![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)