Talk:Ted Kaczynski/Archive 2

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 NOTREPOSITORY. 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 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 What Wikipedia is not, 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 Convenience link, "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 Layout - 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. 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)

His parents wrote Leftist letters to newspapers and he went to non-religious schools.

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? 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.


 * The fact that the subject of the website is in itelsef notable and argued valuable doesn't make any difference. Anyone can write a book about that particular subject, put on a website, and try to push their views and win money through Wikipedia as a plataform. This is a clear case of spam, unless you can provide some proof of notability and relevance for the website itself. This is the reason why policies such as wp:notability and wp:reliable have been written. They are essential to accomplish an objective encyclopedia. Maziotis (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be pushing an agenda that Ted was a serious political thinker. You allow links to his theories and stories, and family pictures, but not to a site dedicated to researching the man's life and his crimes? Why, because that site has evidence he is a mentally ill serial killer? The site and book have been featured on TV's "Unsolved Mysteries". it comes up in any search for the topics. How are family pictures and Ted's stories relevant links, but a research based site is not? Absurd. Akwilks (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And it is not spam or money driven it is a free site, no advertising no money. Stop your agenda of covering up Ted's crime because you like his politics. You cannot possibly justify links to Ted's stories and family pictures and deny a research based free site, unless you have an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akwilks (talk • contribs) 03:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The person who removed the link is a Green Anarchist and an apparent supporter of the philosophy of Ted Kaczynski. I guess wiki policy is that those who support the views of terrorists and serial killers are allowed to edit the information about said terrorists and serial killers, and they can delete any information they don't like. Wonderful, you are letting the inmates run the asylum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akwilks (talk • contribs) 07:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Maziotis you said above that "Wikipedia" is not about censorship". Then why are you censoring this link just because you disagree with it?  It meets ALL guidelines and should be included.  As an "anarchist" you should believe in the free flow of information, instead you are acting in a dictatorial and censoring fashion.  I have appealed to the higher authorities here at wiki.  Don't squash information.  Don't be a censor. Akwilks (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Akwilks, Your contributions to wikipedia under Special:Contributions/Akwilks and the multiple IP's, consist entirely of spamming http://unazod.com and adding WP:BOOKSPAM related to Doug Oswell. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be unazod.com or Doug Oswell related only.
 * Related Accounts
 * Please stop, unazod.com fails the inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. Aditionaly, unazod.com also fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. that goes for the Book spam, " The Unabomber and The Zodiac ". Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote unazod.com and Doug Oswell right? --Hu12 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop, unazod.com fails the inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. Aditionaly, unazod.com also fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. that goes for the Book spam, " The Unabomber and The Zodiac ". Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote unazod.com and Doug Oswell right? --Hu12 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop, unazod.com fails the inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. Aditionaly, unazod.com also fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. that goes for the Book spam, " The Unabomber and The Zodiac ". Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote unazod.com and Doug Oswell right? --Hu12 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop, unazod.com fails the inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. Aditionaly, unazod.com also fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. that goes for the Book spam, " The Unabomber and The Zodiac ". Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote unazod.com and Doug Oswell right? --Hu12 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop, unazod.com fails the inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. Aditionaly, unazod.com also fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. that goes for the Book spam, " The Unabomber and The Zodiac ". Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote unazod.com and Doug Oswell right? --Hu12 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop, unazod.com fails the inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. Aditionaly, unazod.com also fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. that goes for the Book spam, " The Unabomber and The Zodiac ". Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote unazod.com and Doug Oswell right? --Hu12 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop, unazod.com fails the inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. Aditionaly, unazod.com also fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. that goes for the Book spam, " The Unabomber and The Zodiac ". Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote unazod.com and Doug Oswell right? --Hu12 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You might not want to accuse editors of bad motivations like you have here multiple times. As for your link, I'm not sure it meets ALL the guidelines like you say. For instance, the "links mainly intended to promote a website" and "unverifiable research" (both part of the external links policy) are two sections I'd like to discuss. I believe that it's possible that you're trying to add the link to Wikipedia to promote this website (which is considered spamming). I believe this because you've tried and failed to add this URL to a number of articles many times. And as for "unverified research", it's pretty clear that this website is making claims without backing up those claims with evidence. There is no "source" or "reference" section at the end of the essay so it's my opinion that this is exactly what "unverified research" is getting at. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Akwilks, you seem to be missing the point entirely. The issue here is not whether the unanomber-zodiac link is notable or not, but why we should know about this story through Doug. As far as I can see, this website doesn't even deserve a reference as a note for the article. I am not even going to comment on putting the link for the website on external link section. This has got nothing to do with my political points about what is notable and found in the article. I think my case against your particular source is very much objective, so you can't stop with the pushing back the POV accusation.

You said: "The link should be added. It provides important material for those interested in the topic." The problem is that you are not the one to evaluate that. Just check the policies that have been provided to you on notability. Maziotis (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Just to be clear, I am not saying that the reference to the unabomber-zodiac theory should not be mentioned in the article. What I am saying is that it should not be through Doug Oswell, whose book I can't even find a copy on amazon.com. You have to understand that that theory is hardly explored in the Unabomber case (see wp:undue weight) So you can forget about creating a section in the article and/or adding links to external links section. This is a matter of keeping the article balanced and neutral according to policy. I think I know enough about this case to know this to be true, but you can always prove me wrong through secondary, reliable sources. Maziotis (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

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 (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)
 * Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, particularly the comments of others. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments you will be blocked for vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Akwilks, Few people will edit tendentiously or argue ad nauseum topics in which they have no connection. Some things to keep in mind before proceding further;
 * SPAM
 * External link spamming
 * Citation spamming
 * Source soliciting
 * External links policy
 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * Conflict of interest
 * Editors who have a conflict of interest
 * Accounts used for promotion
 * Law Of Unintended Consequences
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikipedia is not a repository for links
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
 * BLOCK
 * Persistent spamming
 * Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.

--Hu12 (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Akwilks, the section you included doesn't seem to respect its own source. Some important elements for excluding Ted as a possible suspect seem to have been left out. After a notable source has been found, being faithful to the source is an essential step for respecting Verifiability and wp:npov. Also, the wp:undue weight aspect is still pending. This has been regarded as a conspiracy theory by many sources, and that has its own weight too. The general biographical approach to this person doesn't seem to even consider such reference, so we have to consider just mentioning it. Maziotis (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't include the Unazod link. It's an intriguing read, but it's pure speculation with no evidence of proper fact checking or outside note being paid to these theories. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Right now we are looking into the SFgate source Maziotis (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an observation, but I noticed that the new text addition Akwilks added, seems inconsistant with the SFgate source, however a quick check reveals the text portion seems to be derived primarily from multiple forum posts by Akwilks where he attributes it to Unazod, not SFgate. seems a random google search of some of the text, shows this to be only Akwilks claiming this over multiple forums and buletin boards. Would seem to be primarily WP:OR. Additionaly, acording to Wikipedias Verifiability policy States that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Any ways, seems the regular editors of this page are doing a good job and withought any verifyable mainstream source, consensus would appear to be against the claims being made. I don't care either way, my concern here is the disruption, Spamming and and what appears to be POV pushing. If page blanking an disruption continues, report it to Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the external link. I have never spammed anything. Are you now telling me I can't edit my own words? The accusation of spam or promotion for money is blatantly false and libelous. Take down the false accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akwilks (talk • contribs) 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Akwilks, You have 40 article space edits, All but 5 (and the recent SFgate addition) are "unazod.com" Link additions Only. All of your 25 article talkpage contributions are Only about getting "unazod.com" Links included in articles. A quick google search with 400+ results shows this is not just isolated to wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Akwilks, I don't understand why you keep insisting that the website is free. Promotion can be done for either selling a product or an idea. This website may not charge for its viewing, but it does promote a theory and a book. So, both conditions for a case of spam could be present. I have been ignoring your argument, but I now have to say that you insisting on that point only makes your case weaker.

I don't know how you feel about the current version, but it seems that it is the most that sources allow. I don't really mind having that hanging on the article, altough it does look like a dead end of a side story. I will leave to other editors what to do with this, namely in terms of the raised wp:undue weight problem. Maziotis (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC) This entire section is a massive waste of space and should be deleted. I see now that wikipedia is a little clique, a private club, dedicated to intellectual stagnation, protection of the status quo, and right here interested in preserving the repuatation of a serial killer. Whatever. There so much effort to removing information - the emphasis should be on the expansion of knowledge. The Kaczynski link into the Zodiac murders and other unsolved crimes is ongoing. When it hits the papers, it will be added here too. Until then, the current minimal bit of info included in the entry is reasonably fair. OK? Everybody happy?Akwilks (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it is not "a dead end of a side story". It has just been established that Ted has never had DNA drawn from his body, there are three seperate investigations into his doing Zodiac and other crimes and so, the "final chapter is not yet written." Akwilks (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that he never gave blood for DNA testing does't prove anything regarding that theory, and it is even quite consistent with other aspects of his story. That sort of arguing seems very well representative of the sort of speculative investigation that you are trying to impose on others. Please, find something that has been proved first, and only then tell "the truth".


 * Making a subjective description of a noted individual goes both ways. I have been accused of being bias in defense of Ted before, when I felt that, however convenient it may seem to you, he was being demonized. Describing the other side as being part of a cabal, though, just puts you up for ridicule. It is the first time that I have been included in one, and it sure feels strange in the context of a wikipedia article, where a guy is described as a murderer. Maziotis (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your concern over Ted being "demonized" is very touching, if misplaced for a man who got "release (sexual or otherwise)" from reading the accounts of his bombings. He put a bomb on an airline that had it exploded correctly, would have killed over a hundred innocent people, inlcuding children and infants. A "demon"? Yes I would say that is a fair description. Why don't you go to www.unazod.com and look at the actual evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akwilks (talk • contribs) 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems you have missed my point entirely. Very bad people can be unjustly "demonized" too. This hurts accuracy too.


 * I am not going to waste any more of my time. If you are still interested in improving the article, and feel that there is something false with the currrent version, please look for notable sources and remember to respect wp:no original research and wp:synthesis. Maziotis (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It says "lived in Illinois for most of the killings." That is false. It is documented elsewhere in this very entry that he was a professor at U Cal Berkeley, which is certainly in the SF Bay area, from 1967 to summer of 1969, a period which covers most of the confirmed Zodiac killings. It should be fixed, but I ask you to do it please. Akwilks (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a question of being covered somewhere else in the article. That very source covers the fact that he was a professor in the Bay Area, from 1967 to 1969, which in turn is already found on the article. Let's try to keep things simple.


 * I remind you once again that our goal is not in finding the truth, but describing what is verifiable and notable (see: wp:verifiability). If he was indeed eliminated as a suspect for being in Illinois for the duration of the killings, then that fact is totally relevant and in need of being covered in the article, whether it is true or not. If indeed your take on what happened is true and relevant, then there should be a notable source that covers that fact. If we have contradicting facts, we can accommodate them in the text, without compromising the voice of the article. Otherwise, it is just another stain pointing to a reality whose cover is of dubious interest. (If no one cares that he was in the Bay Area during most of the Zodiac crimes, then this fact, though it may be real, is not worth exploring in relation to other events). You have to remember that we are not in the business of making news or creating original theories by synthesising sources. We cover secondary sources that are reliable, and must always avoid wp:no original research as you seem to be suggesting. Maziotis (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have since looked at the list of zodiac crimes and confirmed that in fact you are wrong, and that you are trying to engage in speculative explanations in this article. If anything, you could point out to the fact that the source would have been more accurate if it had stated that Kaczynski was in Illinois during most of the crimes that are SUSPECTED to be of the Zodiac Killer. But if Kaczynski was only till the summer of 1969 in the Bay Area, then that statement even covers the CONFIRMED crimes, as it is explained in the source.


 * You have simply no grounds to eliminate these elements that refute your premise, and (most importantly) this is certainly not the place to seek such investigation. Maziotis (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fact: There are four confirmed Zodiac crimes. The first was on 12/20/68, the second on 7/4/69. Both of these happened when TK was a prof at U Cal Berkeley. The other two were on 9/27/69 and 10/11/69. There is no proof he was in Illinois or anywhere else the rest of 1969. His brother told the FBI he thought he went back to Illinois, but as he was in NYC at Columbia, he said his memory of these events 25 years ago was "hazy and dream like." In the government psych report Ted himself says he spent the next two years "traveling out west looking for land", not in Illinois. And in his new book "Road to Revolution" Ted again says he spent no significant time in Illinois until 1971. So it is simply false to assert he was in Illinois "for most of the killings." A more accurate statement might be "his whereabouts could not be ascertained for some of the confirmed and suspect Zodiac murders". If you want the truth, print it; if you want to protect Ted's repuatation or because you are not able to admit when you are wrong, keep the lies up. Akwilks (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If we stick by certain facts, I can't deny that you went to planet Mars last Summer. That is an interesting note. I guess the cabala to defend Ted has reached the mainstream media, since you can't find notable sources for your views. Maziotis (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A government report and Ted's own words in his new book are not "notable"? I see you picked option B - "I am not man enough to admit I was wrong, so the lies stay up". OK. Akwilks (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I wasn't the one who wrote the policy on wp:Synthesis. Please stop with your childish accusations, and remember to assume good faith. Do what you want with the article. I am just trying to give some clear, honest feedback here.


 * A government report and a book written by Theodore Kaczynski can be considered notable sources in relation to certain subjects. Does any of those sources clearly subscribe to the theories you are expressing? Maziotis (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to my "theories", they just state that Ted was NOT in Illinois from 69 to 71. The statement that he was in Illinois for "most of the killings" is simply false, and is proven so by both the government psych report and Ted's own words in his new book. I am not going to change anything on the article, I have been accused of spamming and vandalism when trying to be accurate, I leave it to you or anyone who wants a true and accurate entry to do so.Akwilks (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are clearly being selective in your sources. Exactly what does the whereabouts of Kaczynski from 69 to 71 mean? The police suspects that most of the killings were done during the periods of time when it was impossible for Kaczynski to be the perpetrator. There are other factors. Is the importance of considering the crimes in that period a part of any reliable investigation, or your own? I am just asking for a clear, notable source that points directly at the conclusion that you say is obvious.


 * It's almost as if you were feeling insulted for us not trusting you as a crime investigator. If you can prove to the world that Kaczynski did the crimes, please contact the authorities and the media. I guarantee you that wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, will change accordingly to what becomes known. Maziotis (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: When you propose the solution, "his whereabouts could not be ascertained for some of the confirmed and suspect Zodiac murders", does this mean his whereabouts were never determined during this period of about a decade, or that coincidentally it was only at the times in which they were perpetrated? Because I believe his whereabouts can be ascertained in certain confirmed and suspected murders, but once again you have been selective with the sources, and in this case ouright tried to deceive the reader about the possibility of his guilt. Since you raised the issue of Kaczynski's own account of his whereabouts in connection to two confirmed muderers, you could tell us exactly the page of his book. Maziotis (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is in the interview section of his new book. I can't explain the whole case to you. He was a prof at Berkeley for two of the murders, so right there, he could not have been in Illinois for "most" of the confirmed murders, as there were only four. His whereabouts for the rest of 69, when the two other murders happened, are unknown. But he himself in his new book sayd he was "out west looking for land", NOT in Illinois. This is simple stuff, really. I would settle for "could not be placed in California for some of the known murders" - that is fair and accurate. Akwilks (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But he CAN be placed somewhere else on some of the murders. Settling for "could not be placed in california" would not be good enough. The importance of the difference between the confirmed and the ones police suspects is given by yourself, and not a part of a notable investigation. The article itself already states that Kaczynski was in Bay Area for "the same period that most of the Zodiac's confirmed killings occurred". I can't believe that you don't understand how you are being deceiving concerning the issue of his wherabouts.


 * Anyway, the real problem is your "I can't explain the whole case to you". Either you understand wp:nor and wp:syn, or you don't. I can't be any more explicit about the issue with you investigating the case, and explaining to you what "burden of proof" means. I am sorry, but I cannot keep repeating myself. At this point I am not sure if you are not using this space just to attract attention. Until you come up with a good use of a reliable source, I am not responding to any more of your personal speculations. Maziotis (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement "he lived in Illinois during most of the killings" is false. Period. TK himself says so in his new book. As far as using this space to attract attention, I hereby request that this entire section about "adding a new link" be removed, as it is a massive waste of space. I withdraw my request to add the link, and leave it to someone else to edit, or not, the false statement. Please remove this whole section. Akwilks (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The California thing
This was kind of mentioned a little bit, and since I just read the article recently and was wondering the same thing, I thought it deserved a separate section.

There was a part about how Kaczynski couldn't have been the Zodiac Killer because he wasn't in California. I'm not saying he was at all, because the authorities looked into it and found no evidence to support this claim. But the only reason stated in this article as to why he wasn't was that he wasn't in California before it goes on to mention that he worked in California about that time...so I'm just a little confused.... Nishanoire (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources say that he was excluded as a suspect because the authorities believe that he was somewhere else on some of the murderers. That is all that we have to say in the article, as an encyclopedia. If you find the article confusing, we may have to change something. Maziotis (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The "source" for the statement that TK "lived in Illinois for most of the killings" is TruTV, which does not cite any government document claiming this. As I have said before, this is a blatantly and undeniably false statement. There are four confirmed Zodiac crimes. TK was a professor at Berkeley for two of them. Right there that shows he couldn't have lived in Illinois for "most" of the killings. Since his whereabouts for the other two slayings are unknown, and there is nothing to show he was in Illinois or California, it would be fair and accurate to say "his whereabouts for some of the killings could not be confirmed." As it is, the entry makes no sense, as the person above noted. Akwilks (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He did live in Illinois for most of the killings if we consider the source that includes other murders than those four. If your criteria is better, then someone must have written something from that perspective. Please, just find us ONE source. If no one out there cares enough about this, then you should leave your personal hobbie out of this encyclopedia. Maybe the reason why there aren't many sources about this is because whether it was in most or some, the fact is that he was excluded as a suspect due to his whereabouts.


 * I'm sorry, but unlike Akwilks, TruTV is a reliable source to wikipedia. The truth is that he was excluded from the police investigation for this reason, whether you think that for reasons of style we should include the word "most" or not. Maziotis (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The police only confirm FOUR Zodiac crimes - the rest are speculative. Since there are FOUR confirmed Zodiac crimes, if he was a prof at Berkeley for two of them, the statement about living in Illinois for "most" of the crimes is wrong. Period. Please show me a press release or document from a police agency saying TK was "cleared" of being Zodiac because of where he lived. I have given you the source of the government psych report and the interview section in Kaczynski's new book. The investigation into TK as Zodiac has been renewed and is ongoing. His DNA is being sought and will either conclusively rule him out or in as Zodiac.Akwilks (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have been given me sources for original research, but original research is wrong. Period. The criteria for looking at the FOUR or looking at the EIGHT is yours, not the police or the TruTV. Wikipedia follows more the "TruTVs" of this world than a guy named Akwilks. I'm sorry. You are just pushing for the same thing over and over, but it's not going anywhere. Please read Synthesis. I have nothing else to add.Maziotis (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: Great to hear about the DNA thing. When you have something conclusive on a notable source, you are welcome to update the article accordingly. Maziotis (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Ted Kaczynski knows more about where he was from 1969 to 1971 then you do. The police say there were four confirmed Zodiac attacks, not me. I actually think there were far more. The facts will not change no matter how mauch you stick your head in the sand. The entry is flat out wrong, and confusing. Akwilks (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are just throwing dust to the eyes. I didn't say anything about his wherabouts from 1969 to 1971. And where he was during that specific period doesn't prove a thing. I know what the police said. I didn't confused you for the police, at any point. You are the one who thinks that we can consider certain crimes and its whereabouts as evidence, when the police and other important authors have reached the opposite conclusion with evidence that you don't know anything about and are trying to exclude. I think it is evident for any rational person how flawed really is the theory that you are here trying to push. Maziotis (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: It's now clear to me that you are just coming back to toss around these arbitrary notes, as if they prove anything or could add up towards something contructive to do with the article. Until you come back with something definitive, on a notable source, I don't have anything else to say to you. Maziotis (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have given the source of a government psych report and Ted's own words in his new book. They prove Ted was not living in Illinois for most of the killings. As a self described anarcho-primitivist, your intense desire to avoid any reference to Kaczynski being the Zodiac Killer is understandable. It is absurd that you are allowed to distort the truth to prptect your idol, but prepare to be very embarassed when the DNA tests come back. Unless killing teenagers in lovers lanes is as acceptable to you as a man putting razor blades in bombs to kill and maim people. Akwilks (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't say anything conclusive about this case, once again, but now you decided to engage in ad hominem arguments. You have been warned before about this (read wp:civility). I think I was fair and objective in this case. If you don't believe so, you should point directly to my flaws. If it weren't for me, you wouldn't even have a section in the article and a discussion in the talk page. Things might as well have ended with you being pointed out as grossly violating rules of the wikipedia. Some of the accusations seem very grave.


 * Unless you see something unethical in itself about one identifying as an anarcho-primitivist, I don't understand your line of thought. Theodore Kaczynski is supposed to be my idol solely based on my beliefs, yet choosing him as an idol makes me a bad person. Otherwise, I have not given you a single reason to make you believe that I approve any of his crimes. Even if I did, that wouldn't change the possibility of me being right in this case. It's pretty basic logic. Once again we can see your kind of speculative judgment. Maziotis (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IPA
The IPA version given seems to be of the English spelling pronunciation, not the actual Polish pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.177.188 (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC) As he was born in America, he probably uses English spelling pronunciation himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.177.188 (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Kaczynski and LSD
Ted Kaczynski obviously was previously to his bombing activity involved in experiments with LSD. However to what degree he volunteered or "was volunteered" and to what degree the experience under the drug have had an influence on this later acting and to what degree he can be regarded as responsible in the terms of law is therefore subject to a question mark. More details on the experiments need to be disclosed in order to come to any half way objective conclusion. 81.82.181.60 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reversed letters
Correct me if I'm wrong. http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt has reversed letters in §145 while http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future doesn't. Not sure about which source is right or what wp's guidelines for misspelling in orinigals are. I'd leave it right way for obvious practical purpose and insignificance of misspelling if it at all exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.81.124 (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the misspellings were done after the submission of the original manifesto by the Unabomber. I read somewhere about Ted Kaczynski being meticulous about these things. So, I guess it is a question of what you consider "original"; what the unabomber submitted or what the journal printed. Anyway, I have got the only published authorized version of the manifesto, found on the new Kaczynski's book The Road to Revolution, and there are no misspellings there. I think we should stick with the current version on wikisource. Maziotis (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)