Talk:Ted Kaczynski

He was a terrorist.

Try to refrain from attacking me and adding the wounded swan wording. I indeed read the guideline, does this phrase ring a bell:

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears.. I provided 4 sources as stated and the FBI source refers to him as a domestic terrorist. I tried to bring this up in the discussion but you did not deign to put in the effort to reply. Can you answer those above questions? If you wan to add reputed or something similar that would be fine. It still stands however that the opening completely downplays his criminal activities. IMO this tag is telling us to consider this before adding one of the proscribed labels. I did so and even attempted to engage others before adding realizing this could provoke. What in the wording I provided above or in the addition I made to the article do you see is not being met? You are turning this into an edit war with only the reasoning that your interpretation of a guidline relevant. I am sure you could find some articles calling him a saint, but I highly doubt the number or reputability would come close to comparing. In any event I have provided numerous examples where he is referred to either a domestic terrorist or terrorist operating within the U.S. Instead of repeatedly removing my edits on basis of your interpretations you need provide a counter. This is what collaboration is about, not edit warring. RegardsMeph Yazata (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? This is an encyclopaedia, we are not in the business of calling people terrorists. Lose the sensationalism; just the facts, please. Skomorokh 00:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you did not know who I was talking to it would stand to reason I was not addressing you. If you want to add anything to the convo please do so, but do not call me a sensationalist. This is a discussion I moved here to the appropiate discussion page rather than participate in edit warring. I do not view adding what I believe to be necessary as aiming at sensationalism. I think it is just as disturbing to marginalize his crimes and I see it.Meph Yazata (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you did read the guideline, then obviously you need to read it again. This is not a question of interpretation. You cannot assert that Theodore Kaczynski is a "terrorist", no matter how many sources you have. Please read the guideline again. The text, as you wrote it, clearly violates WP:words to avoid. The issue here is not whether Theodore Kaczynski is a terrorist to you or me. We can probably find a source in which someone claims that he is an alien from the galaxy of Zagalax (ok.. from this particular fictional galaxy is very unlikely... but you see my point). We should always try to write about what is relevant from a neutral point of view. See wp:verifiability. Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I am sorry if you found my reply to be on a personal level. It wasn't meant to be. Maziotis (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Also, I didn't respond to your previous edit, because I did not see it. I hope I have cleared that out. Maziotis (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you could find some articles calling him a saint, but I highly doubt the number or reputability would come close to comparing

This is why I say you need to, at least, read the guideline again. There is no definitive source on identifying someone as a terrorist. The only fact you could include based on these sources would be "FBI claims that Theodore Kaczynski is a terrorist". It is right there on the guideline.* This clearly concerns writing an encyclopedia, based on wp:verifiability and wp:neutral point of view. Now, could you please explain to me what sort of authority is the FBI, which would lead us to introduce this subject in a way that reflects popular media? I would sincerely like to hear. Maziotis (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

*If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. The point here is that you can find that it is true that party X called party Y a terrorist, and that it is not our job to find if it is true or not (wp:verifiability). Otherwise, what would be the point of this guideline? The issue would only be if we have reliable sources or not, like in any other inclusion of content. Maziotis (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understan not asserting 100% that he is a terrorist, but as I have addressed before it violated NPOV to minimalize the crimes he was convicted of. I have tried to collaborate here and have sought input on how to incorporate terrorism into the lead, much like the McVeigh article. While it may be too POV to assert he is a terrorist it is also POV to not mention that he is noted, first and foremost, as the terrorist the Unabomber. Yes we have Unabomber, but we do not write these articles assuming everyone knows what that means. If we add something along the lines of "viewed by many, including the FBI as a terrorist" this would solve that problem. This is what I am trying to do. No one is offering any suggestions to fix the problem I intially was addressing and there is just a straight refusal to refer to him at all as connected to terrorism. I hate to use such a cliche example, but though Bin Laden is considered by some to not be a terrorist, he is still referred to as a terrorist or engaging in terrorist acitivites by a larger majority if not most. And before any bad faith accusations arise, I DO NOT adhere only to what my government states. In fact I am and have been suspicious and thoroughly disgusted for quite some time. However, as is Bin Laden he is most noted as a terrorist. We may not like it or even consider it true based upon our own personal beliefs, but the fact remains that before being a mathematician, neo-Luddite or social critic, Ted Kaczynski is most known for commiting a campaign against the U.S. government and/or its citizens based upon a principle or ideal. Your reference to the reliability of the FBI in this case is confusing to me. Why is the FBI and others credible and we basically assert their findings of the investigation and conviction, but we are not allowed to use the same when referring to their classification? This brings up another question I had referred to earlier on the page. What is the consensus definition of domestic or plain terrorism and in what way does Mr. Kaczynski not meet those definitions? The FBI source I cited directly addressed the definition (ie. lone wolf domestic terrorist versus group domestic terrorist). I also agree that we cannot use only what an agency or government claims, but given the notability standards, how are we addressing what he is most known for?

Again I will compromise labeling him as 100% a terrorist, but I cannot abide the downplaying either. As before I am looking for suggestions to help this and not chasing any particular agenda. In point of fact I happen to have some similar views that one could classify as a bit neo-Ludditte or anarcho primitive, but that does not mean I condone lessening the unfortunate facts of labeling.Meph Yazata (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On another note IMO your reference to source about a galaxy is irrelevant. Of course we judge the reliability of sources before applying them. Otherwise every article would have footnotes and references longer than the bodies of the articles. To say that because there is one extreme case of a sourcing negates the credibility from numerous other sources, which may agree on one particular point, does not make one bit of sense. Meph Yazata (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As another note you keep referring to the guideline, but if you'll notice there is a recent discussion about the use of terrorism. It would behoove you to skip past the first half or so because it becomes a POV finger pointing battle but after that there is some interesting discussion back and forth. Per a few of the editors notes on that page, I am in agreement that this guideline refers to words to AVOID, not words that can NEVER be used. Per my mention of the McVeigh article I think it is important to note the terrorism aspect if not aver he IS a terrorist.Meph Yazata (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two principles involved in my view of the WP:TERRORIST guideline, in the discussion of which I was rather closely involved. The first is that there are no words which cannot be used. The purpose of the guideline is to prevent tendentious and pov labelling, not to lay down an absolutely hard and fast rule. It is not policy, which must be obeyed, but a guideline, to be applied when, after careful consideration of the merits, we determine it is in the better interests of Wikipedia. The second principle, is that the guideline is supposed to be the distilled essence of many discussions on many different cases, not an overarching rule. The specific case remains controlling -- put bluntly, the question is

• Would Wikipedia be better off for noting the terrorism of Theodore Kaczynski, or for refusing to label it as such?

The guideline provides sage advice for guiding, but not determining, the result of our discussion. If the subject is contentious (that is to say, if there is any real argument that Kaczyinski's actions were not terrorism), we should not affirm the implicit viewpoint by calling those acts terrorism. If anybody wishes to present a genuine argument that Kaczynski did not perform terrorist acts, let them step forward and defend that position now, quoting reliable sources to support the existence of such a viewpoint. Do not use the guideline to club your opponents while refusing to engage on the merits. As our discussion at WT:WTA concluded, that is a very ugly and incorrect thing to do, and another editor strongly denied any such purpose behind the guideline when I raised the point. Ray^Talk 06:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and one final point regarding the particular case at hand. There is nothing in the guideline to prevent us from noting that the FBI, the US government, multiple media sources, etc., consider Kaczynski to be a terrorist. That is reliably sourced opinion - Wikipedia is not censored, and we report on all prominent points of view. Ray^Talk 07:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Marginalize his crimes?! It is clearly stated in the introduction that he is convicted of 16 mail bombings, which resulted in the death of 3 people and the injury of 23. What does that have to do with the fact that you want to label him a terrorist? See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Let the labels go, and stick with the facts. Why should adolph hitler and saddam hussein have any better, for example. You don't see people feeling the need to write "tyrant" or even "dictator" (?!) in there.

The fact is that I can find sources pointing to him as something other than a "terrorist". Some people in the green anarchist movement consider him a "political prisoner". But I disagree with your interpretation of that guideline, and I don't see the need to counter that view on Kaczynski to find it dubious. I think that indeed the word "terrorist" is in itself subjective, and so we need to always refer to it as it was used. The issue would be: who called who a terrorist. You don't need a degree in political science to see the ideological games that are played behind this. So, when the U.S. government says that "group A" is terrorist, it means that in fact "The U.S. government says group A is terrorist". It doesn't matter how great the sources you have on the side of U.S.A, some intelectuals believe that the U.S.A government are themselves terrorist.

Right now, I find the article as it is quite interesting, as it alieantes the people who believe he is a terrorist from the popular view. I have no objection to it. I do feel that it goes against the common rule. Maziotis (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Also, as ridiculous as you found the galaxy reference, I am happy to see that you changed your initial description. This time you didn't write that "Theodore Kaczynski is a domestic terrorist", because the FBI said so. Personally, I do think that these people are nutjobs, no less than other conspiracy theorists. Maziotis (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply. Had to armwrestle us cellular over something. I happen to mostly agree with you when it comes to the FBI and such. For all the outside conspiracy theorists I think there are almost as many "manning the guns" in these agencies that are looking for criminal conspiracies. As I had said I do think I made the mistake of asserting ABSOLUTELY he is a terrorist. As you said I did rectify that. I think you're right that we don't need to assert without question. Though I am a bit confused on what you mean by alienating. Are you referring to the use of "some" instead of "many" or something similar? Also I did not mean to imply "ridiculous" out of hand or anything. I just see it leading down a road where everything has (") around it and every period is followed by (1,2,3,4 etc...) Do you know what I mean? In reference to what you said about the bombings in the intro- It seems to me that even before I edited there were 2 mentions of bombings. With the first in the lead, do you think we could move the second instance to the beginning of the Bombing section as an intro? That is were we go in depth to the bombings and the second time bombings is used is more descriptive. Another possibility is to merge the second use of bombings into the first. Do either of these sound viable to you? Meph Yazata (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist? Arbitary break 1

By the "alienating" reference, I meant that the description about the FBI gives the impression that its view is an odd opinion, out-of-touch with what a lot of people think in reality, when what I have been arguing is that it shouldn't be our job to judge. I think we should do it like the guideline describes the way we should reference the crimes of saddam, and how we do we most criminals. We should write what he did, and let the facts speak for themselves.

I think that the intro on 16 bombings, fatalities and wounded should appear on the intro, because they are very prominent to this case. Cutting that from the intro would be a case of marginalizing his crimes, as you have said it. About the FBI classifying him as a domestic terrorist, I was thinking in placing that reference, with that one source, next to where the FBI is mentioned for its legal hunt. I believe this is the most neutral way we can handle this issues. So, we don't have to take side of the state or "militant anarchists" in general. Also, take in mind that this would meant an opening space for rebuttals. That is, we could add the description of other entities besides the FBI, with the proper sources.

If you want to hear my POV, since you already gave a little bit of insight into yours, even though I fundamentally agree with the Unabomber campaign, I don't believe in placing bombs in parking lots. I think that an example of bias on my part would be in wishing to remove any such reference. I don’t want that. It wouldn’t benefit my cause. I want people to have everything they need to take a critical look based on facts. Like the "neutral point of view" policy states, we should try to "resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize — readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." Maziotis (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There. I think that should solve the issue. I changed the application to the acts and not Ted. As you said we are not judging him. We are judging the acts. They are well sourced and with the link we can let people follow the branches to what and why terrorism is applied to these bombings. That work for you? I think this follows the guideline down the middle without as you mentioned judged the man himself, as is used in the McVeigh article I referenced. Though I don't recall if the McVeigh article used the citations like I used here. 21:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MephYazata (talk • contribs)

I reverted your last change. Please read the edit summary. What you did take us back to the problem we discussed around the guideline. We have to take care to keep the "description attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation". Also, I am not sure if you read what I wrote about discussing the fact that he was pointed out as a terrorist by the FBI with the fact that others, such as some anarchist authors, view him in a different light. Maybe we can discuss all of that in the third paragraph? Maziotis (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this. I absolutely provided citations. You have yet to do so and to lecture me with the need for citations is ludicrious and insulting. Your deliberate tossing away of 3 of the 4 is just plain intended disruption. I did not say ONLY the FBI. I provided numerous sources, including ones that are apparently allowed as reliable elsewhere in the artice, and you continue to attack just the FBI. These sources refer to him as a terrorist or domestice terrorist, but they ALL consider the actions terrorist actions. Your recent change shows your unwillingness, or inability, to address my whole point. I will ask the question I have already asked twice and another editor has asked. In what way are his actions NOT defined as a campaign of terror? We absolutely can assert the ACTIONS were terrorizing. This is not to say his ideals are terrorist ideals. But the actions he took were a campaign of inciting terror. I have provided defintion and numerous different sources stating thus and using thus. This follows the guideline you were throwing around. We are NOT judging him, but we can label the actions. This involves defintion which is also part of being an encyclopedia. This is not a dump site for opinion. If we followed the logic you are presenting, then in an article about the Moon, because there is an opinion that the moon is made of chocalate pudding, than the majority consensus that defines the moon as made of rock is useless and the opening should then read- "The moon, considered by some sources to be made of "rock"(1,2,3..) is believed by some sources to "revolve" around the "earth".(1,2,3,4..)

You also seem to be hinging your argument on the assertion that this is a 50/50 debate about whether or not he was a terrorist or committed terrorist actions. In no way have I seen this, or having you provided backing to, this assertion. Whether you like it or not, the average person does not think- yeah the "Unabomber mathematician", "Unabomber neo-Luddite", or "Unabomber social critic.". They think "Unabomber terrorist". In the interest of addressing your concerns and the guideline you were throwing about, I amended to applying the definition to his actions, not him. This is wholly provided for in that said guideline. Meph Yazata (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please calm dawn and read the guideline again. My position has not changed from the beginning. The sources we have are very clear. Party A, B, C and D have determined that Theodore Kaczynski is a terrorist. The reason why we have this guideline is because, unlike the definition provided by the scientists who study the moon, we cannot establish what constitutes terrorism in an objective way. People have differences of opinion on who are the terrorists, and, therefore, whose acts are terrorist (your justification on making the distinction between the two as a way to “judge” objectively the actions, without judging the person is nonsensical, and it has nothing to do with the guideline). I thought that was clear when I provided a whole article concerning the USA (whose institutional defense are those who you reference for persecuting Ted).

Some people like John Moore [1][2] don’t think that he is a terrorist. So, if you agree that it is not our job as an encyclopedia to ignore these opinions and take the FBI as an authority on who is terrorist (in the same way you take the word of scientists about the moon), then the only fact that we can assert in the article is that “Party A says that Ted’s actions are terrorist”, as oppose to “Ted’s actions are terrorist”. It is right there on the guideline!

Please, just look at the title of this section. Are you ready to tell me that it is an encyclopaedic fact that Ted’s actions are terrorist, and that people like me are as insane as people that talk about the moon being made of chocolate? Maziotis (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You say about Ted's campaign that "We absolutely can assert the ACTIONS were terrorizing". The same is said about some actions perpetrated by the United States government. And you don't see people calling these actions terrorist with a source footnote to a Chomsky's essay. Why? Because there are two sides, and we have to remain neutral. The fact is that you cannot be objective about whose actions are meant to "terrorize" and whose are meant to "liberate trough awful, but necessary means". The fact that you shift the semantic reference to the action and not the actor doesn't automatically save your objectivity. Maziotis (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the last time I will address this with you since you refuse to answer. There is indeed a defintion of what constitutes a campaign of terror. The campaign can clearly be differentiated from the ideal. Again you have refused to provided a defintion that does not fit according to Ted's actions. Your claims of my objectivity are absurd and a deflection. Clearly you are simply trying to save face in the form of your "agreement" with his campaign. You do not think bombs should be left in parking lots, so you do think they should be left in bedrooms or mailboxes? This clearly states you have a specific agenda and does not address consensus. You keep tossing up the guideline, but not only have I unlike you provided direct quotations and my reasoning, but I provided numerous various sources, I am adhering to a consensus defintion and... wada ya know?- again you keep trying to direct this as only an FBI involved or backed opinion. You continue to skirt around and directly avoid what I am saying. Your constant need to assume bad faith and personal attacks and misrepresentations (ie. I did not claim you or anyone else was insane.) This a continutation of the "wounded swan" routine. Stop trying to label me as having an agenda when I have provided consensus, defintion, and sourcing to back all of this. You have done nothing but continue in a way that shows your agenda. You even stated and alluded as much. I suggest you read the guideline, understand what a dictionary is, what an encyclopedia is, and what consensus versus single claim means. This is a ridiculous argument that has been sourced and defined on one side and refuted with feeling and vague interpretation on the other. In this light I suggest we both step back and allow another(s) to take a crack at it.

BTW your refusal to seperate a person's ideal/personality from their actions shows that you yourself do not look at this in an objective way just as you accuse me of doing so. I a man may get fired and in a moment of insanity kill four people. We do not label him as a Killer, capital, we label him as someone who killed. This is understandably a sometimes subtle difference, but it is still there. If we say he killed someone that does not necassarily mean that we are calling him a killer. That would imply he is just an organic death machine, with no mitigating factors or characteristics. Meph Yazata (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is funny how I am supposed to be the one making personal attacks and avoiding to discuss in good faith, yet you accuse me of protecting "my agenda" without providing any link. Your reference to mail and bathroom bombs was really cheap. I wonder if you even read my response to you. I did give you sources to "theories" that do not fit the definition of the sources you provided. I didn’t say that you called me insane. I called the people of the "moon reference" insane, to say that your comparison is absurd.

To me, this issue is very simple, and it can be resumed in just one premise that I wrote to you: If you agree that it is NOT our job as an encyclopedia to ignore these opinions[3][4] and accept the FBI (or others) as an authority on defining who is a terrorist (in the same way we accept the word of scientists about the moon), then the only fact that we can assert in the article is that “the FBI (or others) says that Ted’s actions are terrorist”, as oppose to “Ted’s actions are terrorist”. If you cannot understand this, then I believe it is you who doesn't understand what an encyclopedia is.

Again, responding to your example on people killing in a case of momentary insanity, you are not going to work this out through semantics! If a person is said to have killed, then he could be labelled a "killer" – as in one who kills. Obviously the label (as in any label) raises questions about generalization. This individual would be a part of a more restricting category of killers, which would definitely put him in a different light. But in the issue at hand I have to ask you, do you expect me to believe that by calling a campaign “terrorist”, you are avoiding the bias issue (which you have admitted) about the actors. You see, because in this case, unlike the insanity defense killer, we do have a man that carried his actions deliberately trough 20 years. And we do have sources of authors stating that he did NOT acted as a terrorist. Please read the sources I provided. If there is no objectivity in calling a cause or a person terrorist, then we cannot assert what is terrorism, but who calls who a terrorist. It's that simple. That is what the guideline says, and your are just trying to go around it by alienating me as a crazy person with a mad agenda, and playing tricks with what the guideline refers to as an actor and you refer as an action (I already responded to that with chomky's accusation on actions by the United States government as being terrorist). Maziotis (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it seems to me that your argument is "if a campaign TERRORizes people, then it is TERRORist". Which I have to agree in the strictest sense of the term. Hopefully no one is going to fall for that kind of playword. The reason why this guideline was created was because these terms "are often particularly contentious labels that carry an implicit viewpoint". So, to me the issue still just is, there is no authority that can define what constitutes "terrorism" (in the sense that it is used in our culture, not the loose categorical definition). This means, we have to describe "who called who a terrorist”, as oppose to "who is a terrorist". Maziotis (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether we have an editor or some obscure anarchist writer who supports the Unabomber's actions is irrelevant. The overwhelming expert reliable source view is that he was a terrorist. That's what we are here to support. The WP:NPOV policy does not mean we let articles get taken over by people with fringe views to try to push their beliefs onto the word. We do not give WP:UNDUE weight to extreme minority views. The fact that the Unabomber has been documented, and even the small number of scary people who support his views would have to recognize that the way he went about trying to let the world know his views was without a doubt and totally indisputably terrorism. DreamGuy (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist? Arbitary break 2

Just in case a bit more consensus is required, I think Meph Yazata and DreamGuy are leading this article in the right direction. Theodore is surely notable as a terrorist as a range of sources attest, not as a political prisoner as some special interest groups believe? Bigger digger (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I being told that the experts working for the state have found that a campaign carried by an insurrectionary anarchist is illicit?! Are we actually considering the defense of statism in wikipedia with the same level of certainty as the theory of the round earth? Otherwise, where is this talk about "fringe theories" coming from? I don't understand exactly what “obscure anarchist” means, but the guideline seems very clear about "terrorism" being a term that "carries an implicit viewpoint".

The WP:NPOV policy does not mean we let articles get taken over by people with fringe views to try to push their beliefs onto the word. Certainly not, but that's why in the case of a dispute concerning the classification, "terrorist", we have this guideline. The case here is definitely not on whether we should censure the fact that he was labelled as a "domestic terrorist" by notable authorities. That assertion can certainly be a part of the article, without us having to compromise the objectivity in these issues. The idea that the FBI are "experts", as you call them, on defining which groups are illicit in their use of violence, in the same way we have experts defining what are the properties of the moon, constitutes an unacceptable dogma in these sort of political discussions. The FBI is no more expert in defining what is wrong with Ted's ideology than Chomsky is in defining what is wrong with America.

I am honestly shocked to think that someone might believe that he can objectively define the legitimacy of violence, using a source from the FBI. Maziotis (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Guidlines indicate that we discuss before changing the article to new found consensus. Right now, I am keeping the newly added version of MephYazata, not mine! Maziotis (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I am now writing this having not even looked at the discussion since my last post. As I said a break was good. I am sorry if you Maz took that as a cheap shot. I was actually asking a serious question. Usually it would not matter, but given the continued claims of POV made against me without justification I had to ask. I was avoiding the term that DreamGuy used- "fringe". I figured with the haggling we had already done this would only have gotten us nowhere. This is what I was referring to as trying to represent this as if it is a 50/50 debate. As I had said above, I can relate to some sentiments, but I also think that given the fact that he has been overwhelmingly defined as terrorist, but is also used as one of the two most noted examples of 'Lone Wolf" it is important to note. Would it not benefit even those who share his ideals, but do not agree with his methods to have a perfect example to show the difference to those who persecute them? As I had said before, we may not like it or agree, but definition is definition if there is a consensus. Particularly where it is well documented. In regards to your last post Maz, you actually reverted the last edit I made in which I addressed the act as terrorist instead of calling Ted, and in so doing his ideal, terrorist (domestic). This is where you also removed 3 out of 4 references. Given that you do not like using the FBI reference I would think you would have removed any mention of FBI. We don't have to use the FBI reference but I think it should be included given his conviction, sentencing and incarceration. The problem as I see it now is that as I included the wording of ned-Ludditte is seems to imply that neo-luddite equals terrorist act. That definitely should not read that way. This is my new proposal-

Theodore John Kaczynski IPA: /kəˈzɪnski/ (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an American mathematician, neo-Luddite, and noted social critic that carried out a 17 year campaign of terrorist mail bombings across the United States.

The does 3 things-- |Let's you know his most noted aspect as the Unabomber |Gives a very brief description of why his called Unabomber (terrorist) |Calls the methods or acts terrorist but does not assert that he is a terrorist. (see McVeigh) |Tells us that he is also a mathematician and neo Luddite |Includes that he is a noted social critic |Properly addresses consensus definition [5][6]

"With the new extended definition, there are a number of areas for interpretation: what constitutes a "threat"? What is an "ideological cause"? What is meant by "serious" as opposed to any other variety of violence? What is a "serious risk to health" and what is meant by a threat to intimidate the public? How explicit do such intentions have to be?"- this comes from this reference [7]

This is of interest because this refers to BEFORE 9/11 and the expansion of definitions. I quoted the questions asked when applying wider definitions as opposed to the standard (ie 2000 not 2001). --A threat? In this case change or I will bomb you. Pay attention or I will bomb you. Print my manifesto or I will continue to bomb. Pick a form or direction but they equal the same... a threat. --Ideological cause? His anachist/neo-luddite/anti-technology/whatever specific or nominating label you want to use. I am not specifying just listing possibilities. Any one or combination is a idealogical cause. --what is serious? I don't think it gets much more serious than bombs. No need to explain further. --What is a serious risk to health? See above --What is a threat to intimidate the public? Targeting civilians and public places I think pretty much covers that. --How explicit? I don't know if there could be a better example being explicit than telling a paper that if you print my story I won't bomb again. This is saying don't and I will continue to bomb.

I use this specifically to rid the U.S. change and expansion of definition argument out of the equation. I am not trying to even apply post 9/11 reasoning.

To offset only the FBI as Maz has been arguing I also included the Tru Crime reference which is extensively used and viewed as reliable throughout Wiki. And to use an essay and declare that equal to news, and other well documented sources is not the way to go. Even the FBI reference is an actually speech showing documented use of terrorism and terrorist. This was not an essay.Meph Yazata (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW I used those definition sites as examples and because they actually link to many different sites. This allows you to go through various though I think the Princeton defintion would be just fine. Meph Yazata (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have NOT argued that the FBI or TRU CRIME are not reliable. You are distorting the significance of this discussion by insisting in refutations for inexistent arguments. The fact that the FBI has classified Ted Kaczynski as a "domestic terrorist" is certainly notable and can definitely be included in the article. What I have been arguing is that, according to the mentioned guideline, these entities do not have the authority to define who is terrorist, like the scientists have in defining the properties of the moon. That is why when wikipedians gather a whole bunch of sources about U.S government being a terrorist state, even though among them are authors like Noam Chomsky, who could be said to be reliable and notable, the article is written and named in terms of "who called who a terrorist". We cannot determine "who is terrorist". It's the same criterion that is used to name and write the article, List of designated terrorist organizations. You see, they have reliable sources, such as the FBI, too. I want the same criterion. The same criterion that enforced the name of this article to change. I want Ted Kaczynski to be designated as a terrorist.

The FBI is certainly "reliable". But the thing about reliability is that you have to ask, in relation to what? (wp:verifiability) The official website of the "Flat Earth Society", for example, is definitely a reliable source for the inclusion of content in the article, Flat Earth Society. Maziotis (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just reverted the article to the wrong version until we can come up with an intro that covers all of what we have been discussing. There are things I want to include in the article too. Maziotis (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Maz, Meph and others, I'm really impressed by the amount of debate that's happening here, an inspiring example to a newbie editor like myself. I have since looked at the edit history and been a bit shocked, but nevermind..! I hope you find my occasional interventions helpful, I've certainly found your debate interesting. I have three large-ish points for you to consider:

1. Do you need to keep editing/reverting the article whilst this debate continues? There are references to both the points you want to make in the latter two paragraphs of the current lead, both the label of terrorist (in the 2nd para Kaczynski letter he offers to "desist from terrorism" and the 3rd para FBI reference) and the social critic elements. Just because it's not 100% as you might like it it is very close, so could we all take a break on that front unless to actually improve the article in a non-controversial way?

2. I have had another look at the WP:TERRORIST guideline and can see how there are problems labelling him as such, mainly that it moves away from the usual "show, don't tell" nature of wp articles. Show that Theodore was a terrorist, but don't tell the reader it as fact. This is the same as a number of other articles I have looked at for "terrorists" and it makes good sense. I note that this is not what is currently proposed by Meph, just the use of "terrorist mail bombing". Perhaps as a middle way I could suggest the following: the notifiability of Theodore Kaczynski is his bombing campaign, so would it not fit that notifiability to move the injuries and deaths he caused into the first paragraph, perhaps moving more of his other achievements ("Kaczynski received an undergraduate degree from Harvard University and earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley at age 25 but resigned two years later.") into a later paragraph?

3. I've looked back up at what Ray said, and it seems clear to me that the aim of WP:TERRORIST allows the use of 'terrorist' mail bombings in the article. As a parallel, Maz had previously pointed out that that Adolf Hitler isn't labelled a dictator, but the 2nd para in that article states that he "established a totalitarian and fascist dictatorship". Maz, you have repeatedly written on this page in support of the mention of Ted as a "social critic". It seems that most are now happy for that to be mentioned, but you are still against the use of the word "terrorist" despite the weight of opinion being against you. Given the compromise by others for your point why are you not willing to compromise for the majority view, which is established both through various sources and the interpretation of WP guidelines and policies by a number of editors?

Wow, never written that much before on a talk page, I thought you were all verbose!! Bigger digger (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by me being against the use of the word "terrorist"? I am not against any word. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. My last edit of the article includes my proposal, based on what I have been saying. You can judge my position from there. I do agree on what you said about "edit warring". I understand that if someone doesn't agree with any part of my contribution, then he should revert it and discuss other possibilities here.

About Kaczynski's biographical notes, I think the reason why the article was written this way is because people find his scholar achievements as giving context to what he has done. It's not that in themselves they are that impressive. I think that they help us understand the significance of where he was coming from and what his droping out of society means. They do not appear in the intro so that we know just a little bit more about the man. I guess this is somewhat standard for any biography. But it's something to consider. Maziotis (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything Meph wrote based on those several parameters could either define a "terrorist" or a "revolutionary", depending on which side you are on. Bomb threats, risk to civilian life, you name it, has all been addressed in the matter of discussing who has the legitimacy to do violence, whether the subject is an individual or a government. Some authors believe that there is a big difference between sending bombs by airplane instead of a mailbox. Some authors believe there isn't a difference between sending a bomb by airplane instead of a mailbox. This is all part of the subjectivity that raised the guideline, and forced wikipedians to write which sources define which groups to be terrorist, instead of deciding "who are the terrorists". Apparently, Meph has a very subtle way to deal with this problem: "I can do the job myself!"

I hope you understand that you cannot use that source on political dissidence, in the article. You may be very good in doing politics, but this is not the place. Using that source, in that way, would amount to Synthesis.

I am not going to be dragged to this sort of discussion in an encyclopedic article. It's not up to us to define here what is in open discussion through society. That is the issue that is discussed in the guideline around this term. Maziotis (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist? Arbitary break 3

Maziotis, I meant you weren't happy with the use of the word terrorist to describe Kaczynski without all the other bells and whistles as per all the writing above :-) I think I'm coming round to your way of thinking by following show don't tell, but I suppose we need Meph to comment again. If we underline the impact of his bombing campaign in the lead paragraph and drop the terrorist label then that would surely be acceptable? Cheers Bigger digger (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Personally, I think we achieve that by discriminating exactly how many people died and how many people were injured in the intro, and then describe the people and the events in the body of the text, without ever dramatizing the situation with expressions such as "tragic", "unspeakable", etc... Maziotis (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Maz this is the last warning about personal attacks I will give you. You have continued to distort the argument. We have moved past labeling the man as a terrorist and you have not once provided a definition of terrorist acts that his campaign did not fall under. Your facade of hurt indignation is disruptive. I am not the only editor that has noted this fringe POV pushing in you and I am not the only editor that has asked you to provide a counter definition. I have been exceedingly patient given your approach. Time and again I have asked you to address the actual questions and all the sources. You have been picking and choosing, playing the accuse game without justification. I was accomodating in removing the label of terrorist from Ted, even though IMO consensus has been met in defining. I moved to describe the ACTIONS. If you paid attention to what I was providing as a source you would have noticed the difference. Your last post on this matter was still adhering to the actions=person argument. I may have exterminated all the bugs in a basement today, that does not mean I call myself an Exterminator. If you cannot seperate the two that is your problem. An encyclopedia also does not pander to fringe opinions or to those whose feeling are hurt because we call a "spade a spade". My last proposition addresses all concerns, is well sourced there and here, and as long as we seperate things such as neo-luddite, social critic and terrorist with appropiate links, we lead the reader to all the necessary places for examples and definitions. Sorry but your use of an opinion essay to counter numerous and various media sources is unbalanced. It is very odd in light of your argument that you use which sources define which groups to be terrorist. If you follow that link to Lone Wolf, it lists Ted specifically as an example. Again just another nail in the coffin of those that label the MAN. I am simply labeling the ACTION. Your belief that this equals calling him a terrorist is unfortunately offset by the very fact that I include mathematician, neo-Luddite and social critic, with apropriate links, before we label his campaign. BTW, what is the difference you see between campaign and the actions he took to achieve his goals? This is one and the same thing. On another point, while we should not use tyrant, there is not problem using dictator if it is well documented that this was true. This is an actual title and name for a certain type of government. If we used a modifier like "facist" then we should not use dictator. That is neither here nor there though. PS in order for something to have weight as an "open" discussion, the majority kind of needs to know that there is even a debate.

As a note to Bigger, if you think we have talked check out Talk:Alexander the Great. Those people are scary serious. :) I think its great. Meph Yazata (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you want to define whether he is a "terrorist" or not, or his campaign is "terrorist" or not, is your problem in violating wp:neutral point of view and wp:no original research. This has been my argument from the beginning. There is no authority to define such a classification, and therefore we cannot take the word of any entity, or synthesise, based on any source. This is my position, and your demand to take the challenge to provide a counter view on his actions is meaningless. It goes precisely against the point that I am trying to make, and you can accept that or not. The fact that I do NOT assert his actions as terrorist doesn't mean that I am asserting that his actions are not terrorist. Simple logic. I have explained many times why I believe we should describe his designation as a terrorist, per policies and guidelines. I have a limited patience too. Maziotis (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: If you killed all the bugs in your house, then you are an "exterminator". Just not the kind you find in the yellow pages (professional exterminator). This is basic aristotelian categories theory, and you can't win discussions with this sort of semantic arguments. Maziotis (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote above is my basic argument concerning the issue we are discussing, but there are a couple of things I would like to clear out.

It's about the third time that you write this huge speech about how you are a victim for having to talk with a guy who is playing the victim card. Stop that. As far as I know, all my arguments were rational and based on the fundamental policies, namely wp:civility. I cannot take your warning on insults seriously.

I don't understand why you are explainning to me how the term "dictator" is objective regarding dictators. I expressed surprise for the fact that it was NOT used in the said example.

The way the articles are named and written reflect what I have been saying about the need to describe the designation of terrorism instead of deciding which ones are true. This is the case namely in the article that you have referenced, aswell as the one you mentioned in the section above, called domestic terrorism in the united states, in which Ted is listed under a section named, "organizations associated with domestic terrorism". The fact that you have found one article, that is indirectly related to terrorism, and that does not mention him under an "alleged" list of examples, shows nothing other than we having a issue of bias in it. It does not represent an argument of any sort. Otherwise, I do not context that we are dealing with a man that could be described as a militant "lone-wolf".

Your distinction on actions and identity is left without any basis for protecting the element of objectivity in problem of identifying the reality of "terrorism". Since you showed indignation for me not having addressed the problem on the level of "actions", in my last argument, I translate the first part for you. The rest is as it followed:

Everything Meph wrote based on those several parameters could either define a "terrorist action" or a "revolutionary action", depending on which side you are on. semantics....

Again, the problem is that you don't have any reliable source that can define which actions are terrorist, and you cannot synthesize by doing the work yourself. You are left with a sensationalist adjective, as much as it would be the case if you were to represent Ted's campaign as being "tragic". Maziotis (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC

I see three in favor of explicitly labeling the acts terrorism and removing the ridiculous "social critic" label and one person against. 3 to 1 shows consensus, so it's about time we started editing the article to reflect that consensus instead of letting a single person hold it hostage. On top of that, The guy himself admitted he was a terrorist in his own writing, so only someone crazier than he was could think otherwise. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For Maz, sorry pal but declaring that I am trying to single handedly define this is a flat lie. See the post directly above this one. Or how about DreamGuy's earlier post, or Ray's. You keep trying to single me out as if their input, not to mention the numerous sources and examples I have shown, have not occured. You have kept up your little insinuations throughout and these are attacks. Your cannot argue the whole issue. See your adherence to an FBI argument that only you were still involved in. Whether you like it or not consensus is consensus. The only thing you to seem to take from the guideline is that we cannot use these words. Word it as many ways as you want, the argument is still the same.

As to your claim of original research, what part in the 4-5 news sources, with numerous references, not to mention examples from speeches and our own Wiki do you not understand? As for the biased names of ALL the articles, I seem to recall not only many articles reading Ted Kacynski or Unabomber, but I also mentioned this above. Interesting hmm....

Your argument about the definition is interesting considering I provided numerous sources, and links to sources providing consensus defitions form various institutions. And yet still...still you have not provided a definition in which sending a bomb to civilians through the mail does not define a terrorist action per an editor other than myself has asked for. Try reading everything I wrote above and you'll notice I already addressed the issue of providing a path for objectivity with the preceding labels-math.... I am tired of repeating myself.

As for my one artice, and I notice you slickly go around the fact that you yourself lead the argument to that page, I cannot continue to waste my time dealing with what I cannot even decribe in a way civil to Wiki. I guess all the blue I have used above is from one article and source. You have not provided any counter defintion, only an essay written from obvious bias in which you assume this equals (well more than) one source.

As for your objectivity comment, what in the world are talking about in the reality of terrorism? How much more real do you need it?

To DreamGuy. I still see nothing wrong with my last proposal, but I do think it is important to note that Ted, whether we like it or not, is a noted social critic. In fact with the exception of 2 or 3 three other works, I don't know if there is a more notorious social critique than the Manifesto. I would change it, but since I am one of the main editors involved with the contention, I think it would be bad form for me to edited or mess with the protection someone put on. Meph Yazata (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To say "terrorists actions" is to imply I am saying the actions of a terrorist. I am not. I am actually saying the terrorist actions of a mathematician, neo-Luddite and social critic. As the article stands now, I misworded it to read that BECAUSE of these ideals he commited these actions. This I have already said is not correct nor was it my intention to lead a reader to think thus.Meph Yazata (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The "terrorist actions" or the "terrorist campaign" of a person who is a neo-luddite and a social critic also defines someone who belongs to the category of being a "terrorist", in the strictest sense that "terrorist actions" are the actions that are carried by someone who is a "terrorist". Since we have a problem of bias sorrounding the use of this word (action or identity), and we don't know exactly what is meant, we cannot apply it as an objective category. We can only describe its use. This does not mean that I am asserting that "Ted Kaczynski is not a terrorist".

1- You keep insisting on an answer for a definition of terrorism in which Ted doesn't fit. I have given a response that directly addresses just that, several times. I am sorry, but I am not going to repeat myself again.

2- The policies on original research that I provided deal precisely with content that is based on sources. The fact that you insist that your sources are real and notable is meaningless. My argument is not that your sources are worthless and should be excluded from the article. What I argued is that your sources on domestic terrorism can only sustain an assertion such as: "Ted kaczynski has been designated a domestic terrorist by Party X". Meaning, you can only describe the fact that he was determined to be a terrorist, and by which source. This is what is used in all the other articles in wikipedia, and is defended in the guideline. The fact that you even mention the criterion used on other articles in wikipedia is frankly embarrassing.

3- It is not true that I am alone in this discussion, on this talk page (Bigger Digger, Skomorokh), and keep in mind that wikipedia is not about "head count". I will keep arguing for what I believe is right, and in accordance with the challenges that the article faces. I am not going away. It's not like I am trying to defend my version here, against any outside suggestion. Personally, I didn't even want to include any reference to the FBI on what they think about Ted and politics. That is what we were discussing in the beginning. But since you came with a reference that is arguably valid and relevant, I did my best to introduce it in the text, respecting policies and guidelines on neutrality. I am not taking out the fact that he has been determined to be a terrorist. I truly don't understand what more could you possibly want. Maziotis (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist? Arbitary break 4

Dreamguy, I don't know if you noticed this, but you are not even defending the same position as meph. He has agreed that describing Ted as a terrorist is bias, but considers making the same reference to his actions as non-bias. I suppose that to you this is only the difference of being one step closer to sanity. But for those who want to write a serious, neutral encyclopedia, this is not about sides. I think your comment about being crazier than Ted doesn't leave much to wonder about you turning this into a POV struggle. We have discussed here on this talk page why Ted Kaczynski wasn't actually defining his actions to be terrorist. We found consensus, and so we changed the article to the way it is now, where he might be addressing the police in terms of their system of values. Either way, we are in the business of writing an encyclopedia, not Ted. Maziotis (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is something that I can't understand in Meph's position. If the FBI has determined that Theodore Kaczynski is a terrorist, why would you find such a reference to be admissible as a source to the association regarding his actions and not his identity? Here is another point where you can see that you are doing the job that others have considered problematic for its subjectivity, and engaged in synthesizing sources. Would you, for example, include in the text the information that the majority of people believe that he is a terrorist if these same sources had said so? Of course that they themselves can believe in that, but we would need a reliable source on the level of statistics. The problem is neither on their interpretation nor on the reliability of the source, but in the way you assume its premise. The problem is in your understanding of wp:verifiability and of what type of assertion this source can sustain. Hypothetically, it would be even possible to find an FBI member that would be embarrassed to see the very same statement he made, in a supposedly scientific article.

The issue is that entities like the FBI are supposed to be bias in what our work is concerned. They classify Ted Kaczynski as a "terrorist", but they also consider an "anarchist" as someone who defends and unacceptable political philosophy. We don't have that stand here in wikipedia. The FBI conclusions come from their work and beliefs in the world. It's not something that can be assumed by an encyclopedia, and it's not even a question of them being right or wrong. Maziotis (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah time off in the real world can be nice. Anyways I see you are still regurgitating my stuff Maz. You can continue to misrepresent what I say and attack me personally, but in the end it does not matter. I have had to repeat myself so many times with you I am starting to wonder if you actually read what others write or only scan for certain words. Lets take a look at the hilarious ineptitude of your first three "points".

Let's see for starters providing ONE opinion essay from a known biased source does not equal provided sources in which a counter definition is provided. Again as you have done throughout you do not provide any scientific or even credible support. You are providing your opinions and interpretations as if this is notable. Sorry, but I don't recall an article about Maz the noted and world renowned scholar. So your accusations of synthesizing are ridiculous. You are still trying to argue that this is a 50/50 debate and that most people on the planet are split on the issue of Ted's mail bombings being terrorist. (Insert your own "wrong" buzzer sound here.) "Point" 2 I just addressed above. "Point" 3- Sko made a two bit bad faith accusation and has not been back. Bigger did not seem to aver either way and even asked Maz questions that Maz has ignored much as Maz has ignored my questions. Yeah, this is obviously an resounding backing for Maz.

Telling DreamGuy that I do not think he should be called a terrorist is simply false. I said I was willing to compromise and accommodate Maz's view and apply the term to his mail bombings. Since Maz continues to be obstinate and push a fringe POV under the guise of "neutrality", I am now retracting this attitude of compromise. Whether Maz likes it or not, Ted is considered a terrorist to the point of the collective conscious. Whether or not this makes someone have to take an honest look at their little hero is simply too bad. WE ARE NOT AN OPINION DUMP. This is indeed an encyclopedia. We do not cater to every single fringe theory, opinion and we do not allow such to hijack our articles in the false name of neutrality. Maz is not trying to protect peoples' ability to decide for themselves, Maz is trying to protect his own ideals and heroes. I, nor anyone else is required to care about fringe groups "feeling bad". The proper way to address this in the article would be to call him the terrorist he is and most consider him to be with a section that represents the minute minority that consider Ted to be "awesome".

"The fact that you even mention the criterion used on other articles in wikipedia is frankly embarrassing". What a joke you are Maz. The fact that you apparently are allowed to mention other articles and guidelines according to your interpretations while calling my doing the same embarrassing is simply asinine and shows you should not even be here. What's wrong? Still pissed that your own words came back at you when I followed your own cite and it led to the section where Ted is considered one the most known examples of a lone wolf terrorist within that same place? I can understand since that must have really sucked. And here we are back to the FBI. Since I have had to mention this at least four times already, this will be the last time Maz. You are outright lying about your actions in the editing and on this very talk page. You took the FBI reference, eliminated the other 4 or 5 and turned a phrase that was dealing with the majority into a fringe view of its own. You have not once, even when asked numerous times, addressed the other references. I even gave you a link to numerous examples that would allow you to check various different sources, but again you dismissed such and made a personal accusation. I have been extremely patient and even tried to be accommodating, but you simply refuse to address anything without your posturing. Again and again you have attacked the FBI reference as if this is the only one. Is Maz simply incapable of anything else?

Maz's continued POV pushing while accusing everyone that disagrees with this as POV pushing is not only disruptive, but utterly offensive to the Wikipedia environment. Too bad Maz if your hero or the hero of your "campaign" is considered a terrorist by the overwhelming majority of people. It is not our job to make you feel better about yourself. Do that on your own time and stop trying to make everyone a part of it. And here's a thought, why don't you try stepping back and letting someone show all that "vast" support you were invoking earlier? Meph Yazata (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You once again respond with personal comments and not a single argument. You accuse me of "POV pushing", yet you don't even attempt to make a case for it. I will get back with you in case you decide to participate in the discussion again. Maziotis (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You see Maz, if you paid attention to what I wrote above you would know that I have already addressed these while you continue to side step or misrepresent into arguments that are not being made that you feel you can win.Meph Yazata (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Some things I want to clear out:

Your desire to reflect the feelings of what you perceive to be the moral majority is the definition of a sensationalist tabloid, and it is incompatible with the goal of achieving a neutral, objective encyclopedia. That is not the way we do things around here. In order to be neutral, when you speak on the majority, you have to provide sources for exactly just that, without ever synthesising, holding the reference with a clear attribution. Otherwise, you are indeed synthesising.

I have particularly addressed the reference of the FBI because this is the most notable entity, which is currently designating Ted as a "domestic terrorist", in the article. A lot of times I made references to entities, using the plural, accommodating all of the sources you provided. The reason why I dismissed those other in most of my arguments is because they stand for a position that neither you nor me are challenging it. All you proved is that there are people out there who believe he is a terrorist, and then use that to synthesize assertions. And it is synthesizing, by the interpretation of policies and what the subjectivity of this term is concerned in the guideline; not conclusions of my own, while I pretend to be a scholar as you said. Simply, I argued that those wikipedia sources are clear about an entity such as the FBI not being an authority on determining who is a "terrorist". I didn't lie about your sources and I am asking you to please calm down and read wp:civility

All the wikipedia articles that we discussed have described the designation of Ted as a terrorist, which is exactly what I have been defending here, in case you want to keep the FBI reference. You speak about Ted’s negative impressions on society as If I was arguing for its removal of the article. I suppose that at least defending what you called a "fringe theory" would be the case if I, in the name of neutrality and compromise of balance views, had tried to both describe the designation of Ted as a terrorist by the FBI and as an "anarchist political prisoner" by the Green Anarchy collective. I am not there yet. [8] Maziotis (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: You have clearly stated above that you believe that in order to avoid bias we should judge the actions and not the man. Now, you speak about having compromised, and that you feel it is not a question of bias to call him directly a terrorist. This reflects inconsistency in your views and a case of pov-pushing. We are not dealing here in the business of traffic of influences. You should stick with defending the version you believe is right. I don't need charity. Maziotis (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah and I see that the 4 or 5 different, well known news sources I provided weren't as notable as the FBI huh? Try again pal. You deliberately changed what I had used from representing a majority representation into a minority. Stop lying period. I do not have to repeat myself about these things. That is the beauty of these printed words. You just crossed your own words. If you are holding the FBI as the most notable entity as only a designator, than how are the WELL KNOWN NEWS entities any different. You are not doing anything different now than from what I just talked about before. Repeating the same misrepresentations and errors in 6 different ways does not make them any different. Until you actually pay attention to what I write, or others, and answer those different points in a way that is not regurgitating and continuing your posturing, there is no point in me adding to the above. Again this is the beauty of this format. You have yet to truthfully address what is being done and then turn around and accuse everyone else of the same. It is just silly and a waste of time. Don't bother replying until you actually address things. I'm not interested in repeating myself.

In regards to the last little statement you made, I quite clearly addressed this earlier and yet per your MO during this discussion you misinterpreted and misrepresented. I was willing to compromise and not designate Ted himself as a terrorist, but apply the term to the actions. I said I was now not willing to give into this POV pushing of yours. We call a spade a spade period. We do not pander to those who don't like to think our heroes can be criticized. Is this clear enough yet for you. As I write this I realize I have had to repeat myself too many times. You deliberately side step and misrepresent over and over. I am tired of this. It is annoying enough when you have to tell someone something over and over. It is worse when you have to type. Meph Yazata (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I say the 4 or 5 sources you provided weren't notable? Did I say that I ignore them because they weren't as notable as the FBI? No. The question about notability concerning these sources, as any other, is: notable about what? I see you prove there are news sources that believe he should be called a "terrorist". And at some point of MY argument I did not challenge this fact. I have never pretended they didn't exist and I did address them in my overall argument. I think my last post is very clear about this. If you want to discuss about how we can include more sources and more content in the article, feel free to talk about it. But as for the designation of Ted Kaczynski as a terrorist, I do believe that you do not have sources to sustain the specific assertion you made. Don't try to make this into a case of the sources not being notable to provide content for the article, as I am not trying to exclude these facts. I just have a different interpretation on how to use this sources under wikipedia policy.

Now, just because I am not going your way, doesn't mean that the world is against you (the format of the wiki, my will and praise for protection on my sneaky ways, etc...) Stop whining. Most of your response is about how I am disruptive and unwilling to comply with your good faith participation, and it's borderline wp:civility. Please try to be clearer on how I failed to understand your argument. As far as I know, that is the essence of a discussion, and we are all bearing that same challenge.

I can understan not asserting 100% that he is a terrorist....

You went from calling him a terrorist to just expecting to highlight his crimes. Then you come up with the solution to "only" judge his actions. And now you are talking about having compromised and back at wanting to directly label him a terrorist. Does this mean that you are dropping this initial position, at the top of the discussion? Or just a part of it? It seems that you are more interested in finding out how to "treat" Ted Kaczynski, among the group of people you have found here, than to write an objective entry. Maziotis (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Please stop with this "POV pushing" acusation nonsense. Obviously, if I am interested in Theodore Kaczynski, it is only natural that you find me here editing his article and taking up issues. That itself doesn't constitute a case for me being bias. I am not defending any "heroes", and I think it would be better for the cause of the encyclopedia to drop this sort of ad hominem arguments. Maziotis (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist? Arbitary break 5

• Labelling Kaczynski a "terrorist" is an unnecessary characterization that obscures the clear presentation of the introduction. Even the Bin Laden article does not bother labeling Bin Laden with a declaration that "he is a terrorist". The article finds it useful to say he is "the founder of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda", because a complete summary of Al-Qaeda attacks is not feasible in the introduction. With Kaczynski, there was only one set of attacks, and Wikipedia need not super-add that "mail bombing campaign" = "terrorism". —Centrx→talk • 04:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still arguing about this! I've come for a look as the page got protected, and it's not even about this. No-one has moved, attempted to build a bridge to consensus, gone looking for dispute resolution or walked away. You've all just stone-walled, typing the same thing over and over. I grew bored of your constant back and forth. Having been away, grown up as a wikipedian, and come back, I'd say Centrx is spot on. I'd like to think that's what I wrote further up but I don't want to break my scroll wheel going back up to check :-p – Bigger digger (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

First Centrix, this has not been about solely calling Ted a terrorist. There has been numerous revisions and arguments for that use as well as others. I ask you to then address the initial problem I had with the intro and suggest how it could be changed to better address those concerns. Taking a specific part or what you want, to make a conclusion you want, in order to make a statement about it does not help. This is part of what has gotten this as far as it is. There has been much more to it, and as yet, there has been no suggestions or counter-suggestions offered, only refutation.

For Bigger, if you paid attention to me you would have noticed I have repeatedly attempted different compromises to reach consensus. And gee whiz, I believe I am typing after taking my SECOND break from this, and this has been even longer. And I also believe I asked for 2 separate editors to come have a look and offer their input to help reach a resolution. What in this statement by you "No-one has moved, attempted to build a bridge to consensus, gone looking for dispute resolution or walked away." is not matching up for you? You growing bored is irrelevant. I repeatedly had to go back and point to the questions that were sidestepped because they were the relevant questions. Read what I wrote and you would understand. If you don't want to break your scroll wheel and look at everything that you are trying to comment on, then honestly you have no business commenting with an attitude of exasperation. People may see me being uncivil by the end of my correspondences with Maz, but I am human and like anyone I am only going to take some pulling the routine of doing and then accusing others of doing. A good example was Maz accusing me of POV pushing and then asking that I not accuse him of POV pushing. Anyone else see the problem with this? I also refuse to lie back and let someone flat out lie, especially when the evidence is a mouse scroll/click away. Here's an example.

Did I say the 4 or 5 sources you provided weren't notable? Did I say that I ignore them because they weren't as notable as the FBI? No and then lets take a small look above- I have particularly addressed the reference of the FBI because this is the most notable entity, which is currently designating Ted as a "domestic terrorist", in the article. now combine this with Maz's earlier action of deliberately DELETING 3 or 4 references used with the FBI that oh I don't know, just happened to be 3 or 4 major news networks too. Any explanation for this? Anyone? People just coming into this discussion or picking a paragraph or two to read and then assuming they can speak on the whole is not helping. I could list each argument again, but as I said even before Bigger, this was getting us nowhere and creating a problem with no solution. Given this fact and the other facts I just expressed, I cannot take seriously criticism from those telling me try resolution steps that I have indeed tried and long before anyone lectured me that I should. Meph Yazata (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Meph wants to reflect the "truth" about Ted Kaczynski having alienated himself from society, trough his crimes. He argues that he is afraid that those factual aspects of this story are not well addressed in a balanced encyclopedia, because of this omission. Well, just look at the intro. His crimes are clearly described, along with his "terrorist" status, in a notable source. The only people who show "sticking up" for him are "some" anarchists, mentioned at the end of the section, who hold some RESERVATIONS over his ACTIONS and ideas. The fact that you want to label him an "evil doer", has got nothing to do with the clear description of his crimes, condemned by the people who are notable to condemn, and the lack of support that comes with it.

This is how we remain objective. We should "resist the temptation to label and moralize", as to avoid violating the fundamental value of neutrality. This is written in our policy. If you feel you want to take a direct consideration on society at large, you have to at least find a source with a clear attribution to exactly that, without any synthesis. What you are doing is way out of line. This is not only a question of neutrality, but of objectivity. If you find a source that can be clearly atributed as an authority on terrorism, then you can label Ted without also violating original research. These two policies are obviously connected, and I believe the guideline on terrorism exists because of a clear, useful connection of the two already being made. The fact is that you can't find that source. I am not even discussing the sources you have at the moment. We have the most cited author in the world pointing to some of your very sources as being terrorist. The idea that we should let the FBI and the CNN speak for ourselves is degrading, like an information entity speaking to the people for the state. It's way out of what we are trying to do here in terms of being objective and neutral.

MY TAKE on this problem is that the issue on legitimacy of violence is too subjective in social sciences, and the term TERRORism is too vague and sensationalist. Asking where is the source of terror in society is like asking for the source of freedom. Every political position has one, except that everyone believes in the term "freedom" for a real concept, while "terrorism" is judged by some as being sensationalist in itself. A term that was created by a specific political faction, such as "those liberals in power", to acomodate people like Ted. It is not a designation to be treated seriously in scholarly sources, as not in an encyclopedia.

I think the issue here is very simple. Per wp:npov and wp:original research, find me a source that is an authority on terrorism, and I will accept to assume its designation instead of attributing it. Please don't turn this around as if someone were arguing here for removing it. I clearly explained why I don't believe those 4 or 5 sources support the specific assertion you are trying to include. All you have is the vague, unsupported accusation that, if I deleted them, is because I am embarrassed by their support on your views. You added nothing to this debate with your last response. The 4 or 5 "major news sources" cannot speak for us about who is terrorist and who is not. This is not a tabloid. You have to conclude falsifiable assertions from the sources, with NPOV and NOR, without ever synthesizing.

There was a time when you seemed to understand that you couldn't 100% label him a terrorist, while reading the guideline for the word "terrorism". I suggest you give it another go and read it.

About me lying, I have to ask you to read the whole thing and put things in context. As I have said, over and over again, the issue on notability begets for the question, "on what?". Flat Earth Society is certainly notable about what the "Flat Earth Society" believes, not on what the shape of the earth is. I do believe the FBI are notable about giving their reason on interfering with Kaczynski's life (huge issue to talk on this article). I don't think the CNN, for example, is an authority on deciding who is terrorist and who is not. These are different issues. I will say it again; I don't believe the FBI is a more "notable" source than TRUtv, and I didn't remove those sources on that ground. There is no contradcition here. Go and read again what I said about including the FBI as the most notable source, in context. You have no basis for accusing me of intentionally lying and I ask you (once again) to read wp:civility. Maziotis (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Meph, sorry, it wasn't my intention to rile you, but as you note this conversation has not actually moved anywhere despite all the typing. To me this dispute is about the first paragraph in the lead, he is already described as a terrorist throughout the article and it is attributed accordingly. If I'm honest, the two of you spend so long writing around the dispute and reminding each other of previous arguments, and opining on more general topics that it's no suprise you get nowhere and I get lost.

I've just re-read the entire section (life slipping through my fingers...) and although Meph has clearly tried to move, Maz hasn't moved so much because he is rigidly sticking to a guideline, I think. Maz, I think you can see that the majority here would like to see the inclusion of TK's actions described as terrorist. Having re-read everything and looked again at WP:TERRORIST I don't see a problem with the FBI (as the body tasked with stopping the attacks they represent a significant POV in the issue) being attributed to labelling the attacks as terrorist. In order that we might move this forward, can you try WP:Writing for the enemy? Bigger digger (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I do that? I am sorry, but I am a little bit confused. Isn't that the current version? I added the "terrorist" status of Kaczynki in the introduction, with the FBI source. If you read the whole discussion, you should understand that I have a different take than this one. So, I believe I have written for the enemy. Did I miss something?

As for what the majority of people want, I have to remind you that I did not raise any objection to including the description of Ted as a terrorist, just as I explained in the paragraph above. For now, I do see a majority of 4 people, including yourself, who have expressed the need to point out to his description as a terrorist, instead of objectively categorizing him as such. Maziotis (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maz, if we all walked away now never to edit the article would you be happy with the lead section? It is my understanding of this dispute that you are unhappy with the line that runs "he is described by the FBI as a domestic terrorist" because you don't think the FBI has sufficient authority on who is or isn't a terrorist. I am quite happy with the lead as I feel it meets WP:TERRORIST by directly attributing the claim to a significant POV. If I am mistaken please point out where the dispute lies. Bigger digger (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current version at least is not a blant violation of wp:original research. What I have been arguing on the authority of the FBI has to do with the fact that Meph wants to write that "Theodore Kaczynski is a terrorist", based on the fact that the FBI and other news sources say so. I am not sure you understood that. My issue with the current version would be perhaps more a matter of undue weight, but it would be something I would be quite willing to accept. The designation of Ted as a terrorist by the FBI that you made reference to was included by me, in order to respect the source on wp:verifiability. Maziotis (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ho ho, I do understand that, but I think it's got a bit twisted along the way. As I read it, Meph would accept the attribution of the label to the FBI, but I don't want to put words into his mouth. Hopefully he'll come and reply, if not it seems there's not a problem here. Bigger digger (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe now you can see my argument in a different light. Given these sources and our policy, I think it is very clear that there is a huge difference between describing the designation of Ted as a terrorist, with the proper atribution to the source, and calling him a terrorist. This has been the discussion for most part of it. The statements in question are "Ted Kaczynski was called a terrorist by party X" and "Ted Kaczynski is a terrorist". We can describe the fact that the FBI called Kaczynski a terrorist; We cannot recognize the FBI or a news source as an authority on terrorism and designate Ted as such objectively. Maziotis (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

<--I think I've always understood that argument (but have not always remembered the argument) it's just not clear to me what the objection was. Hopefully Meph will return and let us know or others will contribute to acheive a consensus. Given that the current locked version only uses the word terrorist in conncetion with the FBI is that acceptable to you? I think the opening paragraph can go without a terrorist mention but it needs rearranging. TK is most notable for the bombing campaign, so I think that needs to be mentioned first. Something like:

Theodore John Kaczynski (pronounced /kəˈzɪnski/; born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber for carrying out a campaign of mail bombings. A United States mathematician and eventual neo-Luddite social critic...

Bigger digger (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that is the best wording, but I have no objection to that idea. Maybe "...also known as the Unabomber in association with a campaign of mail bombings"? I don't know... Maziotis (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, I wasn't concentrating on the wording, just trying to indicate what I think should be there. Bigger digger (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong link to "Max Weber"

The link in this section is obviously pointing to a wrong article – could someone please fix it? Tigrisek (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing bibliography

The information you find in the section you want to delete constitutes important documents that are used for further investigation. These are not spam of any kind. We are not dealing with opinion pieces, but historic elements of the subject that is being portrayed in the article. I can see no argument whatsoever for its removal. These are historic documents, forming an appendix section, which is perfectly common in this type of neutral, objective article.

You may wish to rename the section or re-organize the documents, but removing it is nonsense. This is information that is referenced in journalist (sometimes sensationalist and clearly anti-kaczynski) pieces such as Trutv. This is perfectly fine under guidelines, and in no way constitutes POV just because you find some of the information intelligent and persuading.

Kaczynski did send these letters and wrote these essays, and censuring it makes as much sense as censuring anything else. Maziotis (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider the use of Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY#REPOSITORY. This is not a collection of opinion pieces and random information found on the internet, mentioning Ted. Maziotis (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory, so providing links to all of those separately -- including several sites that fail WP:RS and WP:EL -- is completely pointless. All we need to do is link to Wikisource, as we already do.

And "clearly anti-kaczynski" just betrays your pro-terrorism POV-pushing.

You do not WP:OWN this article, and I'm not going to let you continue to act as if you do, especially with edit comments like " I have been here a long time, and everyone interested in these facts)" -- you don't speak for everyone, and length of time here means nothing, especially with me having been here longer than you have anyway.

Multiple people have undone your edits. You must face up to the fact that WP:CONSENSUS disagrees with you. DreamGuy (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Once you guys have sorted out this issue by actually discussing it, rather than edit warring I'll remove the full protection. Kevin (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed in edit comments. We can discuss, but I doubt Maziotis will give up. From his edit history he doesn't seem to be interested in any discussion, just what he wants to do. DreamGuy (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The full protection is not going to be lifted until there's some kind of agreement here on the talk. Enigma^msg 23:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"pro-terrorism POV-pushing"? Seriously, I don't even know what this is. Does this mean that I am proud to be "terrorist" oriented, and that I edit here in wikipedia with that in mind...?

Anyway, what I wanted to express about the Trutv source is that we have an example of an article that is referencing some letters for the purpose of covering a subject in journalism, without any intention to do propaganda. I am not complaining about them not defending Ted, I am just pointing out that they are critical of his work while sourcing it. It was just one minor point that I was trying to make in order to corroborate my argument, and I don't see why you should make a big deal of this.

The references that I believe are worth to be kept at the end of the article are such type of documents. I truly cannot understand the reason why you would oppose creating a link for it. I have seen this being used in all sorts of biographies. I could give you some examples, but I am sure you would go on about why I chose X and not Z, or Z and not X. Clearly you have an issue with me that I don't want to feed. I don't see what kind of serious discussion I can have with someone who labels me as "pro-terrorism", without even ever having any real debate about anything.

I just want to make clear that it is my experience that these sources interest most people, based on the time that I have been here. If anyone has a different perspective, based on whatever time and experience they have in wikipedia, they are obviously welcome to share it with the rest of us. Maziotis (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"...but I doubt Maziotis will give up. From his edit history he doesn't seem to be interested in any discussion, just what he wants to do."

Don't you mean my profile? You tell me what version you have seen me defending here trough edit warring. I know we have had a brief conflict in a previous issue, but my version didn't stay up any of the time. It's noble of you to come here with the intention of not letting people violate policy, but you are not the guardian of anything either. I am asking you to take a look into your personal comments and change your behaviour to better fit wp:civility. If you believe I am violating any policy, you should be more clear about it. Maziotis (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to state my POV, it's extremely obvious that Kaczynski was a terrorist, but that's not really the reason I'm commenting here, I'm trying to help make a better encyclopedia, according to the policies and guidelines laid down through consensus. I have read WP:NOTREPOSITORY and don't believe the list of articles is in violation of any of the 4 criteria. Could someone who believes it is violating please copy and paste the relevant criteria here so that it's clear?

I have also had another read through WP:ELNO. Based on the last diff with the "Bibliography" in, hardly any of the sources seem to be inappropriate. I would question whether the Ship of Fools bit is relevant, but I suppose it offers further insight into TK's state of mind. There might be a problem with WP:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view as all these works are by or about TK, but if this was made clearer I don't see why it shouldn't stay, especially in an article about him.

Finally, we're here to discuss the article, so there shouldn't be a need for anyone to be uncivil, whether that's questioning someone's POV or questionning their motives, which are the uncivil things I've spotted just in this section. I'm not blaming, I'm just saying it would be nice to focus on the article, and not the editors. Fingers crossed! Bigger digger (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree we should discuss the edits and not the editors.

For the record, I believe the edit in question does indeed violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, which states, "Wikipedia articles are not [m]ere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Having a list of links so extensive that it requires four sub-section headers is clearly excessive and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

Is there one reliable website we could link to that provides a complete list of Kaczynski's works? — Satori Son 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Satori. I don't know about a website that has a complete list of his works - that would be an ideal solution. However, I have to disagree with your reading of WP:NOTLINK. The important word is mere. This article is not merely a list of TK's works, it's a hefty article that does a fairly decent job of discussing him. WP:NOT generally seems to discuss entire articles and what is inappropriate, but not specific sections of a suitable article. A more comprehensive article would probably discuss his works in more depth, but as we're not yet at that stage I think it's important that this relatively short list, appended to the end of a large article, is maintained so that users can benefit from it. I would therefore submit that keeping the list makes for a better article that is compliant with policy/guidelines/etc. How does omitting the list help the article? Bigger digger (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And, looking at WP:EL again, it states that suitable links include: "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." I think that sums up the links well, they make for a better (more comprehensive) article. On the other hand it also mentions at WP:ELMAYBE the Open_Directory_Project, I'll have a look at that tomorrow as it sounds like there could be potential there. Bigger digger (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just expand the Wikisource article, a link to which is already included, and leave it at that? Our Wikisource sister project seems like an ideal repository for such an extensive list of writings. — Satori Son 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on, let's face it. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the average people in here didn't find his arguments to be somewhat "rational". If we were dealing with a true lunatic, everyone would be more than happy to keep track with an apprendix on his "manifestos". At least, this is my personal take on the subject.

We should not exclude any facts, for the good and the bad. This is the true anti-bias path. Wikipedia is not about censorship. If he wrote all those works, and they are out there in the world, this section is valuable and to be considered in any sort of article. This is far from being the case of putting up with a long, tiresome list of bibliography, as I have found many times in other biographies. Maziotis (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography discussion break

Satori, the wikisource project requires that all the writings are "free", and that is a lot of work to verify all of those. Again, I would ask how the article benefits from omitting the links?

Maz, I agree with your second paragraph, that's why I think this information should be included, but please refrain from commenting on other editors, we're trying to be constructive here ;-)

Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, I believe, in general, such lists are excessive and thus detract from the purpose of Wikipedia to provide a concise compilation of knowledge. (See WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:Purpose.)

More specifically, none of the following websites even remotely meet the requirements of WP:ELNO and/or WP:Reliable sources: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.unabomber/, http://www.tatom.org/, http://www.sacredfools.org/, http://stephenjdubner.com/, http://www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk/, or http://www.montanaheritageproject.org/. — Satori Son 21:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And finally, by saying the writings might not be free, you have raised issue with another policy, WP:ELNEVER, which prohibits linking to websites that do not have a proper license to re-publish non-free material. If we believe this might be the case, we absolutely cannot link to the writings.

I simply do not see how this list could be included without violating numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Satori Son 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't link to copyright violations, we shouldn't link because we think Kaczynski's arguments are convincing or lunacy, and we shouldn't link to bad convenience links. Google groups seems like a poor choice, I don't recognize the others, but if they're not defensible they shouldn't be used. If Kaczynski writes prolifically, we won't be able to link to all of them and should choose the "best" - long, appropriate copyright, and reliable in the sense that we can rely on the publisher to have never commented, edited, adjusted or otherwise given "spin" to. One book that should be in the bibliography is Truth Versus Lies as it's by the topic of the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument for including this links was never about kaczynski's arguments being either convincing or lunatic. The argument about including this links is in fact that they are good convenience links. Kaczynki is not in fact a prolific writer. This very short list would simply gather in one place all documents, written by him personally or not, with his ideas and why he made the choices he did from his own perspective. Maziotis (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your desire of having "in one place all documents, written by him personally or not, with his ideas and why he made the choices he did from his own perspective" is not the purpose of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. However, as has been stated several times, Wikisource is an ideal project for said purpose. — Satori Son 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's only natural that Wikipedia has not the purpose of satisfying my own such particular desire. Still, I tried to point out to the benefit of this choice. I think it's quite common to find an end appendix with related documents at the end of articles, in different formats (encyclopedic or not). I don't think it is adequate to describe such section as a personal whim. Wikisource is not adequate at all for this purpose, since in this case it would be limited to the documents written by Kaczynski himself. You can point out that Wikisource is the best available solution for the said objective, but that is a different issue. Maziotis (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The best, and least conflict-filled way to get these documents linked to wikipedia is to expand the wikisource page. If wikisource isn't willing to link or use these links, then we shouldn't. Easily-editable sites with no real claim to reliability (particularly web forum posts and personal pages) don't make good convenience links in my mind. Even from Wikipedia:Convenience link#Reliability, "when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible." Has anyone done so for these versions? It's also a concern whether we're linking to copyright violations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly which item are you referring to? As far as I know, all of these works exist either in a notable internet source or printed paper magazine. Maziotis (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

<-- The list of links we are discussing refers to works by Kaczynski. I think there are actually two separate decisions to be made. 1/. Whether such a list should be included. 2/. If the links in the list are suitable. My earlier point about the copyright of the works listed was that I don't know if wikisource would be able to host them by copying them from where they are currently displayed. Wikisource doesn't seem to link to other hosts of writings.

Thanks to a dispute on an article about whether it was ready for sections (don't ask!) I have come across Wikipedia:Layout#Works - it would seem to be normal practice to include a list of the subject's works, and providing links to those works just makes the article more useful. Furthermore, there's a MoS page as well to show how these lists are created. It is then a matter of going through each link and deciding if it's (a) reliable and can be linked to, (b)can be copied to wikisource or (c) rubbish; and then proceeding as appropriate. Is that ok with everyone? Bigger digger (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me and matches with the guide to layout. I would only reference those items that were published in reliable sources, and self-published documents (letters, etc) with caution and only if notable (in the non-wiki sense) and citeable. The convenience links should only be used if they are clearly acceptable by our policies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the letter written by Kaczynski that exists in a printed magazine, and is linked here in a forum of google groups? Maziotis (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say no for two reasons - first, and less important, it's just a letter. Unless it's a really important letter, how much does it add? Second, and more important for wiki-reasons, it's a bad convenience link, as there is no control over the posting of the contents of the letter. The post can be edited deleted, the group could die or move, and there's no guarantee that it represents the actual letter's contents. If the letter is somehow important and representative of Kaczynski's thoughts or otherwise a noteworthy, I would suggest citing the magazine article but not actually linking to it. Readers, if truly motivated, can google it or find the magazine, but we shouldn't be giving wikipedia's imprimatur to the contents. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important we list all the works but not quite got my head around the external link issues yet. I've had some help from the lovely people over at WikiSource which suggests Maz might want to get cracking over there, see s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Theodore_Kaczynski.2FUnabomber. They also pointed me in the direction of WP:LINKVIO that might be relevant at some point. I think we're now back to a level of reasonable debate about editing the article, partly because of User:MephYazata apparently leaving, so I'll ask for the page to be unlocked. Bigger digger (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a letter?... As far as I am aware, it is the only written reference concerning Kaczynski's views on what happen with the lawyers' decision on the plea. The article is real, printed in a magazine and about a crucial point of the story mentioned in the introduction. I asked about this particular letter because you open up the possibility of having an internet source that is not by itself notable, but a way of giving access to otherwise lost information. I am aware of your two objections. It was with them in mind that I asked about this particular example. Maziotis (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources pro and anti terrorist

Pro terrorist

• ".. the domestic terrorism trials of U.S. v. Kaczynski .. ", via the USDOJ.GOV
• "Richard Reid—the “Shoe-Bomber”—is an example of what a “lone wolf” terrorist looks like. So are Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski..", from the "The Safe and Secure America Act of 2009" located at HOUSE.GOV

Anti terrorist

• "While views vary widely concerning whether Theodore Kaczynski (the UNABOMBER) and .. are terrorists, the FBI does not classify the acts committed by these individuals as incidents of terrorism.", via FBI.GOV

Comments

• Based on the above, it's fairly established that calling him a terrorist or not is a pre-existing controversy, outside of Wikipedia, and that a section should be created in the article that presents multiple (both) POV's. I would be willing to do so using the sources here, but I need the article unlocked. I don't normally follow this page so please ping me on my talk page when/if you need my help. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

GC, good point, will you create the section in your userspace whilst the article is protected? I'll see if I can rustle up the others to rejoin the debate. Bigger digger (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against creating a section about Kaczynski being viewed as a terrorist in popular culture, and the perception people have of him in general. The thing is that his "terrorist" status is already discussed in the article. If you have notable sources about him being something of an anti-terrorist, I think they are most welcomed. Bring it on. Maziotis (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Does it need a section? "Though described as a terrorist[sources] the FBI did not classify his acts as terrorism." The important parts are the acts and his motivations, not the label (in my mind). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived

I've archived a bit, one section alone is 88K and makes for heavy reading and loading. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You've kept all the relevant bits, so that seems great. Bigger digger (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've just felt the need to go back and add section breaks into the 88k terrorist section. Bigger digger (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I dearly wanted to archive that, but I figured it's still under discussion. I dearly do not want to read it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't! It's essentially two editors having a long-winded debate that I have managed to get it summarised in the last 4 or 5 entries. I think it might come to a bit of a redundant end as one editor MephYazata seems to have grown fed up with wp and left. Most annoyingly, he seems to have been annoyed by that lovely conversation above, which is a shame on quite a few levels. Bigger digger (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Murder

An IP editor has added murder to the lead. I actually believe this is a good solution to our terrrorist problems above, as it is a fact he murdered people, but opinion whether he was a terrorist. Just wanted to check the consensus on the talk page. It also prompted me to check the infobox, and I can see it's missing a mention of his actual crimes, which will need updating. Bigger digger (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that this description in the intro seems like something coming out of tabloid journalism? I mean, I understand that it is a fact that he killed people, but by that criterion alone we could objectively identify John Babcock a murderer. To define the legitimacy of killing under the law would just take us to another political discussion. I am not going to make an issue out of this, but I just want to say that I still believe that we should limit ourselves to describing the events and respect the policy of "resisting the temptation to apply labels or moralize". Maziotis (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. He murdered people, so murderer is accurate. It's got nothing to do with tabloid journalism, just accurately describing a person convicted of murders. The fact that you support terrorist activities and sympathize with suh actions doesn't mean you should try to twist the article to favor your viewpoint. DreamGuy (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you only read the first sentence of my response. If you are going to write a mindless, personal comment, at least get the whole data. Your acusation of me supporting terrorism was childish the first time you said it. Read wp:civility Maziotis (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

of Jewish descent?

I'm new to Wikipedia so someone correct me if I'm wrong but I saw a quote under the "Early Life" segment stating that Ted is of Jewish descent. I do not see a footnote attached to this. Can anyone confirm this or am I not seeing something? According to this source (I'm using the term source loosely here):

http://www.jmerica.com/magazine/jquiz/quiz-10-04.php

he is not Jewish, but this source doesn't seem credible so I'm open to debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someguy1228 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

it doesn't matter what religion his family might have been, he is a die-hard anarchist that has realized organized religion for the sham that it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.188.86.82 (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation needing fix

An “IP EDITOR ADDED FOLLOWING COMMENT TO THIS SOURCE, NEED TO FOLLOW UP”: The astute reader may note that the author and year of this reference are wrong, and that the article doesn't actually mention typewriters at all, and indeed asserts that the spellings were "irregular," but what, really, is the proper price of a fervent dedication to a neutral point of view? [http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9807/crain.html The Bard's Fingerprints]

Here’s my follow-up: The article says little about errors in the manifesto (just “irregular” spellings and hyphenation), and indeed, nothing at all about typewriters.

The article cited here was published in the year 1998, not 2000, and was not written by a "Henry Holt", nor does my cursory use of Google find anything about any "Henry Holt" writing on Kaczynski that doesn’t ultimately point back to this article. Henry Holt seems to be a publisher, though, and the citation could be vandalized, or simply confused with another at some point.

Moreover, while there is some controversy concerning some of Dr. Foster’s other analyses, in this case his written declaration (available from the court record) enumerates in full his reasoning in supporting the prosecution's claim that ISAIF was written by none other than Ted Kaczynski, and his Ph.D. probably makes him credible enough to state that there are “irregular spellings” (one would hope). His analysis would prove a good extra citation (it is not a secondary source, however); the relevant portion of the cited article is actually a paraphrase of a part of it. -BRPXQZME (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Theodore or Ted?

I don't typically recall Kaczynski being referred to as "Theodore" in news stories. I think it was pretty much always "Ted". Is there a reason he's listed under the former here? --T smitts (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

political affiliation

it should be added that he was a democrat, that is obviously infered from his manifesto.

Maybe "direct democrat", or "representative democrat"... or perhaps "small-scale democrat". I definitely agree that his self-identified branch of anarchism should not be considered alien to some people's defintion of "democracy", but this is not the place to discuss semantics or adding original research to the article. Maziotis (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding external link

I would like to add an external link, a site that provides information, evidence and discussion about possible crimes done by Ted Kaczynski aside from the "Unabomber" crimes. The site is:

http://www.unazod.com/

Ted was officially investigated by both the FBI and SFPD for being the Zodiac Killer, and he is now being investigated for having done the 1982 Chicago Tylenol Murders, all of which happened within a 20 minute radius of his home. The owner of this site, Doug Oswell, runs it as a free site. He has written a book on the topic. The issue has come up and does come up in discussions of Kaczynski's past.

Most of the links here seem to promote the idea that Ted was politically motivated person - there is a contrary view that he was a serial killer who killed primarily out of deep seated frutrations and mental illness.

The link should be added. It provides important material for those interested in the topic.

Akwilks (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Apart from a few blogs, I can't find that website anywhere. This is a clear case for notability and reliability. Looking at the history of this article, you seem to be the only one pushing for the theory explored in that website. Other editors have deleted the website as a clear case of spam. So, it should be clear for you too.

PS2: I have found the book on amazon. If you can provide some description/commentary on the book from a notable, third party source, why don't you try to include a mention in the article about this alternative theory? That would be acceptable under policy, no matter what either of us think the truth is (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Maziotis (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have known for some time about that theory. I have been following the unabomber case for a while, so I am aware of the reference to the documentary you provided. My position is still the same. From the sources we have, and taking into consideration the policies of balance and neutrality mentioned above, I can't see how that reference could give place to more than something to the effect of a quick mention, "It has been speculated on whether the Unabomber might not be the unknown identity of the zodiac killer". The problem is that I can't find any reference to that book, The Unabomber and the Zodiac Killer, on any notable source. It seems that this theory is no more than a reference in popular culture, and even though real, could be excluded under wp:undue weight. You have to face the fact that it has not gathered much attention, and this is not the place to do that for it. Maziotis (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will provide a reference to a newspaper article that deals with the topic, and include the brief mention you suggest in the body of the entry. I have deleted my mini- rants. Akwilks (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed my words that were complained about, and I agree they were written in anger. I have deleted them. Are you telling me I can't edit my own statements? Crazy! I also removed false statements made about me. There was no "spam" or "promotion for money". I do not own the site, the site is free and has no advertising. I will not allow false statements. I have followed the suggestions and removed the external link, and instead - as suggested - put in a brief mention in the article itself, that references a newspaper article about the investigation into Kaczynski as the Zodiac Killer by the SFPD and FBI. OK? Akwilks (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)