Talk:Ted Kaczynski

participation in MKUltra

should the section on his early life explicitly call out that Ted was a subject in a MKUltra humiliation experiment?

--Patbahn (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course it should. Gethin Van Hanraath (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

ChicagoEric Those are nice edits you've added to his early life. Will you be able to cite the facts you've entered? — Myk Streja ^[who?] 16:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Yes, my edits in his early life have been cited. ChicagoEric (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

ChicagoEric I went along and tidied up the "citations needed', and did the "clarification needed" at the top. Back to you, dude. ;) — Myk Streja ^[who?] 23:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and all your help so far! ChicagoEric (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Birthplace

Was Kaczynski born in Chicago or Evergreen Park? Britannica says Evergreen Park but other sources say Chicago and the good article version (from 2008) says Chicago also. Does anyone know for sure? Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @ChicagoEric:! You got your ears on? Anyway, Eric grew up in Evergreen Park and had spoken to people who knew Ted. So, in a nutshell, we got an eyewitness that testifies that Ted was born in Evergreen Park and lived there until college.We can't use him as a reliable source, but we can know which way to fall about a limited range of topics.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 02:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do not think you can use one editor's knowledge as a source. (no offence intended to ChicagoEric.) I have found that most of the sources from the time of his arrest state he is "born in Chicago" or "Chicago-born", and would personally lean towards changing it to that. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as you can source it, I can live with it. I myself was born in Westerly but I lived in Warwick as a child. Is Evergreen a suburb of Chicago?  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 04:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This source from the time of his arrest states both that he is "Chicago-born" and "was born in a leafy southwestern Chicago suburb - Evergreen Park". I do not know what to make of that in regards to the wording of this article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. From the sources I provided, which I consider very credible, Kaczynski was not actually born in Evergreen Park but in the city of Chicago. The location where he lived on Carpenter street near the University of Chicago is quit a distance away from Evergreen Park, approximately 18 miles. According to the source "A Mind for Murder..." he moved to Evergreen Park at the age of 10. Evergreen Park is a suburb of Chicago and it's located on the far southwest side. I consider the book a more credible source than anything I've read thus far. ChicagoEric (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Eric. That is good to know. I changed the "birth place" parameter to Chicago and altered "Born and raised in Evergreen Park" to just "Raised in Evergreen Park", so what you cite is in line with the current article status. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great Hrodvarsson! Great edits! ChicagoEric (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Wording

Okay, I understand that they mean the same thing, but grammatically it's a fractured sentence. The correct sentence should read: He was accepted into Harvard University at the age of 16 or He was accepted into Harvard University at 16 years old. That's what I was doing. Can you accept that?

BTW, this is a run-on sentence: He subsequently received his M.A. and Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Michigan, and became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1967 at age 25, but resigned abruptly two years later. The sentences should be He subsequently received his M.A. and Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Michigan and became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1967 at age 25. He abruptly resigned two years later.

I believe these changes need to be made to be grammatically correct. Do we have an accord? I'm asking nicely here.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 20:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if the undoing seemed intransigent; it was probably not the right move as that section does need a re-write in my opinion anyway. I think the being accepted into Harvard should be merged with the born in Evergreen Park, child prodigy sentence, then the "he earned his undergraduate degree" with the Univ. of Michigan information, then a separate sentence for the UC Berkeley professorship and resignation. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe a little proprietary. That's okay, as you saw, I was ready to fight for it. You're probably right about merging that part. Why don't you do it, because, honestly, I can't quite see what you're saying here. I'll botch it if I try.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 21:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make the change now. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not quite the way I would have phrased it—but then you are not me—it has the benefit of being grammatically correct and fixes the problem sentences. Thank you again for doing this.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 22:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sherman Elementary School

Is there a reference for Kaczynski's attendance at Sherman Elementary School? I haven't been able to find one. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

List of academic citations

@Mukogodo: The original text was: Testing conducted in the fifth grade determined he had an IQ of 167. What new information have you brought to make the change? Your personal opinion? Your edit summary states that "at best they estimate it." What citations do you bring for that? Sounds like original research to me.

References

Now for part 2. You removed the part of the article that contained three reference to others citing his work. Why? Your edit summary says: (→‎Published works: Not normal in Wikipedia to list articles citing an ademic authro in their article. For most, it would be hundreds.) It is up to you to prove it is not normal or that it fails policy. And what does the second part of the summary mean?  — Myk Streja ^(aack!) 21:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not think the table of works that cite Kaczynski should be included, but the change to "estimating" in regards to IQ does not make sense (You do not take a test to estimate what your result is, you take a test to determine what your result is). Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

-With regard to the previous "table of authors who cite Kaczynski's math work", my intent with that addition was to point out that Kaczynski's mathematical work has had a relatively low impact, in terms of academic citations, importance of ideas, and so on. (but specifically, citation number). Specifically I wanted to point out that as far as I've been able to determine, there are only three such pieces/citations (this is what makes the case somewhat notable, as opposed to the above "hundreds", which was my point). I can see how that edit could be construed as "overkill" or as not having made its context clear, so I've replaced the basic idea with a brief paragraph which retreads these ideas with more context, just now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinnesotanUser (talk • contribs) 00:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Original research discussion

Subsections "Political and social views", "Perceived control methods", and "Historical views and predictions" are all based solely upon one primary source - Kaczynski, Theodore (1995), Industrial Society and Its Future, The Washington Post {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). There is not a single WP:Reliable source relied upon to write these three sections. Consequently, all three sections qualify as WP:Original research. Per WP:PRIMARY policy,

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy."

Per WP:PROVEIT of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Mitchumch (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

References

• Agreed that these sections either need secondary sources or to be cleaved wholesale. (WP:V)  czar 21:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree The Washington Post is a reliable source that published Kaczynski's Manifesto in its entirety. The sections cited are Political and social views, Perceived control methods and Historical views and predictions. The sections concern Ted's idealogy and beliefs and are based upon the Manifesto. Since the Manifesto was an important part of the entire incident surrounding the bombings, it has an important part in the article. This is not original research because the source is not primary. This whole discussion needs to go to RfC. Mitchumch, since you started this, you should start the RfC.  — Myk Streja ^(who,me?) 22:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Myk_Streja A Rfc is not currently necessary. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment, section "Before starting the process". It states, "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." This discussion has only begun and needs further time to "thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on" this talk page.

In regards to the use of the Washington Post. This discussion is not questioning the WaPo as a reliable source. This discussion is solely focused upon the interpretation of Industrial Society and Its Future. That document is a primary source that happened to be published by WaPo. As I exerted above per Wikipedia:PRIMARY, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. There are no reliable secondary sources used in any of those three sections. Mitchumch (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - as it stands, this is Original Research and/or Synth. Needs a secondary interpretation from a Reliable Source - or it should go.50.111.42.37 (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Mitchumch Thank you for taking me seriously. I know about the initial discussion period, but I'm not certain this discussion will be noticed by many. This article has previously earned a Good Article review, and I don't want to see it trimmed over a source that had been accepted but is now called into question. I could see this if the article had never been reviewed, but too many have put in too many hours to let this just slide by.

As for your second point, I disagree. You claim it's a primary source, I claim it is not. Publishing the Manifesto is no different than if a reporter interviewed Kaczynski. Wikipedia:PRIMARY does not apply, therefore the rest of your assertions do not apply. And there is the rub. Is the published report of the Manifesto in the Washington Post a viable source?

I have found a New York Times to support the WaPo source. Will that do?  — Myk Streja ^(who,me?) 02:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Myk_Streja You'll need to present links so everyone can evaluate your sources. Mitchumch (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Mitchumch Ah, oops. I had meant to but got distracted by RL. New York Times September 19, 1995  — Myk Streja ^(who,me?) 03:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Myk_Streja The only content (at least I saw) that interprets the manifesto in the NYT source states, "The closely reasoned tract, entitled "Industrial Society and Its Future," touched on politics, history, sociology, science and particularly the history of science and called for a nonpolitical revolution in which factories would be destroyed, books burned and humanity saved from economic and technological slavery."

You'll need alot of reliable sources that can validate the interpretations and analysis contained in the three sections I tagged above. Any assertion not supported by such a source will have to be removed. Mitchumch (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Mitchumch I haven't conceded the reliability of the original source. I may continue to look for other sources, but I am not convinced this material is original research.  — Myk Streja ^(who,me?) 19:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Myk_Streja Because your are a lone voice in this discussion, you have to convince the participants in this discussion of your position. I cannot speak for other participants, but you have not convinced me of your position. As of this moment, my position is the interpretation and analysis in those three sections are WP:Original research. Until secondary reliable sources are provided to support those assertions, all interpretation and analysis in those three sections need to be removed. Mitchumch (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Mitchumch What others? You and I are the only participants. Czar drops a one-liner, and the other is an IP address with a real short history. Even if Czar joins the discussion, three respondants is hardly enough.  — Myk Streja ^(who,me?) 21:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Myk Streja. Industrial Society and Its Future is a reliable source as it was published by The New York Times and The Washington Post. It is also of relevance to this article since it was/is the "Unabomber's manifesto" and led to Kaczynski's arrest (Technological Slavery, Anti-Tech Revolution or other works are not as relevant, so passages from them are not included). You could argue about what of ISAIF should be included but that is more to do with consensus among editors, not about the validity of the source. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Myk_Streja I'm not sure what more I can add to this discussion beyond what I've already added. Mitchumch (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Then the templates should be removed. I understand your concerns about original research, and would agree if this was a philosopher with a wide range of works that someone was cherry-picking quotes from to present a certain view. But this is the one notable work by Kaczynski, and it was published by a reliable source (so it can be seen as a "novel" which you may "cite passages to describe the plot", and as an interview with Kaczynski wherein he details his personal views) and is of relevance to the subject at hand (Kaczynski may not have been caught if he did not detail his views in Industrial Society and Its Future). Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I second the motion. Prior editors who accepted the sections during review agree. The templates should be removed.  — Myk Streja ^(who,me?) 18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of tags will result in an escalation of the discussion to a different forum. Mitchumch (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

In the future Wikipedia talk pages will only be about allegations of "original research".--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Mitchumch It was anticipated and suggested that you would be the one removing the tags. Stop trying to threaten people and get off your high horse. So, exactly what forum was that you were going to escalate to? AN/I maybe?  — Myk Streja ^(who,me?) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please don't remove any tags from the article; it's clear from discussion that there are several editors who see the section as having severe problems. I feel that jumping straight to an WP:RFC was premature (we should have tried to rewrite it first, ideally by finding secondary sources and cutting out most of the quotes), but either way the section has serious issues that will need to be addressed eventually. My suggestion, rather than arguing over the tags or trying to push through an RFC, would be to search for secondary sources so we can rewrite the section based around them. (I also feel that it split the debate too rapidly between delete-entirely and retain-entirely - the current section is completely unacceptable on several grounds, not the least of which is that it tries to base three whole sections on a single primary source; however, it can be rewritten to fix these problems, rather than having to just delete it wholesale. I don't feel that any of the current sections are likely to survive into the final rewrite we end up with, but certainly we can cover his essay somehow, it just requires secondary sources rather than arbitrarily-chosen quotes.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Industrial Society and Its Future is a reliable source as it was published by The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Publishing the Manifesto is no different than if a reporter interviewed Kaczynski.

 ??? No one responds to these outrageous claims? Source reliability doesn't work this way—advertising copy doesn't osmose the publication's reputation for discretion, credibility, and accuracy either, nevertheless when the publication is effectively blackmailed into publishing the document... Moreover, that document cannot be used for extraordinary or analytic claims as a self-published source about self. Also re: the above mention, I would have responded if you chose to {{ping}} me into the discussion. The policy is quite clear on what to do here (elaborated below) and I don't see why any discussion is needed.  czar 18:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Although I've commented below, while WP:OR is one issue with the section (and I definitely agree it needs to be fixed and that the tags have to stay until it is), it's only one facet. These sections also exclusively quote a single source; rely far too heavily on a primary source; and consist almost entirely of quotations. None of these things are acceptable, so I've added tags for all of them. An encyclopedia's purpose isn't to try and reproduce an entire document; it's to summarize it, ideally by relying on secondary sources for interpretation. People who simply want to read Kaczynski's writings can follow our external links to them; but if we want to summarize their salient points, we will need secondary sources to tell us what those points are. Anyway, I feel that the focus on WP:OR has distracted from the real issue. Quotes to this extent, exclusive reliance on a primary source, and relying exclusively on a single source are all against policy anyway, and all those things need to be fixed before the sections could have any of their tags removed. (The statement above that they were published in the Washington Post completely misses the point; that would establish notability for the manifesto as a whole, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a WP:PRIMARY source. We need sources other than Kaczynski himself - we cannot have a section cited exclusively, or even primarily, to his writings, regardless of where they are published, just like we can't have a section that only cites a single source of any type.)--Aquillion (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding Original Research

A prior discussion attempted to determine whether or not the subsections "Political and social views", "Perceived control methods", and "Historical views and predictions" contain original research based on the source used. A consensus was not reached.  — Myk Streja ^(who,me?) 14:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• This isn't difficult. Wikipedia covers a topic's attributes proportional to their weight in sources. So to hold that these three sections of analysis are important, and they likely are, you need reliable, secondary sourcing to determine what exactly needs to be said on the subject. No, the subject's own writings, no matter where they were published or their editorial fact-checking (which you could hardly argue that the newspaper did to his manifesto...), are not "reliable"—they are primary sources about self and not suitable for analytic claims. The content should be removed until someone can add the secondary sourcing to back the claims.  czar 18:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There are no "claims" (no one has stated Kaczynski has a net worth of $800 trillion, or made any similarly extraordinary claim, and then cited Industrial Society and Its Future as evidence). Everything that is sourced to Industrial Society and Its Future (ISAIF) is about Kaczynski's views as detailed in ISAIF, and ISAIF as published by The Washington Post or The New York Times is a reliable source for information about Kaczynski's views as detailed in ISAIF. You are arguing as if someone has stated that Kaczynski's views should be included in the industrial society article. No one has made such a statement. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It's patent original research to summarize the manifesto at that length using only the manifesto itself as a source. Secondary sources have covered its contents at length and have already done the job of determining what a general reader needs to know about its tenets. It isn't our role as a tertiary source to make those decisions ourselves. A primary source should not be used as the basis to determine how much weight it should have in an article. And this isn't even to mention how it's straight-up copyvio (and bad writing practice) to quote at the several-paragraphs-length as is currently done. czar 05:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Kaczynski intended for Industrial Society and Its Future to go into the public domain 6 months after its publication (which was over 21 years ago). Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Retain And we go around. I repeat what I stated above, the Washington Post is a reliable source that published Kaczynski's Manifesto in its entirety. The sections concern Ted's idealogy and beliefs and are based upon the Manifesto. Since the Manifesto was an important part of the entire incident surrounding the bombings, it has an important part in the article. This is not original research because the source is not primary.  — Myk Streja ^(who,me?) 03:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: Per Czar and my statements in "Original research discussion" section of talk page. Several days have transpired since above discussion was initiated and no secondary sources have been added to support assertions. Mitchumch (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Retain: ISAIF is a primary source, but it is acceptable, according to Wikipedia policy, to cite primary sources in circumstances such as this. As far as I can see, there is no interpretation of the source or synthesis of the source with other sources. (And if there is, simply delete the offending passage, and leave the rest.) The information given is well-cited and easily checked. The veracity of the text can be authenticated because it is contained within a secondary source (the Washington Post). There's no problem here. We need to know TK's opinions, and this is the best source.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Retain for the reasons I have given above in this section and the other discussion. Jack Upland also gives a good rationale. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I struck my comment. Also, this RfC is largely irrelevant now as the content has changed hugely. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Delete We are allowed to summarize a primary work without evoking OR, but we are not allowed to analyze or evaluate it, and that's what the three sections seem to be trying to do - evaluating his writings to determine his views. That absolutely must be done by secondary sources , not that I don't think there aren't any that can do this (doing a quick google search). --MASEM (t) 06:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The section titles ("Political and social views", "Perceived control methods", and "Historical views and predictions") were there before I edited this article, but I took the usage of "views" to mean Kaczynski's views as detailed in Industrial Society and Its Future (i.e., a summary of the "manifesto"), not his general weltanschauung. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. This absolutely needs to be existed entirely, though without prejudice towards writing a new version using secondary sources. I don't see anything in the current version that is salvageable. These sections rely far too heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources, and quote them too extensively, without the needed secondary sources to provide interpretation and focus. (Note in particular the WP:PRIMARY caution against basing large passages on them - here, someone has cobbled together three entire sections out of quotes with no secondary sources, selected, as far as I can tell, based on solely on their personal whims.) Why do we quote these parts and not others? How can we be sure the quoted sections are representative? Extensive quotes belong on Wikiquote, not here; we should rely on credible secondary sources rather than trying to quote him extensively ourselves. On top of that, these sections seem to provide overt analysis and interpretation, without citing any source for it - that's definitely original research. Any new version should ideally avoid citing anything exclusively to Kaczynski - any cites to him should be coupled with a secondary source to demonstrate relevance and provide the necessary interpretation. The fact that people would try to argue, above, that this is not a primary source or that this is not original research is honestly a bit dumbfounding to me - how did we determine, exactly, which quotes to pull out and highlight? How did we decide that these particular quotes are representative, when we pulled them out of a larger work? What are we basing the division into these three sections on? All of this is pure WP:OR. Even if we ignore the blatant and flatly undeniable WP:OR problems, the section also flagrantly violates our policies on quotations - a section is not supposed to be dominated by quotes, yet here we have three almost entirely devoted to them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

How does one determine what should be included in any case? Someone may give a long interview, then a reliable, secondary source may publish an article on it. Do you include everything that is in that source? And in what way does the section include analysis or interpretation of Industrial Society and Its Future? (What is the meaning of these terms in this context? You list the section being "almost entirely devoted to [quotations]" as a criticism; where is the room for interpretation or analysis?) Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The ideal situation is to rely entirely on secondary sources, citing primary sources only when secondary sources specifically reference them and only in the specific context that those secondary sources use, with the weight and attention they use. In other words, yes, if a quote is going to appear in the article I would want to see it pulled out and highlighted in a secondary source - choosing to highlight a quote ourselves, when we don't have a secondary source to attest to that quote's importance, is generally original research, and it's certainly original research to try and base three whole sections on such arbitrarily-selected quotes. As for the interpretation or analysis, the section headers themselves (which classify an editor's selection of whatever quotes they personally considered juicy according to "Political and social views", "Perceived control methods", and "Historical views and predictions", with no sourcing provided for how they made those divisions) is already original research. Additionally, it pulls out several quotes from the manifesto and asserts that they are representative of Kaczynski's views, which is, again, WP:OR - we have no source indicating that those quotes are particularly representative, nor any sources analyzing the relative weight of the manifesto against other things he said elsewhere. It says that he "carefully defines what he means by freedom" (which is pure, unsourced editorializing), it characterizes his view of a possible future as dystopian, and it describes some of his recommendations as "tactical". All of this is editorializing, even if it wasn't intended as such. But the deeper underlying issue, as I said above, is that pulling quotes out of context is itself WP:OR - the section is one editor's personal essay on what they feel the most important quotes from Kaczynski's memos are. This makes it all original research. --Aquillion (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. As I said to User:Masem, those section titles existed before I edited this article and I do not necessarily support them. "carefully defines what he means by freedom", "dystopian possibilities for the type of society which would evolve" and "gives various tactical recommendations" also were present before I edited the article. There are other sources which discuss Industrial Society and Its Future and include selected quotes, so i could add them into the section and remove the aforementioned phrases. I still do not know what the process is for deciding what is and what is not included from a secondary source, however, or how that process differs from deciding what is included from a notable, primary source. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"I still do not know what the process is" Books, magazines, publications that have been vetted/edited for accuracy are all fair game for paraphrasing in context. A NYT article about the manifesto's impact would be secondary to the subject, edited with distance from the subject and an eye for accuracy: good. The NYT publishing the manifesto itself does not have either of these benefits (self-published author is primary to the subject, not secondary, and is published as an ideological statement, not an assessment of truth). The guideline pages (WP:RS, WP:IS) have plenty more examples on interpreting these situations. czar 15:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. What do you include from a secondary source? You do not copy & paste the whole thing as that is plagiarism. Is it not consensus among editors as to what is included from a secondary source? How does this differ from a notable, primary source? Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As Hrodvarsson said, thanks for the explanation. The original discussion was a he said/she said argument with neither side giving an inch. No discussions were going on, just statements that "this is OR" period. I may not have ten years here, but I've got 58 years of life in the real world, and my opinion carries as much weight as any other here. Someone commented that we went too quickly to RfC. I disagree (of course I do), but it got you out here in a hurry. And others have weighed in, so it's a plus as I see it. The consensus is becoming obvious even if I don't like it. As for the tags, as you mentioned above, adding those tags at this time is inappropriate. If this were a political debate, that would be called mudslinging. The whole point of the discussion was covered by the existing tags, adding those tags was your opinion above the RfC. But go ahead, be bold, do as you like.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 05:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"he said/she said argument" Perhaps for you, but the fact that every outside editor (including myself...) had the same clarity of response shows that this was never a matter of "opinion" or fuzzy interpretation (also why my original response was so short). I linked and even summarized the relevant policy pages, so your characterization doesn't even close to describing the actual events. Also tagging an article has nowhere near the malice of "mudslinging" and certainly isn't to be taken personally. But if that's your metaphor, consider refrain from campaigning so hard when you're less familiar with the policy, as it would save a lot of wasted effort czar 15:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Not counting the original statement opening the RfC, I have two entries here. That's hardly campaigning. In the topic preceding this one, I had 4 one-liners and 3 entries.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Remove sections as WP:UNDUE. It might be reasonable content on a stand-alone page on the Unabomber Manifesto, but I would not recommend anyone create that page without prior consensus here. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Why we would need a consensus here? Just create the page and discuss it there.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 05:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

2

• Is this discussion still needed? The content in discussion has changed drastically and no longer has a reliance on the Industrial Society and Its Future source. Are the templates still needed or should they now be removed? Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Through tireless effort, which frankly shames and amazes me, Hrodvarsson has transformed the entire section so that it does not depend on the manifesto, nor is it quoted directly in any great quantity. The Washington Post article is now referenced only once, and it's a minor role in the section. I know some of you don't think highly of me, that's fine, but the article has been brought to a point where OR should no longer apply in anyone's eyes. Do we have an accord?  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 21:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Any descriptions of primary sources require interpretation, such as what did he mean and what were the most important points. Doing that requires an understanding of the topics Kaczynski was talking about. That requires original research. I don't see anyway how the summary helps. We don't need a lengthy explanation of his views without including commentary on them. If readers want that, they can read the manifesto. TFD (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The "Summary" section is referenced to secondary sources. Also, can you explain why the summary does not help? Most articles for books or films have a "plot" section or a brief summary of the contents. (Three paragraphs is short considering the full work contains two hundred and thirty-two paragraphs, so it is not a "lengthy explanation".) The commentary would also be for the "reception" section, not the "plot" or "summary" section. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The consensus up to this moment was that the Manifesto was a primary source and couldn't be used directly, nor could it continue to be quoted in large chunks with no apparent logic for the choice of paragraphs quoted. Aquillion and Czar were the strongest proponents for the removal of the primary sourced data and the large blocks of quotes. They both stated that the sections could stay if rewritten with secondary sources. That has been done. By Hrodvarsson. He used secondary sources that did the analysis for him. He did not analyse the Manifesto, he let others do it for him, and he simply reported it. The Manifesto is too central to the case and the man. It will be referred to somehow.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 05:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't verified the new text against its sources, but the three sections in question appear to have been removed and thus their overarching original research issue is resolved. The new sections have new overquoting issues, but those are surmountable. Almost all of the quotes should be paraphrased unless they cannot reasonably be said in different words.  czar 05:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have followed Hrodvarsson's edits on other pages (I'm not stalking anyone, honestly), and I believe that the quotes contained cannot be paraphrased without losing the meaning and tone presented. Of course, having been challenged, he'll prove me wrong, and that's fine, but I have reviewed some of the sources and to my mind he has been very careful.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 19:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

All quotes used in the second paragraph are also quoted at the same length by the source. The first and third paragraphs contain a mix, and maybe could be rephrased more, but Kaczynski's writing style is specific and has little redundancy most of the time so it is difficult to reword without altering the meaning. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It's plenty possible to consolidate the text, and with greater clarity. (The point of editing being to improve on what others have said before...) czar 03:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Improve upon secondary sources, how? You add a clarify tag to surrogate activities, but the wording is as in the secondary source. I personally could give an explanation of what that means (It was explained in the previous versions what a "surrogate activity" and "artificial goal" are), but the above discussion stated that is not allowed, so I followed what the secondary source said. How are you supposed to "clarify"? Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Mostly remove: It's permissible per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PSTS to retain an analysis-free summary with the primary source, and also to supplement that with analysis from reliable secondary sources. It is not permissible to perform our own analysis. Also, the "but it was published in whole by a newspaper so it's a secondary source" argument is hopelessly confused. People making it need to read WP:PSTS and WP:AEIS, as well as the articles Primary source and Secondary source. What the newspaper did is just a very large block quotation. Their reprinting of Kaczynski's manifesto is not work in their own editorial voice. You likewise can't say "According to The New York Times ..." in reference to a third-party op-ed they run, or an advertisement they include.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this in regards to the current version or the previous version(s)? The material sourced only to the manifesto itself has already been removed and the section titles have been renamed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

See also

The topics noted in the See also section need to be discussed in the body of the article, in order to be relevant; otherwise, its just an editor Sherlocking that they are related. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"The topics noted in the See also section need to be discussed in the body of the article". Is that your personal opinion or is there a policy dictating that? WP:SEEALSO says "one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Tangentially related topics would not be discussed in an article. Anyway, how is Unabomber for President not related to the Unabomber article? WP:SEEALSO states that it is common sense what is included in the section. Also, you created a section called "Related articles", which is what "See also" is supposed to be. Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Who's common sense are you applying? Some contributor's? Fuck that noise. We don't get to opoxy together a bunch of shit that sounds like it applies to the article if - oddly enough - it doesn't get mentioned in the article. Doing so is the very definition of Original Research. You have to note where someone citable states that it is related to something else; otherwise, its just your opinion that they're related. And we don't get to do that.

And since people are seemingly more interested in reverting instead of actually finding sources that connect these "tangential" ideas, it seems to me that noting what these 'see also things actually are'. There are media things, like tv series and movies, or pop culture phenomena, liek the Unabomber for Prez nonsense. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question regarding the "topics noted in the See also section need to be discussed in the body of the article" claim, you just reiterated that you have an opinion on the matter. See the "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." part of WP:SEEALSO which contradicts what you are saying.

The common sense I was talking about was that Unabomber for President is related to the Unabomber article. Also, since you were the one who made the bold edit by removing the section, you are the one who must have consensus to make the same edit again. Please read WP:BRD. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The topics noted in the See also section need to be discussed in the body of the article – Quite the opposite. If whatever it is is discussed in the article, it would be linked there. See also is emphatically for links not in the main article. See also MOS:SEEALSO. EEng 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

So, is the suggestion being offered that, if the individual editor thinks one topic is related to an article, their opinion gets to be unchallenged?

1. Editors are not citable.
2. Articles cannot contain neither original content nor supposition added by editors.
3. Uncited material cannot remain - if challenged - in any article, without citation.

Therefore, i am not seeing a shred of reasonable argument in support of uncited material being defended. I haven't heard any substantial reasoning for its inclusion, either. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Like everything else it's a question of editorial judgment as to what will be useful to the reader. What are we arguing about? EEng 18:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Correction, its a consensus of editorial judgment as to what gets added. What we are arguing about is the addition of a laundry list of (at best) tangentially-related terms to the See also section which seem to have very little actual connection to the subject of the article. At least, no actual reliable source has seemed to think so. I fucking despise the idea of any editor sneaking in their personal take into an article, hence the expectation of citability to anything added to the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

tangentially-related terms Yes, tangentially-related articles. Again, see that "links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" goes against what you are saying. Very willing to discuss what specifically should be in the "See also" section, but there is no reason to use expletives in a talk page unless you are quoting something. It is uncivil. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

:Sorry if my use of expletives upset you. It's how I talk and write sometimes. I'll try to tamp it down while discussing this matter with you.

I think that its probably best to utilize the consensus view that we apply to plot synopses in entertainment article; that which meets consensus stays in, whereas material that goes too far afield gets edited out. I would honestly feel far more comfortable if there were discussion of the see also items by Reliable Sources within the article (sidestepping the Original Research tag completely), but so long as there is a consensus for what goes in the 'See also', I think that will work as a litmus test for inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Correction, its a consensus of editorial judgment – There's no correction there. All I said was it's a question of editorial judgment, and that's true. In case of disagreement, such questions are resolved by consensus, but that doesn't negate my original statement that it's "a question of editorial judgment" in the first place. However, there is no guideline or requirement that See alsos require citations, nor are they subject (directly) to WP:V. Their relevance is based on their content (which is itself subject to V, of course) mediated by (again) editorial judgment. Anyway, I still don't know what, specifically, you've got this bee in your bonnet about. EEng 00:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The "bee", as you put it, is that See also sections end up getting crowded with every stupid idea under the sun that some contributor or another thinks is totally relevant to the article, and there is no talking them down from their Last Stand on the issue. See also sections should cover information with some connection to the material, and that connection should be agreed upon by a consensus of editors. If someone doesn't see a valid connection, it should be gone. That some are offended by the very idea that we need to use care in developing out these sections is what pisses me off to no end. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

We keep going round and round. Yes, consensus controls when there's disagreement about an individual candidate entry, but consensus doesn't mean unanimity, so your statement that "if someone [emphasis mine] doesn't see a valid connection, it should be gone" isn't right. I'm not offended by "the very idea that we need to use care", but I'm beginning to lose interest in discussing this since you never say what particular entry you're concerned about. EEng 12:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now; this is a variation of the WP:IDLI behavior, mainly, that of the 'I-don't-get-it' variety. Cool. Thanks for letting me know where you were coming from. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Get control of yourself. I came into this discussion simply to correct your misapprehension that topics noted in the See also section need to be discussed in the body of the article, which is flatly opposite to normal practice – MOS:SEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Beyond that I have no idea what this is all about. EEng 21:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• In my opinion there is nothing wrong with these "See also" links, and I speak as one who often trims these sections. If the article was ever to undergo peer review I would argue for their sourced incorporation into the article per WP:PROSE but in the current state of the article it's OK to keep them. --John (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Though I never thought the day would come that I'd say this, I agree with John. EEng 22:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Kaczynski is a doctor

This information was removed from his bio as "unsourced", which is odd, as his doctorate is listed within the article. Kaczynski is a complete dick, but he gets the same article rtreatment that Mother Theresa gets; it is OR to discriminate. Removing a title he had earned only harms our ability to claim Neutrality in the matter.
So, I reverted it back in, and another user removed it, noting "his PhD may entitle him to be called Dr., in circles where that's done, but WP isn't such a circle -- we don't use titles that way". I reverted it yet again, and asked the user to come and visit us here, to provide context and cite guideline or rule that note this lack of usage.
Until then, we leave clearly cited information alone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

the information that K has a doctorate has always been there, and remains: After receiving his doctorate at age 25... That's separate from how we refer to the person in running text. Benjamin Spock was no dick, but we don't refer to him as Dr. Spock either – MOS:DOCTOR. Mother Theresa is an example of a special case, per WP:HONOR. EEng 21:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The form in academia is to address someone as Dr. (Name), and to identify them in writing as (Name), Ph.D. If anything, he should be listed as Theodore J. Kaczynski, Ph.D. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't academia. MOS:DOCTOR controls. There's no debating this. EEng 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

And yet, oddly enough, we are doing precisely that. Debate will occur, or consequences will follow. Take heed, buddy-boy. And note, citing MOS that uses the word "should" shouldn't be confused for the word "must". - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Buddy-boy? What is this? West Side Story? You asked for a relevant guideline and you got one. If you don't like the guideline, feel free to open up an Rfc to change it. Good luck! -Location (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking more The Apartment. EEng 17:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The same number of sides as this debate

• This is getting tiresome [1][2][3][4]. Paging SMcCandlish, David Eppstein. EEng 02:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What's to discuss? MOS:DOCTOR already is very clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine. It seemed like an unnecessary whittling down of a BLP's accomplishments, which didn't seem all that neutral, but hey, when I am wrong I admit it. I was wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll notify the media. EEng 17:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Which, that I was wrong and admitted it, or that you continually act like a douche? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that reasoned discussion had led to peaceful consensus; I'm not aware of that actually happening anywhere on Wikipedia before, so I thought the world should know. Honestly, though, douche is probably the sort of term you shouldn't be putting into others' minds. EEng 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd been thinking you meant something snarky instead of surprised. I'm striking my answer. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)