Talk:Dangerous (book)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Chicago Review of Books

The Chicago Review of Books appears to be a website that was set up less than 12 months ago. It does not have a Wikipedia article because it is not notable. So I think we should treat their response the same as vox pops quoted by newspapers or shown in TV news reports, i.e. passing ephemera that is not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. If all that is needed to become mentioned on Wikipedia is to set up a website, we will quickly become full of all kinds of random opinions, boycotts, petitions, etc. - which is against the spirit of the Wikipedia guidelines on advocacy.--greenrd (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, I disagree. Subject notability determines whether an independent article can exist, not whether the subject can be mentioned in another article. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUEWEIGHT. Many of the available sources thought it was important that The Chicago Review of Books commented as they did. Since the sources thought it was important, it should be reflected in this article.- MrX 13:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The Chicago Review of Books was cited by The Mercury News more than two years ago, so the age of the former's website does not seem to be relevant.- MrX 13:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

other publishers

Has he said which ones have expressed interest? 64.231.171.58 (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

UK formatting

As the author is British, should not the spelling and date format follow UK norms? (As the author's page does) Nedrutland (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be a mitzvah; particularly for those of us outside the US. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The book is more closely related to the US. Most of the reporting has been in the US and most of the author's activities have been in the US. Where the author was born is really not relevant.- MrX 11:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

$10 million dollar lawsuit

Milo has stated via email that "On Friday, July 7, MILO and company served Simon & Schuster with a $10 million dollar lawsuit for breach of contract. Simon & Schuster couldn't take the heat from liberals who wanted to shut down MILO, so they made up an excuse to drop the book. MILO looks forward to meeting Simon & Schuster in court."

This email has a valid DKIM but I'm not sure how to cite it properly as it is an EML file and I'm not sure if it is a valid source.

Does anyone know what to do with it? Jeroen52 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You can't use it. It's not a reliable source. But you can use this or this.- MrX 16:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Article seems to have mostly negative things in it

The book is a New York Times bestseller. It deserves more than a bunch of negative references. Myatrrcc (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel like people are trying to spin this article in a non-neutral way to imply that the book is somehow not selling well despite the fact that it is at the top of all of the bestseller lists at the moment. In the case of the 152 books sold in the UK, Milo says on his Facebook page that the book is not even for hardcover sale in the UK. That would explain what at initial glance appears to be poor UK sales. I don't see any reason to highlight this weird factoid in a prominent way unless you are trying as hard as you can to imply that the book is somehow not selling well (obviously not true based on bestseller lists!). Myatrrcc (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there sales figures for the United States? From what I've seen Milo was mainly advertising and marketing the book in the United States, at least that is what I can see from his activity. Jeroen52 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I see no real reason to include the 152 book factoid from the UK. At the same time, it can stay there as long as we can also make it clear that the book is a best seller in the US. Myatrrcc (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Most of the media coverage of this book has had a negative bent which is why the article has so much critical content.- MrX 21:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to a claim above (and several short-lived edits), the book is available in the UK (hardback and Kindle), at a standard price and with free delivery from Amazon Nedrutland (talk)

What is this book about?

I don't want to offend anyone, but shouldn't an article about a book not at least describe the book (summary)? I see no such thing here. I mean, it's fine with the other information - but that are just details. The most important part is missing. If anyone could write about it, that would be fine.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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)