Talk:Ted Kaczynski/Archive 1

Relation to Polish statesmen?

Is he related in any way to the twins with the same family name who rule Poland? --Vladko 05:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm afraid not". Barry Kent 21:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unorganized comments

The paragraph in Early Life and Mathematical Career beginning "Kaczynski is mentioned in a long-ignored personality profile of Adolf Hitler..." doesn't make sense to me. I'm confused by the phrasing of the paragraph - is TK mentioned in the profile of Hitler, or in the work of the man who wrote the profile. Is the quote by Dr. Murray or about Dr Murray. Should be clarified or dropped, as it's not sourced anyway.--Rapscallion 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response from that Jan 5 note, so I have removed the paragraph in question. I've 'saved' it below in case the original author (or someone) wants to clarify. -- Rapscallion 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"At Harvard, Kaczynski participated in a several-year personality study conducted by Dr. Henry A. Murray, an expert on stress interviews. Murray, who worked for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during World War II and mentions Kaczynski in a long-ignored personality profile of Adolf Hitler, was himself a controversial figure. Having returned to Harvard after the war, he organized psychological experiments in 1959–1962. A centerpiece of the study was a stress test similar to one the OSS had used to assess recruits."

Someone anonymous replaced that paragraph without editing. It STILL doesn't make sense, but I'm not going to get into a revert war. Hopefully it'll get edited by someone with sources. -- Rapscallion 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference to the Technological Singularity, since the concept does not seem to appear in the "Unabomber manifesto" - certainly, Kaczynski has never referred to the concept in the terms used by transhumanists.

I feel the Zodiackiller connection needs to be placed a hell of a lot furter down in the depths of the article, as it is pure speculation and not fact.

I am going to edit accordingly.

Yeah, perhaps even use an username accordingly, too...smartarse...heheh.--OleMurder 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "Kaczynski can be reached at":-section really be in this article? It feels a bit too personal to be in a wikipedia article.--Marxmax 22:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I did find it quite amusing.--PoptartKing 21:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Killing three and wounding 29. He was the target of...."

"Pleaded guilty in 1998 to letter bomb attacks that killed 3 people and wounded 28 others,"

Which one is it, 29 or 28?

Perhaps both. What if someone was half-wounded...or, uh...recovering at the date of writing? Who knows!? We'll just say 28.5 for safety sake.--OleMurder 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone seen the Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders DVD? This is where the Zodiac/Unabomber parallel is mentioned. Someone should investigate this so as to provide an interesting theory towards Kaczynski on the wikipedia entry. It's not conclusive, but it's something to note. I added some information in the article's headline only as a means to spark interest among the topic.

Nope, but perhaps you could tell me where it's possible to get it. You got a contact in the black market or sumethin', perhaps you can'eh....HOOK ME UP? ;)--OleMurder 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That he got a Polish name, it does not make him Polish-American. Where is the evidence he got anything to do with Poland or Polish culture (Except some family roots in the distant past)? All I could find Polish about his was that his father was in "kelbasa"-business.

So...that doesn't count, eh? Well, thanks for takin' a leak at his "heritage", but hey, it's too late for piss and vinegar now. Those people's had their REVENGE...--OleMurder 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are his family roots Polish-Catholic? Did he dye his hair? Or is he part Celtic because he has red-hair?-Informationguy

You ask alot of question's, stranger. Z'hat is not quite healthy. Perhaps, thee should be more cautious...or, atleast, more quiet about it. To answer yer questions, I suggest you consult his brother...or my more dubious and expensive inner-coat information. Care to purchase?

Sneak-peak:

1. There's no such thing as "Polish-Catholic". Poland is a country, Catholism is a religion. Whoever describes their nationality as "POLISH-CATHOLIC"!? Poland is also protestantic country, goddarnit! They are irrelevant to each-other.

2. Specifify the colour, and I might answer. Perhaps in his youth, he did?

3. Yeah...everyone knows that being a Celtic is all about having red hair, so as soon as someone has red hair, you assume they're (possibly trying) to be Celtic? Whatever even had said celt's have anything to do with the color red? It's all a coincidence! If they've "chosen" it, it must be because it's a demoralizing color in battle, or just symbolizing allegience. Plus, Celt's have little in common with both Catholics and the Polish, whatever he is or did it for, he ain't both! Plus, religious people seldom do dye their hair.

Hope this can "clarify".--OleMurder 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice entry. Kudos to all who worked on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.255.83.xxx (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2001 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, ContinuUM News, a newletter of the UM math department, ran a brief synopsis of mathematical findings attributed to Dr. Kaczynski. Perhaps someone still has a copy and can add the gist of the piece to the article in a reasonably nonderivative way.

Someone left this question in the article, Re K's brother:"

[So how come he's named here?]

The answer is, of course, that his identity became public, he's written about the incident, and there was discussion of what to do with the reward money. (I don't remember the details, so can't add them to the article.)--Vicki Rosenzweig 23:12, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I added a comment about that to the article.--Securiger 01:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just came across this psychological profile of the Unabomber, produced by the FBI in October 1995. The profiler in question apparently had a lot of other successes, but this one is quite marginal:

FBI prediction	Correct?
Drives an older car in good condition.	No - Did not have a car at all.
May have a wife or girlfriend.	No, never had a relationship with a woman, was hostile to women whom he considered "manipulative", but considered sex change surgery.
Likes to discuss the bombings -- How stupid the FBI is, how smart the bomber is.	In letters only. Not face to face.
Probably visited the scene of his early bombings, talked to police, asked questions, maybe even offered advice.	Don't know.
He may have taken a plane trip this summer.	No.
Will kill again, despite promising not to.	Did not, although as he was arrested only 6 months later and averaged 9 months between bombs, he may not have had time. A completed bomb was found in his cabin.
White male.	Yes.
Now living or working around San Francisco.	Nope, Montana.
In his late 30's or 40's.	Nope, 53 at the time.
Meticulous.	Yes.
Underachieving.	Depends how you reckon it; He attained a professorship by the age of 25, but then deliberately and consciously "dropped out" of mainstream life.
Intelligent.	Yes.
Relatively anti-social.	More like extremely anti-social; He was a hermit.
Probably keeps a scrapbook or diary of his deeds.	Yes, a detailed diary, and also notebooks of bomb designs and test results.

I wonder if it's worth mentioning how far off-base the FBI were?--Securiger 20:58, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good article.--Koyaanis Qatsi 02:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. While it may not be as exhaustive as some others, this article really satisfied my curiosities regarding TK very well. Just seemed to clearly hit all the right points.--✈ James C. 01:01, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

NPOV?

The following seems to have a slight POV problem to me: "...Though it's scope is extremely broad, as Kaczynski also devoted large sections to railing at 'leftists' and 'oversocialized types'."

"Railing at" someone has a pretty negative connotation; IMO, this should be reworded. However, the rest of the article seems to be NPOV.

If, having read the manifesto, you can think of a more appropriate word than "railing"... please feel free to reword.--←Hob 03:31, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

In addition, the segment "The stigma of its author's criminal acts has limited its popularity as a source in discussions of technology..." seems to be somewhat unjustified; I see very little to justify this; it seems to be unencylopedic and possibly biased.

This is one of the rare cases where Wiki's, generally positive, efforts to be neutral make me a bit queasy. Still on rereading it it wasn't quite as "positive" on him as I thought. That his ideas are taken as seriously by some as they apparently are disturbs me a bit, but if that's the reality it's the reality. Reading a bit of his deal from Wikisource it's not quite as crazy sounding as I thought, but then again some of the jihadist types are also quite erudite and logical in their way.--T. Anthony 15:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but I can't think of a better phrasing at present. Be bold!--←Hob 03:31, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

To me, the phrase "railing against leftists" by itself gives the immediate impression that Ted was a right-wing nut. While true to an extent, I think it would be prudent to mention Ted's criticism of conservatives, such as paragraph 50 in his manifesto: "The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values."

Well? The entry was totally just a derivation from the original manifesto. Mentioning it doesn't mean any POW at ALL, because it's taken from what he said, a QUOTE, and doesn't reflect any opinion of the editor at all. Using a quote in itself is generally neutral, and anyone saying anything else is spouting utter nonsense! It is NOT POW.--OleMurder 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math

"...A pure mathematical problem about functions and circles that Duren said had no apparent practical application."

Does this really need to be mentioned? Isn't this very common in graduate math research? The sentence implies that pure math is something rare, when it really isn't, especially at the doctorate level of education.--✈ James C. 04:44, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Respected bombmaker

I removed Ted Kaczynski is highly respected by Muslims, especially Palestinians for his bomb making abilities. by an anonymous user because I felt that this information added nothing of informational value to the entry and is pure opinion if is in fact true.--oo64eva (AJ) 01:39, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Better picture?

Is there a better picture of this man available? The current one is too small. Also, most post-arrest photographs are very undignified.--Iusenospace 03:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found a picture and placed it in the article. Its credited to AP but should be allowable under fair use, hopefully.--Nayra

That's at least a better photo. Thanks for taking the time to do this. --John Lunney 07:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the picture comment. The picture with the orange top is completely biased against Kaczynski and shows the article's lack of objectivity. There are better pictures available. --Peter Thottam 00:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've cropped the pic and it now has no trace of the orange prison garb, SqueakBox 00:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Influences

In an article reproduced here, mathematician Stephen Smale comments that Kaczynski was likely influenced by mathematician Alexandre Grothendiek, who visited Berkeley and gave a lecture on the "perils of modern technology" around the same time Kaczynski was there. It would be interesting if someone could find more specifics on the circumstances noted in this particular anecdote.

First it's Grothendieck not Grothendiek and he has some strange ideas of his own: [1]

One story has it that Grothendieck is now convinced that the Devil is working to falsify the speed of light. Schneps ascribes his concerns with the speed of light to his anxiety about the methodological compromises physicists make. He talks constantly, however, about the Devil, semi-metaphorically, sitting behind good people and nudging them in the direction of compromise, of the fudge, of the move towards corruption. ‘Uncompromising’ is the expression Schneps favours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.207.203 (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Type of Chemical Explosive?

In the interest of being accurate rather than morbid, and with legitimate concern of what kinds of explosives can be manufactured commonly (What to beware of), has any report revealed precisely what kind of explosive he used which fit into the size constraints of his packages? Or which could survive the handling of mail couriers?

Atlantic Monthly article on Harvard experiments

The Atlantic Monthly had an interesting article describing some bizarre psychological experiments that undergraduates such as Kaczynski took part in, and left some with psychological scarring, that might explain some of his later sociopathic behavior. Would be nice to have some discussion of this background in the article.

FYI Alson Chase wrote the Atlantic article , the books in the bibliography by him are also about it. --GangofOne 06:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Profile

"FBI Agent John Douglas, the father of "profiling" criminals, disagreed with this. He claimed the bombs were much too sophisticated and that the bomber was most likely an academic. Profiling was a new investigative tool at the time and Douglas's theory was largely ignored. After Kaczynski's arrest, the FBI came under much criticism. It was pointed out that if they had only checked into the disgruntled academic theory, they could have easily caught this man many years earlier

This needs footnote. Where and when did Douglas say this? I think this is hindsight. Also, profiling is new, and has not been verified scientifically, despite their claims. This paragraph believes tv too much. Also, do they keep a list of "Disgruntled acadmeics"? Probably pretty long.--GangofOne 21:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say the FBI kept a list of "disgruntled academics, but one of their agent might have. Anyways, he was proved to be right and deserves all the praise he can get. But that he could've been caught earlier thanks to the "theory", is all very suspect. It's not sure if that would've helped for or against, it's a possible scenario lost to time. Plus, there's probably tons of "disgruntled academics" as Gang of One pointed out indirectly, why would've it helped to narrow down the search in any way? Too many suspects to deal with, still. And hard evidence is still required...Just findin' a disgruntled academic and arrestin' him would've lead to public outrage.--OleMurder 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He claimed the bombs were much too sophisticated and that the bomber was most likely an academic." Is this an accurate reflection of what Douglas said? Wouldn't an airline mechanic, having extensive practical experience with mechanical engineering, probably be able to construct a more "sophisticated" (and functional) bomb than a math professor? A mechanic sure wouldn't use wooden plugs on a pipe bomb, but my quibble is with the word "sophisticated," not the conclusion. --El Mariachi 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crimethink

"During the height of the mainstream media campaign against Kaczynski in the spring of 1995, a "commando team" associated with the CrimethInc. ..."

Documentation? Is a copy of the text available? DId the insert actually get printed?--GangofOne 06:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the paragraph is accurate. I could be wrong, but I thought the piece ("The Unabomber: A Hero For Our Times") was published elsewhere; either Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed or Green Anarchy. Anyway, if the Washington Post did end up publishing that it shouldn't be difficult to find a ref.--Bk0 (Talk) 13:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Browse the site fer yourself, for link's and article's, if you wish. I'd wager to think that'd help ye in yer search, aye, young pirate.--OleMurder 12:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crimethinc didn't exist in 1995.

Opening

Terrorism is a word we are strongly advised to avoid using in the case of people, and there is no reason to have it here. What he is is a convicted murderer. It is wrong to say that he was attempting to fight (What he percieved as) the evils of technology as it legitimises what he did if you buy in to his technology doom theory, and one does not equal the other. While he did have some clear insights into the technological dilemmas we face this should not be connnected per se to his murdering people, which at the end of the day he did because he wanted to kill people, may have been schizophrenic, etc. Lets not give any creedence to his idea that our technology dilemma means you have to go out and kill people. Wikipedia must not indulge in such terrorist encouragement POV.--SqueakBox 17:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was he not trying to kill people involved with techo-industrial projects specifically because they were involved with techno-industrial projects?

Possibly. He killed them because he was pissed off/mad and justified his crimes as they're working with techno-industrial projects. He undopubtedly opposed techno-industrial projects but we cannot say with certainty that that was his real motivation.--SqueakBox 14:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was still terrorism; To a lesser degree. For an ideology, just as much as Al Quaida's, only by one individual. Y'see; It -were- bomb's, not guns or swords or knives he killed with. It assualted entire areas, such as a computer-shop. Definately small-scale terrorism, in my humble opinion, but perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned first that he's a terrorist in-way's. Just 'rat he's convicted murderer, and later the "terrorism"-issue of him as a sabotageer, when the article later dwelve into the topic.--OleMurder 12:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly he was a terrorist. To give you an idea, read this blog entry. Terror was his goal and the Wikipedia would be wrong not to say that. --71.136.79.237 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IQ

I've altered the statement on his IQ. The fact that he had an IQ of 170 at age 10 is meaningless; IQ is weighted by age. His IQ should therefore always register around 170 so I've altered it so it states his IQ was found to be 170 at the age of 10.--Davril2020 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism section

Please source There is no indication that he ever had any contact or involvement with an anarchist movement prior to his arrest, making his adoption of the term seem uninformed. This For a contemporary discussion of these issues from an Anarchist's perspective, refer to "You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship: The Anarchist Case Against Terrorism"[2] is totally unencyclopedic, what has it got to do with Kaczynski? We are interested in Kaczynski not in Anarchism, and esp not an article about anarchism from offsite inserted as something we should read in the article. looks suspiciously like spamming, SqueakBox 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please source It is arguable that Kaczynksi has been embraced more readily by the anticapitalist and anticosmopolitan far-right, particularly adherents of ecofascism and Third Positionism. His attacks on leftism, "the modern world" and politically correct so-called anti-racism as a "system value" are reminiscent of the traditionalist philosophies of Julius Evola, who is often considered the most important ideological force behind these groups though there is no evidence that Kaczynksi believed in rascism. as it looks to me like original research.

I finally removed the rest of the section Although Kaczynski called himself "Anarchist", some Anarchists disagree as to whether his manifesto truly represents an anarchist critique of technology. Some anarchists agree that his tactics (similar to the theory known as "Propaganda of the deed" which was adopted in the late 19th century by Russian Nihilists and a small minority of German and Italian Anarchists) were unacceptable terrorist acts and with no chamce of creating meaningful change.

Some believe his writings to be naive and reductionist. Some such as John Zerzan find the manifesto insightful and worthy of consideration. Many, however, feel the detrimental aspects of being associated with the Unabomber outweigh any value that might be found within his writing..

I have now removed the whole paragraph as original research and someone's POV. It is not encyclopedic and someone's original speculation about Kaczynski's relationship to anarchism is not appropriate. We know he had a connection with John Zerzan but that is mentioned elsewhere and should not be mentioned in the context of speculation on Kaczynski's alleged anarchism, SqueakBox 15:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, per this rationale I will remove all references to him as an anarchist (other than his own verifiable use of the term, eg, the "anarchist" group "FC"). On a side note, I find your mispellings and bizarre formatting somewhat off-putting. --Bk0 (Talk) 16:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You what? Spelling mistakes? I haven't made any, one typo, what are you whingeing about? I agree about the further removal of anarchist except for self-reference but have replace terrorist wioth hermit in accordance with wikipedia policy about not over-using words like terrorism, SqueakBox 17:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But of course feel free to correct my bad American as I am not very good at American: being English we weren't taught it at school, SqueakBox 17:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., the alleged "anarchist group" of his, "FC", didn't really EXIST...in mere definition of a GROUP...If so, he was their ONLY MEMBER...leader, and follower, at the same time.--OleMurder 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto

I am familiar with the manifesto. Nowhere does he state he thinks industriasl society can be beaten nor that it is likely to crash. Nor does he anywhere state that a crash would make people happier and simpler, nor does he praise these qualities. he says people would have a much greater sense of power process if society were to crash but he doesn't make any other promises about how it will be. He certainly doesn't think people might be happy in such a circumstance though he does talk about fulfilling the power process indirectly but we would need a fuller description of the power process for that level opf detail to go it and it was just misleading in terms of what he really said. I got the feeling I was reading the opinions of a wikipedia editor not those of Kaczynski. I think the critique could be a lot better but at least it is not now inaccurate, SqueakBox 17:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books and pop culture

The article states

"In a letter dated October 7, 2005 Kaczynski offered to donate two rare books to the Melville J. Herskovits Library of African Studies at Northwestern University's Evanston Campus which was the location of the first two attacks. The recipient, David Easterbrook, turned the letter over to the university's archives."

I'd be very interested to know what the books mentioned were.

This isn't relevant to the article as it's currently constituted, but I'd also like to say the techno group Underground Resistance named a track on their album "Interstellar Fugitives" "Unabomber" and the album cover was inspired by the crime sketch of him. Perhaps we could have a "Pop Cultural references" section (maybe including a link to the skate clothing label mentioned in the dismbiguation page of "unabomber"?)

Hmm, highly dubious to add such a section, but okay...al'tho it's a bit "morbid", I suppose it's true to fact some people draw referral to it...but those who do, are hardly "popular culture". Perhaps reword it to "underground culture"?--OleMurder 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "leftist"?

Do you perceive him as a leftist? He is put into Category:Left-wing American terrorists, which is not only arbitrary, but also ironic, since a good chunk of his manifesto is a sweeping diatribe against the left wing. GregorB 22:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His critique on leftism shows he is clearly no left-winger and I have therefore removed the category. Please read or re-read The Industrial Manifesto before considering reapplying it. His Psychology of Modern Leftism is a fundamental part of the Industrial Future and its whole argument is against the lefty politicaly correct approach that he fears will be the modern technologically controlled world, SqueakBox 23:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life in prison

Why do we have his contant info here? Melchoir 11:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I came here to post the same thing. Since it's been addressed/no one answered, I'm going to remove it. sinblox ^(talk) 19:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of his life, that's why it is here! It's not supposed to be deleted. --Maxl 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth versus Lies

I've removed the line on his "memoir" Truth versus Lies. There's no trace of this work in Amazon.com or the Library of Congress. Unless someone can provided documented evidence that this book exists, the sentence should not be reincorporated to the article. Sir Paul 07:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Versus Lies Theodore John Kaczynski ISBN 1893956008 Pub. Date: 11/1/1999 Publisher(s): Context Books http://www.ecampus.com/book/1893956008

NATIONAL DESK | November 5, 1999 National News Briefs; Unabomber's Book "Theodore Kaczynski's book, Truth Versus Lies, is pulled from printer after last-minute haggling between Kaczynski and his publisher, Context Books, over legal concerns about its contents" http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/theodore_j_kaczynski/index.html

By DOREEN CARVAJAL "Context Books is struggling with how to promote forthcoming memoir Truth Versus Lies by Theodore J Kaczynski, jailed for life in Unabom case; says book does not dwell on bombings because his case is before appeals court" August 26, 1999

By JAMES BARRON WITH DAVID M. HERSZENHORN "Public Lives column notes that ...; also notes that Theodore J Kaczynski, Unabomber currently in Federal prison in Colorado, has written short story called Ship of Fools that will appear in Off!, magazine published by students at State University of New York at Binghamton;"

"Theodore Kaczynski's book, Truth Versus Lies, was pulled from the printer on Wednesday after last-minute haggling between Mr. Kaczynski and his publisher, Context Books, over legal concerns about its contents. Days earlier, Mr. Kaczynski had tried to void the book deal, Beau Friedlander, publisher of Context Books, said yesterday. Inside NYTimes.com

"Context Books - 12/8/2003 - Publishers Weekly Financial problems continue to mount for Context Books, a small New York City indie house that has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy since November of 2002." http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA340451 I note http://www.contextbooks.com is there, but no content.

not available at http://bookfinder.com . It exists, he wrote it. It doesn't exist, it's not available. GangofOne 09:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High School life

Ted went to my High School, Evergreen Park Community High School. I feel this should be elaborated upon, and if I can help anyone with documents, I would love to. Mitch 20:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Authorities said it had enough firepower to obliterate the plane."

I find this unlikely; it takes an awful lot of power to obliterate a plane. I don't know what the supporting source for this comment was, so I'm not game to touch it, but can someone please verify this is the appropriate term? Irrevenant 21:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

typewriter and bicycle

He used a bicycle and a typewriter, which are forms of technology. Perhaps someone could add this to the article. Family Guy Guy 02:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...So are the pipe bombs, and he is not exactly proposing an economy dependent on that, is he? I mean, how much more of an honest luddite can you get when one is talking about the Unabomber? He lived in the middle of the forest. Being dependent on products of the technological system is not alien to his argument, but part of it. So what if he did use forms of technology to fight back?Maziotis 17:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Errata

The link in the article claiming to be the Unabomber's manifesto with an errata, it's not in fact an errata, as in an article with side notes correcting factual mistakes. It is just some guy giving his opinion, sometimes very easily disputed. This link violates the principle of partiality, since his opinions represent a particular vision of one author about a political movement, which response is not represented. Most of the arguments presented are somewhat basic concerning the types of questions that are lengthily dealt with by various well-established authors.Maziotis 23:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to get the link of, nor did I try myself to do that. But I just wanted to possibly warn you about this disguised form of cheap propaganda.Maziotis 12:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First sentance not NPOV

I felt the wording of the first sentanced emphasized his role as a terrorist too much. He was and did other things. I felt it neglected that he was noteworthy in other aspects of his life. In general I think that his crimes as terrorist are overshadowing his work in mathematics. Terrorist might be too emotional a word as well.

This article tells mostly about his crimes. If I understood graduate math I'd help out more. But I'll leave that to the mathematicians out there.

Changed from:

Theodore John (Ted) Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an American terrorist convicted...

Changed to:

Theodore John (Ted) Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), most known as the Unabomber, is an American mathematics professor, political activist and essayist. Considered a terrorist by many, he was convicted...

While "terrorist" may be an unnecessary characterization, the notability of his "political activism" and essays is primarily dependent on his bombings. Stating merely "he was the Unabomber" is not at all helpful for someone who does not already know who the Unabomber is. —Centrx→talk • 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any evidence he was known for his mathematical contributions. I havent heard that he made any m,athematical contribution but instead dropped out after showing an unfulfilled potential. I would equally say that his ideas are significant and that while his ideas wouldnt be being discussed without him having blackmailed the press that he would commit more atrocities if they didnt publish them that the ideas are not being discussed because he was a terrorist but because of the quality of his thinking. This is why Bill Joy and others who loath terrorism take the ideas seriously, SqueakBox 02:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According the article, a member of his dissertation committee states that "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 people in the country understood or appreciated" his dissertation, and that he held a National Science Foundation fellowship. He also has 9 publications in major peer-reviewed mathematics journals. As for essayist, he wrote one essay. I am still tentative about mathematician, the reason it is there is it seems strange to have a biography begin "Ted Kaczynski is a person who bombed...". —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt surprise me what you say given what I perceive as the quality of his later thinking though I would still argue that what makes him notable is not his mathematics but his crimes and particularly his thinking (I am disgusted by his crimes and would have no interest in him were it not for his essay, which makes a mockery of his claim that nobody would have listened to him if he hadnt murdered people as it his ideas not his crimes that are truly notable). But I am not suggesting changing the opening as he unquestionably was a mathematician even though that in itself wouldn't have warranted an article here, SqueakBox 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you've done mostly. I made 2 small changes; 1. Where you've said "mathematician and hermit" I changed it to "mathematician turned hermit" to reflect that he abandoned his highbrow academic life. As for his claim being a mockery, I'd have to disagree. In the piece that you quoted, clearly he was noteworthy for his accomplishments in math. He was obviously well respected in certian acedemic circles. It was his political ideas, not his MATHEMATICAL theories that he felt others would not listen to had he not committed the bombings. I would still argue that he was a political activist and essayist. He did write more than one essay outlining the political motivation behind his acts and his terrorism IS his activism. Simply because you or I do not agree with his methods, does not mean that what he did was not political activism. Activism is not necessarily harmless.

oops... I said two things! I added his terminal degree after his name.

What I disagree with is Kaczynski's claim that he had to kill people to get his political ideas across whereas I would argue that if he had stayed in the academic community he could have created a voice for himself through academic brilliance and hard work in the way that Noam Chomsky, another brilliant academic with radical ideas, has done. Indeed Chomsky is much more influential than Kaczynski. Had Kaczynski been an academic people would have listened more not less to his ideas. I have certainly had people refuse to discuss his ideas with me because of his criminal record, they believe that precludes the possibility of taking his ideas seriously which is very sad as Kaczynski's ideas of technological domination are worthy of far more mainstream debate and are certainly more relevant than they were 11 years ago, a debate I believe Kaczynski could well have initiated if he had been a respectable mathematics professor. Mathematician turned hermit reads well, SqueakBox 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky was in his hit-list. So I doubt he would have wanted to be anything like Chomsky so that more people would listen to him.delmet 12:28, 11 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Really? I never heard that. Wow, that's kinda surprising to me. Do you have a source? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 08:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/thehour_player.html?20060313-Activism_chomsky. delmet 19:58, 12 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Math skills

The article says "He did well overall from an academic standpoint but reports some difficulty with mathematics in his sophomore year. He was subsequently placed in a more advanced math class and mastered the material, then skipped the 11th grade."

If he was having difficulty with math which I doubt, why would he be placed in a higher level? Could someone fix this?

Perhaps he didn't like the teacher, or 10th grade math was geometry when he was adept at algebra. Theres a few reasons why this might be the case 71.236.169.89 02:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He gained his doctorate in a particular area of geometry.

--

Another thing to mention is that in American public school if you are particularly adept at maths (not just good, but VERY good) but not socially adept then you tend to get bad grades. This is because you use particularly efficient techniques to get correct answers that, while perfectly valid, aren't the techniques the teachers want the students to use since they're not 'by the book'. Additionally, you might also do a great many steps in your head to get the answer, and get penalized for not doing it slower on paper instead. In today's math classes, getting the right answer is not rewarded unless it's reached using whatever singular method they insist all students use. Creative problem solving is frowned upon and penalized. --singe@ix.netcom.com 15:41, 25 May 2007 (PST)

Definition of a serial killer - third party comment requested

There have been a couple of edits and reverts contesting the term "serial killer" as applied to Ted. I chime in on the side of describing Kaczynski as a "serial killer" being valid for the following reasons (Summary of reasons below - He fits a lot of accepted definitions as a "serial killer."):

1. Popular dictionary definition. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th edition ISBN 0395825172) definition in its entirety states: "A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents."

2. Subject dictionary definition. The Dictionary of Criminal Justice (ISBN 0070307091) definition of "serial murder" cites the FBI definition to simply be "the killing of several victims in three or more separate events."

3. Google. A search for the phrase "serial killer" with "unabomber" turns up 39,400 hits (alternately searching for "Kaczynski" with "serial killer" turns up 26,600 hits) which indicates that a large number of folks considered the "Unabomber" to be a serial killer, including the FBI unit involved in investigating the Unabomber case.

4. Professional literature. R.M. Holmes and J. Deberger's work, Serial Murder (ISBN 0803928408) defines "serial murder" by the traits of the suspect thus:

repetitive homicide, continuing if not prevented
primarily one-on-one
relationship (victim-perpetrator) usually one of stranger or slight acquaintance, strong affiliation seldom
motivation is to kill; no conventional passion crime or victim-precipitated
intrinisic motive (not apparent or clear-cut) and ordinarily not for passion, personal gain or profit

5. Wikipedia. The entry Serial killer defines the term as ". . . someone who commits three or more murders over an extended period of time with cooling-off periods in between. In between their crimes, they appear to be quite normal, a state which Hervey Cleckley and Robert Hare call the "mask of sanity."

Definitions are always arguable (and in the professional literature, there is no single definition for this term) but it is undeniable that there is a wide array of NPOV support for defining and categorizing Ted Kaczynski as a "serial killer." This term does not rule out defining Ted as an anarchist or a terrorist (these terms are not mutually exclusive). It is a disservice to searchers of wikipedia to remove the term "serial killer" from the Kaczynski article. As it is a thorough and well written article, the reader should be able to determine from their own experiences, philosophies, and definitions as to whether or not Ted is warranted the sobriquet of "serial killer." A responsible wikipedian should wary about inflicting any possible unsupported belief that Kaczynski is not a "serial killer" on a reader. It's okay to disagree with a term or a definition, but if the definition can be supported, I'd say it's accurate.

I'll leave the omission of the term and missing categorization in the article for now to allow some time for discussion and counter-argument herein.

-- Quartermaster 13:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Serial killers are people who kill on at least three occasions with a break in between each murder. The crimes committed are a result of a compulsion that may have roots in the killer's (often dysfunctional) youth and psychopathological disorders, as opposed to those who are motivated by financial gain (e.g., contract killers) or ideological/political motivations (e.g., terrorism, democide)." -in wikipedia

Who is to say that the unabomber didn't kill for political reasons, therefore being, as most, a terrorist. To call him a serial killer is just a political attitude and not being fair to a "fact", as I have heard here. Just read his story. He spent most of his time in the wild without hurting anyone. Who can prove that, almost over a decade, what set him of to murder was a psycological drive to do it?Maziotis 08:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The categories under which Kaczynski can be classified are not mutually exclusive, which includes the term "serial killer". Note that Ted Bundy spent most of his life not killing people - I would say with the rare historic exception, most serial killers spend 99 percent of their lives not killing people (an exception might be Gilles de Rais). Please note my mention of Hervey Cleckley and Robert Hare and the "mask of sanity." A statement that he spent most of his time not hurting someone (yet still found time to kill three people and maim a few others) fits scholarly analyses of the use of the term "serial killer."

I have yet to see where the term "serial killer" is imbued with political attributes one way or the other. My point is that avoiding the appelation "serial killer" to Kaczysnki without any support against the definition of the term as applied to Kaczynski's actions is an act of opinion. Is it political to call him a "white male" which also is a charged term under many circumstances? He is indeed "white" and "male" and he unambiguously killed three people in series. Serial. Killer.

As usual, I'll delay any editing action in lieu of being convinced otherwise by rational and supported argument (and I don't mean that snarkily - convince me with reason backed by evidence). I already stated that definitions are arguable, which is why I listed an array of reasons, rather than any single argument, for continuing to accurately refer to Kaczynski as a serial killer or murderer.

--Quartermaster 16:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, yes, he was a serial killer. I dont think anyone disputes that he killed multiple people on seperate occasions. I believe the objections are to connotations the term has acquired, and confusion as to how his motives relate to the term. While he classes himself as a terrorist (presumably seeing his own motives as political), it does not mean he was also a serial killer. This does not change the fact that the term is not selectively applied based on motives. Just because some people think he was like Ted Bundy when they hear the term doesnt mean he wasnt, even though he may not have killed for pure pleasure. Anyhow, he fits the definition so I have no objection in the article classing him as such. 3dom 14:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My argument didn't concern the fact that he didn't spend most of his time killing people, while being an active murderer. What I pointed out was to the fact that he spent most of his life without showing any of the characteristic signs of an individual who has a psychological drive for murderer. There is lots of evidence that he did whish to be left alone during the decade, or so, that he spent in the wild, while he was not hurting anyone. The killing and maiming only came much later and he did tried to struggle against industrialism by other means, before. I suggest you read the unnamed essay written by him in 1971.

Regarding the term "serial killer" being ambiguous, I totally agree with you. That is why it seems to me that to consider him a serial killer to be a sign of bad faith. Of course on a much broader sense of the term he may be consider a "serial killer", since he killed in a series of murderers. But if you read his story, I believe the term "terrorist" applies more closely to what is generally perceive, by our culture, what is the type of crime he as commmitted.Maziotis 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll state again that almost all "serial killers" don't spend most of their time killing people. It's a non-argument since most of us don't spend all of our time doing any one thing. Again, Ted Bundy didn't spend 2 out of every 3 minutes killing people. I'll also state again that the terms we're discussing are not mutually exclusive. Kaczynski is BOTH serial killer and terrorist (and white, and male, and a mathematician, and a convicted felon, and a hermit, and an anarchist . . .) He can be many things at the same time. The ambiguity of many terms is undeniable, which is why I buttressed my argument for labelling him a serial killer with more than a single definition or reason. Don't know where "bad faith" comes into play when using a defined term that fits. No snark here, but I have no idea what one means by saying ". . . it seems to me that to consider him a serial killer to be a sign of bad faith." I'm not dealing in faith, rather, I'm dealing in accurately describing the man with a relevant term. -- Quartermaster 13:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think you understood my argument concerning that "kaczynski didn't spend most of his life killing people". I am not speaking about his life, on a day-to-day basis, while being an active murderer. What I am saying is that it is not common for a serial killer to dwell around the reasons that are implicated in the act of murder, but only actually killing, and even starting to consider, many decades later. Ted Bundy had his first confirmed victim while he was 27 and he is believed to have killed even earlier, in his teens. Kaczynski fought against industrialism for many years, seeking non-violent means. So you can't argue that him being a luddite is just a justification for his psychological drive for murder, which is what’s suggested in comparison with one who murderers prostitutes arguing that he is "cleaning the streets", as a rational explanation.

I do believe that you are acting on bad faith, because you are not considering the man, Ted Kacynski, on other levels. Of course, at this point, I am speaking on a very personal level. You speak of these categories and how they are not mutually exclusive, as this was simple applied science and there were no emotional implications with these terms. When you write an article about Ted Kaczynski and describe the man as a Serial killer, rather than a Terrorist, people will think of his story, before reading it, as more close to the likes of Ted Bundy, instead of Carlos the jackall. Of course these names do not represent strict categories. They are rather personal concepts in my mind, but they do relate to most people. I do agree that technically, perhaps, Ted Kaczynski could be consider a "serial killer" in the more strict sense of the term. But I believe that this term is further from reality. In fact, I believe that it is wrong in the sense that most psychologists use the term, since there isn't a typical psychopathic personality involved, for the reasons described in the first paragraph.Maziotis 14:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that the man murdered three people. Murdered them. Dead. He thought about what he was doing. He planned how to do it. He did it. One at a time. You can't unbecome a virgin just because you only had sex once. Kaczynski's life before he became a serial killer is irrelevant in correctly applying the term. His life is relevant for understanding the context of his actions. However, I posit that it is in no way an act of "bad faith" to apply a term that is accurate and correct. There are definitely differences between Kaczynski and Bundy (quantity of those killed; motivation; timing; means), but the similarities between the two include the fact they share a first name and that they are, by definition, serial killers. Please note that I am not using my personal definition of the term.

I can applaud and admire your personal defense of the good character of Mr. Kaczynski, but I must respectfully disagree with your defense when it comes to avoiding the application of the appropriate appellation "serial killer" to Mr. Kaczysnki. It's ok to dislike that the term is applied, but he is what he is. --Quartermaster 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motives and other circumstances are, in fact, essential to determine if someone is a serial killer or not. It seems that you insist that he is a serial killer solely because he killed three people on separate occasions, but on that case, wouldn't a soldier in war be considered a serial killer? Of course the context of his life matters, and the fact that someone that kills several people is not considered a serial killer because he is in a war, is part of that context.

I am guessing by your logic that any terrorist is a serial killer. For you, there isn't a necessity for the distinction of both terms. I disagree. And for what I have read, experts don't seem to use the term "serial killer" as lightly as you.

Serial killers, like Ted Bundy, need to kill like you and I need to eat. They have a very strong psychological drive for murder and they kill for the sake of killing. That is essentially what distinguishes them from terrorists and mercenaries. Basically, as far as I'm concern, when you call Ted Kaczynski a serial killer, you are stating that if he weren't caught when he did, he would have break his promise, made in a letter, and kill again for his personal need. Even though he explains in that letter how it would not be in his best interest to break his promise, since he needs credibility and the exposure of his ideals are a priority, he would either make an excuse or not even try. I don't think you can prove any of that, nor can you present a psychological evaluation where you explain how his murders where motivated by a deep psychological hunger.Maziotis 20:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments would be stronger if you actually cited sources, rather than personal opinion. In the spirit of NPOV, which I think you should review, personal opinion and personal definitions are problematic in the wikipedia universe. When you state

Of course these names do not represent strict categories. They are rather personal concepts in my mind, but they do relate to most people.

you are outing yourself as a non-neutral party. Further, when you fail to cite from whence your definitions come, you undermine your case. I am very open to reasoned and supported arguments as to the issue of not labelling Kaczynski a serial killer, but personal opinion isn't the way to changing my mind. Being accused of acting in "bad faith" and having a "political agenda" just aren't powerful arguments for making a case.

Your counter arguments bringing up a solider or a terrorist as a serial killer are easily refuted. For the record, a soldier and a terrorist CAN be serial killers if they meet the definitions for such. I don't use the term lightly, nor heavily. I use the term correctly.

In reference to a statement like ". . . experts don't seem to use the term 'serial killer' as lightly as you." I refer you to an article from the Sacramento Bee (July 14, 1995):

"I feel I know this guy. He will not stop bombing," said Eric Hickey, a social psychologist who is considered a national expert on serial killers and has been consulted on the Unabomber case.

"If they don't publish the manuscript, he's going to blow up someone rather quickly," said Hickey, who teaches criminal psychology at California State University, Fresno. "If they do publish, he may put it off for a while. But when the publicity dies down and he's not in the press anymore, he's going to strike again."

I would say citing a national expert on serial killlers who is consulted by the FBI on the case of the Unabomber is yet another compelling piece of third party support (not my opinion, rather, an "expert" opinion) for the appropriate use of the label.

-- Quartermaster 14:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had already read that article. I know what the FBI and other have been calling him for a very long time, even before actually meeting him and knowing something about his story. I have also read about their predictions and how they sometimes fail miserably. I don't care about FBI and their agenda, and I am also not afraid of being a "non-neutral" party. Personally, I believe that you are simply masked as one, with full respect.

I believe that my arguments rest on solid rational points, that you may be open to it or not. Regarding the "soldier", for example, you simply fail to address my argument. I understand that you have a clear picture of what a serial killer is, and i wasn't suggesting that you would be embarrassed by the fact that a soldier could act in a way which would necessarily revealed him as being part of the same category as the Unabomber. When I spoke of the soldier, i was using him for my analogy as exactly what defines him as a soldier. What I was arguing for was that to describe a serial killer simply as someone who "kills three people or more, in different occasions" is not enough, since many people would fall under this category without obviously being serial killers (like soldiers, as such)

Again, I am not afraid to speak about what I "feel" is right when the subject concerns precisely that. Technically there are infinite "categories" that address a person, but you have to use your judgment and your perceptions related to the judgment of others, to make a call. As for the citations and the need to make NPOV decisions, I rely on the point I made after citing an article in wikipedia. The "killing of three or more" simply does not stand as the only condition for the definition of the "serial killer" category.

Finally, I suggest you go visit the category "serial killers", here in wikipedia, and read, randomly, some of the bios there. Maybe you will se my point...Maziotis 15:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you please, I would rather you cease casting unsupported aspersions regarding my motives. Yours have been stated clearly and unambiguously as being personal. I am wary that you feel this way because I sense you could be a valuable contributor to wikipedia otherwise. Once again, I urge you to read the entry on NPOV and consider what wikipedia is (and isn't). When there are definitions, experts, the FBI, and books that refer to Ted Kaczynski as a "serial killer" stacked against someone's personal opinion, it's hard to continue a logical dialogue. I find your passion for defending the Unabomber to be admirable, but misplaced. I feel very neutral about the man, personally, especially since he is locked up for life and thus no threat to anyone.

I'll leave your recent deletion of the reference to Ted as a "serial killer" in lieu of third party input. I originally put it there assuming that a week's discussion with no valid counter-argument by anyone would be sufficient but underestimated your personal stake. I'll leave this without comment or contribution for a week to consider your position in the context of the wikipedia philosophy.

Anybody else want to chime in here before I start down the mediation trail (hey, it'll be my first time)?

-- Quartermaster 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer seems to indicate that you have only read my first paragraph...Maziotis 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other articles, here on wikipedia, call him a serial killer. Some of them call him a terrrorist. So I have change the setence from "the Unabomber, is an anarcho-primitivist and serial killer who some have called a terrorist" to "the Unabomber, is an anarcho-primitivist and terrorist who some have called a serial killer", assuming that most people call him a "terrorist". I may be wrong...

Perhaps "who some have call (whatever)" should be between commas.

I hope this solution satisfies most.Maziotis 21:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable, and accurate approach to me. Might I suggest a bit of re-wording (see below) for stylistic purposes? The sentence is getting a bit unwieldy. Here's what we currently have:

Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an anarcho-primitivist and terrorist who some have called a serial killer who gained notoriety for sending mail bombs to several universities and airlines from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, ultimately killing three people and wounding 29.

See if this wording still satisfies the goals of accuracy while not being personally damning; I think our point of agreement is that there are those who do and don't consider him a serial killer, but the definition has been applied "by some."

Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an anarcho-primitivist and terrorist who gained notoriety for sending mail bombs to several universities and airlines from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. He has been labeled by some as a serial killer as he ultimately killed three people and wounded 29.

I think the term "labeled" is more neutral in that it demonstrates that the term is applied to the man by third parties, as opposed to the man BEING that term. My only agenda all along is use of accurate language. Let me know if this works for you. - Quartermaster 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Al

Removed the section claiming that Weird Al Yankovic was considered a suspect, I assume if it's not a joke, it's just based on the similarity between Weird Al and the forensic sketch. If someone has a source, they can of course put it back- and fix the various spelling mistakes while they are at it :). Thedoorhinge 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone else removed it while I was typing my intention to do so. Thedoorhinge 17:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any possibilities linking him to the Zodiac killer?

Or is it a urban legend?- Sparky 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought by many

What is the reason for this vagueness in the beginning of the article? Someone who publishes a 35,000 word anarcho-primitivist manifesto is by definition an anarcho-primitivist. Also, his bombing campaign was designed to terrorize academia into stopping technological progress, which is by definition, terrorism. This isn't similar to the Palestine/Israel issue, where one could justify words like "guerrilla" and "militant" by painting Hamas and others as paramilitary organizations fighting an occupying force. He was targetting civilians to instill fear among civilians, not to achieve a military aim - ergo, he's a terrorist. Unigolyn 23:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the first point. I've replaced the "thought by many" phrase with a reference to his acts as popularly deemed terroristic, with a footnote to his letter to the New York Times; calling him a terrorist outright, whatever the objective merits, is still likely to generate controversy. --zenohockey 01:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think saying "For his actions, which many deem terroristic" to be an improvement. I'm on board with Unigolyn here. By definition he is (among other things) a terrorist. The Encyclopedia of American Crime by Carl Sifakis (2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 907, 2001 ; ISBN 0816046344) unabashedly uses the term "terrorist" to refer to Kaczynski: "Whoever was victimized by a bomber attack deserved no sympathy as far as the mysterious terrorist was concerned." I think it's perfectly accurate and justifiable to just call him a terrorist. Pointing to standard external references that also say so (as was done) is always a good idea. -- Quartermaster 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self described terrorist?!

That self-description about Kaczynski proclaiming to be a terrorist is a fallacies deduction. It is a conclusion of a quote put out of context. When he says “he will stop his terrorist” activities”, he is describing himself trough the values of the police, to whom he was writing, and not his own. Let's say that in that same letter he would have said, "Print my manifesto and I will stop my terrible actions". Would you say that the Unabomber had considered his actions to be terrible? Of course not. He considers them to be positive in the context of what he considers it needs to be done, and at the same time he acknowledges how his enemies might see his actions, and speak to them on those terms. He would be calling them "terrible" for the sake of the threat it represents, although within his own values those same actions are seen as relatively good.

The Unabomber didn't proclaim himself as a terrorist. He said that he would stop his "terrorist" actions, to the authorities, which he knew they would always be addressed in terms of the values of the police. In his view, his actions might be considered as a way to freedom. It a question of language and the fact that while the Unabomber was trying to communicate with the police, he address his actions in those terms, without considering the context of his ideology, which represents in whole his view on the subject.

For these reasons, I believe that this label is political in nature and misleading.Maziotis 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I agree, there is no evidence that he thought of himself as a terrorist based on what you say, SqueakBox 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he thought of himself or proclaimed to be a terrorist or not, he used fear as a manipulating tactic to further his own political doctrine. 3dom 15:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your are missing the point. This section does not regard the discussion to whether Unabomber is a terrorist or not. We are discussing if it makes sense to judge kaczynski as a self proclaimed terrorist or not, based on that reference mentioned above. The point is to change the article, accordingly.Maziotis 19:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist is a weasel word that needs to not be in the opening. To describe hinm as a terrorist is POV that we dont even use to describe Osama bin Laden, 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)SqueakBox

Yes. I agree. If Osama is a "islamist militant", why can't the unabomber be an "anarchist militant"? His actions are not less political in nature than those of Osama, and those who try to define to what degree cannot be objective.Maziotis 01:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better Picture? (again)

Better picture? Is there a better picture of this man available? The current one is too small. Also, most post-arrest photographs are very undignified.--Iusenospace 03:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found a picture and placed it in the article. Its credited to AP but should be allowable under fair use, hopefully.--Nayra

I agree. This problem, which had already been dealt with, has return. Can we fix that again? I don't know if you agree with what is said by the users Iusenospace and Nayra. Please discuss.Maziotis 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the picture is larger. Thank you. Now, can we perhaps find a picture that isn't as much "undignified"? The one we had before was more of a neutral picture, which anyone could regard as being appropriate. I was hoping we could find that sort of a picture.Maziotis 19:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be good to have a more recent and less spooked one (he like most people in mugshots must be super freaked out). I dont imagine there are any of his years as a hermit but the reality is he is now a prisoner so best off to find one as current as possible, SqueakBox 20:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old picture was pretty good, I agree. The current picture is too undignified. I'd rather not have a picture at all than have the current one - it serves no purpose. It doesn't actually show us what the man looks like in any way. Does anyone agree that we should remove it? 198.138.40.146 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I definitely agree we should put another one. This photo concerns a particular and awkward moment in this person's life, and it should be replace by one more "neutral". As you said, it doesn’t show us the man; at least, not as a person.Maziotis 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support a better pic but the sketch isnt a photo and we need to have a pic as up to date as possible per wiki style guidelines. But do keep trying, SqueakBox 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.Maziotis 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the "fair use" picture be used in legal terms? We all agreed that the "free image" picture was inappropriate, so I am to conclude that either we should put no picture or the "fair use" one.Maziotis 10:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "fair use" picture is from a news agency, making it a violation of fair use criterion 2, as specifically exemplified by counterexample 5. —Angr 10:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC) I believe we should find a third picture that is both appropriate and legal.Maziotis 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put the mughshot photo back up. I am not going to be the kaczynski's front photo police. If you think you should take it out, do it.Maziotis 10:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appareance in Good Will Hunting

In the film Good Will Hunting there is a little reference to him. Does it is interesant to add to the article?

Sure. logologist|Talk 12:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Errors

Which is the source for the spelling errors? I have found a post on the discussion section of the Unabomber’s manifesto article, in wikisource, that makes a good point.

I'd like to take a vote on fixing the typos (and paragraphs 220 and 221 being merged) mentioned above. My position is that the sources we have to go off of are flawed. Most online sources have a missing paragraph--a carry over from one of the original newspaper publications. Since they leave off a whole paragraph, I don't think we should trust their silly typos are also accurate.

As for the argument that even the smartest of us make these kinds of errors, I don't think that Kaczynski would make these kinds of errors in a manifesto that he had worked on for years, and hoped that he would be remembered by. I just can't imagine that he wouldn't have glanced over the manuscript and caught these before sending it off to press.

I might favor letting these get by if we had confirmation that both the original Times and Post publications had each of these typos, but if we can't get this confirmation, I think we should go with the Filiquarian edition, which contains none of these typos. --24.124.84.133 02:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence concerning these spelling errors with reference to both possibilities of the mistakes being made by the author himself or the ones who have typed it for printing.Maziotis 17:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted and Asperger's

Is anyone aware of any authoritative evidence that Ted has Asperger's Syndrome? He has many of the symptoms. Ehusman 15:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, look here:

http://www.easternpsychological.org/index.php?pg=programcalendar&subsection=sessiondetail&id=9

AND HERE:

Article title Asperger's Disorder and the Origins of the Unabomber Author Silva, J. A. Ferrari, M. M. Leong, G. B. Journal title AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY Bibliographic details 2003, VOL 24; PART 2, pages 5-44 Publisher AMERICAN COLLEGE OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY Country of publication USA ISBN ISSN 0163-1942 Language English 71.131.185.99 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)JB[reply]

His mother noted his aloofness and playing beside rather with other children, and displaying phobias of people and buildings. She was so worried that she almost brought him to Bruno Bethlehem for an assessment of Autism. He experienced a brief psychotic episode in the late 70's related to depression; a woman he briefly dated rejected him (social rejection is an important trigger of depression in Asperger’s Syndrome). Not long after, he took up residence in a log cabin and developed an interest in bomb making. Have a look at this video on youtube for a possible cure: Diamonddavej 03:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEpLu48JQAY

Discrepancies from the authorities

I remember when he was first arrested. The first statements were that his cabin was empty. Within a very short time - his cabin became crammed with more junk than ten cabins could have held. This slight inconsistancy was never mentioned - maybe not noticed by most. I have always wondered how empty turned into truck loads. It must be true - the FBI told us so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Ted's IQ

What is the point of this? To suggest that he wasn't smart after all? I don't think there's any question that he is unusually intelligent and this seems like quibbling to me.

According to various accounts, testing showed him to have a high IQ and, by his account, his parents were told he was a genius. He claims that his IQ was in the 160-to-170 range. Testing supposedly conducted at that time has not been made available for review.

Eperotao 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sally C. Johnson did detailed psychometric testing preceding Ted's misdiagnosis of schizophrenia. He has (WAIS) Full Scale Score of 136 (IQ), which breaks down to a Performance Score of 124 and Verbal Score of 138. A higher verbal then performance score is typical of Asperger's Syndrome [3] - Teds Psychological Profile Diamonddavej 04:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying Kaczynski as a terrorist and a multiple-murderer or mass murderer

I have copied over a discussion begun between User:Maziotis and myself regarding the absence of terms including terrorist and variously multiple-murderer or mass murderer and my contention that they should be returned to the article's header paragraph. In previous discussions, lack of participation resulted in "consensus" between only two editors. It is my hope that a greater number of participants will choose to engage in this discussion.

I have to make the comment here since your comment is posted as a header for this discussion and it is false in its assertion. The consensus was not between two persons. There were multiple third parties. I never took the liberty in changing the beginning of the article for the non-Pov term, the way it is now.

curious to see that the title itself, which you have choesen, is POV. You are starting a debate by defining the objective of it from the start: "Identifying Kaczynski as a terrorist and a multiple-murderer or mass murderer "Maziotis 14:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maziotis! It's alright, I suppose, to disagree with either term I added, but, quite clearly, Kaczynski is a bit more than an average anarchist. I would think that as he is insane, a mass murderer -- if not a serial killer, and a terrorist -- in the tradtional sense of the term mention immediately in the article's header is warranted. How do you suggest this information be added or phrased in order to incorporate it there? 67.101.243.74 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find my impressions on this matter in the discussion section, which is where you should participate and find consensus.

Regarding your position, I must say right away that the category "mass murder" is clearly not suitable, while others might be very controversial. Ted Kaczynski killed three people on separate occasions, which technically leaves him out of that definition.

If you want my opinion regarding your personal message, consider this: Do you believe that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist? Do you believe that he is insane? Well, to wikipedia neither what you believe of Osama, nor Kaczynski, matters. If you go to Osama article you will find that he is labeled as a "militant Islamist". That article has high traffic and it was asserted for some time now that, following the wikipedia’s guidelines, he should not be classified as a serial killer, mass murder or even a terrorist. Now, have you read kaczynski's manifesto and the justifications that he gave to send those bombs? In what way would you consider Kaczynski's actions to be less political in nature than those of Osama bin laden's? So, answering your question, how about "militant anarchist" as for the initial category in the article?Maziotis 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing redeeming about either person; I think, simply, that the basis of their criminality should be made clear as that is undoubtedly the most obvious aspect of both figures when one would look for either's article, which is, after all, the foremost use of an encyclopedia. 67.101.243.74 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Who defines that? Will you change "osama" article according to those (yours) principles? I understand that you might find this way of argument to be a form of absolute relativism and, as such, unacceptable. But these questions I ask are not rhetoric ones. They are honest straightforward questions. I would like to know what would you do to both of these articles, and what is your position to the issue I raise, regarding the applied wikipedia's guidelines in osama's article, in order for you to be consistent.

Personally, I believe that Theodore Kaczynski is a political prisoner. But my political and moral views on this subject are irrelevant, no matter with how many people I share them with, just like yours.Maziotis 13:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read your arguments on the discussion page for the article since writing my reply to you. I find your position on the matter indefensible and ridiculous, but, as you would agree, that is neither here nor there. With regard to the "Osama" article, according to my principles, which almost certainly correspond directly to the principles of every sound beneficiary of contemporary civilization -or, at the least, the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking peoples for whom this encyclopedia is maintained- it should make immediate mention that he is a terrorist and a mass murderer. To suggest otherwise goes so far beyond moral relativism as to make the sentiment simply demented. There is such a thing as a terrorist and there is such a thing as a mass murderer. If there were not, the terms would not have use. There is, to-day, no more widely acknowledged example of a terrorist than Osama bin Laden, who is, by consequence of his activities, a mass murderer. Yet, we digress, as I have not seen that article nor have I, at present, any want to edit the "Osama" article, but only to ensure that the "Kaczynski" article is undistorted and legitimate. You have asked "who defines that?" Who defines what? I suggested nothing that should not be self-evident and I did not put forth some term that is vague or undefined. A terrorist is one who engages in acts of violence or fear-mongering that resultantly causes terror. By all accounts, and from what I have read on the discussion page, even his own account, Kaczynski is a terrorist. It does not matter whether some insensible editor has applied his efforts to remove that language from the "Osama" article or any other article because it is an irrefutable fact that Kaczynski is a terrorist. One can always engage in word-play and conjecture to affect the removal of a correct and legitimate term, but it is rather a show of incompetence than an act of scholarship. Also, as Kaczynski has murdered --that is, knowingly and premeditatingly killed-- multiple others, he is a multiple murderer. I would consider him a serial killer, but again, that would be a personal determination. The fact of the matter is that he is a multiple-murderer. If one chooses to split hairs, one can say that "mass murderer" is inappropriate based on number of those killed, but because the term "multiple-murderer" is definitely lesser applied than "mass murderer," the latter would seem more natural in expressing that quality of Kaczynski. The position you have taken, regardless of my belief that it is indefensible and ridiculous, is to employ semantic concerns to the fact that he is a terrorist and a multiple-murderer, if not a mass murderer. Those concerns, and the insistence that he not be labeled with those quite correct terms, immediately demonstrates a personal insecurity with your ideology. That is, is your belief in Kaczynski's ideology authentic or is it simply awe with the terrible crimes he has committed, disguised by exercises in intellectual discourse, such that you must refuse to recognize the fact that his acts were terrorism and murder? 67.101.243.74 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The above were the comments I copied over from user talk pages' discussion. Further arguments should begin below here. 67.101.243.74 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could call him a serial kiler but we cannot call him a terrorist, see Wikipedia:Words to avoid, SqueakBox 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have never argued that Kaczynski should not be called a murderer or a terrorist, in the beginning of the article. You said that you have read my posts, but in it I discuss, technically, if his profile fits the common use of the term "serial killer". Since this term, as the term "terrorist", are widely identified as controversial in themselves, I do not understand why would you assume with such a clear voice how these terms are applied in an "evident" way. Another person changed the consensus that was reached by the end of that conversion and, from there, other people came and changed it to the way it is now, without a different consensus being made again.

All that talk about civilization values are just your own view on how wikipedia should be use to reaffirm what you perceive as common social values, just like television, radio, and mass media in general, has done in the past. I am not saying that is wrong, I am just looking for the wikipedia guidelines that define clearly that objective, and in what way.

Some people do feel confuse on exactly what constitutes a neutral and factual point of view, and on how further powerful technological tools, as the easily accessible wikipedia, could be promiscuous in the way we have discussed and find time to reflect on our own, in the past. For some people, nothing of this is obvious. I do not find challenged in any way by your comments as to how "ridiculous" and “indefensible" I am.Maziotis 14:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Ted Kaczynski, he did not send bombs to establish a sense of terror in the community, to further his political goals. Or at least, that expression is not "evident". According to his argument, he was trying to eliminate concrete targets, as calling for others to join in the movement, to participate in a revolution against Industrialism. Some people look at this facts and say, like you, that clearly he is a "terrorist", others might say something like "revolutionary".Maziotis 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the last discussion we had reached the conclusion that multiple point of views should be expressed in the article itself. Like the suggestion: "Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an anarcho-primitivist and terrorist who some have called a serial killer who gained notoriety for sending mail bombs to several universities and airlines from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, ultimately killing three people and wounding 29."Maziotis 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about how it is now, with SqueakBox last change? It states that his campaign was murderous and infamous. Further Classification, such as "terrorist", is perceived by wikipedia as a word to avoid, as SqueakBox made it clear.Maziotis 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of discussion that caused me to become disillusioned with wikipedia and realize the idea of an open-editing encyclopedia is fundamentally flawed. As a 16 year veteran of my home state's profiling unit, I can tell you right off the bat that Ted Kaczynski is a textbook domestic terrorist. His so called philosophy is completely irrelevant in stating whether he is a terrorist or not. While I don't think it matters where in the article it says it, it's 100% right to assume that an article on the man would note that he was a terrorist and a serial killer before saying anything about his personal philosophy, anarchism, primitivism, or any other excuse for his gross crimes against other people. And that's what it's really all about: other people; not how the guy describes himself. I guess the point is, it's fundamentally wrong, a non neutral pov, and disingenuine to avoid calling him what he is because you're off the wall enough to think his philosophy has any merit whatsoever. I hope you wise up. OBriain 03:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Again... I did not say he should not be called a terrorist. SqueakBox did, while citing a wikipedia guideline article. Perhaps this is an important point to discuss, to wether we should call him "this" or "that" and "where". Why don't you visit Wikipedia:Words to avoid and give us your opinion?

Is this a dispute about how to label him or how to describe why he's noteworthy? He killed three people, injured many more, and that's why his words, his philosophy, receives note anywhere, including at wikipedia. And here at wikipedia, editors shouldn't get turned upside down between the forest and the trees. Maybe there is reason to avoid some labels such as terrorist, but murderous? If someone commits murder, especially multiple murder, aren't the activities they deliberately engage in to accomplish exactly this accurately defined as murderous? At some point, the hairsplitting to avoid such words is sentimentally precious, to the point of being stubbornly oblivious.Professor marginalia 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I believe we should avoid controversial labels such as "terrorist" and "serial killer" and try to describe him in the most factual sense possible. I think it was fine the way it was before, when his campaign was described as "murderous".Maziotis 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's frustrating that these labels tend to be seen as controversial on a personal level, and not on any objective linguistic or vocabulary level. Kaczynski is a controversial figure, so it would seem that so-called "controversial" labels are likely appropriate. Do we remove Hitler from the category of "Holocaust Perpetrators" because that term is controversial? If a so-called controversial term is linguistically and semantically accurate, not applying it reflects one's personal opinions about an article's content. It's a disservice to wikipedia searchers who might not find Ted under the categories of murderer, serial killer, or terrorist. This is particularly problematic when there are numerous mentions in the literature on the man (including book titles such as Alston Chase's Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist) using these same "controversial" terms. Nonetheless, I've taken the approach of a) avoiding any attempts to apply accurate labels here in the face of partisan personal resistance (or even any edits to the entry at all), and b) using the Kaczynski article as an example of what's bad about wikipedia when teaching others. -Quartermaster 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CLARIFICATION: I'm a big fan and proponent of wikipedia. When I mention an "example of what's bad about wikipedia" that is in reference to the types of articles that tend to be problematic, usually well-known political figures. The negative statement isn't meant to mean that wikipedia is "bad" (it is NOT!). -Quartermaster 15:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because multiple sources call him a terrorist doesn't mean Wikipedia should. If a certain person were universally described as "a jerk" that is no good reason to describe them as such in the Wiki article, even if it were true, because it is POV

Life in the woods of Montana

Kaczynski lived in the woods of Montana for several years as far as I know. However, this is only mentioned in a very minute way. There should be an explicit description of his life there. He lived off the woods as far as I know and since he didn't have any money. And he was arrested there. Why isn't any of that stuff in the article?? --Maxl 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can add is that he came and went quietly from the shed where he trapped rabbits and grew vegetables. He rode a bicycle and was a frequent bus-rider. I recall sitting across the aisle from him on a bus for a 2 hour trip, and although his identity wasn't known at that time, I was impressed by the what I thought was an intelligent man with a look of enormous contempt for people and things around him. Such was his impression on me that when I saw him on television being arrested several years later, I was able to recognize him immediately as the fellow passenger on my bus trip years before.Landroo 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist????? Or maybe fascist?

I don't think he is an anarchist. In his book he criticised many of the beliefs of hte modern anarchist movement. It would be more accurate if we called a nihilist. But I believe that he was a fascist, read for example the Ship of Fools. Mitsos 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the categories "anarchist" and "terrorist" are not mutually exclusive. You can't change the first just because you believe the second is correct. We have to discuss the two separately.

You have stated that you believe he is not an anarchist and remove the category from the article without even giving a justification. Besides the fact that there was no consensus with that change, you should explain the reasons why you believe in this. As for the possibility of him being a "nihilist", again, the two terms are not exclusive. Many anarchists consider nihilism as philosophical body of knowledge of great inspiration for their ideals.

As far as I know, Theodore Kaczynski is generally considered to be a self-proclaimed anarchist and a reference to eco-anarchism and anarcho-primitivist ideas. In short, I believe that his belief in the wild life, in the strictest sense of the term, without any political institutions, such as the government, to rule people, makes him an anarchist. You should perhaps do a little research before challenging such widely accepted concepts. Of course there is always some controversies and it is not always easy to establish what makes an author belong to a certain political family or not, but that is why you need to present solid arguments to defend your positions, specially one that challenges a common notion, such as that.

Your "fascist" remark about the article “Ship of fools” is another commentary without proper explanation to back that up.Maziotis 16:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a point, in the notes section of his manifesto, where he proclaims to be an anarchist:

34. (Paragraph 215) This statement refers to our particular brand of anarchism. A wide variety of social attitudes have been called "anarchist," and it may be that many who consider themselves anarchists would not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should be noted, by the way, that there is a nonviolent anarchist movement whose members probably would not accept FC as anarchist and certainly would not approve of FC's violent methods.

If you want I can give several references by established eco-anarchist authors making references to him. So, clearly it seems your challenge to the fact that he is an anarchist would be of academic nature and would amount to be considered "original research", which is unacceptable by wikipedia standards.Maziotis 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he is an anarchist this statement needs to be properly sourced, the opinion we have as editors isnt relevant, SqueakBox 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where do you expect to find such source? There isn't an official entity responsible for the identification of anarchist authors. This category is not presented as a fact such as him being a PhD. or not. What sources can you give without being original research? It is simply common knowledge that he is anarchist. I did not revert the change with base on my opinion. I merely give the opinion in response to fulfill the possible editor's curiosity.Maziotis 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to give a source for each assertion you give. Just the ones that can be falsifiable, like "Theodre Kaczynski said this in 1924". As for the rest, it has to be judge in accordance with the bibliographical references and common notions, otherwise it would no be practical.

Just check other articles. You don't have to give a source when in the beginning of the chef Guevara article you classify him as a "Marxist".Maziotis 17:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you do have to give a source if the information is disputed and right now 2 editors dispute it. You cant make this stuff up, see [[4]] and its opening, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought." IMO if you cant find a source it would indicate it is not true and knowing the manifesto well I know that Kaczynski was not promoting anarchism but anti-technology. Though a source will mean we can restore this statement, SqueakBox 17:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is making original reaearch now. I already gave a source in which Kaczynski proclaims to be anarchist:

34. (Paragraph 215) This statement refers to our particular brand of anarchism. A wide variety of social attitudes have been called "anarchist," and it may be that many who consider themselves anarchists would not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should be noted, by the way, that there is a nonviolent anarchist movement whose members probably would not accept FC as anarchist and certainly would not approve of FC's violent methods.

On what grounds are you to judge how he can or not be considered an anarchist?Maziotis 17:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but I believe you are not being very reasonable. We don't have to put a source everytime someone comes in here and challenges a setence.Maziotis 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we need attributability is precisely because as editors it shouldnt be your or my opinion, in the WP article it says "for any material that is challenged" we need sources and that is the nub, with a source this is fine without it isnt. So you are mistaken to say "We don't have to put a source everytime someone comes in here and challenges a setence." as that is precisely what we need to do, SqueakBox 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His argument concerning technology is not made from the stand that we need to reform it. His entire manifesto is about why we need to take down the whole industrial technological system, and all its institutions, in favor of wild life. This makes him, beyond doubt, that he is an anarcho-primitivism, with many references as such by other authors. If you are going to demand a source for that, I might as well demand a source for the fact that he is an American, and so on.

Not so, all you have to do is give a source for anarchist. If what you say is true it shouldnt be difficult so please do try and find a source/ And please dont ask for a source that he is American, see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, SqueakBox 17:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the citation from the manifesto?

34. (Paragraph 215) This statement refers to our particular brand of anarchism. A wide variety of social attitudes have been called "anarchist," and it may be that many who consider themselves anarchists would not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should be noted, by the way, that there is a nonviolent anarchist movement whose members probably would not accept FC as anarchist and certainly would not approve of FC's violent methods.

I don't know which type of source can there be for defining someone in political terms.

And I don't accept your argument. I just gave that as an examp'le. I believe you are the one who truly is being disruptive.Maziotis 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He doesnt say he is an anarchist in your statement. Also please remain civil, see WP:NPA. Your statement that asking for a source for a controversial statement is disruiptive is to fail to understand wikipedia policies completely and you must accept wikipedia policies if you wish your edits here not to be reverted as breaking thos policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He says that he belongs to a branch of anarchism. So that means that he proclaims to be an anarchist. How can he be more clear than that? Are you saying that for him to be considered an anarchist, as for anyone to be considered as being part of any political category, there has to be a source in which the person in question says "I am anarchist"; "I am democrat"; "I am fascist"?

I guess we will have to find a third opinion.Maziotis 17:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here he says "We are an anarchist group calling ourselves FC." but he is already lying about the "we". We do need a third opinion, ie a source that isnt Kaczynski that states he is an anarchist. Failure to find one would indicate that this statement shoudl not go inthe opening though further down we could say he proclaimed his group (sic) to be anarchist, SqueakBox 17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides it was Mitsos who first removed the word anarchist so that is a third editorial opinion, SqueakBox 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who is qualified to classify him as an anarchist, if not himself? Do we need someone to classify the pope as a Christian or is that just common knowledge? The Unabomber defended a way for a stateless human existence. What type of source are you really looking for?

(edit conflict) he kind our policies ask for. This article, if it is to become a good article and maybe even a featured article needs good sourcing, just like all the articles at wikipedia. If what you say is true it should be easy enough to source, SqueakBox 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This petty fights just don't make any sense for me. I give up.Maziotis 18:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is a shame. Please try and source that he is an anarchist and then you will have achieved your goal and I will have achieved mine. I appreciate working here isnt easy but we ask for sources in order to better the project and its articles, not fopr any other reason, SqueakBox 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, to me, It is not just a question of "putting anarchist up there". I don't agree that the category should be sourced just because one day a guy, with no justification and quite clearly with "original research" motivations and you, who apparently might not recognize the importance of style besides content, challenged a simple fact when there was no other editors to top that consensus. I believe that the term "anarchist" should apply to Unabomber just as clearly as "Marxist" is applied to Che Guevara, here on wikipedia. This is the reason why I abstain. I honestly don't believe there is a reliable source for this type of category. Peace.Maziotis 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the category merely the inclusion of the word anarchist in the opening sentence while unsourced. I have looked for a source on googlwe with no joy. If there are no other editors here then that is how it is but wehat is important is not what editors think but that we follow policies. I cant comment on the Che article but if someone wanted a source for marxist there it would have to be given IMO. My POV is that he is primarily an anti-technologist and not primarily an anarchist, he stated that that was his priority, ie getting rid of technology. While his power processes indicate possibly anarchist tendencies we do need a source or else it may be that we are incorrect, SqueakBox 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I see your point. Maybe you can understand mine, and why I abstain. I must say, in response to your POV, that his anti-technology perspective cannot be separated from his anarchist one. He did not care to warn us of the limitations of human freedom from a reformist point of view. That is something he makes very clear from the start. His fight is against the growing specialized technology and its appliance in the control of human behavior, while explaining how they spawn from human civilization. That is how he presents his cause, which is clearly from the start for the destruction of industrial society. He even presents the possibility of supporting further global industrial interests, if that would later help on the strategy to destroy the whole social machine. So, his critique to technology is itself anarchist. He is for wild life, and against division of labor and all institutions that are built from it.Maziotis 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is my response to your POV. It is my opinion that it is not POV that Ted Kaczynski is an anarcho-primitivist, since he openely and visibly defends the destruction of civilization.Maziotis 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he is an enviromentalist doesn't make him an anarchist. Enviromentalism is an important part of the fascist ideology too. In fact, his criticism of left-wingers shows that he is not an anarchist. In his book, he criticises both left-wingers and conservatives, but he doesn't says anything negative about the fascists. And in any case, anyone who reads "The Ship of Fools" can understand that he is pro-fascist. Mitsos 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he was an anarchist because he was an environmentalist. You simply fail to regard my argument as to how his environmentalist views are anarchist. As for the fact that his criticism of left-wingers reveals that he is not an anarchist, I must say that you are wrongfully assuming that anarchism comes from the left. I advise you to read the article post-left anarchy, here on wikipedia. In fact, the notion that he is both an anarchist and a non-leftist is not accidental. Ted Kaczynski himself is known to be one of the main authors for pushing "post-left anarchy", in green anarchist circles. Even in classic anarchism there was always the debate in which individualist anarchists and collectivist/communist anarchist would debate on social justice versus personal freedom. The fact is that anarchists have, historically, come from all sides of the traditional political spectrum, from left to right. So, if you, for example, establish the criteria that as we reach for the left we will find more preoccupation regarding social justice, and that when we reach for the right we will find more values of individual freedom, the fact is that you will find the same debate, regarding the same values, inside the anarchist family of thought. A extreme example of right wing anarchism is what as come to be known as “anarcho-capistalism”, which some, like me, regard as absurd and contradictory. But, nevertheless, this proves, as an extreme example, my point that there is in fact a liberal tradition in anarchism.

The text "the ship of fools" is quite simply an analogy on how we are all heading down for disaster while everyone seems to be paying attention to relatively trivial things, like the ones that, in kaczynski's view, are traditional of right and left politics. Most people have this interpretation, but I would like very much to understand a new one if you can explain exactly how he is a fascist in that article. I have really never seen anyone giving that point of view.Maziotis 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again we would need a source for fascist but I think it highly improbable that we will find one. Fascism as an ideology is about as far from Kaczynski as any lefty philosophy and I can t think of any reason why anyone would think he is fascist, SqueakBox 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Ship of Fools", unabobomber criticises left-wingers and generally those who argue about things such as immigrant rights, gay rights and others, which he sees as trivial. He is also against reformers (such as the left-wing professor) and capitalists (the captain and his mates). The person who is proved to be right in the end is the one who has been callled a fascist, the one who criticised the those who argued about racism and gay rights, and supported the use of violence against the captain. That's why I think he is pro-fascist. He says that the ones who are right and can "save" the world from destruction are the ones who called fascists today, and that, of course, does not include the anarchists. This is not just my POV. In fact, what made come here was an article about the Unabomber, that analyzed his book and called him a pro-fascist (it's not a very reliable source, and that's why I 'm not using it, but it did convinced me, it made a good point).

Also, the Unabomber is not a liberal in any way, and certrainly not an anarcho-capitalist. He also criticises liberals and right-wingers in his book. "Ted Kaczynski himself is known to be one of the main authors for pushing "post-left anarchy", in green anarchist circles." Have you got a source for that? Mitsos 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will read that essay again asap but all the same we need a credible source who isnt Kaczynski for this. Though also the opening to fascism here states "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and historical terms, above all other loyalties" and that is clearly nowhere near Kaczynski's ideology, SqueakBox 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, the Unabomber is not a liberal in any way, and certainly not an anarcho-capitalist. He also criticizes liberals and right-wingers in his book." I did not say he was a liberal or an anarcho-capitalist. Again, you are not addressing my argument. The reference to liberal tradition is part of my explanation on how "anarchism" is not rooted in "leftism"; there are no left wing values that are essential for anarchism. This point serves to dismiss your argument that the unabomber must not be anarchist because he is against leftism. The fact that there is a "post left" current in anarchism, alone, proves this.

As for the sources connecting the Unabomber to post-left anarchy, I would have to search for them; but I am sure that John Zerzan has reference him. Either way he is definitely identified as an anarchist in the green anarchist movement. And since the author himself has proclaimed to be anarchist, I don't understand where is your doubt. I have already explain to you why I believe that he is an anarchist and you have neither give me your explanation on to why he isn't nor have you address any of my arguments. As I have read many green anarchists, such as John Zerzan, referencing to him as a green anarchist, I find this debate to be superficial and pointless. You can read the articles "Whose Unabomber?" and "He means it. Do you?" by this author. Also, major green anarchist kevin Tucker has written, in the "The Message and The Messenger: FC, Ted Kaczynski, and the resisting the technological system" article: "From my reading, the manifesto really drives home two major points: the technological system must be destroyed and that any anti-technological movement must sharply break from the left.", and, "I wouldn’t question for a second that Ted’s revolution is an anarchist revolution." These are two big names in anarcho-primitivism that reference kaczynski both for his anarchist views and for how they are post-left in nature. Another expressive reference to Ted as an anarchist, within this circles, is in the article, "place blame where it belongs"; GA collective response to the article "Hit where it hurts", written by kaczynski. In it they clearly describe Kaczynski, in the first line, as an "anarchist political prisoner". This and other references show Kaczynski as a well-known, non-disputable name in green anarchist movement, and its post-left agenda.

As for the "fascist" remark, I believe he is simply being anti-leftist by using an old satire in which the left-winger sees anyone who does not acknowledge his values as "contra-revolutionary" and "fascist". That does not mean that he supports fascism. What one considers being his enemy is not necessarily what the enemy identifies himself with. There are more than two sides. Clearly, Kaczynski does not review himself within the leftist criterion, since he does not support the state as an answer to what he perceive to be the disaster that is civilization. He does not oppose left by being right. Anyway, we need to see that article to be more comfortable in debating on it. Please share it with usMaziotis 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you want a mainstream reference to Kaczynski as an anarchist? Here are just a couple of references of newspapers and magazines I stumble upon online, where the Unabomber is called an anarchist without any discussion, or any other second thoughts around it:

“His report said The Bishop appears to have many of the same characteristics as the Unabomber, an anarchist whose mail bombs killed three people and wounded 23 from the late 1970s to the early 1990s.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/251166,CST-NWS-bomber10.article

This is a reference to the political ideas of his manifesto. “FBI agents had been staking out Kaczynski's hand-built cabin near the Continental Divide for several weeks, ever since relatives in the Chicago area notified authorities that they had stumbled across some of his old writings and found them similar to the Unabomber's anarchist manifestos. Without that help, the case would not have been cracked, Bertram said.”

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:a4tBBXXl1JEJ:www.cnn.com/US/9604/04/unabomber/index.html+newspaper+unabomber+anarchist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

This is a description of the man before he was caught, but after his manifesto was read, and in regard of its publishing. “SAN FRANCISCO -- Investigators are confident that publication of the Unabomber's wordy manifesto will lead them to the anarchist whose handmade devices have killed three people and hurt nearly two dozen since 1978, officials said Tuesday.”

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:6AZQZxUMcWoJ:www.unabombertrial.com/archive/1995/092095.html+newspaper+unabomber+anarchist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13

This is a mainstream magazine reference to the support of Kaczynski as an anarchist in anarchist circles. “His papers, housed in the university's library, take up five linear feet of space and are being accorded all the academic solemnity that, say, Churchill's papers received when they went to Cambridge. Kaczynski is a self-proclaimed anarchist and since his arrest, he has had the moral support of several members of the world's anarchist community.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/17/MN153468.DTL

This only took me a few minutes. I am sure you can find more, and all from top referenced sources.Maziotis 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, here is a citation taken from a discussion in the talk page for the "john lydon" article. I understand that the view of another user cannot be considered an authority on the discussion of the subject, but I thought this might contribute to the deabate. This user addresses a point I was previously trying to express.

On Wikipedia, people who self-identify as anarchists are included in the category for anarchists. Example, Jello Biafra, who ran for office and advocates voting, and Murray Rothbard, an anarcho-capitalist who most anarchists do not consider an anarchist. Calling yourslef an anarchist makes you an anarchist on Wikipedia. He said his political philosophy is a form of anarchism. That makes him a self-proclaimed anarchist. That means he belongs in Category:Anarchists. You of all people do not have the authority to decide who is ad is not an anarchist. By the way, my language and rage are fine. I completely stand by what I said. -Switch t 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

All those citations of magazines I have found were done for the sake of the discussion. I would personally oppose to their use as reliable sources for identifying Kaczynski as an anarchist. For all the reasons I have explained before, I believe only Kaczynski himself can do that.Maziotis 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no one responds to these several references, I will add the "anarchist" label at the top of the article again, in a few days. Please discuss this or ask for a third party opinion, on wikipedia, in the proper channels.Maziotis 23:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop doing original research. Ted Kaczynski is a self-proclaimed anarchist, widely recognized as an important author in green anarchist branches and portrayed as one in mainstream media. It is just as clear to describe him as anarchist as any other. Please see references provided above.Maziotis 18:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is he a self-proclaimed anarchist? I dont think so but you would need to source that claim and then prove notability for it to go in the opening. We have bbeen without this term for years in the article and dont more than one person disagrees with Maziotis in this, SqueakBox 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A typical news story of the time doesnt mention the worsd anarchist. He is notable not just in anarchist circles but elsewhere and not for being an anarchist. Thus even if you can source that he is an anarchist it isnt even remotely notable to go int he opening let alonme as a description before anything else, SqueakBox 18:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is. His actions are defined politically by the anarcho-primitivist doctrine, and, as such, it is an important reference to understand who he is as a man and what he has done. He is not simply a celebrety who has adopted anarchism as his political philosophy. He is a reference in the movment for his ideias, as an author. Please see references above, mentioned by other authors.Maziotis 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Them defining him as such doesnt give them notability. Kaczynski is not just notable as an ideologue but as a convicted murderer who got his treatise published in the New York Times, ie he is notable far beyond anarchist circles. Given he does not identifyy with anarcho-primitivism the ideology is nopt notable enough to claim him as there own. We are not talking about a pure academic here but someone much more widely known. And he identified in IS, his best known work by far, as an anti-technologist, SqueakBox 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I dont understand your "he is not simply a celebrity". He is not a celebrity full stop, SqueakBox 18:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a reference where he is called an "anti-technologist", then.

The fact that he is an important author in green anarchy makes it important to clearly, from the start, classify him as such. That does not invalid the characterization on the other levels, as you have mention, where he is known to be a "murderer" or a "luddite" or a "bomber".Maziotis 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, he is in fact widely known as an anarchist. This is so because the media has recognize, as I was previously explainning, the importance of understanding the ideas of the man to understand his actions. His ideas are proclaimed by himself to be anarchist, and he has been characterized as such. See the several media references provided above.

The fact that you can provide one that does not reference him as an anarchist doesen't prove anything. I can do the same with any other knwon anarchists. Not all articles define an author politically, and one reason might precisely be the fact that it is not considered necessary since he is so vvery well known as such.Maziotis 18:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shows he is not commonly recognised as an anarchist, which he isnt. He is primarily a criminal but known for his anti-technology beliefs, partly because he targetted people who promoted technology rather thjan people who promoted or represented hierarchy. In para 215 of IS he includes anarchists in his description of non-leftists. There is no other mention of anarchism in unquestionably his best known work so I think it is labouring the point to describe him as such other than an obscure reference nopte about FC (a fake) possibly being anarchist under some eople's conception but not others. He may be notable enough in certain anarchist circles to be mentioned in articles on primitive anarchism etc and indeed in later sections of this article but there is no evidence of notability for the opening paragraph. Can you please now state why you believe calling him an anti-technologoist is vandalism given that in IS he talks extensively about technology, starting with paragraph 1 where he explicitly condems it, and going on to use headers such as "Industrial-Technological Society Cannot be Reformed" and "The 'Bad' Parts of Technology Cannot be Separated from the 'Good' Parts", SqueakBox 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shows he is not commonly recognized as an anarchist, which he isn’t. I gave you four sources from mainstream media in which he is referenced as an anarchist, and you gave me only one in which he isn't. So I don't understand how you can give this conclusion.

The fact that he focuses with the technological issue is part of his branch of anarchy. He might not talk about attacking people that represent hierarchy in terms of security, but he is still for the destruction of the state and all social institutions. His whole argument, in favor of wild life, deals with this primarily green anarchist critique of the relations of power in authoritarian society. This vision is shared by his particular view of anarchy. Clearly, he is more than just respected in "some circles" as you call it. Please do your research. Please read the references given above. He is an author of the green anarchy movement. Most anarchists don't reference themselves constantly as anarchists. The same applies with any ideology. HE merely explains in his manifesto is ideals for the destruction of the state, on the grounds of how he believes it is built, assuming a definition for his political doctrine in a brief statment.

You judgment of anarchism is not only poor as it is unnecessary. You have no authority to judge if his ideas are anarchist or not. The fact remains that he is both a self-proclaimed anarchist and recognized as one in the media. I believe that pointing out this category, in the beginning article, definitely helps us to understand who he is and what he did. If you have no other factual reasons to contest this category, on what grounds do you deny this possibility? It seems to me that we are also dealing here with a matter of style, in terms of writing an encyclopedic article. I don't see how you should have the final vote on this matter, as I also point out that this issue is highly subjective.Maziotis 00:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think caling him an anti-technologist is the highest compliment we can give him. Please understand I am not anti-Kaczynski (one of the brightest living minds its been my pleasure to come across), and I do know about anarchy (albeit not recently, I am more of a capitalist convert from anarchy), SqueakBox 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That shows how POV you are. We are not dealing with insults and compliments here. I am interested in describing the reason for his motives from the start.

Probably you should learn more about green anarchism.Maziotis 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err green anarchism was what I was into, I was always the peaceful type he criticises. Can you please chill out and stop reverting all my edits. Unless you are very on-wikipedia they arent going to last very long anyway and you are much better off negotiating with me instead of calling me POV etc. He was motivated by what he saw as the evils of technology not the evils of hierarchy and it is clear from IS that anti=technology is what motivated him. can you deny that? My issue with you is that you are using this article to promote your own anarchy ideas, SqueakBox 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do deny that. I do not accept that criterion. His anti-technology motivation is itself anarchist, the same way as other anarchists deal with social equality from an anarchist point of view. The discussion of who is anti-hierarchical is part of the anarchist philosophy, discussed on all branches, from different points of view. Your analysis, however brilliant it may be, is not called for here. The fact is that he describes himself as an anarchist, as does the media, and his views makes him respected as an anarchist author. I believe that this is very significant in his life. The fact that his ideas in terms of political definition, which he himself as assumed, lead him to make what he did.

Please answer my previous arguments. I have sources and you haven't provide me with a single proof that distinguishes him from any other commonly referred "anarchists".Maziotis 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You havent given a source to link to anarcho-primitivism merely to anarchy. I certainly dont agree that anti technology is necessarily anarchist, eg the Luddites. While to me your so-called social equality anarchists are nothing more than leftists, the type Kaczynski (IMO correctly) condemns. I am not trying to make any analysis, let alone a brilliant one but its certainly true that Kaczynski has heped tip me into the capitalist camp (death to socialims kind of thing). The reality is he emphasised anti-technolgy (an impossible idea even if desirable which IMO it isnt) far more than anarchism which is why I am left feeling you afre trying to impose your own political slant on Kaczynski. if you want me to answer a specific point please be clear about which. Regards, SqueakBox 01:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that being anti-technology is necessarily anarchist. I am saying that his form of anti-technology is. Please read more carefully while addressing my arguments. You have also not address my argument concerning the social equality anarchists. I understand that Kaczynski consider them leftists and condemns them. I spoke about them to dismiss you argument that Kaczynski does not fight against hierarchy, since he does not care about it from a security point of view. I gave you an example of a type of anarchist who focuses primarily on social equality issues while rebutting hierarchy.

You say I am using this article to promote my own anarchist ideas. As a communist might use an article on Leon Trotsky to promote Marxism?! Your reading of post-left values in the manifesto, while dismissing other main crucial points for his argument regarding a revolution for a stateless society, is the one that might have its own agenda. Not mine. I am merely describing a category that the author himself and those who defend his ideas would agree. I do agree that he should also be described, from the beginning of the article, in other ways other than "anarcho-primitivist", such as "bomber". They are not mutually exclusive.

The fact that you keep denying that this is an "anarcho-primitivist" author is beyond me. From there, I can understand why you would not see that linking "anarchist", on the beginning of the article, to the specific branch of anarchism where he is even mentioned from the start, I might add, is useful in the encyclopedic use of the article.

If you are looking for the four sources regarding the mainstream media references, please read above on this section to find them.Maziotis 10:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very ironic. I didn't make the current edits that SqueakBox wishes to revert, yet he claims that I am the one who is pushing my own beliefs. And please discuss my last answer above to justify my edit. Do not try to change the article without consensus. You are not a special case. Maziotis 17:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your unwillingness to discuss my arguments, while constantly reverting my edits, does not comply with the guidelines of wikipedia. You should argue on the discussion page in order to justify your reverts. Please read above before discussing this edit.

Your criterion for the ideological description of this author is absurd, and there is no reason to accept it as having a source of authority. Most authors, particularly radical activists who might not even write anything, do not clearly state in their arguments to belong to a specific ideology, such as asserting in the first person: “I am a Marxist”. Some political-philosophical terms appear after the author is dead, and they are described as belonging to a certain category by others, who feel close to their beliefs. Now, Kaczynski did spoke of the anarcho-primitivist movement and ideas, which lead him to be recognized by credible sources, such as those that I presented, as an anarcho-primitivist.

Again and again I have answered your arguments. My position is not original research. Thedore Kaczynski is an author that fights for a stateless primitive society, therefore being acknowledge by anarchists of this branch, and others outside anarchism and in mainstream media, as some one who belongs to the anarcho-primitivist movement. Check out for example the first result on a google search for the words "Theodore Kaczynski anarcho-primitivism"

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:ZAifEuN7k0kJ:www.corrupt.org/data/files/unabomber/+theodore+kaczynski+anarcho-primitivist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

If you think that the fact that there is no source in which Kaczynski claims in first person to be an anarcho-primitivist is a reason for not linking “anarchist” in the article to this particular branch, for encyclopedic "friendly use", than you probably agree with me that at least his claim to be an anarchist is sufficient to categorize him as such. The undisputble fact is that his political beliefs are related to his criminal actions, which made him famous. The fact that he is a referenced author in anarchism, while proclaiming to be one in his fight, means that only original research can dispute this category.Maziotis 20:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transcription of the debate that followed:

You are in viollation of BLP, pleaserer ad that article and see the difference between an addition and a subtraction. You are also pushing your anarchist POV, SqueakBox 23:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain exactly how I am pushing my political POV and you are not pushing yours. Is it because I define myself politically in the same way as the author whose article I wish to edit?Maziotis 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hardly defines himself as an anarchist so no it is because you define him as having the same political belief as you. If it were easy to find a good secondary source that he as an anarchist you would have done so, SqueakBox 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And lets face it mainstream sources call him an anti-technologist and not an anarchist [5], SqueakBox 23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your claiming to understand my reasons in not defending my position in a certain way really shows a lack of arguments for a rational debate.

Excuse me, but I don't understand what it means for a person to "hardly" defining himself as anything. Clearly you are taking this personally on another level. How many times does a person have to claim to be an anarchist, in order to be considered one?

I already gave you two top references in the anarcho-primitivist movement (John Zerzan and Kevin Tucker) addressing his anarchist ideals. Do you have an alternative reading of the manifesto? Exactly what is the criterion in terms of writing style and public recognition does one has to have? Are you an authority on the subject?

This is simply absurd. I already tried to explain you how I believe that his whole manifesto is not at all ambiguous in his anarchist orientation. But not only you do not answer that, as you try to overcome top reliable sources in anarchism to defend your position, without any justification.

And lets face it mainstream sources call him an anti-technologist and not an anarchist. Lets face it? I gave you four in which he was clearly described as an anarchist. And what does that prove, anyway?

Its not me who needs the referencing, it is our readers. Right now you have made a statement (regardless of whether you inserted it originally) and you havent referenced it so a lot of readers are going to be dubious and may think "wikipedia got it wrong again" because he is known as an anti-technologisty and not an anarchist. As Is aid before even if some claim he is/was an anarchist that doesnt make him so whereas the whole force of his argument is in favour of being anti-technology. Given that every time I include this much more notable info perhaps you could explain why he isnt notable as an anti-technologist, because this is what you appear to be claiming, SqueakBox 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and you havent referenced it so a lot of readers are going to be dubious and may think "wikipedia got it wrong again" because he is known as an anti-technologisty and not an anarchist. This is just your POV. The fact is that he is known as an anarchist in the media, as I have already shown you the four media references. On the other hand, I do want to stress out that we are not obliged to reflect the way the mainstream media describes a person. This is an encyclopedic article and I believe that the way a criminal defines himself politically and in justification for his actions is very important to understand who he is. This alone is a justification for how most activists are described in media and encyclopedic sources.

I did not say he is not known as a person that is against technology. I do think that the term "anti-technologist" is not very common. That perspective can always be present in the article.Maziotis 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

end of transcription

Please discuss before changing the article. Before the private debate, there are several issues that were being discussed in this section.Maziotis 16:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the manifesto of the unabomber as an attack to technology represents a very poor analysis of his ideas. Indeed he supported "primitive technology", which is not a term that I made up.Maziotis 09:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Given the several sort of sources that I have provided, I consider the fact that Ted Kaczynski is anarchist to be "Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research" and cannot be considered as "contentious material".

Your attempt to use this guideline is absurd. The fact that he is an anarchist, in terms of the rigorousness of the article, is just as important for a living person as for a dead person.. You are using a guideline that was made to protect defamation regarding the description of celebrity’s controversies. This is a political category assumed by the author himself, the political movement and the media in general.

Please discuss my previous posts as to why Kaczynski belongs to this category, in the circumstances described above.Maziotis 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of your 4 so-called sources 2 are google cache's, one a 404 abnd theother claims that his life is a study in anarchy. If you think that makes him an anarchist I suggest you reference it at the beginning of the article but its a pretty poor reference and all it actually says is that anarchists consider him an anarchist, which not in the opening is fine. I am baffled as to why, being an anarchist, you cannot see that your claim that the most important thing about him is being an anarchist is your POV pushing. Truly baffled, SqueakBox 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 sources, of which 4 are from the media. These are just examples. One of them is from the CNN. One of the 7 sources is from Kaczynski himself. What more do you want?? That everybody that addresses his name publicly to use the prefix "anarchist"? Is that the criterion to describe someone politically? It has never been used.Maziotis 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a fifth, another cache which means the article doesnt likely exist any more but i cannot find a 6th or 7th. besides you cant expect our readers to read the talk page and you need a good reference for your initial anarchist assertion. Please provide one or expect the word to be deleted, SqueakBox 21:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave 4 media sources, 2 top sources from the anarchist movement (John Zerzan and Kevin Tucker) and one source from Kaczynski himself.

What I don't expect is that anyone finds him being an anarcho-primitivist to be questionable. If you are so concerned in making this a good article and you believe the reference is necessary, I suggest you put the Ted's reference yourself. I don't believe that it is.

I was hoping to find consensus to redirect the link "anarchist" to "anarcho-primitivst". I believe it would help make the article more accurate. I hope you find consensus regarding this or any other change. We must not forget that the current state of the article was not brought by any of us.Maziotis 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd appreciate if you listen to me because I find it questionable. My parents visited New York when I was firmly entrenched in England way back in 96 and I got them to get me a copy of the Unabomber manifesto from a New York library (my father apprecated being given something to do as ever) and I definitely disagree with your assertion but was hugely influenced by Kaczynski, see my user page comments re socialism for proof of this. If you want to link to anarcho-primitive please find a source, SqueakBox 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to take this conversation to a personal level, but, if you ask me, I believe you do not accept Kaczynski as an anarchist because you have your very own political interpretation of his ideas. That is nice, but you have to respect that, besides the fact that he has justified his actions as an anarchist, he is considered by many authors as someone who has contributed as an ideologue to the anarchist movement and has been called as such by the media. You can't change the fact that the article is correct the way it is. Of course it could be written differently, but you must find consensus for that. It was not me who wrote it. Here on wikipedia, as well as in the press, you will find examples of thieves and murderers who have never written a word and are called "anarchist" from the start, simply because they have said to have done what they did for "anarchy". Ted Kaczynski is very different from this in the sense that he actually represents a specific political personality in the anarchist movement.

It really does blow my mind your resistance in calling him an anarchist. I mean, you don’t have to consider him as representative of your definition of anarchy. Just accept that it is possible to call him that, and that it becomes necessary to call him that in the moment he assumes it while committing a crime. This is insightful since it helps people to understand that at least for him there was a political reason to do what he did. It was not just "for fun". Calling him an "anti-technologist" is just one possibility. It is one that he has never assumed as a term and that I believed that is highly flawed, for the reasons I have explained before. You cannot use one, and cut the other, without discussing. Please understand that both are not mutually exclusive.

I don't believe I need a source to link him to "anarcho-primitivism" if I find consensus. That is a point to remember. I won't make any changes that are in dispute. But you want to remove the "anarchist" term without discussing or finding consensus. The term was there before the dispute started.Maziotis 09:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox is again trying to make a change in the article after giving up the discussion weeks ago. I truly consider this disruptive to the effort to build an encyclopedia. Please explain your reasons.Maziotis 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You havent sourced anarchist in the text as I asked you to and this makes it a BLP violation which means in thios caseI dont have to explain reverting. Your refusal to add a reference shows exactly who, if anyone, is being disruptive in this case. You revert all my editas as if this was your own article, which it isnt and to, apprently, promote an anarchist POV which you admit is your POV. You have no nconsensus for your claims either, you merely impose them by edit warring as if truth were determined by the person with the greater determination, SqueakBox 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not loose sight of who is making edits without discussing before accusing another of making this "its own article". If I have a dispute in which I want to change something on wikipedia, I refrain myself from doing any edits until I contest the other's person arguments. I always look for consensus, and there is nothing in my history log for you to suggest otherwise.

You havent sourced anarchist in the text as I asked you to and this makes it a BLP violation. You are the own who seems to treat this article as its own. There is no policy that supports your view. I have gave you my reasons to keep the article the way I have found it, and you insist in changing it without discussing or finding consensus. I believe you should give a reason before making such a big change.

I have never admitted to make a change in this article that included a POV. We already discuss this, but you have never given me an answer. I believe that you are the one who is pushing its own POV. I have explained you why.

By the way, I invite you to see the numerous articles on anarchist theory, here on wikipedia, where Theodore Kaczynski is referenced several times. This includes "Anarchism" and "Anarcho-primitivism". Please note that I have never add a single reference to any of these articles, as I have never included this same "anarchist" reference in this one.

you merely impose them by edit warring as if truth were determined by the person with the greater determination What do you say to someone who keeps coming and changing things after days have passed over another's argument about an article?Maziotis 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I let day pass but you revert all my improvements within minutes is what it means, SqueakBox 22:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue here is precisely what constitutes an "improvement" on this article. It seems we are in disagreement. I believe you should not let several days pass and then make a change without addressing the person's argument with who you are in a dispute. I believe you should not make a change without addressing the other's arguments at all, actually, let alone after a few days. It seems to me that you are the one who is trying to push you change by determination, rather than trough the result of a clear debate.Maziotis 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary is better than anarchist which IMO is misleading. Can we have a source for it please? SqueakBox 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He claims to be an anarchist, therefore he is an anarchist. The justification to describe him solely as a revolutionary does not comprehend kaczynki's argument. I have provided a source for this category.Maziotis 12:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Just because he refers to himself as an anarchist on one occasion, it does not follow that this is the only accurate descriptor. (Also, some descriptors may be valid, even if not used as self-reference).

Johnbibby 12:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the definition provided in the edit box about anarchism, by which Ted is excluded, does not stand. Any anarchist is against authoritarian society, like what you have mentioned about Ted, and not against a particular form of government, like a party in the parliament would. There are many schools of anarchism, and some certainly do not agree in some points with another, but they are all against hierarchy, like Ted is. His argument against the society that you have mentioned is expressed in the anarcho-primitivism branch, in which he has been supported and maintaining contact, both personally and ideologically, with individuals such as John Zerzan.

But we, as wikipedians, should not engage in political interpretations and debates to define people. That constitutes original research. Our objective should never be to academically define what is anarchism and who ideologically supports it. If a thief says he steals a bank for “anarchy”, than he is considered an anarchist in wikipedia.

Please read my posts above. Kaczynski is not a regular criminal that has been associated with a political movement by personal conviction. In this sense, many biographies describe an individual as being a “Christian” or an “anarchist” based on personal choices at some point of there lives, or because they have said to chose to do a certain action that makes him famous to be associated with that belief, which makes it more pertinent. Ted Kaczynski is different from this as he is an author and an anarchist personality and I can provided many references, besides the several ones that I already provided, in the anarchist community.Maziotis 13:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, some descriptors may be valid, even if not used as self-reference). Like being called something in the media? There is not one criterion that this man does not fulfill in terms of relevance in being an anarchist. We had already discussed this particular issue. Please read this section. I have given references for Kaczynski (more than one coming from himself), the media (big mainstream media) and anarchists (renowned authors). Also, you can check several references of his political anarchist ideology, here on wikipedia. I was not the one who had references to Kaczynski in "anarchism" and "anarcho-primitivism".

Squeakbox, please stop making up rules. Authors don't have to claim to be "anarchists" in the first chapter of anything. I am sure that he can be describe in a lot of ways that are relevant, but you have not dismiss one argument by which it is not relevant to call him an anarchist besides anything else.Maziotis 18:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well please stop violating 3rr as you have now done in opposition to 2 editors. Yiour ref waqs so obscure that it is clear to me not to be notable enough to go in the opening (which is the most critical part oft he article). I am certainly NOT making up rules, you have failed to prove notability to call him an anarchist in the opening. This merely confuses our readers and from what I can see to call him an anarchist in the way you, as a single editor without support, are doing creaztes a false impression of a man who is not known as an anarchist. The fact of your willingness to violate 3rr in defiance of 2 other editors on this one doesnt show a lot of good faith on your part. if you want to stick to policy please revert yourself as if not any admin might chjoose to block you for 3rr violation and it will make it much harder for other editors here who swill see that you try to get your way by edit warring, SqueakBox 18:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So please calm down! and read WP:3RR, SqueakBox 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That rule also apllies to you. And curiously, you have reached the third change first, in what this change is concerned.Maziotis 18:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that cant be so but I am not interested in edit warring.

Please don't make ridiculous threats about me getting block. Especially when it concerns rules that you cannot follow yourself. It is sad to see that you have finally given a response but with no arguments. You say I have "failed to prove notability to call him an anarchist" and that I am creating "false impression of a man who is not known as an anarchist". Yet, I have given you several sources that prove that he is both known as an anarchist in the mainstream media and in anarchist circles. I believe that I have at least provided some hints that he may be a "notable" and "known" anarchist. You have provided nothing proving otherwise.

And please visit the log of the page. You have violated that rule countless times.Maziotis 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far from saying I would get you blocked I havent reported you but an admin could still block you. I have not violated 3rr on this article as far as I am aware and suggest you give some diffs to substantiate your accusations. Hints that he may be a notable anarchist are not enough and your single minded attempts to portray him as sucvh do a disservice to wikipedia, SqueakBox 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider them to be hints, as I explained that many times in the past. I said that at least what I have pointed out is a hint, since the sources are not forged, and in contrast with you that have provided nothing. In this context I could have said that my sources meant more than hints, but that would miss the point since the debate concerns that precisely.

Your violation of the 3rr is simply constant. Check the history log on any of the last pages, for the last weeks. You keep several days without reverting, then you revert, I revert again, you revert, I revert and then you do not abstain yourself from reverting. It is actually very simple: Since you keep several days without reverting, when you come to participate in a serious of reverts, I end up being the one keeping the article as it is, which is what the 3rr is meant to protect.

You attempts in portraying him not as an anarchist are not single minded, since you do not present arguments at all. Therefore, I would say that they are mindless. It is a pity because I believe you have prove to be a person very capable of debating and doing research.Maziotis 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:3RR and if not please do so. It refers to reverts within 24 hours. You are the only user who is trying to portray him as an anarchist, I am not trying to protray him as anything at all. You took the pro-active step of portraying him as an anarchist and you have had no support for your opinion. My concern is that we are misleading our readers, and it is your responsibility as the one adding this material to prove its notability, I dont have to prove anything as Iam not adding material, SqueakBox 19:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Within 24 hours?! I am talking about serious of reverts that happen in 3 minutes, where I am the one keeping the article as it is. Do the math. You keep several days without editing, you come to participate in serious of reverts and, therefore, you end up violating 3rr.

I believe I have proved notability. I may be wrong. It is very hard for me to know since I have no one to discuss with. You do not give any arguments at all.

I don't think I am the only user in anything. Please consider the fact that I was not the one that referenced him in the article to be an anarchist, and no one has reverted my edit after I have argued for keeping it. You are the one who has come here and wants to make a big change without discussing or finding consensus. I believe that is wrong. You should provide sources, even when it is about taking references out, since that changes the way the article portrays the subject. You are hiding behind a false claim of neutrality.Maziotis 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have forgotten my argument which is that he is notable as anti-technologist, and the whole thrust of Ind Soc (one of my favourite writings and one I know well) is anti-technology as the absolute bottom line. He makes one claim in the notes that the group FC are anarchist but this group never existed, SqueakBox 19:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to forget my response which is that the whole "anti-technologist" critique is an anarchist ideological development, much in the same way as other anarchists have develop around a particular issue such as “social equality”. Simply to characterize the manifesto as being an argument for "anti-technology" is not only very superficial, as it is outright wrong since he does support a form of technology, which is primitive technology. You are argument is extremely simplistic and fails to understand the social and economical domain of Kaczynski's critique of technology.

He argues against the consequences brought by modern technology as a product of hierarchical society, which leads him to fight for a stateless primitive society. If you read prime anarcho-primitivism articles, you may find them helpful to understand his point. You cannot separate his critique of technology from his anarchist critique of division of labor and specialization.

This is not just my point of view. It is also the point of view of several anarchists, such as John Zerzan and Kevin Tucker, for which I have provided sources and you have not provided a single rebuttal.

He is clearly a self-proclaimed anarchist that refers to his manifesto as belonging to “a branch of anarchism”; he is referenced as such in the mainstream media, right from the top; he is mentioned in anarchist circles as such. I have given you sources for all of this. You have only responded with your POV theory about him just being “anti-technologist”.Maziotis 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Failed: review and fixes needed

I have had to fail this article as a good article nominee as it is woefully underreferenced. For starters, a quick perusal shows several {{fact}} tags, showing that someone before me has even raised objection to several unreferenced assertions of fact. For example (and this list is NOT comprehensive) the following needed references:

The first three paragraphs of Early life and mathematical career
The last three paragraphs of same
Several paragraphs of the Bombings section
Several paragraphs of the Arrest and court proceedings
The entire Popular culture references section

As well, the items that ARE referenced show an inconsitency in format. There should be some minimum bibliographical information in each reference, ideally this should be:

Name of author of reference (if availible)
Title of reference
Title of larger work reference is part of (if so)
Publication information (especially for print media)
Date of access (for online media)

At WP:CITET you can find templates that can help organize this information. These templates are not required, but they can save you a bit of work and help keep all of the information organized. Also see WP:CITE and WP:ATT for more information about citing sources. If these problems can be fixed, please feel free to renominate again! Good luck and happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Issues

Why does it say in the intro he killed 78 people and injured more than that, when later in the article it only summarizes 3 people he killed and about a dozen injured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.163.226 (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the hood picture come from?

Not being familiar with forensic sketching, I'm curious as to how the artist came up with the famous sketch of the Unabomber in the hood and shades. Does anybody know?--Rob117 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody spotted him somewhere. We should get some more info on this, SqueakBox 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC it was a woman who saw him plant the bomb in the parking lot. The police used her recollections to composite the face(http://encarta.msn.com/media_461536792/FBI_Sketch_of_the_Unabomber.html) Eggerst 17:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-primitivist

Re-igniting above debate, wouldn't it be better to call him an anarcho-primitivist? This is very precise and accurate, in comparison to vagueness (and obviously contentiousness) of anarchist? The three references in the text are not very strong. One[6] is a news article translated from Spanish - just because a journalist calls someone an anarchist does not make that an accurate description (the Sidney Street bombers were called anarchists in the press but were social democrats; lots of Islamists are called things like "Muslim extremist" in the press but that doesn't make it encyclopedic language). One[7] is from TK's fraudulent claim to be part of a group, which can't count as evidence he was an anarchist. One[8] is a passing reference in his manifesto, which makes it clear that most anarchists wouldn't recognise him (or rather, his non-existant group FC) as an anarchist! BobFromBrockley 11:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last reference deals precisely with the fact that he is an anarcho-primitivist and most anarchists (especially the leftist types) do not recognize him as an anarchist. That is what the particular branch of anarchism" that may not be recognized by other anarchists refers too. I believe we should not step into a debate about which anarchists recognize who. that is highly subjective and it concerns political theory. There are also many indivualist and primitivst anarchists that will not recognize leftist communist anarchists as such.

TK's group may be fraudulent, but it does concern his political expression trough which he was made famous. What other prove do you need that he considers himself an anarchist when he voices his manifesto as such? The fact that he wanted to give a wider expression to the number of his followers has got nothing to do with his political ideology.

The first source is just an example in the media. I have already provided several others. I do agree with you that he is an anarcho-primitivist and he should be described as one in this article. He has been referenced to as one in anarchist articles(anarchism and anarcho-primitivism), which may show that not only he is recognize as such, but that he is a notable author in this field.Maziotis 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I will change the article in light of this section, considering there is a consensus on the term "anarcho-primitivist" to describe the unabomber. This is actually not the first time that this consensus is reached. You can check the history log. The term "anarcho-primitivism" itself is not very popular, but for people who are familiarized with anarchism and the unabomber know that the is an anarcho-primitivist.Maziotis 12:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maziotis, I support that. BobFromBrockley 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right right... Carry on

I certainly object. You anarcho primitivists might wish to claim him as your own but that doesnt make him one. We already have the POV tag because of the anarchists label and this is worse, SqueakBox 18:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why object? why not be more specific when we are able? 04:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Kaczynski is not an anarcho-primitivist, rather, he is an individual autonomist/anarchist who focuses on industrial technology as a device that prohibits personal autonomy through the requirements of large interdependent organizations. Proof of this is "Two Kinds of Technology" section in Industrial Society and Its Future. With Kaczynski, primitivism is not an end but means... unlike an anarcho-primitvist. --Korey Kaczynski 20:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In paragraph 215 of his manifesto, he implies he is an anarchist. Not sure about primitivist, though he does glorify primitive man. I think complete lack of "artificial authority" is his goal...he said he wasn't concerned about what happened from there.

Well, yes -- he's an anarchist in the sense that he's for more localized, autonomous villages; absolutely not in the modern definition of an anarchist being a communist. He's not a primitivist in that his aim is to remove technology, however, he simply wants localized autonomy and feels that organizational technology opposes that life structure. He's obviously not against technology that can be constructed by small organizations, like a group of people or a village, which separates himself from anarcho-primitivists in that their goal is to remove technology as a means to a hunter-gatherer type lifestyle (at least typically). --Korey Kaczynski 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TJK's revolutionary politics are entirely and explicitly concrete; he specifically says he doesn't know what form of society would arise from the collapse of industry, but he knows it would involve a life close to nature. TJK sees history as moving in a certain direction and wants to stop it from going there more than to make it go anywhere specific.

On the other hand, he has published in Green Anarchy magazine; he is personally associated with Zerzan; he has said he was "attracted to the primitive way of life as a result of reading of the life of Neanderthal man" and that he "used to dream of escaping from civilization and going to live in some wild place." At the very least, one could call him a fellow-traveler with anarcho-primitivism. Though Kaczynski's expressed views are too concrete to associate with an ideology, he specifically calls for the creation of an ideology--arguably anarcho-primitivism is that ideology. But calling for the ideology is not the same as subscribing to it.

Ultimately, words have no fixed meanings--labels in particular are hard to hold still. To subscribe to an "ism" has more to do with sociology than belief. A Christian is not someone who believes in anything in particular; rather, he who identifies as "Christian" asserts his membership in a certain social group with norms of belief. If that social group's norms of belief change, then the definition of "Christian" changes, far from the group becoming non-Christian.

Because of this, and since Kaczynski is undoubtedly familiar with the term "anarcho-primitivism" and has never seen fit to comment on it, I think it would be best not to describe him that way. --Jemmy Button 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaczynski has a lot in common with anarcho-primitivism but he's not against low-scale technology like water wheels. I think most anarcho-primitivists would be more interested in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle than anything involving water wheels or enhanced agricultural practices. The manifesto is clear on this, I think.--Korey Kaczynski (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest

Some words seem to have been deleted in this section, and it does not address how Ted was actually found and arrested.

Too much politics

I think too much emphasis is made on Kaczynski's political philosophy, and in political philosophy in general, in this article. Kaczynski is a murderer before an anarchist, but this article has too many references and links to political philosophies. It should concentrate on being a biography of a specific person. Perhaps a separate article on UNABOM, a specific criminal and series of crimes, should exist, and not have it redirect here. The way it exists, it is like having Kennedy Assasination redirect to Lee Harvey Oswald. Mal7798 07:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly agree there is too much politics, SqueakBox 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a good idea, While his primitivist philosophy is what makes the case so interesting and noteworthy, some people want to know more about the case and trial only. Perhaps info on his mathematical career and political philosophies should go here, and then also have a summarised version of the UNABOM trial, linking to a more detailed page? -04:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree the politics are adequate. However more information should be included about how he carried himself around people. Something more about his child-hood. Theres only so much information to gather about him. Leave the politics is my suggestion. -22:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that his political beliefs need to be eliminated from the article entirely, just that there seems to be too much of it here, and this needed to be addressed. And if there is too little of his life known to make a large enough biography, it would be inappropriate to use accounts of his political philosophy as filler. Kaczynski is a murderer who used his philosophy to justify his crimes, not a political philosopher who "took to a life of crime". He would have most likely not warranted an article had he not committed his crimes, but he definitely warrants one because of his crimes. Mal7798 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that his politics are less notable than his crimes. While his crimes are somewhat notable I think his philosophy/politics is much more so, and eg the addressing of those issues by Bill Joy et al, he cant be treated like an unintelligent criminal any more than Abimael Guzmán can, SqueakBox 04:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is certainly in the realm of opinion, but what I find notable is the fact that he conquered the New York Times through terrorism—a singular event in the history of mass media. —Jemmy_tc 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a political label really needed in the opening section? Steve Dufour 09:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It explains a lot about his beliefs in very few words. I feel it's appropriate there.-- 06:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am 100% in favor of explaining his political stance in the article itself. However, just putting a label on him, like "anti-leftist anarchist", could lead to problems. Kaczynski was not part of any political group or party and there is probably not anyone with exactly the same opinions as him. DoesItalic text any group welcome him as a member? The anti-leftist anarchist label could also be seen as a slur against other anti-leftist anarchists. Steve Dufour 22:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag as the anarchist label has been removed, SqueakBox 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can say that. He killed people because of his ideology. You have to address that he wasn't just a murderer, he WAS a political philosopher. And just like how people place Fred West as a psychotic, we must place the UNABOMER as a political philosopher. lordbetterthanyou

Many likely share many of his beliefs, but none of them committed the crimes he did, and most do not commit similar crimes. And few killers have presented such a detailed philosophy, nor have had the opportunity to express it. But no killer was just a killer. The reason Kaczynski merits a Wikipedia biography is that he is a killer. The crimes he committed could even merit a separate article, but if there is no way to include both articles without them being redundant, only then should it stand just as it is. Mal7798 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Ted obiously became a killer because he is a philosopher.

-- unpaid lamer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.149.19.160 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind reading removed

I took out this sentence from the opening:

Kaczynski did this in the hope that it would inspire others to fight against what he considered the inevitable subjugation of the human race as a direct consequence of technological progress.

I don't think we can really say for sure what his reasons were. Steve Dufour 09:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, he only wrote 35,000 words describing his reasons... Jemmy Button 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steve, but only to the extent that the excerpt is poorly worded. Perhaps something like "According to Kaczynski's writings, he did this in hope..." or "Kaczynski's motive, expressed in his writings, was the hope...." If it's his writings that make his reasons clear, then they should be credited as the source for that info. Applejuicefool 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, according to Kaczynski's journal, that his reasons were to get "revenge" on the system and the people he felt were responsible for the problems in the world, namely, loss of personal autonomy. The manifesto was really him capitalizing off his bombings. --Korey Kaczynski (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errors and wrong insinuations

"Bombs sent via the U.S. Postal Service continue to this day, some exploding and many others being defused, but none are attributed to Kaczynski since it is the government's position that he acted alone."

umm, murders continue to this day as well, and none are attributed to Cain, not because "it's the government's position that he acted alone", but because there is no evidence to link Cain and those murders. This sentence makes an implication that has no factual or rational basis. Dlabtot 01:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That strange sentence is preceded by another, and I have edited them both... "No explanation was ever presented as to why Kaczynski targeted the airplane and the specific victims he selected, and why he chose to place other devices where they would randomly kill and maim.[27]"

These claims are factually wrong - listen to Theodore's younger brother David on Whistleblowers, rte.ie, 9 Sep 2007 Cckkab 9 September 2007

suppressed following, after listering to interview of Theodore's brother David 9 Sep 07 www.rte.ie

"To date, no other members of Kaczynski's alleged Freedom Club have ever been publicly named." Cckkab 9 September 2007

Kaczynski always supplanted false clues in his writings and bombs; Freedom Club was more than likely only an alias for Teddy K. Ted didn't have any friends other than maybe a few pen pals.--Korey Kaczynski (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Does anyone know the proper pronunciation of Kaczynski? It is often pronounced as Kazinski but the "cz" would usually be pronounced Kashinski, I think. I've always wondered if the newscasters, etc. got it right or wrong. Sbowers3 02:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English: [9] Polish: [10] Polish Pronunciation of the "original" Kaczyński name: [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Kent (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC) If the above links don't work - just type "Kaczynski" here: [12] Barry Kent 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like Kachinski. The real question though is how does the Kaczynski family pronounce it? Sbowers3 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to a radio interview with David Kaczynski in the article. I haven't listened to it myself. —Jemmy_tc 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Critic

The article states he is a "an American terrorist and social critic". Um, aren't ALL terrorists social critics? :P AbstractClass 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A terrorist is likely to hold a critical opinion of society, but not necessarily to produce social criticism. Jemmy Button 22:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is theoretically possible for a terrorist to not be a social critic - for example, a bomber who uses the threat of terrorist activity to extort money for personal gain. Applejuicefool 16:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist?

on a related note: what makes kaczynski s "terrorist" rather than a "serial killer"? Metanoid (talk, email) 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to serial killer, the term means merely someone who has killed a series of people. Nevertheless, the connotations are quite inappropriate to Kaczynski, and the description in that article does not match him at all--in spite of the fact that, before the manifesto, the unabomber was covered in the media as a serial killer. Kaczynski's motivations were political and he used the threat of violence to hold the New York Times hostage, meeting more or less every definition in terrorism. He clearly belongs in the same camp as Weatherman (organization), Timothy McVeigh, etc. (see also eco-terrorism and Kaczynski's article in Green Anarchy, wikisource:Hit Where It Hurts). He doesn't fit well at all with these guys. —Jemmy_tc 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. He also promised "to desist from terrorism" in his letter to the NYT. —Jemmy_tc 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of parents

Any one know what was the religion of his parents ( if any)?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.106.141 (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T.J.Kaczynski seems to have been sent to non-Catholic schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T.J.Kaczynski's parents were brought up as Catholics but became atheists, according to the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MKULTRA involvement

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2160815834239891699&hl=en

This BBC documentary states that his lawyerts tried to use his involvement in the Project MKULTRA experiments in a plea of insanity. (At about 43 minutes in.)

-- nyenyec ☎ 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mkultra#Famous_subjects

The MKULTRA involvement should be expanded since this largely affected Theodore Kaczynski's mind. After the experiments he uses the term "WE" in his journals. His schizophrenia isn't mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.133.158 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Relations

Any one know if he ever had a girlfriend or can find out anything about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.68.173 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Graysmith was unable to find one past high school JRWoodwardMSW 00:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRWoodwardMSW (talk • contribs)

In the book "mind of the unabomber" it says he'd never had a real one. In high school he put a dead cat in a girls locker. Later in life he'd gone to dinner with a co-worker who instantly decided to stop seeing him. I don't have it with me anymore, but I remember it was written by the old director of the FBI, if anyone could hunt it down for this article. Clockwrist (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unabomber is ugly and mean and a horrible person! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.93.134 (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaczynski's use of "we"

This is a common usage of the word in peer-reviewed mathematics journals. 72.215.61.106 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are his victims not suitable for "See also" linking?

In reference to recent undo here wherein User:Maziotis said about User:ACSE's inclusion in the "See also" section of

Diogenes Angelakos, a target of the Unabomber.

"it's great we have a link in the article for one of the targets, but this is not a topic of further investigation in the unabomber case for the see also section; don't over-link please"

I'm mystified. Why wouldn't this be relevant in this article? As a researcher I find such links to be invaluable, and as it is unobtrusively in the "See also" section, fairly neutral. If I'm reading the Unabomber article and have a hankering to learn about or interview his victims, having them noted would be critical.

Kaczynski sent bombs to people. Angelakos was one of his targets. Therefore, a link to Angelakos in an article about Kaczynski is relevant. Sort of like linking to mail bombing in the lede.

Given my experience with the hypersensitivity to many innocuous edits I've seen with this article (accusing nobody), rather than undo this edit, I figured I better bring it up here. I am unabmiguously in favor of including User:ACSE's appropriate link in the "See also" section. -- Quartermaster (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are aware of this, but there is still a link in the article to the article of that subject. I have not removed the link for the article of such target for whoever reads this article and is interested on further investigation. I simply removed the link from the "see also" section because there is a tendency for this to became a much too long list of things related to this article. If we don't take care to only preserve the most important ones, we end up with the risk of having a sort of transcription of all the article links in the end section.

I don't claim to have any golden rule on this. I understand that people have different sensibilities on how to choose such criterion. I suggest you too read the link for policy rule in wikipedia, if you haven't yet - Wikipedia:Layout#see_also

Please understand that there are links in the "see also" section that didn't appear in the article and wouldn't otherwise be linked. I believe this should be the main criteria for articles this long.

I hope I was able to address the issue.Maziotis (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I guess the fact that you dispute my edit pretty much dismisses my criterion of being evidently pointless for most. I won't remove it again.Maziotis (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is a most civil discussion and illuminates your rationale (which does make sense). I come from background as a reference librarian and find most often that I direct people immediately to the wikipedia article sections labeled "Bibliography," "References," and "See also." I even counsel them to be VERY wary of the body of an article that is politically sensitive and contentious (such as this one) and rely upon the references to take them to external sources. I understand the need and desire to keep articles from being too cluttered and see that as a natural tension against wanting to supply enough "access points" (liberry jargon). Ideally, there might be a section (See also sub-section?) that simply lists all the victims with appropriate links. I'll leave the latest version alone until someone else chimes in as this being compelling (hold off on my opinion without support from others). -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for now we do have a talbe in the "bombings" section that pin down the narrative to the descrimination of each of the targets. The ones who died, and for which there is an article, are linked there. Not all the victims are notable enough to have an article of there own.Maziotis (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities

Sorry but only deaths are fatalities. Somebody with an account fix the heading to casualties or something to that effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.223.75 (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Court proceedings

This section is heavy on implication that its quite possible TK was not the unabomber. It reads a bit like a conspiracy theorist wrote it. I'd suggest someone take out the weasel-wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.199.188 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the removal of several items in the see also section

I am reading the guidelines for the See also, and I cannot find any reason why would someone remove most of that list, for which there has been consensus to keep for a long time, while some items in particular have been disputed.

Several items in the "see also" section provide a link for futher investigation, not only to the ideological background of the unabomber, but for the actual history of his case. Maziotis (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the External links that you re-added are low value links. For instance, several of them have already been linked to in the article, including his writings on Wikisource (which is what the Wikisource link the See also section is for), the Commons box in the External links is already in the See also section, and the fact that the current size of the External links section just opens it up to link spam. The links include YouTube links, every link is formatted differently (some of them use numbers as the URL's title, which is strongly discouraged). At the very least, these two sections strongly beg for uniformity; for instance, if all the lines in the "See also" section followed the format "John Smith, a person who did this and that", which follows a "Name, what they did that relates to this article" format, then the section would be easier to read. As it is now, the format for both sections certainly discourage people from perusing them because of their length and non-uniformity. Gary King (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited the See also section. The External links section should be started from scratch; it has gotten far too long during the lifetime of this article, and is open to linkspam. I typically do not include an External links section if possible because I like to believe that it is possible to include relevant information within Wikipedia and sister projects, which is what the Commons and Wikisource links are for. If someone really wants to learn more about an article's subject, then they are free to search for them online. Also, the links provided in this article included YouTube links, and links to pages that were already linked to. Gary King (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. If you check this archieve talk, you will find that sort of preocupation about "see also" section and external links getting out of hand. But some of the external links are valuable, such as the letters of Kaczynski, which are mentioned in the article, and connot be found anywhere else. Maziotis (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's fair. Although, I'm sure we can find a website that has a list of links to his letters and such, so we can keep the External links section to a minimum. I have re-added the external link that leads to a list of his published works. Preferably, news articles and such are not linked to because there are a countless number of them. Also, I don't suggest adding links that are already used as references. Gary King (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theodore Kaczynski/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Well done.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, link his date of birth.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
In the Careers section, is there a source for this ---> "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 people in the country understood or appreciated it," said Maxwell O. Reade, a retired math professor who served on Kaczynski's dissertation committee"?

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My responses:

Dates are purposely unlinked in this article. They are no longer required to be linked, per the MOS. That's why they are completely unlinked, even in the references :)
- Check and thank you for clarifying that. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ref added
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Gary K. who got the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Description

In the section on the bombings, there's an elaborate description of precisely how the bomb employed by Kaczynski operated. It seems to be a bit too in-depth. However, I'd like to hear some other opinions before I go ahead and trim it down a bit. Jacotto (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim it down; I'd like to see what you have in mind. Gary King (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaczynski's Sobriquet

Except for two attacks in Chicago, all of Ted Kaczynski's early attacks were made at universities or on persons affiliated with universities. The FBI therefore dubbed him the "university bomber," unibomber for short. By some strange alchemy, unIbomber has become unAbomber, but this spelling is neither historically nor etymologically accurate.

75.46.117.29 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Harry Frank[reply]

The name of the FBI case was UNABOM to indicate university and airline bombings. Did you forget about the altitude-triggered bomb put on a plane? In fact, it was the airplane bombing that brought the FBI into the case -- since this was a federal offense. —Jemmy_tc 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

writings of Theodore Kaczynski

Theodore Kaczynski wrote a book in prison titled "Truth versus lies". I can not find any reference to that book in the article. I believe the publication of that book has a story of its own. Is Kaczynski having problem getting his writings to the public because they are controversial and challenges the "system"? I am not sure, but it seems to be difficult finding this book, although he is kind of famous and the book should be relatively popular.Aristoteles56 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular? You mean like Ted Bundy. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I simply mean that I believe the book would be sold in many ex. if it were available. I also happen to belive that he has something highly relevant to say about our present and coming society. Note that according to the unabomber himself the reason for the bombings where that he wanted his message to have a reasonable chance to come through to the public and make a lasting impression. I'm not a native English speaker, sorry if I expresses myself wrongly. Aristoteles56 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler also had a message he wanted the public to hear, that doesn't mean the public ought to hear it. Zazaban (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. The same goes for the French Resistance. Maziotis (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aristoteles56 must know this, but [13] from 1999 says the book was pulled from the printer after he tried to void the book deal, though at [14] it looks like the publisher sent the MS to the NY Times. The book should be mentioned in this article. Tempshill (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can hold a reference on the section "Life in prison", along with the new book written by Ted, which actually came out. See section below. I think the book "truth versus lies" even made into some news sources. It is definitly relevant to the history of the article's subject. Maziotis (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Image

Hey. I took a picture of the shack at the Newseum. Dunno where it should go, so feel free to stick it in the right place. :) Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 01:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it; we need more pictures in this article. Gary King (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hey. If you need more images. I also took a picture of one of the bombs that (thankfully) didnt go off. They've got alot of great stuff over at the Newseum. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – we can never have too many free images! Is it possible to specify when he made the bomb, or any details such as the materials used, etc.? Gary King (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, I didnt think to take a picture of the info next to the display. I guess one could always call the Newseum and ask. The display was in the "G-Men" exhibit. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you know if we can get any of these photos: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-080302ted-photogallery,0,7753132.photogallery?index=chi-ted003t20080212130334

We have tried to include some photos of a young Ted in the past, but they were all removed due to copyright. If anybody knows of any sources for free pics, it would be great. Image wise, I think this is all this article needs. After that, I think this article looks like a good candidate for feature articles. Maziotis (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be easy finding free pictures of Ted. Most of them will be from the government after his incarceration, since those have acceptable licenses. Also, the article will hopefully one day appear at FAC, but it's not ready yet. I'll be working on it in hopefully a few weeks to get it ready, though. Gary King (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regarding the photos, I was kind of expecting that. I think you already did a great job improving the article. The information is well-organized and balanced. If anything, I think the article could benefit with a couple more sources. Feature articles usually have a little more of them, for an article of this size, I believe. Maziotis (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Per a request:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_us/unabomber_cabin;_ylt=AoM6rFY4xAB82M3waZxEuwdH2ocA (ref #63 is dead)
Is http://www.rte.ie/radio1/whistleblowers/1160076.html a reliable source?
Sources look good otherwise. The rest of the links check out with the link cheker.

Hope this helps, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the dead link. RTE is RTÉ Radio 1; it is reliable. Gary King (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore's book

It's been reported that a copy of Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, was found in Kaczynski's cabin when he was arrested.

If true, this is highly relevant, politically explosive and a significant omission.

I strongly suspect the omission was deliberate due to a political agenda. Such tactics are not unknown on Wikipedia.

75.92.94.206 (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Mike Grant, Jacksonville FL (ironhorzmn@yahoo.com)[reply]

No it is not. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaczynski suspected of being closeted transsexual person.

Untreated transsexualism is a known cause of mental illness, an AP article detailed how Kaczynski "chickened out" of a psychiatrist meeting to address this problem and realizing his transsexualism would never be treated was the turning point that allegedly set him on a course of bombing. Read the article for yourself at: http://www.onlineathens.com/1998/091298/0912.a3unabomber.html I could not find a way to edit the main page hence adding the reference so it is in TALK where a diligent researcher will find it anyway. It is not the least bit unusual in Wikipedia that points of view on transsexualism that don't support conventional (damaging) psychiatric medicine are worn down by edit wars until eventually the informers give up.

Hives and quarantine

Hey all, I saw a doco last night where his brother spoke about the time when Ted was a infant he got hives and had to be quarantined for a week. His mother said that after that Ted was completely changed and didn't smile or look at anyone in the eye, etc. It was pretty poignant so I thought that it might belong? Disco (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

In the introduction it states that: "To avoid the death penalty, Kaczynski entered into a plea agreement, under which he pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole." This makes an assumption as to why Kaczynski entered into the plea agreement. While the removal of the death penalty in exchange for a guilty plea is the key feature of the agreement, the "to avoid" implies an obvious and rational motivation that isn't necessarily the case. For instance he may have entered into the agreement to avoid a drawn out trial which questioned and undermined his sanity, and as such, the validity of his ideas and "message".

I suggest the removal of the "To avoid the death penalty" portion, reducing it to "Kaczynski entered into a plea agreement, under which he pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole." The "To avoid the death penalty" part is speculation, whereas the "Kaczynski entered into a plea agreement, under which he pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole" part is fact.

Gen16 (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually sources which indicate that he claims to prefer to die than to spend the life in jail. It is my understanding that the move "to avoid" is in the perspective of the lawyers. This can be misleading in how we read the intentions of Kaczynski himself.

I agree. This sentence needs to change. Maziotis (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Related works' section

I felt that the reference of Herbert Marcuse (the leftist 20th century philospher who advocated an increase in technological advances to reduce labor-related stress) and the neglect of Erich Fromm (a psychoanalytical philosopher interested in questions of politics and technology) and Friedrich Nietzsche (whose theories of Dionysian activity of the will and rejection of leftist passivity seem directly lifted in the opening section of Kaczynski's 'Industrial Society..') seemed curious. I thought I might add the latter two to the 'Related Works' section, and perhaps attach a disclaimer to Marcuse. I wanted to check in with everyone on the discussion page first though and see if anyone has any thoughts. I'll do some touch-ups in the next few days unless anyone has any objections. Colinclarksmith (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Colin. Do you know of any reliable sources that assert a link between Fromm or Nietzsche and Kaczynski? If so, we can add them in; if not, any association would be original research on our part and unfit for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Sincerely, the skomorokh 17:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that I've seen Kaczynski compared to Fromm in print - I'll get back to you on that one. The Nietzsche comparison is mine, but it seems glaringly obvious to me (see the second essay of On the Genealogy of Morals for some very Kaczynskian ideas about moral evolution, and Nietzsche throughout on what Kaczynski calls the 'Power Process.') Anyway, yes, I will try and find reliable sources for either connection and return with them. I'd be curious to hear where the Marcuse comparison originates from. Thank you, Colinclarksmith (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; this article might have useful information if you can access it. Regards, the skomorokh 13:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social critic?

I don't know that "social critic" is the best classification of Ted for the intro sentence. I think "social critic" is someone like Al Gore, Derrida, or Hitchens, not a sociopath who conducts a lethal bombing campaign. I'm not advocating the use of "domestic terrorist" or any such thing, only the demotion of "social critic" from the first sentence as it demeans peaceful and legitimate criticism. Madcoverboy (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you would want to remove this classification on the grounds of Ted not being "legitimate". But "peaceful"? Why can't violent/all-sorts-of-nasty people offer legitimate expressions of social critique, and therefore be considered an academic reference as "social critics"?

I do believe however that Ted is a "legitimate" social critic, since he has been cited by academics and opinion makers. He seems to have been able to raise original thoughts that render him a reference in intellectual debate, from time to time. A good example can be found in the article "why the future doesn't need us". Part of the discussion concerns a quote from Ted, by two experts, who are specialists in the field. We are talking about two paragraphs of his manifesto being quoted in a book by an author who is at the top of artificial intelligence. Either this man is a "social critic", or at least a good “activist". It's not like I would be shocked to see this category go, either. Maziotis (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to serial killer, 'cause that is what he's primarily known as. Maybe add seperate sections on his social criticism and activism if you like, but it's not like Ted Bundy's article refers to him as a "college Republican," or John Wayne Gacy's as a "professional children's entertainer." 202.172.113.159 (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's your POV to believe he is like Ted Bundy. We have discussed this before. There is no consesus to classify him as a "serial killer". Maziotis (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore connection

Kaczynski read a lot about environment related issues. The connection with Gore seems to be more coming out of celebrity trivia, then a serious attempt to cover Ted’s influences. The reference itself dismisses the certainty of any interest on that part. It seems the only category that lead the book here was the fact that the author ran for US presidency, instead of being any of the other 100 PhD authors whose books Ted read. I don't see an important connection on any level. For now, I am removing due to Wikipedia:Undue_weight. If there is anything I am not seeing, please discuss it here. Maziotis (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this issue was already addressed. Talk:Theodore_Kaczynski#Al_Gore.27s_book Maziotis (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The connection with Gore seems to be more coming out of celebrity trivia, then [sic] a serious attempt to cover Ted’s influences."

This isn't a John Edwards & Rielle Hunter love child story. It poses serious questions about who influenced Theodore Kaczynski. The inquiry is not in the least bit trivial and the questions posed did not originate from celebrity columns.

"The reference itself dismisses the certainty of any interest on that part."

The reference highlights the lack of interest by influential parties as to whether or not Theodore Kaczynski had a heavily underlined copy of Senator Albert Gore's "Earth in the Balance" in his hovel.

"It seems the only category that lead [sic] the book here was the fact that the author ran for US presidency, instead of being any of the other 100 PhD authors whose books Ted read."

Senator Albert Gore wrote a highly influential and popular book that strongly espoused modifying personal behaviors to save the planet, unlike the obscure articles written by the "100 PhD authors" that "Ted" read.

"I don't see an important connection on any level."

If a Luddite bomber possessed a heavily underlined copy of "Earth in the Balance", that fact should not be hidden or ignored. It's germane and there's no way of getting around that fact except by ignoring it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.27.227 (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources that I read indicate that Ted read hundreds of books (not articles) about history, environment, psychology, and many other fields in social science. There is nothing to suggest that the book written by the author who got to be a celebrity later on, had a particular influence. Simply, this is a case that is a part of the work treated in the section "related works". If you see a connection with Gore that should be included there, without violating wikipedia:NOR, be my guest. I believe you cannot. The fact is that a celebrity like gore attracts a lot of attention, but there is nothing to suggest he is a significant influence such as Jacques Ellul and other authors already mentioned in the article. Maziotis (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry for my rusty english. It's not my native language. Maziotis (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaczynski's Book.

Kaczynski recently published a new book called The Road to Revolution which should probably be mentioned here.

http://www.unabomberbook.com/en/content/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.220.73 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the book is real, then it should definitely be mentioned. I’ve been looking for any references to it on the news, but I can't find any. Also, the publisher doesn't seem to be very well known. I would love to add that reference myself to the article, but I would like to find some solid sources first. If we can determine that the pub. is legit, then we can add it right away. Maziotis (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that only the French Amazon is selling the book, in the French version (different title) [15]

Both this and the website unabomberbook.com have the standard code for books. I think we can add a reference at the end of the section, "Life in prison". Maziotis (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neo-luddite social critic?

How about lunatic or domestic terrorist. He was a madman, his "views" are irrelevant. This article is giving undue credence to a violent psychopath. If he was an Islamic terrorist or neo-Nazi I doubt he would be labelled a 'social critic.' Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.177.150 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. John McCarthy would have called Marx a "madman" and said that his views were irrelevant. Ward Churchill would say that George W. Bush was a "madman" and that his views were irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, that whether you agree with his views or not, they were published in several major papers and books, and were a social critique (of industrial civilization). If he was an Islamic terrorist that wrote a lengthy social critique, then he would still be a social critic. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with IP. Even in our own article about Domestic Terrorism he is a noted domestic terrorist. If people do not want to include this, though he fits the description, that is their choice and misleading, but than the neo-Luddite social critic is far too weak a description and does not give the proper impact of what crimes he commited. As it is, the mail bombing seems to be thrown on almost as an afterthought. He fills the roll of a specialized domestic terrorist and should be noted as such, since first and foremost, regardless of what he has published he is known as the unabomber- a man that committed acts of violence against the country to which he was born with a specific purpose and coming from a specific value system. It is just as POV to try and lessen his impact as a domestic terrorist as it is too specify domestic terrorist without providing the subsequent views stemming from his "social critique" and the publications that show this. Perhaps also known as the Unabomber, is an American mathematician and eventual domestic terrorist based upon his neo-Luddite views and his noted social critique on society. To facilitate these beliefs he carried out a campaign of mail bombings for approximately 17 years acroos the United States.. This gives us all aspects as well as shows that his is a social critic with "noted" published works. I am not happy with the "facilitate" part myself, but it is in the ball park of what I am going for.MephYazata (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per my posting above I am suggesting this new opening:

is an American mathematician and domestic terrorist whose neo-Luddite views, which gave him published fame as a social critic, led him to carry out a campaign of mail bombings.

I believe this satisfies both the views that he is a domestic terrorist, which have been documented and is within our own site, and it also provides the fact that he is a published and known social critic that people feel is important. It may be a touch larger than I'd like, but it is about on target IMO. Any thoughts?MephYazata (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even in our own article about Domestic Terrorism he is a noted domestic terrorist. Look at the title of the section where he is mentioned. Maziotis (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To amend I think "which has gained" instead of "which gave" would be better representing the fact that he is still current in these debates and his views are not a "was"MephYazata (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social critic?! You've got to be kidding me. He as not a social critic in any way, shape or form. He was a nutjob killer who wrote some rants. Social critics don't blow thing up. Having that line in the lead was a major violation of WP:NPOV policy, in particular the "don't give WP:UNDUE weight to minor fringe views" parts. DreamGuy (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy in investigation cost.

"The Unabomber was the target of one of the most expensive investigations in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) history." "The Unabomber was the target of one of the most expensive investigations in the FBI's history.[52]" I don't think we need them both. Which would people rather get rid of. I vote moving the second to where the first is since it has inline citation.MephYazata (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first occurence of the line is in the lead which serves as a summary of the article, whilst the second instance is in the main body of the article about half way through which is an important point and therfore cited. In this case I believe that both need to stay. Bigger digger (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand their structure purpose and I agree that both could stay. I just couldn't think of a better way to say the second line so it isn't so verbatim. If you can think of something that would be great.MephYazata (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meph, I've had a go at changing it, I don't think there's any real scope to change it much more, there are only so many ways of writing it! Hopefully it will stay through the little edit-disagreement discussed below!

Whilst writing, I note that the source for the expense of the investigation http://web.archive.org/web/20060618112917/http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/unabomb/ doesn't mention the cost on the particular page. I can't get google site search to work with the web.archive.org page and wondered if you knew specifically which page it was on. Bigger digger (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was a terrorist.

Try to refrain from attacking me and adding the wounded swan wording. I indeed read the guideline, does this phrase ring a bell:

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears.. I provided 4 sources as stated and the FBI source refers to him as a domestic terrorist. I tried to bring this up in the discussion but you did not deign to put in the effort to reply. Can you answer those above questions? If you wan to add reputed or something similar that would be fine. It still stands however that the opening completely downplays his criminal activities. IMO this tag is telling us to consider this before adding one of the proscribed labels. I did so and even attempted to engage others before adding realizing this could provoke. What in the wording I provided above or in the addition I made to the article do you see is not being met? You are turning this into an edit war with only the reasoning that your interpretation of a guidline relevant. I am sure you could find some articles calling him a saint, but I highly doubt the number or reputability would come close to comparing. In any event I have provided numerous examples where he is referred to either a domestic terrorist or terrorist operating within the U.S. Instead of repeatedly removing my edits on basis of your interpretations you need provide a counter. This is what collaboration is about, not edit warring. RegardsMeph Yazata (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? This is an encyclopaedia, we are not in the business of calling people terrorists. Lose the sensationalism; just the facts, please. Skomorokh 00:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not know who I was talking to it would stand to reason I was not addressing you. If you want to add anything to the convo please do so, but do not call me a sensationalist. This is a discussion I moved here to the appropiate discussion page rather than participate in edit warring. I do not view adding what I believe to be necessary as aiming at sensationalism. I think it is just as disturbing to marginalize his crimes and I see it.Meph Yazata (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you did read the guideline, then obviously you need to read it again. This is not a question of interpretation. You cannot assert that Theodore Kaczynski is a "terrorist", no matter how many sources you have. Please read the guideline again. The text, as you wrote it, clearly violates WP:words to avoid. The issue here is not whether Theodore Kaczynski is a terrorist to you or me. We can probably find a source in which someone claims that he is an alien from the galaxy of Zagalax (ok.. from this particular fictional galaxy is very unlikely... but you see my point). We should always try to write about what is relevant from a neutral point of view. See wp:verifiability. Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I am sorry if you found my reply to be on a personal level. It wasn't meant to be. Maziotis (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Also, I didn't respond to your previous edit, because I did not see it. I hope I have cleared that out. Maziotis (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you could find some articles calling him a saint, but I highly doubt the number or reputability would come close to comparing

This is why I say you need to, at least, read the guideline again. There is no definitive source on identifying someone as a terrorist. The only fact you could include based on these sources would be "FBI claims that Theodore Kaczynski is a terrorist". It is right there on the guideline.* This clearly concerns writing an encyclopedia, based on wp:verifiability and wp:neutral point of view. Now, could you please explain to me what sort of authority is the FBI, which would lead us to introduce this subject in a way that reflects popular media? I would sincerely like to hear. Maziotis (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. The point here is that you can find that it is true that party X called party Y a terrorist, and that it is not our job to find if it is true or not (wp:verifiability). Otherwise, what would be the point of this guideline? The issue would only be if we have reliable sources or not, like in any other inclusion of content. Maziotis (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understan not asserting 100% that he is a terrorist, but as I have addressed before it violated NPOV to minimalize the crimes he was convicted of. I have tried to collaborate here and have sought input on how to incorporate terrorism into the lead, much like the McVeigh article. While it may be too POV to assert he is a terrorist it is also POV to not mention that he is noted, first and foremost, as the terrorist the Unabomber. Yes we have Unabomber, but we do not write these articles assuming everyone knows what that means. If we add something along the lines of "viewed by many, including the FBI as a terrorist" this would solve that problem. This is what I am trying to do. No one is offering any suggestions to fix the problem I intially was addressing and there is just a straight refusal to refer to him at all as connected to terrorism. I hate to use such a cliche example, but though Bin Laden is considered by some to not be a terrorist, he is still referred to as a terrorist or engaging in terrorist acitivites by a larger majority if not most. And before any bad faith accusations arise, I DO NOT adhere only to what my government states. In fact I am and have been suspicious and thoroughly disgusted for quite some time. However, as is Bin Laden he is most noted as a terrorist. We may not like it or even consider it true based upon our own personal beliefs, but the fact remains that before being a mathematician, neo-Luddite or social critic, Ted Kaczynski is most known for commiting a campaign against the U.S. government and/or its citizens based upon a principle or ideal. Your reference to the reliability of the FBI in this case is confusing to me. Why is the FBI and others credible and we basically assert their findings of the investigation and conviction, but we are not allowed to use the same when referring to their classification? This brings up another question I had referred to earlier on the page. What is the consensus definition of domestic or plain terrorism and in what way does Mr. Kaczynski not meet those definitions? The FBI source I cited directly addressed the definition (ie. lone wolf domestic terrorist versus group domestic terrorist). I also agree that we cannot use only what an agency or government claims, but given the notability standards, how are we addressing what he is most known for?

Again I will compromise labeling him as 100% a terrorist, but I cannot abide the downplaying either. As before I am looking for suggestions to help this and not chasing any particular agenda. In point of fact I happen to have some similar views that one could classify as a bit neo-Ludditte or anarcho primitive, but that does not mean I condone lessening the unfortunate facts of labeling.Meph Yazata (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note IMO your reference to source about a galaxy is irrelevant. Of course we judge the reliability of sources before applying them. Otherwise every article would have footnotes and references longer than the bodies of the articles. To say that because there is one extreme case of a sourcing negates the credibility from numerous other sources, which may agree on one particular point, does not make one bit of sense. Meph Yazata (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As another note you keep referring to the guideline, but if you'll notice there is a recent discussion about the use of terrorism. It would behoove you to skip past the first half or so because it becomes a POV finger pointing battle but after that there is some interesting discussion back and forth. Per a few of the editors notes on that page, I am in agreement that this guideline refers to words to AVOID, not words that can NEVER be used. Per my mention of the McVeigh article I think it is important to note the terrorism aspect if not aver he IS a terrorist.Meph Yazata (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two principles involved in my view of the WP:TERRORIST guideline, in the discussion of which I was rather closely involved. The first is that there are no words which cannot be used. The purpose of the guideline is to prevent tendentious and pov labelling, not to lay down an absolutely hard and fast rule. It is not policy, which must be obeyed, but a guideline, to be applied when, after careful consideration of the merits, we determine it is in the better interests of Wikipedia. The second principle, is that the guideline is supposed to be the distilled essence of many discussions on many different cases, not an overarching rule. The specific case remains controlling -- put bluntly, the question is

Would Wikipedia be better off for noting the terrorism of Theodore Kaczynski, or for refusing to label it as such?

The guideline provides sage advice for guiding, but not determining, the result of our discussion. If the subject is contentious (that is to say, if there is any real argument that Kaczyinski's actions were not terrorism), we should not affirm the implicit viewpoint by calling those acts terrorism. If anybody wishes to present a genuine argument that Kaczynski did not perform terrorist acts, let them step forward and defend that position now, quoting reliable sources to support the existence of such a viewpoint. Do not use the guideline to club your opponents while refusing to engage on the merits. As our discussion at WT:WTA concluded, that is a very ugly and incorrect thing to do, and another editor strongly denied any such purpose behind the guideline when I raised the point. Ray^Talk 06:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one final point regarding the particular case at hand. There is nothing in the guideline to prevent us from noting that the FBI, the US government, multiple media sources, etc., consider Kaczynski to be a terrorist. That is reliably sourced opinion - Wikipedia is not censored, and we report on all prominent points of view. Ray^Talk 07:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marginalize his crimes?! It is clearly stated in the introduction that he is convicted of 16 mail bombings, which resulted in the death of 3 people and the injury of 23. What does that have to do with the fact that you want to label him a terrorist? See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Let the labels go, and stick with the facts. Why should adolph hitler and saddam hussein have any better, for example. You don't see people feeling the need to write "tyrant" or even "dictator" (?!) in there.

The fact is that I can find sources pointing to him as something other than a "terrorist". Some people in the green anarchist movement consider him a "political prisoner". But I disagree with your interpretation of that guideline, and I don't see the need to counter that view on Kaczynski to find it dubious. I think that indeed the word "terrorist" is in itself subjective, and so we need to always refer to it as it was used. The issue would be: who called who a terrorist. You don't need a degree in political science to see the ideological games that are played behind this. So, when the U.S. government says that "group A" is terrorist, it means that in fact "The U.S. government says group A is terrorist". It doesn't matter how great the sources you have on the side of U.S.A, some intelectuals believe that the U.S.A government are themselves terrorist.

Right now, I find the article as it is quite interesting, as it alieantes the people who believe he is a terrorist from the popular view. I have no objection to it. I do feel that it goes against the common rule. Maziotis (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Also, as ridiculous as you found the galaxy reference, I am happy to see that you changed your initial description. This time you didn't write that "Theodore Kaczynski is a domestic terrorist", because the FBI said so. Personally, I do think that these people are nutjobs, no less than other conspiracy theorists. Maziotis (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the late reply. Had to armwrestle us cellular over something. I happen to mostly agree with you when it comes to the FBI and such. For all the outside conspiracy theorists I think there are almost as many "manning the guns" in these agencies that are looking for criminal conspiracies. As I had said I do think I made the mistake of asserting ABSOLUTELY he is a terrorist. As you said I did rectify that. I think you're right that we don't need to assert without question. Though I am a bit confused on what you mean by alienating. Are you referring to the use of "some" instead of "many" or something similar? Also I did not mean to imply "ridiculous" out of hand or anything. I just see it leading down a road where everything has (") around it and every period is followed by (1,2,3,4 etc...) Do you know what I mean? In reference to what you said about the bombings in the intro- It seems to me that even before I edited there were 2 mentions of bombings. With the first in the lead, do you think we could move the second instance to the beginning of the Bombing section as an intro? That is were we go in depth to the bombings and the second time bombings is used is more descriptive. Another possibility is to merge the second use of bombings into the first. Do either of these sound viable to you? Meph Yazata (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist? Arbitary break 1

By the "alienating" reference, I meant that the description about the FBI gives the impression that its view is an odd opinion, out-of-touch with what a lot of people think in reality, when what I have been arguing is that it shouldn't be our job to judge. I think we should do it like the guideline describes the way we should reference the crimes of saddam, and how we do we most criminals. We should write what he did, and let the facts speak for themselves.

I think that the intro on 16 bombings, fatalities and wounded should appear on the intro, because they are very prominent to this case. Cutting that from the intro would be a case of marginalizing his crimes, as you have said it. About the FBI classifying him as a domestic terrorist, I was thinking in placing that reference, with that one source, next to where the FBI is mentioned for its legal hunt. I believe this is the most neutral way we can handle this issues. So, we don't have to take side of the state or "militant anarchists" in general. Also, take in mind that this would meant an opening space for rebuttals. That is, we could add the description of other entities besides the FBI, with the proper sources.

If you want to hear my POV, since you already gave a little bit of insight into yours, even though I fundamentally agree with the Unabomber campaign, I don't believe in placing bombs in parking lots. I think that an example of bias on my part would be in wishing to remove any such reference. I don’t want that. It wouldn’t benefit my cause. I want people to have everything they need to take a critical look based on facts. Like the "neutral point of view" policy states, we should try to "resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize — readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." Maziotis (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There. I think that should solve the issue. I changed the application to the acts and not Ted. As you said we are not judging him. We are judging the acts. They are well sourced and with the link we can let people follow the branches to what and why terrorism is applied to these bombings. That work for you? I think this follows the guideline down the middle without as you mentioned judged the man himself, as is used in the McVeigh article I referenced. Though I don't recall if the McVeigh article used the citations like I used here. 21:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MephYazata (talk • contribs)

I reverted your last change. Please read the edit summary. What you did take us back to the problem we discussed around the guideline. We have to take care to keep the "description attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation". Also, I am not sure if you read what I wrote about discussing the fact that he was pointed out as a terrorist by the FBI with the fact that others, such as some anarchist authors, view him in a different light. Maybe we can discuss all of that in the third paragraph? Maziotis (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this. I absolutely provided citations. You have yet to do so and to lecture me with the need for citations is ludicrious and insulting. Your deliberate tossing away of 3 of the 4 is just plain intended disruption. I did not say ONLY the FBI. I provided numerous sources, including ones that are apparently allowed as reliable elsewhere in the artice, and you continue to attack just the FBI. These sources refer to him as a terrorist or domestice terrorist, but they ALL consider the actions terrorist actions. Your recent change shows your unwillingness, or inability, to address my whole point. I will ask the question I have already asked twice and another editor has asked. In what way are his actions NOT defined as a campaign of terror? We absolutely can assert the ACTIONS were terrorizing. This is not to say his ideals are terrorist ideals. But the actions he took were a campaign of inciting terror. I have provided defintion and numerous different sources stating thus and using thus. This follows the guideline you were throwing around. We are NOT judging him, but we can label the actions. This involves defintion which is also part of being an encyclopedia. This is not a dump site for opinion. If we followed the logic you are presenting, then in an article about the Moon, because there is an opinion that the moon is made of chocalate pudding, than the majority consensus that defines the moon as made of rock is useless and the opening should then read- "The moon, considered by some sources to be made of "rock"(1,2,3..) is believed by some sources to "revolve" around the "earth".(1,2,3,4..)

You also seem to be hinging your argument on the assertion that this is a 50/50 debate about whether or not he was a terrorist or committed terrorist actions. In no way have I seen this, or having you provided backing to, this assertion. Whether you like it or not, the average person does not think- yeah the "Unabomber mathematician", "Unabomber neo-Luddite", or "Unabomber social critic.". They think "Unabomber terrorist". In the interest of addressing your concerns and the guideline you were throwing about, I amended to applying the definition to his actions, not him. This is wholly provided for in that said guideline. Meph Yazata (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm dawn and read the guideline again. My position has not changed from the beginning. The sources we have are very clear. Party A, B, C and D have determined that Theodore Kaczynski is a terrorist. The reason why we have this guideline is because, unlike the definition provided by the scientists who study the moon, we cannot establish what constitutes terrorism in an objective way. People have differences of opinion on who are the terrorists, and, therefore, whose acts are terrorist (your justification on making the distinction between the two as a way to “judge” objectively the actions, without judging the person is nonsensical, and it has nothing to do with the guideline). I thought that was clear when I provided a whole article concerning the USA (whose institutional defense are those who you reference for persecuting Ted).

Some people like John Moore [16][17] don’t think that he is a terrorist. So, if you agree that it is not our job as an encyclopedia to ignore these opinions and take the FBI as an authority on who is terrorist (in the same way you take the word of scientists about the moon), then the only fact that we can assert in the article is that “Party A says that Ted’s actions are terrorist”, as oppose to “Ted’s actions are terrorist”. It is right there on the guideline!

Please, just look at the title of this section. Are you ready to tell me that it is an encyclopaedic fact that Ted’s actions are terrorist, and that people like me are as insane as people that talk about the moon being made of chocolate? Maziotis (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say about Ted's campaign that "We absolutely can assert the ACTIONS were terrorizing". The same is said about some actions perpetrated by the United States government. And you don't see people calling these actions terrorist with a source footnote to a Chomsky's essay. Why? Because there are two sides, and we have to remain neutral. The fact is that you cannot be objective about whose actions are meant to "terrorize" and whose are meant to "liberate trough awful, but necessary means". The fact that you shift the semantic reference to the action and not the actor doesn't automatically save your objectivity. Maziotis (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I will address this with you since you refuse to answer. There is indeed a defintion of what constitutes a campaign of terror. The campaign can clearly be differentiated from the ideal. Again you have refused to provided a defintion that does not fit according to Ted's actions. Your claims of my objectivity are absurd and a deflection. Clearly you are simply trying to save face in the form of your "agreement" with his campaign. You do not think bombs should be left in parking lots, so you do think they should be left in bedrooms or mailboxes? This clearly states you have a specific agenda and does not address consensus. You keep tossing up the guideline, but not only have I unlike you provided direct quotations and my reasoning, but I provided numerous various sources, I am adhering to a consensus defintion and... wada ya know?- again you keep trying to direct this as only an FBI involved or backed opinion. You continue to skirt around and directly avoid what I am saying. Your constant need to assume bad faith and personal attacks and misrepresentations (ie. I did not claim you or anyone else was insane.) This a continutation of the "wounded swan" routine. Stop trying to label me as having an agenda when I have provided consensus, defintion, and sourcing to back all of this. You have done nothing but continue in a way that shows your agenda. You even stated and alluded as much. I suggest you read the guideline, understand what a dictionary is, what an encyclopedia is, and what consensus versus single claim means. This is a ridiculous argument that has been sourced and defined on one side and refuted with feeling and vague interpretation on the other. In this light I suggest we both step back and allow another(s) to take a crack at it.

BTW your refusal to seperate a person's ideal/personality from their actions shows that you yourself do not look at this in an objective way just as you accuse me of doing so. I a man may get fired and in a moment of insanity kill four people. We do not label him as a Killer, capital, we label him as someone who killed. This is understandably a sometimes subtle difference, but it is still there. If we say he killed someone that does not necassarily mean that we are calling him a killer. That would imply he is just an organic death machine, with no mitigating factors or characteristics. Meph Yazata (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny how I am supposed to be the one making personal attacks and avoiding to discuss in good faith, yet you accuse me of protecting "my agenda" without providing any link. Your reference to mail and bathroom bombs was really cheap. I wonder if you even read my response to you. I did give you sources to "theories" that do not fit the definition of the sources you provided. I didn’t say that you called me insane. I called the people of the "moon reference" insane, to say that your comparison is absurd.

To me, this issue is very simple, and it can be resumed in just one premise that I wrote to you: If you agree that it is NOT our job as an encyclopedia to ignore these opinions[18][19] and accept the FBI (or others) as an authority on defining who is a terrorist (in the same way we accept the word of scientists about the moon), then the only fact that we can assert in the article is that “the FBI (or others) says that Ted’s actions are terrorist”, as oppose to “Ted’s actions are terrorist”. If you cannot understand this, then I believe it is you who doesn't understand what an encyclopedia is.

Again, responding to your example on people killing in a case of momentary insanity, you are not going to work this out through semantics! If a person is said to have killed, then he could be labelled a "killer" – as in one who kills. Obviously the label (as in any label) raises questions about generalization. This individual would be a part of a more restricting category of killers, which would definitely put him in a different light. But in the issue at hand I have to ask you, do you expect me to believe that by calling a campaign “terrorist”, you are avoiding the bias issue (which you have admitted) about the actors. You see, because in this case, unlike the insanity defense killer, we do have a man that carried his actions deliberately trough 20 years. And we do have sources of authors stating that he did NOT acted as a terrorist. Please read the sources I provided. If there is no objectivity in calling a cause or a person terrorist, then we cannot assert what is terrorism, but who calls who a terrorist. It's that simple. That is what the guideline says, and your are just trying to go around it by alienating me as a crazy person with a mad agenda, and playing tricks with what the guideline refers to as an actor and you refer as an action (I already responded to that with chomky's accusation on actions by the United States government as being terrorist). Maziotis (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it seems to me that your argument is "if a campaign TERRORizes people, then it is TERRORist". Which I have to agree in the strictest sense of the term. Hopefully no one is going to fall for that kind of playword. The reason why this guideline was created was because these terms "are often particularly contentious labels that carry an implicit viewpoint". So, to me the issue still just is, there is no authority that can define what constitutes "terrorism" (in the sense that it is used in our culture, not the loose categorical definition). This means, we have to describe "who called who a terrorist”, as oppose to "who is a terrorist". Maziotis (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we have an editor or some obscure anarchist writer who supports the Unabomber's actions is irrelevant. The overwhelming expert reliable source view is that he was a terrorist. That's what we are here to support. The WP:NPOV policy does not mean we let articles get taken over by people with fringe views to try to push their beliefs onto the word. We do not give WP:UNDUE weight to extreme minority views. The fact that the Unabomber has been documented, and even the small number of scary people who support his views would have to recognize that the way he went about trying to let the world know his views was without a doubt and totally indisputably terrorism. DreamGuy (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist? Arbitary break 2

Just in case a bit more consensus is required, I think Meph Yazata and DreamGuy are leading this article in the right direction. Theodore is surely notable as a terrorist as a range of sources attest, not as a political prisoner as some special interest groups believe? Bigger digger (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being told that the experts working for the state have found that a campaign carried by an insurrectionary anarchist is illicit?! Are we actually considering the defense of statism in wikipedia with the same level of certainty as the theory of the round earth? Otherwise, where is this talk about "fringe theories" coming from? I don't understand exactly what “obscure anarchist” means, but the guideline seems very clear about "terrorism" being a term that "carries an implicit viewpoint".

The WP:NPOV policy does not mean we let articles get taken over by people with fringe views to try to push their beliefs onto the word. Certainly not, but that's why in the case of a dispute concerning the classification, "terrorist", we have this guideline. The case here is definitely not on whether we should censure the fact that he was labelled as a "domestic terrorist" by notable authorities. That assertion can certainly be a part of the article, without us having to compromise the objectivity in these issues. The idea that the FBI are "experts", as you call them, on defining which groups are illicit in their use of violence, in the same way we have experts defining what are the properties of the moon, constitutes an unacceptable dogma in these sort of political discussions. The FBI is no more expert in defining what is wrong with Ted's ideology than Chomsky is in defining what is wrong with America.

I am honestly shocked to think that someone might believe that he can objectively define the legitimacy of violence, using a source from the FBI. Maziotis (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidlines indicate that we discuss before changing the article to new found consensus. Right now, I am keeping the newly added version of MephYazata, not mine! Maziotis (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I am now writing this having not even looked at the discussion since my last post. As I said a break was good. I am sorry if you Maz took that as a cheap shot. I was actually asking a serious question. Usually it would not matter, but given the continued claims of POV made against me without justification I had to ask. I was avoiding the term that DreamGuy used- "fringe". I figured with the haggling we had already done this would only have gotten us nowhere. This is what I was referring to as trying to represent this as if it is a 50/50 debate. As I had said above, I can relate to some sentiments, but I also think that given the fact that he has been overwhelmingly defined as terrorist, but is also used as one of the two most noted examples of 'Lone Wolf" it is important to note. Would it not benefit even those who share his ideals, but do not agree with his methods to have a perfect example to show the difference to those who persecute them? As I had said before, we may not like it or agree, but definition is definition if there is a consensus. Particularly where it is well documented. In regards to your last post Maz, you actually reverted the last edit I made in which I addressed the act as terrorist instead of calling Ted, and in so doing his ideal, terrorist (domestic). This is where you also removed 3 out of 4 references. Given that you do not like using the FBI reference I would think you would have removed any mention of FBI. We don't have to use the FBI reference but I think it should be included given his conviction, sentencing and incarceration. The problem as I see it now is that as I included the wording of ned-Ludditte is seems to imply that neo-luddite equals terrorist act. That definitely should not read that way. This is my new proposal-

Theodore John Kaczynski IPA: /kəˈzɪnski/ (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an American mathematician, neo-Luddite, and noted social critic that carried out a 17 year campaign of terrorist mail bombings across the United States.^[1]^[2]^[3]

The does 3 things-- |Let's you know his most noted aspect as the Unabomber |Gives a very brief description of why his called Unabomber (terrorist) |Calls the methods or acts terrorist but does not assert that he is a terrorist. (see McVeigh) |Tells us that he is also a mathematician and neo Luddite |Includes that he is a noted social critic |Properly addresses consensus definition [20][21]

"With the new extended definition, there are a number of areas for interpretation: what constitutes a "threat"? What is an "ideological cause"? What is meant by "serious" as opposed to any other variety of violence? What is a "serious risk to health" and what is meant by a threat to intimidate the public? How explicit do such intentions have to be?"- this comes from this reference [22]

This is of interest because this refers to BEFORE 9/11 and the expansion of definitions. I quoted the questions asked when applying wider definitions as opposed to the standard (ie 2000 not 2001). --A threat? In this case change or I will bomb you. Pay attention or I will bomb you. Print my manifesto or I will continue to bomb. Pick a form or direction but they equal the same... a threat. --Ideological cause? His anachist/neo-luddite/anti-technology/whatever specific or nominating label you want to use. I am not specifying just listing possibilities. Any one or combination is a idealogical cause. --what is serious? I don't think it gets much more serious than bombs. No need to explain further. --What is a serious risk to health? See above --What is a threat to intimidate the public? Targeting civilians and public places I think pretty much covers that. --How explicit? I don't know if there could be a better example being explicit than telling a paper that if you print my story I won't bomb again. This is saying don't and I will continue to bomb.

I use this specifically to rid the U.S. change and expansion of definition argument out of the equation. I am not trying to even apply post 9/11 reasoning.

To offset only the FBI as Maz has been arguing I also included the Tru Crime reference which is extensively used and viewed as reliable throughout Wiki. And to use an essay and declare that equal to news, and other well documented sources is not the way to go. Even the FBI reference is an actually speech showing documented use of terrorism and terrorist. This was not an essay.Meph Yazata (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I used those definition sites as examples and because they actually link to many different sites. This allows you to go through various though I think the Princeton defintion would be just fine. Meph Yazata (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have NOT argued that the FBI or TRU CRIME are not reliable. You are distorting the significance of this discussion by insisting in refutations for inexistent arguments. The fact that the FBI has classified Ted Kaczynski as a "domestic terrorist" is certainly notable and can definitely be included in the article. What I have been arguing is that, according to the mentioned guideline, these entities do not have the authority to define who is terrorist, like the scientists have in defining the properties of the moon. That is why when wikipedians gather a whole bunch of sources about U.S government being a terrorist state, even though among them are authors like Noam Chomsky, who could be said to be reliable and notable, the article is written and named in terms of "who called who a terrorist". We cannot determine "who is terrorist". It's the same criterion that is used to name and write the article, List of designated terrorist organizations. You see, they have reliable sources, such as the FBI, too. I want the same criterion. The same criterion that enforced the name of this article to change. I want Ted Kaczynski to be designated as a terrorist.

The FBI is certainly "reliable". But the thing about reliability is that you have to ask, in relation to what? (wp:verifiability) The official website of the "Flat Earth Society", for example, is definitely a reliable source for the inclusion of content in the article, Flat Earth Society. Maziotis (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted the article to the wrong version until we can come up with an intro that covers all of what we have been discussing. There are things I want to include in the article too. Maziotis (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maz, Meph and others, I'm really impressed by the amount of debate that's happening here, an inspiring example to a newbie editor like myself. I have since looked at the edit history and been a bit shocked, but nevermind..! I hope you find my occasional interventions helpful, I've certainly found your debate interesting. I have three large-ish points for you to consider:

1. Do you need to keep editing/reverting the article whilst this debate continues? There are references to both the points you want to make in the latter two paragraphs of the current lead, both the label of terrorist (in the 2nd para Kaczynski letter he offers to "desist from terrorism" and the 3rd para FBI reference) and the social critic elements. Just because it's not 100% as you might like it it is very close, so could we all take a break on that front unless to actually improve the article in a non-controversial way?

2. I have had another look at the WP:TERRORIST guideline and can see how there are problems labelling him as such, mainly that it moves away from the usual "show, don't tell" nature of wp articles. Show that Theodore was a terrorist, but don't tell the reader it as fact. This is the same as a number of other articles I have looked at for "terrorists" and it makes good sense. I note that this is not what is currently proposed by Meph, just the use of "terrorist mail bombing". Perhaps as a middle way I could suggest the following: the notifiability of Theodore Kaczynski is his bombing campaign, so would it not fit that notifiability to move the injuries and deaths he caused into the first paragraph, perhaps moving more of his other achievements ("Kaczynski received an undergraduate degree from Harvard University and earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley at age 25 but resigned two years later.") into a later paragraph?

3. I've looked back up at what Ray said, and it seems clear to me that the aim of WP:TERRORIST allows the use of 'terrorist' mail bombings in the article. As a parallel, Maz had previously pointed out that that Adolf Hitler isn't labelled a dictator, but the 2nd para in that article states that he "established a totalitarian and fascist dictatorship". Maz, you have repeatedly written on this page in support of the mention of Ted as a "social critic". It seems that most are now happy for that to be mentioned, but you are still against the use of the word "terrorist" despite the weight of opinion being against you. Given the compromise by others for your point why are you not willing to compromise for the majority view, which is established both through various sources and the interpretation of WP guidelines and policies by a number of editors?

Wow, never written that much before on a talk page, I thought you were all verbose!! Bigger digger (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by me being against the use of the word "terrorist"? I am not against any word. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. My last edit of the article includes my proposal, based on what I have been saying. You can judge my position from there. I do agree on what you said about "edit warring". I understand that if someone doesn't agree with any part of my contribution, then he should revert it and discuss other possibilities here.

About Kaczynski's biographical notes, I think the reason why the article was written this way is because people find his scholar achievements as giving context to what he has done. It's not that in themselves they are that impressive. I think that they help us understand the significance of where he was coming from and what his droping out of society means. They do not appear in the intro so that we know just a little bit more about the man. I guess this is somewhat standard for any biography. But it's something to consider. Maziotis (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Meph wrote based on those several parameters could either define a "terrorist" or a "revolutionary", depending on which side you are on. Bomb threats, risk to civilian life, you name it, has all been addressed in the matter of discussing who has the legitimacy to do violence, whether the subject is an individual or a government. Some authors believe that there is a big difference between sending bombs by airplane instead of a mailbox. Some authors believe there isn't a difference between sending a bomb by airplane instead of a mailbox. This is all part of the subjectivity that raised the guideline, and forced wikipedians to write which sources define which groups to be terrorist, instead of deciding "who are the terrorists". Apparently, Meph has a very subtle way to deal with this problem: "I can do the job myself!"

I hope you understand that you cannot use that source on political dissidence, in the article. You may be very good in doing politics, but this is not the place. Using that source, in that way, would amount to Synthesis.

I am not going to be dragged to this sort of discussion in an encyclopedic article. It's not up to us to define here what is in open discussion through society. That is the issue that is discussed in the guideline around this term. Maziotis (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist? Arbitary break 3

Maziotis, I meant you weren't happy with the use of the word terrorist to describe Kaczynski without all the other bells and whistles as per all the writing above :-) I think I'm coming round to your way of thinking by following show don't tell, but I suppose we need Meph to comment again. If we underline the impact of his bombing campaign in the lead paragraph and drop the terrorist label then that would surely be acceptable? Cheers Bigger digger (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Personally, I think we achieve that by discriminating exactly how many people died and how many people were injured in the intro, and then describe the people and the events in the body of the text, without ever dramatizing the situation with expressions such as "tragic", "unspeakable", etc... Maziotis (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maz this is the last warning about personal attacks I will give you. You have continued to distort the argument. We have moved past labeling the man as a terrorist and you have not once provided a definition of terrorist acts that his campaign did not fall under. Your facade of hurt indignation is disruptive. I am not the only editor that has noted this fringe POV pushing in you and I am not the only editor that has asked you to provide a counter definition. I have been exceedingly patient given your approach. Time and again I have asked you to address the actual questions and all the sources. You have been picking and choosing, playing the accuse game without justification. I was accomodating in removing the label of terrorist from Ted, even though IMO consensus has been met in defining. I moved to describe the ACTIONS. If you paid attention to what I was providing as a source you would have noticed the difference. Your last post on this matter was still adhering to the actions=person argument. I may have exterminated all the bugs in a basement today, that does not mean I call myself an Exterminator. If you cannot seperate the two that is your problem. An encyclopedia also does not pander to fringe opinions or to those whose feeling are hurt because we call a "spade a spade". My last proposition addresses all concerns, is well sourced there and here, and as long as we seperate things such as neo-luddite, social critic and terrorist with appropiate links, we lead the reader to all the necessary places for examples and definitions. Sorry but your use of an opinion essay to counter numerous and various media sources is unbalanced. It is very odd in light of your argument that you use which sources define which groups to be terrorist. If you follow that link to Lone Wolf, it lists Ted specifically as an example. Again just another nail in the coffin of those that label the MAN. I am simply labeling the ACTION. Your belief that this equals calling him a terrorist is unfortunately offset by the very fact that I include mathematician, neo-Luddite and social critic, with apropriate links, before we label his campaign. BTW, what is the difference you see between campaign and the actions he took to achieve his goals? This is one and the same thing. On another point, while we should not use tyrant, there is not problem using dictator if it is well documented that this was true. This is an actual title and name for a certain type of government. If we used a modifier like "facist" then we should not use dictator. That is neither here nor there though. PS in order for something to have weight as an "open" discussion, the majority kind of needs to know that there is even a debate.

As a note to Bigger, if you think we have talked check out Talk:Alexander the Great. Those people are scary serious. :) I think its great. Meph Yazata (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you want to define whether he is a "terrorist" or not, or his campaign is "terrorist" or not, is your problem in violating wp:neutral point of view and wp:no original research. This has been my argument from the beginning. There is no authority to define such a classification, and therefore we cannot take the word of any entity, or synthesise, based on any source. This is my position, and your demand to take the challenge to provide a counter view on his actions is meaningless. It goes precisely against the point that I am trying to make, and you can accept that or not. The fact that I do NOT assert his actions as terrorist doesn't mean that I am asserting that his actions are not terrorist. Simple logic. I have explained many times why I believe we should describe his designation as a terrorist, per policies and guidelines. I have a limited patience too. Maziotis (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you killed all the bugs in your house, then you are an "exterminator". Just not the kind you find in the yellow pages (professional exterminator). This is basic aristotelian categories theory, and you can't win discussions with this sort of semantic arguments. Maziotis (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote above is my basic argument concerning the issue we are discussing, but there are a couple of things I would like to clear out.

It's about the third time that you write this huge speech about how you are a victim for having to talk with a guy who is playing the victim card. Stop that. As far as I know, all my arguments were rational and based on the fundamental policies, namely wp:civility. I cannot take your warning on insults seriously.

I don't understand why you are explainning to me how the term "dictator" is objective regarding dictators. I expressed surprise for the fact that it was NOT used in the said example.

The way the articles are named and written reflect what I have been saying about the need to describe the designation of terrorism instead of deciding which ones are true. This is the case namely in the article that you have referenced, aswell as the one you mentioned in the section above, called domestic terrorism in the united states, in which Ted is listed under a section named, "organizations associated with domestic terrorism". The fact that you have found one article, that is indirectly related to terrorism, and that does not mention him under an "alleged" list of examples, shows nothing other than we having a issue of bias in it. It does not represent an argument of any sort. Otherwise, I do not context that we are dealing with a man that could be described as a militant "lone-wolf".

Your distinction on actions and identity is left without any basis for protecting the element of objectivity in problem of identifying the reality of "terrorism". Since you showed indignation for me not having addressed the problem on the level of "actions", in my last argument, I translate the first part for you. The rest is as it followed:

Everything Meph wrote based on those several parameters could either define a "terrorist action" or a "revolutionary action", depending on which side you are on. semantics....

Again, the problem is that you don't have any reliable source that can define which actions are terrorist, and you cannot synthesize by doing the work yourself. You are left with a sensationalist adjective, as much as it would be the case if you were to represent Ted's campaign as being "tragic". Maziotis (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC

I see three in favor of explicitly labeling the acts terrorism and removing the ridiculous "social critic" label and one person against. 3 to 1 shows consensus, so it's about time we started editing the article to reflect that consensus instead of letting a single person hold it hostage. On top of that, The guy himself admitted he was a terrorist in his own writing, so only someone crazier than he was could think otherwise. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Maz, sorry pal but declaring that I am trying to single handedly define this is a flat lie. See the post directly above this one. Or how about DreamGuy's earlier post, or Ray's. You keep trying to single me out as if their input, not to mention the numerous sources and examples I have shown, have not occured. You have kept up your little insinuations throughout and these are attacks. Your cannot argue the whole issue. See your adherence to an FBI argument that only you were still involved in. Whether you like it or not consensus is consensus. The only thing you to seem to take from the guideline is that we cannot use these words. Word it as many ways as you want, the argument is still the same.

As to your claim of original research, what part in the 4-5 news sources, with numerous references, not to mention examples from speeches and our own Wiki do you not understand? As for the biased names of ALL the articles, I seem to recall not only many articles reading Ted Kacynski or Unabomber, but I also mentioned this above. Interesting hmm....

Your argument about the definition is interesting considering I provided numerous sources, and links to sources providing consensus defitions form various institutions. And yet still...still you have not provided a definition in which sending a bomb to civilians through the mail does not define a terrorist action per an editor other than myself has asked for. Try reading everything I wrote above and you'll notice I already addressed the issue of providing a path for objectivity with the preceding labels-math.... I am tired of repeating myself.

As for my one artice, and I notice you slickly go around the fact that you yourself lead the argument to that page, I cannot continue to waste my time dealing with what I cannot even decribe in a way civil to Wiki. I guess all the blue I have used above is from one article and source. You have not provided any counter defintion, only an essay written from obvious bias in which you assume this equals (well more than) one source.

As for your objectivity comment, what in the world are talking about in the reality of terrorism? How much more real do you need it?

To DreamGuy. I still see nothing wrong with my last proposal, but I do think it is important to note that Ted, whether we like it or not, is a noted social critic. In fact with the exception of 2 or 3 three other works, I don't know if there is a more notorious social critique than the Manifesto. I would change it, but since I am one of the main editors involved with the contention, I think it would be bad form for me to edited or mess with the protection someone put on. Meph Yazata (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say "terrorists actions" is to imply I am saying the actions of a terrorist. I am not. I am actually saying the terrorist actions of a mathematician, neo-Luddite and social critic. As the article stands now, I misworded it to read that BECAUSE of these ideals he commited these actions. This I have already said is not correct nor was it my intention to lead a reader to think thus.Meph Yazata (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "terrorist actions" or the "terrorist campaign" of a person who is a neo-luddite and a social critic also defines someone who belongs to the category of being a "terrorist", in the strictest sense that "terrorist actions" are the actions that are carried by someone who is a "terrorist". Since we have a problem of bias sorrounding the use of this word (action or identity), and we don't know exactly what is meant, we cannot apply it as an objective category. We can only describe its use. This does not mean that I am asserting that "Ted Kaczynski is not a terrorist".

1- You keep insisting on an answer for a definition of terrorism in which Ted doesn't fit. I have given a response that directly addresses just that, several times. I am sorry, but I am not going to repeat myself again.

2- The policies on original research that I provided deal precisely with content that is based on sources. The fact that you insist that your sources are real and notable is meaningless. My argument is not that your sources are worthless and should be excluded from the article. What I argued is that your sources on domestic terrorism can only sustain an assertion such as: "Ted kaczynski has been designated a domestic terrorist by Party X". Meaning, you can only describe the fact that he was determined to be a terrorist, and by which source. This is what is used in all the other articles in wikipedia, and is defended in the guideline. The fact that you even mention the criterion used on other articles in wikipedia is frankly embarrassing.

3- It is not true that I am alone in this discussion, on this talk page (Bigger Digger, Skomorokh), and keep in mind that wikipedia is not about "head count". I will keep arguing for what I believe is right, and in accordance with the challenges that the article faces. I am not going away. It's not like I am trying to defend my version here, against any outside suggestion. Personally, I didn't even want to include any reference to the FBI on what they think about Ted and politics. That is what we were discussing in the beginning. But since you came with a reference that is arguably valid and relevant, I did my best to introduce it in the text, respecting policies and guidelines on neutrality. I am not taking out the fact that he has been determined to be a terrorist. I truly don't understand what more could you possibly want. Maziotis (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist? Arbitary break 4

Dreamguy, I don't know if you noticed this, but you are not even defending the same position as meph. He has agreed that describing Ted as a terrorist is bias, but considers making the same reference to his actions as non-bias. I suppose that to you this is only the difference of being one step closer to sanity. But for those who want to write a serious, neutral encyclopedia, this is not about sides. I think your comment about being crazier than Ted doesn't leave much to wonder about you turning this into a POV struggle. We have discussed here on this talk page why Ted Kaczynski wasn't actually defining his actions to be terrorist. We found consensus, and so we changed the article to the way it is now, where he might be addressing the police in terms of their system of values. Either way, we are in the business of writing an encyclopedia, not Ted. Maziotis (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is something that I can't understand in Meph's position. If the FBI has determined that Theodore Kaczynski is a terrorist, why would you find such a reference to be admissible as a source to the association regarding his actions and not his identity? Here is another point where you can see that you are doing the job that others have considered problematic for its subjectivity, and engaged in synthesizing sources. Would you, for example, include in the text the information that the majority of people believe that he is a terrorist if these same sources had said so? Of course that they themselves can believe in that, but we would need a reliable source on the level of statistics. The problem is neither on their interpretation nor on the reliability of the source, but in the way you assume its premise. The problem is in your understanding of wp:verifiability and of what type of assertion this source can sustain. Hypothetically, it would be even possible to find an FBI member that would be embarrassed to see the very same statement he made, in a supposedly scientific article.

The issue is that entities like the FBI are supposed to be bias in what our work is concerned. They classify Ted Kaczynski as a "terrorist", but they also consider an "anarchist" as someone who defends and unacceptable political philosophy. We don't have that stand here in wikipedia. The FBI conclusions come from their work and beliefs in the world. It's not something that can be assumed by an encyclopedia, and it's not even a question of them being right or wrong. Maziotis (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah time off in the real world can be nice. Anyways I see you are still regurgitating my stuff Maz. You can continue to misrepresent what I say and attack me personally, but in the end it does not matter. I have had to repeat myself so many times with you I am starting to wonder if you actually read what others write or only scan for certain words. Lets take a look at the hilarious ineptitude of your first three "points".

Let's see for starters providing ONE opinion essay from a known biased source does not equal provided sources in which a counter definition is provided. Again as you have done throughout you do not provide any scientific or even credible support. You are providing your opinions and interpretations as if this is notable. Sorry, but I don't recall an article about Maz the noted and world renowned scholar. So your accusations of synthesizing are ridiculous. You are still trying to argue that this is a 50/50 debate and that most people on the planet are split on the issue of Ted's mail bombings being terrorist. (Insert your own "wrong" buzzer sound here.) "Point" 2 I just addressed above. "Point" 3- Sko made a two bit bad faith accusation and has not been back. Bigger did not seem to aver either way and even asked Maz questions that Maz has ignored much as Maz has ignored my questions. Yeah, this is obviously an resounding backing for Maz.

Telling DreamGuy that I do not think he should be called a terrorist is simply false. I said I was willing to compromise and accommodate Maz's view and apply the term to his mail bombings. Since Maz continues to be obstinate and push a fringe POV under the guise of "neutrality", I am now retracting this attitude of compromise. Whether Maz likes it or not, Ted is considered a terrorist to the point of the collective conscious. Whether or not this makes someone have to take an honest look at their little hero is simply too bad. WE ARE NOT AN OPINION DUMP. This is indeed an encyclopedia. We do not cater to every single fringe theory, opinion and we do not allow such to hijack our articles in the false name of neutrality. Maz is not trying to protect peoples' ability to decide for themselves, Maz is trying to protect his own ideals and heroes. I, nor anyone else is required to care about fringe groups "feeling bad". The proper way to address this in the article would be to call him the terrorist he is and most consider him to be with a section that represents the minute minority that consider Ted to be "awesome".

"The fact that you even mention the criterion used on other articles in wikipedia is frankly embarrassing". What a joke you are Maz. The fact that you apparently are allowed to mention other articles and guidelines according to your interpretations while calling my doing the same embarrassing is simply asinine and shows you should not even be here. What's wrong? Still pissed that your own words came back at you when I followed your own cite and it led to the section where Ted is considered one the most known examples of a lone wolf terrorist within that same place? I can understand since that must have really sucked. And here we are back to the FBI. Since I have had to mention this at least four times already, this will be the last time Maz. You are outright lying about your actions in the editing and on this very talk page. You took the FBI reference, eliminated the other 4 or 5 and turned a phrase that was dealing with the majority into a fringe view of its own. You have not once, even when asked numerous times, addressed the other references. I even gave you a link to numerous examples that would allow you to check various different sources, but again you dismissed such and made a personal accusation. I have been extremely patient and even tried to be accommodating, but you simply refuse to address anything without your posturing. Again and again you have attacked the FBI reference as if this is the only one. Is Maz simply incapable of anything else?

Maz's continued POV pushing while accusing everyone that disagrees with this as POV pushing is not only disruptive, but utterly offensive to the Wikipedia environment. Too bad Maz if your hero or the hero of your "campaign" is considered a terrorist by the overwhelming majority of people. It is not our job to make you feel better about yourself. Do that on your own time and stop trying to make everyone a part of it. And here's a thought, why don't you try stepping back and letting someone show all that "vast" support you were invoking earlier? Meph Yazata (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You once again respond with personal comments and not a single argument. You accuse me of "POV pushing", yet you don't even attempt to make a case for it. I will get back with you in case you decide to participate in the discussion again. Maziotis (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see Maz, if you paid attention to what I wrote above you would know that I have already addressed these while you continue to side step or misrepresent into arguments that are not being made that you feel you can win.Meph Yazata (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some things I want to clear out:

Your desire to reflect the feelings of what you perceive to be the moral majority is the definition of a sensationalist tabloid, and it is incompatible with the goal of achieving a neutral, objective encyclopedia. That is not the way we do things around here. In order to be neutral, when you speak on the majority, you have to provide sources for exactly just that, without ever synthesising, holding the reference with a clear attribution. Otherwise, you are indeed synthesising.

I have particularly addressed the reference of the FBI because this is the most notable entity, which is currently designating Ted as a "domestic terrorist", in the article. A lot of times I made references to entities, using the plural, accommodating all of the sources you provided. The reason why I dismissed those other in most of my arguments is because they stand for a position that neither you nor me are challenging it. All you proved is that there are people out there who believe he is a terrorist, and then use that to synthesize assertions. And it is synthesizing, by the interpretation of policies and what the subjectivity of this term is concerned in the guideline; not conclusions of my own, while I pretend to be a scholar as you said. Simply, I argued that those wikipedia sources are clear about an entity such as the FBI not being an authority on determining who is a "terrorist". I didn't lie about your sources and I am asking you to please calm down and read wp:civility

All the wikipedia articles that we discussed have described the designation of Ted as a terrorist, which is exactly what I have been defending here, in case you want to keep the FBI reference. You speak about Ted’s negative impressions on society as If I was arguing for its removal of the article. I suppose that at least defending what you called a "fringe theory" would be the case if I, in the name of neutrality and compromise of balance views, had tried to both describe the designation of Ted as a terrorist by the FBI and as an "anarchist political prisoner" by the Green Anarchy collective. I am not there yet. [23] Maziotis (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You have clearly stated above that you believe that in order to avoid bias we should judge the actions and not the man. Now, you speak about having compromised, and that you feel it is not a question of bias to call him directly a terrorist. This reflects inconsistency in your views and a case of pov-pushing. We are not dealing here in the business of traffic of influences. You should stick with defending the version you believe is right. I don't need charity. Maziotis (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah and I see that the 4 or 5 different, well known news sources I provided weren't as notable as the FBI huh? Try again pal. You deliberately changed what I had used from representing a majority representation into a minority. Stop lying period. I do not have to repeat myself about these things. That is the beauty of these printed words. You just crossed your own words. If you are holding the FBI as the most notable entity as only a designator, than how are the WELL KNOWN NEWS entities any different. You are not doing anything different now than from what I just talked about before. Repeating the same misrepresentations and errors in 6 different ways does not make them any different. Until you actually pay attention to what I write, or others, and answer those different points in a way that is not regurgitating and continuing your posturing, there is no point in me adding to the above. Again this is the beauty of this format. You have yet to truthfully address what is being done and then turn around and accuse everyone else of the same. It is just silly and a waste of time. Don't bother replying until you actually address things. I'm not interested in repeating myself.

In regards to the last little statement you made, I quite clearly addressed this earlier and yet per your MO during this discussion you misinterpreted and misrepresented. I was willing to compromise and not designate Ted himself as a terrorist, but apply the term to the actions. I said I was now not willing to give into this POV pushing of yours. We call a spade a spade period. We do not pander to those who don't like to think our heroes can be criticized. Is this clear enough yet for you. As I write this I realize I have had to repeat myself too many times. You deliberately side step and misrepresent over and over. I am tired of this. It is annoying enough when you have to tell someone something over and over. It is worse when you have to type. Meph Yazata (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say the 4 or 5 sources you provided weren't notable? Did I say that I ignore them because they weren't as notable as the FBI? No. The question about notability concerning these sources, as any other, is: notable about what? I see you prove there are news sources that believe he should be called a "terrorist". And at some point of MY argument I did not challenge this fact. I have never pretended they didn't exist and I did address them in my overall argument. I think my last post is very clear about this. If you want to discuss about how we can include more sources and more content in the article, feel free to talk about it. But as for the designation of Ted Kaczynski as a terrorist, I do believe that you do not have sources to sustain the specific assertion you made. Don't try to make this into a case of the sources not being notable to provide content for the article, as I am not trying to exclude these facts. I just have a different interpretation on how to use this sources under wikipedia policy.

Now, just because I am not going your way, doesn't mean that the world is against you (the format of the wiki, my will and praise for protection on my sneaky ways, etc...) Stop whining. Most of your response is about how I am disruptive and unwilling to comply with your good faith participation, and it's borderline wp:civility. Please try to be clearer on how I failed to understand your argument. As far as I know, that is the essence of a discussion, and we are all bearing that same challenge.

I can understan not asserting 100% that he is a terrorist....

You went from calling him a terrorist to just expecting to highlight his crimes. Then you come up with the solution to "only" judge his actions. And now you are talking about having compromised and back at wanting to directly label him a terrorist. Does this mean that you are dropping this initial position, at the top of the discussion? Or just a part of it? It seems that you are more interested in finding out how to "treat" Ted Kaczynski, among the group of people you have found here, than to write an objective entry. Maziotis (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please stop with this "POV pushing" acusation nonsense. Obviously, if I am interested in Theodore Kaczynski, it is only natural that you find me here editing his article and taking up issues. That itself doesn't constitute a case for me being bias. I am not defending any "heroes", and I think it would be better for the cause of the encyclopedia to drop this sort of ad hominem arguments. Maziotis (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist? Arbitary break 5

Labelling Kaczynski a "terrorist" is an unnecessary characterization that obscures the clear presentation of the introduction. Even the Bin Laden article does not bother labeling Bin Laden with a declaration that "he is a terrorist". The article finds it useful to say he is "the founder of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda", because a complete summary of Al-Qaeda attacks is not feasible in the introduction. With Kaczynski, there was only one set of attacks, and Wikipedia need not super-add that "mail bombing campaign" = "terrorism". —Centrx→talk • 04:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you're still arguing about this! I've come for a look as the page got protected, and it's not even about this. No-one has moved, attempted to build a bridge to consensus, gone looking for dispute resolution or walked away. You've all just stone-walled, typing the same thing over and over. I grew bored of your constant back and forth. Having been away, grown up as a wikipedian, and come back, I'd say Centrx is spot on. I'd like to think that's what I wrote further up but I don't want to break my scroll wheel going back up to check :-p – Bigger digger (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Centrix, this has not been about solely calling Ted a terrorist. There has been numerous revisions and arguments for that use as well as others. I ask you to then address the initial problem I had with the intro and suggest how it could be changed to better address those concerns. Taking a specific part or what you want, to make a conclusion you want, in order to make a statement about it does not help. This is part of what has gotten this as far as it is. There has been much more to it, and as yet, there has been no suggestions or counter-suggestions offered, only refutation.

For Bigger, if you paid attention to me you would have noticed I have repeatedly attempted different compromises to reach consensus. And gee whiz, I believe I am typing after taking my SECOND break from this, and this has been even longer. And I also believe I asked for 2 separate editors to come have a look and offer their input to help reach a resolution. What in this statement by you "No-one has moved, attempted to build a bridge to consensus, gone looking for dispute resolution or walked away." is not matching up for you? You growing bored is irrelevant. I repeatedly had to go back and point to the questions that were sidestepped because they were the relevant questions. Read what I wrote and you would understand. If you don't want to break your scroll wheel and look at everything that you are trying to comment on, then honestly you have no business commenting with an attitude of exasperation. People may see me being uncivil by the end of my correspondences with Maz, but I am human and like anyone I am only going to take some pulling the routine of doing and then accusing others of doing. A good example was Maz accusing me of POV pushing and then asking that I not accuse him of POV pushing. Anyone else see the problem with this? I also refuse to lie back and let someone flat out lie, especially when the evidence is a mouse scroll/click away. Here's an example.

Did I say the 4 or 5 sources you provided weren't notable? Did I say that I ignore them because they weren't as notable as the FBI? No and then lets take a small look above- I have particularly addressed the reference of the FBI because this is the most notable entity, which is currently designating Ted as a "domestic terrorist", in the article. now combine this with Maz's earlier action of deliberately DELETING 3 or 4 references used with the FBI that oh I don't know, just happened to be 3 or 4 major news networks too. Any explanation for this? Anyone? People just coming into this discussion or picking a paragraph or two to read and then assuming they can speak on the whole is not helping. I could list each argument again, but as I said even before Bigger, this was getting us nowhere and creating a problem with no solution. Given this fact and the other facts I just expressed, I cannot take seriously criticism from those telling me try resolution steps that I have indeed tried and long before anyone lectured me that I should. Meph Yazata (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meph wants to reflect the "truth" about Ted Kaczynski having alienated himself from society, trough his crimes. He argues that he is afraid that those factual aspects of this story are not well addressed in a balanced encyclopedia, because of this omission. Well, just look at the intro. His crimes are clearly described, along with his "terrorist" status, in a notable source. The only people who show "sticking up" for him are "some" anarchists, mentioned at the end of the section, who hold some RESERVATIONS over his ACTIONS and ideas. The fact that you want to label him an "evil doer", has got nothing to do with the clear description of his crimes, condemned by the people who are notable to condemn, and the lack of support that comes with it.

This is how we remain objective. We should "resist the temptation to label and moralize", as to avoid violating the fundamental value of neutrality. This is written in our policy. If you feel you want to take a direct consideration on society at large, you have to at least find a source with a clear attribution to exactly that, without any synthesis. What you are doing is way out of line. This is not only a question of neutrality, but of objectivity. If you find a source that can be clearly atributed as an authority on terrorism, then you can label Ted without also violating original research. These two policies are obviously connected, and I believe the guideline on terrorism exists because of a clear, useful connection of the two already being made. The fact is that you can't find that source. I am not even discussing the sources you have at the moment. We have the most cited author in the world pointing to some of your very sources as being terrorist. The idea that we should let the FBI and the CNN speak for ourselves is degrading, like an information entity speaking to the people for the state. It's way out of what we are trying to do here in terms of being objective and neutral.

MY TAKE on this problem is that the issue on legitimacy of violence is too subjective in social sciences, and the term TERRORism is too vague and sensationalist. Asking where is the source of terror in society is like asking for the source of freedom. Every political position has one, except that everyone believes in the term "freedom" for a real concept, while "terrorism" is judged by some as being sensationalist in itself. A term that was created by a specific political faction, such as "those liberals in power", to acomodate people like Ted. It is not a designation to be treated seriously in scholarly sources, as not in an encyclopedia.

I think the issue here is very simple. Per wp:npov and wp:original research, find me a source that is an authority on terrorism, and I will accept to assume its designation instead of attributing it. Please don't turn this around as if someone were arguing here for removing it. I clearly explained why I don't believe those 4 or 5 sources support the specific assertion you are trying to include. All you have is the vague, unsupported accusation that, if I deleted them, is because I am embarrassed by their support on your views. You added nothing to this debate with your last response. The 4 or 5 "major news sources" cannot speak for us about who is terrorist and who is not. This is not a tabloid. You have to conclude falsifiable assertions from the sources, with NPOV and NOR, without ever synthesizing.

There was a time when you seemed to understand that you couldn't 100% label him a terrorist, while reading the guideline for the word "terrorism". I suggest you give it another go and read it.

About me lying, I have to ask you to read the whole thing and put things in context. As I have said, over and over again, the issue on notability begets for the question, "on what?". Flat Earth Society is certainly notable about what the "Flat Earth Society" believes, not on what the shape of the earth is. I do believe the FBI are notable about giving their reason on interfering with Kaczynski's life (huge issue to talk on this article). I don't think the CNN, for example, is an authority on deciding who is terrorist and who is not. These are different issues. I will say it again; I don't believe the FBI is a more "notable" source than TRUtv, and I didn't remove those sources on that ground. There is no contradcition here. Go and read again what I said about including the FBI as the most notable source, in context. You have no basis for accusing me of intentionally lying and I ask you (once again) to read wp:civility. Maziotis (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meph, sorry, it wasn't my intention to rile you, but as you note this conversation has not actually moved anywhere despite all the typing. To me this dispute is about the first paragraph in the lead, he is already described as a terrorist throughout the article and it is attributed accordingly. If I'm honest, the two of you spend so long writing around the dispute and reminding each other of previous arguments, and opining on more general topics that it's no suprise you get nowhere and I get lost.

I've just re-read the entire section (life slipping through my fingers...) and although Meph has clearly tried to move, Maz hasn't moved so much because he is rigidly sticking to a guideline, I think. Maz, I think you can see that the majority here would like to see the inclusion of TK's actions described as terrorist. Having re-read everything and looked again at WP:TERRORIST I don't see a problem with the FBI (as the body tasked with stopping the attacks they represent a significant POV in the issue) being attributed to labelling the attacks as terrorist. In order that we might move this forward, can you try WP:Writing for the enemy? Bigger digger (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I do that? I am sorry, but I am a little bit confused. Isn't that the current version? I added the "terrorist" status of Kaczynki in the introduction, with the FBI source. If you read the whole discussion, you should understand that I have a different take than this one. So, I believe I have written for the enemy. Did I miss something?

As for what the majority of people want, I have to remind you that I did not raise any objection to including the description of Ted as a terrorist, just as I explained in the paragraph above. For now, I do see a majority of 4 people, including yourself, who have expressed the need to point out to his description as a terrorist, instead of objectively categorizing him as such. Maziotis (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maz, if we all walked away now never to edit the article would you be happy with the lead section? It is my understanding of this dispute that you are unhappy with the line that runs "he is described by the FBI as a domestic terrorist" because you don't think the FBI has sufficient authority on who is or isn't a terrorist. I am quite happy with the lead as I feel it meets WP:TERRORIST by directly attributing the claim to a significant POV. If I am mistaken please point out where the dispute lies. Bigger digger (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current version at least is not a blant violation of wp:original research. What I have been arguing on the authority of the FBI has to do with the fact that Meph wants to write that "Theodore Kaczynski is a terrorist", based on the fact that the FBI and other news sources say so. I am not sure you understood that. My issue with the current version would be perhaps more a matter of undue weight, but it would be something I would be quite willing to accept. The designation of Ted as a terrorist by the FBI that you made reference to was included by me, in order to respect the source on wp:verifiability. Maziotis (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho, I do understand that, but I think it's got a bit twisted along the way. As I read it, Meph would accept the attribution of the label to the FBI, but I don't want to put words into his mouth. Hopefully he'll come and reply, if not it seems there's not a problem here. Bigger digger (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe now you can see my argument in a different light. Given these sources and our policy, I think it is very clear that there is a huge difference between describing the designation of Ted as a terrorist, with the proper atribution to the source, and calling him a terrorist. This has been the discussion for most part of it. The statements in question are "Ted Kaczynski was called a terrorist by party X" and "Ted Kaczynski is a terrorist". We can describe the fact that the FBI called Kaczynski a terrorist; We cannot recognize the FBI or a news source as an authority on terrorism and designate Ted as such objectively. Maziotis (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--I think I've always understood that argument (but have not always remembered the argument) it's just not clear to me what the objection was. Hopefully Meph will return and let us know or others will contribute to acheive a consensus. Given that the current locked version only uses the word terrorist in conncetion with the FBI is that acceptable to you? I think the opening paragraph can go without a terrorist mention but it needs rearranging. TK is most notable for the bombing campaign, so I think that needs to be mentioned first. Something like:

Theodore John Kaczynski (pronounced /kəˈzɪnski/; born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber for carrying out a campaign of mail bombings. A United States mathematician and eventual neo-Luddite social critic...

Bigger digger (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that is the best wording, but I have no objection to that idea. Maybe "...also known as the Unabomber in association with a campaign of mail bombings"? I don't know... Maziotis (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, yeah, I wasn't concentrating on the wording, just trying to indicate what I think should be there. Bigger digger (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.answers.com/topic/unabomber

[2] ttp://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/index.html

[3] ttp://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/solomon020608.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]

Relation to Polish statesmen?

Unorganized comments

NPOV?

Math

Respected bombmaker

Better picture?

Professional Influences

Type of Chemical Explosive?

Atlantic Monthly article on Harvard experiments

Profile

Crimethink

Opening

IQ

Anarchism section

Manifesto

Books and pop culture

A "leftist"?

Life in prison

Truth versus Lies

See also contents

High School life

"Authorities said it had enough firepower to obliterate the plane."

typewriter and bicycle

False Errata

First sentance not NPOV

Math skills

Definition of a serial killer - third party comment requested

Weird Al

Any possibilities linking him to the Zodiac killer?

Thought by many

Self described terrorist?!

Better Picture? (again)

Appareance in Good Will Hunting

Spelling Errors

Ted and Asperger's

Discrepancies from the authorities

Ted's IQ

Identifying Kaczynski as a terrorist and a multiple-murderer or mass murderer

Life in the woods of Montana

Anarchist????? Or maybe fascist?

GA Failed: review and fixes needed

Intro Issues

Where does the hood picture come from?

Anarcho-primitivist

Arrest

Too much politics

Mind reading removed

Errors and wrong insinuations

Pronunciation

Social Critic

Terrorist?

Religion of parents

MKULTRA involvement

COMMENTS

Personal Relations

Kaczynski's use of "we"

Why are his victims not suitable for "See also" linking?

Fatalities

Court proceedings

Regarding the removal of several items in the see also section

GA Review

Bomb Description

Kaczynski's Sobriquet

writings of Theodore Kaczynski

New Image

Sources

Al Gore's book

Kaczynski suspected of being closeted transsexual person.

Hives and quarantine

Introduction

'Related works' section

Social critic?

Al Gore connection

Kaczynski's Book.

neo-luddite social critic?

Redundancy in investigation cost.

He was a terrorist.

Terrorist? Arbitary break 1

Terrorist? Arbitary break 2

Terrorist? Arbitary break 3