Jump to content

Talk:Ted Kaczynski/Archive 3

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

Not-so-interesting 1985 email about the John Hauser Unabomber case

I just happened to come across two 1985-dated files about the John Hauser Unabomber bombing in Cory Hall, so I thought I would submit them and write this little tidbit.

I was a post-doc student in EECS in 1985. John Hauser and I worked for the same professor, Dr. Lucien Polak. I usually worked right in the very room where the bomb went off. On that day, however, I was working at home, where I saved a few pieces of not-so-interesting mail which I provide here. (Probably the most interesting thing is that I still have these files -- and the original dates -- on my present laptop! :-) ) BillyBuggy (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. That was pretty interesting! Unfortunately, we can't publish it even on a talk page because of our copyright policy. :/ We can only import previously published text if it is public domain or compatibly licensed. Some people view e-mail as a gray area, I know, but Wikipedia's "arbitration committee" has set a clear rule on this one: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Double redirect

The article Unabomber need to redirect to Ted Kaczynski and not Theodore... Greverod (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, I agree. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical/confusing statement

"To avoid the death penalty, Kaczynski's lawyers were court appointed, but he eventually got rid of them because they wanted to plead insanity and he did not believe he was insane."

This is poorly written and needs to be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.48.234 (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

'Dr.' Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski

Shouldn't the 'Dr.' part be removed? We should not put honorific titles in WP articles. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

I think there should be added an section of his published work. In perticular the soon to be relased "Technological Slavery" and "Road to Revolution", however I have very little info on WHEN the books will be published, but they are available on amazon for pre-ordering... --Torsrthidesen (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Court Proceedings Section

Typo. The word "ever" should be "never". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.30.161 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Galaxy Magazine

Did Ted Kaczynski write a science fiction story titled "Baby Boomers" for the 1 April 1969 Galaxy magazine as stated by http://hycyber.com/SF/galaxy_ka.html There was an April 1969 Galaxy magazine, though it was monthly so wouldn't use the date April 1. It may be an April Fools joke since the date given is 1 April and it uses the term "Boomer" Nightkey (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Plausible, though I hadn't heard this. Galaxy issue dates would be month only. with no day of month. In digitizing records, this might become April 1 or 1 April, quite innocently. I don't know what schedule Galaxy was on. The April issue may have come out as early as mid February.  Randall Bart   Talk  04:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Not found at this SF site. I searched that site for "Kaczynski" (none), "Theodore" (many, but none with names like "Kaczynski"), and stories named "Boomers" (oldest is 1990). Online Etymology says "baby boom" is 1941, but "baby boomers" is 1974. It would be fascinating of the term "baby boomer" was first used in the title of a story by the Unabomber, but I am guessing false.  Randall Bart   Talk  05:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the Zodiac killings

Kaczynski can't have been in Illinois for most of the Zodiac killings and in California for most of the Zodiac killings. One of these must be "many" or "much", or something else needs to be explained.  Randall Bart   Talk  04:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Basis of Notability (Notoriety?)

Currently the article reads that Kaczynski is a "mathematician and social critic", and apparently only secondarily a multiple killer and "domestic terrorist". Shouldn't his profession and critiques be just a matter of background? His notability comes from his bombing escapades and his killing of three people, not from his status as a mathematician or "social critic". (This is like listing Ted Bundy as "an employee of the Washington State Republican Party", and secondarily mentioning that he killed a bunch of people). Eastcote (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he was quite notable before his attacks for his mathematical work, and has become notable afterwords for his social criticism; so all three should be in the lead. The attacks make up the vast majority of the article, so I don't see how we can claim that they are not given enough prominence. The lead is just summarizing the rest of the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. When I first read this, I was very confused and shocked at how this was worded. β i ι ι γ τ r ο υ § ε r § (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's to make mathematicians look bad. People don't like math.  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.227.126 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia shouldn't be a salve to the conscience, to make people think Ted Kaczynski was on a different wavelength to a sane person, despite his homicidal acts.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

CIA involvement with the experiments

It is well know that the CIA supported the experiments(based on the many sources on the MKULTRA article). There is much more than enough hard evidence, and just because it sounds weird doesn't make it less likely. Of course, the is a small chance the experiments were not related the the CIA, but Wikipedia is based on facts from reliable sources, not facts that are 100.0000000000% true. Unless any reliable sources can discredit each relating statement by the sources in the MKULTRA article, I'll add the mention of the CIA back. Also, the information in the top section(AKA the section most people do not read past of) mentions many traits about him, especially his relatively un-extraordinary mathematical skill, without mentioning his unusual experience which was obviously very important. Other articles about strange experiment victims generally mention it in the first sentence.173.180.214.13 (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Kaczynski is a Luddite, not Anarchist

Can we fix the incorrect political label affixed to Mr. Kaczynski from Anarchist to Luddite? I firmly believe the proper term to describe the motivation for Kaczynski's actions (in the first paragraph) would be Luddite (against technology), not Anarchist (against rule). His manifesto rails against technology, but says nothing at all against the state, or in promotion of personal sovereignty, staples of the anarchist political belief. Indeed, his targets seem rather random, and as he stated in the article, were chosen "purely out of motives of revenge", not out of some resistance against some group attempting to establish unwanted authority or control over him. Additionally, he was living a back to nature survivalist life in order to shun technology and reconnect to nature, and his bombs (rather uncharacteristically of bombs) all symbolically contained wood. I think its clear from his writings and interviews, he views technology as the enemy against man, not statism.

Someone pointed out that two anarchists came to his defense, but that does not make Kaczynski an anarchist, no more than two Republicans, Democrats, or Whigs came to his defense would make him a Republican, Democrat, or Whig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

yep, he isn't anarchist. it is an IP http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Kaczynski&action=historysubmit&diff=400160857&oldid=399221070 which could add "anarchist" about him, but he isn't. i suppress the modif of the IP. Libre (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Before that the IP put this "and anarchist", there weren't problems. The Ip or others users have to enounce sources before to put this in the article. so, Jrtayloriv, what are the sources which precises that he is anarchist ? Libre (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
well, i see the user Jrtayloriv which could do a revert about my supress of "and anarchist" don't care about my request, then i will re-suppress it tomorrow, if there's no good sources to express it. before putting an information, it has to be sourced first ! this change didn't have any sources before to put it : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Kaczynski&action=historysubmit&diff=400160857&oldid=399221070 . Libre (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy with other things. A quick Google search would have sufficed, and would have turned up things like this, this, or this. Let me know if you feel like these sources are not adequate, and I'll gladly find you more. According to reliable sources, Kaczynski is both an anarchist and a luddite -- the two are not mutually exclusive. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but i don't see nothing in your references which can enounce that Kaczynski is anarchist. However in his pamphlet ("... his future"), we can see that he want a "post-revolutionnary governement", a "vanguardist elite", and some other things which are clearly not anarchist. What is sure, is that he is primitivist, maybe a neo luddite, but he is not anarchist. in history, there's a lot of self-proclaimed anarchist, but we can see some of them going in power institutions (statist, governmentalist, capitalistics, Spectacle#Spectacle_and_Society...), and see that they are not anarchists. Kaczynski proclaims that anti-technologicals revolutionnaries have to go after the revolution in "post-revolutionnary governement" to control society, where is anarchy here, is it Newspeak ? Libre (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I just provided three sources that claim that he is an anarchist. I'm kind of surprised that you're having trouble finding the sections in question, considering that in two of the sources cited the relevant parts are highlighted, but here are direct quotes:
  • "Kaczynski identified himself as a anarchist" [1]
  • "claimed to be from 'the anarchist group calling ourselves FC'" [2]
  • "Kaczynski was a disenchanted mathematics professor turned anarchist" [3]
I don't care about your opinions about what makes a real anarchist. Your reading of "his pamphlet" is irrelevant, and is what is called original research (please see WP:OR). I really don't feel like wasting anymore time on this. If you can find sources claiming that he's not an anarchist, that's fine, and we can discuss the disagreement in the article. Otherwise, there is no basis for further discussion of this, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
i don't see your sources, and a sentence isn't sufficient to know if it is a quality work or not. some peoples don't think/know about what they write. you. Well, then, if kaczynski was "anarchist", then, seeing the definition of anarchism : "a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.", however kaczynski don't want anarchy as it is defined (or from etymology), but he wants the "wild nature", then if we have to determine who is kaczynski about his "wild nature", it is maybe an "ecologist" or a "primitivist", but nothing about an anarchist.
some others encylopedia don't talk about kaczynski like an anarchist : http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1379789/Ted-Kaczynski
some quote about kaczynski not anarchist :
  • "In the late 1990s, Time magazine called Ted Kaczynski "the king of the anarchists"; but that doesn't make it so. Time's words are just another typical, perhaps deliberately dishonest, attempt to tar all anarchists with the terrorist brush. " chaz bufe, Anarchism: What It Is & What It Isn't.
  • "One thing which we all did agree on was that the article in question, with its celebration of terrorism against the general public, had nothing to do with anarchism (and, indeed, humanity). Stating that murdering innocent people was the “right idea” suggests a deeply authoritarian position and one in direct opposition of the goals of anarchism — namely individual and working class self-liberation. Such a position, I would also argue, reflects the politics of Unabomber and, therefore, not anarchist." Iain McKay, Letters against Primitivism.
i let kaczynski talks about what he thinks abouts anarchists and others :
  • "Kara: How do you see anarchists, green-anarchists, anarcho-primitivists? Do you agree with them? [...]
"Ted : All of the groups you mention here are part of a single movement. (Let's call it the “Green Anarchist” (GA) Movement). Of course, these people are right to the extent that they oppose civilization and the technology on which it is based. But, because of the form in which this movement is developing, it may actually help to protect the technoindustrial system and may serve as an obstacle to revolution. [...] Thus, even though the GA Movement claims to reject civilization and modernity, it remains enslaved to some of the most important values of modern society. For this reason, the GA Movement cannot be an effective revolutionary movement. [...] The GA Movement may be not only useless, but worse than useless, because it may be an obstacle to the development of an effective revolutionary movement. Since opposition to technology and civilization is an important part of the GA Movements program, young people who are concerned about what technological civilization is doing to the world are drawn into that movement. Certainly not all of these young people are leftists or soft, dreamy, ineffectual types; some of them have potential to become real revolutionaries. But in the GA Movement they are outnumbered by leftists and other useless people, so they are neutralized, they become corrupted, and their revolutionary potential is wasted. In this sense, the GA Movement could be called a destroyer of potential revolutionaries. It will be necessary to build a new revolutionary movement that will keep itself strictly separate from the GA Movement and its soft, civilized values. I don't mean that there is anything wrong with gender equality, kindness to animals, tolerance of homosexuality, or the like. But these values have no relevance to the effort to eliminate technological civilization. They are not revolutionary values. An effective revolutionary movement will have to adopt instead the hard values of primitive societies, such as skill, self-discipline, honesty, physical and mental stamina, intolerance of externally-imposed restraints, capacity to endure physical pain, and, above all, courage."Ted Kaczynski, Letter to a Turkish anarchist.
then we can't put mistake in an introduction, and it is not three bad sources which can give the truth about what ted think or what he is about anarchism... my sources do it.
before that the IP putted the modification in adding "and anarchist", there weren't bias, now there's one, see Wikipedia:Systemic bias, Disinformation, Misinformation...
i ll suppress this false information near.
Libre (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
If you "can't see my sources", even though there I have clearly linked to them (twice) and quoted passages from them, then your issue is probably one of computer literacy or with comprehending English prose. It is not my responsibility to help you with either of these issues. Again, please see WP:OR regarding your opinions about whether Kaczynski should be classified as an anarchist; they are irrelevant, and constitute original research. I don't care what definitions you've found for anarchism, or what research you've done into primary sources written by Kaczynski. I have three reliable sources that claim Kaczynski is an anarchist, and you haven't provided a single source that contradicts this (your primary sources are not reliable sources). If you remove the term "anarchist" based on your personal opinions, I'm going to take this to a noticeboard and have them deal with you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
some secondary sources you have put here are linked with a primary source from 15 years ago (before he be arrested), kaczynski has evolved more clearly in his ideas now, then now we can't say he is an anarchist (see new primary sources). It is like different politicals which had some ideas when they were young and which could change ideas when they are older (eg. in the article "Daniel Cohn-Bendit", we don't write what was his ideas before, but what are his ideas now).
ted Kaczynski is the primary source, and he doesn't support anarchists, he says that he thinks that anarchists are not anti-industrials revolutionnaries, and that peoples have to reject the anarchist movement (cause they are not anti-industrialist), don't you know read a primary source ? did you read his writings, which are primary sources of his ideas ? my secondaries sources explain the same thing about the believes of kaczynski. then the primary source is Kaczynski which is saying that he doesn't believe in the anarchist movement, then it would be stupid to put this on the article ! but some wants that wikipedia be stupid. now, if you have some sources which explain that he is anarchist, you can put a section about that point of view, but i ll expose some point of view saying the opposite. What is clear, is that we can't put this allegation in the introduction, you can put it, by example, in the section about his relations with "anarcho-primitivist". but you can't put propaganda (secondary source) in an introduction.
i ll put this false information in an other section...
Libre (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Should be extremely obvious he is a Luddite, I see we all know that, shouldn't be any reason not to add it, as one word don't waste any space. However, if he calls himself an anarchist, and is indeed a social critic, he is an anarchist. If your an anarchist, don't be offended, because just because someone supports you doesn't mean you support him. It took people centuries to understand this simple point, and even afterward many still unconsciously think otherwise when they forget this.173.180.214.13 (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I deleted one part at the bottom of the lead that had three unacceptable sources. There is way too much attention to this. A search of the article for just anarchist shows 16 times it is used on the page. That is excessive. More later, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that is only around o.2% of the total words in the article. There are 20 words beginning with math (mathematics, mathematician).173.180.214.13 (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Jrtayloriv is correct on this issue. Multiple, reliable sources label Kaczynski an anarchist, so Wikipedia does, too. — Satori Son 14:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for trimming?

The lead to this article seems excessively long. We should not need that much space to make a brief summary of the article. As this page has been rife with edit warring, controversy and vandalism, I decided to start here with suggestions to perhaps bring the size of the lead down. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Trim the manifesto

The long section analyzing his manifesto is problematic. It reeks of original research, going far beyond merely summarizing the contents of the essay. This is inherently wrong for a wikipedia article. Furthermore, this has the effect of legitimizing the manifesto, as though it really were some kind of scholarly document and not the ravings of a well-read madman. I really think that entire section should be condensed to a one-paragraph summary. I would just go ahead and do it but I think some people would get upset, so I figured I'd see if anyone has any discussion to offer. 76.115.245.66 (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't actually mean to offer a judgment of his writing. If you think he is a genius, that's fine. But wikipedia isn't the place to analyze such things. It should just present the essential facts, i.e. a simple summary of the manifesto.76.115.245.66 (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Providing people detailed information about what was said in the manifesto is not "legitimizing" it. We do not have an obligation to make it look like "the ravings of a well-read madman". We should try to be objective, and not oversimplify what was said in the manifesto. It's already been heavily condensed, considering the original length, and I don't think you could shorten it any more without removing important information. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would we even celebrate a psychopath? I don't understand the cultish stand of such a person. He selected his victims randomly and he forced the NYT to print a manifest. And what is so genius about him? I never understood it. OK, we had left-wing terrorism here in Europe which was bad enough. But at least the RAF had an ideology on which they based their actions. Now, I don't know if that is better or worse. But hell, now these bombs out of Italy, almost killing two ordinary workers. Anarchists come from such an extreme right-wing attitude, it is so scary, not even right wing anymore, just black as death... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.68.111 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually he selected his victims with purpose and obviously the manifesto is an indication of an ideology. Please use this page for discussion of the article and improvements to such. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus?

Has there been a consensus on the use of the term terrorist? After wading through the archives and such I didn't seem to find one. In fact the debate went into the term "terrorism" in terms of his actions. These however are 2 different things. I read at one point that the FBI defines him as a terrorist but not his actions. This would not preclude the use of the "terrorist" label for him. In fact most so called "authorities" and such seem to use Ted extensively to define "lone wolf" and "domestic" terrorist. Thoughts or feedback? tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • As a point of interest this question is asked do to the recent removal of the term due to the WTO guideline. I would point out that this is a guideline and not a rule per se. Long ago it was discussed and generally agreed upon that this guideline is not, as I've heard it put best, a club with which to end all argument and discussion. Just fyi. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry in advance for messing up any guidelines, but to quote the much debated manifest: "181. (fr) As we stated in paragraph 166, the two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system." That is the rationale of a political terrorist. AnonymousCoward 10:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.135.124 (talk)

Norway attacks section

Please see Summary for the deletion of the section on Anders and the Norway attacks. The same thing happened to the Max Manus article. We have to resist the temptation to changing encyclopedic articles to major popular events. Wikipedia policy indicates that we should write artciles with due weight in mind.

Use your common sense. This article has been here for a long time and the Unabomber is somewhat of a reference in modern culture. Don't treat this Anders case as if it were a latter development in the case of this article. Not even the writing of his last book, with all the controversy that went with it, deserved a whole section in this article. I believe that even a reference in the article to Anders is too much, but I will have to listen to whatever consensus. Maziotis (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Using my common sense, I think it's obvious that this information is sufficiently important to this article. Breivik literally copy-pasted parts of Kaczynski's manifesto into his own. It really gives an idea of the Unabomber's legacy and influence. This isn't just recentism, Breivik will certainly remain at least as notorious as the Unabomber, he managed to kill more people in a single day than the Unabomber killed in the course of decades (although, of course, if you mean "modern American culture", three dead Americans might seem more impressive than 80 dead Norwegians). Or is it, perhaps, that a nationalist terrorist is so "inferior" to an anarcho-primitivist terrorist that a connection between the two should never be mentioned? In any case, I'm re-inserting the information - since you insist, not in a separate section but in the "Related works" section.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Unabomber free image.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Unabomber free image.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Unabomber-cabin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Unabomber-cabin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted images

Relevant information about the recently deleted images is here. 28bytes (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Circumstances of plea agreement

"When it became clear that his pending trial would entail national television exposure for Kaczynski, the court entered a plea agreement, under which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole." (In the first section.) I have no idea what this sentence means. As written, it has serious flaws but I don't know how to rewrite it to fix it because I'm not sure of the underlying facts. 1. "When it became clear" is vague and meaningless. Clear to who? 2. "...the court entered a plea agreement" The court can only enter a plea agreement when the prosecution and the defense agree to a plea. This sentence makes it sound like the court took it upon itself to enter a plea agreement on its own authority to avoid television exposure for Kaczynski. The system doesn't work that way. Can someone clarify this? Kentucho (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentucho (talk • contribs) 13:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem Paragraph

This paragraph has multiple problems:

>In 1996, a docudrama was produced titled "Unabomber: The True Story", featuring actors Dean Stockwell as Ben Jeffries, Robert Hays as David Kaczynski and Tobin Bell as Theodore Kaczynski. In this film a determined postal inspector was followed as he tracked down the suspect and also centered on Kaczynski's brother, who played a key role in the investigation.

Problems:

  • No source cited. May be from movies.nytimes.com.
  • Ben Jeffries is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Who is he?
  • Did a postal inspector really "track down" the unibomber? I thought his brother turned him in.
  • Who or what "centered on Kaczynski's brother"? The postal inspector? The movie?

Chappell (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Planned victim

Noam Chomsky was an intended victim of Kaczynski. I want a source other than the Chomsky article in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.111.148 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Garbled sentence in article?

This one:

Kaczynski, both very much of his time (the 1960's, deconstructivism, a distrust of "the system", a desire for revolution) also remained "the intellectual outsider" and considered himself more important than others.

66.25.177.117 (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I independently noted the same thing minutes after you did! (Too lazy to dig in to the orig contribution to see what went amok, if there's a clue there.) Oh well. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Kaczynski's last victim

The information in this article should be corrected; at the time of his death Kaczynki's last victim, Thomas J. Mosser, was an executive at Young & Rubicam NY, not Burston Marceller. I was employed at Y&R NY when it happened and recall it quite vividly.

Here's a quote from the New York Times the day it happened: http://www.unabombers.com/News/94-12-12-NYT-Mosser-4.htm [1] Rstava01 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I have read some thing that made me want to post my concerns. Under the section "bombings" As a former Police Officer I find it a little disturbing that there are details about the construction of a homemade bomb. Is this posting really needed to be on the internet for anyone and everyone to read.? I do realize this same info can be found in other places on the internet, however I feel The fewer places the better. 

Am I the only one that feels this way?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by No. Bomber ROCKS.BuckeyeFordFan (talk • contribs) 01:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of post-nominal reference to PhD

I have removed the post-nominal reference to Kaczynski's PhD in mathematics at the beginning of the article, mainly because it is irrelevant to Kaczynski's reason for fame (or infamy). The vast majority of people who search out this article will be looking for information on Kaczynski's campaign of murder, and his political motivations behind same. In this context, it is merely trivial that he holds a PhD in mathematics, a qualification held by countless individuals around the world. Therefore I have removed the post-nominal reference, leaving the reader to read about this further down the article.

While it is perfectly correct to list this qualification after Kaczynski's name, it makes most sense to do so in a professional context when it is relevant to list a particular qualification. Or indeed if the article in question is that of an individual who has gone on to make there name in the same field that they have achieved that qualification, then it is clearly a good idea to list that post-nominally (e.g. a famous scientist).

Consider the below examples of individuals who all hold PhD's, but have no post-nominal reference to it at the beginning of their articles:

◌ Brian May - Musician; holds PhD in astrophysics ◌ Vitali Klitschko - Boxer; holds PhD in sports science ◌ Mayim Bialik - Actress; holds PhD in neuroscience ◌ Gordon Brown - Politician; holds PhD in history ◌ Angela Merkel - Politician; holds PhD in chemistry ◌ Dan Grimaldi - Actor; holds PhD in data processing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19daedalus88 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

MKUltra

Perhaps, something should be added about Kaczynski and MKUltra? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.9.130 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think so too. This is from the Wikipedia article on MKUltra. I would think that the LSD experiments would play at least as much a role in his personality developments as the psychological experiments did:

A considerable amount of credible circumstantial evidence suggests that Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, participated in CIA-sponsored MKUltra experiments conducted at Harvard University from the fall of 1959 through the spring of 1962.[71] During World War II, Henry Murray, the lead researcher in the Harvard experiments, served with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which was a forerunner of the CIA. Murray applied for a grant funded by the United States Navy, and his Harvard stress experiments strongly resembled those run by the OSS.[71] Beginning at the age of sixteen, Kaczynski participated along with twenty-one other undergraduate students in the Harvard experiments, which have been described as "disturbing" and "ethically indefensible."[71][72]205.175.240.251 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Parker

If MKUltra was just a "personality study", then I guess the Holocaust was just a big "sociology experiment" and WW1 was just a "family dispute". Who's writing these articles? How does someone, who wants to expand knowledge and truth, write such a vague and misleading statement? Ignorance is strength I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.121.9 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The citation for his involvement in the MKUltra program is broken, it's supposed to read to his psychological evaluation, found here, which makes no mention of the MKUltra program. It merely states that the autobiography which Kaczynski wrote for Dr. Murray was used as part of the evaluation of Kaczynski. Because of the lack of a citation for Dr. Murray's study being part of the MKUltra program, I will be removing that mention. Please update if any reliable evidence is found to indicate otherwise. 58.165.250.156 (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Part of the Politics series on Green anarchism?

Calling this article "Part of the Politics series on Green anarchism" is like calling the Osama bin Laden article "Part of the Religious series on Sunni Islam". Fringe terrorists like Kaczynski and bin Laden should not be “part of the XXXX series” of a legitimate political or religious group. Panting the legitimate group with a terrorist is harmful to the legitimate group, and is similar to the kind of harm Wikipedia tries to guard against in biographies of living persons. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Unabomber's Manifesto

The article is incomplete without a link to the Unabomber's Manifesto(link to preformatted plain text document.). The whole point of the bombings were to bring attention to the topics discussed in it. The text itself does not promote violence but rather provides complete understanding of his character. A person from- 1. Another country or 2. Not born when the incidents happened will have no context otherwise.

Industrial Society and its FuturePDF version. Additionally, in compliance with Unabomber's request, these contents are in the public domain.VedantMadane (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Social Theorist

It says he is a mathematician and serial murderer, should it also say he is a social theorist in the lead? 71.161.193.12 (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. How do we do that? 14.97.114.163 (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Murray in the lede

A whole paragraph dedicated to the Murray experiments in the lede is way too much (undue weight). This is a big article—if the experiments even need mention at all (I'm not sure they do), it's at most a single line as it relates to his sentencing. I think the lede could use some trimming. – czar 03:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be advancing a conspiracy theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Why are so many pronunciations given? An individual's name generally has only a single pronunciation: the one preferred by the person himself. Alternate pronunciations used by other people sharing the same name are irrelevant to an article about this person. Krychek (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The first is an English spelling pronunciation. The second is a slightly Anglicised version of the actual Polish pronunciation. The third is the Polish itself. The same person might use several versions of the same word, depending on the language he is speaking and who he is speaking to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.229.178 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Did he even speak Polish???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought the same thing. Since he was born in the U.S. and uses English, I don't see why the English Wikipedia needs both versions. I removed the Polish spelling/pronunciation until someone can provide evidence he speaks Polish or uses the Polish pronunciation of his name. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Serial murderer

"Serial murderer" after killing 3 people? "Terrorist" would be better.

Also, he only spent a few years working as a mathematician, so why is this in the first line and in the infobox?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The word "few" is a comparative term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.102.104 (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your point.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Jack Upland As a general rule, we don't use the word "terrorist" unless many reliable sources call it as such - further on down, we do mention that the FBI considers him a "domestic terrorist". hbdragon88 (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Who defines a serial murderer? Who defines a terrorist? The point is he planted multiple bombs, but only killed three people. It would be better to call him a terrorist. And the mathematician description is absurd.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ted Kaczynski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

COMMONNAME

This came up over on Jihadi John, specifically that that article is called Jihadi John, as that's his WP:COMMONNAME, whereas this article is called Ted Kaczynski when, I'd suggest, his COMMONNAME is clearly Unabomber. If we can accept that he is more frequently called Unabomber than Ted by reliable sources (a quick Google News search indicates this by a factor of 7, for what that's worth), then there are loads of examples of people whose stage/etc. names are used (Bono and Lady Gaga from the WP:COMMANNAME entry, but more relevant would be Carlos the Jackal). Then again, there's Peter Sutcliffe rather than Yorkshire Ripper and David Berkowitz rather than Son of Sam, so there's obviously some inconsistency on WP; although I've not found an identified serial killer where the nickname is used, so perhaps there's an exception for them. Are there any other terrorists/criminals with nicknames as their article title?

This article has been extensively edited, and is a GA, so I was wondering if anybody had thought about this before.? I can't find anything in the Talk archives. Bromley86 (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Adds: Colleen LaRose, not Jihad Jane (when JJ appears to be her commonname). Samantha Lewthwaite, not White Widow and Jake Bilardi, not Jihadi Jake, although in these cases, the nicknames don't appear to be the commonnames. Bromley86 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I definitely don't think it should be "Unabomber". That was a code name that dates back to the time when his identity was uncertain. To a native English-speaker, his real name is difficult to say, spell, and remember, so it's unsurprising that he is still widely called the "Unabomber". In any case, Wikipedia has a tendency to turn all these articles into biographies (for example, outlining TK's career as a mathematician). The "Unabomber" would be OK for a title of this article if it was only about his crimes, but it isn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a passerby's comment

This article is very well written and seems pretty much exhaustive. What is it lacking that featured articles have? This article underwent an unsuccessful nomination for FA status. Themidget17 (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Political and social views

Final sentence:

Kaczynski, throughout most of his earlier years (the 1960s, deconstructivism, a distrust of "the system", a desire for revolution) remained "the intellectual outsider" and considered himself more important than others.

The material in brackets isn't clear, and doesn't integrate properly with the remainder of the sentence. Can someone who's read the referenced text fix this? Notreallydavid (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Cabin was not destroyed

According to CNN, "the infamous Unabomber cabin was saved at last minute"

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/West/05/01/unabomber.cabin.reut/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boctulus (talk • contribs) 14:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

According to the article, it is on display...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

incorrect usage of the word abbreviated

35,000-word essay Industrial Society and Its Future, abbreviated to "Unabomber Manifesto" by the FBI, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.107.133 (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

4 Life Sentences or 8?

Says on his profile box thingy that he is serving 4 Life sentences while throughout the article it says it is 8. Didn't want to change it in case I'm missing something here. Let me know, Thanks.Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Politics as identity?

The first sentence describes Kaczynski as "an American anarchist and domestic terrorist".

"Anarchist" is neither a profession, nor a crime.

The opening sentence on Rod Blagojevich doesn't say "American democrat and 40th governor of Illiois" -- it simply describes him as the governor. The article on Charles Manson doesn't lead in with "American racist and criminal", it simply describes him as a criminal.

The first sentence should be revised to "Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski (/kəˈzɪnski/; born May 22, 1942), also known as the "Unabomber", is an American domestic terrorist. "

I'd have fixed it myself, but editing appears to be broken for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

His politics led to his crimes, so I think this is valid for the first sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ted Kaczynski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Kaczynskis IQ

"As a result of testing conducted in the fifth grade, which determined he had an IQ of 167, he was allowed to skip the sixth grade and enroll in the seventh grade."

He scored 136 on the WAIS as an adult: "The WAIS-R results were Verbal Score of 138, Performance Score of 124, and Full Scale Score of 136." Source: http://paulcooijmans.com/psychology/unabombreport3.html

Also: https://books.google.de/books?id=a2p6mqd7xRMC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=kaczynski+%22136%22+%22iq%22&source=bl&ots=Uc2RxlKavB&sig=0N3w-m1BVV6GNEQkhox_Yhoeb00&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMkcuJ3bPUAhWI7hoKHVtICywQ6AEIQTAD#v=onepage&q=kaczynski%20%22136%22%20%22iq%22&f=false

His 167 score is a childhood ratio IQ. Childhood ratio IQs can sometimes highly inflate IQ. The IQ is differently calculated than a deviation IQ. You might also want to include his 136 deviation IQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.89.219.184 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

ChicagoEric Those are nice edits you've added to his early life. Will you be able to cite the facts you've entered? — Myk Streja [who?] 16:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Yes, my edits in his early life have been cited. ChicagoEric (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

ChicagoEric I went along and tidied up the "citations needed', and did the "clarification needed" at the top. Back to you, dude. ;) — Myk Streja [who?] 23:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and all your help so far! ChicagoEric (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Wording

Okay, I understand that they mean the same thing, but grammatically it's a fractured sentence. The correct sentence should read: He was accepted into Harvard University at the age of 16 or He was accepted into Harvard University at 16 years old. That's what I was doing. Can you accept that?

BTW, this is a run-on sentence: He subsequently received his M.A. and Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Michigan, and became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1967 at age 25, but resigned abruptly two years later. The sentences should be He subsequently received his M.A. and Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Michigan and became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1967 at age 25. He abruptly resigned two years later.

I believe these changes need to be made to be grammatically correct. Do we have an accord? I'm asking nicely here.  — Myk Streja (what?) 20:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if the undoing seemed intransigent; it was probably not the right move as that section does need a re-write in my opinion anyway. I think the being accepted into Harvard should be merged with the born in Evergreen Park, child prodigy sentence, then the "he earned his undergraduate degree" with the Univ. of Michigan information, then a separate sentence for the UC Berkeley professorship and resignation. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe a little proprietary. That's okay, as you saw, I was ready to fight for it. You're probably right about merging that part. Why don't you do it, because, honestly, I can't quite see what you're saying here. I'll botch it if I try.  — Myk Streja (what?) 21:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll make the change now. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Not quite the way I would have phrased it—but then you are not me—it has the benefit of being grammatically correct and fixes the problem sentences. Thank you again for doing this.  — Myk Streja (what?) 22:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Birthplace

Was Kaczynski born in Chicago or Evergreen Park? Britannica says Evergreen Park but other sources say Chicago and the good article version (from 2008) says Chicago also. Does anyone know for sure? Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @ChicagoEric:! You got your ears on? Anyway, Eric grew up in Evergreen Park and had spoken to people who knew Ted. So, in a nutshell, we got an eyewitness that testifies that Ted was born in Evergreen Park and lived there until college.We can't use him as a reliable source, but we can know which way to fall about a limited range of topics.  — Myk Streja (who?) 02:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I do not think you can use one editor's knowledge as a source. (no offence intended to ChicagoEric.) I have found that most of the sources from the time of his arrest state he is "born in Chicago" or "Chicago-born", and would personally lean towards changing it to that. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
As long as you can source it, I can live with it. I myself was born in Westerly but I lived in Warwick as a child. Is Evergreen a suburb of Chicago?  — Myk Streja (who?) 04:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This source from the time of his arrest states both that he is "Chicago-born" and "was born in a leafy southwestern Chicago suburb - Evergreen Park". I do not know what to make of that in regards to the wording of this article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. From the sources I provided, which I consider very credible, Kaczynski was not actually born in Evergreen Park but in the city of Chicago. The location where he lived on Carpenter street near the University of Chicago is quit a distance away from Evergreen Park, approximately 18 miles. According to the source "A Mind for Murder..." he moved to Evergreen Park at the age of 10. Evergreen Park is a suburb of Chicago and it's located on the far southwest side. I consider the book a more credible source than anything I've read thus far. ChicagoEric (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Eric. That is good to know. I changed the "birth place" parameter to Chicago and altered "Born and raised in Evergreen Park" to just "Raised in Evergreen Park", so what you cite is in line with the current article status. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Sounds great Hrodvarsson! Great edits! ChicagoEric (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sherman Elementary School

Is there a reference for Kaczynski's attendance at Sherman Elementary School? I haven't been able to find one. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

List of academic citations

@Mukogodo: The original text was: Testing conducted in the fifth grade determined he had an IQ of 167.[2] What new information have you brought to make the change? Your personal opinion? Your edit summary states that "at best they estimate it." What citations do you bring for that? Sounds like original research to me.

References

  1. ^ http://www.unabombers.com/News/94-12-12-NYT-Mosser-4.htm
  2. ^ "The Kaczynski brothers and neighbors". Chicago Tribune.

Now for part 2. You removed the part of the article that contained three reference to others citing his work. Why? Your edit summary says: (→‎Published works: Not normal in Wikipedia to list articles citing an ademic authro in their article. For most, it would be hundreds.) It is up to you to prove it is not normal or that it fails policy. And what does the second part of the summary mean?  — Myk Streja (aack!) 21:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not think the table of works that cite Kaczynski should be included, but the change to "estimating" in regards to IQ does not make sense (You do not take a test to estimate what your result is, you take a test to determine what your result is). Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

-With regard to the previous "table of authors who cite Kaczynski's math work", my intent with that addition was to point out that Kaczynski's mathematical work has had a relatively low impact, in terms of academic citations, importance of ideas, and so on. (but specifically, citation number). Specifically I wanted to point out that as far as I've been able to determine, there are only three such pieces/citations (this is what makes the case somewhat notable, as opposed to the above "hundreds", which was my point). I can see how that edit could be construed as "overkill" or as not having made its context clear, so I've replaced the basic idea with a brief paragraph which retreads these ideas with more context, just now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinnesotanUser (talk • contribs) 00:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Original research discussion

Subsections "Political and social views", "Perceived control methods", and "Historical views and predictions" are all based solely upon one primary source - Kaczynski, Theodore (1995), Industrial Society and Its Future, The Washington Post {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). There is not a single WP:Reliable source relied upon to write these three sections. Consequently, all three sections qualify as WP:Original research. Per WP:PRIMARY policy,

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[1] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy."

Per WP:PROVEIT of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Mitchumch (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.
  • Strongly Disagree The Washington Post is a reliable source that published Kaczynski's Manifesto in its entirety. The sections cited are Political and social views, Perceived control methods and Historical views and predictions. The sections concern Ted's idealogy and beliefs and are based upon the Manifesto. Since the Manifesto was an important part of the entire incident surrounding the bombings, it has an important part in the article. This is not original research because the source is not primary. This whole discussion needs to go to RfC. Mitchumch, since you started this, you should start the RfC.  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 22:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Myk_Streja A Rfc is not currently necessary. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment, section "Before starting the process". It states, "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." This discussion has only begun and needs further time to "thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on" this talk page.
In regards to the use of the Washington Post. This discussion is not questioning the WaPo as a reliable source. This discussion is solely focused upon the interpretation of Industrial Society and Its Future. That document is a primary source that happened to be published by WaPo. As I exerted above per Wikipedia:PRIMARY, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. There are no reliable secondary sources used in any of those three sections. Mitchumch (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - as it stands, this is Original Research and/or Synth. Needs a secondary interpretation from a Reliable Source - or it should go.50.111.42.37 (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Mitchumch Thank you for taking me seriously. I know about the initial discussion period, but I'm not certain this discussion will be noticed by many. This article has previously earned a Good Article review, and I don't want to see it trimmed over a source that had been accepted but is now called into question. I could see this if the article had never been reviewed, but too many have put in too many hours to let this just slide by.
As for your second point, I disagree. You claim it's a primary source, I claim it is not. Publishing the Manifesto is no different than if a reporter interviewed Kaczynski. Wikipedia:PRIMARY does not apply, therefore the rest of your assertions do not apply. And there is the rub. Is the published report of the Manifesto in the Washington Post a viable source?
I have found a New York Times to support the WaPo source. Will that do?  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 02:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Myk_Streja You'll need to present links so everyone can evaluate your sources. Mitchumch (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Mitchumch Ah, oops. I had meant to but got distracted by RL. New York Times September 19, 1995  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 03:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Myk_Streja The only content (at least I saw) that interprets the manifesto in the NYT source states, "The closely reasoned tract, entitled "Industrial Society and Its Future," touched on politics, history, sociology, science and particularly the history of science and called for a nonpolitical revolution in which factories would be destroyed, books burned and humanity saved from economic and technological slavery."
You'll need alot of reliable sources that can validate the interpretations and analysis contained in the three sections I tagged above. Any assertion not supported by such a source will have to be removed. Mitchumch (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Mitchumch I haven't conceded the reliability of the original source. I may continue to look for other sources, but I am not convinced this material is original research.  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 19:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Myk_Streja Because your are a lone voice in this discussion, you have to convince the participants in this discussion of your position. I cannot speak for other participants, but you have not convinced me of your position. As of this moment, my position is the interpretation and analysis in those three sections are WP:Original research. Until secondary reliable sources are provided to support those assertions, all interpretation and analysis in those three sections need to be removed. Mitchumch (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Mitchumch What others? You and I are the only participants. Czar drops a one-liner, and the other is an IP address with a real short history. Even if Czar joins the discussion, three respondants is hardly enough.  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 21:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Myk Streja. Industrial Society and Its Future is a reliable source as it was published by The New York Times and The Washington Post. It is also of relevance to this article since it was/is the "Unabomber's manifesto" and led to Kaczynski's arrest (Technological Slavery, Anti-Tech Revolution or other works are not as relevant, so passages from them are not included). You could argue about what of ISAIF should be included but that is more to do with consensus among editors, not about the validity of the source. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Myk_Streja I'm not sure what more I can add to this discussion beyond what I've already added. Mitchumch (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Then the templates should be removed. I understand your concerns about original research, and would agree if this was a philosopher with a wide range of works that someone was cherry-picking quotes from to present a certain view. But this is the one notable work by Kaczynski, and it was published by a reliable source (so it can be seen as a "novel" which you may "cite passages to describe the plot", and as an interview with Kaczynski wherein he details his personal views) and is of relevance to the subject at hand (Kaczynski may not have been caught if he did not detail his views in Industrial Society and Its Future). Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I second the motion. Prior editors who accepted the sections during review agree. The templates should be removed.  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Removal of tags will result in an escalation of the discussion to a different forum. Mitchumch (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
In the future Wikipedia talk pages will only be about allegations of "original research".--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Mitchumch It was anticipated and suggested that you would be the one removing the tags. Stop trying to threaten people and get off your high horse. So, exactly what forum was that you were going to escalate to? AN/I maybe?  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Please don't remove any tags from the article; it's clear from discussion that there are several editors who see the section as having severe problems. I feel that jumping straight to an WP:RFC was premature (we should have tried to rewrite it first, ideally by finding secondary sources and cutting out most of the quotes), but either way the section has serious issues that will need to be addressed eventually. My suggestion, rather than arguing over the tags or trying to push through an RFC, would be to search for secondary sources so we can rewrite the section based around them. (I also feel that it split the debate too rapidly between delete-entirely and retain-entirely - the current section is completely unacceptable on several grounds, not the least of which is that it tries to base three whole sections on a single primary source; however, it can be rewritten to fix these problems, rather than having to just delete it wholesale. I don't feel that any of the current sections are likely to survive into the final rewrite we end up with, but certainly we can cover his essay somehow, it just requires secondary sources rather than arbitrarily-chosen quotes.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Industrial Society and Its Future is a reliable source as it was published by The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Publishing the Manifesto is no different than if a reporter interviewed Kaczynski.

 ??? No one responds to these outrageous claims? Source reliability doesn't work this way—advertising copy doesn't osmose the publication's reputation for discretion, credibility, and accuracy either, nevertheless when the publication is effectively blackmailed into publishing the document... Moreover, that document cannot be used for extraordinary or analytic claims as a self-published source about self. Also re: the above mention, I would have responded if you chose to {{ping}} me into the discussion. The policy is quite clear on what to do here (elaborated below) and I don't see why any discussion is needed. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 18:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Although I've commented below, while WP:OR is one issue with the section (and I definitely agree it needs to be fixed and that the tags have to stay until it is), it's only one facet. These sections also exclusively quote a single source; rely far too heavily on a primary source; and consist almost entirely of quotations. None of these things are acceptable, so I've added tags for all of them. An encyclopedia's purpose isn't to try and reproduce an entire document; it's to summarize it, ideally by relying on secondary sources for interpretation. People who simply want to read Kaczynski's writings can follow our external links to them; but if we want to summarize their salient points, we will need secondary sources to tell us what those points are. Anyway, I feel that the focus on WP:OR has distracted from the real issue. Quotes to this extent, exclusive reliance on a primary source, and relying exclusively on a single source are all against policy anyway, and all those things need to be fixed before the sections could have any of their tags removed. (The statement above that they were published in the Washington Post completely misses the point; that would establish notability for the manifesto as a whole, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a WP:PRIMARY source. We need sources other than Kaczynski himself - we cannot have a section cited exclusively, or even primarily, to his writings, regardless of where they are published, just like we can't have a section that only cites a single source of any type.)--Aquillion (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding Original Research

A prior discussion attempted to determine whether or not the subsections "Political and social views", "Perceived control methods", and "Historical views and predictions" contain original research based on the source used. A consensus was not reached.  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 14:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • This isn't difficult. Wikipedia covers a topic's attributes proportional to their weight in sources. So to hold that these three sections of analysis are important, and they likely are, you need reliable, secondary sourcing to determine what exactly needs to be said on the subject. No, the subject's own writings, no matter where they were published or their editorial fact-checking (which you could hardly argue that the newspaper did to his manifesto...), are not "reliable"—they are primary sources about self and not suitable for analytic claims. The content should be removed until someone can add the secondary sourcing to back the claims. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 18:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
There are no "claims" (no one has stated Kaczynski has a net worth of $800 trillion, or made any similarly extraordinary claim, and then cited Industrial Society and Its Future as evidence). Everything that is sourced to Industrial Society and Its Future (ISAIF) is about Kaczynski's views as detailed in ISAIF, and ISAIF as published by The Washington Post or The New York Times is a reliable source for information about Kaczynski's views as detailed in ISAIF. You are arguing as if someone has stated that Kaczynski's views should be included in the industrial society article. No one has made such a statement. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It's patent original research to summarize the manifesto at that length using only the manifesto itself as a source. Secondary sources have covered its contents at length and have already done the job of determining what a general reader needs to know about its tenets. It isn't our role as a tertiary source to make those decisions ourselves. A primary source should not be used as the basis to determine how much weight it should have in an article. And this isn't even to mention how it's straight-up copyvio (and bad writing practice) to quote at the several-paragraphs-length as is currently done. czar 05:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Kaczynski intended for Industrial Society and Its Future to go into the public domain 6 months after its publication (which was over 21 years ago). Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retain And we go around. I repeat what I stated above, the Washington Post is a reliable source that published Kaczynski's Manifesto in its entirety. The sections concern Ted's idealogy and beliefs and are based upon the Manifesto. Since the Manifesto was an important part of the entire incident surrounding the bombings, it has an important part in the article. This is not original research because the source is not primary.  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 03:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per Czar and my statements in "Original research discussion" section of talk page. Several days have transpired since above discussion was initiated and no secondary sources have been added to support assertions. Mitchumch (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retain: ISAIF is a primary source, but it is acceptable, according to Wikipedia policy, to cite primary sources in circumstances such as this. As far as I can see, there is no interpretation of the source or synthesis of the source with other sources. (And if there is, simply delete the offending passage, and leave the rest.) The information given is well-cited and easily checked. The veracity of the text can be authenticated because it is contained within a secondary source (the Washington Post). There's no problem here. We need to know TK's opinions, and this is the best source.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retain for the reasons I have given above in this section and the other discussion. Jack Upland also gives a good rationale. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I struck my comment. Also, this RfC is largely irrelevant now as the content has changed hugely. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete We are allowed to summarize a primary work without evoking OR, but we are not allowed to analyze or evaluate it, and that's what the three sections seem to be trying to do - evaluating his writings to determine his views. That absolutely must be done by secondary sources , not that I don't think there aren't any that can do this (doing a quick google search). --MASEM (t) 06:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The section titles ("Political and social views", "Perceived control methods", and "Historical views and predictions") were there before I edited this article, but I took the usage of "views" to mean Kaczynski's views as detailed in Industrial Society and Its Future (i.e., a summary of the "manifesto"), not his general weltanschauung. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This absolutely needs to be existed entirely, though without prejudice towards writing a new version using secondary sources. I don't see anything in the current version that is salvageable. These sections rely far too heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources, and quote them too extensively, without the needed secondary sources to provide interpretation and focus. (Note in particular the WP:PRIMARY caution against basing large passages on them - here, someone has cobbled together three entire sections out of quotes with no secondary sources, selected, as far as I can tell, based on solely on their personal whims.) Why do we quote these parts and not others? How can we be sure the quoted sections are representative? Extensive quotes belong on Wikiquote, not here; we should rely on credible secondary sources rather than trying to quote him extensively ourselves. On top of that, these sections seem to provide overt analysis and interpretation, without citing any source for it - that's definitely original research. Any new version should ideally avoid citing anything exclusively to Kaczynski - any cites to him should be coupled with a secondary source to demonstrate relevance and provide the necessary interpretation. The fact that people would try to argue, above, that this is not a primary source or that this is not original research is honestly a bit dumbfounding to me - how did we determine, exactly, which quotes to pull out and highlight? How did we decide that these particular quotes are representative, when we pulled them out of a larger work? What are we basing the division into these three sections on? All of this is pure WP:OR. Even if we ignore the blatant and flatly undeniable WP:OR problems, the section also flagrantly violates our policies on quotations - a section is not supposed to be dominated by quotes, yet here we have three almost entirely devoted to them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
How does one determine what should be included in any case? Someone may give a long interview, then a reliable, secondary source may publish an article on it. Do you include everything that is in that source? And in what way does the section include analysis or interpretation of Industrial Society and Its Future? (What is the meaning of these terms in this context? You list the section being "almost entirely devoted to [quotations]" as a criticism; where is the room for interpretation or analysis?) Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The ideal situation is to rely entirely on secondary sources, citing primary sources only when secondary sources specifically reference them and only in the specific context that those secondary sources use, with the weight and attention they use. In other words, yes, if a quote is going to appear in the article I would want to see it pulled out and highlighted in a secondary source - choosing to highlight a quote ourselves, when we don't have a secondary source to attest to that quote's importance, is generally original research, and it's certainly original research to try and base three whole sections on such arbitrarily-selected quotes. As for the interpretation or analysis, the section headers themselves (which classify an editor's selection of whatever quotes they personally considered juicy according to "Political and social views", "Perceived control methods", and "Historical views and predictions", with no sourcing provided for how they made those divisions) is already original research. Additionally, it pulls out several quotes from the manifesto and asserts that they are representative of Kaczynski's views, which is, again, WP:OR - we have no source indicating that those quotes are particularly representative, nor any sources analyzing the relative weight of the manifesto against other things he said elsewhere. It says that he "carefully defines what he means by freedom" (which is pure, unsourced editorializing), it characterizes his view of a possible future as dystopian, and it describes some of his recommendations as "tactical". All of this is editorializing, even if it wasn't intended as such. But the deeper underlying issue, as I said above, is that pulling quotes out of context is itself WP:OR - the section is one editor's personal essay on what they feel the most important quotes from Kaczynski's memos are. This makes it all original research. --Aquillion (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation. As I said to User:Masem, those section titles existed before I edited this article and I do not necessarily support them. "carefully defines what he means by freedom", "dystopian possibilities for the type of society which would evolve" and "gives various tactical recommendations" also were present before I edited the article. There are other sources which discuss Industrial Society and Its Future and include selected quotes, so i could add them into the section and remove the aforementioned phrases. I still do not know what the process is for deciding what is and what is not included from a secondary source, however, or how that process differs from deciding what is included from a notable, primary source. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
"I still do not know what the process is" Books, magazines, publications that have been vetted/edited for accuracy are all fair game for paraphrasing in context. A NYT article about the manifesto's impact would be secondary to the subject, edited with distance from the subject and an eye for accuracy: good. The NYT publishing the manifesto itself does not have either of these benefits (self-published author is primary to the subject, not secondary, and is published as an ideological statement, not an assessment of truth). The guideline pages (WP:RS, WP:IS) have plenty more examples on interpreting these situations. czar 15:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding me. What do you include from a secondary source? You do not copy & paste the whole thing as that is plagiarism. Is it not consensus among editors as to what is included from a secondary source? How does this differ from a notable, primary source? Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
As Hrodvarsson said, thanks for the explanation. The original discussion was a he said/she said argument with neither side giving an inch. No discussions were going on, just statements that "this is OR" period. I may not have ten years here, but I've got 58 years of life in the real world, and my opinion carries as much weight as any other here. Someone commented that we went too quickly to RfC. I disagree (of course I do), but it got you out here in a hurry. And others have weighed in, so it's a plus as I see it. The consensus is becoming obvious even if I don't like it. As for the tags, as you mentioned above, adding those tags at this time is inappropriate. If this were a political debate, that would be called mudslinging. The whole point of the discussion was covered by the existing tags, adding those tags was your opinion above the RfC. But go ahead, be bold, do as you like.  — Myk Streja (beep) 05:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
"he said/she said argument" Perhaps for you, but the fact that every outside editor (including myself...) had the same clarity of response shows that this was never a matter of "opinion" or fuzzy interpretation (also why my original response was so short). I linked and even summarized the relevant policy pages, so your characterization doesn't even close to describing the actual events. Also tagging an article has nowhere near the malice of "mudslinging" and certainly isn't to be taken personally. But if that's your metaphor, consider refrain from campaigning so hard when you're less familiar with the policy, as it would save a lot of wasted effort czar 15:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Not counting the original statement opening the RfC, I have two entries here. That's hardly campaigning. In the topic preceding this one, I had 4 one-liners and 3 entries.  — Myk Streja (beep) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Why we would need a consensus here? Just create the page and discuss it there.  — Myk Streja (beep) 05:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

2

  • Is this discussion still needed? The content in discussion has changed drastically and no longer has a reliance on the Industrial Society and Its Future source. Are the templates still needed or should they now be removed? Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Through tireless effort, which frankly shames and amazes me, Hrodvarsson has transformed the entire section so that it does not depend on the manifesto, nor is it quoted directly in any great quantity. The Washington Post article is now referenced only once, and it's a minor role in the section. I know some of you don't think highly of me, that's fine, but the article has been brought to a point where OR should no longer apply in anyone's eyes. Do we have an accord?  — Myk Streja (beep) 21:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Any descriptions of primary sources require interpretation, such as what did he mean and what were the most important points. Doing that requires an understanding of the topics Kaczynski was talking about. That requires original research. I don't see anyway how the summary helps. We don't need a lengthy explanation of his views without including commentary on them. If readers want that, they can read the manifesto. TFD (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The "Summary" section is referenced to secondary sources. Also, can you explain why the summary does not help? Most articles for books or films have a "plot" section or a brief summary of the contents. (Three paragraphs is short considering the full work contains two hundred and thirty-two paragraphs, so it is not a "lengthy explanation".) The commentary would also be for the "reception" section, not the "plot" or "summary" section. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The consensus up to this moment was that the Manifesto was a primary source and couldn't be used directly, nor could it continue to be quoted in large chunks with no apparent logic for the choice of paragraphs quoted. Aquillion and Czar were the strongest proponents for the removal of the primary sourced data and the large blocks of quotes. They both stated that the sections could stay if rewritten with secondary sources. That has been done. By Hrodvarsson. He used secondary sources that did the analysis for him. He did not analyse the Manifesto, he let others do it for him, and he simply reported it. The Manifesto is too central to the case and the man. It will be referred to somehow.  — Myk Streja (beep) 05:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I haven't verified the new text against its sources, but the three sections in question appear to have been removed and thus their overarching original research issue is resolved. The new sections have new overquoting issues, but those are surmountable. Almost all of the quotes should be paraphrased unless they cannot reasonably be said in different words. I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 05:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I have followed Hrodvarsson's edits on other pages (I'm not stalking anyone, honestly), and I believe that the quotes contained cannot be paraphrased without losing the meaning and tone presented. Of course, having been challenged, he'll prove me wrong, and that's fine, but I have reviewed some of the sources and to my mind he has been very careful.  — Myk Streja (beep) 19:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
All quotes used in the second paragraph are also quoted at the same length by the source. The first and third paragraphs contain a mix, and maybe could be rephrased more, but Kaczynski's writing style is specific and has little redundancy most of the time so it is difficult to reword without altering the meaning. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It's plenty possible to consolidate the text, and with greater clarity. (The point of editing being to improve on what others have said before...) czar 03:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Improve upon secondary sources, how? You add a clarify tag to surrogate activities, but the wording is as in the secondary source. I personally could give an explanation of what that means (It was explained in the previous versions what a "surrogate activity" and "artificial goal" are), but the above discussion stated that is not allowed, so I followed what the secondary source said. How are you supposed to "clarify"? Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Mostly remove: It's permissible per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PSTS to retain an analysis-free summary with the primary source, and also to supplement that with analysis from reliable secondary sources. It is not permissible to perform our own analysis. Also, the "but it was published in whole by a newspaper so it's a secondary source" argument is hopelessly confused. People making it need to read WP:PSTS and WP:AEIS, as well as the articles Primary source and Secondary source. What the newspaper did is just a very large block quotation. Their reprinting of Kaczynski's manifesto is not work in their own editorial voice. You likewise can't say "According to The New York Times ..." in reference to a third-party op-ed they run, or an advertisement they include.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Is this in regards to the current version or the previous version(s)? The material sourced only to the manifesto itself has already been removed and the section titles have been renamed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

See also

The topics noted in the See also section need to be discussed in the body of the article, in order to be relevant; otherwise, its just an editor Sherlocking that they are related. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"The topics noted in the See also section need to be discussed in the body of the article". Is that your personal opinion or is there a policy dictating that? WP:SEEALSO says "one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Tangentially related topics would not be discussed in an article. Anyway, how is Unabomber for President not related to the Unabomber article? WP:SEEALSO states that it is common sense what is included in the section. Also, you created a section called "Related articles", which is what "See also" is supposed to be. Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Who's common sense are you applying? Some contributor's? Fuck that noise. We don't get to opoxy together a bunch of shit that sounds like it applies to the article if - oddly enough - it doesn't get mentioned in the article. Doing so is the very definition of Original Research. You have to note where someone citable states that it is related to something else; otherwise, its just your opinion that they're related. And we don't get to do that.
And since people are seemingly more interested in reverting instead of actually finding sources that connect these "tangential" ideas, it seems to me that noting what these 'see also things actually are'. There are media things, like tv series and movies, or pop culture phenomena, liek the Unabomber for Prez nonsense. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question regarding the "topics noted in the See also section need to be discussed in the body of the article" claim, you just reiterated that you have an opinion on the matter. See the "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." part of WP:SEEALSO which contradicts what you are saying.
The common sense I was talking about was that Unabomber for President is related to the Unabomber article. Also, since you were the one who made the bold edit by removing the section, you are the one who must have consensus to make the same edit again. Please read WP:BRD. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The topics noted in the See also section need to be discussed in the body of the article – Quite the opposite. If whatever it is is discussed in the article, it would be linked there. See also is emphatically for links not in the main article. See also MOS:SEEALSO. EEng 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
So, is the suggestion being offered that, if the individual editor thinks one topic is related to an article, their opinion gets to be unchallenged?
  1. Editors are not citable.
  2. Articles cannot contain neither original content nor supposition added by editors.
  3. Uncited material cannot remain - if challenged - in any article, without citation.
Therefore, i am not seeing a shred of reasonable argument in support of uncited material being defended. I haven't heard any substantial reasoning for its inclusion, either. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Like everything else it's a question of editorial judgment as to what will be useful to the reader. What are we arguing about? EEng 18:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Correction, its a consensus of editorial judgment as to what gets added. What we are arguing about is the addition of a laundry list of (at best) tangentially-related terms to the See also section which seem to have very little actual connection to the subject of the article. At least, no actual reliable source has seemed to think so. I fucking despise the idea of any editor sneaking in their personal take into an article, hence the expectation of citability to anything added to the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
tangentially-related terms Yes, tangentially-related articles. Again, see that "links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" goes against what you are saying. Very willing to discuss what specifically should be in the "See also" section, but there is no reason to use expletives in a talk page unless you are quoting something. It is uncivil. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
:Sorry if my use of expletives upset you. It's how I talk and write sometimes. I'll try to tamp it down while discussing this matter with you.
I think that its probably best to utilize the consensus view that we apply to plot synopses in entertainment article; that which meets consensus stays in, whereas material that goes too far afield gets edited out. I would honestly feel far more comfortable if there were discussion of the see also items by Reliable Sources within the article (sidestepping the Original Research tag completely), but so long as there is a consensus for what goes in the 'See also', I think that will work as a litmus test for inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Correction, its a consensus of editorial judgment – There's no correction there. All I said was it's a question of editorial judgment, and that's true. In case of disagreement, such questions are resolved by consensus, but that doesn't negate my original statement that it's "a question of editorial judgment" in the first place. However, there is no guideline or requirement that See alsos require citations, nor are they subject (directly) to WP:V. Their relevance is based on their content (which is itself subject to V, of course) mediated by (again) editorial judgment. Anyway, I still don't know what, specifically, you've got this bee in your bonnet about. EEng 00:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The "bee", as you put it, is that See also sections end up getting crowded with every stupid idea under the sun that some contributor or another thinks is totally relevant to the article, and there is no talking them down from their Last Stand on the issue. See also sections should cover information with some connection to the material, and that connection should be agreed upon by a consensus of editors. If someone doesn't see a valid connection, it should be gone. That some are offended by the very idea that we need to use care in developing out these sections is what pisses me off to no end. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
We keep going round and round. Yes, consensus controls when there's disagreement about an individual candidate entry, but consensus doesn't mean unanimity, so your statement that "if someone [emphasis mine] doesn't see a valid connection, it should be gone" isn't right. I'm not offended by "the very idea that we need to use care", but I'm beginning to lose interest in discussing this since you never say what particular entry you're concerned about. EEng 12:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, I see now; this is a variation of the WP:IDLI behavior, mainly, that of the 'I-don't-get-it' variety. Cool. Thanks for letting me know where you were coming from. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Get control of yourself. I came into this discussion simply to correct your misapprehension that topics noted in the See also section need to be discussed in the body of the article, which is flatly opposite to normal practice – MOS:SEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Beyond that I have no idea what this is all about. EEng 21:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In my opinion there is nothing wrong with these "See also" links, and I speak as one who often trims these sections. If the article was ever to undergo peer review I would argue for their sourced incorporation into the article per WP:PROSE but in the current state of the article it's OK to keep them. --John (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Though I never thought the day would come that I'd say this, I agree with John. EEng 22:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

participation in MKUltra

should the section on his early life explicitly call out that Ted was a subject in a MKUltra humiliation experiment?

--Patbahn (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course it should. Gethin Van Hanraath (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Kaczynski is a doctor

This information was removed from his bio as "unsourced", which is odd, as his doctorate is listed within the article. Kaczynski is a complete dick, but he gets the same article rtreatment that Mother Theresa gets; it is OR to discriminate. Removing a title he had earned only harms our ability to claim Neutrality in the matter.
So, I reverted it back in, and another user removed it, noting "his PhD may entitle him to be called Dr., in circles where that's done, but WP isn't such a circle -- we don't use titles that way". I reverted it yet again, and asked the user to come and visit us here, to provide context and cite guideline or rule that note this lack of usage.
Until then, we leave clearly cited information alone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

the information that K has a doctorate has always been there, and remains: After receiving his doctorate at age 25... That's separate from how we refer to the person in running text. Benjamin Spock was no dick, but we don't refer to him as Dr. Spock either – MOS:DOCTOR. Mother Theresa is an example of a special case, per WP:HONOR. EEng 21:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The form in academia is to address someone as Dr. (Name), and to identify them in writing as (Name), Ph.D. If anything, he should be listed as Theodore J. Kaczynski, Ph.D. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
That works for me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't academia. MOS:DOCTOR controls. There's no debating this. EEng 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
And yet, oddly enough, we are doing precisely that. Debate will occur, or consequences will follow. Take heed, buddy-boy. And note, citing MOS that uses the word "should" shouldn't be confused for the word "must". - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Buddy-boy? What is this? West Side Story? You asked for a relevant guideline and you got one. If you don't like the guideline, feel free to open up an Rfc to change it. Good luck! -Location (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking more The Apartment. EEng 17:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The same number of sides as this debate
Fine. It seemed like an unnecessary whittling down of a BLP's accomplishments, which didn't seem all that neutral, but hey, when I am wrong I admit it. I was wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll notify the media. EEng 17:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Which, that I was wrong and admitted it, or that you continually act like a douche? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
No, that reasoned discussion had led to peaceful consensus; I'm not aware of that actually happening anywhere on Wikipedia before, so I thought the world should know. Honestly, though, douche is probably the sort of term you shouldn't be putting into others' minds. EEng 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd been thinking you meant something snarky instead of surprised. I'm striking my answer. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Kaczynski/Archive_3&oldid=1137221324"