Talk:Dangerous (book)

Milo denies that book is ghostwritten

It is obvious that Milo wrote the book. It is written in the same style that he talks in. Interestingly, Milo has written a lot better things that this book though. Nevertheless, it is clearly his writing even if someone helped with the research part og it. He denies this at 1:57 in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAiGoWnsVXE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myatrrcc (talk • contribs) 05:57, 5 December 2019 (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)

As has already been explained, Buzzfeed's news division is considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. If you have some specific reason to doubt the existence of this manuscript, explain it. Otherwise, yes, we take the word of a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

the reason is per above, "Where abouts in the article did it say that it was provided by manuscript notes from the ghost writer?" --1.136.108.194 (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, where does it say that? Why would this non-statement be justification for removing the line about ghostwriting? This is a distraction, because this article doesn't say it was based on the manuscript. The article accurately summarizes the point made by Buzzfeed that Allum Bokhari was contracted to ghost-write the book. Do any reliable sources doubt the authenticity of the leaked emails? Is there any reason to doubt this source other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? The draft manuscript Buzzfeed acquired in June 2017 even included "jokes" about this: "[Bokhari], incidentally, probably wrote that last sentence."[1] This, also, is ultimately a distraction. We are not obligated to hold Buzzfeed to some drastically higher standard than this self-published book by a non-reliable pundit. The point of the article is to summarize reliable third-party sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) IP 1.136 is correct. The sources used do not directly support the article text. (And "directly support" is the standard required). The text from Bernstein@BuzzFeed is Take Allum Bokhari, the Oxford-educated former political consultant whom Yiannopoulos rewarded for his years of grunt work with a $100,000 ghostwriting contract for his book Dangerous. That text does not cover the extent to which Bokhari contributed to the book; if he contriuted at all. (Though I personally think it likely that he did contribute (it would be reasonable to expect some return on $100,000), my personal thoughts are irrelevant; and the sources do not verify it). The Serota@SPIN article, if it says anything, directly contradicts the view that the book was ghostwritten. In the first paragraph, it indicates that the manuscript was "terrible" because it was not ghostwritten. How reliable these sources are is immaterial. No source is reliable for something which it does not verify. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The text from The Guardian, linked above, is: But according to Buzzfeed, Yiannopoulos paid his frequent collaborator Allum Bokhari $100,000 to work on the manuscript. Again, this would verify that (According to BuzzFeed), Bokhari was contracted/paid; but it does not speak to the level of contribution to the book. Also note that The Guardian article is an opinion piece. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Coming to this as someone looking for information on the topic, I'll say I find it odd that this article cites The Guardian as to what Buzzfeed said. Why isn't Buzzfeed quoted directly, if it's a reliable media source and all that? Surely this second-hand sourcing of the statement of a media outlet is not appropriate practice. Equally surely, someone wanting to check the original sources would not be satisfied with a link to what The Guardian said Buzzfeed said.98.117.32.116 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)