Talk:Industrial Society and Its Future

poorly written because

there is no clear link to a pdf of the manifesto - reference one leads to something strange why do I, a nobody have to point out ths basic grade schol fail ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 19:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC) I was asked to review my close on my talk page, and I see a consensus to move. The opposition's arguments were mostly status quo stonewalling and stating the current title was the most common without evidence. On the other hand, I find the unrefuted ngrams and WP:PRECISE arguments pretty damning. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 05:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Unabomber Manifesto → Industrial Society and Its Future – The correct and common name of the manifesto. Used in obituaries: [1] [2]. Vpab15 (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per both (!!) identical discussions above from 2021. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - it is far more well known by its proper title. More notable, and the correct name. An easy support vote. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  In fact, it would be helpful in navigating Wikipedia, as Kaczynski's updated manifesto, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How also has a Wikipedia page and the two pages should be easily distinguished. There should be a disambiguation page for "Unabomber manifesto" which links to both. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please provide sources to support your claim that it is "far more well known by its proper title", because there are many sources above that claim the exact opposite. Without new sources there's really no need to rehash this. WPscatter ^t/_c 20:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Even though I feel the manifesto's full name would be better, "Unabomber Manifesto" seems to be more popular. What would be more intuitive? XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support following Grnrchst's comment below. Redirects are cheap and Unabomber Manifesto (or Unabomber manifesto) would be fine as a redirect. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per commonname and not glorifying terrorists. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I see the connection between moving the article and "glorifying terrorists"... WPscatter ^t/_c 18:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose common name. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, current title is common and intuitive. Killuminator (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Google Ngrams indicates that while "Unabomber Manifesto" was more commonly used from its publication until 2006, the actual title "Industrial Society and Its Future" has been more commonly used since then. The use of the generic title "Unabomber Manifesto" has only declined over time.[3] I'm not voting either way right now, just posting these results here because I hadn't seen them mentioned in any of the previous discussions. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Support - I feel as if calling it by its proper name of Industrial Society and Its Future is more frequent since the advancement of the Internet, where the manifesto is more widely read and critically discussed rather than just being dismissed as the ramblings of a murderous madman. Sure, the Unabomber Manifesto might be used more in published literature and contemporary accounts of his attacks, but in this day and age, I see far more people just treating it as any other book is treated and naming it by its proper title. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 13:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per the green quotes in the last discussion, all of which are recent publications that assert the current name as the common name. czar 11:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The argument opposing it becuase it glorifies terrorists is really not relevant here. Also opposing it because other discussions opposed it is not relevant either, per WP:CCC. We should always look at the current state of affairs, regardless of the past. Support per Grnrchst, the true title has been the WP:COMMONNAME in recent years. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Grnrchst. Calling this work the "Unabomber Manifesto" always seemed a little weird to me, the same way calling "I Have A Dream" "MLK Jr's Speech" or calling "The Great Gatsby" "Fitzgerald's Novel" would be weird. I understand that these names are not the commonnames of the works, but naming any article that way always seemed strange. AviationFreak💬 14:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, it is like having the Paris article at Capital of France. A bit contrived and manipulated, but per ngrams ([4]), we should move Ngerulmud to Capital of Palau per COMMONNAME. Vpab15 (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation needed in lead - regarding public opinion

I added a citation needed template to a statement about public opinion which does not corroborate elsewhere on the page and which does not have a provided source. If public opinion was indeed significantly moved by the defense arguments, please add a citation, or else this statement should be removed. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)