Talk:Richard Kaczynski

Bibliography or References?

Some of the "Bibliography" appear to be References, (i.e. about the subject, not by the subject) - could someone who knows fix this? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing problems

Almost all of the sources for this article are problematic:

1. Does not support the fact stated, being just the main page of a University website. A search using the subject's last name yields no results.
2. No problem, but not a third-party source.
3. Apparently a self-written bio published by the Lodge for which he is master, i.e. self-published.
4. Ditto.
5. Apparently a self-written blurb published by another Lodge of an organization of which the subject is a member.
6. A Google video? It this even published on Google with permission of the copyright holder? Or is it a copyright violation?
7. Doesn't establish subject's notability. Doesn't even establish notability of the band.
8. Another self-written bio published on the website of a band of which he is a member, i.e. self-published.

I don't believe there are any true biographical sources meeting Wikipedia requirements for this individual. Therefore from Wikipedia standpoint, this individual is not notable. This is compounded by the fact that this is a living person, and requires even better sourcing than usual. I'm not quite ready to nominate this article for deletion, but I think that should be considered if better sourcing cannot be found. Will in China (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The sources you have mentioned are provided not to establish notability, but to verify the facts provided. Kaczynski's many publications and books, his degrees and long career as a public speaker, his articles in respected medical publications, and his appearance in a PBS special speaking about a topic he has written on establish him, IMO, as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. In the magical community, his New Falcon and Weiser books alone make him a recognized authority. No one is saying he is notable because he is in a band, but once the article is there, the fact that he is also a professional musician becomes a relevant fact about the subject. And no one has written an article about the band, so there's no reason to challenge it's notability.

I have updated his position with the Detroit Mercy School of Dentistry and provided a better citation, and I will revisit the others. However, if you re-read the section about self-published material in WP:Bio [1], you'll see that even if the material on the OTO websites WERE self-published (and you've supplied no evidence that this is so) they would fall within the scope of acceptable sources. I do not, however, accept that simply because the subject is a high-ranking member of a lodge that the information on that lodge's website is "self-published" or unacceptable as far as verifying simple facts like the ones they are being used as citations for in this article. In fact, your logic is circular: you are saying that you can't accept the fact that he is a high-ranking official in these lodges, because AS a high-ranking official he may have control of their publicity.

None of these facts are controversial nor are any contradicted by any other source. For instance, the fact that the subject is a long-time lecturer on Thelema. OTO, and related subjects can be verified by supplying several individual links to lectures he's presented at events, but that would be needlessly cumbersome, and NO ONE doubts that he has lectured extensively or has been a student of Thelema since 1977 and a member of the OTO since 1987.

• 1. Corrected
• 2. a biographical item from a peer-reviewed 3rd-party publication
• 3. may or may not be supplied by subject, but website is not published by subject, facts are not controversial, and subject is not even listed as a MEMBER of this lodge. In fact, the Sekhet-Maat Lodge is in Portland, Oregon and he was a guest speaker there. He is a past master of a Detroit lodge called Blue Equinox Oasis.
• 4. Ditto
• 5. To say you can't use a publication of another lodge he is unconnected with because they are part of the same "organization" implies that the OTO is one organization, which it is not. That would be like saying a Masonic publication can't be used as a source for any Mason in the world since they are all "members" of the same "organization". This is a website of a New York City lodge, which also supports the fact that Kaczynski is a respected authority who is called upon to lecture across the continent.
• 6. I don't know whether the video was posted correctly or not. The fact remains that Kaczynski does appear in this PBS documentary, which both helps support his notability and provides an item for a filmography section. Linking to a place where you can actually SEE him in the film was just provided as a verification of the fact.
• 7. Not everything is about notability. The band is known to Allmusic, the citation verifies his membership in the band and what instrument he plays. This simply helps the article be well-rounded and present a more complete picture of the subject. I agree, if his only claim to fame was playing in this band, it would not be sufficient.
• 8. Again, merely supplied as a source for the non-controversial fact of the name of the label he's recorded on. Not meant to establish notability. Rosencomet (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I understand what you are saying, but an individual must be notable before they merit a Wikipedia article. The article must assert the reason for notability and that reason must be backed up by third party sources. Just being an author is not enough to establish notability. One would have to be an author of a notable book. To establish that a book is notable requires multiple independent third-party reviews. If you can establish that one of the subject's books is notable, then you are halfway there.

But better sourcing for the biographical details is needed. These need to come from completely outside the person's sphere of influence. That is, publisher bios are typically not good enough, neither are biographical blurbs from press releases, class announcements, those written by or with the collaboration of the subject, or about the subject by an organization which may be biased toward taking everything the subject says as true without question. That is, it needs to be done by an independent biographer or investigator, journalist, etc. Otherwise there is simply not enough quality biographical information to say anything significant about the subject. There are plenty of assistant instructors and members of non-notable bands that do not deserve Wikipedia articles. From what is in the article so far, this individual seems to fall into this category. Will in China (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, what is with the list of books under "Bibliography". Only 1 published book seems to be by the author. Was he an editor of the other books? Wrote the introduction or preface? Was he credited on the cover? That list gives the impression of being stuffed to be more impressive. Really only books written by the subject should be included. If other things must be included, there should be subheadings: Books, Articles, Edited or Co-edited, etc. so to make it clear who did what and what the subject's level of involvement was. Will in China (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(response moved from my talk page)

I have reversed some of what you just did on this article. First, you deleted three books that he actually wrote, and one which he contributed to in the form of an interview. These are quite acceptable inclusions in a bibliography, and your note about whether he is credited on the cover or mentioned by Amazon.com is totally irrelevant. Amazon is not even an acceptable source much less a determiner or anything, and the cover of a book contains whatever the whim of the publishing press decides to put there, whether for advertising, or looks, or any reason.

Also, a filmography includes films someone APPEARED in, not necessarily created. Otherwise, actors would not have filmographies, and they do. Rosencomet (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, you need citations (Library of Congress, some other database) to show that the subject of the article actually authored the work. Did he use pseudonyms? If the only wrote a portion of the work, such as an article or chapter, then the work should be listed in the Articles section, not the book section, which is for books fully written by the subject. Feel free to divide the articles section into medical and magical if that's the case. Thanks. Will in China (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong about some of this. Kaczynski did contribute to each book, though. Here is a list of those contributions:

• Rebels & Devils - the publishers list him as a contributor here [2]
• The Golden Dawn Sourcebook contains an essay written for the volume by Richard Kaczynski entitled "Daybreak: Early History and Origins of the British Golden Dawn"
• The Revival of Magick and Other Essays was edited by him, not written by him. My mistake.
• People of the Earth, renamed Being a Pagan by Ellen Evert Hopman & Lawrence Bond, contains a forward written by Kaczynski

I do not agree that Library of Congress citations are needed for any of this. I don't see them in similar lists on other articles, and don't see any reason to set the bar higher for this author. Simple searches and Google book search came up with this info. Collections and compilations containing a chapter or essay by a particular author are also traditionally included in that author's bibliography, not in a separate section called "articles", which is usually used for articles in periodicals, reference books, or on websites. However, if you want to create separate sections for works edited by him (there seem to be several not listed here) or other categories I have no objection, as long as you don't simply delete them outright, like you did before.

And self-published works can be included, as long as notability is not dependent on them. Rosencomet (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were asserting that he was the author of complete works attributed to other people. Now I see it was just improperly listing articles in books as books. Not the way it's done. Will in China (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the last self-published source on the page. I now believe that all sources are within Wikipedia guidelines, so removed the sources warning at the top of the page --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed

I think I've properly classified the works in question. There may be some standard for it I'm not following, but at least it no longer implies that he wrote books that were actually authored by others. Will in China (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with it in this form. I added the name of the article in Rebels & Devils, and deleted the tag. I hope to add other edited books in the future, now that there's a specific place for them. Glad to have worked together on this.

My only remaining question is: is "Magical" a proper heading for that section? Maybe "Magical and Metaphysical"? Or something else? Rosencomet (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, no real opinion on that. Maybe just Metaphysical? Whatever you think is most accurate, since I'm guessing you are more familiar with these articles than I am. Will in China (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I am quite suprised that Dr. Kaczinski was even being considered for deletion on notability grounds. He is one of the foremost experts on Thelema in the world, and has written highly regarded books on the subject, as well as lecturing all over the world. Since the vote was No Consensus, can we now try to come to one and remove the "Notability" box from the top of the page?

--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree: the notability tag should be removed. Rosencomet (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No dissensions until now, so done.--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Kaczynski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110616053042/http://dental.udmercy.edu/departments/orthodontics/Faculty/kaczynski-richard.htm to http://dental.udmercy.edu/departments/orthodontics/Faculty/kaczynski-richard.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)