Talk:Ted Kaczynski/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2023

The table entry about the bomb placed aboard a passenger plane should be edited to ‘Malfunctioned’ or something like that, as the ‘Yes’ under ‘Detonation’ implies it was a successful detonation. The actual ‘explosion’ merely caused the device to pour smoke. 70.187.13.38 (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Detonation is the action of a bomb exploding. The effects of the explosion do not matter, only the fact that an explosion occurred does. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Query

Is there any information, in reliable sources, that might confirm that, in the second half of the 1960s while Kaczynski was a member of the University of California, Berkeley, mathematics department faculty, he might have counseled interested U.C. Berkeley students about Rhodes scholarships to attend Oxford University in the U.K.?

Nihil novi (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Place of birth

Ted was actually born in evergreen park Illinois 2601:244:4800:8160:E143:15FF:F96D:C0E0 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2023

Change the age. He is 82 years old, not 80. Papajimakosj (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: A template automatically calculates the age, you claim he's 80, which means the birthdate is incorrect according to you. Do you have a reliable source that the BD is wrong? - FlightTime (open channel) 20:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC) - FlightTime (open channel) 20:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

. Bob Guccione of Penthouse volunteered to publish it. [THIS STATEMENT IS MISSING A CITATION] 2600:8800:2598:5600:CC89:A088:E305:2405 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep reading and see citation 71 Cannolis (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

https://twitter.com/AlpineRockhead/status/1490446212092284928?s=20 This twitter user claims to have received a letter from Ted saying he's dying of cancer. Should this be included? CoyotesKenning (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

(Not treating as edit request due to lack of template, non-specific changes, etc) @CoyotesKenning: As discussed here, we aren't including this due to its lack of inclusion in reliable sources. A Tweet has essentially no reliability except in very specific circumstances, and even then we much prefer to use traditional (book, article, journal, etc.) sources as they tend to be the most reliable. AviationFreak💬 21:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, missed the previous discussion. Understood! CoyotesKenning (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

Make him 81 years old, it is his birthday today. Papajimakosj (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Refresh your page or delete your browser's cache. It's already updated to 81 years old. – Callmemirela 🍁 14:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates regarding whether whether or not a blurb associated with this individual's death should be placed on Wikipedia's main page. The thread is RD/Blurb: Ted Kaczynski. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Citogenesis concern

I've reverted some additions of a declassified Intellipedia file that was added to the article. This revision (and [ this prior revision by the same user]) added a link to this CIA reading room file. A PDF version of that file is available by clicking on the on-page link, which brings us to this PDF. That PDF essentially contains a copy of Wikipedia, and old versions of the MKUltra page contain the exact phrasing as is on the Intellipedia page. This is exactly what one would expect, since Intellipedia copied Wikipedia articles and uploaded them for internal use, but for us to use this fact in the Wikipedia article seems to be a (novel) form of WP:CITOGENESIS, where we are attributing writings on Wikipedia as if the CIA were the original authors. For those reasons, I have reverted the edits, and I've left this note because it's hard to put this all in an edit summary. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Anarcho-primitivists

...should be removed, for reasons previously raised; i.e. Kaczynski repudiated and criticized anarcho-primitivism at length, seeing it as a legacy of politically correct but factually dubious anthropology. Ps: good riddance. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I doubt he would've appreciated ending up in "green anarchists" either, and for that matter probably being categorized as anything. What's the difference anyway? Continuing in this way we could as well remove half of the categories, it seems people don't quite get the point of those. They regularly include all kinds of "formers", alleged and border cases, especially for something as fuzzy as this. Ps: a person died. -2A02:3030:403:DF16:1:0:DF7B:6A64 (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Green anarchism is a broader category in which there are ostensibly leftist and ostensibly anti-leftist tendencies. Kaczynski was a subscriber and occasional correspondent to Green Anarchy magazine for over a decade while in prison. During that time he never identified with A-P and was in tension with John Zerzan and other idealistic contributors. Their differences were not "fuzzy" but profound and revolved mainly around the reality of primitive life and the people who live it. At the same time, in a letter not to Green Anarchy, he stated that he saw potential (for his purposes) in other GAs. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree, He seems to be more in line with ecoauthoritarianism and ecofascism, his end goals aren't concerned with hierarchy in any form that they currently exist, please refer to his letters and prison letters. he is only interested in cooping any goal that falls into line with his anti technological view.

pronunciation

Shouldn't the pronunciation inform how his name should be pronounced instead of showing how it was mispronounced? 77.252.47.67 (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

His name was pronounced kə-ZIN-skee. Here's footage of his brother David saying his own name.[1] 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

graphics - Profile Picture

There is a "famous" picture - sketch artist drawing of what they authorities expected he looked like- with a hoodie up, sunglasses, hair looks pretty curly. I think that should be added to article- Why is it not present- copyright/ lack of a free usable copy? Yes, I write this as I have seen news of his death earlier today. Wfoj3 (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about a composite FBI sketch? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe they are probably referring to this image sketched by Jeanne Boylan. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Is that sketch in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This Washington Post article from 1996 says that the image is copyrighted and I don't think there is a valid fair use rationale for including it in this article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

“Rejecting leftism” is too broad of a statement and isn’t sourced 72.175.128.25 (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See Ted Kaczynski#Summary: A significant portion of the document is dedicated to discussing left-wing politics, with Kaczynski attributing many of society's issues to leftists.[80] He defines leftists as "mainly socialists, collectivists, 'politically correct' types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like".[81] He believes that over-socialization and feelings of inferiority are primary drivers of leftism,[75] and derides it as "one of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world".[81] Kaczynski adds that the type of movement he envisions must be anti-leftist and refrain from collaboration with leftists, as, in his view, "leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology".[73] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Psychiatrist he hated, 1966

In the "Mathematics career" section it says Kaczynski had arranged to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss gender transition, and that he showed up for the appointment but then changed his mind and left without speaking to the psychiatrist at all.

It also quotes Kaczynski saying he hated that psychiatrist. Yet it's implied that they never even met. Is it true that Kaczynski claimed to hate someone he had never met? Or had he seen the same psychiatrist earlier for other reasons, and it was only from that day onward that they didn't speak? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"In the psychiatric evaluation, Johnson reveals that Kaczynski had persistent and intense sexual fantasies about being a woman. While he was a graduate student at the University of Michigan in 1967, he went to a psychiatrist to discuss his wishes for a sex change operation. But in the waiting room, he decided he could not go forward. Instead, he told the psychiatrist he was depressed about the possibility of being drafted." Khiikiat (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Thanks. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. It was typical of Kaczynski throughout his "career" to hate people he had not met, but associated with his subjective grievances. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Harvard psychological study

The article perhaps relies too closely on Alston Chase's portrayal of the psychological study in which Kaczynski participated, a portrayal that was informed in no small part by Kaczynski himself. Chase's article in the Atlantic produced sharply critical letters, including one from a participant in the study who contradicted his description, and others stating that Chase misrepresented what they told him, misrepresented the way that Murray described the study, and made wild circumstantial inferences about its motive. The article should not present Kaczynski's own sympathy pleas as fact, even if they are filtered through other sources. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Didn't Kaczynski write a letter saying the experiment had no effect on him and that its role was exaggerated? Based upon what do you say that Chase's portrayal relied on Kaczynski's own testament? MrThe1And0nly (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to add - having just read the Chase article - has it been edited in response to the criticism you linked? Because it makes no mention of some of the points of criticism - no LSD, no CIA, etc. The experiment itself is like 5% of the article and overall it seems a very sober take. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

When corresponding with Chase from prison Kaczynski denied that the experiment had any long-term effect, but before that he had discussed the experiment with his defense attorneys, who made use of it. I would say that the weakest point in the article is connecting the experiments to the CIA and MKULTRA, for which there seems to be only Chase's allegation (and yes, perhaps the Atlantic removed it on accuracy concerns). The other cited sources take Chase at his word, and the passage in Mind Wars about Kaczynski doesn't mention MKULTRA. Murray's remarks on the experiment were published openly in 1963, which would seem by itself to debunk any CIA or other intelligence involvement, and in them he expressed frustration that "powerful forces" were dissuading psychologists from what he considered practical research. He wanted to establish some kind of national research program, and his study was presented as a pilot for that, but he apparently didn't have a backer. It's true that connecting experiments to MKULTRA is difficult because the files were destroyed, but that doesn't make it all right to rely on innuendo and speculation. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:American serial killers and Category:Male serial killers

He was one, notwithstanding his political pretensions. Authorities:

• [2] (author is a criminal justice historian)
• [3] (author is a forensic psychologist)
• [4] (author is a professor of criminology and he cites a former FBI profiler]
• [5] (author is a criminal psychology instructor)

Note that Category:Serial bombers is not a subcategory. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Whats your problem? People will more likely forget him before they recognize that humankind is commiting collective suicide. Because its easyer to fool people than to convince them to be fooled. Im sure you are a picky german. 123qweasd (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to make uncivil remarks, at least make them intelligible. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Under Incarceration and death, it is mentioned that Kaczynski was diagnosed with late-stage cancer while he was at the federal medical center 2 years ago. However, this is a hoax. It has never been confirmed and the sources cited mention only his suicide this year. The first and only rumors of Kaczynski having cancer surfaced through a twitter/reddit photo of a ‘personal letter’ from Kaczynski in 2022. DeVoery (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Per the cited AP source: "Kaczynski, who was 81 and suffering from late-stage cancer…" —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We've discussed this in some length on a previous talk post, in the archive. For a long time, all that was published about his cancer was from a Medium article that purported to be a letter from Kaczynski discussing his cancer. However, AP and others are now reporting that he did have cancer. I'm trusting their internal fact checking processes. Nauseous Man (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The article reports of cancer did not come after his hospitalization, from where one would assume the internal fact checking would come from, but rather after the alleged latter which appeared just over 2 months later (this was even before the medium article you speak of). To me it is very clear that this is a case of one media page following another endlessly until it has been accepted as fact. DeVoery (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Article is wrong

His brother David's wife, Linda, was the one who pointed out the writing style. She pushed for David to turn in his brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59C8:10D6:5500:B043:648A:57E9:B7CB (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Link to hoodie

Hi, could someone with edit rights please add a See Also to hoodies. The Unabomber was always depicted in hoodies. Thanks! Hannah1981 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Reword anarchist associations & add a link to 'External Links'

I think this paragraph:

He authored Industrial Society and Its Future, a 35,000-word manifesto and social critique opposing industrialization, rejecting leftism, and advocating for a nature-centered form of anarchism.(3)

(3) Gautney (2010), p. 199.

Should be changed to something like:

He authored Industrial Society and Its Future, a 35,000-word manifesto and social critique opposing industrialization, rejecting leftism, and advocating for people to view hunter-gatherer life as the ideal state of man.(3)

(3) "Technological Slavery, Volume One (2022) Theodore John Kaczynski". Fitch & Madison. Retrieved October 22, 2023.

I think you’re quite right in saying that a "positive social vision" is necessary. However, the social ideal I would put forward is that of the nomadic hunting-and-gathering society.

Or this footnote:

(3) Fleming, Sean (May 7, 2021). "The Unabomber and the origins of anti-tech radicalism". Journal of Political Ideologies. 27 (2): 207–225. doi:10.1080/13569317.2021.1921940. ISSN 1356-9317. Contrary to what Chase suggests, the Manifesto’s ideal of ‘wild nature’ was not an afterthought or a piece of rhetoric. The same idea of ‘wildness’ appears in Kaczynski’s 1979 essay, ‘Progress Versus Wilderness’, which was inspired by environmental historian Roderick Nash: ‘Wildness is that which is not controlled by organized society’.21 Chase overstates his case when he dismisses the green part of Kaczynski’s Manifesto as ‘a cynical attempt to win more supporters for his revolution’.22 However, the green interpretation is also easily overstated. The Manifesto is decidedly anthropocentric, in stark contrast to the biocentrism of Earth First! and other radical environmentalists.23 Kaczynski opposes modern technology not primarily because it has been a disaster for the planet, but, as he says in the very first sentence, because it has ‘been a disaster for the human race’.24 His ideal of wild nature includes ‘human nature’, and wild human nature is his main concern in the Manifesto.25 Further, in his later writings, Kaczynski advises anti-tech revolutionaries to ‘maintain clear lines of demarcation … from other radical groups’, including radical environmentalists and green anarchists.

Or this footnote:

(3) Kaczynski, "Industrial Society and Its Future" (1995), paragraphs 183–184.

183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That is, WILD nature: Those aspects of the functioning of the Earth and its living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).

184. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful; certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology.[30] It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society, and for countless centuries many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will take a very long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even preindustrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature (including human nature). Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system, it is certain that most people will live close to nature, because in the absence of advanced technology there is no other way that people CAN live. To feed themselves they must be peasants, or herdsmen, or fishermen, or hunters, etc. And, generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities.

The reasons being the above is a far more accurate point about his philosophy in the manifesto to include. And the point about nature-centered form of anarchism is very misleading.

Ted later acknowledged he "knew very little about anarchism" and only "described FC as 'anarchist' because [he] thought it would be advantageous to have some recognized political identity.":

(Added 2016) In 1995 I described FC as “anarchist” because I thought it would be advantageous to have some recognized political identity. At that time I knew very little about anarchism. Since then I've learned that anarchists, at least those of the U.S. and the U.K., are nothing but a lot of hopelessly ineffectual bunglers and dreamers, useless for any purpose. Needless to say, I now disavow any identification as an anarchist.

--"Technological Slavery, Volume One (2022) Theodore John Kaczynski". Fitch & Madison. Retrieved October 22, 2023.

Also, the original footnote source doesn't really evidence anything about Ted's supposed nature-centered anarchism, the author just writes about the rarity of anarchists using terrorism as a tactic:

Activist formations like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) have been targeted by the FBI and named “ecoterrorists,” even though ELF is really just a marker for any group or individual ecoactivist (Earth Liberation Front, 2009).

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(1) or Alexander Berkman.(2) According to Avery Starr, sabotage, as a tactic, focuses on “disruption when other options appear ineffective or impossible,” and is not aimed at inflicting violence, especially on people. For groups like the Animal Liberation Front and ELF, the term ecotage has been used to describe a brand of self-defense (the defense of animals and the environment) that aims to “move beyond” civil disobedience but remain nonviolent. As Starr (2006) points out, while such tactics have become controversial for today’s militants, sabotage has been used by progressive movements throughout history, from labor struggles in the late nineteenth century to the antiapartheid movement in South Africa and antinuclear power activity in Germany and elsewhere (64–65).

(1) Kaczynski identified himself as an anarchist, although he distinguished his tactics from those of other anarchists. See “the Unabomber Manifesto” (1995). Accessed May 12, 2009. <http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~rahul/Misc/ unibomber.html>.

For the same reasons as everything said above, ideally the series tag 'green anarchism' should be deleted or replaced with 'terrrorism' series. As ex-anarchists like Mao and Individualists Tending to the Wild aren't similarly stuck with the label.

Finally, I recommend adding https://www.thetedkarchive.com/ to External Links because it's a massive information resource on Ted that's been up over a year. It has all the essays the anarchist library has which is linked, plus a lot more, including essays written for newspapers, letters, etc. Ishkah (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Name pronounciation

His last name is a traditional Polish name and is pronounsed KaCHEENskee not kə-ZIN-skee. Could it be a mistake in the article? (and may be some other sources were mistaken too?) Sorry, not a native speaker here - just wanted to discuss. Anarions (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey Anarions,

You’re right that his last name is pronounced KaCHEENskee in Polish. This article uses the English pronounciation (kə-ZIN-skee) of his name, as he was born and lived in the US. Dantus21 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)