Talk:National Anthem Project

This page should be scrapped. It's now a target of folks trying to smear it by lying about its political leanings. 98.218.238.72 (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Complete credit for the creation of this page should go to Aotearoa as I basically cut and pasted that users text that was previously on the national anthem page into a new article that already had a page linking to a redlinked page, waiting for this one to be created. All I did weas create the page, cleaned up the text a little, and that's it. --Canuckguy 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this article was turned from a red link to a blue link. I created the red link so that the main article on the US anthem could become less cluttered. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh brother. Talk about POV in this article. I'm putting the POV warning on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.183.29 (talk • contribs)

You need to indicate why with some specificity, so that we can discuss it. Otherwise, policy is to remove the tag. See WP:NPOV dispute#Adding a page Derex 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This page seems accurate to me. What is disputed about it?

...........

It appears that supporters of this project are unable to tolerate objective discussion of its implications with reference to published scholarly work (March, 2007). Instead, they keep deleting references in this entry to scholarly journal articles that challenge the legitimacy and usefulness of this project for the improvement of music education. One would hope that those who so enthusiastically rally around "The Star Spangled Banner" would be able to endure the freedom of information with which the flag is so often associated in the American mind. Is free access to truthful information unAmerican? Why keep deleting references to relevant research?

...........

The supporters of this project seem to be turning this entry into an advertisement for them and their sponsors.

...........

Yes, this page is definitely being transformed into an ad by supporters of this project.

............

This entry continues to be attacked with vandalism and spam in support of the National Anthem Project. It is preferable for balanced content to be maintained so readers are aware of the ongoing debates concerning this project and can make up their own minds.

POV

I see major POV in this section.

(4) The Star Spangled Banner has long been contested as an appropriate national anthem for the United States. Its melody is borrowed directly from an old drinking song “To Anacreon in Heaven”, and it features the most militaristic lyrics of all major national anthems in the world, with phrases such as “bombs bursting in air”, “conquer we must, when our cause it is just, let this be our motto”, etc. Rather than promoting this song, the largest arts educators organization could advocate for a song that is both lyrically and musically appropriate relative to other national anthems in the world (such as “America the Beautiful”).

In other words, other national anthems, like God Save the Queen, O Canada, Advance Australia Fair, etc. Don-Don 03:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only is this POV, it's also wrong. The Mexican National Anthem is far worse in regards of militarism.

--- Also: The French National Anthem speaks of saving liberty from persons who wish to "slit the throats of [their] sons and wives".

................................ Good point, so that section has now been edited. The following phrase: “and it features the most militaristic lyrics of all major national anthems in the world,” has been changed into the following: “and it features some of the most militaristic lyrics among major national anthems,” Hopefully you will agree the new wording seems to fix the problem. .................................

---POV--

Seems undue weight to contested text that criticizes the program. Text itself doesn't read NPOV, even with above edits. 132.161.178.11 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Iac

Agreed - while the negative viewpoint expressed on this entry should be included, it is the minority and should not make up more than half of the entry. It is disproportionate to the actual reality of the project in which public support and participation are prevalent. The research community, the consituency from whom the critism is primarily credited by its authors in the entry, is a small fraction of the music education community. The sponsoring organization reports having more than 120,000 members - the great majority of which are public school teachers and those that supported and participated in the project. If opinion about the unsubstantiated and theoretical "harm" of the project is going to be included, opinion from consituencies that embraced the project must also be included at an equal, if not superceding, level. Past edits have removed descriptive information about the project including participation of artists, politicians, and local governments around the country, and the involvement of non-profits and educational associations. In addition, public exposure of the project including governmental resolutions, media coverage, and testimonials have also been removed. This is an entry that has been hijacked by the vocal minority.

....................................

Supporters of this project are strongly encouraged to explain their position as best they can. However, this should be done properly, without simply erasing the positions expressed by the scholarly community. As is done for other Wikipedia articles on controversial topics, we will provide a space in which supporters can explain the case for their position. However, they should keep in mind that this will not be an appropriate location in which to merely list the names of sponsors since that qualifies as advertisement rather than an actual explanation of the project's alleged benefits for music education.

---Let's hope that the National Anthem Project....---

....should go global. That way people around the world, not just the United States, should learn words to various national anthems of the world, not just The Star-Spangled Banner (but also O Canada, God Save the Queen, Advance Australia Fair and other national anthems of the world in various languages). Don-Don (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

---Purpose Verses Point of View....---

I did some serious editing today. I guess people are so busy discussing POV they missed the purpose. Who, What, Why, Where, When, How. I didn't realize when I stumbled on this it would be a political fight.

Here's what I did. 1) I eliminated two of this three lists of sponsors. Proof reading one time would have shown we don't need the exact same list three times. 2) Removed countless reference to JEEP as the sponsor. Does Jeep have a car sales guy working for the making sure they get their name dropped half a dozen times?3) I added a small portion on the purpose of the project; Something totally over looked ... how can a two year old article miss the purpose? 4) Cleaned up many grammatical errors. 5) Put the sponsors in from of the objections. 6) Left the objections but they should be noted as unsourced (again this is a 'pedia not a political debate entry). & 7) Added the sponsoring groups link. Brvynky • contribs) 05:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the claim that insufficient citations are provided in the "Opposition" section. Citations were provided for nearly every sentence, which is unusually thorough. Bennett Reimer, David Elliott, Wayne Bowman and Estelle Jorgensen are all aware of NAP and concerned about it. Who else might qualify nowadays as a "leading American music education philosopher"?

1. Somone needs to wikify the references properly instead of the fake in-text citation. 2. I call weasel-word on the phrase "some of the most militaristic". 3. The opposition section, by its very nature is, and must be, npov. I don't agree with the complaints, but they're perfectly appropriate here. The summary of the complaints is good, but they need cited. 71.197.236.103 (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Anthem Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420155809/http://www.menc.org/ to http://www.menc.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)