Talk:Into Thin Air

Untitled

I made some changes to include some sources for the 'finger-pointing' . I'm not a reg editor to this article, my main goal was just to include some refs, if its reverted to its former style (makes no diff to me,) I think keeping or finding different sources (as long as they're included,) to the article is important. --Dean1970 10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article reference the book's ISBN, so I can clicky-clicky & find it at Amazon? I, too, am not a regular editior, so don't know exactly where to put this, and don't want to do so in case there's a good reason for not doing so. Stroller (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, found and added http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Book See also the long discussion of why the ISBN isn't clickable (I can't be bothered to read it right now) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Book#ISBN Stroller (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

last paragraph

sounds strange, like the author himself wrote it.76.167.42.227 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the last paragraph doesn't fit with the rest of the article. In addition, there is great controversy between his book and "The Climb." This paragraph is written from a biased point of view and opinions should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.110.160 (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

marked for cleanup

Article currently reads as though a "book report" has been pasted in (along with the writer's name and a recommendation of the book.) This does not follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Marked for cleanup. It may be necessary to go back to a prior revision. Blackplate (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

NPoV issues

Under the "Controversy" section, it reads "Boukreev provides a thorough rebuttal to these allegations in his book, The Climb." There is no primary source cited for this claim and it seems oddly PoV to me, since a "thorough rebuttal" would be one that was demonstrably superior to its competitor. We are given no good reason to believe that it was such. Unless support for this "thorough rebuttal" can be provided, I move for it to be stricken or replaced with something more NPoV. Bricology (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Movie

Is Everest (2015 film)‎ explicitly based on Into Thin Air? I mean, clearly the book was used as a source of material, but I'm given to understand that the film is more about the disaster as a whole and not this particular version of events. Obligatory disclaimer; I haven't seen it yet, but still, shouldn't it be mentioned that it's not just this book? NekoKatsun (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Everest (2015 film)‎ should not be listed as an adaptation

The 2015 film Everest is listed here in the "Adaptations" section, for some reason, even though there is sourced content here saying that it is not an adaptation. That means that the film does not belong here at all, much less being confusingly listed as an adaptation. For some reason, I have twice been accused of vandalism for removing a film that is not an adaptation from the "Adaptations" section. Would those who want to retain this material care to explain why they feel it should be here? 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Arjayay: @Dan Koehl: I think 64.105.98.115 has a point here. Why should a film that the article itself says "is not based on Krakauer's book" be included as an adaption of Krakauer's book? Peaceray (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry @Arjayay, NekoKatsun, and 64.105.98.115:, loking closer, I agree with you, I just reacted to the sudden removal of a lot of sourced text. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we're at least discussing it. If there's no objection, why don't you remove it? That way I won't be skirting 3RR even technically, as I might be otherwise. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is that clear cut - although this article may state they are not connected, The description at Everest (2015 film) is:-

Jon Krakauer, author of Into Thin Air, denounced the movie, stating some of its details were fabricated and defamatory. He also expressed regret regarding Sony's rapid acquisition of the rights to the book. Director Baltasar Kormákur responded, claiming Krakauer's first-person account was not used as source material for the film and alleging that Krakauer's version conflicted with actual events.

AFAIK, we have a situation where Sony had acquired the rights to the book, but then claimed that it was not used as source material for their own movie. So why did they acquire the rights? I suggest this article should explain this apparent contradiction - suggested text:-

Although Sony acquired the rights to the book, they later stated that their film Everest (2015 film) was did not use it as source material (+ citation) - Arjayay (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I can certainly see mentioning the film in this article, although the level of detail you're quoting properly belongs in the article about the film. I don't think it should be presented without comment as an adaptation of the book; at most it's asserted that the book was a source for the film, and that assertion is disputed. A one-line mention of Everest is fine. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Since Arjayay does have a point about Krakauer publicly discussing the sourcing of Everest, I've made a new revision that simply de-emphasizes it rather than remove all information about the film. [1] Does anyone object to that version of the section? 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That meets my fundamental objection, that the article needs to mention it, rather than delete all mention as if it has no connection whatsoever. Otherwise, people coming to this page could be confused by the lack of any mention, and re-add text similar to that which has now been deleted. - Arjayay (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

WSJ article cited in controversy

I read the sourced Galen Rowell article and I don't think the source material backs the take shown under controversy. I saw no "citing [of] numerous inconsistencies" so I believe that should be removed, but I wouldn't mind a second set of eyes on the source material in case I'm missing something. Rowell seems to provide as much if not more praise than criticism of the book. Finally, the cherry-picked quotes to help defend Boukreev and imply Krakauer as a coward give a misleading impression that Rowell has weighed in on finger-pointing, siding with Boukreev and DeWalt against Krakaurer. In general I think this passage is much wordier than warranted. I would recommend the following update, but feedback would be welcome:Mattp1997 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Galen Rowell praises Krakauer's work as "among the great adventure books of all time" but also criticizes Krakauer's harsh journalistic analyses of the actions of many of the climbers and guides, including Boukreev and Krakauer himself, both of which deserve to be viewed as heroes.Mattp1997 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I read the statement from the WSJ that "While Krakauer slept and no other guide, client, or Sherpa could muster the strength and courage to leave camp," & I do not think it justifies your change in the article to "including Boukreev and Krakauer himself, both of which deserve to be viewed as heroes." Sleeping in does not strike me as heroic, so I reverted. Please reword, & maybe include a direct quote. Peaceray (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

See also section

Hi Peaceray - Just figured I'd explain why I did remove The Climb (book). Per MOS:SEEALSO, As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. This is, of course, neither strictly enforced nor explicitly required by MOS, but since a link for the book appears at the end of the first paragraph in the Controversy section, I removed it. I'll leave it reinstated; up to you if you think it should be kept or removed. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)