Talk:Warday

Neutral POV
There seems to be no support for the conclusion that the California subpolot was meant to "demonstrate to respectable white readers how they could be overnight thrust into the situation of Third World refugees," other than the author's own interpretation of the book. I would advocate the removal of this sentence.
 * Please sign your comments. I removed the sentence in question on the grounds of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. On quick glance there seems to be quite a bit more that can also be deleted for the same reasons, but I don't have time to give it a fine-tooth-combing at the moment. It's on my to-do list. 23skidoo 04:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Modelled after Tocqueville's travels?
Does anyone beside me see a relation to Democracy in America?--Cancun771 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warday.jpg
Image:Warday.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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculative statements
I've done a small edit, mainly to tidy up some of the grammar, but there are two statements which I've felt compelled to remove: These statements are both quite clearly the writer's opinion and constitute original research.
 * 1) "Heinlein - an outspoken Cold War hawk - seems to imply that such a "limited" exchange would be an acceptable price for getting rid of Communism once and for all. The writers of Warday may have consciously borrowed Heinlein's basic scenario in order to show how horrible the results could be."
 * 2) "The Strieber book Wolf of Shadows may have been dealing with the same storyline/universe as Warday."

I've also tagged the following statements with citation needed tags: I've no doubt that a fan of the authors will be able to come up with a source Dom Kaos (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "Kunetka has gone on record as saying that Heinlein's novel was something of an inspiration for how he and Strieber wanted to do Warday"
 * 2) "During the book tour surrounding the release of Warday, both Strieber & Kunetka hinted that they were planning a sequel..."

Treaty Of Coventry, European Neutrality
Another editor disagreed with my edit regarding the neutrality of Europe during the war. Rather than "push the button", I'll defend my edit here.

My writing was based on (re)reading the first edition hardback, section entitled "Interview, Wilson T. Ackerman, Undersecretary of Defence (Ret.)", pages 54 through 63, with particular reference to the last half of page 59. I believe my edit accurately summarizes the text. If subsequent editions diverge from the first, we should make note of it. The treaty was held in secret between France, Germany, and the UK. My reading was that the Soviets were informed during, rather than before, the crisis, but I'm open to other interpretations of the line...

"The French President told [the US President] that he and the Germans and the British had informed the Soviets of the existence of a secret treaty between the three nations, under which all American military installations in those countries were in the process of being entered by local nationals." Cmholm (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the decision to launch, in the book, was made quite unilaterally. Although this is pure supposition, the "purple bombs in the Ukraine," the biological warfare that was alluded to, may have been payback by the US president to the Europeans for the Treaty of Coventry. Just my angle on it. 65.248.164.99 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just finished a massive rewrite/copyedit of the article. The authors are very careful to "imply, not tell", leaving many events to readers' imaginations. The "purple bombs" are an example; all we know is that they hit the Ukraine, they are bad, and no one knows where they came from. YLee (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Children Of Men Comparison
As far as I can recall there was no nuclear exchange mentioned in Children Of Men.


 * Far as I could tell, Children of Men dealt with a biological crisis and did not have to do with nuclear warfare. --KJRehberg (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As does this book. There is implied biological warfare and epidemics are explicitly described in several chapters. 89.253.74.52 (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Manhattan section
To User:74.9.6.1, please do not edit articles without putting a comment describing your changes in the "Edit summary" box.--KJRehberg (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)