Talk:Ted Kaczynski/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why no mention of Project MKULTRA?

MK ULTRA is as relevant to this articles as the bombs are. Ted Kaczynski would not have become the Unabomber if it were not for MK ULTRA. Why is this information being ignored and censored?

The Ted Kaczynski article should mention MK ULTRA, and the MK ULTRA article should mention Ted Kaczynski. Anything short of that is being complicit in a cover-up of basic facts. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

@Jade Phoenix Pence: Would you mind having a look at our guideline on assuming others are acting in good faith and, maybe, re-stating your request accordingly? Using fiery, unsupported rhetoric like "Why is this information being ignored and censored" and "Anything short of that is being complicit in a cover-up of basic facts" isn't how you motivate people to work with you to improve things. CityOfSilver 21:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll call a spade a spade and wouldn't dare call it anything else, thank you. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

@Jade Phoenix Pence: Even though doing so prevents you from improving the article? You could react to what you believe is censorship by adding the censored information. By not bothering, you're just as complicit in the problem as anyone else who knows about MKUltra but doesn't do anything to improve this article's problem in this regard. Did you read the last sentence of the article's second paragraph, the one starting "As an undergraduate"? If you think that sentence isn't expository enough, why don't you just correct it? CityOfSilver 21:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not my place to do that. Editing is for editors. I'm just here. Any time I touch an article, my edits get reverted. Apparently I'm not good enough. So I'm doing the most I can - raising awareness of the issue so that somebody with the proper permissions/status/whatever can fix it. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

Well, you can start by finding some sources that "editors" can use to support the mention of MKULTRA. Bod (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jade Phoenix Pence and Bodhi Peace: I have no idea if I qualify as "somebody with the proper permissions/status/whatever" but I'd still work to protect your edit provided it's reliably sourced. See WP:RS, which is our policy on sourcing. You seem to be aware that there are tons of reliable sources but if not, here's one: [1]. You now know what you have to do to fix this article. You also know a reliably-sourced addition would be supported by, if I'm reading Bodhi Peace's comment fairly, at least two established editors. So what's left to ponder? CityOfSilver 22:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jade Phoenix Pence: And no wonder it was never added. I missed the fact that it's not known for sure that Murray's experiment was part of MKUltra. If you have a reliable source bridging this gap, please provide it. If not, please don't talk about censorship in articles when you have no way of knowing whether or not what you're claiming is even true. CityOfSilver 16:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• The Week says: "Among the most high profile suspected victims was Ted Kaczynski, who would become infamous as the Unabomber. ... The mass destruction of records means that we may never know for sure whether or not the Murray experiment was an official part of MKUltra, Kaczynski's brother, David, wrote in 2010." The Harvard Crimson said in 2000 that the records of the experiment were sealed but "Kacyznski himself does not recall taking the drug, and there is no evidence that LSD was part of the experiment". One could briefly mention MKUltra in the way that The Week discusses it, but would need to be careful of the wording. Hrodvarsson (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: One problem with mentioning it at all is that, for two decades, the possibility that Kaczynski participated has been a major touchpoint for conspiracy theorists. I don't think we should have people like that, one of whom I suspect participated in this thread, editing an article this sensitive. CityOfSilver 21:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it would need to be stated clearly that there is no evidence that the experiment was part of Project MKUltra. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: thecrimso says: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2000/7/14/murray-center-seals-kaczynski-data-plondon-buried/

"Kaczynski's code name in the study--"Lawful"--has become widely known to journalists and researchers, and Sorensen said that because the Murray Center promises to maintain the confidentiality of study participants, there are no circumstances under which Kaczynski's file could be opened." that proves Ted was a member.

Changes to Lede

I believe there is merit to each one of the changes I made on my last edit. If you look at the latest one you will see I was not trying to reinstate most of the major changes I had previously attempted. Here is each point which can be argued:

• He is not currently a mathematician or domestic terrorist, so it helps to explain those roles accurately in the 1st sentence
• This allows the 2nd sentence to use the word university, which is more specific to the level of his academic career
• The word abandoned is good storytelling but a little loaded
• Linking places: It is better to include the full place name in the link... it looks better and means there is no change of Disambiguity
• The other changes are insubstantial and boil down to making it easier to read

..Bod (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

They are not roles/descriptors that you would list someone as "former xyz" once they "retire". You don't describe people as a former domestic terrorist as you do with a former baseball pitcher. (David Berkowitz is not currently killing people in a series but is referred to as a serial killer.) You also don't really describe people as former mathematicians. (George Springer (mathematician) is not active as a mathematician any longer due to advanced age but is referred to as a mathematician.)

"Academic" means a professor (or other) at a university or a similar institution of higher education.

Can you explain why abandoned is loaded? Abandon seems to be a suitable verb for Kaczynski's act of abruptly resigning from his tenure track position.

"abandon" could imply various things: a betrayal vis-a-vis a commitment, a leaving in the lurch, a giving up in the face of an insurmountable challenge, a losing heart, etc. There is a common theme there: defaillance, and TK may have been differently motivated.137.205.101.112 (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK. There is no reason to link Illinois or Montana, most readers likely know of them and they are not contextually important. if no other Evergreen Park existed, "Evergreen Park, Illinois" would be "Evergreen Park". Illinois is a disambiguation so piping the link is appropriate. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Order of notable facts about Kaczynski's identity

A few days ago, an anonymous editor expressed disgust at the fact that "serial killer" was not mentioned as an occupation in the infobox or in the list of notable facts about Ted Kaczynski in the lede's prose and edited accordingly here and here. I undid and explained in the ensuing two edit summaries here and here. I reconsidered a bit later, realizing that the editor's approach wasn't great but they were right: the listings in the prose should be in order of renown, which would obviously be "domestic terrorist, mathematician, and anarchist." I rummaged through policy, guidelines, and the MOS and couldn't find anything to settle this so I asked at the help desk. I was advised by User:Lourdes that there really isn't a set way of doing things. (Lourdes said "In my opinion, the notability factor which is more predominantly covered in reliable sources should come first, and the ones which have lesser coverage, should come later." I think that supports my order but I was sneaky, using as an example John Madden rather than Kaczynski, so if they don't weigh in, I won't assume this is part of any effort at building consensus.) I reordered from chronology to notability/renown. Earlier today, User:Hrodvarsson reverted back to chronological.

I feel my stance is pretty clear but I'll get it in one place. There is no precedent for this, and it's especially tricky given that by age 27, before Kaczynski moved to Montana and started his criminal career, he was probably already notable enough that he'd have gotten an article here. Given this lack of clarity, I believe the order should be renown, not chronology, and it's especially a problem because it appears we're giving more weight to the fact that he's a mathematical genius than the fact that he killed three people and tried to kill dozens more. CityOfSilver 16:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It is both chronology and the wording of the sentence. I feel that having "domestic terrorist" at the end also gives the sentence greater finality. Weight would be an issue if one was burying "domestic terrorist" a few sentences/paragraphs down but that is not the case. No one is going to read to "Theodore John Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, is an American mathematician..." then stop without seeing "domestic terrorist" a couple words later. In any case, the presence of "also known as the Unabomber" before the nationality and description would muddy the water if someone did for some reason stop reading in the middle of the sentence. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference material, in the first instance, needs to be useful. Although 'mathematician' is an interesting factoid, is anybody looking at the Kaczynski entry for the exact dimensions of his mathematical phallus? Of course notability makes the most sense. Indeed, chronology can introduce laughable orderings: "George Washington was an American infant, boy, student...Mahātmā Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a South African lawyer...Adolf Hitler was an Austrian soldier, amateur painter, political prisoner, writer and, later in life, leader of the German National Socialist Worker's Party, and, still later,...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.95.13 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this last point. The first sentence establishes notability and so shouldn't mention mathematics at all. We should first explain why he is famous and mention his short mathematics career in the general biographical detail. The lede in general has too much biographical detail and much too focused on his maths career. It should explain his terrorist activities, first, his manifesto second (which is also famous to some degree) and only include the math stuff as the biographical trivia that it is. Ashmoo (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree he's not notable as a mathematician. This doesn't need to be in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Philosopher? (reverted edit)

Although he may not have been paid in the role, certainly something must be said of his writing and philosophy... "Kaczynski has carried on a prolific and meticulous research, writing, and correspondence regimen since his incarceration. In addition to several volumes of essays, letters, and unpublished books currently housed at the University of Michigan's Labadie Collection, Kaczynski has published two books."

What is an apt description for the lead paragraph? I agree "philosopher" may not be the best. "writer" is quite vague. Bod (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that needs to be included in the lead paragraph.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not? That has been his career since his incarceration. Bod (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody would care about any of this were it not for his crimes. Had Kaczynski vanished off the face of the earth just before he moved to Montana, he'd still have been notable enough for an article. He's known for the academic work he did early in life and for killing innocent people. The opening of this article is supposed to do one thing: explain to readers how the subject is notable. Mentioning anything but his early academic output and his subsequent crimes and capture is not appropriate because he probably wouldn't have gotten an article had he never done anything but the work he's done since he went to jail. CityOfSilver 19:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

His writings are anarchist in nature, so that description covers his writings. Hrodvarsson (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the "careers" of prisoners are not notable. A lot of prisoners do things to keep themselves busy. We can note this in the body of the article, but it's not what he's known for, and doesn't belong in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ted was a subject of MK Ultra Project

As shown by the netflix series (S01E06) Manhunt Ted Kaczynski was at the age of 16 years one of the subjects of the CIA's project called MK Ultra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

I think we should integrate this information in the wiki page. This information cannot be ignored.

What do you think ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthos09 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be confirmed by a more reliable source before being added to the article. Other than that I have no objections. Paulie 27 talk 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There is one in the Henry Murray page: Chase A (2000-06-01). "Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber". The Atlantic Monthly. pp. 41–65. Retrieved 2008-10-16.

What a horribly written opening paragraph

Really? Everything is crammed in, unorganized. It's awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankenab (talk • contribs) 03:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

extended thread that starts with NOT A FORUM material, and ends with trolling

Biased totally. He is a victim of MK Ultra CIA programmers, and also a luditte revolutionary. Intro dismisses him as some crackpot "terrorist", which is totally false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.84.11 (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Do you have any actual suggestions for improvements to the article? Stating that he is a victim of MK Ultra CIA program and that he is a luditte revolutionary falls under WP:NOTAFORUM, I don't see how the lead is biased, and it does not dismiss him as a crackpot terrorist. In fact it explicitly says that it was his own lawyers who raised the possibility of an insanity defense. Meters (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC) There are 2 mentions of the word "Luddite" in the article. "This profile was later refined to characterize the offender as a neo-Luddite holding an academic degree in the hard sciences, but this psychologically based profile was discarded in 1983." (under Bombings>Initial bombings) Joy wrote that Kaczynski is "clearly a Luddite" but "simply saying this does not dismiss his argument," and stated "I saw some merit in the reasoning in this single passage [and] felt compelled to confront it." (quoting Bill Joy, cofounder of Sun Microsystems under Industrial Society and Its Future>Related works and influences) He is actually in the category "Neo-Luddites", which describes how to be an actual "Luddite" you had to have been alive between 1811 and 1816. If you can find a source where Ted describes himself as a Luddite, then it might bear repeating early on in the article, otherwise the lead does a good job of saying "targeting people involved with modern technology" and " pursue a primitive lifestyle", both of which suggest Luddism. Bod (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC) You might find this edit mentions the CIA, which I did find missing behind the article's mention of MKULTRA. Bod (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Given that his motive was to start a revolution, I've added that. Bod (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC) "Crammed in" is good to get all the relevant facts in a small space. "Unorganized"... hardly, its chronological. Your criticism holds no weight. Bod (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Yes. This is a thread about the lead. The lead seems completely neutral. I just don't see the IP's claimed bias. On the other hand, the IP's "a victim of MK Ultra CIA programmers, and also a luditte revolutionary" would be a biased inclusion, if we assume that the IP intended his rant to be a suggestion that we include that. As I pointed out, we don't state that he was a "crackpot, and he clearly was a terrorist (by his own words) Meters (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC). We really should not acknowledge trolls like the IP editor per WP:DENY, and if you look at the block log you see it is a sock. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I attempted to remove it several times as WP:NOTAFORUM. I have no objection to you hatting this as notaforum , but it's a dynamic IP. It may well be a sock, but you cannot say that it is a sock now just because the IP was blocked as a sock once six weeks ago. Take it to SPI if you think there is evidence. Meters (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Ted was a revolutionary by the definition that says "a person who advocates revolution" (Wikipedia). He is also a Neo-Luddite. He is also a terrorist. He is also a man. He is also a prisoner. He is hardly a victim and it does not say he is a crackpot. If the MKULTRA thing was so much to blame, wouldn't he have changed earlier? Given that he is all those things, maybe there is some bias to describe him in the first sentence as a "domestic terrorist" as the only label. Bod (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I see no problem with the description as a domestic terrorist. That's what he's known for, and the statement is certainly well sourced. We don't normally source the lead unless the claim might be considered contentious, which is why I assume that it is so well sourced. I suggest that you start a new thread if you wish to change that long-standing description. Meters (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I think an unbiased view would describe him both as a "convicted American domestic terrorist" and a "lone wolf Neo-Luddite revolutionary". Bod (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Again, start a new thread if you wish to change that long-standing description in the first sentence. I won't support your proposed change, but let's let other editors see it rather than burying it at the end of this rambling one that never should have been allowed to stay on the page. Meters (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I'd be the crackpot if I thought that would happen. I will try to get "Neo-Luddite" into the lead though. Bod (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC) There's a name for wasting our time with suggestions that you know are never going to happen. It's called WP:TROLLING. I'm closing this thread. Meters (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

1996 Arrest

The fact that he was arrested in 1996 is an important part of the chronology. It should be in the first paragraph. I tried to fit this info in as discreetly as possible, but it was reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Kaczynski&diff=846086045&oldid=846085978). I don't think that should have been reverted. Bod (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is important enough to mention in the first paragraph. It is mentioned in the third paragraph with the rest of the information about the investigation. The timeline of the bombings is established in the first paragraph by the "between 1978 and 1995" detail. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is not too bad because the caption on the top image has this info... But still, it is only like 3 extra words and it would explain why and how his bombing campaign ended for someone who just reads the first paragraph. I also think it might be good to explain in the 1st p. that the media made up the name "Unabomber". But I have to say the lead is pretty sweetly written as it is. Very good facts, presentation and writing. Bod (talk) ~~

It's mentioned in the third paragraph, which is enough. The etymology of the word "Unabomber" is definitely undue for the first paragraph. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Gender Identity Issues

I came across this article which seems to suggest a psychiatric report argued that his homicidal activities were caused largely by gender issues and a desire to have a sex change. I don't see any reference to this in the article (and had never heard it before) but I am not by any means an expert on Kaczynski. A quick Google search showed other articles from 1998, as well as some more modern references but I did not think it appropriate to be bold and add to it until I knew if there was a reason why this wasn't referenced. Has it been disproven? https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/09/12/gender-confusion-sex-change-idea-fueled-kaczynskis-rage-report-says/eb33b946-8595-427d-af4c-9ccaada45935/?utm_term=.41992c883b30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyndane5 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"Has it been disproven" You can not disprove a non-falsifiable fairystory, based on bad psychology in the first place. 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:1839:3D8:58DE:F6A3 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Bodhi Peace, you have recently made a large number of edits, most of which I have challenged (including one I challenged in the section above last month). Please discuss them here. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• User:Hrodvarsson, I appreciate you pointing out to me when the "early life bio" paragraph was removed. Now that the image is improved and the caption no longer has a ",", I don't think it is likely I will have any more controversial edits to make but I will try to discuss them here first. I am glad the chronology is being improved. Bod (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent edits, the subject is American and there is no mention of international bombings, plus the FBI is a common name. Adding "the US" before FBI is unnecessary. Alternative name of ISAIF is not worthy of mention in the lead, and is well covered by introducing it as "his manifesto". Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. - Boldly closing - Consensus below is that we don't generally use nicknames and that the COMMONNAME here is his real name. –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Ted Kaczynski → Unabomber – He is better known as the Unabomber. Because he is better known as the Unabomber it falls under WP:COMMONNAME. Felicia (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose we generally don't use nicknames to title articles of people; also I don't think he actually is better known as the Unabomber at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Unabomber" was the name used before his true identity was known. I think his common name now is just his actual name. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Contemporary sources usually throw in a "also known as the Unabomber" but then use Kaczynski consistenly. It's not really a proper mononym. Someone like say Bono is just Bono, but the Unabomber is Ted Kaczynski. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per power~enwiki, Rreagan007 and Nohomersryan.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Per Roman Spinner. There are more Google hits for Unabomber though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above. I do think, that his real name/identity is more correct to use, than som nickname given to him. Kind regard Tøndemageren (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - common name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggestion: In popular culture section

Hello,

Can you please share your opinion of support or oppose for the addition of an 'In popular culture' section to the article.

I spent some time researching television episodes/specials about Kaczynski and here is a portion of what I was able to find (I stumbled upon the film and book):

Books
“Every Last Tie: The Story of the Unabomber and His Family” published: 2016
Films
USA Network - "Unabomber: The True Story" - 1996
Televison
CBS - 60 Minutes - "Ted Kaczynski's Family/Raking It In" - 1996
Discovery channel - The FBI Files - "The Unabomber" - 1999
MSNBC - "Headliners & Legends: The Unabomber" - 2006
National Geographic - The Secret History - "Hunt for the Unabomber" - 2007
Investigation Discovery - 20/20 on ID - "Presents Homicide" - 2016
CNN - How it Really Happened - "Capturing the Unabomber" - 2017
Discovery channel - Manhunt: Unabomber - mini-series 8 episodes - 2017

Please note that if the addition of the section is supported, to be in-line with the WP:MOS, the section's content will not be in a 'list' format:

"If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. It is preferable to develop a normal article section with well-written paragraphs that give a logically presented overview (often chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres, for various purposes and audiences."

— "In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material, MOS:POPCULT

Thank you,
Vwanweb (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I hate "in popular culture" sections, and most of these links aren't even what we usually call "popular culture"; that would be references in songs, movies, comics, non-documentary TV shows and such. The documentaries might be usable as sources, but otherwise, what's the point? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I also am not a fan of IPC sections. A TV series, a couple films and a play are already mentioned in the See also section, and the book by David Kaczynski brother is currently cited in the article. The rest of the above links appear to be run-of-the-mill documentaries/news segments, of which I am sure there are many others as the subject is very well known. For a typical IPC section you would also have "pop culture" references such as this, which are nice I suppose, but not the type of thing that seems important for an encyclopedia to list. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Lede: Was the Manifesto Published or Not?

"In 1995, he sent a letter to The New York Times and promised to "desist from terrorism" if The Times or The Washington Post published his essay, Industrial Society and Its Future, in which he argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom and dignity by modern technologies that require large-scale organization."

The Lede doesn't say if the manifesto was published or not, and it should.

Tym Whittier (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The body of the article says "Instead, the essay was published by both The New York Times and The Washington Post on September 19, 1995". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

They Either Dated, or They Didn't.

"However, in August 1978 he was fired by his brother for writing insulting limericks about a female supervisor whom he had briefly dated.[51][52] The female supervisor later recalled Kaczynski as "intelligent, quiet," but remembered little of their acquaintance and firmly denied they had had any romantic relationship.[53]"

1st sentence states definitively that they "briefly dated", and the 2nd sentence says the Supervisor "firmly denied" any "romantic relationship". These seem incompatible to me. The Article should resolve this. Maybe by saying Kaczynski (or whoever else) "claims" they dated, so some source is provided for the assertion that they DID "date". Unless "dating" and "romantic relationship" are two different things here, which I doubt. This is a stumbling block to readability.

Tym Whittier (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Tym Whittier, the New York Times article that is currently reference 53 says that the woman reported that they went out to dinner at a restaurant together once, and that they later picked apples together and baked an apple pie at the home of his parents. She then informed him that she did not want to have a personal relationship with him. So, they dated briefly but it seems there was no genuine romantic relationship. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well okay, and thanks for that, but for the purpose of this Article, we have two seemingly contradictory statements that seem to indicate "dispute" or "disagreement" where there may be none. Do you have a proposal to reconcile this? Honestly the whole thing seems so trivial to me that, unless there's something I'm missing, the whole idea of the connection between the two seems lurid, and "unencyclopedic". It's like the Article is making an intimation without actually SAYING it. Yes I recognize I've made this all up in my head, but if I've done it, I assume other Readers will too. "Did she, or didn't she...?, etc... Since it seems "she didn't", it also seems not worth mentioning in the Article, at all. What do you think? and Why?

Tym Whittier (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree there appears to be a contradiction. "Dated" usually implies a "romantic relationship". Also, one of the sources talks about a "break-up". This might be a case of terminology, or it might be a case of differing interpretations on the relationship, or it might be that one of them is making false claims. I think this is important in the context of the article as it concerns Kaczynski becoming a a recluse. How about remove the apparent contraction by saying: "However, in August 1978 he was fired by his brother for harrassing a female supervisor" (because it was more than just limericks)?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Memoir

His brother David has written a memoir about Ted Kaczynski. I think this is worth a mention.Kakzinski (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Was Theodore John Kaczynski the youngest Berkeley math professor?

Theodore John Kaczynski (Unabomber) born May 22, 1942 and hired as a Berkeley assistant math professor in 1967 wasn't the youngest Berkeley math professor. Instead, it was Robert Edward "Rufus" Bowen (23 February 1947 – 30 July 1978) who was hired as an assistant math professor in 1970.

@PattyMinor: if a reliable source can be provided and cited, we can make a correction.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Potential avenue for improvement

When reading this article, as someone who previously knew nothing about the topic, one thing struck me as lacking: no substantial criticism of the manifesto is given. For a 35,000 word piece written by someone with no formal background in political theory, I was expecting there to be specific objections raised by notable others. But this is not the case. Google searching confirms that criticisms of the manifesto exist (e.g. here). Ypna (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Anarcho-primitivism

I commented out a sourced sentence in the lead that indicates that Kaczynski is a critic of industrialization and a proponent of anarcho-primitivism. But in other sources (in the target article) it indicates that he is a critic of it: he wrote [2], a critique of anarcho-primitivism. So, which is it? Jip Orlando (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism is more him pointing out the misconceptions that anprim writers often have than him denouncing it as an ideology. He pretty often throughout it provides viewpoints that would actually put him perfectly inline with it, however I don't think we should call him it because of that. It would be more accurate and fit wp:stick to the sources better to have the article read something along the lines of "this source has referred to Kaczynski as an anarcho-primitivist, however he has critiqued the ideology in his essay The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism. Here[3] he also refers to the entire ideological movement he's a part of as green anarchism. While he doesn't exactly call himself a green anarchist, he uses it as an umbrella term to include multiple stances, appearing to distance himself from anprimism due to its relationship with leftism. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Right wing?

@Valjean: Let's discuss the characterization in the lede as "right wing". Obviously there is disagreement whether this characterization is necessary or accurate; what's the consensus? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

More important is what RS say. Kaczynski was a very vocal anti-leftist, ergo a right-winger. The UPI source says "anti-leftist", which was my original choice, but since there is now an odd dispute (I had no idea that some editors were treating Kaczynski differently than we treat other radicals), I changed it to the more commonly used "right-wing" synonym, under the assumption that it would be more palatable.

UPI: "...A movement that exalts nature and opposed technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology." (bold added)

We are supposed to mention significant content from the body of an article in the lead, and this is a significant fact about him. Whether he was right, left, or something else is not the issue. We should be consistent and identify those with any type of strong political (or other) leanings when they are known for them or their lives and actions have been strongly influenced by those leanings. In this case, his leanings led to some clearly politically-motivated and radical actions.

Therefore, it is both necessary and accurate to mention this in the lead. Whether we use his own words or a synonym is of secondary importance. Such a discussion would be legitimate, as it isn't a matter of established policy and practice (discussions which ignore policy are not legitimate), but of editorial preference, and we do have some leeway here. -- Valjean (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

" a very vocal anti-leftist, ergo a right-winger." Says who? There are more than two dimensions in politics as well as in physics. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, there certainly are more than two dimensions, and his anti-leftist activism was just one aspect of a many-faceted man. We should not limit our description of him by leaving out one of the most common dimensions we usually mention in a lead.

Based on your comment, I'll AGF and guess you didn't read the source. Above I provided a quote of just some of his anti-leftist comments. Per his own words, we could even describe him as a "resolute anti-leftist", but that's a bit too flowery. -- Valjean (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Assume whatever you want. "Anti-leftist", yes. If you have a reliable source that presents him as a rightist, present it, and the argument goes away. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with "anti-leftist", but what's the difference? The normal rules of language would say they're the same, but maybe you're seeing this from some other angle, so please enlighten me. I have no doubt that you know more about him than I do. This isn't an article I have edited very much, and there may be issues here with which I'm unfamiliar. -- Valjean (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "knowing about him"; as I said, for all I know, your characterization as "rightist" is correct, but we don't get to make those characterizations without sources. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

We are allowed to paraphrase and use synonyms, but if it creates confusion or dispute, then we need to find a compromise that most can live with. I'm fine with "anti-leftist", as that is an exact quote. -- Valjean (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this needs more explanation. The first sentence describes him as an "anarchist", but anarchists are generally described as leftists, following Pierre-Joseph Proudhon etc. It doesn't seem that in his attack on "leftists" he includes anarchists or environmentalists. In fact, it seems an idiosyncratic definition of "leftist". I would oppose either label "anti-leftist" or "rightist" based on this information. He seems to be an "eco-anarchist" who opposes others on the left (as they oppose him). I see no evidence to call him a rightist.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

And that's precisely why I chose to omit any such characterization from the lede; he doesn't fit on the left-right in any way those terms are commonly understood. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I give up about mention in the lead and will have to leave it as only mentioned in the body of the article. That leaves the lead description incomplete, but so be it. -- Valjean (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in late- I agree with Jpgordon that Kaczynski is difficult to label as 'right' or 'left,' as his philosophy may take some aspects from both. Certainly he hated the government but as eloquently said above, being an anti-leftest does not qualify an individual to have the 'rightist' tag. As it stands, the lede is adequate in calling him a domestic terrorist and anarchist. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Also chiming in here because it's an interesting question: I feel like, given his ideas and rhetoric, when Kaczynski discusses "leftism," he is referring to a sort of combo of collectivism and techno-progressivism; I think mentioning that he was anti-leftist is decent, but flattening that into "right-wing" seems a bit much. His philosophy, as Jip Orlando noted, is much more grounded in anarchy, which is often understood as an opposing philosophy to be left- and right-wing approaches.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There's also this quote: "You write: 'The movement should be a completely new beginning, beyond all positions of the left and of the right.' Yes indeed! I agree completely!" But that said, Industrial Society and Its Future spends several pages denigrating leftist ideology without a similar denigration of right-wing philosophy. And then there's this little ditty:

"Therefore, in order to form an effective movement, revolutionists must take pains to exclude leftists from the movement. In order to drive away leftists, revolutionists should not only avoid involvement in efforts to help women, homosexuals, or racial minorities; they should specifically disavow any interest in such issues, and they should emphasize again and again that women, homosexuals, racial minorities, and so forth should consider themselves lucky because our society treats them better than most earlier societies have done. By adopting this position, revolutionists will separate themselves from the left and discourage leftists from attempting to join them."

So... idk.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Our only question here is "how do reliable sources characterize the subject of the article". Our own evaluations of his writings are not useful. Even if they might be correct. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I get that. Given that, I think, if we want to use an adjective, something like "anti-leftist" is better than right-wing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is better to describe his views that try to sum it up in an adjective, even if it is an adjective he has used.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Images used for the infobox is not neutral WP:MUG

I do think the image used in the infobox is neither neutral nor respectful. We can definitely use this image in the article perhaps to illustrate the imprisonment section. But using this image to illustrate the person seam to go against WP:MUG Gagarine (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Kaczynski is most notable as a criminal, so the mugshot is appropriate. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Nonesense, how many criminals have this kind of mug shot on Wiki? 185.46.222.81 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree that several serial killers have their mugshot as infobox picture on Wikipedia. But it's also hard to classify Kaczynski as a pure serial killer. He was an ideologist and a terrorist (which is of course never a neutral categorization). @Gagarine: what other picture would you suggest? Edmond8674 (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:MUG applies at all. It says, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." This is obviously not in a false light; and it's also not out of context. He's known entirely as a multiple murderer; his ideology is just background -- he would be utterly unknown were it not for his crimes. "How many criminals have this kind of mug shot on Wiki?" Let's see, the first one I tried was Timothy McVeigh. Mug shot, check. Dylann Roof ditto. Otis Toole ditto. I won't continue. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

He's known entirely as a multiple murderer; his ideology is just background This is utter nonsense, you know it and i know it. Does it have any bearing on the argument being made at hand? There are currently not one but two shows on the worlds biggest streaming website, netflix about him that explore his philosophy in more than just an after-thought. Coming to project your own opinions onto the page is not helpful. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"Commit suicide" versus "killed himself"

@Firefangledfeathers:. You've said that there are numerous guidelines against the former, and yet none come up if you search for those terms. Here are the closest things I could find, neither of which lead to a consensus other than "this is stupid". 1 2. puggo (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bugg2266:. I was mainly thinking of the AP Stylebook. More options are here:Suicide terminology#Opposition_to_the_term_"commit"_suicide. I think my argument--that the term "committed suicide" is inherently POV--is covered fairly well there. Do you think this article is stronger with the term "committed suicide" present? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Serial killer?

Hey, I was just wondering if it would be appropriate to list him as a serial killer. He did kill three people within a 9-year span so it does seem fitting. Besides multiple sources list him as a serial bomber. I just want to know what you all think. OmniFrieza994 (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Anarcho-primitivism link in lead

User:Hrodvarsson linked the phrase "nature-centered form of anarchism" to the Anarcho-primitivism article in August 2017.[4] He did not include an explanation nor a source that associates Kaczynsky with AP. In January of this year, User:Jip Orlando raised a dispute to this and commented the entire sentence without any discussion.[5] I noticed that the sentence had been commented, investigated the change, and restored the sentence without the link.[6] User:RBolton123 added the link again this month, again without a source or explanation.

Kaczynski wrote an essay that distinguished AP from his own beliefs. That essay was included in Technological Slavery, a collection of his writings published by Feral House. It is not original research for K to publicly state what does or doesn't believe, nor for me to cite that statement, particularly after it has been independently published. It is suggested that primary source cannot be used to determine whether K advocated anarcho-primitivism for BLP purposes. I disagree. In a factual question of his belief, his own public statements must be considered, and cannot be contradicted without another source. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the way I understand it, if you want to change an article and someone disagrees, you bring it here for discussion. You present your assertion/argument and try to achieve a consensus before proceeding further. The statement in question isn't so much saying that Kaczynski called himself an A-P adherent so much as his beliefs were labeled as such by a source. If you want to cite the Feral House publication, fine, but I don't believe you have (or I've missed it). Show us the reference, please, and if you want to include statements he made, that have been published by a reliable source, by all means do so. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have told you the title of K's essay and the book in which it was published. You have the source. There is at this time no citation in the article to establish that K advocated or believed in anarcho-primitivism. The source that does appear in the article is for the text of the sentence, not the link. WP:BLP is emphatic that contentious and unsourced material may be removed immediately. Are you suggesting that I cannot remove the link, which was added without a source, unless I also insert a citation to support the absence of the link? That sounds some kind of bureaucracy joke. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Responding to ping- I mentioned this before and got no comment on it for four months, so it sounds misleading to say I commented it out without discussion. Indeed, I brought it up because it sounded contradictory and was seeking feedback. Regarding the use of Kaczynski's work identifying himself as an Anarcho-Primitivist, I am more inclined go with what a secondary source says about him- if it does at all. BLPPRIMARY talks about this a little bit. I think that even if he said it about himself, we would need a secondary source to bolster that claim. We need to be careful about reliable sourcing issues with the Feral text. I do not know what academic rigor they put their publishing through. In looking through their website, they appear to publish counter-cultural writings. I suppose the crux of the matter is, and invite further comment is: do we consider Ted Kaczynski's published work to be reliable in identifying his philosophy? This may need to go to WP:RSN if it reaches a deadlock. Again, I am inclined to say that we need to seek out secondary sources for this assertion. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I again question that the burden should be on anyone to produce a source of some particular quality to dispute an unsourced link associating K with anarcho-primitivism. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The dispute here seems to turn on linking text that is not "anarcho-primitivism" to the article on Anarcho-primitivism. I suggest that if someone wants to make that association in the article, they should do so while using the word openly. But since K disputes the association, it should not be alleged in factual voice, but in the voice of whatever source (there must be a source) is used to make the association. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Kaczynski, but WP:BLPSELFPUB clearly states that a person's own publications may be used to support their own opinions, even if WP:PRIMARY and self-published. There is no requirement for confirmation by WP:SECONDARY sources, although if available, they can be added. Secondly, the WP:BURDEN of proof, is on those who want to *add* material, not on those who wish to remove unsourced material. A link to Anarcho-primitivism that is unsupported, may be challenged and removed. In particular, a piped link to A-p from a different term used by Kaczynski, violates WP:POLA, but more seriously, is WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR (if sourced) and WP:OR if not. You don't need to go to RSN to answer Jip's question; policy clearly says "Yes". IP 73 is equally correct, and no source needs to be provided to remove challenged, unsourced content. Just remove it, and discuss here. As a practical matter, since the discussion is already ongoing, I wouldn't remove it now, to avoid exacerbating or inciting an edit war; unless someone thinks irreparable harm is being done, everybody should leave the article alone, and reach consensus here first. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Blanchard

I don’t know if I love the idea of Kaczynski’s apparently self-admitted arousal from being a woman linking to Blanchard’s typology. It’s a pretty controversial theory with pretty offensive terminology by today’s standards. And the fact that he went to a psychiatrist about it rather than just indulge in it points to it being more than just arousal and maybe some identity questioning. I’m trans, so I’m biased, but connecting this to a fringe theory that very few gender healthcare professionals endorse looks bad and seems to be kind of leading, but rather than change it I’ll leave it on the talk page, because as I said, I’m biased Dabblequeen (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Unabomber: In His Own Words

At present Unabomber: In His Own Words 1) redirects to this article, 2) is listed under "See also" in this article, and 3) isn't mentioned anywhere else in this article. This is obviously a confusing state of affairs. Can a mention of the documentary be added to the article? (This would run counter to the consensus arrived at two years ago – see Talk:Ted Kaczynski/Archive 4#Suggestion: In popular culture section – and raise the question of whether the other representations of Kaczynski listed under "See also" ought also to be discussed more substantially.) Is the documentary actually notable, and should the article formerly at that location be restored? Or should the redirect go to RfD? Pinging JMS Hunt 2020 who created the article and Slashme who redirected it here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, and this one might end up serving a reader now and again, so I don't see the harm of keeping it around. The fact that the miniseries isn't mentioned here isn't such a great problem, because at least the reader would get some information about the topic of the series. Because it's a 2020 series, it's not impossible that it will gain notability in the next year or so, so I'd hang back before taking it to RfD. --Slashme (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal

@AviationFreak: Regarding this edit, there is no indication that Yahoo News is not a RS in general at RSN, and I don't see an argument why it wouldn't be for this material specifically. If it were a republished article, the original article should be cited, but this is an original work. Also, the Yahoo journalist for that piece is now a national reporter for WaPo. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hrodvarsson, if the information is significant, I would have thought it would have been covered in other sources. I would worry about using an archived version of an ephemeral article in a BLP (and would be featured article) if that's the only source available. That rings alarm bells for me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: It is information about a book which the subject of the article wrote. The article is still live, although I don't see how it would alter the reliability of the source if we accessed the archive-url instead of the live article. Archives are encouraged so to avoid potential link rot. By "alarm bells" do you mean that it is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim? Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I am going to restore this content. There's no reasoning as to why Yahoo News is not a reliable source in this case, and a statement of fact that the subject of the article wrote a book is not a controversial claim requiring multiple sources. Omitting mention of it in the article's prose would run counter to the "comprehensive" criterion of the FACR. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

hehe funny change

Copy edit notes and queries

• Check for duplinks.
• The article could use quite a few more Wikilinks. It would also benefit from some of the more "American" expressions being translated in parentheses. Eg sophomore in both cases.

• "The FBI and Attorney General Janet Reno pushed for the publication of Industrial Society and Its Future, which led to a tip from Kaczynski's brother David, who recognized the writing style." There is a linking sentence missing from the middle of this.

• Reno pushing for publication clearly wasn't what "led to a tip from Kaczynski's brother", so I assume that something in the middle like 'This happened on XX in YY. On reading it, Kaczynski's brother ...' is required.

• "From first to fourth grade". Perhaps give age range, for non-US readers.
• I am not keen on the two sentence paragraph in "Harvard College".
• Elsewhere there are a number of short paragrphs, including at least one of a single sentence.
• Quotations of more than about 40 words should be block quotes.
• The article seems quotation heavy. MOS:QUOTE states "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".

To the end of "Early life". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, Thank you! I've gone through and done most of these. I've tried to document my changes well in the edit summaries. I'd like your opinion on the quote-heavy "Summary" subsection of the section on Industrial Society and Its Future - Should those remain, since the main purpose is to understand Kaczynski's writing, or should they be removed due to quote clutter? I personally lean towards the former, but I'd like the opinion of a more experienced editor. AviationFreak💬 04:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

AviationFreak, I will be working through this in sections, but hopefully some of what I say about each will be more generally applicable - as with quotes.

IMO, Wikipedia as a tertiary source should not be quoting primary sources and either ORing from that or leaving it for a reader to make their own decisions. Rather we should be referring to the secondary sources - with , when we must, some minimal quoting - to pass on their views, opinions and disagreements. I can see that one would occasionally need to quote Kaczynski to do this, but the extensive quoting of him in the "Summary" section and the absence of quotes from any secondary sources perturbs me. This is just one editor's opinion. What this section should have, IMO, is the secondary sources' opinions in summary form. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Watch out for verbal redundancy. Eg "then two years later" - "then" can be deleted. It is the sort of thing which is used when speaking or in more casual writing, but which doesn't meet "prose is ... of a professional standard".
• "He taught himself survival skills such as tracking game, edible plant identification, organic farming, bow drilling and other primitive technologies." In what way is "edible plant identification" a technology?
• Montana is a very quote heavy section.
• What are "latent fingerprints"?
• "The initial 1978 bombing was followed by bombs sent to airline officials, and in 1979 a bomb was placed in the cargo hold of American Airlines Flight 444". I find it odd that it is stated that the initial bomb was followed by bombs sent to people, but the next mentioned, which almost seems to be by way of an example, is one placed in an aircraft.
• Four of the five points above are picking at the prose. I won't continue, but hopefully you get the idea of the sort of scrutiny which will be applied at FAC.
• IMO the quotes in the last paragraph of "Later bombings" could be rewritten in Wikipedia's voice.

To the end of Bombings. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe I've tackled all of these, at least through "Bombings". I'll work on the "Summary" section later, probably today. As far as prose, I think I see what you're getting at overall. AviationFreak💬 15:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Just finished up on rewording the summary section - I wasn't sure if or how I could prosify some of the quotes in the Leftism section, and I feel that the other remaining quotes (particularly the opening one) are important to the article. Let me know what you think if you get the chance to look over the changes. AviationFreak💬 02:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

What would you think of adding a References column to the table (or adding the citations to one of the entries in the table)? That would help readers not have to go back to the text to find the supporting citation. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Are you referring to the table of bombings? If so, there's already a row at the bottom with the refs - Perhaps there is some way to improve its visibility? AviationFreak💬 01:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

So, sorry, I did miss that ... looks good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Academic Donald Wayne Foster analyzed the writing at the request of Kaczynski's defense team". State when.
• "were chosen irregularly from library research". I am not sure that "irregularly" works; 'randomly'?
• As before, avoid over short paragraphs, especially single sentences.
• A personal view, but I fail to see the point of the extended quote in "Imprisonment".
• The "Imprisonment" section seems ill-titled.

Refs:

• Be consistent as to whether publisher locations are included.
• Include access dates for all urls.
• Cite 59, recast title in title case.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Latent fingerprints are not visible. They have to be dusted with fingerprint powder or chemically treated to make them visible. Jayscore (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

this article reads as an advertisement for Kaczynski's ideas

no criticism of his ideas is anywhere to be found. So I guess he was/is right? 67.85.248.224 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to give judgement or criticism of ideas, nor does it exist to promote them. Wikipedia is designed to echo what reliable sources say about a topic. Since most reliable sources simply state the facts of Kaczynski's life without offering commentary, Wikipedia does the same. Most people are generally in agreement that killing people is bad, which I think is the likely cause of this lack of commentary. This is a theme among similar articles (see Charles Manson, Italian Unabomber, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, etc.) AviationFreak💬 18:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You mean, besides the guilty plea/verdict and 8 consecutive life sentences w/o parole? I don't think much more than that needs to be said on your point.104.169.22.138 (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Fake reproduction

This page is for discussing changes to the article based on reliable sources, and is not a forum for debating the subject matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The FBI reproduction of Kaczynski's bomb is completely fake, the fakest thing you'll ever see. Crime Museum notes Kaczynski "taught himself how to make the explosives out of pieces of scrap material and wood that was untraceable. Construction was all done by hand, without the assistance of power tools and even making the simple tools he did need by hand. He cast certain metal parts by melting metal scraps on the wood burning stove of his cabin". Does the image in the article look like it was made by hand from scrap material? The reproduction pictured was one constructed by the FBI to throw off copycats and to enhance the detection of such packages in the mail. It's completely unreliable. DAVilla (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Italian Unabomber disruptive edits

This page has been the subject of multiple attempts to edit the sentence regarding the Italian Unabomber. The sentence in question is:

"The moniker "Unabomber" was also applied to the Italian Unabomber, a terrorist who conducted attacks similar to Kaczynski's in Italy from 1994 to 2006."

And the attempted edit is to add the parenthetical

"(though unlike Kaczynski, the Italian Unabomber was never caught and his motive remains unknown)"

or similar (see eg 1, 2, and 3). These edits have all been added by IP users and have been consistently reverted due to an encyclopedic tone and coverage at the other article. Re-adding this change without discussion is an example of disruptive editing. If you would like to change this page's coverage of the Italian Unabomber, please discuss it here before making the change, or do so from a logged-in user account to facilitate discussion beyond revision descriptions. Thank you. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bring this to the talk page. For future editors, I strongly support mathmitch7's points. For newer users who want to better understand our policies, some relevant ones are WP:SUMMARY and WP:PROPORTION. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

He was not an anarcho-primitivist

Ted Kaczynski was explicitly critical of anarcho-primitivism, to call him one is simply inaccurate. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism Comradeka (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Comradeka: Going over the current sources for relevant statements...

• Mahan & Griset say: Few of these organizations, however, were prepared to deal with the questions and issues raised by a case such as that of the Unabomber in 1995. Ted Kaczynski was a disenchanted mathematics professor turned anarchist who espoused an “earth first” ideology.
• This source, on the other hand, is a WP:PRIMARY cite to an FBI press release and probably shouldn't be used.
• Haberfeld & von Hassell: At the same time, Kaczynski sent another letter to the New York Times. This letter was several pages long, attempted to explain the anarchist and antitechnology goals of the supposed terrorist group FC, and asserted that the bombings would cease if a long article were published. This isn't precisely the same as what we say (and since FC didn't exist it's unclear how seriously to take it; I'd rely on other sources that make that determination specifically, which, at least at a glance, this particular one doesn't.)
• Gautney is interesting (and by my reading doesn't quite support what we're citing them for here.) They say two relevant things: Since these activists claim to be motivated by concern for the environment and go to great lengths to ensure that their actions do not harm and threaten human and animal life, it is inaccurate to characterize them as nihilistic or terroristic, as compared to anarchists like “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski... and, later on Kaczynski identified himself as an anarchist, although he distinguished his tactics from those of other anarchists. See “the Unabomber Manifesto” (1995). Those are the only places this source mentions Kaczynski, so I'm not sure how that turned into the article's current statement that "He issued a social critique opposing industrialization and advocating a nature-centered form of anarchism."
• Further down, this source is used for the statement that The green anarchist and eco-extremist movements continue to hold Kaczynski's writing in high regard which I don't think is an accurate summary (it gives one or two such examples, but doesn't support the sweeping statement that the entire movements hold those views, and also devotes extensive amounts of text to saying things like By 2017, Kaczynski was making inroads with the conservative intelligentsia and In the larger world, where no respectable person would praise Kaczynski without denouncing his crimes, little Kaczynski Moments have been popping up in the most unexpected places — the Fox News website, for example, which ran a piece by Keith Ablow called “Was the Unabomber Correct?” in 2013 - focusing solely on "green anarchist and eco-extremist" movements and ignoring those parts is misusing the source.
• Likewise, this source mentions one Green Anarchist, but it describes the group as self-defined primitivists and neo-luddites; it's plainly being misused here.

So I think at least some of this can be tweaked to more cautious wordings. That said, we shouldn't directly cite the piece you linked - there are limits to what we can do via WP:PRIMARY / WP:ABOUTSELF documents. It would be better to find high-quality reliable secondary sources covering it - which must exist given the amount of attention Kaczynski has received. Also, for what it's worth, Kaczynski is still alive, so WP:BLP applies, although in this case it should not be hard to find high-quality source for most things anyway due to his high profile. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding that other source you linked and other possible sources:

• Here, though just in a footnote: Kaczynski rejects Anarcho-Primitivist views according to which ‘primitive’ life was idyllic. See T. Kaczynski. The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism. Note that while that copy is hosted on that site it is a peer-reviewed paper posted in Bioethics (journal), so we can cite it.
• [7]: This thinly-veiled attack on Zerzan’s anarcho-primitivism echoes Kaczynski’s essay, ‘The Truth About Primitive Life’, where he sets out to ‘debunk the anarcho-primitivist myth that portrays the life of hunter-gatherers as a kind of politically correct Garden of Eden’.115 ITS follows Kaczynski in condemning green anarchism as ‘leftist’. Also, regarding people inspired by Kaczynski (something other sources further down discuss), In the aftermath of his arrest, he gained a following on the outer fringe of the green movement, including anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan and Deep Green Resistance cofounder Derrick Jensen. More recently, Kaczynski’s disdain for ‘leftism’ has gained him a following on the far right. Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik extensively plagiarized him, and Greek neo-fascist party Golden Dawn published a translation of his Manifesto in 2018. Kaczynski has a Nietzsche-like quality: because he defies easy categorization, he is a magnet for radicals of different stripes We mention both parts somewhat, but this source could be useful to elaborate, especially with regards to the timeline.
• [8] It should be added that primitivists, at least some of them, also shared the criticism of civilization that above mentioned Ted Kaczynski expressed. ... Kaczynski himself negated primitivist thought, claiming that all primitive communities fed on some kind of animal food, none of them was vegan, there was no gender equality in most of them, the majority (if not all) of them treated animals in a cruel way, the estimated working time in hunter-gatherer societies resulted from a wrong definition of work (the realistic time is 40hours a week or more), most communities used violence and there was rivalry, which often assumed violent forms, some communities protected nature, but others devastated it through excessive hunting or careless use of fire. Ted Kaczynski’s criticism of primitivism makes us ask...

His rejection of anarcho-primitivism can probably be cited to those two, especially the latter one. Given those sources I don't think we can directly call him an anarcho-primitivist or green anarchist himself without a source directly calling him that, which the ones above actually don't. --Aquillion (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Why would something need to be cited to prove something *isn't* true? The burden of proof isn't on me. It would make much more sense to replace "anarcho-primitivist" with "neoluddite" or a similar term that outlines his disdain for industrial society but doesn't mischaracterize his ideology. Comradeka (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm just summarizing the sources we currently use and grabbing some additional ones. It is best to have sources for whatever descriptor we do use, though. Mahan & Griset do unambiguously describe him as an anarchist, and if you want to convince people that we cannot paraphrase anarchist who espoused an “earth first” ideology as "green anarchist" or "anarcho-primitivist", it is useful to have other sources saying otherwise, like the ones I linked above. An alternative tack is to focus on Fleming's note that he defies easy categorization; we could find a bunch of different descriptors for him and similar sources saying that as an argument against using one source to categorize him definitively when many sources define him in a variety of ways and say that he defies easy categorization. Basically, you're not wrong that the WP:BURDEN for supporting a statement falls on whoever adds it; but there are some sources already in the article, even if they're not ideal, and more generally if we want a stable replacement for the relevant sections of the article it would be best to find strong sources to base it on. --Aquillion (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding this, it's not a bad start, but several observations: First, we should of course add the sources above (that's part of the reason it was reverted). And second, it actually does not go far enough - we have no sources at all that call Kaczynski an anarcho-primitivist by name. At least in a quick Google Scholar search, I could find no evidence that any reliable sources call him that, or even anyone but us at all. Since anarcho-primitivism is plainly a contentious label, and since Kaczynski falls under WP:BLP, we would need at least one source using the term in order to apply it to him. Also, multiple people have stated that there is a prior consensus to use it, but I reviewed the history and I don't see it - it was brought up (and actually challenged) a few times, but without anything remotely resembling a decisive conclusion. Since Kaczynski is a BLP and this is a contentious label, simple WP:SILENCE and WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is not enough, so it will have to stay out until an actual consensus can be produced (and, obviously, the first step in that is to find an actual, usable source actually applying the label to him.) Beyond that, I should mention that I found an additional academic source saying that he rejected anarcho-primitivism; see here. That's three sources saying in one way or another that he is not an anarcho-primitivist, and zero saying that he is. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I wrote a longer comment but lost it during an edit conflict, drat. Well, it amounted to this: The article is remiss without a description of his views in the lead sentence. ABOUTSELF only goes so far when ascribing an ideology; compare Richard B. Spencer being described as a white supremacist. The sourcing appears less strong here (though there are sources that describe him as a primitivist) but replacing it with nothing makes the article worse. I think it's agreed that the sources are unambiguous that he was an anarchist - can we start with that? --Equivamp - talk 03:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

New York Times

The New York Times says that Ted's parents were Polish Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:4e9f:d101:c913:1b01:36cc:8f27 (talk • contribs)

That's already mentioned in the Early Life section. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7691225/Brother-Unabomber-recalls-moment-knew-brother-nationwide-bombing-campaign.html .

Anarcho-primitivism in lede

The lede makes a point about his relationship with anarcho-primitivism that should be made in the body of the article and simply summarized in the lede, not solely mentioned in the lede (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I've moved it to the body of the article. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Gender identity of Kaczynski

As the article currently states: "Kaczynski experienced intense sexual fantasies of being a female and decided to undergo gender transition."

That is, she is an autogynephile, which means that she is in fact a trans women, and thus her pronouns throughout the article should be changed to she/her, as per WP:GENDERID. Despite her awful crimes, it's important that this article must not misgender her.

If no-one objects, I am happy to make this edit, to avoid Wikipedia being embroiled in an unintentional transphobia scandal.

109.249.181.50 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there any suggestion in reliable sources that the fantasies and desire for transition lasted any longer than a few weeks in the 60s? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Firefangledfeathers; the article notes he changed his mind. If the IP can present evidence that Kaczynski has identified as female in the subsequent 45 years, then we can review this. Otherwise, MOS:GENDERID says to leave it as is. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

If Kaczynski is indeed just genderqueer rather than a full trans woman then I see your point about the pronouns. However the article should probably make their trans status more prominent, as it's important for raising awareness that not everyone is as cis as they seem, including infamous counter-cultural icons like Kaczynski. 109.249.181.50 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I scanned your comment and it appears to not link to any reliable sources. I am happy to fully engage with comments that do. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look further into this. 109.249.181.50 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The idea of "autogynephilia" is widely critiqued and regarded as an unproven theory by most experts. Using it like this is harmful. You can read more about it here: Blanchard's transsexualism typology 77.248.174.92 (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022

Kaczynski has been diagnosed with Terminal Cancer as he admitted in a Letter sent to instagram user “yours for wild nature” Deepcell88 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Ferien (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

https://i.redd.it/7j6s3wgfyfg81.png <-- The letter in the man's own handwriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinsayin784 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Ted Kaczynski new letter criticizing ecofascism. Thought it might be useful to add.

I have discovered a new letter written by Kaczynski in which he strongly criticized ecofascism. I transcribed it and uploaded it to the Anarchist Library. I don't know how to edit the Wikipedia page so I'm posting a link here for any moderators to consider adding. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-ecofascism-an-aberrant-branch-of-leftism#fn_back1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.46.76.2 (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Terminal cancer

Is anyone going to add that Kaczynski was apparently diagnosed with terminal cancer two weeks ago? Link here. StewdioMACK (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @StewdioMACK:, I went to update it but it looks like no reputable publications have picked up on it. I've set up a google alert so will update it as it gets published. Nauseous Man (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Nauseous Man:. StewdioMACK (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It's hilarious that a letter direct from the man himself, and his transfer to a hospital facility, isn't considered proof enough of his illness for you people who worship the media. Only when your Sacred Cow of Corporate Media affirms it as true are you allowed to believe it. At least the man will die knowing he was right in the end. 107.77.210.142 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@107.77.210.142: thanks for your helpful comment. There has been no external confirmation that the letter is authentic. We're waiting for due diligence to be done. Please read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to understand the purpose of a talk page, and attacking other users isn't it.

Other editors - ordinarily messages of this ilk would be deleted, but I think it's useful to leave this up. Nauseous Man (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I have been keeping half an eye on media & this page too in relation to this letter circulating, it is good to know that somebody else is on it. Thank you a lot for your work on the article and dealing with these people in such a restrained manner, @Nauseous Man! <3. SP00KYtalk 20:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Bing search producing old version of this article that violates policy- not sure what can be done

If I search for Ted Kaczynski on Bing, the result quotes Wikipedia using phrases such as "perverse, sick sexual fantasies" that are no longer in the article and may have been vandalism. Someone should have Bing update its results; I don't know how.47.139.43.68 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's Bing's problem, not ours. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding continual reversions and cited facts regarding subject's early life

Extended content

Evidently, it has come to my attention, thanks to user Mathsci that my edits are continually in violation of WP:NPOV. The assertion is that the "High school" section regarding subject's later confessions of never having a real friend or being singled out in gym class as an adolescent to his brother (in addition to several quotes of peers concerning subject's unkempt, immature condition) disrupts the tone of the overall article. However, if you view the previous section, titled "Childhood," there are several instances of quotes, reflections, and other such ruminations from various people in subject's environment at the time as well. In fact, my edit seems to be entirely consistent with that of the previous section that discusses various thoughts of family members and his being bullied in contrast, with cited events such as subject being shoved into a locker and his being a misfit even amongst the "eggheads" at Evergreen High. According to this editor, this is not only an extremely biased edit, but highly disruptive with the tone of the WP:FA. He then went on to point out—with poor reasoning and spelling—my predominant edits concerning various serial killer articles on WP, as if that makes his decision in any way credible or valid according to policy. The absolute irony of pointing out my edits, however, is the fact that he consistently and recurrently runs into trouble regarding edit-warring—though it does not apply to WP:BLP articles—before actively removing any opposition in the form of confrontation, something I have never engaged in or had trouble with. Nevertheless, I responded with my arguments which are accessible here, and conveniently collapsed (something he has been known to do with other users before being blocked or cornered into submission) for any passersby. To quote Johnuniq: "Mathsci is great on developing properly referenced, high quality encyclopedic content, and I have seen Mathsci interact well with other users, even when there is a disagreement. However, once a problem reaches a certain point, Mathsci can switch and adopt an inappropriate approach which involves total annihilation." Nevertheless, I had made another edit omitting the well-documented opinions of those around subject, only to have them removed once more. Since I refuse to engage in WP:EDITCON, I have been forced to defer to this page to reach a general consensus as per WP:CON of whether or not said content is appropriate for the "High school" section of this article. If you look at my edits, there is nothing to suggest that I have added negatively to subject's reputation through these edits. In truth, there are obvious improvements reverted such as pointing out that subject's father worked at Kaczynski's Sausages, and his actual dealings with his peers at a young age. If his "unkempt" condition is said to be an exaggeration, that could have been tweaked; in spite of this, the entire contribution is reverted, including the bit concerning Kaczynski's Sausages, edits of the "Childhood" section which are complete improvements and in tandem with the tone of the article content. These reverts are limitations which are at best pernicious and highly disruptive of contributory effort. It feels highly inappropriate and uncouth to confront a particular user like this, but the unreasonable measures taken are so brazen—and poorly written to note—so as to leave me with no choice. If I am wrong, I concede, but I feel that this information is pertinent to the life and crimes of subject. I want to reach a consensus according to policy, as I am much newer than most to WP anyhow, and this will be tiresome and according to "inappropriate approach" otherwise. --Edd Wesson (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Edd Wesson: Thanks for the ping, I will watch this article for a while and add my thoughts if needed. There should not be a need to ping me again unless you have a specific question. I'm not going to examine yet another feud but am happy to give opinions on standard procedures and what to do about article content. Mathsci might have collapsed the above comment because it is entirely inappropriate for an article talk page. This page is to discuss improvements to the article and should not mention other editors, and particularly should not complain about them. Raising the issue at NPOVN was a good idea but again that is the wrong place to complain about other editors. The community takes the view that edits stand on their merits–whether the person reverting an edit has been in previous conflicts is not relevant concerning whether a revert is advisable with respect to the WP:NPOV policy. This appears to concern a disagreement regarding article content and that should not be discussed at User talk:Mathsci. It should be discussed here first. After a few days waiting for input from others, it would then be appropriate to raise the matter at NPOVN while adding a link here to the NPOVN section.

The content issue appears to concern an addition on 03:14, 13 March 2022 that added "but was regarded as an outsider by his classmates" with ref greensboro.com. In a quick search of that ref I could not find the word "outsider" but that's possibly me. I'm not going to give an opinion on content but the proper procedure is at WP:DR. That boils down to discussion here, followed by a noticeboard such as NPOVN, and possibly followed by an WP:RFC. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I apologized for taking it to his talk page, as I was wont to do that with another user on here that I have worked with extensively. I am relatively new to editing, though I fully concede this is something I should have known to begin with. The Greensboro reference claims his fellow academics regarded him as "alien," or "not at all." I did think about changing outsider to alien, though I ironically felt that to be much too harsh and sensational in regard to the probable truth that subject was much too awkward and academically ahead to relate to peers. Nevertheless, I am grateful for your input and will wait with patience. :)

Kind regards,

--Edd Wesson (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Undergraduate years

In this edit, I retitled a section from "Harvard College" to "Harvard University". My rationale is that the degree awarding institution's name is Harvard University. In this edit by AviationFreak, I was reverted under the justification that the name of the undergraduate college is "Harvard College". I think it's rather odd that we title it with the name of the undergraduate school rather than the 4-year degree awarding institution's name. It would feel odd to say that Jeffrey Chiesa graduated with a degree from the Mendoza College of Business (the academic college), for example, rather than saying that he graduated with a degree from the University of Notre Dame (the degree-awarding institution). I understand that the Ivy League can be particular with the names of the various subdivisions of their schools, but I don't think that this is optimal from a style perspective. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: I appreciate the BRD here. My revert of this was based on a previous series of edits - this was reverted here back when I was working on getting this to FA. Pinging NZFC as the reverting editor there to give their input if they wish. I don't personally have much of a preference as they both sound fine to me - In my mind at least, "Harvard College" doesn't sound "wrong" and it is more specific, but I suppose "Harvard University" (at least in the section heading) would be correct as well. AviationFreak💬 02:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Seeing that your preference is neutral and the original reverting editor hasn't responded to the ping, I've changed the title of the section on his undergrad years to Harvard University. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no need for a one-paragraph section. It would be sufficient to combine "High School" and "Harvard" into one "Education" section. czar 02:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing details of father's death

Under Life in Montana, would someone be able to change the final sentence to 'suicided,' or 'died by suicide' with regards to Ted senior? Thanks if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.31.208 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

can I second this? Sorry as not an experienced editor so I'm not sure what the proper fora are to request this but I think neutral point of view necessitates removal of words like 'commit' around suicide 2A02:C7C:1811:C000:E493:959A:74E6:BEEF (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at length on Wikipedia. In this case, the source uses "committed suicide", so per the RFC I don't see a need to change the article's wording. AviationFreak💬 16:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

I suggest to update/correct these two sentences:

Without any explanation, Kaczynski resigned on June 30, 1969.[39] The chairman of the mathematics department, J. W. Addison, called this a "sudden and unexpected" resignation.[40][41]

to this clearer statement citing the letter at the source of the quote and correcting to the proper name of the Department Chairman:

Without any explanation, Kaczynski resigned on June 30, 1969 "quite out of the blue", according to a letter written in 1970 by the chairman of the mathematics department, John W. Addison Jr., to Kaczynski's thesis advisor Allen Shields at the University of Michigan.[39] Professor Addison, called this a "sudden and unexpected" resignation and, significantly, added, "Kaczynski seemed almost pathologically shy" and "as far as I know he made no close friends in the department. Efforts to bring him more into the swing of things had failed,".[40][41]

Citing this NYTimes reference: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/05/us/suspect-s-trail-suspect-memories-his-brilliance-shyness-but-little-else.html and https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Kaczynski-s-Shyness-Recalled-by-UC-Berkeley-2987363.php and https://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1996/0410/una.html Berkeley65 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 00:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Berkeley65:  Done

 Note: I've changed the wording/phrasing some as it read somewhat awkwardly initially. I think I've significantly improved it without altering your message much, if at all. Let me know if you disagree and we can always change things or we can look at implementing it as you originally suggested it. Also, I'll leave a similar note at your User Talk page but just a small reminder that, considering your username, it is wise to notify other contributors and readers of any conflict of interest (on Wikipedia often called COI) you may have. You can find more info about that at WP:COI. This already only applies if you edit it yourself so it's not an issue now but I just wanted to let you know just in case. If you're not related to the article or involved parties despite your username, I'm sorry I assumed and you can disregard those instructions.

Thank you for your contribution! ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Not an anarcho-primitivist

I don't think that this article should be in the category "Anarcho-primitivists". As noted in the article, Kaczynski's critiques of civilization bear some similarities to anarcho-primitivism, but he rejected and criticized anarcho-primitivist views. 213.123.173.195 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

agreed,  Done PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice catch. Thankyou. SP00KYtalk 18:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Reorganizing the Kaczynski's philosophical works and views into a philosophy module

WP:Infobox philosopher states that the infobox is for "anyone who might be considered a philosopher". It is very possible that Ted Kaczynski can be considered a "philosopher" giving his influence on the new Anarchist movement and his dedication to fighting what he deems technological society. Adding a philosophy module could better delineate his works from his criminal information. GuardianH (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Actually Existing Napoleon (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@GuardianH But how about all the other properties that are used in the current criminal infobox? Then a lot of items have to be removed, right? PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say that a lot of information would be rearranged (i.e. his Notable Work), but otherwise I don't think there would be a significant amount of removal. GuardianH (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@GuardianH When looking at the Template:Infobox philosopher, I see no logical place for his criminal status, conviction, span of crimes and how many he killed and injured. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding a philosophy module wouldn't remove the information regarding his criminal status just as the scientific module hasn't. GuardianH (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I see how it works now, I don't oppose this change anymore. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree , with two users agreeing I think you can be WP:BOLD and add it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do so a little bit later. If anyone wants to do it before me I'd be find with that. GuardianH (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

The mug shot of Ted Kaczynski is not very flattering I request it be changed to the one used on the Spanish Wikipedia page of Theodore Kaczynski. Thanks. 2600:1016:B01D:61E0:B97B:1496:C26:FB59 (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The same picture is used in both en- and es-; and why should we care if it's flattering? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Questions surrounding the ethics of spreading Kaczynski's views

In the chapter Legacy, Professor Jean-Marie Apostolidès is quoted as having "raised questions surrounding the ethics of spreading Kaczynski's views". This might be technically correct but having read the article, he dismisses these "ethical qualms" immediatly: "The role of a scholar is to go beyond my own emotions and analyze everything."

My reading is that he believes these "ethical reservations" are emotion based and that there are no reasons to not discuss it from a philosophical point of view.

If someone agrees, maybe we could amend this passage which seems to misrepresent Professor Jean-Marie Apostolidès argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.56.104.90 (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I think the opening paragraph should summarise the article as a whole. At the moment it merely states that he was a domestic terrorist and math professor who at some point pursued a primitive life. It would be better if it summarised all the most important points (moved to cabin in Montana, timespan of bombings, death and injury toll, sentenced to life without parole, currently incarcerated at FMC Butner) and then allow the following paragraphs to go a bit more in depth. Thoughts? EucalyptusTreeHugger (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The lede as a whole covers all that sufficiently; the entire article goes in depth. But go ahead and propose your alternate language here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Theodore John Kaczynski (/kəˈzɪnski/ kə-ZIN-skee; born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber (/ˈjuːnəbɒmər/), is an American domestic terrorist and former mathematics professor who killed 3 people and injured 23 others with a series of mail bombs sent from 1978 to 1995. Prior to the bombings, he had abandoned his academic career to live a primitive life in rural Montana. His 1995 essay, Industrial Society and Its Future, detailed his motivation for the bombings and subsequently led to his arrest in the following year. In 1998, he was sentenced to eight consecutive life terms in prison without the possibility of parole. He is currently incarcerated at FMC Butner in North Carolina. EucalyptusTreeHugger (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I kinda like that as the entire lede, which has more detail than is necessary. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree - the current lede is a good length for the article that follows. MOS:LEDE lists "four well-composed paragraphs" as the rule-of-thumb upper bound, and what we have in the lede at present is 3-4 paragraphs' worth of information. Making the lede one paragraph would fail to accurately summarize the entire content of the article - Look at, for instance, this FAC for another article that I worked on. The first comment from the first reviewer indicates that the lede should be about two paragraphs long, and that article is much smaller in both length and scope than the present article. AviationFreak💬 14:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What's your take on my new version of the opening paragraph? EucalyptusTreeHugger (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to it. AviationFreak💬 18:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

So I assume there would be no problem with me incorporating it into the article. However the other paragraphs in the lede would need to be re-adjusted. EucalyptusTreeHugger (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There are two competing versions of the lead: Special:Permalink/1116555370 (status quo) and Special:Permalink/1116475100 (proposal). I support the proposal for two main reasons: (1) It puts absolutely vital information in the first paragraph (that Kaczynski was a mail bomber, the number of people he killed & injured, and when and why he did it i.e. his infamous manifesto). (2) It is presented more chronologically, which is valuable for comprehension. If needed, perhaps we can put together a compromise that mixes elements of the two versions. — Goszei (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m mostly AFK right now and can’t participate for a couple of weeks, but thanks for the ping. I’m ok either way. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

My take is that either one is acceptable (the status quo made it through FAC), but I'd agree that the proposal does a better job of summarizing the most important parts of the article. AviationFreak💬 05:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Addition Under Legacy

Adding a reference to Cowboy Bebop episode 22 the "Teddy Bomber" Maybe it is too insignificant but maybe an interesting addition. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.69.40 (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

my removals

Dear @GuardianH, with my removals I acted according to WP:BLP. You can read above: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article [...]." And I explained in my edit summary why the source is poor. So please bring forth your counter arguments to that soon or otherwise remove the contentious material again. Thank you very much. Best regards,--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Vergänglichkeit, we should be cautious in doing any large-scale removal of material. As I mentioned in my comment, the part of the article that was removed relied on reliable sources and passed FA review. What exactly in the article abridged WP:BLP? From what I see, they were all reliably sourced. GuardianH (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Six sentences is not large-scale imho. We should be more cautious about abiding by BLP.

These sentences all only regive his family's assertions. We also use this other reliable source often though which reasonably arguments for why these assertions could be false: "Michael Mello, a professor at Vermont Law School, [...] and William Finnegan, a writer for The New Yorker, have suggested that Kaczynski's brother, David, his mother, Wanda, and their lawyer, Tony Bisceglie, along with Kaczynski's defense attorneys, persuaded many in the media to portray Kaczynski as a paranoid schizophrenic. To a degree this is true. Anxious to save Kaczynski from execution [...]"--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022 (2)

Change "December 24th, 2022" related to his move to the Federal Medical Center to "December 23rd, 2021" as that's the date cited in the article Jarombean (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done RealAspects (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

Ted Kaczynski passed away on 27 December 2022 at around 6 or 7 o'clock after midday. AnonR23 (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@AnonR23: What reliable sources are reporting this? —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

None as far as I can tell, just a 4chan rumor MacDoesWiki (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Professional title

Shouldn't he styled Dr. Kaczynski given his PhD 2601:447:C780:5A60:8499:D821:3743:F300 (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Professional titles such as "Dr.," "Prof." etc. are not allowed in Wiki style. Please see MOS:DOC. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of cross-sex fantasies

"Kaczynski experienced intense sexual fantasies of being a female" can we please reword this section? The phrase "a female" sounds dehumanizing towards female (adjective) people (which could be fixed by just removing the indefinite article) and it links to Autogynephilia, which is controversial at best and pseudoscientific at worst. Catgirl-su (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. A similar discussion on Autogynephilia has taken place before, so perhaps we can count these multiple objections to the use of the term as consensus to not include or link to it without further discussion. AviationFreak💬 05:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a really insignificant part of the 'Ted Story' and given the current English Language Culture War fascination with this stuff I fear the only reason this is being added is to create an image of U Ted as 'Crazy because trans', as you say 'autogynephilic' or something else specifically against Trans People.

Basically this does not need to be mentioned as it is so minor and people trying to add it probably have alterior motives. Just be spectacle of these editors. SP00KYtalk 15:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)