Talk:Touching the Void (book)

Film Stub‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
	This article needs an appropriate infobox template.

Last names, please

A note to editors of this and any similar articles: When referring to a person by one name, please use their last name, per usual encyclopedic style, not their first name. - dcljr (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions?

The second paragraph of the "Controversy" section is total bunk. It is not based on fact, it is based on opinion; why then is it is an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LightingNerd (talk • contribs) 02:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above - have tagged for NPOV 81.107.42.98 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has a place in an encyclopedia, opinions form the basis of the controversy, but that there is a controversy presumably is a fact? D. Talbot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.27.145.127 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the manner in which the controversy is discussed shows a clear bias towards that side that Simon did the right thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.201.182 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal thing to do for a knowledgable person would be to supplement the other side of the argument as well, so that both stand balanced. -- Syzygy (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the 'controversy' section. This kind of opinionated conjecture has no place here without references. TungstenCarbide XI (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The “controversy” surrounding Touching the Void is overstated. Shortly after their return, a wildly inaccurate article appeared in the Daily Mail claiming the Yates had tried to kill Simpson. A number of senior members of the Mount Everest Foundation misjudged this story and believed that it contained some element of truth. Since this body manages a lot of funding for climbing expeditions, this would effectively end Yates’ mountaineering career. In response to this, Simpson wrote an article that appeared in High magazine giving the correct version of events, which set the record straight. This is the extent of the controversy.Rubisco (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC) This is a quote from an interview with Yates: "I did think that the film was economical with my side of the story. And the statement that I returned home to face criticism from many people in the British climbing community was somewhat wide of the truth. What actually happened was that when we got back, we spoke to a national newspaper and they did a bit of a hatchet job on me. Not surprisingly, a few people got upset with me. But that was very short-lived because Joe published an article in High magazine. Once people in the climbing community read Joe's story, I never had any problems from them."Rubisco (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]