Talk:Anatoli Boukreev

message: Read "The Climb", "Into Thin Air" and "Left for Dead".  Don't know who was at fault for the tragedy...very sad.  Incredible reading.
:I have read The Climb (most while in Nepal no less), and Into Thin Air. Krakauer blames Boukreev to some extent for descending to the South Col well ahead of the clients. However, Boukreev stated in his book that he had consulted with Fisher before doing so and it was agreed that it was best if he did so in order to prepare for the climbers as they reached the South Col. I think Fisher exhausted himself before he made the summit attempt and probably should not have gone (notwithstanding what eventually happened). Indeed a tragic story for everyone involved. Most everyone who suffered that day made the summit well past the safe turnaround. Many times climbers can be fortunate with the afternoon weather and take the additional risk of reaching the summit late but luck was not with them that day. RedWolf 07:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Anatoli was born in Kazakhstan (then USSR), not in Russia. There are many pictures of him on the web with him holding up the Kazakhstan flag.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.82.112 (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Granted, this must be a very touchy subject, with the Salon debates, DeWalt's The Climb, and Krakauer's 1999 afterword against DeWalt, amongst other bits in the sheer glut of facts.  But this article is clearly very biased, not even referencing some of the disputed claims.  Some points that need to be addressed:
#I thought that Dale Kruse gotten HACE during the accilimization time and that Fischer ordered Boukreev to climb with them; Boukreev refused and as a result there was nobody there when Kruse collapsed at Camp II. (described in Into Thin Air)
#Boukreev's cynical view of guiding, his personality: how if the client could not climb Everest he/she should not be on it.
#Decision to descend.  Oh god, the implications with this thing.  Second conversation, predetermined plan?  
#Adams switching sides around?  Krakauer reports Adams as a mild man, who says, "Wow.  I say you got some explaining to do."  Dewitt has Adams as a real critic (can't remember the quote now).  Whatever the case, he's the only other surviving witness (besides Krakauer himself) who saw Boukreev's and Fischer's last conversation.
It's all in Into Thin Air and The Climb and the Salon debates , which includes one piece and two Dewitt/Krakauer debates.  Lots of this info needs to be included and neturally described, which is why I put the TotallyDisputed template up, since neither are present (the page before I edited it solely had Boukreev/Dewitt version).  Even my edits haven't quite fully done justice.  Hbdragon88 02:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not to put blame on a dead person. But the general negative POV on Boukreev was that he (as a very experienced and extremely strong climber) only was able (and willing) to climb for his own, additionally get paid for this, and did NOT (really) work (every time) for the team members (which is essential as they pay for summiting WITH help). When he might have asked Scott Fischer, his boss, high on Everest for allowance to go down quickly, nearly everybody knew that Scott Fischer was a weak and quite ill person at that moment, probably not willing to dispute: again a mistake beneath others. Yes, Boukreev then, later, saved lives down on south col. OK. But in front of this he might have saved some more lives higher on the mountain in assisting his boss and the team members instead of rushing on top alone and then rushing down alone. IMHO. (excuse for my bad english.) BTW Weston DeWalt, writer for Boukreev, is a bloody asshole, having earned money by a lousy and really bad book. Me being a saloon debateer too (but a man with deep respect for responsible behaviour. Boukreev - in his extreme wish to perform as a climber was NO good responsible team member. AND Fischer was a bad boss trying to ignore this fact.) Or we agree in this: trying to summit on Everest is a NON RESPONSIBLE behaviour in any respect, as there may riskily occur heaviest weather conds in extreme short times which can cause deads after best thinkable preparation to survive. 217.187.204.239 21:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is guiding on Everest even a thing?  Guides should be used to show the way, not to babysit.  Any negligence short of the client saying "no" and the guide saying "yes" is entirely on the client in this situation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.170.233 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally Disputed

message: I'd suggest that while Wiki talks about providing an objective 'truth' based on 'published' sources we have arrived at the point where the limited ability of any of the participants to see and understand everything that was going on, and the stress and strong feelings generated on the night of the storm, and particularly in the few days that followed, have made it impossible for any them to 'tell the whole story', or for us any of us to assemble a 'full picture' from each of their separately published works.  One might note - as an aside - that if the participants had limited their comments to their own experience we might have been able to assemble a fairly coherent 'whole story' from their fragments, but the controversy that quickly swirled around the whole affair enjoined nearly everyone to make some observations outside their direct experience, and while these might be valuable observations it makes it harder for us looking back to discern 'what was known' and 'what was understood'.  I might add before leaving this point, a quote from Peter Hillary about what it is like to be in a storm on a high mountain - to help explain to the earthbound (most of us) why events within such a (relatively) short timeframe could generate so many 'perspectives'. 
What would it have been like up there? Imagine yourself in a large commercial freezer; its minus 40 degrees, there’s a 747 engine at one end of the freezer, blasting freezing air at you at 300, perhaps 400 kilometres per hour. Tilt the entire freezer on to a 50 degree angle, so that you are clawing with your ice-axes and the crampons on your boots to secure purchase. Bear in mind that at over 8,000 metres there is less than one third the amount of oxygen in the air as at sea level and your lungs are heaving with a wild rate of hyperventilation that is only sufficient to enable you to move at a snail’s pace; your circulation is impaired by the acclimatisation process and the cold is eating into your toes and fingertips. Now turn off the light.
And while the storm on Everest was not as strong as the one on K2 (that killed Alison Hargreaves and 5 others), in the case of Everest we are talking about a larger number of people spread out over a large area.
My key point - however - is that this story does not belong in the article on Anatoli Boukreev.  Essentially it is a story about 'the mountain' and to attach it to Anatoli on the basis that he was just one 'participant' is illogical.  If we justify its location here on the basis of the difference of opinion between Anatoli and Krakauer we miss the point - the 'fact' that there was disagreement belongs in this article (and in Jon Krakauer's), but the substance of those opinions, and the events that they attach to is a much bigger story than Anatoli's or Jon's alone, and warrants an article in it's own right, or as a chapter in the article on Everest itself (my preference).  In that larger context I'd argue that there would be an opportunity to (in the Wiki tradition) present the various viewpoints (and reference them), and then enumerate (and this to my mind is what is important..) 'what is known - what is agreed' for the benefit of the reader.  
This article - Anatoli's - is meant to be about the entirety of Anatoli's life, and I believe we should work to restore that 'focus'.  Anatoli's climbing achievements were considerable.  Incidentally I'd suggest the same approach to Scott Fischer's article, and Rob Hall's - comments about the circumstances of their deaths are appropriate, but a man's achievements 'in life' (if they are notable) deserve proper attention (and Anotoli, Scott and Rob achieved many notable things in their lives).  Because there is likely to be some 'sensitivity' about this I won't do any more beyond 'adding' some details about Anatoli to the entry, and leave the question of reducing the 'story' of May 1996 to another day.  I'd be proposing though, something along the lines of..
Anatoli was a guide in the Mountain Madness group, the group summited late in the day, Scott Fischer died, the rest survived, Anatoli was credited with rescuing 3 and was awarded the David A Sowles award for bravery by the US Alpine Club.  Tban 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For some time I've been intending to rewrite this in a more neutral tone. Reading your comments, I think it would be better to write an article on the '96 climbing season and then merge the info from the climber and Mt Everest articles. Then this and the other climber articles can be rewritten per your last paragraph, with a link to the new '96 article. At least then all the controversial stuff is in one place. Kevin 01:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the '96 disaster should get its own article and only be summarized in related articles. heqs 17:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes! I propose it be called 1996 Everest Disaster. I'm all over this, tell me when you start it so I can add it to my watchlist. --Liface 17:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that people have been talking about it on various pages for at least a few months now, someone just has to get it started. ;) heqs 17:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Proposal 

message: (new section for ease of reading)
I am still working on this although I have had less time lately due to an intrusion of real life. I'm probably about a third of the way through. The format I was intending to use was:
Introduction
List of the climbers
A list of the climbers and expeditions involved.
Narrative of events
Written in prose form, broken up into suhheadings by date range i.e May 10-11 in one section, and I'm not sure of the others yet.
Oxygen supplies
Details of what was required, and what was actually available.
Fixing rope to the summit
According to Krakaeur this was a major cause of delay on summit day.
List of those who died
For easier reading than scanning through the narrative.
Controversy
A hopefully short section detailing the differences of opinion of those who were there.
References
If you get impatient send me a message on my talk page or an email to get a move on. I was keen to get the article mostly completed before posting so that the inevitable NPOV might be discouraged. I am in the process of emailing the climbers whos emails I can find to see if I can get some free use images from them, seeing as I'm not likely to be able to take my own pictures.
This article would fit well with descriptive articles on the 2 major climbing routes. Kevin 23:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Everest '96

message: The actual facts presented in the Everest '96 section aren't actually in contention.  All accounts of the summit bid agree on the timetable, location of the team members, etc.  I changed the tag to NPOV to reflect that there is still disagreement about how to interpret Boukreev's motivation.  Let me know if you disagree.  129.186.205.84 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV vs Disputed

message: having read both books (into thin air and the climb) i got interested in and about anatoli boukreev . 
that's why i ended up here at wikipedia .
to my opinion it doesn't matter where the truth lies , anatoli was a very strong climber with an impressive state of accomplishments . 
a mistake at high altitude , is often a deadly one . and as i have read both books , 
some things are for sure . why anatoli went up without oxygen while guiding , and going down without any customers , is questionable . even if there was a plan/agreement with fisher . everything around it is speculative . 
it doesn't change the fact that we're talking about a great climber here , and although he has accomplished incredible   
things , the 1996 everest disaster will be the first thing he will be remembered by . 
he rescued 3 people in a very hostile environment (one that should be listed at his merits) . but the way he got there still raises questions .
thus the legacy of this climber . so my proposal would be . 
put all versions of all writers/witnesses in. 
let history decide . there's no way to be sure what really happened . even surviving witnesses can't be all that sure because of hypoxia and exhaustion (even before the storm).
so i believe that some controversies about anatoli can't be solved . and we shouldn't want to . it's all part of the adventure so to speak . so place all accounts side by side , don't alter any of them . leave it .
steeb  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.182.84 (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  anatoli epilogue 

message: I've read both the Climb and Into Thin Air.  I'm not a climber, but I'm having a hard time swallowing Krakauer's line that Boukreev's descent ahead of his clients was a factor in the problems they encountered.  A simple body count reveals that of the Mountain Madness team (Boukreev's), the six clients who attempted the summit that day, Martin Adams, Charlotte Fox, Lene Gammalgaard, Tim Madsen, Sandy Hill Pittman, and Klev Schoening, all reached the summit and survived without loss of fingers or toes.  Scott Fischer, the leader of the expedition, was the only fatality.  
Of the Adventure Consultant's team, (Krakauer's), Krakauer was the only client to both reach the summit and survive.  Rob Hall, the leader of the expedition died of exposure, guide Andy Hall died, as did clients Doug Hansen and Yasuko Namba. Beck Weathers who failed to reach the summit was abandoned by his teammates, but managed (miraculously, in my opinion) to survive.  
Boukreev was a highly trained and experienced climber.  Krakauer is a journalist.  Boukreev's opinion was that he would be better able to help if he himself was rested and equiped with what the clients needed:  oxygen and hot tea to combat hypothermia.  Krakauer seems to think that Boukreev should have just held hands with his clients.  
It seems to me that the results are not neutral:  Boukreev was right.  
I would like the article on Boukreev to omit even a summary of the controversy, and just have it link to a separate article.  Ljprice (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View Question Raised Again 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Anatoli Boukreev. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://outsideonline.com/outside/destinations/199609/199609_everest_clarification_4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anatoli Boukreev. 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/20150927000946/http://www.americanalpineclub.org:80/p/sowles-award to https://www.americanalpineclub.org/p/sowles-award
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anatoli Boukreev. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.americanalpineclub.org/p/sowles-award
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130528084736/https://americanalpineclub.org/p/sowles-award to http://www.americanalpineclub.org/p/sowles-award
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On page 441 of Into Thin Air the author mentions that Boukreev ascended Gasherbrum II in Pakistan in July of 1997, which was his 11th 8,000 meter peak.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druzyek (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to Krakauer, Boukreev ascended 11, not 10, of the 14 eight-thousander peaks 

message: Not that anyone probably cares since no one has been debating on this page for many years: the article is still way too heavily biased. It has no accounts from Above The Clouds and seems to favor Into Thin Air way too much. The person responsible for this tragedy is the weather and the mountain. There were sad chains of events that occured that ended badly but putting responsibility for everyone's lives squarely on Anatoli's shoulders is pretty crap. I think Jon Krakauer just wanted Anatoli to be the next Ivan Drogo-type villain in his book. In reality, Anatoli just suffered from a language barrier. I would love to see this article updated to be less focused on Into Thin Air, seeing as its about Anatoli and not whatever fake villain Krakauer made up for his book. 24.115.5.255 (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished Above The Clouds: