Talk:The Plot to Hack America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 14, 2017 Articles for deletion Kept
July 6, 2017 WikiProject approved revision Diff to current version
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 10, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the book The Plot to Hack America by Malcolm Nance (pictured) describes Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections?

Full info to the cites

Regarding [1] and [2], GA Reviewers have asked me to add the full info to the cites for other GA Reviews.

I'd rather keep as much cite info as possible to make it easier for WP:Verifiability for future editors and readers. Sagecandor (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd really rather have this [3] undone, please. This makes it seem like the e-books were only Amazon books, but they were generic e-books. The Amazon links are just extra info, not the whole thing. Sagecandor (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Question: Is it alright to give the full citation info for the book's publications, instead of simply links to ? Sagecandor (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

V-ability is satisfied when the readers/editors click on the template links. Not repeating the info makes for a cleaner section of references. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The template links may break and become dead links. Full citations to books will not. Sagecandor (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The book is already cited both in the infobox and text. While url links break, WorldCat and ISBN links are stable. Also, note that oclc and asin links can be added to {{cite book}} – S. Rich (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Disagree as this was specifically requested in a different GA Review. I'll just defer to the GA Reviewer later, thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories and templates are directly relevant

Disagree with this removal of categories and templates with edit summary of: "Written before Trump election".

Are we to remove similar categories from all pages at Bibliography of Donald Trump ?

Sagecandor (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed, again, by IP user at No, it's not. IP user gives no explanation on talk page why it's not directly relevant. Sagecandor (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
And again with, uh no. Sagecandor (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
User was blocked by admin Widr for disruptive editing [4]. Sagecandor (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Admins: Please compare the two. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
IP user was rangeblocked: [5] [6]. Sagecandor (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Addition of Trump categoris unwarranted

The cats were just added. This book is about Russia, Wikileaks and Putin's dislike for Clinton. It was written before the election and it's not about Trump. --2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:84 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There's an entire chapter on Trump. Trump is also on the cover of the book ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
User was blocked by admin Widr for disruptive editing [7]. Sagecandor (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
IP user was rangeblocked: [8] [9]. Sagecandor (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject and GA eval

As I have modified the content of the article, I am reluctant to undertake a GAR on it. However, if I were to do so at this stage I would do an immediate fail. Rationale: article is unstable and not that well written. In fact, the B class rating is unwarranted at this time. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

User appears to display transparent agenda, lamenting efforts to improve articles on Wikipedia that might have some criticism of Donald Trump. See case studies: [10] [11] [12]. Sagecandor (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

strange phrasing

Didn't know what to make of this...

Nance describes how, in March 2016, Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers were hacked by culprits seeking opposition research on Donald Trump.

Does anyone see this as a correct summary? On him? I thought oppo research was meant to harm people. Wasn't the harm from the leak done to democrats?

Was this possibly intended as "for Donald Trump"?

He wasn't presumptive nominee until May 4 or official until July 19 so I'm a bit confused why a hack in March could be seen as for the benefit of a candidate who hadn't won the Republican primaries yet. ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall:It was to find IFF the DNC had opposition research on Trump. Preemptively. To see what damage might be done in the future, and prepare against it, in advance, before it happened. Get it? Sagecandor (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it would be valuable to explain this in the article then.

How did author know this was motive of the March hack? Was Trump even leading at that point? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum page. This is a page to discuss improving the Wikipedia article about the book. This section under discussion is a contents summary of the book itself. No more, no less. Sagecandor (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Further reading entries

Noting that 3 (of 6) entries are for books with WP articles, the best place for them is a simple title listing in the See also section. For the remaining 3, they are dated starting in 1984. Thus they are problematic as WP:REFSPAM. – S. Rich (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Removed all three. DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Plot to Hack America/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 23:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  • servers were hacked by culprits seeking: "culprits" is not the right word here; perhaps just "by someone seeking" would do.
  • The "Summary" section is wordier than it needs to be in several places. You don't need to say "In his chapter", for example; the reader knows we're reading a summary. Instead of "Nance recounts learning of" we can just say "Nance learnt of"; and instead of "The Plot to Hack America delves further", say "Nance delves further"; instead of "candidate for President", say "him". I'd suggest going through the summary and trimming this sort of redundancy; it's wearying for a reader.
  • Nance identifies Putin's stratagem to elect Trump as U.S. president: not quite right; perhaps "Nance identifies Putin's strategy for electing".
  • hacking into the DNC to acquire their personal information: the DNC doesn't have personal information, its members do.
  • identified as a member of the U.S. Republican Party in a similar vein as Colin Powell: what does this mean, exactly? His political beliefs were similar to those of Powell?
  • written out of a base desire as an intelligence expert: suggest cutting "base".
  • he understood that such an operation must have been Putin: this is in Wikipedia's voice, so is it generally agreed to be true, or is it a matter of dispute? If this is Nance's opinion, it should be "considered", rather than a more definite verb such as "understood". The same comment applies to the last sentence in the paragraph.
  • You quote no negative reviews; surely there were some?
  • Nance traced Putin's rise with the descent of democracy in Russia in favor and oligarchy ruling class: something wrong grammatically here.
  • who exemplified on Twitter perspectives that U.S democratic institutions were not successful: I think I know what this means, but it's not very clearly phrased; suggest rewording.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sagecandor, are you planning to work on this? If not I'll fail the article in another week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie: User:Sagecandor seems to be inactive on Wikipedia currently. I hope you don't mind, but I've tried to improve the article based on your suggestions. I trimmed the summary, and reworded
  • As a case study he cited a Russian political scientist with views favored by Putin, Aleksandr Dugin, who exemplified on Twitter perspectives that U.S democratic institutions were not successful. to
  • As a case study he cited Aleksandr Dugin, a Russian political scientist with views favored by Putin, whose tweets expound perspectives that U.S democratic institutions were not successful.
Yexstorm2001 already implemented your suggested rewordings. No one has addressed the issue of there being no negative reviews yet. I haven't been able to find any, but will continue my search. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Bennv3771, this is a pleasant surprise -- I was expecting to have to fail this in the next few days, as I could see Sagecandor was inactive. Your changes (and Yexstorm2001's) look good; I'm promoting this article to GA. Thanks for doing the fixes. As it happens, I am also the reviewer for several other books nominated by Sagecandor, as you can see by searching for Sagecandor's name on WP:GAN. Are you interested in helping with any of those? They are all in a similar state -- good basic information, but not very well-written. Mostly what's needed is prose clean up. No worries if you aren't interested, but I thought it was worth checking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie: I'll have a look at those other nominations. Fyi, I've scoured the web to look for negative reviews for this book but have come up short. Seems to me there really aren't any notable negative reviews. But I'll keep an eye out if I come across any in the future. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:The Plot to Hack America"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA