Jump to content

Talk:Everest (2015 film)

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

Based on?

[edit]

There's been some back-and-forth about the various books about the disaster. Does anyone have a source stating that the film is based on (or inspired/influenced by) those books? If not, I think they all ought to be left out. Thoughts? NekoKatsun (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film Genre

[edit]

Isn't the film genre in the lead a little bit too much? It currently reads "British 3D biographical disaster thriller-adventure drama" — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhateverIsThisRant (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It used to read "2015 American 3D epic adventure action thriller climate disaster drama film," prompting one of my favorite edit summaries: "holy genre gore!" Personally I think disaster thriller would be more than enough (is 3D even a genre?). NekoKatsun (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verb Tenses are Mangled...

[edit]

...in the "Development" section. It's very difficult to read. This may have also affected the information. Sorry I don't know how to fix; can an experienced editor help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.110.18 (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Everest (2015 film). 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:

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) 19:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bot was wrong. Active and correct url is:
http://www.saturnawards.org/The-Saturn-Awards-Annual-Nominations.php
DonFB (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Everest (2015 film). 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:

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) 04:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Including a direct attack on a living person's integrity

[edit]

It's not acceptable to allow the following direct attack on Jon Krakauer's integrity to stand:

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...

This is particularly the case since it's patently false, as the very book Kormakur is attacking as not truthful is actually deeply sourced, as evinced by 100 or so pages of references/footnotes. Including a simple phrase to that effect should not be controversial at all:

...despite the fact that Krakauer's book was deeply researched and sourced extensively, with footnotes.

It's not acceptable to include the former without the latter. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will respond later today. DonFB (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to argue Krakauer's point for him. I, personally, don't dispute whether or not his book is researched and referenced. That's not the point. Before your edit we had: Krakauer denounced the movie; Kormakur responded. Tit for tat, both referenced to secondary sources, not unbalanced. Now, you insert an additional supporting argument for Krakauer, not referenced to any secondary source, but simply making the point, in your own voice, that his book is well-researched. It's a violation of NPOV. If Krakauer himself, or some other reliable source, makes the point about the book being well-researched/referenced, that opinion could be included, with a citation to the source stating that opinion. Otherwise, we are not violating wp:BLP by simply including Krakauer's original accusation and Kormakur's response, both properly referenced. DonFB (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add: I see that the accusation and response are both actually referenced to the same single source (Entertainment Weekly), not to multiple sources, but my point stands about Npov. DonFB (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The support for Krakauer's book being well-sourced is, in fact, the very lengthy footnotes section of that book. And not allowing a brief sourced statement regarding the falsity of the director's attacks on Krakauer's integrity regarding his book would seem to violate WP:BLP. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're not offering an acceptable "brief sourced statement regarding the falsity of the director's attacks on Krakauer's integrity." In your words that I just quoted, you're giving your opinion, and you want to insert that opinion in the article by setting up an opposing statement: "despite the fact..." This website cannot assert in its own voice, subtlely or otherwise, the "falsity" of the director and the "integrity" of the author, based on a Wikipedia editor's judgement of the author's own book. The article can summarize what each person claims about the other's work, as it now does based on a cited reliable source (EW in this case). That summary complies well with BLP. The article can also summarize other opinions, if they exist, in third-party sources about the work of one or both men. On the other hand, it's not proper to put your thumb on the scale, because of your own personal judgement of the author's "integrity," by having the article say, "but his book has lots of references." You would need a cited third party source to make that case. That's how NPOV works. It would be possible to avoid using your "despite the fact" phrase by saying something like: "Jon Krakauer, author of the well-researched and extensively footnoted Into Thin Air", but I would also oppose that phrasing for the same reasons I've given above. If the text made such a statement, it could not survive the challenge, "according to whom is it 'well-researched and extensively footnoted'?" unless there was a reliable cited source describing the book that way. DonFB (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the 100+ pages of footnotes included in the book. If the director's attack on Krakauer's integrity is to be included, the fact that the attack is false, based on the fact that Into Thin Air does, in fact, include a ton of research and sourcing in the footnotes. How is it even a discussion to include the attack on Krakauer's integrity, if we're not allowed to include the fact that Krakauer's book is well-sourced with 100+ pages of footnotes? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're substituting your editorial judgement and opinion--"the attack is false"--instead of providing any cited reliable source making that claim. Your opinion that the book is well-researched because it has a lot of footnotes is just that--your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I haven't read the book, so I don't have an opinion. As an NPOV Wikipedia editor, I don't need to have an opinion about who is right and who is wrong, and neither should you, though you seem to have a strong pre-existing bias for the author. My obligation (and yours) is to write and edit a neutral, accurate and properly balanced (no Undue Weight) summary of what published third-party independent reliable sources say about the controversy. That's the essence of NPOV, NOR, V, and BLP. If you add anything to the article that strengthens or weakens the case for or against either man or his work, you need a reliable independent source for it. (The book is not an independent source.) Wikipedia cannot take as its voice your personal editorial judgement of the book's accuracy or your explicit or implied personal opinion of the author's integrity. DonFB (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everest_(2015_film)&oldid=1207156044"