Talk:The Plot to Hack America

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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Oleg Kalugin 1992 US Senate public hearing.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This article needs to be re-written

So does anyone else not see the problem of sourcing the book or interviews with Nance as a source for Nance's evidence for the claims he makes in this book? There is so much conspiracy theory at work in this book full of information Nance pulled out of his ass.

I am going to go through and remove sections as you cannot source the book itself and present it as if it is anything factual. Pformenti (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Reception section terribly biased

I don't know if the book is accurate or correct, but I do know it's argument highly controversial (at least in it's most strongly stated forms), yet none of this controversy is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, not even in the reception section. in fact the reception section is filled with over the top language praising the book (like saying a reviewer was "effusive" in praising the book) without necessarily documenting that the reviews matched the description of the reviews. 2601:1C2:600:B280:DCDC:9229:7722:9AE1 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)