|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reference ideas for Napalm Sticks to Kids The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
I am interested in talking with anyone who know this cadence for folklore purposes. If you know this and are willing to talk, please feel free to email me or call me. Serendipitousstl 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Gullible.info is comprised of fake trivia [1] and should not be used as a source of valid information. Kylestoneman 17:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, all I know is that this cadence was still pretty damned popular in my Civil Air Patrol squadron in the late 90's. 24.47.154.230 ( talk) 11:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
On 2 February 2022 at 13:42 UTC, Kjell Knudde ( talk · contribs) added the categories music controversies and black comedy music to the article, but there's no reliably-sourced prose to verify them. Before removing them IAW the verifiability policy, does anybody have a source that can support these categorizations? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
"Its verses delight in the application of superior US technology that rarely if ever actually hits the enemy" seems to be plainly apologetics; napalm definitely did hit children on multiple occasions. Remove it. 2601:642:C481:4640:441F:5E15:8611:2051 ( talk) 22:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what objections Aos Sidhe ( talk · contribs) has, nor what exactly they were trying to change. I tried to explain my edits in this summary, but mostly I'm just fixing new problems I saw introduced while trying to intuit their intent. If they or somebody else can articulate here what the actual problems/issues they see, I'd sure rather work with them to resolve that without introducing synthesis and verification concerns. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The opening of the article can be cut downPer Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Length, there's no need to; the Vietnam War-origins of "Napalm Sticks" are woven throughout the article, and so as a summary of the article, it makes sense to include a smidge of that there, and as for defining napalm, it's essential knowledge to understanding the much of the context.
An explanation of what cadences are […] belongs in the article about cadences.A summarized explanation of cadences is needed here to just understand what cadences are. We do already link to military cadence, and this isn't trying to duplicate that article IAW Wikipedia:Summary style; a reader should be able to understand this article on its own without clicking away and researching every concept and topic references.
It's also unclear why Carol Burke is notable or her thoughts are relevant […] Similarly, the General's responses aren't really relevant.Both Burke and Westmoreland are discussing "Napalm Sticks", and discussing cadences' oft (perceived) offensiveness. Does that come through clearer to you by reversing the order and combining the first two paragraphs in the 'Cadence' section? As for Professor Burke's notability, " The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." As a USNA professor she's not only sufficiently reliable to be a source, but also has an particularly salient position from which to observe military traditions.
The bit about the Navy felt too long and structured like a narrative. It also feels not-quite-clinical enoughOperation Hollywood characterizes the Navy's response as objecting to the inaccurate X, Y, and Z, and then pointing to alleged deprecation of "Napalm Sticks" to back up their objections. Stewart himself knew better because of his own experiences: A and B, and so went to the USNA to get concrete support for his position: C. I originally wrote the paragraph more chronologically, but it became awfully wordy and reprtitive, and so I opted for this conciser prose. Am I making sense here? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I saw this article listed in CAT:REF, but the ref issue(s) had already been fixed. So anyway, I decided to look for an image for the infobox in the 'Song' section, and instead, ran across these items (maybe for possible inclusion in the article in a 'Culture/Legacy' section, I don't know) —
Anyway, I'm dropping these here for consideration. Cheers. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reference ideas for Napalm Sticks to Kids The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
I am interested in talking with anyone who know this cadence for folklore purposes. If you know this and are willing to talk, please feel free to email me or call me. Serendipitousstl 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Gullible.info is comprised of fake trivia [1] and should not be used as a source of valid information. Kylestoneman 17:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, all I know is that this cadence was still pretty damned popular in my Civil Air Patrol squadron in the late 90's. 24.47.154.230 ( talk) 11:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
On 2 February 2022 at 13:42 UTC, Kjell Knudde ( talk · contribs) added the categories music controversies and black comedy music to the article, but there's no reliably-sourced prose to verify them. Before removing them IAW the verifiability policy, does anybody have a source that can support these categorizations? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
"Its verses delight in the application of superior US technology that rarely if ever actually hits the enemy" seems to be plainly apologetics; napalm definitely did hit children on multiple occasions. Remove it. 2601:642:C481:4640:441F:5E15:8611:2051 ( talk) 22:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what objections Aos Sidhe ( talk · contribs) has, nor what exactly they were trying to change. I tried to explain my edits in this summary, but mostly I'm just fixing new problems I saw introduced while trying to intuit their intent. If they or somebody else can articulate here what the actual problems/issues they see, I'd sure rather work with them to resolve that without introducing synthesis and verification concerns. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The opening of the article can be cut downPer Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Length, there's no need to; the Vietnam War-origins of "Napalm Sticks" are woven throughout the article, and so as a summary of the article, it makes sense to include a smidge of that there, and as for defining napalm, it's essential knowledge to understanding the much of the context.
An explanation of what cadences are […] belongs in the article about cadences.A summarized explanation of cadences is needed here to just understand what cadences are. We do already link to military cadence, and this isn't trying to duplicate that article IAW Wikipedia:Summary style; a reader should be able to understand this article on its own without clicking away and researching every concept and topic references.
It's also unclear why Carol Burke is notable or her thoughts are relevant […] Similarly, the General's responses aren't really relevant.Both Burke and Westmoreland are discussing "Napalm Sticks", and discussing cadences' oft (perceived) offensiveness. Does that come through clearer to you by reversing the order and combining the first two paragraphs in the 'Cadence' section? As for Professor Burke's notability, " The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." As a USNA professor she's not only sufficiently reliable to be a source, but also has an particularly salient position from which to observe military traditions.
The bit about the Navy felt too long and structured like a narrative. It also feels not-quite-clinical enoughOperation Hollywood characterizes the Navy's response as objecting to the inaccurate X, Y, and Z, and then pointing to alleged deprecation of "Napalm Sticks" to back up their objections. Stewart himself knew better because of his own experiences: A and B, and so went to the USNA to get concrete support for his position: C. I originally wrote the paragraph more chronologically, but it became awfully wordy and reprtitive, and so I opted for this conciser prose. Am I making sense here? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I saw this article listed in CAT:REF, but the ref issue(s) had already been fixed. So anyway, I decided to look for an image for the infobox in the 'Song' section, and instead, ran across these items (maybe for possible inclusion in the article in a 'Culture/Legacy' section, I don't know) —
Anyway, I'm dropping these here for consideration. Cheers. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)