Talk:Seven Years in Tibet

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Tibet Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

1953

I find the changes by User:24.207.55.128 suspicious — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2xshandy (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I reverted the changes based on the fact that the book is listed as being published in 1953 in every source. - Bobet 23:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stilted

The spelling, grammar and punctuation in this entry are awful. I have done some amendments, but sections will need a total re-write as the English is often very stilted. Jonobass 10:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in the original book is no better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:2D0F:4C96:3681:101B (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book and film shouldn't be merged

WOuldn't it be better to have two articles? The book is one of the great travel writing classics - translated into 53 languages but this seens to 80% about the film and its accuracy.--JBellis 17:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Rlfb 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've now looked into it, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books quite clearly states that the book and film should not be merged, and here's how to do it: User:Eagle 101/films that are also novels list. This seems to be the standard across Wikipedia, so at some stage this is what needs to be done. Rlfb 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims

The article stated: It was also revealed by the German magazine Stern that the real life Heinrich Harrer was a member of Adolf Hitler's Nazi party and a member of the Austrian SS. In the movie, however, he is shown to have contempt for the Nazis. [1]

The link is not exact, and it does not support the claims made. Further, Harrer's connection the Nazis was not exactly new, so it did not need to be "revealed". Actually, it is shown in the movie itself. -- Zz 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film synopsis

The article said: [...] although incredibly intrigued by his looks. Statements like these completely miss the point of an encyclopedia. The entire film synopsis lacks neutrality and gives much too much detail. -- Zz 11:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I see two options:

split the page so one page talks about "the" film (there is an earlier film, made in 1956, which isn't mentioned at all at the moment) and the other about the book;
drastically reduce the detail about the film, or (even better), swap the "synopsis" of the film for a (shorter) synopsis of the book, and mention that two films have been made, perhaps giving some small details like a cast list.

I personally favour the second course of action. Rlfb 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hate to see the amount of information greatly reduced. If you want to improve it, fine. Otherwise, please leave it alone. If you feel covering the book and two films thoroughly in one article is too much, give them each an article. They are worthy. 69.87.200.41 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the Pitt movie on VHS, and trying to read this article and fix it, I am forced to agree that this article needs a lot of work. The only serious neutrality problem I see is the vexing issue of whether the Chinese "really" invaded Tibet. But the wording needs to be improved (more), and there really is too much detail. But it takes a lot of thought to cut things out in a good way! The Film synopsis sort of ends before it quite gets to the end of the movie -- so after condensing what is there by about half, more should be added. The synopsis as it stands seems to mostly be from the movie, with some from the book. It would be good if the differences were clarified, and good to have more material about the earlier movie. 69.87.204.231 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After further reflection, I am more accepting of the great detail in the article. It isn't hurting anything, really -- no one is forced to read it! The intro is a fair summary; casual readers can stop there. The section divisions help the browser find the material that they may be interested in. The photos are nice on the whole. It could certainly benefit from some more improvement of wording. Some reduction in the amount of detail would be OK, but is not that important, and would take a lot of effort to do well. The NTSC VHS is 136 min ISBN 0-8001-2511-8 UPC 4339621813 1997 1998. What would most improve the article would be a bunch of good links to reviews of the book and movies -- but I am not sure that is allowed here in WP-land... 69.87.200.42 14:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it seems keeping the detail might be the best policy. However, I still believe that the article that currently exists talks way too much about the synopsis of the Pitt movie, rather than about the original book on which it is based - a travesty given the book's historical importance and status as one of the great classics in the world of travel literature (ok, so saying that on the actual page would violate NPOV, but I hope you get my point that its significance really does outweigh both of the films made about it). I've not read the book recently so I don't intend to do anything in the immediate future at any rate. Rlfb 10:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are all acting as if the article reads really boring it doesn't it is actually very good -just needs to compare the book now Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

I think all the titles in this article are one size too big, i.e. we should replace =Title= with ==Title==, and so on. Looking around, this seems more consistent with the rest of wikipedia. Any objections? Rlfb 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seven Years in Tibet. 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 http://theopencritic.com/?p=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot ?

The word ‘Plot’ implies that the work is fiction, and it is fact. This summary is more like a high school study guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:2D0F:4C96:3681:101B (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]