Talk:What Happened (Clinton book)

Economist Lexington review
It’s not particularly confidence-inspiring when the "collective voice" of "many writers" is mixing his/her/their metaphors (sour loser = sour grapes + sore loser?). "But Lexington listened hard to her economic speeches and could not identify the main point of them—a shortcoming her book repeats." Huh - who are you, and do you always refer to yourself in the third person? The review keeps injecting the anonymous writer’s analysis of the election into his or her review to the point that I found it hard to distinguish between the two and to figure out what his or her point was. Also, the WP editor’s summation, with its emphasis on "self-serving" and "sour [sic] loser" and relegating "basically sound analysis" to an "although" afterthought, seems to me much more negative than the piece itself. The "warning to her party" headline was used in the online edition (second headline: "Her diagnosis of why she lost is broadly correct") while the headline of the US print edition read "Finger-wagging good" which IMO reflects the content much better. The full quote for the "although" afterthought:"But there is a problem with that: Mrs Clinton’s analysis is basically sound. Had it not been for the uncontrollable “headwinds” she describes, she would probably have won, despite her shortcomings." That’s the dog, not the tail. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Critical reception
Adding "critical" to the section title: What does that refer to, someone discussing its literary merit or what? It's not a novel or another form of fiction. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There exists similarly named sections for her previous two memoirs "Living History" and "Hard Choices", so perhaps it was just consistency at play here. Nevertheless, it should be titled "Critical and commercial reception" instead given that was used in the past. ChineseToTheBone (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see critical reception only applies to "experts", and not the general public. I've read the book, it's hilarious.  There's no evidence that's been presented to date of Russian involvement in the US elections, save less than 100,000 dollars on Facebook which is claimed by Mark Zuckerberg, out of a campaign that cost over a billion dollars.  Now I understand how 1939 Nazi Germany came about.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.176.58 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Continued vandalism
The article needs to be protected from continued vandalism by IP addresses and new accounts apparently registered for this purpose only. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

cquote
I don’t even know whether it’s possible to ping an IP address but here goes. Your contrib page shows you to be a new editor, and yet you are familiar with the cquote template, something you don’t often see on Wikipedia (inappropriate here, IMO). Do you have any other user account(s), by any chance?
 * 2600:1002:b104:bec0:e817:4118:802:3088,
 * 2600:1001:B12F:59EA:10DC:DCDF:35D2:B86B,
 * 2600:1002:B11C:54DE:400F:8C40:7B33:C87,
 * 2600:1009:B046:9E3C:6D38:4CB4:6FE0:C3AF,
 * 2600:1009:B046:9E3C:6D38:4CB4:6FE0:C3AF,
 * 2600:1002:b12c:3259:c4bb:7427:1c4c:271d, for starters, all of them editing almost exclusively on this page, with a few edits on Dina Powell? A number of the edits are vandalism IMO, replacing the category non-fiction with fiction, for example.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also trying to ping the last IP address to edit: Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Second edition?
It looks like there's a second edition of the book with a new afterward -- the article should perhaps be updated to reflect this new edition and the assorted publication details. Umimmak (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)