Talk:Napalm

message: Shouldn't this go to WikiCookBooks or something? Should we have a guide on how to make anything, let alone a chemical weapon? Mark Richards 00:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that recipes for it are widely circulated is noteworthy. The household-ingredients paragraph in its current form doesn't give enough detail to reliably make it. --Christopher Thomas 22:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not surprising that Wikipedia continues to be the greatest source of nonsense in the history of the universe. Gasoline is not a single chemical compound, it is a mixture of many things. The actual formula varies wildly from country to country. In Ukraine it probably has a *relatively* high Benzene content. I suspect that if the Ukrainians are using polystyrene, it's because somebody determined empirically that it was the correct thickening agent. It seems to be working exceptionally well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:46 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to make Napalm 

message: Is it true that napalm burns even under water?
I think that depends on the concentration of naphthene and palmitate in the mixture. EisenKnoechel
I would not think that Napalm would burn under water, unless you mix a oxidizer with it. gasoline does not burn under water, and I don't think that Napthene and Palmitate are oxidizers, although I could be wrong
: Naphthalene is purely a hydrocarbon, and palmitic acid is a carboxylic acid. Neither will act as an oxidizing agent. Napalm will _float_ on water while burning, however, and if a burning person or object is only immersed briefly, it could easily be reignited by an external source (including floating napalm or part of the burning object that wasn't fully immersed).--Christopher Thomas 22:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's "polythene"? If it's "polyethene" or "polyethylene", that's just another hydrocarbon. You need an oxidizer if it's going to burn underwater. --Christopher Thomas 23:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burns under water? 

message: Did anon user 198.53.23.232 hope to accomplish anything by changing this sentence:
"The United States officially destroyed its last container of napalm in a public ceremony in 1991."
to
"The United States officially destroyed its "last" container of napalm in a public ceremony in 1991." (Note quotations around 'last')
besides attempting to add a subtle factual dispute without giving any evidence to support his claim?
TaintedMustard 08:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt at subtle POV? 

message: Do you mean the Convention On Prohibitions Or Restrictions On The Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Excessively Injurious Or To Have Indiscriminate Effects, a.k.a. CCCW or CCWC?
Here is the text of it:
http://www.mineaction.org/docs/120_.asp#p3
It was finished in 1981, not 1980 from what I can tell, and I believe the US signed it in 1995, according to this document (which isn't loading very nicely, but is in google's cache):
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~treaty/CCWC.html
:Signed is not equivalent to ratified. Under the US Constitution, only treaties ratified by the Senate (and not successfully vetoed by the president) have the force of law in America. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.125.49.252 (talk • contribs) on 22:40, 6 April 2006.
::Well, the US signed the Convention in 1982 and ratified it (under international law) in 1995, making the Convention binding on the US. There is a reservation filed by the US on accession, however. Source (Red Cross website) 163.1.105.55 (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A United Nations convention? 

message: Should references be made to this? For example I have heard from friends and unreliable sources that China has developed napalm missiles for its MiG's.Can anyone confirm this or mention references to other countries?
--The1exile 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other countries use/development of napalm related weaponry 

message: Napalm is mostly a terror weapon. It will not hurt the military's tracked APC and battle tank vehicles, all tanks of the WARPAC were modified to be immune to napalm during the early 1980's. It is only good against civilians. 213.178.109.36 13:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a break trolls. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 05:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very little value as a weapon. 

message: I've reveted the changes made by User:216.79.146.64 on the above subject because:
* Such claims need to be backed up by references
* The contribution was strongly POV and was indistinguishable from vandalism
Sorry for the multiple reverts - I was struggling to find an acceptable version of the contribution.  In the end I had to it completely! Waggers 15:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Napalm in the Iraq war

message: The UN convention on chemical weapons (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/3f233cb0f0c580f8c125641f002d42a8?OpenDocument) reads as follows:
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately: 
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes; 
(...)
2. "Toxic Chemical" means: 
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere. 
Clearly, napalm is a chemical weapon causing death through a chemical action.
Bloomberg 20:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Napalm is a chemical it does not fall under the chemical weapons definition provided by the UN. Napalm falls under incendiary weapons, not chemical weapons, as it killing property is its flammability. Same general idea for White Phosphorous.--LWF 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indeed it is a chemical weapon 

message: Why is "napalm" capitalized in the article? Seems to me that it should not be. --Yath 17:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalizing 

message: You all remember Tails, that cat-thing that Sonic used to hang out with?  Well, in one of his games, didn't he have a napalm-based weapon? (Please respond on my talk page.) tinlv7 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't your personal blog. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 05:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tails! 

message: How badly would a car (and passenger(s)) suffer if dish soap was poured into it's gas tank? I've read a few articles on napalm and napalm-like subsitiutes that dish soap and gasoline creates a similar compound, and I've been wondering as to the validity of the articles' statements. TheChrisParker 21:35, November 18 2006
:You shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia if you think adding dish soap to a car's gas tank would somehow create an explosion on its own. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In A Car... 

message: Even though one might argue that the present title for this section is broad, it does not encompass all the information present inside it. I think Kim Phuc's statements would be better served under a "Controversy" heading. Also, anarchist cookbook recipies clearly don't fall under the heading of usage in warfare. If I find the time, I'll make these edits soon. Nosferatublue 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage in Warfare

message: can someone put quotes around "phuc sustained..." Jacob.vankley 17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotes 

message: I've read references (good ones) about the use of Napalm by the US military during the latest Gulf War. Yet there is no reference to it in the article. Any reasons why? --86.146.193.72 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use in Second Gulf War

message: I just removed a citation for the first use of Napalm in Europe in WWII.  The link appears to be dead, and the version on the internet archive does not seem to support the sentence.  Anyone have updated information? --TeaDrinker 17:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - citation for first use in Europe 

message: The text in the article on napalm reads:
Napalm has been used recently in wartime by or against: Iran (1980–88), Israel (1967, 1982), Nigeria (1969), Brazil (1972), Egypt (1973), Cyprus (1964, 1974), Argentina (1982), Iraq (1980–88, 1991, 2003 - ?), Serbia (1994), Turkey (1963, 1974, 1997), Angola, France (1946-1954, 1954-1962), United States.
Note the text equivocates between those who have used it and those who have been victims of it, "Napalm has been used recently in wartime by or against". This should be corrected by those who know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markinship (talk • contribs) 06:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which counties have used napalm in war? 

message: Can you really make napalm using ordinary soap? Of course, I don't mean just putting it in benzene but can you really create this highly flammable with just these two ingredients?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MavericK Long Range (talk • contribs) 14:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can make "napalm" with many different things. essentialy all what napalm is is thickened gasoline so yeah i guess you could make it with soap. ive also heard people use motor oil to thicken it.68.206.123.207 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAPALM with soap 

message: i removed the popular culture section as it was simply an innacurate,irrelevant, trivia list.
68.206.123.207 (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it. There is no policy against such sections. It should be improved, but napalm does figure in an important way in various notably works of fiction etc. Agreed, it does need improving.    DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  popular culture section removal. 

message: Why is there no mention of the novel/movie Fight Club and the validity of the recipes for napalm discussed within said media? --71.74.228.230 (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this:  What Wikipedia Is Not.bwmcmaste (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture section... 

message: I sat down for a couple of hours and overhauled this entire article for things like copy-editing and wikifying. I basically took the existing information and references, organized it, cleaned it up, cut out the junk, and restructured it to look encyclopedic. Please remember to source your material and stay within the scope of the subject. I was finding a lot of irrelevant information and unsourced material. Here's my list of changes:
*General article cleanup (i.e. removed dead piping/links and consolidated inline citations)
*Added new reference links (University of Bristol and Travel & History)
*Removed numerous unsourced and possibley irrelevant statements
*Removed external links to ophsa and dispatx sites (not relevant to article)
*Renamed "Notes" section as "References" as per Wikipedia status quo
*Moved References above "See Also" section as per Wikipedia status quo
*Removed piece about MK 77s under "Use In Warfare" section (relevancy)
*Copy editing of entire page
*Removed large portions of unsourced material, and replaced with sourced material
*Removed instances of plagiarism
*Separation of "modern napalm" and "napalm"
I would like to make a special note of the last item. It seems to me that this is an article about napalm: It should include the modern variants, but they should be listed as a subsection (as I have done) to keep the article from getting confusing. The two are very different and should be kept separate so that a person reading the article is not constantly bouncing back and forth between the new and old. It would be a great help to this article if we could get someone with a chemistry background to add some more specifics about the composition and such (with proper referencing, of course).
bwmcmaste (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Overhaul 

message: I'm kinda surprised napalm isn't mentioned on the news more often when they talk about violent protests; if it's so easy to make why aren't people cooking batches to throw at the riot police? --TiagoTiago (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they're not suicidal- doing so would entitle the cops to respond with lethal force, i.e. gunfire. Solicitr (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does happen occasionally, but is usually written up as regular "Molotov cocktails" or "petrol bombs" - coppers who have done riot duty in the right sort of environment are likely to have seen jelled incendiaries at some point.  Anecdotal, based on accounts from people who have served in Ulster during the "troubles". 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any use in protests? 

message: is it a quick na-pal-m or is it naa-pa-l-m?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.232.246 (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's either, depending on UK or US usage - nap-palm for UK, nay-palm for US.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.67.233 (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation?

message: I have come across three different dates for the first use of Napalm in WWII, including the one in this article. There is a claim here that "The first use of napalm occurred on July 23, 1944, during pre-invasion air strikes on the island of Tinian, part of the Marianas island chain in the Pacific." In the French Wikipeida here the claim is made that the first use of Napalm in Europe was against SS troops at Bonneuil-Matours:
"In retaliation for the death of First Lieutenant Stephens (SAS), killed in blows with a wooden stick, the barracks are bombed on July 14th (1944). It is the 140th Wing which is charged with the mission: it sends 14 Mosquitos of 21 Sqn. Royal Air Force, 464 Sqn. Royal Australian Air Force and 487 Sqn. Royal New Zealand Air Force, armed with American M-76 napalm bombs  (it is the first military use of napalm in Europe) and explosive bombs."
Can anyone provide an accurate date for the first use of napalm (i.e. not Napalm-B) in warfare? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The date in this article is from a contemporaneous report that I found at the Air Force Historical Research Agency. (I have a scanned copy of the report I would be happy to forward to you.) The report claims to be the first use. I would tend to regard that as more reliable than the global security reference to a later date.  I have no information on the Royal Australian/Royal New Zealand date.  In any circumstances the dates are consistent - July 1944. -- ed  Ecragg (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The Frnech WP article cites a French work (Christian Richard, 1939-1945 : la guerre aérienne dans la Vienne, Geste éditions, 2005. 348 p. () , p. 205) which is not available online. I did come across a mention of a sortie carried out by one of the RNZAF Mosquito aircraft on the mission, which states "Bombed Gestapo Barracks 14/7 Bonneuil Matours 10m S of Chatellerault 4x500lbs (150 killed)", i.e. it doesn't mention that the 500lb bombs were in any way unusual, although the M76 napalm bombs were also 500lb. The French report states also (1) that the bombs missed the target but (2) all the buildings caught fire! It would be interesting to find the French source. --TraceyR (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use in World War II 

message: In a Rutgers essay by economist Mark Wilson the distinction is made between napalm, as developed at Harvard, Columbia and Standard Oil and manufactured by Dow Chemical, and 'goop', a mixture of asphalt and magnesium as well as gasoline and other component used in napalm, developed and made by the Permanente Metals Corporation (PMC). Since, according to this source, some 76,000 tons of goop-filled bombs were dropped in WWII (8% of all incendiary payload), perhaps there should be a mention of it, either here or in separate article. Certainly the PMC article needs to include some reference to goop. The Rutgers reference states that PMC's formula for what the U.S. Army‟s Chemical Weapons Service (CWS) referred to as "PT Mix" was, by weight, 39% "microscopic magnesium dust," 10% asphalt, 5% distillate, 27% gasoline, 10% magnesium crystals, 5% sodium nitrate, 3% isobutyl methacrylate gel, and 1% ammonium perchlorate. It was the first three of these ingredients - the dust, asphalt, and distillate - that comprised "goop"; the rest of the mix was essentially napalm plus even more magnesium. PMC's interest was to find a use for its magnesium dust, on which it was making a loss during the early years of the war. 
If we were to make a distinction between the two, an issue would be whether reports on the use of jellied gasoline also differentiated between them. For example, I have come across a reference (see previous section) to the first operational use of napalm in 14 July 1944, which refers to it being delivered in M76 bombs, although, as far as I have been able to establish, the M76 (also referred to as AN-M76 and M-76) contained PMC's goop. Many sources claim that the first use of napalm was 17 July 1944 at Courtances, France, but was this the 'real' napam or perhaps also goop?  Was napalm delivered in bombs with other designations? --TraceyR (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Decades ago the name became so widely known (as stated in the article introduction) that virtually any semi-liquid flaming substance used offensively (and sometimes explosive ignition of flammable liquids like paint, edible or lubricating oils, or gasoline fuel tanks near the target) will be described as napalm by those targeted by the attack (and probably by those observing the attack); since recipients and observers are seldom well positioned to read product labels.  As such, it is important for editors to screen references to determine if the author had reason to know whether it was actually napalm rather than some substance with apparently similar properties.Thewellman (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Napalm' as generic term? 

message: Unfortunately the article starts with an error: "The term napalm is from what was originally thought to be its composition: sodium (Na) palmitate. As it turned out, the sodium palmitate used to make the first napalm had an additional substance in it. However, the name was kept because it was well into the development process when this was discovered."
However, The name Napalm, as elsewhere stated correctly, derives from naphthenate and palmitate. 
The accurate explanation for the name is given by L. Fieser ("The scientific method....", 1964, page 27): "One new soap tried was a powder obtained from Metasap Chemical Co., Harrison, N.J., under the name "aluminum palmitate"; the name is put in quotation marks for a reason which will become apparent later [...] On Feb. 14 [1942], we reported to NDRC development of two lines of gels that could be prepared by stirring with gasoline at room temperature. To one, made from aluminium NAphthenate and "aluminum PALMitate", I gave the name Napalm. Two of the first formulations are as follows: ..."  (original text uses small letter italics, not capitals, for emphasis)
The ambiguous nature of the "aluminum palmitate" is later explained by Fieser (p. 29) as such: "Something seemed fishy about the Metasap product, or rather about the name. Indeed, in a visit to Metasap I learned that their product is not a palmitate at all but the aluminum soap made from the total acids of coconut oil."
Fieser published his personal account on the work on Napalm in 1964, which was certainly bad timing in terms of shifting public opinion. Ironically (?) the Napalm used in Vietnam was mainly Napalm B (as far as I know) and in that sense was quite different from the product which had led to the "Napalm" name. Napalm B is more similar to mixtures made from natural rubber and gasoline, on which Fieser states (p. 19): "Major Rambaut had stated that the British had experimented with rubber-benzene gels but had not developed a completed bomb." The change to aluminum soaps became necessary after the Pearl Harbor attacks, when Japan "gained control of all the important sources of natural rubber." (Fieser, p. 24). In fact, many people were involved at many stages in the development of "incendiary gels", which were later all named "Napalm". So, adding to the above comment ("generic term"), it is certainly true that "Napalm" is now often used as a generic term for "incendiary gels" (this expression is actually the title of Fiesers 1943 patent, US2606107) and says little about the chemical composition of the thickener used. 138.246.2.48 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I don't think that it is correct to describe napalm as "primarily an anti-personnel weapon". Certainly its development was driven by the need for a more effective incendiary device, i.e. one which didn't just produce a short flash of flame but which stuck to buildings long enough to set them on fire. All of the initial testing in the USA was against targets built to simulate German and Japanese buildings. It was soon used in flame-throwers of course, and became infamous in Vietnam in an anti-personnel role, but its use in WWII in Europe and the Pacific theatre, especially against Japanese cities, was mainly as an incendiary.--TraceyR (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Primarily an anti-personnel weapon" ... ? 

message: :File:TrangBang.jpg, the photo of "Phan Thị Kim Phúc running down a road near Trảng Bàng, Vietnam, after a napalm bomb was dropped on the village of Trảng Bàng by a plane of the Vietnam Air Force." is a non-free image and as such can only be used on articles under the terms of Fair use. Per the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, there must be a specific and separate Fair use rationale provided for every article that uses the image. This photograph was used in the "Effects on people" section of this article without such a rationale. As such I have commented it out to prevent it being shown. If you believe that a valid fair use claim can be made for use of this image in this article (I make no judgement), then write a fair use rationale for it at :File:TrangBang.jpg before adding it back to the article. If no valid claim can be made, remove the code completely from the article to discourage others readding it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:TrangBang.jpg 

message: A Napalm like substance is referenced in one of Nevil Shute's novels though it can be dispensed by flamethrower - sorry, can not recall the book but relates to naval attacks around northern FranceOffbeam (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  in literature

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Napalm. 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/20111006134128/http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/PVCC/mbase/docs/napalm.html to http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/PVCC/mbase/docs/napalm.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The trangbang image meets all criteria for inclusion, as laid out in the rationale:
# FUC #1 - This image is unique and thus non-replaceable with a free alternative. This photograph is of a historical event and cannot be reproduced in a free format.
# FUC #2 - This image will not interfere with the copyright holder's ability to exploit its work and is not used in such a way that the reader might believe the above article is written or authorised by the copyright holder of the image.
# FUC #3 - This image is of low resolution and may represent only a small portion of a commercially available product.
# FUC #4 - This image has previously been published outside of Wikipedia and its inclusion here does not make it substantially more accessible than it already is.
# FUC #5 - This image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is used for informational purposes in an encyclopaedic manner.
# FUC #6 - This image complies with Wikipedia's media policy.
# FUC #7 - This image is used in at least one article, and contains separate rationales for each instance of use.
# FUC #8 - This image adds significantly to the above article because: 1) it is a primary means by which the subject may be identified, 2) adds critical commentary to the article, and 3) does not serve a purely decorative purpose.
# FUC #9 - This image meets Wikipedia's location restrictions.  The above page has been determined to be an article located in the article namespace.
# FUC #10 - This image's description page identifies the source of the material and/or the copyright holder, contains an appropriate copyright tag, and identifies each article in which the image is used.
# Further, the copyright holder has given permission for this image to be used in a limited fashion on the English Wikipedia.
All criteria here are met, with the additional supplement that a direct quote from Phan Thi Kim Phuc is used in the article, to whcih the image adds context.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The use rationale is invalid on its face. It's a colokie-cutter, word-for-word copy of the rationale for use of the image in the BLP of a person it depicts. Napalm is not a living person, and that rationale is plainly not applicable, and the image in any event doesn't identify it. If the claim is that the image identifies a person quoted in the article, 1) nonfree images of people generally may not be used for identification outside the person's biography, and WP:NFC#UUI #6 holds that identification by providing a link to the bio of the person quoted, including an appropriate image, is ordinarily sufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).  Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trangbang image  

message: The summary indicates that Napalm has been used decades before it was invented: 
 'Napalm also has fueled most of the flamethrowers (tank, ship and infantry-based) used since World War I...'
I don't see any source in this paragraph, and it seems unlikely that it was used before it was invented. I imagine this is likely a typo, but the read of that sentence makes it seem like the user really did mean WWI.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.178.38 (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and fixed. - BilCat (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used in flamethrowers since World War I? 

message: Plant oils and petroleum and tar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.215.134 (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same idea "gelling agent and a volatile petrochemical" of the Byzantine liquid fire (also used by Romans, but at later years and probably not with the same recipe 

message: In the section "Military Use" was the line: In John Ford's 1951 documentary, This is Korea, footage of napalm deployment is accompanied by a voice-over by John Wayne saying, "Burn 'em out, cook 'em, fry 'em"; the New York Herald Tribune hailed "Napalm, the No. 1 Weapon in Korea".[21] 
I have deleted the part In John Ford's [...] fry 'em"; and left the second part about the Herald Tribune as its own sentence. The quote from This is Korea! is correct in the general sentiment but it's a bit jumbled compared to the exact words: see here the narrator is listing weapons used in the war coming to "Flamethrowers" then after a pause "Fry 'em out, burn 'em out, cook 'em." Furthermore the narrator is not John Wayne, it is John Ireland - he is credited on imdb and in the film's closing credits too. 
I could have corrected the narrator and quote but opted to simply delete it. If someone wants to restore it I wouldn't dispute that and the information to do so has been provided here. I simply felt that the quote didn't add anything relevant to the section or the article. The section is on military use of napalm, and several other citations cover its usage in the Korean War, the This is Korea! quote doesn't really give the reader any information about the usage of napalm by military forces; it conveys the attitude of the filmmaker to the use of napalm against the KPA/PVA soldiers, which doesn't seem relevant. 118.209.195.94 (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect "This Is Korea!" Quote 

message: Anyone that wants to see how one was almost publicly used against the citizenry and government of the United States Of America can find articles. Thanks for making it so easy to find, internet! Tiny9312 (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napalm-like bombs found during the Infamous Epiphany Christian Insurrection of the USA Capitol in Washington D.C. January 6, 2021 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: It would be really nice if you could find a picture of napalm when it's not on fire. Thx!
- AAEexecutive (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture suggestion