Talk:Jon Krakauer

Edit session

User:Gareth Owen is right to criticize an edit session; what wacko did this?

I can't find our copy of the book, but i'll try some research twd fixing it. --Jerzy(t) 23:27, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

I left the wording vague about the number of deaths, since i found articles on Web giving 5, 8, 9, 10, and 12; i assume they mostly have different criteria for who to count. (E.g., the 3-person Indian-party seems to be counted sometimes, even tho, i think, that was the next day. But not stupid to include in the same account.) IMO, this should be worked out in detail in a Mt. Everest May 1996 storm or Mt. Everest May 1996 deaths article. It should reference the multiple accounts and books, some of which deserve their own articles, and account for the different numbers. --Jerzy(t) 19:36, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

Okay...five comes from Fischer from the other group and four from Krakauer's group - Namba, Hansen, Hall, and Harris. All five, however, died on May 11 or later - merely stranded and unable to be helped on May 10. The eight count comes from the three Ladhakis dying. Nine sounds random, but I guess you could count Chen from the Taiwanesee group dying, but that was on May 9. Bruce Herrod died, which Krakauer counted as the 12th casuality of the season - I don't who the 10th and 11th are. The 10th could be counted as Ngwang, the Sherpa from Fischer's camp who died of HACE later in June or so, in a hosptial. The Mount Everset article says that there were fifteen deaths, which still leaves four more unaccounted for...
I personally believe that such a title should be 1996 Mount Everest Disaster -- Hbdragon88 07:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Boulder

Does he live in Boulder now? --Keflavich 06:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

His Response

Well, I don't know about the book itself, but Krakauer's rebuttal on the Random House site was reasonable and even-tempered. He stated his case well and I don't think he's a biased man.

The Church's argument is also reasonable - people will make unfortunate connections to the "main" branch of the LDS church based on insinuation from fundamentalist behavior.

I think church members and Krakauer can definitely open a dialogue while amicably agreeing to agree to disagree on certain things. I'll keep this article on my watch list to keep it fair.203.131.167.26 12:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Krakauer has been considered biased and unfair in his other books too. Further, he has admitted he had an axe to grind with the LDS Church and religion in general. If that is so, how can you say he is "fair"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Does anyone else find the last few sentences of "Criticism of Krakauer" to be a little strange? Specifically, "Quinn would not say how or where he got this information and many believe that he said these things because he was angry at the church because of his shortcomings instead of himself." <-- this seems to be written by someone with a bone to pick against some guy named Quinn and is not only opinion, but doesn't really make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.201.155 (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to Krakauer's Biography

This page is very light on content. The 'mountaineering' section provides a very brief overview of his accomplishments, I have added to the list (I feel that it gives the reader a better understanding of Krakauer's novels - such as Into the Wild and Into Thin Air). The magazines and books sections were too mixed (ie. the book section talked about his magazines). I've made some changes to separate them more. I also added more details about Into Thin Air and included other awards and recognitions, including a quote from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, which gives an excellent summary of Krakauer's journalistic style. I propose getting rid of the 'Criticisms' section, because everyone has their critics - must we list them all? I also propose that we add a picture, although I personally don't have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.242.34 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Krakauer is now on Facebook & also has an Amazon author page. Would either of those images of him (2 are identical) be considered OK to use here? The Amazon page also shows several pix of him *in action* climbing mountains, which would emphasize the mountaineering aspect of his background in addition to just having a head shot. There's also one that looks like it's from his Afghanistan trip done during his research of the Pat Tillman book & another in his younger days that looks weirdly like Chris McCandless from the movie. Well, you can see them, why am I babbling about that? I don't know if Amazon author page images are considered OK to use, but they are there for the purpose of publicity for the author. The Facebook page is run by his publishers & since those are publicity shots, they may also be OK. Since I don't *do* Facebook I've not a clue what else may be in there besides the standard author headshot pic. And what about bookseller-supplied images for his books? Can someone more well-versed in WP © for images issue a *ruling* on these? TYVM. ScarletRibbons (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

deleted sentence

I deleted the sentence "he climbed the tallest mountain in the world" because it seemed like an odd non-sequiter in the context of the paragraph. I think everybody knows that everest is the tallest mountain in the world, and even if we were to feel it necessary to introduce that fact, the last sentence in a paragraph dealing with an everest climb would not be the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.148.195.224 (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would rewrite the "The baby boy was driving himself with nobody. And he crashed and died." if I knew what the author was trying to say. Can we get rid of this? 68.109.166.1 (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms biased?

is it just me or is the criticisms section a little biased to krakauer? or am i messed up here Devel31 (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased, and not wholly informed. Krakauer initially thinks that his friend Andy has walked off the edge of the South Col, but months later finds out that the crampon tracks that led to the ledge were one of the Sherpas'. Also, Krakauer states later that Andy had been spotted on the South Summit at the location of the oxygen bottles, which erroneously been called empty over the radio. The books states that Andy was spotted at the South Summit fixing a new bottle to his regulator, having sorted out the error. Somebody seems to have half-read the book. Will cite more specific references after work tonight Txtimetraveler (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, extremely biased towards krakauer, I just edit the text for a neutral POV which was not a compliment to Krakauer and user Lhb1239 just wont accept it, Lhb1239 writes about other books and TV shows. These work comes from employees with a mission Pepeleyva (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

DEATH OF A CHILD IN 1990?

In his book on Everest, krakauer states he had "never been to a funeral". What is the source for the info on his childs death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.0.69 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No headline

How to start something. one of tricks that always imposes. I shall start with how I got here, the path. This very afternoon I took a magazine in some cafe, handed to me by my friend, I never browse magazines by myself in cafe's. so I was there turning page after page, and came across the movie annunciation of film Into the wild, and there I stopped. I read that small paragraph, and then I looked my friend handing over the magazine and said: this is my future. Now don't panick. I don't intend to follow the destiny of Chris. I said that as joke, and it was sth like a joke. I recognized sth of myself in that. actually all of myself. I am a wanderer also, a climber, a hitch hiker, I student of literature, ... ... and million times I thought of doing exactly what he has done,well not Alaska, but sth similar. i can't wait to read that book of Krakauer. I had to say this. cause it was so weird how my thought wasnt isnt and will not be original, only one. I actually am not seeking it to be like that. still how souls make same decisions ?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.8.211 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What? 71.62.28.247 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced criticism

Recently (5 Jan 2010), an anon editor inserted the following into the Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman section: "Many reviews have noted that this book tells you more about Krakauer's own political views than illumines the Tillman story." Not only is this unsourced, but its tone is POV, and its syntax is unencyclopedic. I looked briefly for reviews of the book ("'Where Men Win Glory' Review"), and of the three that I read (LA Times, NY Times, and Wash Post), only one made that criticism. If an editor found that that was a common theme among reviewers who didn't have an axe to grind, this sentence could be cleaned up and reinstated. For now, I excised it.--HughGRex (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Interviewee credibility?

P. 317 in "Where Men Win Glory" attempts to establish that Pat was killed with a burst of automatic fire from a 5.56 mm Squad Automatic Weapon (M249). I've fired M16A1s on full automatic; M16A2s on burst; M60 7.62 machine guns; M249 SAWs; M240B co-axial turret machine guns; M2 .50 calibers; and Bradley 25mm chain guns (during daylight, and with associated night vision devices). It is not physically possible to place a burst of M249 automatic fire in a shot group "within a two-inch-diameter target from a distance of forty or fifty years"—regardless of vehicle mount. Whoever Mr. Krakauer interviewed didn't know what they were talking about, and/or had never fired automatic weapons.Heyheycaptainjack (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to this biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, should be moved to the book page: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Where_Men_Win_Glory:_The_Odyssey_of_Pat_Tillman&action=edit&redlink=1

Suggested changes

I find the intro/lead to be too short so I'm adding a line about his writing -- it could be re-worked. Other areas for improvement:

• The section on the Tillman book seems to need updating, imo it reads as an announcement of upcoming book rather than summary like the others.
• Magazine section could be ammended to mention other pieces specifically, and perhaps some of the info on the Everest piece could be moved to the book section/summary.
• Section on books should include a summary of his first work, Eiger Dreams: Ventures Among Men and Mountains and may even warrant a merger since that book's article is so short. PrBeacon (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In the introduction there's an html link to the non-existent article "outdoor" [sic] but not to the article "mountain climbing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.40.247 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed 'outdoors' and linked mountain-climbing, although some editors don't like over-linking -- mountaineer is already linked in the previous (first) sentence. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit to criticism section

Relatively new editor Pepeleyva added a new section and some material, some of which has been reverted, and led to some warnings at their talk page. In my view, this is a classic example of a Good faith editor attempting to improve the article, but not knowing some of the arcane rules and procedures, managed to make some mistakes (as many of us did when we were new). It was my view that the substance belonged in the article, but the precise wording needed tweaking, as well as the elimination of some editorial comments, which are not consistent with Wikipedia. I've been conversing with the editor on their talk page, specifically in this section, and the editor seems generally satisfied with the results. I'm posting this for a couple of reasons:

1. I'm going to make the edit, and it may seem if it came from nowhere, but now I've linked to the background, in case anyone cares.
2. While many, maybe most of the words are from Pepeleyva, the new editor admits some lack of familiarity with some of the nuances of references. I take full responsibility for the content, and will address any concerns if there are questions, but wanted to acknowledge the contribution of Pepeleyva, which won't fully show up in the edit history.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Page lacks mention to Jon's mentor

This page should mention David Roberts (climber), Jon's mentor at some point. This is a biography after all isn't it? 143.232.210.38 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Curious heading

brownie99 May 28, 2013 Brownie99 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I am new here so apologies if I am making a mess but would I be right in thinking that someone has changed the heading of the 'Mountaineering' section to 'Life Behind Bars'? I don't feel confident to change it back, in case it's some 'in'joke in mountaineering circles. Perhaps someone else more savvy could respond and or make the change please.

That was vandalism, and another editor properly reverted it. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including you. This was not an "in joke" and in jokes don't belong on Wikipedia anyway. Feel free to revert vandalism whenever you see it. Use your good judgment, and trust it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Bastrop High?

Most of what I can find says Krakauer graduated from Corvallis HS in 1972. Where does Bastrop come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.192.201 (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jon Krakauer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article provides good personal background, and touches on the high points of his climbing and writing careers, and mentions a couple of criticisms of his writing. Pretty balanced treatment, could use more specific references. -Pete 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Krakauer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710033212/http://byliner.com/writers/jon-krakauer to http://byliner.com/writers/jon-krakauer/

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) 17:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Good article, needs more refs

Props to the editors who've expanded & added a pic & more recent stuff to the article! Really fleshes it out. I think this has really turned into a solid article, but it wouldn't pass a good article review due to the lack of cites in it.

When I did a bit of tidying up on the much shorter version a few yrs ago (copy editor geek here),

This user is a member of
the Guild of Copy Editors.

I was concerned about the dearth of references in the older sections....Mountaineering, Magazine contributions, & some of the Books sections still have no citations at all. Would it be possible for any of you great expansionists to find a few references? ScarletRibbons (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Krakauer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607165326/http://outsideonline.com/adventure/travel-ga-scott-darsney-greg-mortenson-three-cups-of-deceit-response-sidwcmdev_155822.html to http://outsideonline.com/adventure/travel-ga-scott-darsney-greg-mortenson-three-cups-of-deceit-response-sidwcmdev_155822.html

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) 16:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Krakauer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141223200546/http://www.ikat.org/2013/10/09/october-09-2013-federal-appeals-court-affirms-dismissal-of-case-against-cai-and-mortenson/ to http://www.ikat.org/2013/10/09/october-09-2013-federal-appeals-court-affirms-dismissal-of-case-against-cai-and-mortenson/

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) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Section on "Where Men Win Glory"

Shouldn't there be a mention that Pat Tillman was killed by "friendly fire" (that is, another American soldier) and not by the enemy? Otherwise it's not clear what was covered up. The wording "controversy about the handling of the announcement of his death by the U.S. Army" gives the impression that it was a minor issue. Perhaps when this section was written it was assumed that everyone would know about the background (the "friendly fire"), and there was no need to spell it out. But we can't assume that readers will automatically have this information from other sources, especially many years after the events.

Also, the tone of the review excerpt cited ("banal and inconsequential") seems unbalanced in a negative direction. Should one or two excerpts from more positive reviews (such as from the Los Angeles Times, Publisher's Weekly, etc.) be added? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)