Talk:Industrial Society and Its Future/Archive 1

Title
This article should be moved to Industrial Society and Its Future. Kaczynski has written other works of a similar nature, in particular Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How, which received a review with the title "A neo-Luddite manifesto?". Using the title of the work as the article title is more precise per WP:CRITERIA. The listed sources also introduce the subject as Industrial Society and Its Future so it is recognizable as such. Thoughts, ? Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have sourced in the article itself that it is "better known as the Unabomber manifesto" (its common name). Google Books has several more sources that say the same verbatim so I can provide those if necessary. I don't think there is any ambiguity that the current title refers to this particular essay/manifesto and per the sourcing, it is far better known by this name than by its official title. czar  00:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As CRITERIA states, there may be more than one appropriate name for an article. The "Unabomber" has written more than one "manifesto", so there is more ambiguity in the current title than there would be if Industrial Society and Its Future were the title. As for the consistency of naming criterion, there is the example of "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber", which you argued should be moved from "Google memo" to its current title. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But it is unambiguous that "Unabomber manifesto" refers to this essay and not Anti-tech Revolution. Despite that one source using the term, Anti-Tech Revolution is not commonly called a manifesto. The Google memo is similar but not comparable in that the phrase was found to be excessively vague, not a matter of there being no primary topic for that phrase. Search for "Google memo" and that is still the case (more closely associated with Damore than Google, the company). Search for "Unabomber manifesto" and it unimpeachably refers to this single work. czar  00:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My search for "Google memo" just now resulted with a first page exclusively dedicated to results about "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber". What is Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How commonly called, if not a manifesto? In any case, I am not proposing that we create a separate article about it; the above link is simply evidence that the "Unabomber" has more than one "manifesto". The RM discussion you linked contains arguments for this page to be moved:
 * ""Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" is the actual title of the work". Industrial Society and Its Future is the actual title of this work.
 * "From a lexicographic point of view, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber is the correct title of the work, but people who search the memo will use the term Google memo. This can be, and has already been, solved with a redirect page". Substitute "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" and "Google memo" for "Industrial Society and Its Future" and "Unabomber manifesto".
 * "Google memo" is a relevant example as the wording "commonly referred to as" (common name) is used in the article text, yet we use the "actual"/"correct" title of the work as the article title. Identical case here except "better known as" is in place of "commonly referred to as". Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Any further response, ? You have been editing the article in the meantime. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * https://www.google.com/search?q=%22better+known+as+the+unabomber+manifesto%22&tbm=bks


 * Above are some clips I saved just through the course of my recent edits. I'm confident I can find more if I actually look. Agreed, as I said above, that Google memo is similar but it's not comparable. "Unabomber manifesto" does not have the ambiguity issues that "Google memo" has. (btw/fun coincidence: I started that article under the name "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" so this scenario is not foreign to me. ) If the argument is that "Unabomber manifesto" could refer to "Anti-Tech Revolution", the issue is that the latter barely registers as a search term. It is not independently notable and has nowhere near the amount of coverage. Indeed, the review you link above is the only one I've found, and we wouldn't even cite it because it's a student paper. The naming conventions balance recognizability and precision and I think I'e made my case clear about how the essay/manifesto in question is far and away the best (or only) known "Unabomber manifesto". If you remain unconvinced, you're welcome to start a WP:RM discussion for outside opinions. czar  01:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't argued Anti-Tech Revolution is independently notable and deserving of its own article, I have only said it's a "manifesto" by the "Unabomber". I'm aware you created the "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" article, and I linked a discussion above where you argued it should be moved back to GIEC after another editor moved it to the title it is "commonly referred to as". ("The sources introduce the subject as Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. Even if they later call it the Google memo/manifesto in short" Swap GIEC for Industrial Society and Its Future.) This is why I thought the consistency criterion of the naming convention had particular relevance. I know about the RM process, but as you are an experienced editor and the creator of both articles, I wanted to know the reasoning for the seemingly contradictory positions. If the argument is that "Google memo" is more ambiguous than "Unabomber manifesto", I agree, but both are less precise than using the title of the work as our article title. While there are more Google memos than Unabomber manifestos, there are more than one of each.
 * The quotebox you created above shows that the majority of sources use "Unabomber Manifesto". Why are we using the lowercase "m"? The uppercase M would solve the issue of ambiguity as it indicates a proper name (an alternative title of the work), not just a "manifesto" associated with the Unabomber, and would be in line with the sources. Do you have any opposition to moving the article to "Unabomber Manifesto"? Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If helpful, another way of summarizing the comparison: GIEC is sometimes known the "Google memo" but ISF is mainly known as the "Unabomber manifesto".
 * No opposition to the uppercase "m"—I only used the lowercase because among my original sources, including sources that didn't give it a name, the lowercase "m" was most prominent. But not adamant about that—it's not like I took a scientific poll. czar  03:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I've moved the article to include the uppercase M. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Section in Kaczynski article
Ted Kaczynski is currently at FAC, and it was recommended that the "Reception" and "Influences" sections from it's "Manifesto" section be cut down or moved here. I plan on removing them from the article almost entirely, maybe keeping a few sentences if they fit into other sections there. Anyways, my point is that I don't think they would fit well here with a simple copy-paste. This revision contains all the subsections I'm talking about here for later possible inclusion in this article. This article doesn't include much about "Influences", so I think most of that could be incorporated into the article here. AviationFreak💬 16:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have moved "Influences" to this article as a subsection of "Content" and removed the "Reception" section on the Kaczynski article. If others would like to see the "Reception" section to add to or modify this article, it is visible in the above revision. AviationFreak💬 21:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, actually, I believe the Reception and Criticism sections belong here, in the article on the essay itself, and would be shortened for inclusion on the author's personal page, like every other wiki article, such as the Rachel Carson/Silent Spring articles. Cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Title Revisited
The title of this article is incorrect, and should be the title that the author wrote. This is like titling the page on Mein Kampf "The Hitler Manifesto". Just because a phrase is widely in print, doesn't mean it is the correct term for a Wikipedia article.

I also notice the title and the phrase essay only appeared once, yet the words "Unabomber" and "manifesto" about 100 times. Characterization of the essay as a manifesto is fair game, but should be more like 10%, and cited as an opinion, not a fact. The fact is, it's an essay called Industrial Society and Its Future, written by Ted Kaczinski.

Please re-insert the criticism and reception sections! This is an article on a literary piece.

I'm going to remove a little opinion and speculation from the article. I would urge editors to try and separate your feelings about the bombings from the content of the manifesto. Billyshiverstick (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The article about Kaczynski himself is also named "Ted Kaczynski" and not "The Unabomber", even though that name is more widely known. The title of this article should be Industrial Society and Its Future. Per WP:CRITERIA, that is preferred per consistency and precision and equal per the other points. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This has been adequately covered above:


 * https://www.google.com/search?q=%22better+known+as+the+unabomber+manifesto%22&tbm=bks


 * Sources do not call Mein Kampf "the Hitler manifesto" as its common name. Sources do not primarily refer to Kaczynski as the Unabomber, which is an alternate name. However sources, those cited above for example, do indeed call Kaczynski's manifesto (the subject of this article) the "Unabomber manifesto" much more often than they call it "Industrial Society and Its Futures". It is its common name. czar  02:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)