Talk:Into the Wild (book)

Alaska Mid‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

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

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 2 April 2012. Further details are available here.

Spoiler[edit]

The synopsis of the novel seems like a spoiler, but all of this information is printed right on the front cover. Reiver 02:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but HOW he dies specifically isn't revealed into the end. Ahanix1989 14:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is definitely too much of a spoiler. Just because it is about a real person doesn't mean the ending should be given away. Someone had that thought and it has spoiled the book and the movie to an extent.24.154.208.178 05:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this are exactly why Wikipedia needs a oiler rning template. I don't know why the concept of a spoiler is so hard to grasp for some people. A lot of people use Wikipedia to look up books/movies they're interested in reading/watching. That doesn't mean they want the ending ruined for them. People who already are familiar with a book and have read it are less likely to be looking it up on here, so it makes sense to present the information in a way that is most helpful to those yet to enjoy the book. I've looked up at least a hundred books/movies on Wikipedia, and only a small percentage of them actually contain 7gnificant spoilers that can iminish one's enjoyment of the work, so it's also not a given that when you go to a Wikipedia article on a literary work, you should know it's going to contain spoilers.--71.104.228.114 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, there used to be frequent "spoiler" tags back when Wikipedia first started, but then people decided they were a bad idea. Anyway, the edition of the book I've seen says right on the cover that the kid dies. I don't think this is a thriller; it's about the journey, not the ending. 190.17.55.192 (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donation to charity[edit]

it may seem trivial, but the book cover claims he had given $250,000.00 to charity, not $240,000.00 which is stated in the article.. should this be updated in the article? --DMW 03:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article now reads $24,000, a difference which is definitely not trivial. Anybody know what's correct? EmersonLowry (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book's cover says $25,000,000,000.00 which may have been rounded up, book text says 24k in author's note, maybe more later in narrative. Assume OP above meant 3 fewer zeros and was only talking about 25k vs. 24k. By the way, as it reads now the article says "savings of approximately $25,000" but I seem to recall reading that it was a college fund for grad school. PrBeacon (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this about the book[edit]

This book, which the article is supposed to be about, is barely mentioned. The synopsis is about the subject of the book, not about the book.

how did the author piece together the information?

who did he interview?

did he have access to the subjects family?

did he visit the places described personally?

etc.

SchmuckyTheCat

In answer to these questions:

- yes, he did have access to the subject's family. 2They asked that 20% of the royalties go to a Chris McCandless scholarship foundation; Krakauer writes in the Acknowledgements that the book would have been impossible to write without their assistance, and the full access they provided to Chris' papers, letters and photographs.

- yes, Krakauer did visit some of the places he describes (all would have been impossible). The book concludes with a trip he makes to McCandless' camp at the hulk of the Fairbanks bus 142 near the Teklanika River on the Stampede Trail.

- he interviewed several people who personally knew Chris, including employers, friends and family

- he pieced together his documentary evidence from journals kept by Chris McCandless, postcards and letters he wrote to his friends/family, and the personal interviews he personally conducted. Ivankinsman (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources mostly analyze the author's poison seed theory and revision after lab testing. [1][2][3][4][5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.99.80 (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Ivankinsman: Schmucky is not asking you to answer his questions here on the discussion page. He is saying that the *article* should answer those questions, i.e. the article should be about the book, not about the subject of the book. Eric0000 05:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Schmucky's point but I disagree with his claim that the book "is barely mentioned." The story and the book are inextricable. Yes it would be nice for this WP article to mention the author's techniques and research. Perhaps a line or two in the lead which needs fleshing out anyway. PrBeacon (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Into the Wild.png[edit]

Image:Into the Wild.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Hedysarum contradicts this one, saying that he died of eating H. alpinum[edit]

The article about Hedysarum contradicts this one, saying that he died of eating H. alpinum. H. mackenzii is not even in the list there. Knopffabrik (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to Merge[edit]

I suggest that we merge, or at least partly merge the biography, book and film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.174.103 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, book should be mentioned as part of the biographical article, unless there is a meaningful analysis of the book which would warrant a separate article. 173.16.183.72 (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a biography rather than a summary?[edit]

There are things that aren't mentioned in the book, but are in the article. For example, it never says in the book that he donated the money to Oxfam, just "to charity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkLightA (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call of the wild[edit]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAA with Call of the Wild by Guy Grieve. --Adam majewski (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page move proposal...[edit]

This page's name should be changed from "Into the Wild (book)" to something along the lines of "Into the Wild (non-fiction book)" since the former title easily gets it confused with Into the Wild (novel). What does anyone else think about this? Pinging some editors who have edited this article-MainlyTwelve, Doniago, Ubiquity, Qzd, Galobtter.Neateditor123 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123[reply]

Agree. with so many similar titles, "book" doesn't really differentiate. ubiquity (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation policy isn't one of my strong suits, but I am suprised that this article isn't at least hatnoted to indicate the existence of the novel. As to whether this article should be retitled, my understanding is that that may depend on whether this book would be considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. DonIago (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that Into the Wild is itself a disambiguation page, which may be relevant to the conversation as well. I'm going to leave a note at WP:BOOKS as well. DonIago (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the hatnote. I think the titles are fine. Per Wikipedia:Hatnote, the purpose of hatnotes are to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. maclean (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I'll at least add another hatnote at the top of the page of the other Into the Wild book.Neateditor123 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123[reply]

First footnote links to the wrong article[edit]

And I can't find the correct article - can anyone else? GunslingerElite (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus moved[edit]

Added section: "Controversy" to describe the Bus in modern culture and its removal from the Alaskan Wilderness, in accordance with recent events. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 00:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that this is controversial, and is this in scope for this article or would it be better to retain links to articles where it can be discussed more fully? DonIago (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]