Talk:Executive Orders

Discussion

Fair use rationale for Image:Executiveorders.jpg

Image:Executiveorders.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tc9eo.jpg

Image:Tc9eo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

POV Trivia

I have just removed the following from the article:

The North Carolina Army National Guard unit out at Fort Irwin, CA, on a rotation against the elite OPFOR (the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment) of the National Training Center should have been identified by Clancy as the 30th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized), today's incarnation of the crack 30th Infantry Division. It is unknown why Clancy was ambiguous with the NCARNG brigade's identity. The 30th Brigade deployed to Iraq to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom during 2004 and 2005.

The words 'should have' and 'crack' are POV and to say that it is unknown why he was ambiguous is unencyclopedic. He has refrained from mentioning particular units by name before. The Iraq reference is out of place in this article. JiMternet 21:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

i have reverted an update which described a change I made as vandalism. It was certainly not intended as such and I would be interested to hear why it was considered such. Update was made by someone not logged in so I cannot ask directly. Please update the talk page advising why you consider it such, or leave a message on my home page 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewLeeson (talk • contribs)

Ethical questions section

I removed the ethical questions section and here is why: 1) The first source, the NEJM barely mentions the book, citing it as an example of fiction using bioterrorism, but held no discussion about the story at all. 2) The second source is an abstract and wants $29.97 to read it. While the article may be very interesting, I'm not paying $30 to find out. and 3) Source 3 uses Clancy's name in the title, but the link only shows one page of a paper. The single page shown, doesn't mention the book or even Clancy beyond using his name in the title. Again, it's probably an interesting paper, but I'm not going to pay to read it. So.... none of the sources really support the claim as is. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

> Wouldn't this be akin to removing sections because you "don't own the textbook and you're not paying for it to check"? NevarMaor (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe, but since 2 of the 3 didn't pan out, it's not unreasonable to question if the third one does or not. The first one (the NEJM article) was available in its entirety and did not support the claim at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Neo-conservatives/anarchists?

The article as currently written describes the actors behind a particular subplot in two very different ways, such that any reader not already familiar with the source material would likely be very confused. Further, I don't feel either label is particularly correct. However, since I no longer own this book I cannot confirm. If someone else could weigh in, and/or make the correction, it would be helpful.

As I recall, the two individuals attempting to assassinate President Ryan by truck bomb are ex-military, right-wing/anti-government types (a la Timothy McVeigh). However, in this article they are alternatively called "neo-conservatives" (a conservative branch mainly noted for its support of assertive foreign/military policy) or "anarchists" (a left-wing political philosophy closely related to socialism). Neither strikes me as an accurate description of these two individuals, and obviously both can't be correct.

I'm having trouble coming up with a shorthand term for the right-wing/anti-government perspective I feel these individuals represent. Timothy McVeigh was described as a supporter of the "militia movement" (loosely described as groups that arm themselves to resist governmental authority), and I think these individuals fall into that mold. Again, no longer owning the book, I cannot confirm this. Macfrugal (talk) 8 April 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC).

That entire subplot was a dead-end and served mainly to illustrate a positive outcome of shutting down the highways besides containing the Ebola virus. I think Clancy wanted the Mountain Men to have a major part of the plot but they ended up as background noise. They could safely be wtote out of the article without sacrificing essential content. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

There could be an entire Wikipedia page on Clancy subplots that go nowhere. Sometimes, he gets the minor SP's right. In The Sum of All Fears, he sprinkles the narrative with hints of pieces of an Oregon evergreen tree not making it to Japan. Without giving away the outoome, Clancy made the tree fit into the overall climax (the tree killed a supporting character(s). Mountain Men in Executive Orders? They aren't that important. The microscopic bug is the bad guy. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Tie-In to The Hot Zone?

Is there any indication that Clancy got the virus idea from the The Hot Zone non-fiction work published in 1994, the year before he wrote this novel? Or were they both independent outgrowths of the Reston virus scare of 1990? --Eliyahu S ^Talk