Talk:Three Cups of Tea

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

Lead section[edit]

I think Jon Krakauer's Three Cups of Deceit (http://byliner.com/) is a sufficiently powerful critique of this book that it warrants a mention in the lead section and its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powersofpersuasion (talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The critiques are credible, specific, published in prominent sources, and backed up by published interviews. They challenge the factual basis of the book, and clearly deserve mention in the lead section (as well as development in the article below). FatTrebla (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book's title comes from a Balti proverb: The first time you share tea with a Balti, you are a stranger. The second time, you are an honored guest. The third time you become family.

Where does it say these words spoken by Haji Ali, the chief of Korphe village, are a Balti proverb? Granted, they certainly sound like one, but I don't recall it being referred to in that way. Also, we should quote it correctly. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears on page 150 of the book. The words were spoken by Haji Ali and I have made the quotation exact as well as given the reference. If we need another reference, a paraphrase of the saying appears in this article (near the end). Renee (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Renee. I looked at p. 150 before I composed my query, and I'm looking at it again now. Where does it say "Balti proverb"? Thanks for fixing the quote. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...that's an excellent point. In this source it's referred to as a Balti proverb here but here it's referred to as a Pakistani proverb. The latter source is of higher quality (the first is an opinion piece). What do you think? Should we keep it? If not, what would you suggest? It seems integral to the article because it's the inspiration for the title of the book. Renee (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The former ref (The Corydon Democrat) works for the time being, so I must thank you again for offering it, however I may want to change some things around in the future to avoid using op/ed pieces as sources. Thanks for your help in clearing this up. I look forward to working with you on expanding this article. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we should avoid using op-ed pieces completely. Perhaps we should just remove the word "Balti" and refer to it as a proverb? Renee (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine for now, but the reference should appear after the quote. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did that first here, but take a look at what happens because of the specialized formatting around the quotation. I thought it would be better to be clear than to have the source hidden away, but if you feel it should be the other way that's fine with me. Best, Renee (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We probably don't need to use {{cquote}}, but take a look at the template to see how to insert the source correctly. That's why it didn't work for you before. Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That worked. Renee (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There is a part in the beginning, "Subject(s) then the pug ate greg and ate his intestines" which really seems inaccurate. Could someone who knows more about this take a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.210.139.52 (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Removed as vandalism. Renee (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background section[edit]

Section 1 (following the lead) should present information about how Mortenson and Relin came together to write the book. Viriditas (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I spent some time searching for that (in news stories, interviews, feature pieces, and on their websites) and no where could I find information on how they came together. The most I could find was, "when Relin agreed to the project..." or something of that sort. Mortenson is coming to my area in September and I can ask him, but that won't meet WP:R or WP:V! :) Renee (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it for a day, I think I have a bare outline in my mind, and I will attempt to put something together (with sources) by Monday. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything yet, but the "Perspective" section should be merged into the proposed Background section due to overlap. Viriditas (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see a background section -- do you mean the summary section? How about merging it with the criticism section (or deleting it altogether -- there is no citation)? Renee (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't added the background section yet. The citation would be Three Cups of Tea, "In Mr. Mortenson's Orbit", pp. 1-5, although I'm sure we need to rewrite it. I'm working on two other things right now, so if you want to work on it, you are welcome to jump in at anytime! :) Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're heading out for vacation for a couple of weeks so I won't have time to do heavy writings or research, but I'll check in occasionally. I can work on it later. Thanks for your work! Renee (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on educating girls[edit]

There's a lot about this subject in various interviews and news reports, with lengthy explanations to draw from for material. We need a section about this in the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two subtitles[edit]

I changed this section to "publication" as it should describe the publication history in general. Viriditas (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Much better header. Renee (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Renee, will you be able to take any photographs when you meet Mr. Mortenson in September? I'm wondering if we can just contact CAI and ask them for permission to use a free promotional photograph. I don't see why they would object. There's a number of good ones on Flickr, but they don't have the appropriate licensing for Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found one "free" photo on flickr. I'm going to crop it and upload it for use in this article. It's not great, but it is better than nothing. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly try. Also, Tauheed has tried to upload photographs many, many times and each time they've been deleted. If he can follow the Wiki format then we'd probably have a boatload. Thanks, Renee (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on Talk:Greg Mortenson, if the photos belong to Tauheed or he has permission to release them to Wikipedia, I can help place the appropriate license on the image page to prevent it from getting deleted. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update?[edit]

Hi folks, I'm back now. What's the status of Tauheed's pictures? Viriditas, what would you like to do regarding the background. Renee (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, sorry I missed your message. I hope you had a good vacation. I'm working on these open tasks. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to IP 71[edit]

On the first page of the first chapter of this book, it says that the climb occurred in 1993. Please see this. Thanks, Renee (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to IP 64[edit]

I found phrases that matched descriptions of the book, but when I did an internet search of the whole paragraph it did not appear. I have re-written the paragraph so there is no question about plagiarism. Renee (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

The article's summary of the book fells more like an advertisement than a plot synopsis. Examples include, "Co-author Relin recounts Mortenson's efforts in fascinating detail, presenting compelling portraits"

I suggest a point of view check is made, and the page revised to be of a more encyclopaedic nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.194 (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can definitely see your point here. Would you like to take a crack at it? Renee (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Article is in poor shape. I'm trying to cleanup the most egregious parts first. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate this book. Three Cups of Tea is nothing more than a fake liberal person's attempt to make money. Perhaps his intentions were good at first, but he has lost perspective. Everything seems like an commercial. A boring one at that. The book is being sold to schools like mine where teachers are stupid enough to eat it up. There are even Middle School and Elementary versions ---like Listen to the Wind. It also comes with online lessons my teachers like. The lessons are boring too. And, hey, think about it---Where is all this money going and why? Think about it. Americans and the Western world has, for centuries, imposed their morays and belief systems on countries deemed uncivilized or uneducated. This book is nothing more than propaganda supporting a superman complex: that we must fly to the rescue for the great good of the planet and rescue these poor uneducated people. Did anyone stop to think that these people may already possess intelligence? These people are known as great writers and thinkers--even tho some may not read or write. Tradition and local lifestyle and values trump education. Change, democracy, and education has to come from within---not imposed from an outside culture. This book is sold as a package deal to raise up Mr M. as a hero. Many students at my school in Seattle see right through it. Mr M. is not even a good writer. The book is boring and I get tired of him talking about his stature. It is also interesting that a few weeks ago you could google criticism articles on the book and they popped right up...now, somehow---they have mysteriously disappeared! All my friends in school hate this book even tho we are being forced to read it.

I heard the book has been nominated for a nobel prize. ????? What the ______? Are we that stupid? Well, I guess some voted for Bush...so maybe so. Hillary didn't get in and she's a genus compared to Obama who is sending more young men to the war. One of my teachers said -People get the government they deserve. How much are we going to take before we think for ourselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothgir234 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "Boring" is an opinion and not fact. Additionally, David Oliver Relin wrote most of the book. The people of Korphe and the Karakoram WANT schools, you apparently missed that. The villages wanted the first school so much that they threw three feasts for Mortenson just to try to receive it. The people there are NOT known as great readers or writers, because they have no written language and are extremely isolated. The money that the CAI receives (about 85%, read their website) goes to programs for increasing enrollment of their schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.227.21 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@gothgirl it's a teacher's thing: they go apeshit over any book that fits with their own liberal agenda, preferably heralding all the good teachers do. (we had a very successful book here in the netherlands written by a girl who was forced into prostitution. as soon as some journalist dared to apply some critical thought (the whole 'how do you DARE to question the poor girl') the whole story soon fell apart as little more then an attempt to get back at the guy who dumped here by painting him as a pimp). teachers might tell their students to 'make up your own mind and think for yourself' but then they force them to read stories that everyone with an even slightly critical mind can see as gigantic simplifications and manipulations, if not outright falsifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.130 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translations[edit]

I removed the entry with the Hebrew translation, because we don't list translations in such articles. Instead, the article could contain a sentence like "The book has been translated into x different languages", but that would need a source. I checked out http://www.threecupsoftea.com/about-the-book/foreign-translations/, but that isn't reliable because it doesn't make it clear which of the listed books have actually been translated, and which are only planned. Moreover, it lists countries, not languages; it isn't clear which language the books are published in. E.g. is the version sold in Portugal a different translation from that sold in Brazil? What language is the version sold in Switzerland in? — Sebastian 04:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Switzerland probably has the German, French, and Italian editions sold in the various regions of the country. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list: http://www.threecupsoftea.com/about-the-book/foreign-translations/

  • Chinese: 三杯茶 (Taiwan is listed as "Three Cups of Tea")
  • Dutch: Three Cups of Tea
  • French: Trois tasses de thé (France)
  • German: Der Traum vom Frieden (Germany)
  • Hebrew: שלוש כוסות תה - From http://www.threecupsoftea.com/wp-includes/images/Hebrew.JPG
  • Hungarian: Three Cups of Tea
  • Icelandic: Three Cups of Tea
  • Indonesian: Three Cups of Tea
  • Italian: Tre Tazze di Te
  • Korean: Three Cups of Tea
  • Polish: Three Cups of Tea
  • Portuguese: A Terceira Xi cara de Cha (Brazil), Three Cups of Tea (Portugal)
  • Serbian: Three Cups of Tea
  • Spanish: Tres tazas de te (Spain)
  • Swedish: Three Cups of Tea
  • Turkish: Üç Fincan Çay
  • The languages of the Swiss editions are not stated

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPR report[edit]

I just heard an NPR report that describes the situation of the students: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=127909459&m=127923252. — Sebastian 15:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal article!

More:

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

The criticism section seems to have a lot of information that is more about the person and integrity of Martenson as opposed to the book itself. It also repeats much of what is in the Mortenson article. Any objections to a cleanup so that it stays focused on the book?--Nowa (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the material seems to deal specifically with the book, or at least to be closely related to statements in the book. Ecphora (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Ecphora. I believe it should stay as it is. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)--138.220.66.85 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there's so much criticism and contravercy about this book that it should have its own page.--173.17.193.34 (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

criticism[edit]

Some of the criticism relates to Greg Mortenson, his management of the Central Asia Institute, or other parts of Greg's life that are not related to the book. I think these sections should go away and this article about Three Cups of Tea should only have information related to the book, and not information related to Greg Mortenson or the Central Asia Institute.

Comments? WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In particular I concur with the recent attempted deletion of "In regard to Mortenson's management style at CAI..." That information is unrelated to the book and well covered in GM's bio.--Nowa (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed[edit]

I added a citations needed flag to several awards that were bestowed on the book. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are easily sourced. I hope you'll show your good faith by making an effort to find and add them.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few more citations needed for some other facts in the article that weren't backup up by sources. I think they are reasonable and valid information, but we need sources to show that we aren't inventing stuff in the article. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Will stated above, it would be good form to try and find the citations, rather than cluttering up the article with cite needed tags. Along that line, please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policy on cite needed tagging -- especially the section on when not to use/overuse of the cite needed tag. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed allegation[edit]

One of the allegations in the criticism section specifically reference the sequel book, Stones into Schools. I don't think it should be part of this article and removed it. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur.--Nowa (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. The allegations section is in reference to the 60 Minutes piece. The allegations made against Mortenson were broad and not just in relation to Three Cups of Tea. Keeping the text in regard to Stones into Schools does not hurt the article in any way. It does not add undue weight nor does it detract from the article's topic. Because Stones is a sequel to Three Cups, I believe the text should stay - if Stones was a completely different book altogether with a different topic/subject matter, then I can see it being deleted. Further, please stop removing the section until discussion on the matter has concluded and a consensus has been reached (and, for clarity's sake, consensus does not mean yes/no vote tabulation). Continuing to remove the section as you have been is disruptive. As I stated earlier, there is no deadline in Wikipedia. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the “Stones to Schools” reference being meaningful to the article in light of the overall 60 minutes piece. When I looked over the criticism section, however, the paragraph on Mortenson's management style seems to be fairly unrelated to the book. Are there any aspects of that which are unnecessary for the article?--Nowa (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rehlin red link[edit]

Having a redlink for Rehlin is perfectly acceptable, as defined by the policy I already quoted in the edit summary while reverting back the redlink. Continuing to revert out the redlink solves nothing, and is, in essence, violating Wiki policy. Please read the policy on WP:REDLINK and WP:REDDEAL. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing your view on the Talk page rather than reverting my edit. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Three Cups Of Tea': the name[edit]

As this article states, The book's title comes from a Balti proverb: "The first time you share tea with a Balti, you are a stranger. The second time you take tea, you are an honored guest. The third time you share a cup of tea, you become family..." , while my copy states that its quoted by the Khorpe chief, Haji Ali. Can anyone clarify? extra999 (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shot in the dark, but I'm guessing Haji Ali is a member of the Balti People. This means that he could have been quoted as saying the proverb, but it would still be a Balti proverb in general. As an example, lets say so-and-so said: "Sensible people keep their eyes glued on wisdom." Even though that phrase is Proverbs 17:24, I would still quote the person as saying it. Does that make sense? Hucklebur (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So we should change that. it may be a Balti proverb, but since in the book, the particular mention is made by Haji Ali, this should be changed. extra999 (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

responses[edit]

the document linked in Responses to Criticism states "Project information has been updated as of May 23, 2013 and is subject to change."

The article says this doc is from 2011. Any word on what the original looked like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.141.224 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2015, article content is out-of-date[edit]

As of 2015, there seems to be an overwhelming consensus in the academic, philanthropic, and journalistic communities that Greg Mortenson's Three Cups of Tea was a self-aggrandizing hoax at worst and creative fiction at best. Denunciations have come from The New York Times; journalist Nicholas Kristof; CBS News; 60 Minutes; the Stanford Social Innovation Review; The Wall Street Journal, etc. Dozens of reputable journalists and authoritative sources have thoroughly discredited Mortenson's book as outright fantasy. Even the book's co-author, David Oliver Relin, committed suicide in 2012 after proclaiming that Mortenson had "cruelly duped" him. At some point, this article must be rewritten to reflect how the mainstream consensus towards the book has greatly shifted. We are no longer living in 2007. -- Flask (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Three_Cups_of_Tea&oldid=1211644338"