Talk:Greg Mortenson/Archive 1

Birthdate?
Hi Folks, Does anyone have Greg's exact birthdate? It'd be nice to add. Renee (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it here. Renee (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lutheran missionary
Not sure why someone deleted the "Lutheran missionary" part but it appears in the sourced article, so is accurate. Renee (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems someone objects to Mortenson's father being referred to as a Lutheran missionary, though the source given for the sentence clearly refers to him as that (as do several other sources). Before deleting text, please discuss the rationale for such removal here.  I'm not sure what the objection is?  Renee (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just invited Tauheed to the discussion. I personally think this is a simple misunderstanding and we will be able to solve it very easily. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems the objection centers on the perception that people will think that Mortenson himself is a Lutheran missionary, because his father was. Please see this. All users agree that the information is true and that the sources support the information. I would never draw a conclusion that Mortenson himself was a missionary or even Lutheran from that clause, but perhaps there is a way to make the issue more clear if that is the issue? Renee (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We can use Three Cups of Tea for inspiration.  See the page numbers I listed below.  Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are getting my point, it is indeed to clarify that Mortenson is not a Lutheran missionary. BTW: we should also add http://gregmortenson.blogspot.com as one of the links Tauheed_Ashraf (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's important information to include, because it shows he had an early spiritual influence. Would you be comfortable with this?


 * His father, Irvin "Dempsey" Mortenson, was a Lutheran missionary and the founder and development director of the Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Center, Tanzania's first teaching hospital.
 * My only issue is his safety, the extremist are looking for an excuse to label him as a missionary, perhaps we can define his early spiritual influence in a slightly different way ? Viriditas, did you take the picture at the ALA conf 3 weeks ago?Tauheed_Ashraf (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about his safety as well. I think we can find a way to talk about his father separately from his own life.  Give me a little time to think about this.  I didn't take the photo.  I downloaded it from flickr, and it is appropriately licensed.  You can follow the original link on the image page.  Tauheed, can you offer any proposals for fixing the early life section? Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tauheed, I am sympathetic to this as well. It's a fairly minor point so I think it can be left out if it really does endanger him.  The censorship of factual information bothers me and it seems a real stretch to say that because one's father was a Lutheran missionary then Mortenson must be too, but then I realize in different parts of the world, one's father completely defines one's son, so better to leave it out and be safe than sorry. Renee (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I recall the book mentioning that Mortenson's own religious beliefs were more ambiguous, that he was agnostic in spite of his being the son of Lutheran missionaries. Maybe the article should state so.  Also, maybe there should be a mention that the village leader of Korphe, Haji Ali, declared to a neighboring village detractor, "this man is a better Muslim than you" due to all that Mortenson had done for his village. -- M P er el  06:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. In the first chapter, Relin describes how Mortenson had not yet decided on the "nature of divinity" despite his parents' faith.  You make a good suggestion.  Can you help edit the article? Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed text
From 1958 to 1973, Mortenson grew up on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro in northern Tanzania, where his father was a Lutheran missionary.


 * Source: "Irvin "Dempsey" Mortenson was a strapping, Lutheran missionary who was a high school basketball and football star in Minnesota. On an impulse, he moved with his wife, Jerene, to a house in Tanzania. They lived on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, the largest mountain in Africa.  Dempsey Mortenson's adult life was devoted to an ambitious, philanthropic project. He spent a decade raising money and staff to found Tanzania's first teaching hospital. It was one of his father's proudest accomplishments, Mortenson said."
 * See also: Three Cups of Tea, pp. 35-36

How about putting it the way this article does? "Mortenson credits his parents, Minnesota Lutherans who served as missionaries in Tanzania during much of his childhood, for the course he has chosen." The phrase "Minnesota Lutherans" makes them sound like an ethnic group. It clearly refers to his parents, and not to him. Feedback? (Please remember, per WP:SILENCE, silence means assent, so please speak up!) Renee (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Images
Dear Tauheed, I notice you've uploaded several images, which were wonderful(!!) but each time they got deleted. I'll add info about how to post them to Wikipedia. Would you be willing to do this? It'd be nice to use the pictures you've tried to post earlier. Thanks. Renee (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you know how to upload images, but if you want it to stay on Wiki (instead of being deleted), all you have to do is under the licensing information, release it to public domain. (Also, all of the fields should be filled out completely.)  You may be doing this but I'm not sure why they keep being deleted.  Maybe Viriditas knows more?  Renee (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the photos belong to Tauheed, or if Tauheed has permission to release them to Wikipedia, then we can simply give them the correct Creative Commons licensing, unless Tauheed has other concerns. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have personally taken many pictures of Greg, which I can share. Except I haven't spent enough time on wiki to figure out the licensing stuff. I will need your help in that matter. Tauheed_Ashraf (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just uploaded this self-portrait.  :)  I think the licensing's correct but perhaps Viriditas can confirm.  Here's what I did: a) click on "Upload file" in the "toolbox" to the left; b) click on "my own work" (the first sentence under "What kind of image is it?"; c) scrolled to the fill-in blanks and clicked on browse to load the picutre, gave the picture a descriptive name (instead of numbers), filled in some of the summary info (like year), and then (here's the important part, I believe), selected "Public Domain" under the licensing option, then clicked on upload, and there it appeared! I think the key is to choose "public domain" for the licensing as well as clicking on "my own work" for uploading.  Hope this helps!  Renee (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Depending on the quality of the photos and how Tauheed feels about them, it's best to start out with a Creative Commons licensing scheme rather than public domain. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which would you recommend? (and why?) Thanks! Renee (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I need to see the photos and I need to know what Tauheed wants to do with them. Take a look at Creative Commons licenses for more information. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

barry chapman bishop?
Is this the same Barry Chapman Bishop as referred to in Mortenson's article? It might be worth a link? (or even article on Bishop? do you think he's noteworthy enough?) Renee (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio issues
I've just discovered that major portions of this article are lifted directly from Greg's bio (which isn't even cited or credited as the source). I'm afraid this means that the article will need to be overhauled -- but I feel confident that the dedicated editors who have put so much effort into the article will rise to the challenge! Cgingold (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

File:GM AFG.jpg is up for deletion
This image, which appears to show Greg Mortenson with a group of Afghans, has been proposed for deletion (follow link for discussion), as apparently not being likely to be used on Wikipedia. If you think the image could be useful to this article, as so would be worth keeping, please say so in the discussion within the next four days. Jheald (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Children's names
Mortenson's children's names are not a secret, and I have no idea how having their names here in Wikipedia could be a security issue when their names are elsewhere already on the net. I don't think it's necessary to have their middle names in the article, though. So -- my feeling is that the first names should stay, but the middle names should go. And, for future reference, rather than bordering on an edit war, could we please be sure to talk first in discussion rather than just revert edit changes? I'm thinking that's really more the Wikipedia way. Thanks! Lhb1239 (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this dialog, if you try searching for his children's names, wiki is the first place where their names turn up. In all other sites you have to dig to find them, if you can find them at all. Notice: that their names have been taken out of gregmortenson.com as well. I am not sure why his children's names (especially full names) is of any importance to anyone logical. I've known Greg Mortenson for a while and I believe that it would be safer for his family to take the kids names out completely. Tauheed ashraf (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"...if you try searching for his children's names, wiki is the first place where their names turn up." That's because Wikipedia has an agreement with Google regarding search engine results. Regardless, if someone is truly searching for his children's names in order to breach security or cause harm, the names can be found easily in various places -- all one has to do is look on the internet. And that includes Mortenson's own website. But here's a sampling of a few locations on the web where their names are easily found:
 * http://www.missouristate.edu/assets/FirstYearPrograms/Timeline_-_3_Cups_of_Three.pdf
 * http://prodigy3cupsoftea.pbworks.com/w/page/24657593/Birth-of-Khyber-Mortenson
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=1Vu0UWVr6esC&pg=PT143&lpg=PT143&dq=greg+mortenson+khyber&source=bl&ots=WrgGZhKCbI&sig=ncN8tDj3qZ-uSD1k7xXnxcBOYEY&hl=en&ei=KHxYTcOPHYOBlAewt9SPBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=greg%20mortenson%20khyber&f=false
 * http://www.amazon.com/Greg-Mortenson/e/B001H6EO9Y
 * http://kidspiritonline.com/2009/09/my-dad-greg-mortenson/
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=HbezCyqr3q0C&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239&dq=greg+mortenson+khyber&source=bl&ots=mW4GPa1zkQ&sig=V2HswFKBvuTt211h3-tcwF8dVLg&hl=en&ei=KHxYTcOPHYOBlAewt9SPBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=greg%20mortenson%20khyber&f=false
 * http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2012384697.html
 * http://media.bordersstores.com/pdf/amiramortensonQ&A.pdf

That's a small sampling, and just from one Google search page. There are many more pages with the same information that follows the first page. Since Mortenson has made no secret of his children and their names either in the world wide web or the media or his books, I see absolutely no danger of security nor any good reason to keep their names out of the page here in Wikipedia. I don't feel comfortable saying this, but if you persist in removing their names from the article, I will probably take this to someone with more clout in Wikipedia. Further, from what I've read here in how Wikipedia works, if you do have a personal relationship with Greg Mortenson as you claim, you might not be the right person to work on this article as far as conflict of interest is concerned. Nonetheless, based on what's already public about his children on the internet, I don't see that this article including their names is anything that proves a danger to their safety. Nor do I think Mortenson would object to their names being included here. It's not like we're publishing their home address or where they go to school. It's just more of the same of what's already been written dozens of times publically. Perhaps you can be a little more specific about how you think this article would be a real concern to Mortenson considering his children's names are already available in numerous weblinks? I sure would rather see this get hashed out here than elswhere with those with authority involved. Sincerely, Lhb1239 (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * About a year ago I emailed Greg's Central Asia Institute website (www.ikat.org) with a request to clarify image copyright and get consent for the use of some copyright images. An email reply came from Tauheed ashraf but he never actually answered any of the original questions. Be that as it may, this proves that Tauheed ashraf obviously has a very close relationship with Greg Mortenson and therefore has a clear conflict of interest, so his edits and views are likely tainted by that relationship. Easily verified public information, like the full names of Greg children should not be deleted because it is just as easy to find the information elsewhere. ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Peacock, etc.
This article is on a notable subject, there's no doubt about that--but that doesn't mean that the article can promote this subject. For instance, an unverified list of "honorary doctorate degrees" is of no encyclopedic value. Other aspects of the article retain the all-too positive and excessively detailed account of this person's life, and further pruning is welcome. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as the list of honorary degrees contains at least one error. I am a student at Queens University and I emailed the principle of the school who confirmed that there are no current plans to award Greg Mortenson an honorary degree. Could someone please remove that false information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.80 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping that while allegedly studying at Queens University you will learn how to spell "principAL" correctly. :-) Lhb1239 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Still the point is valid. Honorary degrees require sources just like everything else.   Will Beback    talk    22:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah cool I made a spelling mistake and you caught it. With such high standards for correctness I do not understand why the false information about Greg Mortenson remains on his main page. Here is a copy of the email:

Dear [redacted], Principal Woolf has asked me to advise you that there are no plans at this time to award an Honorary Doctorate to Greg Mortenson. Valerie Ashford Valerie Ashford | Information Management Coordinator | Office of the Principal | valerie.ashford@queensu.ca Queen's University | 74 University Ave. | 351 Richardson Hall | Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 | 613-533-6000, Ext. 75725

Hopefully, this will speed up the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.81 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your concern, but what you've provided above isn't proof of anything other than you may have created a fake email. Sorry to sound so suspicious, and it isn't my intent to be rude here, but it's difficult to take you seriously when you have now used two IP addresses (that I am guessing are both associated with Queen's University) and have yet to make any subtantive contributions to Wikipedia other than being angry that an article contains information you claim to be incorrect.  There is no deadline in Wikipedia.  If what you say is true, and there is a reliable source that states Mortenson has (or doesn't have) an honorary degree from Queen's University, then the article will reflect that eventually.  The Mortenson story is developing day to day now (in some cases minute by minute).  I imagine this article will be doing the same.  Lhb1239 (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since honorary degrees are usually given at commencement ceremonies, and since those are usually held at the academic year, I'm not sure why those 2011 degrees were added without sources. I've removed them, but we can add back any for which we do have sources.   Will Beback    talk    01:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Find one source that says Greg Mortenson has a degree from Queens. The onus should be on those wanting to keep the information in the page to prove he is getting an honorary degree. Additionally, Lhb1239 who are you? and why are you on the other side of everybody else on this discussion page? I suspect you either work for Mr. Mortenson or are a rabid fan because the decisions you are making are nonsensical. My IP address changing is because I am connected to the internet through a mobile device that had to be restarted. It does not make me suspicious. If you want to do some due diligence you can contact Valerie Ashford, who as stated above, is the Information Management Coordinator for Office of the Principal. Otherwise, edit this page. It reflects poorly on Queens to be falsely associated with some embroiled in a scandal. Remove the false information from the page or risk further damaging wikipedia's reputation. As I am new to wikipedia I do not really understand the system but if Lhb1239 has any power over the final edits of this page, his performance should be reviewed. He is an embarrassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.83 (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They were added last May. Maybe they were supposed to be 2010 and were mistakenly labeled as 2011. In any case, we can add them back when we find sources.   Will Beback    talk    01:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Who am I? I am Lhb1239 and I have a number of good edits here in Wikipedia.  A better question is, "who are you?" non-registered IP, and how many actual edits have you contributed to Wikipedia?  If you have come here to help improve this online encyclopedia, then go forth and prosper.  If you have come here just to make waves, please do so elsewhere.  I do not work for Mortenson nor am I a "rabid fan".  I also do not like arguing online and I don't appreciate being personally attacked.  I'm asking you now to withdraw from your attack-mode and aggressive attitude.  Those who don't and continue in that vein end up getting blocked from editing pages and commenting on talk pages like this one.  I'd hate to see that happen to you and would rather see you make a contribution or two (or more, if you're so inclined).  Have a good evening.  Lhb1239 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could both editors here please stop commenting on each other's motives? This isn't the place.   Will Beback    talk    02:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look closely, you'll notice I haven't done that since my 2nd post to the IP user, Will. If you look even closer, you'll see that I'm just trying to get him to cool his jets. Further examination will show that I'm not the one attacking or provoking or being confrontational, the IP user is. I have no interest in seeing this become any kind of war or huge argument and my previous post above shows I'm trying to accomplish just the opposite. Even so, I will have no problem complying with your request. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Older sources
I found: WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kehe, Marjorie. "How Greg Mortenson outsmarted his publishers." Christian Science Monitor. July 22, 2010.
 * That would be a good anecdote for the book article.   Will Beback    talk    20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an archived page from Wisconsin Education Association Council from 1997 that describes initial fund raising efforts for the first Korphe school. Pennies build Pakistan school Reliable source? Should we incorporate material into this biography?--Nowa (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

60 Minutes exposé
Given the content of the 60 minutes piece it seems highly likely that Mortenson is a fraud. Therefore most of the information hear could be false, since recent developments calls into question all of Mortenson's recent history and actions.M4bwav (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not "highly likely" Mortenson is a "scammer" at all. There is no deadline in Wikipedia and this story is going to play out over time.  The article should change accordingly, not as a knee-jerk reaction to a TV program. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 60 Minutes is not just any TV program. This issue has been picked up by other news sources who have also done their own reporting. I agree that we should not proceed too hastily, and we certainly shouldn't hurry to rewrite the article on the basis of him being a scammer. However we should start making small steps. For example, instead of saying "he did X and Y", we should indicate that these are things he says he's done, where applicable. Otherwise we're adopting his POV rather than the neutral POV.   Will Beback    talk    00:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, this:
 * JON KRAKAUER Three Cups of Deceit: How Greg Mortenson, Humanitarian Hero, Lost His Way
 * Free versions of that article are available for 72 hours. I've never heard of "Byliner Originals". We may have to investigate to make sure the article would not qualify as self-published.   Will Beback    talk    00:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course 60 Minutes isn't just any TV program, however, it does specialize in telling parts of stories in order to get viewers and boost ratings just like Dateline NBC and ABC's 20-20. The Mary Mapes fiasco kind of changed how people look at TV news and newsmagazines - as well it should have.  Just because it's on a TV show doesn't make it legit, no matter what the show is and how long it's been on the air.  The bottom line for any TV program/network is to sell products.  In the Mortenson case, I think it would be prudent to take a wait and see attitude and not start changing everything just because of the 60 Minutes piece.  Wouldn't doing so seem kind of tabloid in nature, anyway?  Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia after all and not a checkout stand rag.  Krakauer is a legitimate and respected author, but he specializes in sensationalism to sell books and investigating situations to find flaws.  His books are full of such writing (Into Thin Air and Under the Banner of Heaven are two good examples).  Now, it appears he is coming out with a book that slams Mortenson - and isn't that pretty convenient and coincidental that he would appear on 60 Minutes talking about what his book is based on?  At any rate, I just don't think that changing the article with every wind of info blowing in from this source and that is wise.  Especially since this is an article about a living person.  I'm not trying to sound like a jerk here, but I think wisdom and caution should rule the day.  I'd hate to see this article (or the articles on Three Cups of Tea and CAI) get mucked up with a lot of rumor and innuendo.  I'm open for discussion, though.  Thanks! Lhb1239 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much every publication or broadcast is trying to get viewers or readers, so if we impeach all commercial publications and broadcasts then we won't have many sources left. I've started a thread about the Krakauer article at WP:RSN.   Will Beback    talk    01:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't exactly my point. I was trying to say that just because it's on 60 Minutes doesn't make the story any more accurate than if it was on any other similar program. As far as I know, 60 Minutes isn't infallible or known specifically as a completely non-biased reporting medium, is it? Lhb1239 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No source is infallible, but that's not the standard used to determine a reliable source. We have to make sure we're not assuming that Mortenson's memoirs are infallible either.   Will Beback    talk    03:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Naturally we wouldn't want to assume anything about anyone here. If the story that's now circulating about Mortenson turns out to be correct in total, I will be sorely disappointed, but I would never want the article on him here to be anything other than accurate and neutral.  I just don't think we should jump the gun.  Things will likely become more clear in a day or two (that's my guess) because I can't imagine Mortenson will let this whole thing languish as it is for long.  Donations and donors are on the line, after all. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mortenson released a statement saying he is going to undergo a surgical procedure on Thursday, IIRC. If that's the case then it may be several days or a week before he makes other statements. At least one group is already distancing themselves. In any case, Mortenson and the CAI have already issued some statements so we can work with what we have.   Will Beback    talk    04:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The book or article is already released. I don't see anyone calling it a prologue.  Will Beback   talk    01:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The interview and Krakauer's now public criticisms of Mortenson are prologue to Krakauer's new book, Three Cups of Deceit - How Greg Mortenson, Humanitarian Hero, Lost His Way. The book is to be released on April 20, 2011.


 * Released in a short version at the byliner website but the book isn't to be released until the 20th, no? Lhb1239 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do you see that information? I don't see anywhere that a longer version will be released April 20, just that they will start charging a small fee for it. I also don't see it described as a book, or any plans to print it.   Will Beback    talk    01:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but at the bottom of the advertisement for the 80 pg short version is a notation that the book is coming out on Kindle on April 20. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An "ebook" or "e-article" is not the same as a "book". Lot's of publications are available on Kindle. I'm going to rewrite this to remove the implication that the allegations are being made for commercial reasons.   Will Beback    talk    02:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * U of L watches closely as Grawemeyer Award winner's book is challenged
 * EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Greg Mortenson Speaks
 * Why Three Cups of Tea are Not Enough
 * Mortenson Concedes He Conflated Parts of Memoir
 * A fraud or a tempest in a teacup?
 * More news.   Will Beback    talk    04:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The criticism section of this article seems to be an attempt to minimize the criticisms directed at Mortenson. It is reminiscent of the selective editing of the Julian Assange entry. For instance, Mortenson didn't merely fail to respond to an interview request from 60 Minutes. He actually had Steve Kroft ejected from a lecture in Atlanta and he laterd claimed he did so because he thought Kroft was, get this, a "suicide bomber". And no, I am not making this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. From my perspective, the criticism section of this article is nothing of the sort. The article is a biography of a living person. All care must be taken to make sure that nothing inaccurate is placed in the article for that reason. If you have a reliable source that backs up your story, then it can be added as long as it is not added with undue weight. Looking at the few edits you have made over the last few days though, I have a sneaking suspicion that you might be here to stir up trouble or dissention. I hope that's not the case, and I know I'm certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it's the tone you use in your comments on talk pages that lead me to believe you have less than honorable ideas for what should be added to this article and what shouldn't. Again, if you have a source to back up your story about Mortenson in Atlanta, then I suppose it could be added to some degree. But since there's no deadline in the Wiki, I don't know what the hurry should be to make sure Mortenson gets raked over the coals as much and as quickly as possible. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the Atlanta/"suicide bomber" episode, see EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Greg Mortenson Speaks, page four.   Will Beback    talk    05:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source stating: WhisperToMe (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Greg Mortenson fled a book signing in Atlanta last week to avoid speaking to “60 Minutes” and has so far declined to speak with any reporter from the mainstream media about that show’s contention that he inaccurately described pivotal events in his best-selling book, “Three Cups of Tea.” Instead, his point of view has come to us largely through his hometown newspaper, The Bozeman Daily Chronicle, which ran an interview with him over the weekend, and Outside magazine, which posted an extensive interview with Mr. Mortenson today on its Web site."
 * Strom, Stephanie. "Mortenson Concedes He Conflated Parts of Memoir." The New York Times. April 18, 2011.


 * Here are Bozeman Daily Chronicle articles
 * "Mortenson vows to continue, as Krakauer charges deceit".
 * "Mortenson under fire from ‘60 Minutes’ — Bozeman philanthropist denies allegations
 * "CAI responds to Mortenson allegations"
 * I don't see any straight interview.   Will Beback    talk    06:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an interesting point being made in this Salon article about the Three Cups of Tea's veracity really does not matter much; it points out that even John Steinbeck's memoir Travels with Charley contained large amounts of made up prose, however, it suggests focusing more on the CAI works and says: 'Only maybe CAI isn't transforming lives, or not transforming them nearly as well as it could or should be. This is the issue that has been half-buried by the fuss over whether or not Mortenson prevaricated about his stint in the village or being kidnapped". Let's see where all this goes over the next few days. ww2censor (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is wrong for the media, Mortenson & CAI's supporters and Wikipedia editors. It's tempting to want to change everything in the articles related to all this based on the 60 Minutes segment, but I don't see any harm in seeing how this all plays out.  Wiki isn't supposed to be a newspaper, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia.  I think that the editors here (and those just popping by to add or take away in haste for whatever reason) would do well to remember that.  CAI has and still is transforming lives and Mortenson is helping to make that happen.  I don't see how holding on to see how this all plays out would harm anything.  Lhb1239 (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia is not Wikinews, it is clear that the scandal will have lasting implications. Editors do need to be careful to comply with WP:BLP and make sure that they use reliable sources.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

More sources: WhisperToMe (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stemle, Cary. "The Greg Mortenson Scandal: One University's Bitter Cup of Tea." TIME. Wednesday April 20, 2011.
 * Khan, Saad. "Mortenson Is Not the Sole Suspect." The Huffington Post. April 19, 2011.
 * Zaidi, Mosharraf. "Mosharraf Zaidi: Why we wanted to believe what Greg Mortenson was selling." National Post. April 20, 2011.
 * Ali, H. Saleem. "Philanthropy reconsidered." The Express Tribune. April 18, 2011.
 * Ali, Nosheen. "Three cups of sincerity." The Express Tribune. April 19, 2011.
 * Mortenson, Greg. "Thank you all, for your support." The Express Tribune. April 18, 2011.

"Schools built to date"
It's inevitable that this article and the CAI will overlap. However the one-sentence section titled "Schools built to date" is purely about the accomplishments of the CAI. Maybe it'd be more appropriate to have a section titled "CAI" in which we could say "the subject is the founder and director of CAI, which has built..."  Will Beback   talk    07:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me WhisperToMe (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Done.   Will Beback    talk    09:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Central Asia Institute spending
I don't see this information in the source. Maybe the editor was thinking of another source and put this one in by mistake?  Will Beback   talk    02:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In 2009, the Central Asia Institute spent $4.6 million on promoting Greg Mortenson, supporting his speaking engagements, and fundraising and $4 million on building schools and hiring teachers. Of the $4.6 million in promotional expenses, $700,000 was spent on buying Three Cups of Tea from retail bookstores for distributing at speaking events.
 * https://www.ikat.org/wp-includes/documents/Financials/CAIAuditedFSFYE%209-30-09.pdf

It is in there. See the bottom of page 6. $4.6 million under the program called "outreach". The $4 million dollars for building schools is under the program category of Education. The $716,000 spent buying books is listed under the outreach category as the expense for publications.

There are numerous other reliable sources that say similiar things. If this source isn't the right one, please find and insert a different one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.212 (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Recognition section
Should the recognition section be combined with honors and awards? It is essentially the same kind of information. Lgmagone (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Feel free to dive in and combine.--Nowa (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would, but another editor (lhb) reverts my contributions. He would likely feel this is minimizing Greg's accomplishments and revert it as well. Lgmagone (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that can be frustrating. Sometimes it helps to post a proposed edit on the talk page and see if there are comments first.--Nowa (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Lgmagone, please stop personally attacking me as an editor, and please don't presume to know what I am thinking and how I would or wouldn't edit. I'm pretty much at the end of my rope with your personal comments about me.  If it doesn't stop - and believe me, I would really hate to have to do this -- I will be forced to take your conduct to a notice board for administrative review.  I don't want to fight over this article or anything with you here in the Wiki.  I want to get along with you and work collaboratively with you, but you are really making it hard to do so.  As far as combining the two sections, I would have no problem with that.  And why would I?  It's a logical, proactive move for the article.  And in response to your feeling that I revert edits in this article if they are connected to you, you're completely wrong.  If I revert something it's related to the edit not the person who made the edit.  Lhb1239 (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Uncited material in BLP
Shouldn't uncited information in a biography of a living person be removed? I removed some uncited information and it was immediately put back in. Thought that unsourced information should be removed from a BLP. Lgmagone (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends upon how controversial the information is. Start by adding a "citation needed" tag.  If nothing crops up after an appropriate period, then removal is proper.--Nowa (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Redunancy of writing section
The writing section states the same information as the Published Works section.

Do we need two sections that say the same thing? I think it is redundant. It seems rather redudant to say the same thing twice. Granted, the Three Cups of Tea is a major publication and a bestseller - but that information is covered under a separate Wikipedia article.

I've removed the Writing section, but that change was reverted, so not sure where to proceed. 05:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgmagone (talk • contribs)


 * Alright, so I took it out again because it is clearly redundant. More than likely, another editor will revert my change as he reverts all changes that I make, but perhaps others will weigh in. 64.146.167.114 (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did revert the removal of an entire section. It was removed before others were able to weigh in on your proposal above.


 * This article is about Greg Mortenson. Looking at the article, you will see it is separated into sections that concern areas of Mortenson's life.  Writing is one area of Mortenson's life -- and since he has two bestselling books that have basically defined a major part of his life, it is important to have a section in the article that speaks directly about those books.  I see no harm in having a section in this article that is only about his writing in addition to including a list of books he has authored.  I know I have seen other articles in Wikipedia that also have lists of books and other writings authored separate from a section devoted to what the author is best known for.  Come to think of it, in the same manner, there are plenty of articles about actors where the best known credits are included in a separate section and a complete list of credits also exists near the bottom of the page - perhaps that is a good example.  At any rate, I don't see the need to be so aggresive with this article and chop it into pieces, removing chunks of it in the middle of the night when no one's had time to comment on proposed section removals.  There's an article in this Wiki on how there is no deadline in Wikipedia.  Maybe some should review it (?) Lhb1239 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Scott Darsney Questions the Accuracy and Fairness of "Three Cups of Deceit"
I'm in the situation where - as a Wikipedia contributor - I best only add to this items Talk Page. In 1993 - when Greg was there - I was attempting K2 as well, albeit in another team, and since I know the man himself I'll do my utmost to restrain myself here. However, there is a new article on Outside Online that I'd like to bring to your attention; [Scott Darsney Questions the Accuracy and Fairness of "Three Cups of Deceit"] Qwrk (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to the attention of the talk page. I think it's only fair to balance the growing criticism section with something that counter-balances it and helps to keep the section from being too weighty. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Expanded article based on the above presented info
I expanded the article somewhat based on the Outside Magazine article in refutation of the allegations. I realize that others will likely come in and tweak what I did, but at least it's a start. I also think the article is now more balanced and less weighty on the side of negative criticism. That's important -- especially for a biography of a living person. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Allegations section
I don't care for the "allegation and refutations" title of the section. Allegations does not sound like it is written from a neutral point of view. Lgmagone (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I tried wordsmithing some extraneous information and POV out of the sections.  Better?--Nowa (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a good point at all -- here's why: use of the term "allegations" is about as NPOV as you can get since none of the claims either 60 Minutes or Krakauer made have been proven to be true at this point. Additionally, Nowa, what you removed from the allegations response subsection was not -- in my opinion -- extraneous, rather, it was giving an even balance to the criticism section as a whole.  As it is now, the negative criticism/allegation subsection is given undue weight when compared to the response subsection.  Don't forget that this is a BLP article -- also please don't forget that there's a real person named Greg Mortenson whose very life is being disected now vua the media.  I once read something a Wiki editor said regarding these types of articles ... that they need to be treated like crystal and fine china: with great care.  So far, none of what Krakauer has said has been proven, nothing that 60 Minutes said has been proven.  Until it is (if any of it is), I see no harm whatsoever in keeping the article as fairly balanced on both the negative and positive side as possible.  THAT'S encyclopedic.  To make it unbalanced one way or the other makes it either tabloid-like or a whitewash.  With all that in mind, I'm going to restore it back this one time in order to allow it to have some time to take root and allow others to look at it and give it a chance (it was all there for only a few hours before it was sliced and diced).  One more thing I would like to point out, Nowa, is that your response to Lgmagone seemed more like you were interested in making him happy, rather than making sure the article was NPOV, non-weighty, encyclopedic, and adhering to BLP standards.  That's not meant to be a personal attack, only an objective observation. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weight in an article should reflect the prominence in secondary sources. On the one side there's the 60 minutes piece, the Krakauer ebook, the Mahsudhe assertion, and many others that we don't cite. Direct from Mortenson there's the Bozeman Chronicle article, the Outside interview, and the Darsney letter (it's not an article written by Darsney). Of them, the Darsney material seems to be getting much more space than the Krakauer material which it addresses. So it's important to include all points of view, but there is no requirement that the subject's point of view, or those of his supporters, gets equal or greater attention than that of his accusers. Further, the "allegations" versus "responses" may set up a false distinction. It may be better to simply deal with each allegation and give the responses, then move on to the next issue, instead of segregating them. In any case, I think we won't have a more complete picture until the subject starts talking again after his surgery.   Will Beback    talk    02:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading and rereading what you've written here, Will, I get what you are saying. I agree that the Darsney section could be trimmed down.  I would do it now, but am thinking that maybe I will take a rest on editing this article for the remainder of the night.  Thanks again for your insight. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I vote keep the version by Nowa. It was written cleaner, more simple, and was easy to read. Lgmagone (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on what I've read so far on how consensus works in Wikipedia, |reaching it isn't achieved by voting, rather, consensus is reached through discussion. Is that a correct assessment, Will Beback?  Lhb1239 (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus aligned with Wikipedia's principles. Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes." That describes it well.   Will Beback    talk    05:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * LHB1239, I've seen many cases where people will vote one way or another in the discussion form when trying to figure out the best way to write stuff in wikipedia. Lgmagone (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What you've likely seen is building consensus. From what I've read and witnessed over the last few months here, voting is not done (it's discouraged actually) and it's building a consensus that's sought after. Have read the article links I've supplied on both voting and consensus?  Lhb1239 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to build consensus, you could start by not reverting everything I write. Lgmagone (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits and neutral point of view
I think that the recent edits have swayed the tone of the article by providing considerable defense to Greg Mortenson and minimized the criticism. His criticism is strong, has been verified by reliable sources, and is a significant part of the Greg Mortenson story. I am concerned that the tone of the article is no longer written from a neutral point of view.

I think a rewrite is in order to make the article more encyclopedic and from a neutral point of view. Lgmagone (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Journal article
Found a journal article! WhisperToMe (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ali, Nosheen. "Books vs Bombs? Humanitarian development and the narrative of terror in Northern Pakistan." Third World Quarterly. Volume 31, Issue 4, 2010. Pages 541-559 DOI: 10.1080/01436591003701075
 * Does anyone have free access to this paper?   Will Beback    talk    09:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want I can file a Resource request for it and then e-mail it to you WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Somebody uploaded a copy. I sent you the link in your talk page... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pennies for Pakistan
I was looking into Greg's original charity, Pennies for Pakistan, and it turns out that there have been many different programs by the same name over the years. The oldest one I could find was from 1956. I've also found them in the UK, CA and US. I started a list in Pennies for Pakistan. If anyone finds more, feel free to add.--Nowa (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Letter to the Seattle PI
Apparently Mortenson sent a letter to a Seattle newspaper:
 * Connelly, Joel. "Greg Mortenson: 'Three Cups of Me'." Seattle Post Intelligencer. Thursday April 28, 2011.

Related article: WhisperToMe (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Connelly, Joel. "Connelly: 'Three Cups of Tea' author falls to earth." Tuesday April 29, 2011.


 * Read the column again. Mortenson sent a letter to supporters. They guy who wrote the column was a supporter, that's why he got a letter. As the column states, others like him received the same letter. Lhb1239 (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, so it was sent to a reporter of a Seattle newspaper and not the newspaper itself; this caused the reporter to discuss that letter on the website of that reporter's newspaper. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you being sarcastic and kind of snarky or am I reading what you wrote incorrectly? Lhb1239 (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is snarky. In order for the reporter to discuss the letter in the article, he would have had to have found out about it. If the reporter directly got the letter, then it explains how he made a newspaper article about that letter. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see how I thought it was sent to the newspaper. The article quote said "A self-celebratory, defensive, and very slipppery letter from Greg Mortenson arrived this week in my mailbox[...]" - By that I thought it meant his work mailbox - If it had been his work mailbox, then the letter would have been "sent to the newspaper"
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What you wrote sounded sarcastic, rather than serious -- that's why I asked. Yes, that's why he wrote the column, because he got the letter and because the Mortenson topic is hot and newsworthy right now, and because he is a columnist for the paper.  I was just trying to inform you that the letter wasn't written to the PI, but to supporters of CAI.  There's a big difference between communicating with your financial supporters and making your case to a major newspaper.  I felt it was important that you (or anyone else reading your post about the letter) get the story straight, that's all. Lhb1239 (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, so it was addressed to all of his supporters rather than one particular person or organization. I did have the impression that it was addressed to the PI specifically, but instead it was mass mailed to various supporters. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct. Again, re-read what he wrote: "A self-celebratory, defensive, and very slipppery letter from Greg Mortenson arrived this week in my mailbox and that of others who thought donations to the Central Asia Institute were going to build schools in the Hindu Kush and Karakoram." The bolded text is where he is referring to supporters of CAI also receiving the same letter.  Later in the column, he makes reference to being a CAI financial supporter. Lhb1239 (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal and management style
I found an interesting source on Mortenson's personal and management style. I realize this is a touchy issue, but I thought it would be worthwhile to draft a section and present it for discussion. Feel free to directly edit the draft below to see if we can reach consensus before anything is transferred to the article itself.--Nowa (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ''==Personal and management style (draft)==
 * Mortenson's management style is largely intuitional with most decisions made last minute. He is also habitually late for meetings. These traits, however, have been described as important to the success of his work in the Balti region of Pakistan.  Baltistanis have no tenses in their language, are vague on their timekeeping and make their own decisions largely based on intuition.  


 * Uh-oh...sorry, Nowa -- I should have read more closely what you wrote above about rewriting the draft before actually placing it in the article. My bad and my apologies. :-/ Lhb1239 (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there hasn't been much comment on this, I'm going to go ahead and insert it. If there are any strong objections, please return here and edit--Nowa (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I did insert an edited version of it. Was it subsequently removed? Lhb1239 (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see it under the CAI section. Probably less controversial there, but also less difficult to find.  One of the sections should be removed to avoid redundancy.  Your choice.--Nowa (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Because of the edit warring that was occurring on the page a few nights ago, Will Beback asked that Lgmagone and I not edit the article for three days. I won't be doing any editing on this article until maybe tomorrow evening (one day over the requested restriction, but I'm tight fo time until then, anyway ;-). Feel free to do it if you'd like, Nowa. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts from an insider.
G'day all.

As I've mentioned earlier, as a Wikipedian who strives for objectivity, I think it is best when I refrain from editing the article(s) on this story that's been going on. I've been attempting K2 as well in 1993, the same year that Greg was there, albeit in another team. Even when I haven't been in contact with Greg for over a decade - mostly due to him being far too busy building schools - I think the personal connection we share can be seen by other Wikipedians as being too subjective for me to add info or edit this entry. However, the Talk Page is a fitting platform to air my thoughts and insights; objective / subjective / any other way, shape or form.

(Caveat; I'm not US based, haven't been able to watch "60 Minutes" yet, but do rely on knowledgeable others in the climbing community to keep me informed on what was going on during that episode.) From what I understood, one can't really state with dry eyes that the techniques used by "60 Minutes" constitute "fair and balanced" journalism. The "sniper attacks" on unsuspecting people, forcing them to respond "here and now" are dubious, to say the least. Their approach and urge to have a "hero to zero" story aired to me reeks more of pulp and sensationalist magazines than it does of thorough investigative journalism. I could have peace with this if they were to apply the same methods on warmongering Presidents; an issue that (IMHO) is far more important that the one at hand.

Who is Jonathan Roblee Krakauer (also known as "Jon") anyway? The general public may be impressed but they are not in the know on climbing matters. Liz Hawley has him listed in the Himalayan Database for one, and only one expedition; an ascent of Everest (on 1996.05.10) with supplementary oxygen. This is a feat that many climbers wouldn't want to have listed on their CV. Having said that, I think it is only fair to inform you on the POV of a great number of people in the "real" climbing scene; "Everest is not for mountaineers!" Everest is a money making machine for a couple of touring organizers, a good source of income for Sherpas, and an attempt to "enhance" the party talk of "wannabees". Those who have the funds to do as they please but lack the skills for serious ascents on serious mountains. Krakauers book "Into Thin Air" was a bestseller and shot him to riches and fame. Krakauer is a better writer than he is a climber, but is it an honest book depicting the events that took place in 1996? I beg to differ with most of the critiques. His disparaging remarks about Anatoli Boukreev served to fulfil the need for "a bad villain" in his story. At this very moment I'm 49yo and I have been climbing for the last 35 years. Believe me when I say that I've never ever met a climber as strong and competent as Toli, and in this regard I'm certainly not the only one holding him in this high esteem. Krakauer himself is not an undisputed character, neither are his books.

On my Facebook page - and those of others - there's been quite a thing going on about this whole story. It's only fair to inform you I'm in contact with a great number of highly known names in the climbing community, active climbers as well as retired legends, well known writers of mountaineering books and others "in the know". One of the first things that sprang to mind - not just me, others as well - was a kind of "Oh, I guess there's a book or publication due...". And so it was, just one day after that night before. (In a way it's funny to see people being so predictable, were it not for the fact that this is a rather tragic story.)

I've collected some quotes here, but privacy has it I do not add the names. Let me just say this; most of these remarks come from world known names that have their own Wikipedia entry. (Is that enough?) This only serves to be able to give you a glimpse of the thoughts that are abuzz in the scene. Those who think I'm biased; I give you my word of honesty as a climber I did not edit out critiques.


 * "Greg's got a good heart and how many schools has Krakauer built? It's nice to read supportive articles...now that the damage is done."  (an experienced Himalayan based contact)


 * "Having watched 60 minutes takedown of Greg Mortenson, I have to ask: Why is Jon Krakauer pursuing this with such vigor and vehemence? Knowing some of the half-truths as well as misleading stories from Krakauer's version of the 1996 tragedy, one has to ask why the pot is so eager to call the kettle black?"  (one of the best known writers of mountaineering books)


 * "I know not to believe anything Krakauer has to say after the lies and hate he spewed in his book "into thin lies""  (one of the foremost expedition cinematographers)


 * "I too wish all of the furious digging into Greg and the CAI had gone into corrupt politicians."  (another widely known writer of mountaineering books)


 * "Feedback posted on the 60 Minutes site. I suspect this is the beginning of many such reactions to the show's sensationalistic smack down of Greg Mortenson and CAI."  (a major name in climbing)


 * "The mission of 60 minutes is to build ratings and increase viewership. The mission of the CAI is to educate Pakistani and Afghani girls. 'Nut said."  (a multiple 8000m summiteer)


 * "And yes,, "the pot and the kettle". Krakauer has certainly juiced up the story on Everest 96. Well, maybe all is legit for the number of books they're trying to sell? I think he needs some new "spotlight attention" cos I think there'll be a book out sooooon!"  (another high altitude specialist)


 * "Amen, ! I lost all respect for Krakauer after the bamboozling he gave Anatoli Boukreev. And the chapter he wrote about himself at the end of "Into the Wild" was pure self-aggrandization."  (known producer of adventure docs)


 * "YES; "Krakauer published Three Cups of Deceit - How Greg Mortenson, Humanitarian Hero, Lost His Way following the 60 Minutes broadcast."..... how predictable..."  (climber)


 * "Truly amazing, the depths one person will go to destroy another. American television makes horse manure look valuable."  (another major name in Himalayanism)


 * "not really..............from a mere ten mintues documentary film thry are trying to ruin his fifteen yeas effort. infact i is not a true documentary as well, just a talk show"  (a known Pakistani climber)


 * "even if he spent one dollar on our people we charish him and his work? rest is blogna! He is well respected in pakistan and afghanistan, specially people of Gilgit Baltistan for building schools. Greg keep doing what you do1"  (a Pakistani HAP (high altitude porter)


 * "The Case of Greg Mortenson is somehow interesting. I know at least ten of his projects in the mountainous wilderness of Chipursan Gojal. The pay scale in these schools and health centres is much better than Government or AKES Schools. I know students from the valley who study in the twin cities of Pindi/islamabad who get their education on CAI’s funds. The same is true for his projects for his projects in the high altitude deserts of Baltistan and Afghanistan. He “might have’ overstated his achievements in “3 cups of tea” (still not proved). But looking at his services I think those mistakes could be forgiven. I am sure 80% of his claims are realistic. Why we should care about is that our area (in the Gilgit-Baltistan area the CAI serves in Baltistan, Ishkomin & Gojal-Hunza) gets benefit from his endeavours."  (a Pakistani K2 summiteer)


 * "My point is that I find it outrageous that a person's reputation can be destroyed depending on how their story is "spun." Destroying someone, and the good work they have done, with facts that can be spun, rather than that are rock solid, is, I think, irresponsible and contemptible."  (a 14x 8000m summiteer)

The only bias I have - if you want to call it that - is that I have a problem with the current tsunami of critiques outnumbering the well deserved praise. Mortenson is no Saint, but the intention of "good" is there, just look at what he's achieved. The "60 Minutes" and Krakauer PDF contain a negative and detrimental vibe, and I'm afraid it's all about personal glory, big ego's and attention whoring.

I'll leave you guys to it. Tada!

Qwrk (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the climber's perspective is interesting. Another perspective from foreign policy scholars (Daniel Drezner at Foreign Policy magazine offers a good rundown) seems to be that the discussion about Mortenson's character and the veracity of his claims is a side issue, and the real issue is that Mortenson's group is very good at raising money and awareness but they're tackling an incredibly difficult problem and its not clear that they know what they're doing. This New York Times article about a school in the Kyrghiz region of Afghanistan is particularly interesting. CAI built the school, but it turned out that what the locals needed was teachers to come to the yurts where the students lived and now that the Afghan government provides that the school is empty. It may be that good intentions and good PR aren't enough. There's a certain amount of sensationalism in the Krakauer stuff but I think there are some very serious people raising deep and serious questions that really go beyond the personal discussions about Mortenson and Krakauer. GabrielF (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that there are people raising good points and asking good questions. For the purposes of Wikipedia, though, it's not in the best interest of this site or the article to be anything less than NPOV.  As it is, the section on criticism is too heavy on the negative and needs to be more balanced.  Once I come back to editing this article, I plan to do just that.  My hope is that more who would rather see this article (and the other articles in the Wiki related to Mortenson) will take an interest in seeing it balanced rather than having a plethora of those who want to skewer Mortenson through agenda or vendetta editing.  It is my opinion that so far there have been more interested in the sensational than using sensibility. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that it is too heavy on the negative. Lgmagone (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to interfere, yet again, after a splendid day of national celebrations, but yes, Lgmagone, I certainly think it _was_ too heavy on a negative vibe. Qwrk (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Honorary degree
I'd like to bring up some discussion on honorary degrees. The University in alberta will be granting an honorary degree in June. I think this should not be included in Wikipedia because the degree has not been conferred. I've taken this out a couple times and others keep putting it back in. So - should we include this because it has been announced that he will get the degree, or should we leave it out until it is actually conferred? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.73.247 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't see what the problem is with keeping it there. And yes, we are aware that you keep taking it out.  It's something that's referenced, and the last person who replaced it after you removed it again even made somewhat of a compromise with you by adding in parentheses, "announced".  It's referenced, it's on the UofA website that it's going to happen, so why is it even an issue?  I will tell you that to keep taking a referenced item out when others keep adding it back could be seen as edit warring on your part.  Is this really worth edit warring over?  Other than the fact that it hasn't occurred yet, is there any other reason why you think something referenced should be removed? Lhb1239 (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In general it's best not to write things like, "the building will be dedicated on May 3", and instead write, "the dedication is scheduled for May 3". We can know for sure that something is scheduled, but we can't know that it will actually happen. I think that "announced" is an adequate correction, though we should eventually follow up and either say if it was awarded or not.   Will Beback    talk    01:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Added verbage that indicates that the degree is scheduled to be conferred on June 3rd, 2011. With the recent events that have taken place, we do not know if the degree will still be conferred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.73.247 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Update, May 1st: Removed the University of Alberta degree as the university has decided not to confer it on Greg Mortenson at this time. Lgmagone (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Added verbage about the University of Washington - Bothell considering revoking the honorary degree. This is valid information and has a reliable source that provides it. This item is equally as encyclopedic as the University of Alberta releasing a statement saying that they will be conferring a degree in the future. If we do not want to discuss events that have not taken place, both should be removed. Otherwise, we are not writing from a neutral point of view. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

What I'm trying to do is bring balance to Wikipedia. Greg Mortenson has done a lot of positive things and that has been reflected in the article. Reliable sources indicates that there are also issues with the way that Mortenson has told his tale and gone about fundraising. I think Wikipedia needs to show both sides of the story when reliable sources validate the information. In the case of University of Washington at Bothell, the university has announced that a committee has been formed to review the honorary degree, and this information is relevant and should be included in Wikipedia, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgmagone (talk • contribs) 07:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Bringing balance may be what you are trying to do, but what you're really doing is edit warring and it further appears you are trying to make a point. Since it appears by your last couple of edits to this page that you are both the IP user as well as Lgmagone,  you have broken the 3RR rule.  You are new to Wikipedia (I'm relatively new myself), but it's really not okay to keep reverting out material that's referenced.  As Will Beback stated above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but you keep trying to turn it into one.  He's an administrator and felt it was fine as it was, at least two other editors (myself included) thought it was fine as it was, yet you keep removing what's been agreed upon.  Please stop before your account is blocked from editing, okay? Lhb1239 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LHB, you haven't discussed why we should keep information in regarding his future honorary degree regarding the University of Alberta but not keep information in regarding the fact that a committee has been formed to consider revoking the degree from the University of Washington at Bothell. Both are equally relevant information. Further, LHB, you are the one thst is starting edit wars and goes on triads to attack other users. Your name is all over this discussion attacking anybody else who posts anything negative about Greg Mortenson. Lgmagone (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Could folks relax a bit? There's too much reverting and accusing. Let's all have a nice cup of tea (or three).   Will Beback    talk    21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as being relaxed, I'm really quite relaxed and was actually sitting here for the last fifteen minutes trying to think of the best words to use in reply. As far as reverting goes, I chose not to revert the last edit Lgmagone made in this article BECAUSE I wanted to do whatever it takes to avoid an edit war.  I also don't like arguing or personally attacking via internet and am only interested in commenting here on edits, not the editors making the edits.  I'm sorry Lgmagone doesn't believe he was engaging in an edit war here, but it's more than apparent that he was and has been everytime he reverts something more than once that's been referenced and agreed upon.  In my opinion, it would be great if he would try to work with all of us rather than against us.  I'm further sorry he thinks I've been attacking others.  I sure don't see it.  What I do see is that I've spoken out against what I felt were bad edits.  Additionally, pPointing out violation of the 3RR rule and making note that someone seems to be trying to make a point isn't attacking.  At least not in my book. If a seasoned editor or an administrator believes I've been attacking other editors here, then I will reconsider my position. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Recognition section - neutral point of view
As the story continues with Greg Mortenson, several universities have revoked honorary degrees or awards that had been committed to be awarded to Greg Mortenson, and at least one university has formed a committee to determine whether the honorary degree should be renouced.

Writing from a neutral point of view stance, should we include both the degrees/awards that were issued and the ones that were revoked? Or just the ones that were issued? If we do not include the ones that were revoked, would the article be written from a neutral point of view?

My personal take is that we should include both the degrees/awards that were issued as well as those that were revoked, as long as reliable sources verify the informaiton. I think this information would be beneficial to students who may be studying ethics or writing papers on the subject. Lgmagone (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Couple of thoughts: Both recisions listed in the current article were attributed to the 60 minutes story, so I think it's important to list them in that context.  The awards and honors list seems overly long anyway, so I wonder if it's enough to say that he has been awarded multiple honors with perhaps the top three or so mentioned by name.  see Buckminster_Fuller for an example.  I think the title of the "accusations" section should be more specific.  Perhaps "60 Minutes Accusations of Fraud 2011" would be more appropriate.--Nowa (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point in making two sections for awards other than more skewering of Mortenson. More than that, I don't see the point in making note of which ones were rescinded in the list, but I could see putting them in the article.  With that in mind, I don't agree that listing his top three awards is enough.  Regardless of the 60 Minutes piece and Krakauer's article, Mortenson has still done a lot of good.  Recognizing that his achievements outweigh any wrong-doing (which is still alleged and unproven wrong-doing, I might add) is NPOV.  Giving too much weight to stuff that remains unproven at this time is POV and premature, in my opinion.  Citing one article over the thousands of other BLP articles that list films, albums, songs, etc., etc., etc., is not persuasive (sorry, Nowa).  As far as the accusations section, I think that the suggestion of "60 Minutes Accusations of Fraud 2011" is a good suggestion, but think that the "2011" is unneccesary.  Lhb1239 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's more than just the 60 minutes piece. It's also the John Krauker ebook. And now Outside magazine has also accused him of fraud. So it's multiple people and multiple places. 64.234.73.247 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lgmagone, you've been asked numerous times to log in when you edit and post in Wikipedia. I don't know if you're doing this intentionally in order to give the appearance more than one person is commenting and editing this article in the way you want to comment and edit (thusly making a case for consensus) or if you are forgetting to log in, but in any case, it really needs to stop.  Please log in with your account when you comment and edit in Wikipedia.


 * As far as "multiple people and multiple places" is concerned -- they are still only accusations and allegations. Nothing has been proven against Mortenson and this article is still a BLP.  There are guidelines for editing BLPs that cannot and should not be ignored.  Your complaints about this article are starting to sound more and more like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.  Lhb1239 (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The concerns regarding how the CAI spends money, the purchasing of books, and promotion of Greg Mortenson is not an allegation, it is something that has been verified by the 2009 audited report of CAI expenditures. The fact that more money is spent on promoting Mortenson than on building schools is not an allegation, it's a factual statement confirmed by the CAI. Lgmagone (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your examples were Outside Magazine, Krakauer, and 60 Minutes. All of them have made allegations and accusations not yet proven.  That is a fact.  BLPs are not for promoting agendas or for promoting accusations and allegations as being proven.  That is also a fact.  Lhb1239 (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that information regarding how the CAI spends money, purchases of books, and promotes Greg Mortenson belongs on the CAI page.--Nowa (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it seemed out of place. I revised the the wording of his book tours and funding to make it fit better and relate better to the subject of the Wikipedia article. Please take a look and see what you think, but I think it is neutral and fits better. Lgmagone (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

From now on...
Considering the recent history of editing and near edit-warring in this article as well as the contentiousness that can manifest because of recent events surrounding Mortenson, CAI, and his books, I suggest that all major changes to this article be discussed here before reverting recent changes. This should help in the edit warring department. I have no intention of edit warring over this article. I will note, however, that if I see any editor edit warring and starting another pissing match -- whether it be an IP editor or an logged in editor -- I will take my concerns about such editing to an administrator or a notice board. Editing here should be and cooperative and not disruptive. That's what editing Wikipedia is supposed to be about -- not winning. Agreed? Lhb1239 (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Because user Lgmagone has once again ignored Wikipedia policy regarding editing this article cooperatively and without disruption, I have placed a modified 3RR template on his talk page. This is the last time I will place such a warning on his page (I have done so more than once). If he continues to edit this article disruptively and tendentiously and without regard for policy regarding edit warring and consensus, I will be going to whatever noticeboard is appropriate. If any editors (or editor-administrators) would like to comment, I'd love to read it. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing this article disrupted and productive, helpful editing abandoned because of it. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I invite you to take the concerns to a noticeboard. I made several constructive edits that were backed up by reliable sources today, and you promptly reverted them all. I do not think anybody would find them to be disruptive. Lgmagone (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

USAID in Pakistan
Speaking of building schools in Pakistan, there is an interesting article in today's NY Times on the challenges USAID is facing in rebuilding schools destroyed by military action. I don't think anything in this article belongs on this page, but I feel it does help put CAI's efforts in perspective both in terms of scale of operations and success rate.--Nowa (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a good article. Thanks for bringing it to the attention of the talk page, Nowa. :-) Lhb1239 (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

New info
The new info added on Mortenson and the US military was a good addition. Thanks, Nowa. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome.--Nowa (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL! That will teach me to go on just reading page code rather than looking at text and references in the actual article.  I thought the ref "useless" was an empty ref, and that's why I removed it.  Sorry for the error.  I will now re-add the info on the wives. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

”His” book promotion
I read through the CAI 2009 financial report, and I don't see any specific mention of $4 million being spent on Greg. It does say:
 * NOTE 9. RELATED PARTIES
 * The Organization has an economic interest in a book written by the Executive Director, Greg Mortenson, which is written in regards to his journeys in Afghanistan and Pakistan while pursuing the Organization’s mission.	During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009, the Organization paid $1,729,542 for book-related expenses associated with outreach and education.

I'm not sure, however, how this is related to a biography G. Mortenson. It seems more appropriate for the CAI article.--Nowa (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Then, if the reference doesn't back up the claim, the claim needs to be removed. Feel free to do so, Nowa. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of too much wordiness
Nowa, nothing personal at all, but some of what you added in the 60 minutes allegations section was really too wordy and lacked encyclopedic tone. I have removed the extra wordiness and slightly rewrote a little of what was there. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was mostly trying to fill in the citation needed tags.--Nowa (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Unfavorable information about Greg Mortenson
I am requesting comments on how we should handle unfavorable that is reliable and sourced.Lgmagone (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2011
 * The lead says: "In 2011, he was criticized for using significant literary license in his non-fiction books and for spending more donations on promoting his books than on building schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan" (emphasis added). I am not convinced that the word "more" is supported by the body of the article, which says: "The Central Asia Insitute spends significant portions of money raised through fundraisers on promoting Greg Mortenson...."  How do we get from "significant portions of money" (in the body of this Wikipedia article) to "more donations" (in the lead)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I modified the wording in the body and added a reliable source (audited financial statement) for that information. 59% of of donations received in 2009 were spent on Greg Mortenson promotion while 41% went to building schools in southeast asia. test 06:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgmagone (talk • contribs)


 * Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. I'd like to ask Lgmagone to take a step back, check again in the mirror, to make sure there is no hidden agenda with these continued edits.  Can you honestly reaffirm me in my strong belief of hanging on to AGF?  Qwrk (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My intention with this article was to update it with the additional information that has been released. Because of Greg Mortenson's strong following, it has been an uphill battle as others are interested in keeping the wikipedia article positive and upbeat and not reflect the negative news. I do not have a hidden agenda. One of the greatest benefits about Wikipedia is many of the articles include the "other side of the story" as long as reliable sources back up the information, and I find that it is far more informative for me to go to a wikipedia article than it is to go to an encylopedia or newspaper because wikipedia includes a more rounded perspective. However, I think it is time to leave the article up to the other editors and I'll do so from here on out. Please make it the article that you are most interested in reading and reflects the Greg Mortenson who he is. Please feel free to remove any information that you feel is slanted or reflects a hidden agenda or add any positive information that is missing from the article. It's yours, I've added my bit and now it is your turn to add what you like. test 09:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgmagone (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for your reply, Lgmagone, I really appreciate that. I am a strong believer in the good intentions of others, but I just took the liberty of asking you directly about your intentions.  Excuse me for being this blunt, but that's just me [sometimes].  As I have stated earlier, I will refrain from editing this entry, I will however pop in on the Talk Page whenever the urge forces me to.  Thanks again.  Qwrk (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lgmagone, you state above "others are interested in keeping the wikipedia article positive and upbeat and not reflect the negative news." I've seen no one, including myself, do that. What I have seen is people working together to keep this article balanced, and you have been told more than once you haven't been doing that. You've been told that twice by two different administrators. Once on your talk page and now by another admin at an Admin Noticeboard. The Edit Warring noticeboard result in regard to the complaint filed there about you was that you were "pushing the limits of a BLP" at this article. Nothing was noted there about any other users/editors. As Qwrk suggested above, stepping back and looking in a mirror is something you should consider. You can say all day that your intentions are golden and all you want for this article is accuracy, but your actions and edit summaries have said something quite different. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article some as of this morning and took away some added "fat" that really didn't add to the article but cluttered it up and made its readability difficult. Some section content was moved, and some completely removed as irrellevant to what was being addressed in the section or to the article's subject. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, good editors. This is indeed a contentious issue, and so I agree it's important that we follow the cardinal rule of verifiability. In that spirit, I've made some changes to the Responses section. Basically, I added more info about Mortenson's responses to some of the allegations. This article, already cited, has some important info regarding his recollection of how Krakauer and 60 Minutes tried to get a hold of him. I also added a little more specific info detailing Scott Darsney's comments about his interview with Krakauer. I felt it was important to remember that Darsney did not deny that he told Krakauer that Mortenson knew nothing of Korphe until 1994, and that Darsney subsequently questioned the certainty of his statement. If anyone is interested, here's an intriguing Outside blog entry that makes the case that even based on Mortenson's revised story, traveling to Korphe from where he fell behind his team may not have been physically possible given the terrain. Enderandpeter (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You made some good additions, Enderandpeter. I just finished copy editing them a little for better flow and clarity.  All in all, I think these additions balance the criticism section out even more. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I thank you sir, and I do appreciate your copy edit. I did make slight adjustments to your changes because although the last paragraph flows a little better now, I had to relocate a phrase that didn't make much sense where it was after your good changes. Also, I could not help but to note that "evidence" was placed in quotes. I think I may just choose another word so as to apply a little more neutrality. --Enderandpeter (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I actually meant to find a word to replace "evidence" and got sidetracked.  Thesaurus away! :-) Lhb1239 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Should we leave off "and former mountaineer" from the lead? He is not known as a mountaineer, and there are questions if he made any significant climbs at all. Many people climb mountains, but putting it in the lead makes it sound like it was a career.   Will Beback    talk    21:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think we should leave it off. There are plenty of people who take up sports such as mountaineering, rock-climbing, and the like and they aren't professions.  Obviously, if Mortenson even attempted to climb K-2 he was more than just a weekend climber/hiker.  I say it stays. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... This may be a tough call, Will. For the sake of context, let me provide a quote of what Krakauer claims (from Three Cups of Deceit ) regarding Mortenson's Himalayan ascents:

 According to Three Cups of Tea (pages 10 and 44), Mortenson was an accomplished mountaineer who, before attempting K2, had made “half a dozen successful Himalayan ascents,” including climbs of 24,688-foot Annapurna IV and 23,389-foot Baruntse, both of which are in Nepal. But there is no record in the American Alpine Journal (which meticulously documents all ascents of Annapurna IV, Baruntse, and other major Himalayan peaks) of Mortenson reaching the summit of, or even attempting, any Himalayan mountain prior to 1993. Scott Darsney, Greg’s climbing partner on K2, confirms that Mortenson had never been to the Himalaya or Karakoram before going to K2.


 * Also, here's Outside magazine's take (so far) on the Himalayan issue:

 Outside has also learned, however, that Mortenson doesn’t appear in Kathmandu archivist Elizabeth Hawley’s Himalayan Database. Outside’s Eric Hansen profiled Hawley in April; by all accounts, Hawley’s database is a thorough and exhaustive account of all Nepalese expeditions. Hawley, who is 87, meticulously contacts the leader of every permitted expedition. She has also recorded 138 illegal climbs, just under 2 percent of the 7,194 expeditions in her database.

Even today, climbers flying into Kathmandu know to expect a grilling from Hawley about their routes and team members. As Ed Viesturs, the first American to summit all 14 of the world’s 8,000-meter peaks, told Hansen, “You go to your hotel, and as you're checking in the phone is ringing and the man behind the desk says, ‘Hawley would like to talk to you.’ You’re barely putting your bags down.” In the early nineties, when there were far fewer expeditions to account for in Kathmandu, there’s little chance Hawley would have missed a single expedition, legal or not, let alone the six claimed by Mortenson, including successful summits of 24,688-foot Annapurna IV and 23,687-foot Baruntse.


 * Sadly, Outside has tried to verify his Himalayan climbs with Mortenson himself, but to no avail. Surely, more will be revealed about this over time. I guess a big question here is: How familiar with mountain climbing should one be to be considered a mountaineer? If it is true that Mortenson's only mountain-climbing experience was his adventures at K-2, then Will Beback has a very good point. As I look at page 44 of Mortenson's Three Cups of Tea, it talks about him climbing notorious California sites such as Half Dome and Mount Sill. If other evidence of his expeditions can be verified, then I would think it would be appropriate to call the gentleman a mountaineer. Also, I suppose it is very unlikely that K-2 would have been his first expedition. --Enderandpeter (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, one need not climb the Himalayas to be considered a "mountaineer". I'm certain Jim Whittaker and Sir Edmund Hillary were considered "mountaineers" long before they ascended to their most famous climbs.  As a matter of fact, there is a Pacific Northwest club known as "The Mountaineers Club" that has been in existence since 1906 and started (and continues to be) about climbing.  My point here is that "mountaineer" refers to not just someone who has scaled the most impressive mountains in the world, but someone who is a mountain climber - period.  I'm pretty sure that even absent of any spectacular around-the-world climbs, Mortenson is eligible for "mountaineer" status. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that one need not climb very famous (or even moderately famous) mountains in order to be considered a mountaineer. The difficulty here, I think, is in how evidence of his domestic climbs comes from his book, the truth-claims of which being on very dubious grounds indeed. However, it would indeed be crazy if his first climb was K-2, and so it is probably safe to assume that he has climbed other mountains. And so, on second thought, there appears to good reason to call the man a mountaineer. At the same time, we should take these very serious claims disputing his Himalayan climbs into great consideration when describing his mountaineering experiences. --Enderandpeter (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Until it has been proven that Mortenson has lied about his mountaineering experience(s), I don't see why Wikipedia needs to remove the title "mountaineer" from the opening paragraph. Obviously he went on the climb he did (Darnsey has verifed that), so even by that climb alone, he is a mountaineer.  I imagine that there are various reliable sources available that also call him a mountaineer, and since Wikipedia operates on "reliability, not truth", "mountaineer" should stay based on the sources cited in relation to his climbing experience.  Lhb1239 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the lot of you that having climbed "a single mountain" would suffice to designate a person as "a mountaineer". I've checked the Himalayan Database [updated till last week] and Greg isn't mentioned for either Annapurna IV or Baruntse, but it must be said that the Karakoram and the Hindukush aren't included in Ms Hawleys stats.  [Apart from the fact that there are errors and omissions in these as well.]  Qwrk (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Always good to read comments from you, Qwrk. Thanks for contributing :-) Lhb1239 (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone who climbs a mountain (using technical means) can claim to be a mountaineer, just like anyone who has ever played in the waves can be called a "surfer". But we would not put that in the lead of their biography. People are not usually defined by their hobbies unless they achieve notability for them. Mortenson didn't write any climbing guides, perform any significant climbs, etc. Even if everything he says is true, he's still not known for being a mountaineer.   Will Beback    talk    05:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought we was talking BIG mountains here... Because of Gregs climbing in other ranges he can be listed as (former) mountaineer without any problem.  In '93 he was part of Dan Mazur and Jonathan Pratt's team which made the second ascent K2's West Ridge, one of the tougher strolls up the mountain.  Today we live in a different age and scene but going on a West Ridge trip still isn't a thing to be done by NON-mountaineers.  Qwrk (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Where was that expedition written up? Did Mortenson gain any notability from it? It's not a big issue, it just seems odd to include that in he lead.   Will Beback    talk    06:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The first hit (of 1600+) leads to this article in the archives of the Alpine Club (PDF alert!). They did a magnificent ascent, even when they were very late in the season and almost all other teams had left the Strip.Qwrk (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for finding that. (Let's add it as a source for the article.) One good climb is enough to qualify as a mountaineer.   Will Beback    talk    08:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(Just checking to see whether I can align this section to the extreme left...) Tagging people as "mountaineer" in the end is just a matter of words. I thought it important enough to mention though, as for the outside world "a mountaineer" is a person who does climb mountains, but mountaineers tend to have strong(er) feelings about it. The act of climbing mountains is something that easily becomes part of the core essence of a person. The way in which the problem of "climbing a mountain" is approached brings many lessons for every day life. As such, even when the active climbing career is over and one is well into old age, one tends to see him/herself still as "a climber". It just gets into the very fabric of life, in all aspects.

Well, this was just on the sideline. I have some links to blogs to bring to your attention. #1 A blog by Kate O'Hehir on the controversy, #2 Another one about the alleged lawsuit by Mansur Khan Mahsud,  #3 Another one on Krakauer vs. Outside frictions,  #4 Another one on Byliner, the site that published Krakauers PDF, and in which he appears to have invested.....

Qwrk (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing these links, Qwrk. The certainly make for interesting reading and do give another side to the incident which, to me, paints a more complete picture.  I had always thought there was more to the story than was presented by Krakauer and 60 Minutes.  These articles just prove my gut reaction to the whole thing was correct.  Too bad they are blog articles - otherwise they would be great for text and reference.  Oh, well.  I sincerely believe this whole thing is going to come out in the wash a little differently than Krakauer intended.  And I don't think it's going to be favorable in his direction.  Time will tell, I suppose.  Lhb1239 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)