Talk:Into Thin Air

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  marked for cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPoV issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Movie 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: WSJ article cited in controversy

message: Hi  - Just figured I'd explain why I did remove The Climb (book). Per MOS:SEEALSO, . 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)
thread_title:  See also section