Talk:Andrew Kaczynski

someone add an image please
wanted to add his Twitter propic, but I don't think that's allowed? not sure about protocol. Orangesm (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Kaczynski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121204210815/http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/meet-the-22-year-old-amateur-researcher-whos-shaking-up-the-gop-primary.php to http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/meet-the-22-year-old-amateur-researcher-whos-shaking-up-the-gop-primary.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509084119/http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/undergraduate/liberalarts/success/students/ss_sjc_120203_kaczynski.stj to http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/undergraduate/liberalarts/success/students/ss_sjc_120203_kaczynski.stj
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926234232/http://www.mattklewis.com/?p=6800 to http://www.mattklewis.com/?p=6800
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328095032/http://techland.time.com/2013/03/25/140-best-twitter-feeds-of-2013/slide/andrew-kaczynski/ to http://techland.time.com/2013/03/25/140-best-twitter-feeds-of-2013/slide/andrew-kaczynski/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on wording of Washington Post article
I updated article with the following and another user keeps reverting it to their wording despite my legwork on the posting of the WaPo reference. I'd like to get a consensus on whether my version or their version should apply. My version:

"On July 5, 2017, The Washington Post reported the #CNNBlackMail hashtag story was "taking hold" as the July 5, 2017 top trending Twitter topic, resonating on both sides of the political aisle, the ethics of Kaczynski not identifying a private citizen who posted "offensive things online" based on the apparent condition that they behave better in the future.  Cllgbksr (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue with this wording is that it is unsupported by the reliable source cited (specifically "resonating on both sides of the political aisle") and that it significantly underincludes other parts of the story, notably the discussion of the "mix of fact and fiction" that has spread on the Internet about the controversy — that there is both genuine outrage and meme-happy trolling involved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing the article recent history I approve of User:Yoshiman6464 edits. We Should let that stand. Goes into a lot of detail. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current version (permalink here) is fine — it does not present undue weight issues and appropriately links to the more detailed discussion on the CNN controversies page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

crowley reference needs to be updated
Currently reads: "In January 2017, Kaczynski reported that Monica Crowley had plagiarized large sections of her 2012 book What The (Bleep) Just Happened.[19] The publisher, HarperCollins, announced they would stop selling the book.[19] The Trump Administration tapped Crowley to serve as senior director of strategic communications for the National Security Council.[19]"

This reads as if the plagiarism was disclosed, Trump tapped her, and she became director. A quick look at the references on her wikipedia page show that the sequence is Trump tapper her, plagiarism was disclosed, she withdrew. In my opinion the fact that she was nominated is tangential to this article and should be omitted, but if it is included, it must be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.245.132 (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What Religion is Andrew
Relevant since he accused the Redditor of being anti-Semitic merely for pointing out how many jewish people work at CNN. (Should not be news, or germane to anyone.) And, it's hardly anti-Semitic, unless you're a liberal who thinks if a Trump fan even uses the word Jew, that means they hate Jews! lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.70.22 (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Blackmail controversey
Why is there no mention of his involvement in the infamous cnn blackmail controversy one would think it most certainly merits a mention in fact it is rather embarrassing omission 2601:405:4A80:4700:E96D:59F7:7F64:92CA (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of Sunil Tripathi's body discovery
I disagree with User:General Ization over his revert of my edit to the page. Its speculation to consider his suicide to have happened before or after the terror attack but it is also relevant to the situation that happened. It is relevant to the page of Andrew Kaczynski because the aftermath of Mr. Kaczynski's actions as a part of the broader reddit/internet storm were highly publicized when it was happening and even more so after it was discovered that Mr. Tripathi was dead. - AH (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are free to disagree, but not free to revert to your preferred version without establishing consensus. Your edit was unsourced and did not indicate how the suicide of Sunil Tripathi is relevant to this biographical article. The article already indicates that Kaczynski retweeted comments by Reddit user Greg Hughes that erroneously identified suspects in the Boston bombing.  Since Tripathi was ruled out as a suspect, there is no reason to identify him by name at a biographical article concerning Kaczynski, particularly without specifying that Tripathi's suicide most likely occurred weeks prior to the bombing. Your edit as written suggested, falsely, a causal connection between Kaczynski's retweet and Tripathi's suicide.  General Ization  Talk  20:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of wikipedia rules, that is why I created a talk page section about the issue. I would like to mention the fact that he likely died weeks before the suicide. One of the sources I would plan on using is the Business insider article about how it is a far right point of interest. Another way to look at it, would be that his false accusation didn't mean anything because of the fact that Tarpil was already dead. https://www.businessinsider.com/conspiracy-theories-andrew-kaczynski-2017-7 - AH (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Broke link
The link for amuatuer opposition research is broken/deleted. Huskermax5 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)