clearly covers the topic of classified documents and conspiracy theories to be discussed here. Please directly address this question. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I directly addressed the NPOV issue, which is why further inclusion of of more about this WP:Fringe theory should not be included in the article -- beyond the link already given to the Jonestown conspiracy theory. Please discontinue WP:Disruptive editing practices, such as false statements such as "You have not addressed the NPOV issue under discussion".
Re: "Please use this section to directly address why you are refusing to allow the current article to discuss the classified documents and the conpsiracy theories, two topics that appear in almost every reliable source on the subject. "
  • I am doing nothing of the sort. In fact, rather much like Apollo 11 and the even more publicized Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, a sentence and link are already provided to the WP:Fringe theories that exist re the Jonestown conspiracy theory. It doesn't get an more clear than that. I oppose adding more than this already existing sentence and link, but no other such information has attempted to be added recently by any editor, though it should likely be added to the Jonestown conspiracy theory article if it were.
  • Please stop including an NPOV or "dispute" tag on the entire article because of a lack of more discussion about this WP:Fringe theory. Three editors have now disagreed with you on the topic, EACH explaining why it was not NPOV.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You have not addressed the NPOV dispute in any way. Please directly address my questions. As I said above, "Here's a great scholarly journal article published in Nova Religio that discusses all aspects of the conspiracy theories and talks about the classified documents. Why isn't it used in this article? The author, Rebecca Moore has a biography online that reads: " Rebecca Moore is chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. She is co-editor of Nova Religio: The Journal of New and Emergent Religions, and served on the Steering Committee of the New Religious Movements Group of the American Academy of Religion for six years. She has published extensively on Peoples Temple, her interest stemming, in part, from the loss of three family members in the mass deaths in Jonestown, Guyana, in November 1978. Her most recent book on Peoples Temple is as co-editor of a volume titled Peoples Temple and Black Religion in America (2004)." Please directly address this question. Why isn't this source allowed to be used in the article? It discusses the classified documents and the conspiracy theories. What is your objection to using this particular source? Please compose an answer that addresses this question. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please stop ignoring direct answers to the question above, especially on the non-inclusion of the article (one of thousands on Jonestown). Please stop making false statements such as "You have not addressed the NPOV dispute in any way.", each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing.
  • Please stop making false statements such as "Why isn't this source allowed to be used in the article? ", each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing. No editor, including me, has disallowed this article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown. Rather, the issue is including further discussion of the existence of the WP:Fringe Jonestown conspiracy theory.
::::::*Please stop including an NPOV or "dispute" tag on the entire article because of a lack of more discussion about this WP:Fringe theory, especially when you have not answered why even further discussion of this should occur.. Three editors have now disagreed with you on the topic, EACH explaining why it was not NPOV. Much like Apollo 11 and the even more publicized Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, a sentence and link are already provided to the WP:Fringe theories that exist re the Jonestown conspiracy theory. Mosedschurte (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Please answer this question directly: Why will you not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article to represent the discussion about classified documents and conspiracy theories? This scholarly article was published in the journal Nova Religio, published by University of California Press. Please answer this question directly and do not change the subject. WP:FRINGE does not apply to theories that are covered by academic journals, nor those covered by the vast majority of reliable sources on the topic. The NPOV tag was added because the article is not neutral due to the continued deletion of these two topics. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(od)

  • Please stop making false statements such as "Why will you not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore " (Viriditas), each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing. The brazen falseness of this charge is especially telling for future ANI action where I directly stated above, ""No editor, including me, has disallowed this article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown." (me).
  • Please stop including an NPOV or "dispute" tag on the entire article because of a lack of more discussion about this WP:Fringe theory. Your statement "WP:FRINGE does not apply to theories that are covered by academic journals" is flatly incaccurate, as academic journals merely noting the existence of WP:Fringe theories, such as Moore's, do not make the theories non-WP:Fringe. Three editors have now disagreed with you on the topic, EACH explaining why it was not NPOV. Much like Apollo 11 and the even more publicized Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, a sentence and link are already provided to the WP:Fringe theories that exist re the Jonestown conspiracy theory. Mosedschurte (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE does not apply to theories that are covered by academic journals, nor those covered by the vast majority of reliable sources on the topic. Please take a moment to read the FRINGE guideline. Please explain why you will not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article to represent the discussion about classified documents and conspiracy theories? This scholarly article was published in the journal Nova Religio, published by University of California Press. The NPOV tag was added because the article is not neutral due to the continued deletion of the discussion of classified documents and the conspiracy theories related to Jonestown. These two topics are covered by most reliable sources, for example Moore above and the San Francisco Chronicle.[7] Could you please explain why these topics are not permitted in this article? For example, why shouldn't this article mention that there are "5,000 pages of documents" that scholars would like to examine. Could you answer that question? And why shouldn't this article briefly describe the variety of conspiracy theories from the left and the right in Brown's paper? This is part of the canon of Jonestown literature, after all. (Brown 2000) Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't misunderstood a single thing. As Brown makes clear, the conspiracy theories are part of the canon of Jonestown literature. And the discussion of classified documents is well sourced. Per NPOV and the abundance of reliable sources on this topic, a summary style section on Jonestown conspiracy theory needs to appear in this article and the classified documents need to be mentioned. Per WP:FRINGE, these conspiracy theories are notable and have been referenced extensively in a serious manner. They have also been deubnked and disparaged. WP:FRINGE does not prohibit discussing them in this article in any way, and NPOV demands it. Rebecca Moore has reported on the most significant conspiracy theories in her academic paper, "Is the Canon on Jonestown Closed?" and this paper should be sourced in this article. What is it that you find objectionable about citing this academic paper and how does WP:FRINGE prevent us from citing this academic paper? Viriditas (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: " They have also been deubnked and disparaged. WP:FRINGE does not prohibit discussing them in this article in any way, and NPOV demands"
Re: "What is it that you find objectionable about citing this academic paper"
  • Fourth time now, please stop making false statements, each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing. The brazen falseness of this charge is especially telling for future ANI action where I directly stated above, ""No editor, including me, has disallowed this article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown." (me). There is ZERO issue with citing this article. The only issue is whether further discussion of the WP:Fringe Jonestown conspiracy theory needs to occur in this article.
Everything I have stated is true and supported by reliable sources. For example, there are dozens of references to classified documents and conspiracy theories on the "Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple" website. You have cited this website around 70 times in this article, and yet not a single reference appears to these two topics. Could you explain why? Please directly address my question. Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Relationship between classified documents and conspiracy theories
  • "...conflicting accounts of what happened in the first weeks after the tragedy, coupled with the failure of federal agencies to release classified information on the organization, gave rise to a body of conspiracy theories which provides alternatives to both popular and scholarly explanations of what happened." (Brown 2000, p.8)
  • "It is clear that conspiracy theorists will continue to spin their tales as long as government documents remain classified." (Brown 2000, p.21)
    • Why aren't these important points represented in the article? There is nothing FRINGE here. Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "In 1980, the House Select Committee on Intelligence determined that the CIA had no involvement with Peoples Temple and had no advance warning of the mass murder-suicide. A year earlier, the House Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that Jones ``suffered extreme paranoia. The 782-page report also recommended that more studies be done of cults, but the committee kept more than 5,000 pages secret. George Berdes, the chief consultant to the committee at the time, said recently that the papers were classified because ``we had to give assurances of confidentiality to sources. ``This way, we were able to get better and more information, he said. But Berdes said that now, ``after 20 years, I think it should be declassified. A committee staff aide said the question of declassifying the papers is being studied. Mary McCormick Maaga, author of a new book, ``Hearing the Voices of Jonestown, said the government's refusal to release the papers ``feeds this conspiracy theory mentality around Jonestown."[8]
    • Why aren't these important points represented in the article? There is nothing FRINGE here. Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that any one point be covered in a main article to the extent you are stating. This article came in at nearly 100kb. At one point, a decision to spin off the conspiracy theory section into its own article was made based on the size of the article. The need to do so was becoming apparent as the article size was becoming too great to effectively manage. That is why there are size suggestions and the suggestion to spin off parts is included after an article becomes a certain size. There is no reason why a small note regarding the theories cannot be included with a larger link to that article and there is no mandate prohibiting that. It does not make it POV to have that content in a different article. That claim is unfounded. Further, there is no substantiation to your claim that anything has been "refused" for inclusion. That is a bad faith claim, Viriditas, and it is time for the contentiousness to stop. Beyond time. You replaced the NPOV tag with a factually disputed tag. Please delineate what facts you are disputing. Where would those be? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not following the discussion. To refresh your memory, my original post here discussed the deletion of the classified materials and the discussion of the conspiracy theories that were removed from this article. The editor who removed them was Mosedchurtre, and he removed the following information from the article:
  • "President Bill Clinton signed a bill into law in the 1990s, mandating the expiration of secrecy in documents after 25 years. It has been nearly 30 years since the mysterious mass deaths in Jonestown. The majority of Jonestown documents remain classified, despite Freedom of Information requests from numerous people over the past three decades"
  • "The sheer scale of the event, as well as Jones' socialist leanings, led some to suggest CIA involvement. In 1980 the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigated the Jonestown mass suicide and announced that there was no evidence of CIA involvement at Jonestown. Most government documents relating to Jonestown remain classified."
This information was reliably sourced in the article and its removal is a violation of NPOV. The forking of some of this material (but not all of it) into a subarticle, without any mention or reference to the subarticles that contain this information makes the current article facutally inaccurate. POV forking is significant, but controversial content violates the NPOV policy. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, desist in the patronizing commentary. You've failed to provide a link to the content you've copied above so that one can actually check the content as it existed and the sourcing. Without the sources, it is impossible to discern if the characterizations of "mysterious mass deaths" and "some" who made the suggestions of CIA involvement. Your postings are decidedly bereft of supporting diffs and completely heavy with aspersions cast upon the other editors here. And for the record, please explain why you resist either requesting an independent and uninvolved editor to review this article or that dispute resolution be requested. All we have here are your claims and very little in the way of links to policy or interpretation to support your contentions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You were given the diff to the content version several days ago, at 21:55, 25 June 2009.[9] Please try to read the discussion before automatically attacking me. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, stop with the demeaning commentary. If you are going to copy and paste content from a previous version with no diff when you post it, it's ridiculous for you to expect anyone to hunt back to a post made 150 posts ago to find it. This has become untenable, your responses are contentious and attacking and it is time to STOP that practice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You must be kidding. Please do yourself a favor and actually read what you wrote above, at 03:27, 28 June 2009. Your entire comment was one long demeaning commentary, contentious, and attacking. On the other hand, my response was "No, you are wrong, here's why, please stop attacking me." Seriously, take a break or something because you aren't making any sense at all. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Your postings are decidedly bereft of supporting diffs and completely heavy with aspersions cast upon the other editors here."
  • Agreed, and unfortunately, this is now a fairly openly brazen WP:Wikihounding that has intensified after this editor was blocked from editing for 48 hours on another article. Since that time, my mere presence having edited this article years ago has unfortunately drawn this rather abusive and disruptive editing at this article, which had been relatively stable for quite some time, including through the 30th anniversary of Jonestown, which included extensive national media coverage, including full 2 hour specials on MSNBC and CNN. The abuse reached fairly comic proportions above where the editor directly accused me five times in a row of not permitting a source from Dr. Moore, despite warnings and large swaths of text in bold stating that I had zero problem with the source. Or below, where the editor repeatedly claimed that Time Magazine had "backward sourced" this article on the most basic point about Jonestown, then later when shown multiple souces on a point, asked where some primary source material was for addition after having him/herself actually tagged the prior primary source material, which had been subsequently removed to avoid more combative WP:Edit Warring.
  • All attempts to explain the difference between WP:Notability and WP:Fringe, and the idea of giving WP:Undue Weight to extended discussions of WP:Fringe theories, even if held by many conspiracy theoriests, are simply ignored. I have even REPEATEDLY attempted to show the exemplary instance of the Apollo 11 article, where the far more prominent but also WP:Fringe Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories received a link, much like this article were a sentence and link are already provided in this article to the WP:Fringe theories that exist re the Jonestown conspiracy theory. All of this has been repeatedly ignored, with the repetition that sources describe that people believe in the CIA conspiracy theory, the mere existence of which no one disputes (like any notable Fringe theory), and combative and patronizing language to all editors on this page who attempt to address this point. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Fringe, undue weight, and all the rest of the guidelines and policies you raise have no bearing whatsoever on including reliable, academic, scholarly, peer-reviewed sources that describe and report about both the classified documents and the conspiracy theories. NPOV, on the other hand, says that we must represent significant POV in proportion to the topic and their discussion in the sources. And you, Mosedchurtre, have cited the SDSU sources close to 70 times in this article, and yet you have not cited a single one of the dozens of sources on that same website that talk about the classified documents and conspiracy theories? Can you give me answer as to why you are cherry picking here? This problem of yours was previously raised on ANI and the NPOV noticeboard, as well as in a separate mediation request and on multiple talk pages. You have also been engaged in inadvertent plagiarism. Attempts to fix these errors and violations of policy are recommended by WP:HOUND. You are welcome at any time to address my concerns. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, the pattern of ignoring all other editors' points is made for the repetition that -- LIKE EVERY OTHER NOTABLE FRINGE THEORY, such as the Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories -- reliable sources mention the existence of the theory, and OF COURSE, this includes Rebecca Moore and the SDSU site she runs. Just like every other notable fringe theory, again -- like the the Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories the existence of which receive FAR MORE mention in reliable sources, icluding the loss of key data and plans, etc. -- this presents ZERO requirement that such theories be mentioned in an article, though the Jonestown conspiracy theory is already mentioned and linked in this article. All attempts to explain this are simply igoored, with the repeated repetition that reliable sources mention that the theory exists -- a point disputed by exactly no one. I have little doubt that this point will be repeated again in further combative Talk page discussion.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
How is it "fringe" to state that "In 1980, the House Select Committee on Intelligence determined that the CIA had no involvement with Peoples Temple and had no advance warning of the mass murder-suicide. A year earlier, the House Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that Jones ``suffered extreme paranoia. The 782-page report also recommended that more studies be done of cults, but the committee kept more than 5,000 pages secret." Exactly what is fringe about this historical fact? And how is it "fringe" to observe that the "failure of federal agencies to release classified information on the organization, gave rise to a body of conspiracy theories which provides alternatives to both popular and scholarly explanations of what happened." (Brown 2000, p.8) How is it fringe to state that "conspiracy theorists will continue to spin their tales as long as government documents remain classified." (Brown 2000, p.21) And, how it it "fringe" to explain why the documents were classified: "George Berdes, the chief consultant to the committee at the time, said recently that the papers were classified because ``we had to give assurances of confidentiality to sources. ``This way, we were able to get better and more information, he said. But Berdes said that now, ``after 20 years, I think it should be declassified. A committee staff aide said the question of declassifying the papers is being studied. Mary McCormick Maaga, author of a new book, ``Hearing the Voices of Jonestown, said the government's refusal to release the papers ``feeds this conspiracy theory mentality around Jonestown."[3] Could you please explain how Wikipedia policies and guidelines prohibit and prevent any mention of these historical facts and these scholarly observations on the canon of Jonestown literature? Please directly address these points. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Because these issues regarding classified documents concern the conspiracy theories regarding CIA involvement. That is beyond the scope of an article that cover about the actual events that occurred in November 1978. That is for the article regarding the later investigations and the conspiracy theories. Those historical facts don't concern a timeline and article covering the overt events at the time of the deaths. No one said policies and guidelines prohibit this, but there are no policies and guidelines that compell them. Mosedschurte has referred to the Apollo 11 article several times. It contains no mention of the Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories beyond a link to that article and yet those theories were widely covered, researched and examined. Yet, Apollo 11 is a good article. There is no mandate that the later events must be covered in an article about the event in specific. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, these issues regarding classified documents do not concern conspiracy theories. For example, this link to CESNUR was removed from the article. And the scholarly paper by Rebecca Moore talks about the classified documents and the problems they cause for those doing research. Further commentators talk about the classifed documents in the San Francisco Chronicle[10] and the documents are discussed in the jonestown.sdsu.edu archive (which is cited almost 70 times in this article) independent of the conspiracy theories. It is a historical fact that the documents are classified, and it is a fact that scholars in the field of Jonestown research are concerned about it. There are also hundreds of refernces to the classified documents on Google books and in other reliable documents. Contrary to what you say, these issues do not concern conspiracy theories, they concern the classification of documents that scholars cannot access or study. And as the sources show, scholars in this field, such as J. Gordon Melton have addressed the issue. It is a historical fact that the House Foreign Affairs Committee classified 5000 pages of Jonestown material. Why aren't these facts in this article? Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop asking that same question with each post. It is confrontational and contentious. Why does it have to be included in this article? The article already weighs in at 99kb. It was recommended based on WP:SIZE a long time ago that content be spun into a separate article. This article was revamped to cover the events that occurred in Jonestown itself in November 1978 and the persons involved directly in those events, not investigations afterward, not researcher issues or government legislation, not legal issues researchers have with the classification or even that documents were classified well after the events of that day ended, things that occurred as ancillary events after the deaths or directly to the persons who were involved that day. It is not required that these things be covered in this specific article devoted to the event of those deaths. If discussion of that concerns you so much, then create a separate article addressing it, expand the conspiracy theory article, complain about the lack of scope there as well. That article begins by addressing the questions that arose after the fact. It has more than sufficient room to explore everything you want to cover. But, and the salient fact is, it does not make this article factually inaccurate in its content nor have you ever once explained how not trying to include all of this in one article makes it POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Questions are repeated when answers are not given. I have explained many times how the article does not follow NPOV (see Wikipedia:NPOV#POV_forks as only one example of many) and I have explained many times how the article is factually inaccurate (Moore discusses the importance of the classified documents and canon of conspiracy theory literature here and here) Per NPOV, this needs to be discussed in one article, but due to size, only in summary style. Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The Jonestown conspiracy theory article is not a fork, so your continued citation of WP:NPOV#POV_forks is entirely inaccurate. As well, this theory is already discussed and linked in a sentence, precisely like the even more notable Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories in the Apollo 11 article, which has achieved GA status. All puzzling attempts to avoid these issues, merely repeating that sources have discussed the issues of the Jonestown conspiracy theory - which NO ONE has ever disputed on this page -- is more WP:Disruptive editing.
Re: "I have explained many times how the article is factually inaccurate"
You've made this charge several times. What "fact" in the article right now is inaccurate? Not a factual "omission", but an actual fact currently in the article that is "inaccurate".Mosedschurte (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You deleted this material from the article, and this forked the material out of the parent article to the conspiracy child article by default. It doesn't matter if you create the POV fork or if you remove the content, the effect is the same. "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." You engaged in POV forking by your deletion of the material, as you did not replace the deleted material with a NPOV summary from the subarticle; As a result, the main article (Jonestown) favors some viewpoints over others, and this is the NPOV issue. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: "I have explained many times how the article is factually inaccurate"
Answer the question please regarding your continued accusation and tag: What "fact" in the article right now is inaccurate? Not a factual "omission", but an actual fact currently in the article that is "inaccurate". Mosedschurte (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The aftermath section is factually inaccurate. It mentions the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in passing, but does not mention that in 1979, they classified 5000 documents related to Jonestown. The section also doesn't discuss that in 1980, "the House Select Committee on Intelligence determined that the CIA had no involvement with Peoples Temple and had no advance warning of the mass murder-suicide." Why are these two major, historical facts related to Jonestown, not discussed in the aftermath section? And why do you continue to fight their inclusion? Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Somewhat humorously in this WP:Wikihounding campaign, you did not even bother to read the article. This section you cited was not deleted, but rather summarized and moved to another section. For example, the statement "though the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigated the Jonestown mass suicide and announced that there was no evidence of CIA involvement at Jonestown." was already in the article, moved to a different section. User Jaymax just (rightfully) moved it yet again to the Aftermath section. Note that user Jaymax was only alerted to this article by your a baseless Neutral Point of View complaint, where he (again rightfully) stated that he saw on POV problem.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Erm... I think you mean no POV problem, not on. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Mosedchurte, Jaymax directly addressed my concerns, added the classified documents back in after you had deleted it, and moved the link to the appropriate summary style section heading with the material in question. If I had attempted to do this, you would have reverted me instantly. Since Jaymax made the changes, you are suddenly in agreement with these edits. That's wonderful, whatever it takes to get the job done. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not even laughably passable. After telling you "I see no real NPOV issue here" -- which we had been saying along -- he added a single clause and cite to the ALREADY EXISTING SENTENCE ON THE TOPIC, which already included the phrase "though the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigated the Jonestown mass suicide and announced that there was no evidence of CIA involvement at Jonestown", was already in the article, and then moved that SAME EXISTING ONE SENTENCE -- the one sentence we have been arguing this topic should be limited to THE ENTIRE TIME (see above for 20+ examples) from the substantive factual section all the way down to the bottom of the article in the Aftermath section. The same sentence with one clause NO ONE had ever objected to is still the only remaining sentence on the topic in the article right now, virtually unchanged.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Jaymax directly addressed my concerns, adding the deleted material back in and moved the content to an aftermath section which conveniently links to the conspiracy article in the header. If I had even attempted to make these changes, you would have reverted my edits. I'm glad that it took a NPOV noticeboard report to get these changes implemented, and I've thanked Jaymax for his help. Now, on to the peer review... Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Laughably, MATERIAL WAS ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE -- as described above, you mistakenly thought it was deleted.
Jaymax moved that SAME EXISTING ONE SENTENCE (with one clause added) -- the one sentence we have been arguing this topic should be limited to THE ENTIRE TIME (see above for 20+ examples) from the substantive factual section all the way down to the bottom of the article in the Aftermath section
In addition, Jaymax stated

the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article"

</blcokquote>Mosedschurte (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Jaymax added the material I requested back into the article - the very material you had originally deleted and refused to add back in. He also expanded it. Is there any reason you couldn't do what Jaymax did? Why, yes - you refused. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) Simply unreal and how truly revealing. " After the continued WP:Wikihounding campaing complete with your entire push for an expanded discussion of the Jonestown conspiracy theory was brushed aside by yet another editor with "I see no real NPOV issue here" -- exactly as all three editors had been stating all along.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about what I have written. I have never at any time "pushed" for an expanded discussion of the Jonestown conpsiracy theory. In fact, I have not at any time referred to any aspect of that article. What I have said is that the current article needs to 1) mention the classified documents (since readded) and 2) refer to the conspiracy theory article in some way so that it connects directly to the main topic. Jaymax added a link to the top of the aftermath section and expanded the section to include "purported inconsistencies in the reported number of deaths, allegedly poor explanation of events related to deaths at Jonestown, and existence of classified documents". Is there some reason you could not have added this material yourself? Yes, you apparently refused to do it. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Try reading a bit closer for comprehension. None of the "facts that are being deliberately left out of the article" have anything to do with material in the Jonestown conspiracy theory article. They have to do with comments by scholars and reliable sources about classified documents and how the failure of the government to release these documents has allowed conspiracy theorists to to keep "spinning tales". If the difference between a scholarly commentary about a concept and a "push for an expanded discussion of the Jonestown conspiracy theory" is too subtle for you, then there is nothing I can do. I have not referred to anything in the Jonestown conspiracy theory article, but rather, what scholars and reliable sources say about these theories. Do you understand the difference? If not, feel free to ask any questions. When we write articles on Wikipedia, we write about what reliable sources say about the topic. The fact that reliable sources have discussed the existence of classified documents and the "failure of federal agencies to release classified information on the organization, gave rise to a body of conspiracy theories which provides alternatives to both popular and scholarly explanations of what happened." (Brown 2000, p.8) I hope this is making sense to you. Scholars are saying that the conspiracy theories are a natural result of keeping the documents classified. This says nothing about any Jonestown conspiracy theory at all. It is a discussion about the canon of Jonestown literature, and this observation is also made by religious studies scholar and author Mary McCormick Maaga in Hearing the Voices of Jonestown, and is found in the same San Francisco Chronicle article that Jaymax used. So we have a significant opinion about the relationship between the classfied documents and the conspiracy theories made by two scholars in two different books/articles, covered by secondary sources, none of which have anything to do with the expansion of conspiracy theories. Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 28 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)
Except it happens to be located on Time magazine's own website, in partnership with CNN. See WP:RS. We could also be facing the shocking possibility that the photos in question are stock pictures, and that they came from general sources, and then placed on the website for Time, in partnership with CNN. The proprosition that time "took" these photos from this article is, frankly, wildly speculative.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I never said anything of the kind. I said that reliable sources often take content from Wikipedia and use it on their website. I have no indication that this the case other than the quoted caption, but my question stands. What is the publication date of this site? Did it appear in the print magazine? In any case, it doesn't matter if other reliable sources contain the same information. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
And my point stands. It's a reliable source. The date of publication is irrelevant.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You are ignoring the point. If the date of publication is after the material was added to this article, there is a likelihood that some Wikipedia content was scraped from here and placed on the website. Of course, if this is actually from a print publication, then this is irrelevant. Is this from a print publication? If so, what issue and when was it published? Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I am merely discounting the point. Do you understand? Whether it was placed in a magazine made from dead trees, or is set forth on Time's website, it remains WP:RS. Can you direct my attention to anything in wikipedia policy that support your present position that whether it was published in printed, paper form makes a mainstream media outlet "more" reliable than its website? Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Published sources are certainly preferred over web sources, and our guidelines make that clear. See WP:RS. In any case, could you point me to a source that says the same thing as the Time site? Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and it has been "published" ... on their web site. Time is a reliable source.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you please directly answer my question? Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The question of directing you to a source that says the same thing as a reliable source?!!? Why is this important?Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you knew. Basically, whenever we source something on Wikipedia, it's a good idea to show that the material is accurate and authoritative by finding additional sources that say the same thing. What this means is, for any claim that is challenged (or not) it should be easy to show that two sources are in agreement. This is a great way to end a discussion, as it provides support for a specific claim that may be disputed. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Right... They're pictures, what does the article "say" precisely when the subject is a picture?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Mosedchurte is using the link as a source for the caption that supports the text in this article. He isn't using the link for the photos. We generally do not use captions as reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The photos are attributed to SF Examiner, AP. The writing comes from a reliable source that utilizes a vetting process. We use such sources on this site for that reason. The source checks out.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources have publication dates and authors. We do not cite anonymous captions. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
And where, may I ask, is this new definition of reliable source found? Please direct me to the policy that reliable sources have publication dates and authors and wikipedia does not cite anonymous captions. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, to begin with, photo captions aren't reliable sources. Second, reliable sources have authors and publication dates. The WP:RS guideline spells this out, in that "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors", and "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available". So, could you please provide me with the best academic and/or peer-reviewed sources that make the same or similar claims? Anonymous photography captions aren't on the same playing field. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) Re the statement "Sorry, I thought you knew. Basically, whenever we source something on Wikipedia, it's a good idea to show that the material is accurate and authoritative by finding additional sources that say the same thing", the continuing attacks on reliability of Time Magazine, especially on a point as basic as the Temple's "Apostolic Socialism" philosophy is ridiculous. There are TWO SOURCES listed now. There is no dispute on the accuracy of the text for which it is cited, nor does a single WP:reliable source ever dispute this basic fact about the Temple's philosophy.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, please provide a quote from one of these reliable sources here. Anonymous photography captions do not count, so please do not cite that here. I would like to see a source that does not cherry pick quotes out of context, and that accurately reflects the content and context in the way you are using it. This should be very easy. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This has honestly got to be a joke:
  • Dawson: In a striking way, the Temple also reconfigured the various available missions of the local church as a social institution by radicalizing the social gospel through a congregational communal formula of "apostolic socialism" and direct social ministry, combined with a leftist political agenda in the wider society."
  • Time Magazine: The Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, as it was formally known, was founded in the 1950's by Indiana native James Warren "Jim" Jones, who preached a quasi-socialist philosophy that he called "apostolic socialism." (note: IN NOW WAY does this reference Wikipedia or even copy its text)
  • Yet another source, Childester: The Apostolic Socialism of the Peoples Temple fused the communist slogan of Marxh's Critique of the Gotha Program with the depiction of early Christian communities in the Book of Acts in which those apostolic Christians held everything in common.
  • Yet another source, Wessinger: Peoples Temple members were building a community based upon "apostolic socialism" in which financial resources were held in common to serve the needs of all community members.
  • Yet another, Walliss: Indeed, by the mid-1970s it was clear to those who heard him preach that Jones was not only a Communist, but that he was promoting a much more radical ‘theology’ of ‘Apostolic Socialism’ within which the ‘Sky God’ of religion was rejected in favour of what Jones termed the Divine Principle or Divine Socialism. Mosedschurte (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Why would you cite an anonymous photography caption on a website that lacks a publication date rather than using Dawson, Childester, Wessinger, or Walliss? The current article states, "It [Peoples Temple] purported to practice what it called "apostolic socialism." Could you give me a source that shows the People's Temple (or Jones) saying that? That kind of primary source would go very well with the secondary. So, where does Jones or the Temple say that? Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: " Could you give me a source that shows the People's Temple (or Jones) saying that? That kind of primary source would go very well with the secondary. So, where does Jones or the Temple say that?"
Again, this is simply incredible: You yourself slapped a primary source tag on a prior primary source for this exact point, whereafter it was removed to avoid some potential WP:Edit War in which you have (and are) engaging regarding the NPOV tag, and here is another where Jones states "but we claim openly that we are apostolic socialists. We let the world know it. We’re the only ones that’re not afraid. We don’t hide our light under a bushel".Mosedschurte (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No, asking you to show me the primary and secondary sources for a specific claim is part of the fact-checking process. There is nothing "incredible" about it. Why did you choose the terms "purported to practice" and why didn't you use this primary source in connection with any number of the reliable sources? I'm not understanding why you would not use the primary and secondary source together. That's what they are for. The secondary source supports the inclusion of the primary. Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: WP:V does not mention captions as being unreliable at all. It simply states: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Web publishing is publshing. The source is reliable. I am still not seeing why this presents a problem, or how it violates verifiability requirements.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:V has nothing to do with this point, so I don't know why you are distracting away from the discussion with it. We already have 1) academic and scholarly sources which are preferred 2) primary and secondary sources that cite an author and publication date, and 3) anonymous photography captions are not used as sources in any articles. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
And no point has been made. The source is reliable. Captions from photos are fine as long as it comes from a reliable source. You are the one distracting by asking us to "verify" the source from the reliable source itself with uour comment above: "Per WP:V, please provide a quote from one of these reliable sources here". The source's reliability is not in question. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You aren't paying attention. We have more reliable sources that anonymous photography captions, and they include author and publication dates. We always use more reliable sources whenever we find them. I hope that clears up your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
While you are missing the point. We have "a" reliable source, and your contention that it is not reliable "enough", and that we should use another "reliable source". It does not effect the fact that the source is still reliable. If you would like to add "another" reliable source, please do so.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you are missing the point. An anonymous photography caption is not used in any article as a source, if we cannot ascertain certain aspects about the material, such as author and publishing date. This material in particular, does not seem to be taken from any issue of Time magazine, and if it is, I have questioned the issue and date because I was concerned about backwards sourcing from Wikipedia, a common phenomenon on the internet. In any case, we have now been provided with more reliable sources than an anonymous photography caption posted to an online website, and we will use those sources instead. Whenever possible, we replace poor sources with better ones. That is standard procedure. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have to agree here. While this section took a turn, there remains a fundamental issue in that you have clearly stated, over and over — that Time magazine's reliability is in question. You have done so in more than one way. You've claimed that they copied their text from Wikipedia, you've insisted that because that page does not name an author or have a date, that the content is in question, you've claimed that because the magazine published this online it makes it less reliable, and on and on. You have failed to show any policy here that validates those claims. In fact, not every article in Time or on their website distinguishes an author, and not every page will be dated. That has nothing to do with whether content from that publication is reliable and it is disengenuous to claim such. The copying from Wikipedia claim is most outrageous. Are you actually declaring that a major publication, Time magazine, has essentially plagiarized content from here by failing to honor the terms of use requiring attribution?? Do you have proof of this? Have you posited a question about the reliability of Time in the appropriate boards? Has it been presented to Wikimedia for action? No?? Then it is subterfuge.

I suspect that the primary source was originally removed because you posted tags objecting to it, and not because anyone was trying to do anything underhanded. What I see was a good faith attempt to meet what you were demanding. Is there no reason why - over 24 hours ago - you did not simply say "Hey, this primary source needs a secondary source to go with it" instead of waging a full-on battle about the reliability? Is there some reason you simply did not say "It would be of more benefit to find a different secondary source for that" rather than again take on the reliability of a major publication that has not, to my knowledge, been questioned in regard to that reliability. This is part and parcel to the concerns I've voiced about your reviewing this article. Your statements and claims are not constructed in a way that invites discussion. They take the form of attack and read as aggressive and confrontional in nature. This is why I questioned your neutrality to review this article. This is still why I do. You do not leave an invitation for discussion, you attack and demand a defense. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of what you say makes any sense. As far as I can tell, the primary source was never linked to the statement in question until Mosedchurte provided it above; It was not removed because of any tags I added, nor has anyone removed any content or references. In fact, I'm going to add the link. Understand? You seem to be looking at this backwards. We simply don't use anonymous photography captions as references in any Wikipedia articles and more reliable sources about the quote have been provided above, so this argument is no longer active. My request has been satisfactorily met with the addition of more reliable sources, and I intend to modify the article accordingly. So, this entire discussion has yielded fruit, although I see you are still chewing on sour grapes from the shortened footnotes discussion. My neutrality here has never been in question. The question under discussion is the neutrality of the article, and that is the issue you have not addressed. Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
As I stated at WP:NPOVN, do not make assumptions about my intentions. Your comments are patronizing and demeaning and indeed constitute personal attacks. Your entire post above this one constitutes bad faith and incivility. You may think that you are neutral regarding this article, but factually, your entire history here is rife with POV. Let me refresh your memory since you claim that your neutrality has never been questioned: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. That you have now turned your posts to assumptions and personal attacks upon me, disregarding comments and continuing your aggressive and confrontational posts only reinforces this. You've been asked for the policy regarding photo captions and your contention that Time plagiarized the caption from Wikipedia without correct attribution. Because you are satisfied with a link given does not make that issue go away. You raised it, you defend it. And also for your edification, this disputes your contention that "It was not removed because of any tags I added, nor has anyone removed any content or references." Look again, even the rationale given was based on your issues with the primary source. Please stop disregarding facts. My issues with your involvement on this page are completely supported by your behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
In order for my neutrality to be questioned, you would have to show a non-neutral concern or edit. You haven't and you can't. I came here due to the neutrality concerns expressed by multiple editors via NPOV and AN/I noticeboard incidents. What I found is that the same editor who was accused of cherry picking and NPOV violations also committed them in this article. Additionally, I came here with concerns about plagiarism from the same editor. Checking up on the contributions of editors who have documented issues with NPOV and plagiarism is not a neutrality issue. It is due diligence. I'm sorry that you feel attacked, but you haven't addressed the underlying issues that I've raised about this article. Instead, you have repeatedly changed the subject to me. That's a neat trick, but it's painfully transparent. I hope you will change this tactic and help me improve this article. I've just submitted a peer review to get us on our way. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, I don't have to point to non-neutral concern edits. This entire talk page is a road map to your lack of neutrality in regard to Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 and your original purpose stems from your issues with them, not this page. You have referred to copyright violations and plagiarism when examining the noticeboard page reveals a less that clear consensus that it occurred. You linked to an AN/I discussion from nearly a year ago and you have repeatedly attacked those editors, and now myself. I find your apology holds no water. You absolutely ignore the diff I provided that proved that a reference to the primary was removed because of your tag about it, despite your crystal declaration that no one had removed a reference. Your bias against those editors is crystal clear. You've posted a factual inaccuracy tag on the article but have consistently failed to prove that any factual inaccuracy exists in the article. As I said a while ago now, when you come into an article with a bias or prejudice expecting to find something, you will find it. And if not, then we'll just accuse Time of fletching content from Wikipedia to use in their content. I requested that dispute resolution be requested on this page, not a peer review, because this isn't a problem with the accuracy of the content that exists on this page, it's a problem with your mission. But for the record, I have addressed questions you raised, it's just that you are either ignoring my responses or choosing to overlook them. Someone who is consistently involved with disputes with an editor(s) and warring with them is not equipped to neutrally evaluate anything those editors are doing. I agree, it's not due diligence, it's wikihounding. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are misinformed and seem to be deliberately changing the subject of my NPOV and factual accuracy concerns. I'm sorry, but I am not the topic here. I came to this article and found that the material about the classified documents and conspiracy theories had been deleted by Mosedchurtre. Can you explain why you haven't added them back into the current article? Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Duck and weave, duck and weave. You came to this article to expose what you expected to find, and have manufactured issues. Again, please provide specific examples of factual inaccuracies that exist in this article - not content that is not required by any policy on Wikipedia to be included on this article rather than on the conspiracy theory article. There is no mandate that the conspiracy theories be discussed at all in this article when another ancillary article covering that exists. And when a content dispute is underway, it really isn't advisable to start changing article content, especially when one side of the dispute makes implications that have nothing to do with the actual content. But then, why haven't you added them back? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It is factually inaccurate not to discuss the Jonestown documents that were classified, nor to mention the canon of conspiracy theory literature that surrounds the topic. These two things appear in reliable sources about the topic and need to be represented here. Contrary to what you say, there is a mandate to discuss the conspiracy theories here, per Wikipedia:NPOV#POV_forks. Please read it. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's examine Wikipedia:NPOV#POV forks.

"A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Does this apply? Absolutely not. There is no indication anywhere that anything about conspiracy theories or classified documents is being avoided or anything in any regard is being highlighted either negatively or positively. The article was revamped to cover the events at Jonestown on the day of the deaths. There is nothing whatsoever inherently POV in that in any way. It was not shunned as avoiding controversy and there is no evidence whatsoever anywhere that this was an intent or motive to make a spin off article due to the current article size. You've given no evidence whatsoever, supported by either word or diff, to substantiate that this is valid.

The article then provides a link to WP:CFORK. That page says:

"POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." Does that apply? No. That is not what occurred. The conspiracy article and any related content does not qualify as an article with another version of the same article from a different point of view.
"Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Did that occur? No. Your referral to it as a NPOV violation based on a spin off of content does not qualify and by definition above is a POV judgment accompanied by bad faith assumptions and accusations. There is no basis for what appears to be your assumption that something is being avoided or suppressed here, no evidence anywhere.

That one aspect of a topic is covered in a separate article does not make the remaining content factually inaccurate and you cannot support that it is. Your assertion that content not pertinent to specific events in Jonestown and Guyana in November 1978 is not included does not introduce factual inaccuracy. Conspiracy theories, classified documents regarding subsequent investigation and later researcher issues about the events after the fact do not impact a timeline based article about the actual events. Those come after the fact and perfectly acceptable for coverage in an ancillary article. You are reaching for an issue that does not exist and it has gone way way way past pointiness. You've also neglected to address why it is only suddenly an issue on this article and so far, only from your POV, but not for the Apollo 11 article, which is a good article, or why it is acceptable for similar content for other articles to be in a separate article. Your assumptions are wrong and you can repeat the same thing over and over but you have provided no proof, only your POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My concerns were directly addressed by a neutral third-party from the NPOV noticeboard, so I have no idea what you are going on about now. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonestown/Archive_3&oldid=398015219"