The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonestown conspiracy theory[edit]

Jonestown conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Bizarre non nonsensical article, clearly pushes a npov POV agenda. The body of the text is using its basis for existing by telling readers to go read old newspaper headlines, The other articles on Jonestown massacre are well written, but this needs to go. Cloveious (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I altered your comment above, to what I assume you mean. A Neutral Point Of View is a good thing, you probably mean it's pushing one particular viewpoint. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree on the merits of the article. It's only purpose has been to serve as a repository for various wacky entries that some have attempted to enter into the other People Temple-related articles. Because of the magnitude of the event, much like 9-11, it attracted a lot of conspiracy theories. This was amplified by three other causes:

(1) Jones himself generated many conspiracy theories about the Temple's destruction for years before its final demise;

(2) For the last six months of its existence, Jones actually paid noted super conspiracy theorist Mark Lane (JFK, MLK conspiracies) to help him whip up more; and

(3) Because of some embarrassment regarding their relations with Jonestown, the Soviets came out with a book in the 1980s parroting many of Jones' theories.

While they've died down a lot, many conspiracy theory materials popped up in eighties from every author wanting to make a buck was peddling some conspiracy book or article in a wacky magazine. Some of it even made it into old crazy basic cable TV show blurbs.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect Mosedschurte's comments indicate that there's some notability behind the whole thing, but having its own article would give it undue weight. I recommend merging a much reduced version into the main article (if not there already). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the article worth merging. The only notable items are already in Jonestown. The conspiracy theories about Richard Dwyer (inconsequential figure) and the fact that the media reported death toll was lower the first few days (not at all notable) aren't notable for Jonestown.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep better as separate article, to promote NPOV in the main article. This is not a POV split--we've done the same for many such controversies if they are significant enough. DGG (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established the usual way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the sources are to primary material supporting "discrepancies", and do not actually cover the conspiracy theory. Much of this article could be merged/moved to Jonestown Carnage: A CIA Crime, but I am not convinced that that book is notable. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reliable sources about Jonestown Massacre do not indicate that this conspiracy theory exists. In order to establish the notability of a fringe theory, one must establish the existence of independent sources which acknowledge the existence of the fringe theory. I have not seen any forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Here are some independent sources which acknowledge the existence of the fringe theory: CNN, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Daily Telegraph, loads more from a Google News Archive search for Jonestown+cia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a valid theory that should not be repressed. It is labelled as a conspiracy theory, not as fact, and there is a lot of evidence supporting the theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.224.105 (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is not a single shred of evidence supporting these theories. The only reason for keeping this article would be as a repository in which to shove all of the POV conspiracy material so it doesn't clutter the real articles on the subject.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There doesn't have to be any evidence supporting the theories as long as we are presenting them as conspiracy theories rather than as facts. The reason for keeping the article is that coverage in reliable mainstream sources shows that the theories are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The theories can be included in the Jonestown article if they have any merit, which looks doubtful. --Fremte (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Again, the issue is not whether the theories have any merit, but whether they have received significant coverage in reliable sources such as the ones I listed above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No. "Merit" not being about the theories themselves, but meaning that they have sufficient references from reliable 3rd party sources, and even if, that it is more appropriate to put this info in the Jonestown article. --Fremte (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm now leaning this way. The theories themselves are unwaveringly silly, but -- like the moon landing and 9-11 conspiracy theories -- they've certainly received enough attention I suppose to be covered separately in their own article as their own phenomenon. Their development (literally starting in the 1960s with Jim Jones own pronouncements of conspiracies out to destroy them) is rather interesting.

If kept, I would work on the article, redesigning it chronologically and explaining the theories and their origins. The large subesctions would be (1) Theories pre-Jonestown; (2) Theories during Jonestown tragedy; and (3) Theories after Jonestown tragedy. Obviously, Jim Jones himself is the main actor for (1) and (2). The writings and speeches of U.S. grand daddy conspiracy theorist Mark Lane would, of course, be heavily included in (1) and (3) (Lane mostly just fled into the jungle during the tragedy). The trio of Soviet authors, John Judge, Jim Hougan, etc. would follow in (3). Mosedschurte (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.