Talk:The Sum of All Fears

message: Should the link to the full text of the book be removed?  I'm no expert on copyright law, but it does seem a little questionable, to say the least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.11.118 (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Link at end

message: Replaced "fighter" with "attack aircraft" since as far as I remember, the aircraft is an A4 Skyhawk which is not a fighter. Also changed "shot down" by "crashed into a mountain" since this is what happens in the movie. Hope this is
also true for the book.
:The plane in the book was damaged by a SAM. It didn't go down immediatly but rather disintegrated after a while, crashing into the ground. In the film it's just BOOM... all over in a couple of seconds. --J-Star 12:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Replaced "fighter" with "attack aircraft"

message: I agree that the script was created before the 9/11-attacks. However, even if the attacks were not the reason for the differens in goal for the terrorists, the difference is still very interresting in the "post-9/11 world". The clarification that the script was created before 2001-09-11 should be enough to remove any ambiguties. --J-Star 12:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Post 9/11-world" 

message: Silly argument above. The book is abundantly clear and the idea of the terrorist's goal being to provoke a US retaliation against anyone other than Russia doesn't enter into it. The whole point of (a) a very big bomb and (b) starting the fighting in Germany is to provoke a war between the super powers. Why all this confusion above? Maybe the film (which I have not seen) has a different plot, and some people have been confused by that. But there is no question that the plot in the book (which I have a copy of, and have read several times - it is perhaps the most compelling of all the Tom Clancy novels - is as stated. Tannin 07:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not that clear... because nothing you have said contradicts the argument that this was done in order to willingly admit to the act in order to enrage the superpowers into lashing out viciously in a way that would shame them to the world's muslims (and everyone else as well fro that matter).  --J-Star 07:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have. Read through the section "Difference between the movie and the book" above. The final word was that we should get into contact with Toim Clancy himself and ask and that we should leav ethe "disputed" tag in the article. --J-Star 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: plot summary

message: i read the book before reading the movie i felt it would have been better if the producer wold have made the movie on the book
The object of wikipedia is to provide a non POV base of knowledge and personal opinions have no place in it Citizen erased 21:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The movie was portrayed in a bad manner 

message: * Split - The film article already exists. Either remove the duplicate info from this article, or merge the section into the film article. --Shuki 22:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move section to (film) article 

message: Can anyone tell me where the name of the book came from? it might be a useful bit of trivia -mickiscoole Talk 12:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is written in the beginning of the book.--J-Star 12:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  books name 

message: The article never mentions why Qom is selected as the target for the US strike. The two-man rule article implies that this was because a terrorist leader was suspected to be in the city. Is this correct? If so, I believe this should be mentioned, it seems like a major point. However, the two-man rule fails to mention who was suspected to be in the city. This too seems like an important point. Could someone add these details? Maury (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Qom was selected because the terrorist mastermind of the attack, after being captured and interrogated (tortured) by John Clark, claimed that an Iranian cleric living in Qom was the true mastermind.  As it turned out, this was not the case -- the Iranians had nothing to do with the attack -- but because Qom is a holy city, the US would have paid a significant price in political fallout in the Islamic world for nuking that city, likely ending the peace process.  38.104.120.214 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if a terrorist behind a successful attack in the USA was living in Qom, why obliterate Qom with a nuclear weapon, and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians? This would be clearly illegal, an atrocity and a war crime. Essentially mass murder. I have not read the book, but does it try to explain why an atrocity of this nature would be proposed, let alone endorsed by a US president?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Qom? 

message: In the book, it's made explicitly clear that the Super Bowl is being played in Denver, Colorado, between the Vikings and the Giants. That's the reason the bomb is set off there. If it was being played in Baltimore, Maryland, as the edit before mine indicated, the bomb would have been set off there.
76.119.208.151 (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous edit above and the edit to the article from the same IP were both made by me—I had forgotten to log in. SeveredCross (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Bowl 

message: RE: "Revert good faith edit - again, first edition cover art takes precedence over re prints"
This sounds like total bunk, and if it is a rule, it is a dumb one, one of many here. I am sure someone can find some essay supporting this. Or some guideline which only four or five people actually took part in, forcing their view of wikipedia on everyone.
I guess it doesn't matter now, as the image was promptly deleted. Way to welcome editors edits. :/ Adamtheclown (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: first edition cover art takes precedence over re prints

message: I had no choice but to delete the article's only reference notation because the link is to a download of a PDF of the entire novel. Unless Clancy has released the book to the public domain (something not indicated in the article), we cannot link to such files as that violates Wikipedia's Copyright rules. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference removed because it links to a copyright violation