Talk:Dangerous (book)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dangerous (book). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171018221331/http://chicagoist.com/2017/07/14/chicagoans_are_not_too_crazy_about.php to http://chicagoist.com/2017/07/14/chicagoans_are_not_too_crazy_about.php

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) 11:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed

How exactly is BuzzFeed a legitimate source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:855f:1:b949:c4c4:72bb:5962 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I also think BuzzFeed is a questionable source, especially considering the topic in question. I think it would be wise to either remove the section on Ghostwriting completely or moving it to a different section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is an article documenting the fact that Buzzfeed is among the least trusted of all news sources: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/rush-limbaugh-sean-hannity-glenn-becks-shows-buzzfeed-least-trusted-news-sources-1201509396/. I suggest that it not be used at all in this article. If it is used, let's misquote it and then use it for the second sentence in the article. 2601:285:201:F6F0:34FE:8B4D:13BE:DDBD (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed source taken out of context to produce second sentence of the article

To begin with, it is questionable whether Buzzfeed is even a legitimate source in the first place. Remember the Trump dossier? Second, the Buzzfeed article does not state that the book was "largely ghostwritten." That is not true. On the contrary, there is a single sentence implying that he at one point may have hired someone to help put the book together. The article does not link to any emails as proof, as this sentence implies. I can't understand why this inflammatory accusation should appear as the second sentence in the article. The book is clearly largely autobiographical and written in the same style that Milo speaks in during interviews. At the same time, it is possible that Milo hired someone to help draft the book or put references together. Regardless, this Buzzfeed accusation does not belong as the second sentence in this article. Myatrrcc (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed's news division is considered a reliable source. The someone in this case is Allum Bokhari, who is (or was) a frequent collaborator and is central to the Buzzfeed article. I don't think we need to highlight selective quotes to support this statement, because in this case, the substance of the entire article supports the claim. This is not a novel or unorthodox interpretation of the source, either. Grayfell (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed was the news organization that irresponsibly published the Trump dossier. It is on the verge of going bankrupt. There is no reason for why the second sentence in this article should involve an accusation made by an inflammatory Buzzfeed article. Furthermore, the article does not say that the book was "largely ghostwritten" (those are your words) nor does it link to any actual emails as evidence. If you want to include this questionable accusation at all, it should probably appear toward the end of this article.

By the way, Bill Ayers claims that he wrote Obama's book. Do you see any reference to this accusation in THAT article? Nothing whatsoever. 07:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:201:F6F0:34FE:8B4D:13BE:DDBD (talk)

Here is an article documenting the fact that Buzzfeed is among the least trusted sources by the public: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/rush-limbaugh-sean-hannity-glenn-becks-shows-buzzfeed-least-trusted-news-sources-1201509396/. Along with Rush Limbaugh. Surely you wouldn't want the second sentence of an encyclopedia article to be based on something Rush Limbaugh said. Right? 2601:285:201:F6F0:34FE:8B4D:13BE:DDBD (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are not my words, those were added by another editor last month. Also, please indent your paragraphs consistently. See WP:TPG for an explanation.

Your personal opinion of the Trump–Russia dossier is shared by many, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Yiannopoulos. While Buzzfeed's financial health is a common talking point on r/the_donald and similar forums and blogs, it's not relevant to this discussion, because reliability isn't arbitrated by advertising revenue. Why would that matter at all?

The Pew Research study that the Variety article is discussing is from 2015, and has already been discussed many times at WP:RSN and other talk pages. Buzzfeed has two major media divisions, the larger of which produces listicles, recipe gifs, and other puff. Buzzfeed News is a separate division which has a positive reputation among journalists and other experts. It has won major journalism awards, and is frequently cited by other reliable outlets as having broken major stories. Grayfell (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Just because it has won many awards as you say, does not necessarily make it reliable in this case. The article on which it claims that Dangerous is ghostwritten is not only extremely biased against Milo, it also leaves no link to these putative leaked emails. I checked online for further information on Dangerous and ghostwriting, the only other articles I could find on the topic used this buzzfeed article as their sole source. It should be removed. --1.152.104.231 (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The article was based on manuscript notes provided by the ghost writer. Source integrity doesn't come more bullet proof than that. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing this part in it. Where abouts in the article did it say that it was provided by manuscript notes from the ghost writer? And if that is what the article said are we to take buzz feed on their word that these manuscript notes exist or is there a link to the notes themselves? --1.152.104.231 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

since there has been no further discussion on the ghost written allegations, I will remove the ghostwritten part of the article. If anyone does have anything further to add on this topic by all means do so --1.152.111.248 (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)