Talk:Ted Kaczynski/Archive 1

message: Is he related in any way to the twins with the same family name who rule Poland? --Vladko 05:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to Polish statesmen? 

message: The following seems to have a slight POV problem to me: "...Though it's scope is extremely broad, as Kaczynski also devoted large sections to railing at 'leftists' and 'oversocialized types'."
"Railing at" someone has a pretty negative connotation; IMO, this should be reworded. However, the rest of the article seems to be NPOV.
:If, having read the manifesto, you can think of a more appropriate word than "railing"... please feel free to reword.--←Hob 03:31, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
In addition, the segment "The stigma of its author's criminal acts has limited its popularity as a source in discussions of technology..." seems to be somewhat unjustified; I see very little to justify this; it seems to be unencylopedic and possibly biased.
::This is one of the rare cases where Wiki's, generally positive, efforts to be neutral make me a bit queasy. Still on rereading it it wasn't quite as "positive" on him as I thought. That his ideas are taken as seriously by some as they apparently are disturbs me a bit, but if that's the reality it's the reality. Reading a bit of his deal from Wikisource it's not quite as crazy sounding as I thought, but then again some of the jihadist types are also quite erudite and logical in their way.--T. Anthony 15:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but I can't think of a better phrasing at present. Be bold!--←Hob 03:31, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
To me, the phrase "railing against leftists" by itself gives the immediate impression that Ted was a right-wing nut. While true to an extent, I think it would be prudent to mention Ted's criticism of conservatives, such as paragraph 50 in his manifesto: "The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values."
Well? The entry was totally just a derivation from the original manifesto. Mentioning it doesn't mean any POW at ALL, because it's taken from what he said, a QUOTE, and doesn't reflect any opinion of the editor at all. Using a quote in itself is generally neutral, and anyone saying anything else is spouting utter nonsense! It is NOT POW.--OleMurder 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Is there a better picture of this man available? The current one is too small. Also, most post-arrest photographs are very undignified.--Iusenospace 03:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cropped the pic and it now has no trace of the orange prison garb, SqueakBox 00:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better picture? 

message: In an article reproduced here, mathematician Stephen Smale comments that Kaczynski was likely influenced by mathematician Alexandre Grothendiek, who visited Berkeley and gave a lecture on the "perils of modern technology" around the same time Kaczynski was there. It would be interesting if someone could find more specifics on the circumstances noted in this particular anecdote.
: First it's Grothendieck not Grothendiek and he has some strange ideas of his own: 
:One story has it that Grothendieck is now convinced that the Devil is working to falsify the speed of light. Schneps ascribes his concerns with the speed of light to his anxiety about the methodological compromises physicists make. He talks constantly, however, about the Devil, semi-metaphorically, sitting behind good people and nudging them in the direction of compromise, of the fudge, of the move towards corruption. ‘Uncompromising’ is the expression Schneps favours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.207.203 (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional Influences 

message: The Atlantic Monthly had an interesting article describing some bizarre psychological experiments that undergraduates such as Kaczynski took part in, and left some with psychological scarring, that might explain some of his later sociopathic behavior. Would be nice to have some discussion of this background in the article.
:FYI Alson Chase wrote the Atlantic article , the books in the bibliography by him are also about it. --GangofOne 06:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Atlantic Monthly]] article on Harvard experiments 

message: "FBI Agent John Douglas, the father of "profiling" criminals, disagreed with this. He claimed the bombs were much too sophisticated and that the bomber was most likely an academic. Profiling was a new investigative tool at the time and Douglas's theory was largely ignored. After Kaczynski's arrest, the FBI came under much criticism. It was pointed out that if they had only checked into the disgruntled academic theory, they could have easily caught this man many years earlier
This needs footnote. Where and when did Douglas say this? I think this is hindsight. Also, profiling is new, and has not been verified scientifically, despite their claims. This paragraph believes tv too much. Also, do they keep a list of "Disgruntled acadmeics"? Probably pretty long.--GangofOne 21:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profile 

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

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

message: Please source There is no indication that he ever had any contact or involvement with an anarchist movement prior to his arrest, making his adoption of the term seem uninformed. This  For a contemporary discussion of these issues from an Anarchist's perspective, refer to "You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship: The Anarchist Case Against Terrorism" is totally unencyclopedic, what has it got to do with Kaczynski? We are interested in Kaczynski not in Anarchism, and esp not an article about anarchism from offsite inserted as something we should read in the article. looks suspiciously like spamming, SqueakBox 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, per this rationale I will remove all references to him as an anarchist (other than his own verifiable use of the term, eg, the "anarchist" group "FC"). On a side note, I find your mispellings and bizarre formatting somewhat off-putting. --Bk0 (Talk) 16:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism section 

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

message: The article states
"In a letter dated October 7, 2005 Kaczynski offered to donate two rare books to the Melville J. Herskovits Library of African Studies at Northwestern University's Evanston Campus which was the location of the first two attacks. The recipient, David Easterbrook, turned the letter over to the university's archives."
I'd be very interested to know what the books mentioned were.
This isn't relevant to the article as it's currently constituted, but I'd also like to say the techno group Underground Resistance named a track on their album "Interstellar Fugitives" "Unabomber" and the album cover was inspired by the crime sketch of him.  Perhaps we could have a "Pop Cultural references" section (maybe including a link to the skate clothing label mentioned in the dismbiguation page of "unabomber"?)
Hmm, highly dubious to add such a section, but okay...al'tho it's a bit "morbid", I suppose it's true to fact some people draw referral to it...but those who do, are hardly "popular culture". Perhaps reword it to "underground culture"?--OleMurder 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books and pop culture 

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

message: Why do we have his contant info here? Melchoir 11:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I came here to post the same thing. Since it's been addressed/no one answered, I'm going to remove it. sinblox (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of his life, that's why it is here! It's not supposed to be deleted. --Maxl 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life in prison 

message: I presume the links are all appropriate, but comments on them are far too extensive.  They probably should become a stub entitled  something like Techno-crisis social criticism (tho that is just a brainstorming-stage working title, not a proposal  i have any preference for).  The Unabomber article should have at most short phrase beyond the links in its See also section.--Jerzy•t 04:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and modified somewhat, SqueakBox 04:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also contents 

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

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

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

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

message: I felt the wording of the first sentanced emphasized his role as a terrorist too much. He was and did other things. I felt it neglected that he was noteworthy in other aspects of his life. In general I think that his crimes as terrorist are overshadowing his work in mathematics. Terrorist might be too emotional a word as well. 
This article tells mostly about his crimes. If I understood graduate math I'd help out more. But I'll leave that to the mathematicians out there.
Changed from:
Theodore John (Ted) Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an American terrorist convicted...
Changed to:
Theodore John (Ted) Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), most known as the Unabomber, is an American mathematics professor, political activist and essayist. Considered a terrorist by many, he was convicted...
:While "terrorist" may be an unnecessary characterization, the notability of his "political activism" and essays is primarily dependent on his bombings. Stating merely "he was the Unabomber" is not at all helpful for someone who does not already know who the Unabomber is. —Centrx→talk • 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According the article, a member of his dissertation committee states that "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 people in the country understood or appreciated" his dissertation, and that he held a National Science Foundation fellowship. He also has 9 publications in major peer-reviewed mathematics journals. As for essayist, he wrote one essay. I am still tentative about mathematician, the reason it is there is it seems strange to have a biography begin "Ted Kaczynski is a person who bombed...". —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Really? I never heard that. Wow, that's kinda surprising to me. Do you have a source? Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 08:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/thehour_player.html?20060313-Activism_chomsky. delmet 19:58, 12 Aug 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentance not NPOV 

message: The article says "He did well overall from an academic standpoint but reports some difficulty with mathematics in his sophomore year. He was subsequently placed in a more advanced math class and mastered the material, then skipped the 11th grade."
If he was having difficulty with math which I doubt, why would he be placed in a higher level? Could someone fix this?
Perhaps he didn't like the teacher, or 10th grade math was geometry when he was adept at algebra. Theres a few reasons why this might be the case 71.236.169.89 02:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math skills 

message: Removed the section claiming that Weird Al Yankovic was considered a suspect, I assume if it's not a joke, it's just based on the similarity between Weird Al and the forensic sketch. If someone has a source, they can of course put it back- and fix the various spelling mistakes while they are at it :). Thedoorhinge 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone else removed it while I was typing my intention to do so. Thedoorhinge 17:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird Al 

message: Or is it a urban legend?- Sparky 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any possibilities linking him to the [[Zodiac killer]]? 

message: What is the reason for this vagueness in the beginning of the article? Someone who publishes a 35,000 word anarcho-primitivist manifesto is by definition an anarcho-primitivist. Also, his bombing campaign was designed to terrorize academia into stopping technological progress, which is by definition, terrorism. This isn't similar to the Palestine/Israel issue, where one could justify words like "guerrilla" and "militant" by painting Hamas and others as paramilitary organizations fighting an occupying force. He was targetting civilians to instill fear among civilians, not to achieve a military aim - ergo, he's a terrorist. Unigolyn 23:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on the first point.  I've replaced the "thought by many" phrase with a reference to his acts as popularly deemed terroristic, with a footnote to his letter to the New York Times; calling him a terrorist outright, whatever the objective merits, is still likely to generate controversy.  --zenohockey 01:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think saying "For his actions, which many deem terroristic" to be an improvement. I'm on board with Unigolyn here. By definition he is (among other things) a terrorist. The Encyclopedia of American Crime by Carl Sifakis (2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 907, 2001 ; ) unabashedly uses the term "terrorist" to refer to Kaczynski: "Whoever was victimized by a bomber attack deserved no sympathy as far as the mysterious terrorist was concerned." I think it's perfectly accurate and justifiable to just call him a terrorist. Pointing to standard external references that also say so (as was done) is always a good idea.  -- Quartermaster 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought by many 

message: That self-description about Kaczynski proclaiming to be a terrorist is a fallacies deduction. It is a conclusion of a quote put out of context. When he says “he will stop his terrorist” activities”, he is describing himself trough the values of the police, to whom he was writing, and not his own. Let's say that in that same letter he would have said, "Print my manifesto and I will stop my terrible actions". Would you say that the Unabomber had considered his actions to be terrible? Of course not. He considers them to be positive in the context of what he considers it needs to be done, and at the same time he acknowledges how his enemies might see his actions, and speak to them on those terms. He would be calling them "terrible" for the sake of the threat it represents, although within his own values those same actions are seen as relatively good.
The Unabomber didn't proclaim himself as a terrorist. He said that he would stop his "terrorist" actions, to the authorities, which he knew they would always be addressed in terms of the values of the police. In his view, his actions might be considered as a way to freedom. It a question of language and the fact that while the Unabomber was trying to communicate with the police, he address his actions in those terms, without considering the context of his ideology, which represents in whole his view on the subject.
For these reasons, I believe that this label is political in nature and misleading.Maziotis 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self described terrorist?! 

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

message: In the film Good Will Hunting there is a little reference to him. Does it is interesant to add to the article?
:Sure.  logologist|Talk 12:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appareance in Good Will Hunting 

message: Which is the source for the spelling errors? I have found a post on the discussion section of the Unabomber’s manifesto article, in wikisource, that makes a good point.
I'd like to take a vote on fixing the typos (and paragraphs 220 and 221 being merged) mentioned above. My position is that the sources we have to go off of are flawed. Most online sources have a missing paragraph--a carry over from one of the original newspaper publications. Since they leave off a whole paragraph, I don't think we should trust their silly typos are also accurate.
As for the argument that even the smartest of us make these kinds of errors, I don't think that Kaczynski would make these kinds of errors in a manifesto that he had worked on for years, and hoped that he would be remembered by. I just can't imagine that he wouldn't have glanced over the manuscript and caught these before sending it off to press.
I might favor letting these get by if we had confirmation that both the original Times and Post publications had each of these typos, but if we can't get this confirmation, I think we should go with the Filiquarian edition, which contains none of these typos. --24.124.84.133 02:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Errors 

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

message: ----
What is the point of this? To suggest that he wasn't smart after all? I don't think there's any question that he is unusually intelligent and this seems like quibbling to me.
::According to various accounts, testing showed him to have a high IQ and, by his account, his parents were told he was a genius. He claims that his IQ was in the 160-to-170 range. Testing supposedly conducted at that time has not been made available for review. 
Eperotao 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Sally C. Johnson did detailed psychometric testing preceding Ted's misdiagnosis of schizophrenia. He has (WAIS) Full Scale Score of 136 (IQ), which breaks down to a Performance Score of 124 and Verbal Score of 138. A higher verbal then performance score is typical of Asperger's Syndrome  - Teds Psychological Profile Diamonddavej 04:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ted's IQ 

message: I have copied over a discussion begun between User:Maziotis and myself regarding the absence of terms including terrorist and variously multiple-murderer or mass murderer and my contention that they should be returned to the article's header paragraph.  In previous discussions, lack of participation resulted in "consensus" between only two editors.  It is my hope that a greater number of participants will choose to engage in this discussion.
I have to make the comment here since your comment is posted as a header for this discussion and it is false in its assertion. The consensus was not between two persons. There were multiple third parties. I never took the liberty in changing the beginning of the article for the non-Pov term, the way it is now.
curious to see that the title itself, which you have choesen, is POV. You are starting a debate by defining the objective of it from the start: "Identifying Kaczynski as a terrorist and a multiple-murderer or mass murderer "Maziotis 14:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying Kaczynski as a terrorist and a multiple-murderer or mass murderer 

message: Kaczynski lived in the woods of Montana for several years as far as I know. However, this is only mentioned in a very minute way. There should be an explicit description of his life there. He lived off the woods as far as I know and since he didn't have any money. And he was arrested there. Why isn't any of that stuff in the article?? --Maxl 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can add is that he came and went quietly from the shed where he trapped rabbits and grew vegetables.  He rode a bicycle and was a frequent bus-rider.  I recall sitting across the aisle from him on a bus for a 2 hour trip, and although his identity wasn't known at that time, I was impressed by the what I thought was an intelligent man with a look of enormous contempt for people and things around him.  Such was his impression on me that when I saw him on television being arrested several years later, I was able to recognize him immediately as the fellow passenger on my bus trip years before.Landroo 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life in the woods of Montana 

message: I don't think he is an anarchist. In his book he criticised many of the beliefs of hte modern anarchist movement. It would be more accurate if we called a nihilist. But I believe that he was a fascist, read for example the Ship of Fools. Mitsos 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here he says "We are an anarchist group calling ourselves FC." but he is already lying about the "we". We do need a third opinion, ie a source that isnt Kaczynski that states he is an anarchist. Failure to find one would indicate that this statement shoudl not go inthe opening though further down we could say he proclaimed his group (sic) to be anarchist, SqueakBox 17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Again we would need a source for fascist but I think it highly improbable that we will find one. Fascism as an ideology is about as far from Kaczynski as any lefty philosophy and I can t think of any reason why anyone would think he is fascist, SqueakBox 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I will read that essay again asap but all the same we need a credible source who isnt Kaczynski for this. Though also the opening to fascism here states "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and historical terms, above all other loyalties" and that is clearly nowhere near Kaczynski's ideology, SqueakBox 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is he a self-proclaimed anarchist? I dont think so but you would need to source that claim and then prove notability for it to go in the opening. We have bbeen without this term for years in the article and dont more than one person disagrees with Maziotis in this,  SqueakBox 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A typical news story of the time doesnt mention the worsd anarchist. He is notable not just in anarchist circles but elsewhere and not for being an anarchist. Thus even if you can source that he is an anarchist it isnt even remotely notable to go int he opening let alonme as a description before anything else, SqueakBox 18:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he is. His actions are defined politically by the anarcho-primitivist doctrine, and, as such, it is an important reference to understand who he is as a man and what he has done. He is not simply a celebrety who has adopted anarchism as his political philosophy. He is a reference in the movment for his ideias, as an author. Please see references above, mentioned by other authors.Maziotis 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Them defining him as such doesnt give them notability. Kaczynski is not just notable as an ideologue but as a convicted murderer who got his treatise published in the New York Times, ie he is notable far beyond anarchist circles. Given he does not identifyy with anarcho-primitivism the ideology is nopt notable enough to claim him as there own. We are not talking about a pure academic here but someone much more widely known. And he identified in IS, his best known work by far, as an anti-technologist, SqueakBox 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I dont understand your "he is not simply a celebrity". He is not a celebrity full stop, SqueakBox 18:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: He hardly defines himself as an anarchist so no it is because you define him as having the same political belief as you. If it were easy to find a good secondary source that he as an anarchist you would have done so, SqueakBox 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And lets face it mainstream sources call him an anti-technologist and not an anarchist , SqueakBox 23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

text: Revolutionary is better than anarchist which IMO is misleading. Can we have a source for it please? SqueakBox 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnbibby 12:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Not being familiar with forensic sketching, I'm curious as to how the artist came up with the famous sketch of the Unabomber in the hood and shades.  Does anybody know?--Rob117 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody spotted him somewhere. We should get some more info on this, SqueakBox 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the hood picture come from? 

message: I think too much emphasis is made on Kaczynski's political philosophy, and in political philosophy in general, in this article.  Kaczynski is a murderer before an anarchist, but this article has too many references and links to political philosophies.  It should concentrate on being a biography of a specific person.  Perhaps a separate article on UNABOM, a specific criminal and series of crimes, should exist, and not have it redirect here.  The way it exists, it is like having Kennedy Assasination redirect to Lee Harvey Oswald.  Mal7798 07:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly agree there is too much politics, SqueakBox 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe a good idea, While his primitivist philosophy is what makes the case so interesting and noteworthy, some people want to know more about the case and trial only. Perhaps info on his mathematical career and political philosophies should go here, and then also have a summarised version of the UNABOM trial, linking to a more detailed page? -04:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree the politics are adequate. However more information should be included about how he carried himself around people. Something more about his child-hood. Theres only so much information to gather about him. Leave the politics is my suggestion. -22:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that his political beliefs need to be eliminated from the article entirely, just that there seems to be too much of it here, and this needed to be addressed.  And if there is too little of his life known to make a large enough biography, it would be inappropriate to use accounts of his political philosophy as filler. Kaczynski is a murderer who used his philosophy to justify his crimes, not a political philosopher who "took to a life of crime".  He would have most likely not warranted an article had he not committed his crimes, but he definitely warrants one because of his crimes.  Mal7798 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that his politics are less notable than his crimes. While his crimes are somewhat notable I think his philosophy/politics is much more so, and eg the addressing of those issues by Bill Joy et al, he cant be treated like an unintelligent criminal any more than Abimael Guzmán can, SqueakBox 04:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this is certainly in the realm of opinion, but what I find notable is the fact that he conquered the New York Times through terrorism—a singular event in the history of mass media. —Jemmytc 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is a political label really needed in the opening section? Steve Dufour 09:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It explains a lot about his beliefs in very few words. I feel it's appropriate there.-- 06:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am 100% in favor of explaining his political stance in the article itself.  However, just putting a label on him, like "anti-leftist anarchist", could lead to problems. Kaczynski was not part of any political group or party and there is probably not anyone with exactly the same opinions as him.  DoesItalic text any group welcome him as a member?  The anti-leftist anarchist label could also be seen as a slur against other anti-leftist anarchists. Steve Dufour 22:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the tag as the anarchist label has been removed, SqueakBox 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Many likely share many of his beliefs, but none of them committed the crimes he did, and most do not commit similar crimes.  And few killers have presented such a detailed philosophy, nor have had the opportunity to express it.  But no killer was just a killer.  The reason Kaczynski merits a Wikipedia biography is that he is a killer.  The crimes he committed could even merit a separate article, but if there is no way to include both articles without them being redundant, only then should it stand just as it is.  Mal7798 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh and Ted obiously became a killer because he is a philosopher.
-- unpaid lamer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.149.19.160 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much politics 

message: I took out this sentence from the opening:
: Kaczynski did this in the hope that it would inspire others to fight against what he considered the inevitable subjugation of the human race as a direct consequence of technological progress.
I don't think we can really say for sure what his reasons were. Steve Dufour 09:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, he only wrote 35,000 words describing his reasons... Jemmy Button 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind reading removed 

message: Does anyone know the proper pronunciation of Kaczynski? It is often pronounced as Kazinski but the "cz" would usually be pronounced Kashinski, I think. I've always wondered if the newscasters, etc. got it right or wrong. Sbowers3 02:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds to me like Kachinski. The real question though is how does the Kaczynski family pronounce it? Sbowers3 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a link to a radio interview with David Kaczynski in the article.  I haven't listened to it myself. —Jemmytc 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: The article states he is a "an American terrorist and social critic".  Um, aren't ALL terrorists social critics? :P AbstractClass 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A terrorist is likely to hold a critical opinion of society, but not necessarily to produce social criticism. Jemmy Button 22:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is theoretically possible for a terrorist to not be a social critic - for example, a bomber who uses the threat of terrorist activity to extort money for personal gain. Applejuicefool 16:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Critic 

message: on a related note: what makes kaczynski s "terrorist" rather than a "serial killer"?  Metanoid (talk, email) 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to serial killer, the term means merely someone who has killed a series of people.  Nevertheless, the connotations are quite inappropriate to Kaczynski, and the description in that article does not match him at all--in spite of the fact that, before the manifesto, the unabomber was covered in the media as a serial killer.  Kaczynski's motivations were political and he used the threat of violence to hold the New York Times hostage, meeting more or less every definition in terrorism.  He clearly belongs in the same camp as Weatherman (organization), Timothy McVeigh, etc. (see also eco-terrorism and Kaczynski's article in Green Anarchy, wikisource:Hit Where It Hurts).  He doesn't fit well at all with these guys. —Jemmytc 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. He also promised "to desist from terrorism" in his letter to the NYT. —Jemmytc 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist? 

message: Any one know what was the religion of his parents ( if any)?.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.106.141 (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: T.J.Kaczynski seems to have been sent to non-Catholic schools.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: T.J.Kaczynski's parents were brought up as Catholics but became atheists, according to the New York Times.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion of parents 

message: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2160815834239891699&hl=en
This BBC documentary states that his lawyerts tried to use his involvement in the Project MKULTRA experiments in a plea of insanity. (At about 43 minutes in.)
-- nyenyec ☎ 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MKULTRA involvement 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mkultra#Famous_subjects
The MKULTRA involvement should be expanded since this largely affected Theodore Kaczynski's mind. After the experiments he uses the term "WE" in his journals. His schizophrenia isn't mentioned in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.133.158 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  COMMENTS 

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

message: This is a common usage of the word in peer-reviewed mathematics journals.  72.215.61.106 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaczynski's use of "we" 

message: In reference to recent undo here wherein User:Maziotis said about User:ACSE's inclusion in the "See also" section of 
:* Diogenes Angelakos, a target of the Unabomber. 
: "it's great we have a link in the article for one of the targets, but this is not a topic of further investigation in the unabomber case for the see also section; don't over-link please" 
I'm mystified. Why wouldn't this be relevant in this article? As a researcher I find such links to be invaluable, and as it is unobtrusively in the "See also" section, fairly neutral. If I'm reading the Unabomber article and have a hankering to learn about or interview his victims, having them noted would be critical.
Kaczynski sent bombs to people. Angelakos was one of his targets. Therefore, a link to Angelakos in an article about Kaczynski is relevant. Sort of like linking to mail bombing in the lede.
Given my experience with the hypersensitivity to many innocuous edits I've seen with this article (accusing nobody), rather than undo this edit, I figured I better bring it up here. I am unabmiguously in favor of including User:ACSE's appropriate link in the "See also" section. -- Quartermaster (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this is a most civil discussion and illuminates your rationale (which does make sense). I come from background as a reference librarian and find most often that I direct people immediately to the wikipedia article sections labeled "Bibliography," "References," and "See also." I even counsel them to be VERY wary of the body of an article that is politically sensitive and contentious (such as this one) and rely upon the references to take them to external sources. I understand the need and desire to keep articles from being too cluttered and see that as a natural tension against wanting to supply enough "access points" (liberry jargon). Ideally, there might be a section (See also sub-section?) that simply lists all the victims with appropriate links. I'll leave the latest version alone until someone else chimes in as this being compelling (hold off on my opinion without support from others). -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are his victims not suitable for "See also" linking? 

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

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

message: I am reading the guidelines for the See also, and I cannot find any reason why would someone remove most of that list, for which there has been consensus to keep for a long time, while some items in particular have been disputed.
Several items in the "see also" section provide a link for futher investigation, not only to the ideological background of the unabomber, but for the actual history of his case. Maziotis (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the External links that you re-added are low value links. For instance, several of them have already been linked to in the article, including his writings on Wikisource (which is what the Wikisource link the See also section is for), the Commons box in the External links is already in the See also section, and the fact that the current size of the External links section just opens it up to link spam. The links include YouTube links, every link is formatted differently (some of them use numbers as the URL's title, which is strongly discouraged). At the very least, these two sections strongly beg for uniformity; for instance, if all the lines in the "See also" section followed the format "John Smith, a person who did this and that", which follows a "Name, what they did that relates to this article" format, then the section would be easier to read. As it is now, the format for both sections certainly discourage people from perusing them because of their length and non-uniformity. Gary King (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have copyedited the See also section. The External links section should be started from scratch; it has gotten far too long during the lifetime of this article, and is open to linkspam. I typically do not include an External links section if possible because I like to believe that it is possible to include relevant information within Wikipedia and sister projects, which is what the Commons and Wikisource links are for. If someone really wants to learn more about an article's subject, then they are free to search for them online. Also, the links provided in this article included YouTube links, and links to pages that were already linked to. Gary King (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that. If you check this archieve talk, you will find that sort of preocupation about "see also" section and external links getting out of hand. But some of the external links are valuable, such as the letters of Kaczynski, which are mentioned in the article, and connot be found anywhere else. Maziotis (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, that's fair. Although, I'm sure we can find a website that has a list of links to his letters and such, so we can keep the External links section to a minimum. I have re-added the external link that leads to a list of his published works. Preferably, news articles and such are not linked to because there are a countless number of them. Also, I don't suggest adding links that are already used as references. Gary King (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the removal of several items in the see also section 

message: In the section on the bombings, there's an elaborate description of precisely how the bomb employed by Kaczynski operated. It seems to be a bit too in-depth. However, I'd like to hear some other opinions before I go ahead and trim it down a bit. Jacotto (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trim it down; I'd like to see what you have in mind. Gary King (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomb Description 

message: Except for two attacks in Chicago, all of Ted Kaczynski's early attacks were made at universities or on persons affiliated with universities.  The FBI therefore dubbed him the "university bomber," unibomber for short.  By some strange alchemy, unIbomber has become unAbomber, but this spelling is neither historically nor etymologically accurate.  
75.46.117.29 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the FBI case was UNABOM to indicate university and airline bombings.  Did you forget about the  altitude-triggered bomb put on a plane?  In fact, it was the airplane bombing that brought the FBI into the case -- since this was a federal offense. —Jemmytc 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaczynski's Sobriquet 

message: Theodore Kaczynski wrote a book in prison titled "Truth versus lies". I can not find any reference to that book in the article. I believe the publication of that book has a story of its own. Is Kaczynski having problem getting his writings to the public because they are controversial and challenges the "system"? I am not sure, but it seems to be difficult finding this book, although he is kind of famous and the book should be relatively popular.Aristoteles56 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Popular? You mean like Ted Bundy. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I simply mean that I believe the book would be sold in many ex. if it were available. I also happen to belive that he has something highly relevant to say about our present and coming society. Note that according to the unabomber himself the reason for the bombings where that he wanted his message to have a reasonable chance to come through to the public and make a lasting impression. I'm not a native English speaker, sorry if I expresses myself wrongly. Aristoteles56 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adolf Hitler also had a message he wanted the public to hear, that doesn't mean the public ought to hear it. Zazaban (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. The same goes for the French Resistance. Maziotis (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Aristoteles56 must know this, but  from 1999 says the book was pulled from the printer after he tried to void the book deal, though at  it looks like the publisher sent the MS to the NY Times.  The book should be mentioned in this article.  Tempshill (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it can hold a reference on the section "Life in prison", along with the new book written by Ted, which actually came out. See section below. I think the book "truth versus lies" even made into some news sources. It is definitly relevant to the history of the article's subject. Maziotis (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  writings of Theodore Kaczynski 

message: thumb 
Hey.  I took a picture of the shack at the Newseum.  Dunno where it should go, so feel free to stick it in the right place.  :)  Qb | your 2 cents 01:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it; we need more pictures in this article. Gary King (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hey.  If you need more images.  I also took a picture of one of the bombs that (thankfully) didnt go off.  They've got alot of great stuff over at the Newseum.  Qb | your 2 cents 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks – we can never have too many free images! Is it possible to specify when he made the bomb, or any details such as the materials used, etc.? Gary King (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya know, I didnt think to take a picture of the info next to the display.  I guess one could always call the Newseum and ask.  The display was in the "G-Men" exhibit.  Qb | your 2 cents 14:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It won't be easy finding free pictures of Ted. Most of them will be from the government after his incarceration, since those have acceptable licenses. Also, the article will hopefully one day appear at FAC, but it's not ready yet. I'll be working on it in hopefully a few weeks to get it ready, though. Gary King (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, regarding the photos, I was kind of expecting that. I think you already did a great job improving the article. The information is well-organized and balanced. If anything, I think the article could benefit with a couple more sources. Feature articles usually have a little more of them, for an article of this size, I believe. Maziotis (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image 

message: Per a request:
*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_us/unabomber_cabin;_ylt=AoM6rFY4xAB82M3waZxEuwdH2ocA (ref #63 is dead)
*Is http://www.rte.ie/radio1/whistleblowers/1160076.html a reliable source?
*Sources look good otherwise. The rest of the links check out with the link cheker.
Hope this helps, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced the dead link. RTE is RTÉ Radio 1; it is reliable. Gary King (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: It's been reported that a copy of Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, was found in Kaczynski's cabin when he was arrested.
If true, this is highly relevant, politically explosive and a significant omission. 
I strongly suspect the omission was deliberate due to a political agenda. Such tactics are not unknown on Wikipedia.
75.92.94.206 (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Gore's book 

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

message: I felt that the reference of Herbert Marcuse (the leftist 20th century philospher who advocated an increase in technological advances to reduce labor-related stress) and the neglect of Erich Fromm (a psychoanalytical philosopher interested in questions of politics and technology) and Friedrich Nietzsche (whose theories of Dionysian activity of the will and rejection of leftist passivity seem directly lifted in the opening section of Kaczynski's 'Industrial Society..') seemed curious.  I thought I might add the latter two to the 'Related Works' section, and perhaps attach a disclaimer to Marcuse.  I wanted to check in with everyone on the discussion page first though and see if anyone has any thoughts.  I'll do some touch-ups in the next few days unless anyone has any objections.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Colin. Do you know of any reliable sources that assert a link between Fromm or Nietzsche and Kaczynski? If so, we can add them in; if not, any association would be original research on our part and unfit for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Sincerely, the skomorokh 17:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know that I've seen Kaczynski compared to Fromm in print - I'll get back to you on that one.  The Nietzsche comparison is mine, but it seems glaringly obvious to me (see the second essay of On the Genealogy of Morals for some very Kaczynskian ideas about moral evolution, and Nietzsche throughout on what Kaczynski calls the 'Power Process.')  Anyway, yes, I will try and find reliable sources for either connection and return with them.  I'd be curious to hear where the Marcuse comparison originates from.  Thank you, Colinclarksmith (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good; this article might have useful information if you can access it. Regards, the skomorokh 13:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Related works' section 

message: Kaczynski read a lot about environment related issues. The connection with Gore seems to be more coming out of celebrity trivia, then a serious attempt to cover Ted’s influences. The reference itself dismisses the certainty of any interest on that part. It seems the only category that lead the book here was the fact that the author ran for US presidency, instead of being any of the other 100 PhD authors whose books Ted read. I don't see an important connection on any level. For now, I am removing due to Wikipedia:Undue_weight. If there is anything I am not seeing, please discuss it here. Maziotis (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sources that I read indicate that Ted read hundreds of books (not articles) about history, environment, psychology, and many other fields in social science. There is nothing to suggest that the book written by the author who got to be a celebrity later on, had a particular influence. Simply, this is a case that is a part of the work treated in the section "related works". If you see a connection with Gore that should be included there, without violating wikipedia:NOR, be my guest. I believe you cannot. The fact is that a celebrity like gore attracts a lot of attention, but there is nothing to suggest he is a significant influence such as Jacques Ellul and other authors already mentioned in the article. Maziotis (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: PS: Sorry for my rusty english. It's not my native language. Maziotis (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Gore connection 

message: How about lunatic or domestic terrorist.  He was a madman, his "views" are irrelevant.  This article is giving undue credence to a violent psychopath.  If he was an Islamic terrorist or neo-Nazi I doubt he would be labelled a 'social critic.'  Just a thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.177.150 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion. John McCarthy would have called Marx a "madman" and said that his views were irrelevant. Ward Churchill would say that George W. Bush was a "madman" and that his views were irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, that whether you agree with his views or not, they were published in several major papers and books, and were a social critique (of industrial civilization). If he was an Islamic terrorist that wrote a lengthy social critique, then he would still be a social critic. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Even in our own article about Domestic Terrorism he is a noted domestic terrorist. Look at the title of the section where he is mentioned. Maziotis (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  neo-luddite social critic?