Jump to content

Talk:Greg Mortenson/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Edit warring

I haven't even looked to see what the fighting is about. Please use this talk page to discuss it and get consensus.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no argument on my end, Lgmagone has come back as an IP and is exhibiting edit warring behavior again. I've reported him to the edit warring noticeboard because I'd rather have someone else deal with it. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If is no argument on LHB1239's part, then why did he revert or modify or move what I wrote a total of 7 or 8 times? I don't get it. 98.203.237.77 (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Other than the one erroneous edit I made not knowing you had provided a reference, every revert was made because of the rules for BLPs in Wikipedia. I made it clear in each edit summary why I was reverting you. There is no agenda here on my part other than keeping the article up to Wiki standards. Lhb1239 (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, LHB1239. What is in the article now (which you have no disagreement to) is no different than 7 reverts ago except the source, which was added 6 reverts ago. 98.203.237.77 (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to argue with you. If you have anything to say about this, please take it to the edit warring noticeboard. The talk page of an article is not the appropriate place to make accusations about editors as you are doing above. Lhb1239 (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making an accusation, I'm trying to discuss (as Will Bebeck suggested) my contribution and see what will make it acceptable for the article. (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Folks, please chill out. First, as a convenience for others please indent your posts so there's a thread-like appearance. WP:TPG Second, I suggest leaving the word "you" out of discussion. When it's necessary to question edits, for example, then it's better to ask something like "why are we saying this?" instead of "why did you write that?" Third, although we're all responsible for the overall article we're each responsible for our own contributions- including sources and NPOV. Fourth, let's all try to stick to just one revert per day. Lastly and most importantly, remember that this is a "BLP" with real living people involved. Thank you.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg Award for humanitarian endeavors - Old Dominion Univ., VA

Can anyone find a source that the award was actually conferred to Greg Mortenson?

I look at the source in the article and it says that he delivered the speech but doesn't indicate that he got the award. I looked up the list of award recipients and couldn't find where he received it. I think that unless this can be verified, it should be removed from the list of awards. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

When the article is opened up again for editing a cite needed tag can be placed until a ref can be found. There's no hurry to remove it as there is no deadline in Wikipedia. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • A capacity crowd of 3,000 watched Thursday night at Old Dominion University's Ted Constant Convocation Center as Mortenson received the school's annual Raoul Wallenberg award for humanitarian achievement.
    • Listening to his heart led him to help others, humanitarian says. Bill Sizemore. Virginian - Pilot. Norfolk, Va.: Mar 25, 2011. pg. B.1
That's from Proquest.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

More sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to wonder what the point of continually adding sources for the criticism section is (that is where you are intending these sources to go, isn't it, Whisper?). I'm asking because if you add them all to new material in the criticism section the article is bound to read more POV and will start to lean toward undue weight. Or am I wrong about why you keep adding these to the talk page........? Lhb1239 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles are based on sources. It's our job to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If there are 75 sources which say X and 25 sources which say Y, then that should inform the discussion of weight. It would be inappropriate, for example to devote twice as much space to Y as to X.
Further, as a story is unfolding it's helpful to see the incoming news coverage so we can sort out which to include. There's no downside to adding potential sources to talk pages.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay. That makes sense. I would, however, still like to see what Whisper has to say. Thanks, Will. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, these are more sources, period. The information could go in the criticism section, but they can also yield other things too.
I simply compile the lists because I do not have the time to go through every article all the time, so I post links to sources to either go through at a later time, or to have other Wikipedians go through
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Whisper. I guess I was just trying to figure out where you were going with the addition of the sources here without any real explanations as to why you were placing them. I am still concerned about that balance of this article and it's NPOV status. Guess I would feel better about everyone's commitment to that ("everyone" being those who seem to edit and watch the article regularly) if I was seeing references for positive content regarding Mortenson and his work as well as the negative ones. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Try a post at the NPOV noticeboard and see what they say about it WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to rephrase: I'm concerned about the article becoming POV again. At this time, I think it's well-balanced. But I do believe that much more negative material will put it back out of balance and give undue weight again. Unless that happens, I don't think it's necessary to go to the NPOV noticeboard. But thanks for the suggestion. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The Islamic Insights article is especially interesting, not so much for this biography, but for the article on Three Cups of Tea.--Nowa (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


A recent, longish article by a reporter who visited Bozeman.   Will Beback  talk  09:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting addition. Thanks for that. Qwrk (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Health issues

Greg Mortenson has stated that he is unable to discuss the allegations in detail, and has cancelled many speaking events, because of his heart issues. Is this something that should be included in the wiki article? WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some mention of his health is appropriate since it's been widely reported and has been disruptive to the subject's public schedule. But let's keep it brief.   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Mahsudhe

  • Months later, however, no lawsuit has been filed by Mahsudhe.

Does anybody know of a source for this? It's rare to find a reporter write about a lawsuit that wasn't filed. There are countless articles in Wikipedia that refer to someone saying they were going to do something, but with no follow up as to whether they succeeded or not. Unfortunately, we can't just fill in the blanks with our surmises. A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack (or something like that). For all we know, Mahsudhe has filed suit in Afghanistan.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that statement is an example of original research, where a person drew a conclusion from his or her own research and added it to the article. However, wikipedia isn't the right place to present original research and a reliable source must have already presented the information. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Think it's original research all you like, but there are a number of blog-like articles out there where it is noted Mahsudhe hasn't filed anything to date. Unfortunately, for Wikipedia purposes, blogs aren't considered reliable sources. So, while there are reliable sources out there that state Mahsudhe had originally intended to file suit against Mortenson, there are what Wikipedia considers unreliable sources that say it has yet to happen. What you're asking here is basically to prove a negative - which really can't be done. Until it is definite that Mahsudhe is going to sue Mortenson, him actually doing it remains smoke and mirrors and an empty promise. My suggestion is that we state in the article that he stated in April he inteneded to do it, but currently it has not occurred. Which brings this question to the forefront: how long do we wait to say it isn't happening? Six months? A year? Seriously -- how long does it take someone to bring a lawsuit? Obviously not long considering the number of people who are bringing suits against Mortenson. Wikipedia is supposed to be the champion of NPOV - stating Mahsudhe is going to bring suit months after it still hasn't happened doesn't seem NPOV to me. It seems to be quite the opposite, actually. When and if he brings suit against Mortenson, then we can remove the "hasn't brought suit" statement. Or -- we could just remove the Mahsudhe statement altogether until it actually happens. As it is -- it's essentially dishonest and misleading to the reader. People say they are going to do things all the time. It doesn't become real until it happens. And now that I think about it, we don't put information in movie-related articles about what's going to go into production until they actually are in production. Therefore, it seems like a logical conclusion to me that in the same manner, this article shouldn't say ANYTHING about Mahsudhe's suit until it actually happens. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, right? Lhb1239 (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
If the statement that he was intending to file a lawsuit appears to no longer apply because no lawsuit has been filed, that statement can be deleted from the Wikipedia article. But we can't include a statement saying the suit hasn't happened unless reliable sources back that statement up. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

First, this material was not an excuse for edit warring. Next time I see folks doing multiple reverts I will request administrative action. Second, we don't just write things because we think that there's a hole to fill. We do not, for example, write that Mortenson has made no response to his critics since mid-April just because we notice that fact. Nor do we count the number of weeks since someone is reported to have said they will file a lawsuit. We only add material for which we have sources. That may seem unfair, and it's true that it can lead to odd situations. But that's the way Wikipedia works. NPOV says: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Note that last clause. Lastly, I strongly suggest that folks use the talk page first if they're thinking of adding something that is controversial. If they really want to be bold and edit first, then they should adhere to WP:BRD.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

SPk

Anyone know anything factual about how to use the SPk title Star_of_Pakistan#Recipients_of_the_Sitara-e-Pakistan) given to someone? Lhb1239 (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, SPk is used as a title following the recipient's name as indicated by numerous online articles including at least one other in Wikipedia (Syed Mohammad Ahsan). Lhb1239 (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please post a reliable source saying that spk should be used following a recipients name. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I never said it was a "reliable source", I used Wikipedia to show a standard of style already set within Wikipedia. You stated "Reading other recipients of the SPK, it doesn't appear added it after the name is the standard convention". What other recipients and what sources did you use to justify removing SPk? Lhb1239 (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the following recipients who had articles about them. They were listed on the page that describes the Spk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farida_Akhter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aslam_Khattak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhtar_Hameed_Khan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Gall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habibullah_Khan_Khattak

Outside of Wikipedia, I perform internet searches looking for places where the title was used to describe Greg Mortenson. None of the news articles referenced used the title Spk to describe Greg Mortenson. I then reviewed the website ikat.org, and nowhere does the website give Greg Mortenson that title (it references that he received the award, which is not being questioned here.)
Based on the above information, I don't think that using that title to describe Greg Mortenson in the head section makes sense and actually clutters it up a bit and makes it is a bit harder to read. I think that using that title after his name should be left out here, and that listing the award in the award section is sufficient.
I am going to remove the Spk title once again as I can't find reliable sources that have used the Spk after his name. If you can find a reliable source that uses it, and is written in the context that would fit this article, then we can put it back. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if sources where Greg Mortenson's name has used the title, he has received the honor and, therefore, is entitled to utilize it. Examples of the title being used in this fashion are found at [1], [2], [3], [4]. Aside from these examples outside Wikipedia, within Wikipedia there are several article subjects who use the title in this fashion. Again, if Mortenson received the honor, then he is entitled to use the title as others who have also received the honor.
But, are there any examples of where Mortenson himself used the title? We wouldn't call someone Dr. in a wikipedia article if the subject didn't refer to himself/herself as a doctor, even if they had an earned doctoral degree. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Where does it say anywhere (Wikipedia or otherwise) that someone who has been bestowed an honor or title has to use that title in order for it to be notated? The argument you are using here is flawed from my perpective and the premise is false. Unless, of course, you can come up with something that states otherwise...... Lhb1239 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that'd fall under the "no original research" premise. Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place to use the Spk title following his name, and we really should only use it in that manner if other reliable sources do so as well. It seems that if we are using the spk title in reference to Greg Mortenson in a new manner not seen elsewhere, then we're presenting it as original research. I'd be more comfortable with using it here if we could find a reliable source that uses it in the same manner for Greg Mortenson. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation of original research seems off to me in this regard. It is verifiable that Mortenson received the award, therefore, there is no reason why the title should not follow his name in the article. The standard in Wikipedia is verifiability over truth not truth over verifiability. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The editors discussing this may want to review MOS:HONORIFICS if you have not already done so. This may be a designation that should be included in the body of the article rather than following his name according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. 72Dino (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, 72Dino. I looked at the article, and still believe that the SPk is applicable as a title to follow Mortenson's name (just as precedent for use of the title has already been established with other article subjects within Wikipedia and outside Wikipedia (examples are above in previous discussion entries under this header). Lhb1239 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bestseller status

The book Three Cups of Tea was on the NYT best seller list for a period of time (in the paperback non-fiction category) but is no longer on the list. Should the book be referenced as a former bestseller as it is not a current bestseller? I think that makes sense to me. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

NYT bestsellers are still referred to as bestsellers long after they are no longer on the list. The appropriate thing to do would be to find out how long it was on the list and make that distinction in the article -- not say "former". Lhb1239 (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't all discussion regarding bestselling status be better off on the articles about the books? Yes, Greg wrote the books but it would make more sense to discuss the bestselling status on those pages. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
He's a bestselling author. That should be pointed out in the article about him, not just the articles about the books. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Sorry to see what's come of this. Qwrk (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And as soon as the blocks expired the editors went right back to the dispute.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Not exactly. Interesting how you would see it that way when I asked you early on to intervene and your only response was to say that blocking would be forthcoming. Rather than reacting in a positive fashion, you chose to ignore the situation and go straight for the block. It's not just you -- I'm starting to notice that a number of admins would rather block (or threaten a block) than help. Even when specifically asked to help. What is supposed to be preventative ends up being punative in such a scenario. Anyway -- that's my opinion and until I'm shown differntly, I'll stick with that opinion. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
LHB, I'm going on a long wikibreak and will be taking a break from the article. Enjoy your vacation! WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I did not ask for a block. I asked for protection due to edit warring in which both of you were engaged. "It takes two to tango". Another admin looked at the dispute and decided that blocks were more appropriate. I suggest that both of you take a break from this article, as neither of you seem to be able to avoid getting into unhelpful edit wars. On several occasions I have given advice on how to proceed without edit warring, but that advice seems to have been ignored. Both of you have made special pleadings asking me to intervene, but admin intervention isn't what's required. What's needed is a willingness to discuss issues calmly on this talk page.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Wiki Admins are supposed to be helpers first and cops second. When asked to help, you didn't, you only talked about blocking. Absent of your assistance when asked, there was a method to my "madness". Do I care that I was blocked? Not really. Do I think the block sent a message to the right person? I hope so. No one has seemed to want to help when asked (and not just this time around), so I decided to take another tack. As far as the willingness to discuss issues calmly -- I've never been anything BUT calm and willing to stay that way, Will. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to give helpful guidance, but I'm not here to be a referee. I point again to the behavior following the blocks. Instead of seeking consensus, editors simply went right back to fighting over the same issues.   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I recognize you see it that way, but have to respectfully disagree with your viewpoint. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits

The section titled lawsuits was recently changed, and I don't think it reflects the current situation. An editor changed the verbage to say that the lawsuits were annoucned, when in fact they were actually filed. Lots of emphasis was placed on the people who dropped the lawsuits, while only 1 person dropped the lawsuit. The schoolteacher in Illinois joined the Montana lawsuit, so he/she is still a party to the lawsuit. I think undue emphasis is being placed on the dropped aspects of the lawsuits to obscure the fact taht multiple lawsuits are still pending against Greg Mortenson. Thoughts? Blue Pony Express (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are thus Blue Pony Express: this is the third time you have come to this article with a different user name; every time you return you edit with POV and an agenda; your edits are continually and consistently disruptive. Because you keep removing references for no good reason, I have rolled back your edits. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I modiified the entry changing the "announce their intentions to file" to "filed a lawsuit" because the suit was actually filed on May 6th. I also changed the "possibility of joining the Montana lawsuit" to "Joined the Montana lawsuit" and added a citation that supports the statement. Blue Pony Express (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Updates

Are there any updates to this matter or others concerning the subject?   Will Beback  talk  03:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Good question. I will take a look and see. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 03:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the suit still exists, however, as the article states, not with the same momentum as when it was initially filed. An interview on NPR in October (can be seen here), shows that there are many who see the class action as frivilous. Still looking for more..... (talk→ LesHB ←track) 03:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I took a quick look on Proquest's newspaper archive. The matter appears in a number of year end reviews, including being the top news item for Bozeman (a pretty low threshold). In November he was replaced at an appearance since he was still recovering from surgery, but in December he gave a free lecture at a library in Colorado Springs. I'm not sure that's really noteworthy though.   Will Beback  talk  04:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably not noteworthy. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 05:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources: The "Criticism" section contains text:

Nicholas Kristof has said that Mortenson is "utterly disorganized," and added, "I am deeply troubled that only 41 percent of the money raised in 2009 went to build schools."
and cites an article by Kristof from 2008, which (obv.) does not contain the referenced quote.Alberrosidus (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This is really annoying. The original link had the correct article, and someone came along and changed it in an attempt to eventually remove the quote. (This wasn't Alberrosidus, it was another user.) Anyways, I have corrected the reference and all is well. Blue Pony Express (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Literary license"?

The intro states that Mortenson was accused of "using literary license." Actually, he was accused (rightly or wrongly) of publishing false information. "Literary license" is a defense that he might use against that charge, but it's not what he has been accused of, and is definitely not NPOV. I recommend using more neutral and accurate language. 173.33.54.182 (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Death

I am pretty sure that Greg Mortenson is not dead. The author of this section seems to have confused him with his co-author, David Oliver Relin, who committed suicide on November 15th, 2012. This should be either removed or given reference immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.199.238 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your right so sorry Kennvido (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Story About Taliban Capture

24.181.176.15 (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC) JMD Sept 21. 2013 Content currently says, under 60 Minutes claims: "The story recounted in Stones into Schools about Mortenson's capture by the Taliban did not occur." I read "Three Cups of Tea" and the story of the capture was told in this book. I'm currently reading Stones into Schools and haven't finished it yet - so maybe the story was in both books ?? but I am certain it was in Three Cups of Tea. So the sentence should be modified to read: "The story recounted in Three Cups of Tea...."

See also

I added a link and some text to give context: "Somaly Mam, also created a fictional biography to enhance her charity." Perhaps we can come up with a more elegant way of phrasing that, and changing the wording at Somaly Mam that links back here. Any suggestions? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I suggest that be deleted as not relevant to this article. Cf: coatrack. Jonathunder (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, there is no need for this link. It has no direct connection. ww2censor (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
If it were in the article it would be a coatrack, it is a see-also link. We have two people who run charities that have been accused of fabricating the story that is the basis of their charity. If I was reading about one person accused of fabricating info to enhance a charity I would like to read about another person accused of the same thing. How is that not a connection? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
If it's coatracking, as you admit, to put it in the article, it absolutely does not belong in "see also" either. Jonathunder (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I am admitting that the definition of a coat rack involves tangential information in articles. See-also sections are, by design, about related things. If I was reading about one person accused of fabricating the very thing that got them to start a charity, I would want to read about a second person accused of the same thing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see what our style manual says about a "see also" section. What you propose doesn't fit that guideline. Jonathunder (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh? That is an article about disambiguation pages and what see-also links to include to link to other articles with similar sounding titles. That is like telling me the answer is in the Bible and then handing me a copy of the Avesta. We are not discussing disambiguation pages for people with a similar name to Greg Mortenson. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
After reading about Mr. Mortenson, you may feel moved to read the Decalogue and another reader some other scripture. Wikipedia has a search function that will take you there. What we must not do is list other liars under "see also" just because we think this person is one. Jonathunder (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Your an administrator, you should know better than to use the strawman fallacy or to send people to unrelated MoS pages. My rationale is: "We have two people who run charities that have been accused of fabricating the story that is the basis of their charity." You are using the fallacious strawman argument, I never said he was a liar, or that all liars are equivalent, or that all liars should be listed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What actual connection between these persons is there? If there is one, cite sources and put it in the article. If none, leave it out. The WP:BLP policy applies to all parts of the encyclopedia, including the "see also" section here. "See also" is not for other people we want to tar with the same brush. Jonathunder (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What part of WP:BLP are you citing? You can't tell people "the answer is in the Bible, go read the Bible." If you believe a section covers what we are discussing, cite a chapter and verse. You asked "What actual connection between these persons [sic] is there?" Please reread any of my previous messages so I do not have to cut-and-paste my argument a fourth time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"See also" links should not be used to imply any contentious categorization or claim about a living person. Listing another person with no connection to the subject and who is best known for promoting a fraud places this subject in a "contentious categorization". You don't have the sources to do that in the article, you would not be allowed to do it in categories, and you may not do it in "See also". Jonathunder (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Slow down dude, which of the two people is "best known for promoting a fraud"? I do not know which of the two you are referring to. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I would not include this other person in the See also section. --Malerooster (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that these two people should not be connected by see also links. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that these two people are not connected and the addition to the See Also section is inappropriate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a paid advertisment

Someone has severely sanitized this article. "Harrison was no Greg Mortenson, the disgraced education advocate" This is why Wikipedia is losing credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.238.38 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.abilitymagazine.com/Greg-Mortenson_2.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. KorruskiTalk 15:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Greg Mortenson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight in Lede

The following section from the Lede keeps being removed without much explanation except a vague wave in the direction of [WP:UNDUEWEIGHT]. "Mortenson has been criticized by writers such as Peter Hessler and Jon Krakauer for financial mismanagement of his charity,[9] for "dodging accountability" and for writing a book Krakauer described as "riddled with lies".[10]"

My view is that since one of the few things that makes Mortenson notable is the 'Three Cups of Deceit' book and conflict with Jon Krakauer, this information is highly significant and deserves to be in the lede. EIther way, it needs a better explanation before removing it. --KorruskiTalk 06:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This is much better than your snide edit summaries, Korruski. The lead already mentions his legal troubles, and there is a copious controversy section. So, the "financial mismanagement of his charity" is already addressed in the lede. The rest makes the lede look like a smear piece, which is definitely counter to Wikipedia policy.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The NYT cite used referred to the person en passant only, and the material in the body of the article does not support the claim made in the lede. I added the sentence which the body supports to the lede, of course. Collect (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greg_Mortenson/Archive_2&oldid=1136354419"