Talk:Theodore Kaczynski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theodore Kaczynski is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Archive 1 (Nov. 2006-Mar. 2007)

Contents

[edit] Intro Issues

Why does it say in the intro he killed 78 people and injured more than that, when later in the article it only summarizes 3 people he killed and about a dozen injured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.163.226 (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where does the hood picture come from?

Not being familiar with forensic sketching, I'm curious as to how the artist came up with the famous sketch of the Unabomber in the hood and shades. Does anybody know?--Rob117 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody spotted him somewhere. We should get some more info on this, SqueakBox 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IIRC it was a woman who saw him plant the bomb in the parking lot. The police used her recollections to composite the face(http://encarta.msn.com/media_461536792/FBI_Sketch_of_the_Unabomber.html) Eggerst 17:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-primitivist

Re-igniting above debate, wouldn't it be better to call him an anarcho-primitivist? This is very precise and accurate, in comparison to vagueness (and obviously contentiousness) of anarchist? The three references in the text are not very strong. One[1] is a news article translated from Spanish - just because a journalist calls someone an anarchist does not make that an accurate description (the Sidney Street bombers were called anarchists in the press but were social democrats; lots of Islamists are called things like "Muslim extremist" in the press but that doesn't make it encyclopedic language). One[2] is from TK's fraudulent claim to be part of a group, which can't count as evidence he was an anarchist. One[3] is a passing reference in his manifesto, which makes it clear that most anarchists wouldn't recognise him (or rather, his non-existant group FC) as an anarchist! BobFromBrockley 11:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That last reference deals precisely with the fact that he is an anarcho-primitivist and most anarchists (especially the leftist types) do not recognize him as an anarchist. That is what the particular branch of anarchism" that may not be recognized by other anarchists refers too. I believe we should not step into a debate about which anarchists recognize who. that is highly subjective and it concerns political theory. There are also many indivualist and primitivst anarchists that will not recognize leftist communist anarchists as such.

TK's group may be fraudulent, but it does concern his political expression trough which he was made famous. What other prove do you need that he considers himself an anarchist when he voices his manifesto as such? The fact that he wanted to give a wider expression to the number of his followers has got nothing to do with his political ideology.

The first source is just an example in the media. I have already provided several others. I do agree with you that he is an anarcho-primitivist and he should be described as one in this article. He has been referenced to as one in anarchist articles(anarchism and anarcho-primitivism), which may show that not only he is recognize as such, but that he is a notable author in this field.Maziotis 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will change the article in light of this section, considering there is a consensus on the term "anarcho-primitivist" to describe the unabomber. This is actually not the first time that this consensus is reached. You can check the history log. The term "anarcho-primitivism" itself is not very popular, but for people who are familiarized with anarchism and the unabomber know that the is an anarcho-primitivist.Maziotis 12:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Maziotis, I support that. BobFromBrockley 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Right right... Carry on

I certainly object. You anarcho primitivists might wish to claim him as your own but that doesnt make him one. We already have the POV tag because of the anarchists label and this is worse, SqueakBox 18:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Why object? why not be more specific when we are able? 04:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Kaczynski is not an anarcho-primitivist, rather, he is an individual autonomist/anarchist who focuses on industrial technology as a device that prohibits personal autonomy through the requirements of large interdependent organizations. Proof of this is "Two Kinds of Technology" section in Industrial Society and Its Future. With Kaczynski, primitivism is not an end but means... unlike an anarcho-primitvist. --Korey Kaczynski 20:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In paragraph 215 of his manifesto, he implies he is an anarchist. Not sure about primitivist, though he does glorify primitive man. I think complete lack of "artificial authority" is his goal...he said he wasn't concerned about what happened from there.

Well, yes -- he's an anarchist in the sense that he's for more localized, autonomous villages; absolutely not in the modern definition of an anarchist being a communist. He's not a primitivist in that his aim is to remove technology, however, he simply wants localized autonomy and feels that organizational technology opposes that life structure. He's obviously not against technology that can be constructed by small organizations, like a group of people or a village, which separates himself from anarcho-primitivists in that their goal is to remove technology as a means to a hunter-gatherer type lifestyle (at least typically). --Korey Kaczynski 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
TJK's revolutionary politics are entirely and explicitly concrete; he specifically says he doesn't know what form of society would arise from the collapse of industry, but he knows it would involve a life close to nature. TJK sees history as moving in a certain direction and wants to stop it from going there more than to make it go anywhere specific.
On the other hand, he has published in Green Anarchy magazine; he is personally associated with Zerzan; he has said he was "attracted to the primitive way of life as a result of reading of the life of Neanderthal man" and that he "used to dream of escaping from civilization and going to live in some wild place." At the very least, one could call him a fellow-traveler with anarcho-primitivism. Though Kaczynski's expressed views are too concrete to associate with an ideology, he specifically calls for the creation of an ideology--arguably anarcho-primitivism is that ideology. But calling for the ideology is not the same as subscribing to it.
Ultimately, words have no fixed meanings--labels in particular are hard to hold still. To subscribe to an "ism" has more to do with sociology than belief. A Christian is not someone who believes in anything in particular; rather, he who identifies as "Christian" asserts his membership in a certain social group with norms of belief. If that social group's norms of belief change, then the definition of "Christian" changes, far from the group becoming non-Christian.
Because of this, and since Kaczynski is undoubtedly familiar with the term "anarcho-primitivism" and has never seen fit to comment on it, I think it would be best not to describe him that way. --Jemmy Button 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Kaczynski has a lot in common with anarcho-primitivism but he's not against low-scale technology like water wheels. I think most anarcho-primitivists would be more interested in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle than anything involving water wheels or enhanced agricultural practices. The manifesto is clear on this, I think.--Korey Kaczynski (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrest

Some words seem to have been deleted in this section, and it does not address how Ted was actually found and arrested.

[edit] Too much politics

I think too much emphasis is made on Kaczynski's political philosophy, and in political philosophy in general, in this article. Kaczynski is a murderer before an anarchist, but this article has too many references and links to political philosophies. It should concentrate on being a biography of a specific person. Perhaps a separate article on UNABOM, a specific criminal and series of crimes, should exist, and not have it redirect here. The way it exists, it is like having Kennedy Assasination redirect to Lee Harvey Oswald. Mal7798 07:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly agree there is too much politics, SqueakBox 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a good idea, While his primitivist philosophy is what makes the case so interesting and noteworthy, some people want to know more about the case and trial only. Perhaps info on his mathematical career and political philosophies should go here, and then also have a summarised version of the UNABOM trial, linking to a more detailed page? -04:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree the politics are adequate. However more information should be included about how he carried himself around people. Something more about his child-hood. Theres only so much information to gather about him. Leave the politics is my suggestion. -22:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that his political beliefs need to be eliminated from the article entirely, just that there seems to be too much of it here, and this needed to be addressed. And if there is too little of his life known to make a large enough biography, it would be inappropriate to use accounts of his political philosophy as filler. Kaczynski is a murderer who used his philosophy to justify his crimes, not a political philosopher who "took to a life of crime". He would have most likely not warranted an article had he not committed his crimes, but he definitely warrants one because of his crimes. Mal7798 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that his politics are less notable than his crimes. While his crimes are somewhat notable I think his philosophy/politics is much more so, and eg the addressing of those issues by Bill Joy et al, he cant be treated like an unintelligent criminal any more than Abimael Guzmán can, SqueakBox 04:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
All of this is certainly in the realm of opinion, but what I find notable is the fact that he conquered the New York Times through terrorism—a singular event in the history of mass media. —Jemmytc 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Is a political label really needed in the opening section? Steve Dufour 09:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It explains a lot about his beliefs in very few words. I feel it's appropriate there.-- 06:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I am 100% in favor of explaining his political stance in the article itself. However, just putting a label on him, like "anti-leftist anarchist", could lead to problems. Kaczynski was not part of any political group or party and there is probably not anyone with exactly the same opinions as him. DoesItalic text any group welcome him as a member? The anti-leftist anarchist label could also be seen as a slur against other anti-leftist anarchists. Steve Dufour 22:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the tag as the anarchist label has been removed, SqueakBox 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that. He killed people because of his ideology. You have to address that he wasn't just a murderer, he WAS a political philosopher. And just like how people place Fred West as a psychotic, we must place the UNABOMER as a political philosopher. lordbetterthanyou

Many likely share many of his beliefs, but none of them committed the crimes he did, and most do not commit similar crimes. And few killers have presented such a detailed philosophy, nor have had the opportunity to express it. But no killer was just a killer. The reason Kaczynski merits a Wikipedia biography is that he is a killer. The crimes he committed could even merit a separate article, but if there is no way to include both articles without them being redundant, only then should it stand just as it is. Mal7798 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh and Ted obiously became a killer because he is a philosopher.

-- unpaid lamer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.149.19.160 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mind reading removed

I took out this sentence from the opening:

Kaczynski did this in the hope that it would inspire others to fight against what he considered the inevitable subjugation of the human race as a direct consequence of technological progress.

I don't think we can really say for sure what his reasons were. Steve Dufour 09:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, he only wrote 35,000 words describing his reasons... Jemmy Button 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steve, but only to the extent that the excerpt is poorly worded. Perhaps something like "According to Kaczynski's writings, he did this in hope..." or "Kaczynski's motive, expressed in his writings, was the hope...." If it's his writings that make his reasons clear, then they should be credited as the source for that info. Applejuicefool 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe, according to Kaczynski's journal, that his reasons were to get "revenge" on the system and the people he felt were responsible for the problems in the world, namely, loss of personal autonomy. The manifesto was really him capitalizing off his bombings. --Korey Kaczynski (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors and wrong insinuations

"Bombs sent via the U.S. Postal Service continue to this day, some exploding and many others being defused, but none are attributed to Kaczynski since it is the government's position that he acted alone."

umm, murders continue to this day as well, and none are attributed to Cain, not because "it's the government's position that he acted alone", but because there is no evidence to link Cain and those murders. This sentence makes an implication that has no factual or rational basis. Dlabtot 01:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That strange sentence is preceded by another, and I have edited them both... "No explanation was ever presented as to why Kaczynski targeted the airplane and the specific victims he selected, and why he chose to place other devices where they would randomly kill and maim.[27]"

These claims are factually wrong - listen to Theodore's younger brother David on Whistleblowers, rte.ie, 9 Sep 2007 Cckkab 9 September 2007
suppressed following, after listering to interview of Theodore's brother David 9 Sep 07 www.rte.ie

"To date, no other members of Kaczynski's alleged Freedom Club have ever been publicly named." Cckkab 9 September 2007

Kaczynski always supplanted false clues in his writings and bombs; Freedom Club was more than likely only an alias for Teddy K. Ted didn't have any friends other than maybe a few pen pals.--Korey Kaczynski (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Does anyone know the proper pronunciation of Kaczynski? It is often pronounced as Kazinski but the "cz" would usually be pronounced Kashinski, I think. I've always wondered if the newscasters, etc. got it right or wrong. Sbowers3 02:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

English: [4] Polish: [5] Polish Pronunciation of the "original" Kaczyński name: [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Kent (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC) If the above links don't work - just type "Kaczynski" here: [7] Barry Kent 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Kachinski. The real question though is how does the Kaczynski family pronounce it? Sbowers3 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a link to a radio interview with David Kaczynski in the article. I haven't listened to it myself. —Jemmytc 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social Critic

The article states he is a "an American terrorist and social critic". Um, aren't ALL terrorists social critics? :P AbstractClass 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A terrorist is likely to hold a critical opinion of society, but not necessarily to produce social criticism. Jemmy Button 22:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It is theoretically possible for a terrorist to not be a social critic - for example, a bomber who uses the threat of terrorist activity to extort money for personal gain. Applejuicefool 16:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist?

on a related note: what makes kaczynski s "terrorist" rather than a "serial killer"? Metanoid (talk, email) 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

According to serial killer, the term means merely someone who has killed a series of people. Nevertheless, the connotations are quite inappropriate to Kaczynski, and the description in that article does not match him at all--in spite of the fact that, before the manifesto, the unabomber was covered in the media as a serial killer. Kaczynski's motivations were political and he used the threat of violence to hold the New York Times hostage, meeting more or less every definition in terrorism. He clearly belongs in the same camp as Weatherman (organization), Timothy McVeigh, etc. (see also eco-terrorism and Kaczynski's article in Green Anarchy, wikisource:Hit Where It Hurts). He doesn't fit well at all with these guys. —Jemmytc 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. He also promised "to desist from terrorism" in his letter to the NYT. —Jemmytc 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion of parents

Any one know what was the religion of his parents ( if any)?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.106.141 (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

T.J.Kaczynski seems to have been sent to non-Catholic schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
T.J.Kaczynski's parents were brought up as Catholics but became atheists, according to the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MKULTRA involvement

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2160815834239891699&hl=en

This BBC documentary states that his lawyerts tried to use his involvement in the Project MKULTRA experiments in a plea of insanity. (At about 43 minutes in.)

-- nyenyec ☎ 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COMMENTS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mkultra#Famous_subjects

The MKULTRA involvement should be expanded since this largely affected Theodore Kaczynski's mind. After the experiments he uses the term "WE" in his journals. His schizophrenia isn't mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.133.158 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Relations

Any one know if he ever had a girlfriend or can find out anything about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.68.173 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Graysmith was unable to find one past high school JRWoodwardMSW 00:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRWoodwardMSW (talk • contribs)

In the book "mind of the unabomber" it says he'd never had a real one. In high school he put a dead cat in a girls locker. Later in life he'd gone to dinner with a co-worker who instantly decided to stop seeing him. I don't have it with me anymore, but I remember it was written by the old director of the FBI, if anyone could hunt it down for this article. Clockwrist (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)



The unabomber is ugly and mean and a horrible person! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.93.134 (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kaczynski's use of "we"

This is a common usage of the word in peer-reviewed mathematics journals. 72.215.61.106 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why are his victims not suitable for "See also" linking?

In reference to recent undo here wherein User:Maziotis said about User:ACSE's inclusion in the "See also" section of

"it's great we have a link in the article for one of the targets, but this is not a topic of further investigation in the unabomber case for the see also section; don't over-link please"

I'm mystified. Why wouldn't this be relevant in this article? As a researcher I find such links to be invaluable, and as it is unobtrusively in the "See also" section, fairly neutral. If I'm reading the Unabomber article and have a hankering to learn about or interview his victims, having them noted would be critical.

Kaczynski sent bombs to people. Angelakos was one of his targets. Therefore, a link to Angelakos in an article about Kaczynski is relevant. Sort of like linking to mail bombing in the lede.

Given my experience with the hypersensitivity to many innocuous edits I've seen with this article (accusing nobody), rather than undo this edit, I figured I better bring it up here. I am unabmiguously in favor of including User:ACSE's appropriate link in the "See also" section. -- Quartermaster (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware of this, but there is still a link in the article to the article of that subject. I have not removed the link for the article of such target for whoever reads this article and is interested on further investigation. I simply removed the link from the "see also" section because there is a tendency for this to became a much too long list of things related to this article. If we don't take care to only preserve the most important ones, we end up with the risk of having a sort of transcription of all the article links in the end section.

I don't claim to have any golden rule on this. I understand that people have different sensibilities on how to choose such criterion. I suggest you too read the link for policy rule in wikipedia, if you haven't yet - Wikipedia:Layout#see_also

Please understand that there are links in the "see also" section that didn't appear in the article and wouldn't otherwise be linked. I believe this should be the main criteria for articles this long.

I hope I was able to address the issue.Maziotis (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I guess the fact that you dispute my edit pretty much dismisses my criterion of being evidently pointless for most. I won't remove it again.Maziotis (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a most civil discussion and illuminates your rationale (which does make sense). I come from background as a reference librarian and find most often that I direct people immediately to the wikipedia article sections labeled "Bibliography," "References," and "See also." I even counsel them to be VERY wary of the body of an article that is politically sensitive and contentious (such as this one) and rely upon the references to take them to external sources. I understand the need and desire to keep articles from being too cluttered and see that as a natural tension against wanting to supply enough "access points" (liberry jargon). Ideally, there might be a section (See also sub-section?) that simply lists all the victims with appropriate links. I'll leave the latest version alone until someone else chimes in as this being compelling (hold off on my opinion without support from others). -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for now we do have a talbe in the "bombings" section that pin down the narrative to the descrimination of each of the targets. The ones who died, and for which there is an article, are linked there. Not all the victims are notable enough to have an article of there own.Maziotis (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)