From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia:External_links and Wikipedia:Spam for wikipedia policy on External links.


1.3 What should not be linked to:

1.3.3. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.

1.3.4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

LDHan 14:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fingering/Technique/Method of play[edit]

An anonymous user has added the following (hopefully somebody can decide if it is worth including in the article, and fix it if so):

The many ways are playing the guzheng are...

Gou Tuo Mou Tuo: The first 4 fingers of the right hand are used to pluck the strings.

Da Cuo, Xiaocuo: Da Cuo is the pluck 2 similar strings of different octaves with your thumb and middle finger, Xiaocuo is to use your 2nd finger and thumb, this is more commonly used when you want to pluck string from the same octave.

Pi: Pi stands for to cut, with your thumb, you make an outward movement with your thumb.

Tuo: When you Tuo, you use either your thumb or 2nd finger to glide over a few strings simultaneously.

Gua, Huazhi, Luanzhi: These 3 words are classified under glissandos which is used to represent wind,waterfalls or such.

Yao Zhi: When you yaozhi, your 2nd finger and thumb interlock together to form an "ok" sign and you lift your pinky over the string's side and shake your finger to repeat the note over and over again.

Sao Yao: Same as yaozhi, just that you omit the pinky part and shake normally.

  • I think it will do well if it was formatted into a table form, with Chinese. So far, it is rather messy. --Charlie Huang【正矗昊】 17:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have begun creating such a table on my sandbox. Once it is complete and I have english-language citations I'll post it. JoBaWik (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Too many commerical and promtional edits and links[edit]

This article is full of commerical and promtional edits and links, most of them by User:petrm concerning Zou Lunlun and her commercial website. All wiki edits by User:petrm [[1]] relate to guzheng, Zou Lunlun, and Hong Kong, so I suspect User:petrm to be either Zou Lunlun herself or more probably a business partner. LDHan 23:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made some edits to reduce commerical and promtional content and to improve NPOV. LDHan 14:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

then thet shack thier ass and boggy to the music.¥{{}}ČɴÃ

While this article does provide some minimal information to the main topic 'guzheng', most of the content seems to be written to directly promote Zou Lunlun, a local private guzheng teacher of Hong Kong and indirectly Peter Kahl, Zou Lunlun's husband. Both has claimed association with promoting Xu Zhen Gao and Wang Chuan Yuan. While there are many photographs of guzheng composer Wang Chuan Yuan, her article at Wikipedia is taken with Zou Lunlun. [User: Clearlens]
I don't really think the main content of the article at the moment is promotional or POV. But there are still some external spam links to commercial websites, I think they should be removed, I wonder what others think? LDHan 20:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. There have been attempts to reduce commerical and promtional content and links in this article, but anon users (all with Hong Kong IP addresses) have repeatedly re-inserted the same links to a related group of commerical websites. LDHan 18:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The links for each zheng player are good; the problem is that an anon keeps deleting other links, putting their own links above all others, misidentifying personal sites as "guzheng knowledge" sites, etc. Badagnani 18:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
WHOAH! Just read the thread at the Da Zheng forum. That's bad news! Badagnani 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Tut tut! Believe you me, my forumship probably initiated the whole affair! I find it slightly dodgy for using articles to promote oneself. Even I'm not that daring to promote myself for the guqin one, just a picture of myself to illustrate the topic (avoiding asking my peers for their photos/copyright issues)... We should think about putting one of those tags that blocks those who are not registered from modifying it. It is considered spam/vandalism, is it not? Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 on a work computer. -- 14:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that such a tag might be a good idea, although I’m not sure if it’ll stop the spam/vandalism. At first I thought he/she just didn’t know about wiki’s policy on this but now that he/she is doing it repeatedly unsigned, he/she must be aware of what they are doing and is just blatantly disregarding the good faith of all wiki users. One has to wonder about the intregity of businesses who use this sort of tactic to promote themselves. Don’t they realise it just makes them seem to be disreputable?

I think in the long term these methods of marketing and promotion, including the use of commercial websites which appear to be information websites, are counterproductive. LDHan 14:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmph! They reverted the link yet again. Really, are they deaf/blind? I don't care what happens, just put the tag up and bar this unregistered user from reverting it. Then after, say, a month, take the tag off. They'd have pissed off by then (hopefully)... --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of pictures and edits by user: 00:34, 6 February 2006[edit]

Is there a good reason why the 2 pictures were removed? LDHan 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits and removal of pictures made by user: LDHan 10:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It was me who removed the advertising from the pictures. I have just put one the pictures back in the article, don't know how long it'll stay there though... LDHan 15:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm going to try removing the link again and see what happens... --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 20:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Guzheng players[edit]

If anyone knows anything about notable Guzheng players, please add to the list, ideally with some information about each player. LDHan 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Master Xu[edit]

Regarding the recent edits of the "Master Xu" guzheng company link, are the guzhengs advertised as being made by Master Xu actually made by him or not? The letter written by Xu states that they are not made by him or his sons. Badagnani 07:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The most recent edit (early today) made by the anon from Hong Kong alludes to a condition of slavery that the Dunhuang company is purported to keep Master Xu under. Might this imply that, if indeed he is afraid of repercussions from the company with which he's formally associated, he has written the letters stating that he has no relationship with the "Master Xu" guzheng company, whereas he is actually making guzhengs "under the table" and does not want them to find out? Just want to explore all the possibilities, as in Rashomon, the story isn't always cut and dried. Badagnani 19:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think all this speculation can be avoided simlpy by sticking to wiki policies and remove all commercial links from the article. The problem is the anon Hong Kong user(s) and the Hong Kong group of companies and websites keeps on spamming/advertising/vandalising time and time again. LDHan 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That's one solution, but many of the websites that are both commercial and informational have really good information about the instrument (especially the performer pages). Badagnani 20:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The translated declaration is here: [2]. I'm not sure whether Master Xu has been pulled into an unnecessary frenzy, but as far as I'm concerned with the legal complications, although this Master Xu website has some useful info, things can been seen as misleading or contradictory if we put both things together. This anon user is definately ignoring everything we throw at them, not even discussing the legitimacy of their constant spamming. So much so for 光明正大. Very soon, I think we'll all abandon the article in favour for more 'purer' articles... --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 10:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
These commercial websites may have some information, but the "information" is biased and very POV, as they exist to sell products and services. After all this spamming/advertising/vandalising can you really trust what they say? The article should have facts, it's not a place for busineses to advertise or to push their side of whatever dispute that might be going on. So my solution is: no commercial links what so ever. LDHan 14:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think the fact that wiki doesn't have advertising is very important, let's keep it that way! LDHan 17:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The performer websites are good, though, as they give information about guzheng players (even if the performers are "selling" themselves and/or their CDs there). Badagnani 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm very suspicious of sites that advertise and promote certain things. Also, if you find people calling themselves 'master' this and 'master' that, you'd be forgiven for raising a few eye-brows. See: Talk:Contemporary Guqin players for my critique on overuse of the term 'master'. Also, don't think people should be called 'master' unless they are internationally recognised as one / are famous and dead. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 22:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User templates for guzheng players[edit]

I've created a set of user templates for guzheng players for them to use on their userpages, here: Category:Wikipedian guzheng players. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 19:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wang Fei[edit]

OK, why was Wang Fei removed without good explanation? She is a known guzheng player. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 17:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


There still seems to be spam and inappropriate edits to this article. Someone needs to commit themselves to completely reworking the article like I did to the guqin one. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Were guzheng always made from Firmiana platanifolia wood, or was Paulownia (Paulownia tomentosa) once used, as it still is in the koto or gayageum? Badagnani (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. All the modern instruments use wu tong/firmiana platanifolia (I got the species name from New Grove). But I expect they would have once used Paulownia? Perhaps a look into the Shosoin might help... STS 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drummerdaemon (talkcontribs)

I think it should be paulownia. "Wu tong" or "tong" covers quite a few species. I've asked the question to quite a few makers in both China and Taiwan, and they all told me "pao tong" paulownia is the specific wood used for making guzheng. The term "wu tong" definitely caused confusion. It's also written in many Chinese literature. Base on my research, it's very hard to grow Firmiana simplex in the north. This tree likes warm temperature. On the other hand, paulownia grows in the north. These two trees look alike, and most people can't distinguish without certain knowledge. Many literature says "wu tong" with purple flowers definitely refers to paulownia. Firmiana simplex has white/yellow flowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukinachang (talkcontribs) 05:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking and wondering are not substitutes for having actual sources. The sources say "wu tong," not paulownia like kotos and gayageums (although that wood may have been used hundreds of years ago). Badagnani (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's the way I talk that I don't say things too certain as I consider that an offense to others. I apologize for that. I got the information from Chinese encyclopedia which specifically says "wu tong" as used in terms of musical instruments are actually "pao tong". I'll try to find online version for that later. Actually, there are quite a few Chinese articles saying that's a common misconception because the paulownia grows in north, and is generally called "wu tong" by the northerners. Just search google on "wu tong" in Chinese.

"pao tong" is also stated in many of the Guzheng textbooks as the wood for making the instrument. Is it a way I can scan the books and post on here?

Any way, despite what it might be made in the ancient time, the modern guzhengs all use paulownia. That's for sure. This is a big industry in Lan Kao growing paulownia for instruments supplying to all guzheng factories. I just think Wiki shouldn't be misleading because I found it very useful when I search other subjects. (talk —Preceding undated comment added 06:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

I mean it's not wrong to call the wood "wu tong" or "tong", but it's very misleading as specifically saying it's Firmiana simplex. This specie generally doesn't grow well in the northern part of China. It only grows in the warm region in America too. It would be really hard to imagine in the ancient China where the culture development is centered in the north Xi'an later to Beijing, that the "wu tong" they refereed is Firmiana simplex.

I just realized some of what I said is summarized in Baidu Encyclopedia: See point 2, and also the poems citing "wu tong" at the bottom. It mentions the purple flower and described it as "sky is covered purple". That would not be Firmiana simplex. Paulownia is the one that has the purple flower.

By the way, how do I sign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukinachang (talkcontribs) 06:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Baidu Encyclopedia on "Tong Tree" says the "tong" is referred to different trees in different regions. In the yellow river region, the "tong" refers to "pao tong". Yukinachang (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I really go deep into the "pao tong" and "wu tong" issue. The first book about "wu tong" in Chinese history is written by a guy in Song dynasty called Chen Zhu. He spent all his life researching "wu tong" and made it into a book. It's acknowledged what he wrote is actually "pao tong". He probably never had never see a Firmiana simplex in his life. In the book, he said the "wu tong" is commonly used to make instruments. The book is now considered as the earliest scientific book on paulownia. Yukinachang (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

三國陸璣《毛詩草木鳥獸蟲魚疏》分桐為青桐、赤桐、白桐、梧桐四種,稱白桐宜琴瑟,梓實桐皮 為椅,即梧桐。 This says white tong is good for making qin and se 12 晉陶弘景《本草集注》分桐為青桐、梧桐、白桐、岡桐四種,青桐葉皮青似梧而無子;梧桐色白, 葉似青桐而有子;白桐與岡桐無異,唯有花、子;岡桐無子,材中琴瑟This also says white tong is good for qin and se 13 南北朝賈思勰《齊民要術》據《爾雅》及郭璞《爾雅》注之說,以榮桐、襯、梧皆梧桐也,分桐為 青桐、白桐、岡桐三類,謂白桐無子,冬結似子者乃明年之花房,材質可製樂器;梧桐又名青桐,以其 皮青,故名之,其子可食,味似菱芡,而材不中琴瑟... This specifically says green tong (Firmiana simplex) is not good for qin and se, and white tong (paulownia) is good for qin and se

宋寇宗奭《圖經衍義本草》稱桐有四種:白桐可斲琴者,開白花,不結子;荏桐早春先開淡紅花, 花成筒子,子作桐油;梧桐四月開淡黃小花,一如棗花,枝頭岀絲,墮地成油,霑漬衣履,五六月結子, 時人取炒為果,此即《禮記‧月令》所謂清明之日,桐始華者。岡桐無花,其質性體重而不中作琴瑟。This says white tong is good for qin and se, the oily tong is not good for qin and se.

明李時珍《本草綱目》分白桐、岡桐、荏桐、海桐、青桐、罌子桐六類,稱白桐即泡桐 This distinguishes the different tong wood by their skin color, white tong is paulownia....

陳翥《桐譜》所謂白花桐、紫花桐,應即賈思勰、陳藏器等所謂之白桐,皆屬今玄參科泡桐屬植物;white tong is paulownia

古籍所稱白花之白桐、紫花之紫桐,多可供器用或製琴瑟,材質佳,應即今經濟價值較高之玄参科泡 桐屬植物。white tong or purple flower tong is commonly used for qin and se and is today known as paulownia

The above information is from Essay of Prof. Zhou Mingyi that can be found at:

It appears that to use firmiana simplex as a translation for wu tong is only based on modern dictionary without considering how the term "wu tong" is used in the history and in different regions. It's still used to refer to different trees today. In Shanghai, "wu tong" refers to Platanus hispanica that were planted by the French in the 19th century. Some will add "French" in front of "wu tong" to distinguish, but most people in Shanghai call Platanus hispanica "Wu Tong".

In most part to the north of Yangze river, "wu tong" refers to paulownia, while some parts in the south "wu tong" refers to firmiana simplex.

I wonder why there is no such confusion in the wiki page of Gayageum and koto, because they use the same Chinese term "wu tong" as the wood that makes the instruments, but people know they mean paulownia. In Korean is pronounced as "O-Dong" written in Chinese characters as 梧桐, and the Japanese kiri is written as 桐 or 梧桐. The characters "wu tong" appeared in Japanese literature wtih instrumental context is as early as in "Manyooshuu" 756A.D. which says "梧桐製の琴".(A koto made of Wu tong).Yukinachang (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I kept thinking the problem is caused by the "wu tong" in the literature. If you guys are talking about the materials for guzheng in the modern time. Then there is no doubt that's "paulownia" from Lankao county.

Since Lankao county of Henan developed this big industry growing millions of paulownia tree every year, it's basically been the sole supplier for the guzheng soundboard. With the government support and huge profit involves, all other possibilities have been suppressed. The specific specie grown in Lankao is Paulownia elongata. The Lankao paulownia industry has a relative short history. The first tree was planted by Jiao Yu Lu, a governor in Henan at the time, in 1965. His intention was to grow trees to fight against the dusty wind, but accidentally created this big industry. (information from Lankao County website

Also sources can be sited from all major guzheng factories: Dunhuang Tianyi Jinyun Longfeng All the above factories quoted they use "Lan Kao Pao Tong" Paulownia elongata as the materials for making guzheng soundboard in their websites.

Since it's hard to discuss under this page, I've posted this to : Yukinachang (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New instruments[edit]

To add:


Add 轉調箏 (as seen at YouTube: )


Add 蝴蝶筝 (as seen at ). Badagnani (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

An image here may not be a guzheng[edit]

I was hoping someone working on this article might be able to help sort things out at I'm not at all expert on East Asian instruments, I just happen to have taken the photo in question ( It is perfectly possible that the store that had the instrument had mislabeled it: they are mainly an accordion store. Quite possibly I have, following them, titled the photo incorrectly, and described the instrument inaccurately. (Cross posted to Talk:Music of China.)- Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The lack of a tapering body and lack of elaborate Vietnamese-style mother-of-pearl inlay, as well as the Chinese-style red tassels, show this to be a typical pre-1950s zheng (also called guzheng, meaning "ancient zheng"). "Cheng" is an older romanization that may still be used by some Taiwanese musicians. 1000+ years ago guzhengs had 12 or 13 silk strings, as the standard, traditional Korean gagyageum and Japanese koto have, respectively, then by the early 20th century 16-string steel-string guzhengs became standard, by the mid-20th century 18-string steel-string guzhengs also became available, and soon after the 21-string guzheng with nylon-flatwound steel strings became standard. In Taiwan as well as elsewhere the 16- and 18-string models are still produced and used, by beginners as well as some professionals. The Vietnamese dan tranh is quite similar but if you do a Google search you'll see that there are some stylistic indicators typical of the Vietnamese instrument that the one you have photographed doesn't seem to have. Badagnani (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
See an image of a typical Vietnamese dan tranh here. Note that the tuning pegs aren't in horizontal rows, as they are in your guzheng photo. Badagnani (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know if you have any other Asian music images that need identification. Badagnani (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

excessive links[edit]

Wikipedia:External links says "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". So, what is so special about each of the links that have been included?

The worst examples are:

But, even the links that are valid, seem excessive. We're opening the door to self-promotion. For instance, Video clips on site superficially is about the "guzheng", but is really a promotional vehicle for a specific artist, which it says "is a premier guzheng artist from northeast China,". It also sells merchandise, so we're giving a commercial web site free advertising. Whenever you have a large number of links, and don't impose high standards, it's very easy for people to slip in promotional links. --Rob (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Having an article about a musical instrument that isn't very well known internationally, in contrast to the piano, guitar, or violin, without excellent video examples, does a disservice to our users, who must be foremost in our minds with every edit we make. I certainly don't wish an "excessive" number of external links. Badagnani (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the list is excessive. I suggest simply applying WP:EL to the list. I see no rationale for exceptions. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec)None of these links meet WP:EL and they should all be removed. I removed them awhile ago per WP:EL and I now see that I was reverted without explanation by Badagnani. Any information that is in them that can actually help the article should be written into the article and be cited in the References section. Links about subjects only tangentially related to the Guzheng aren't appropriate per WP:ELNO #13. Forum links don't meet WP:ELNO #10. Links should include information that is directly about the topic of this article while being unable to be hosted on Wikipedia, such as copywrited information or lists of statistics. I'm not against appropriate external links, but we shouldnt have inappropriate links just for the sake of having them. ThemFromSpace 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed them then. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lou Harrison[edit]

Surely, Lou Harrison was American, not Russian. Norvo (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Name of the Notes[edit]

The notes are called "Sol" and "Si", no So and Ti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocean ziqiao (talkcontribs) 23:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"A Gentle Way to Fight Stress"[edit]

This section reads like a brochure. How is this "information" relevant? Where is the evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Red Cliff[edit]

I'm surprised to see that there isn't any reference to the film Red Cliff, in which these instruments are quite prominent, in this article. Maybe one could be added to the Popular Culture section? R. A. Simmons Talk 03:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to scenes like this those are guqin, not guzheng. Cool scene, but a different instrument. JoBaWik (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Organization, Right-left hand confusion[edit]

The current article confuses right and left hand playing styles and has stylistic information in the technique section. I will fix those. Also, I'll remove the link ("MusicDish*China Sounds Pod2 - Opening The Year Of The Tiger". Mi2N Music Industry News Network. Retrieved 28 February 2016.) as it puts the citation in the middle of the article and links directly to a product. JoBaWik (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to Rewrite this article and Create Second "History of" Article[edit]

Through compiling references to bolster this article I've been impressed by the breadth of documented information available. /Guzheng needs far more than a few tweaks, it is severely lacking. I am working on a new version in my sandbox. But, the history of this instrument and the many aspects that tie into it are immense. What are others' thoughts on redoing this article as well as creating a second "History of" article to keep /Guzheng focused on the instrument/object?JoBaWik (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: edit by on 01 Dec 2017, removing information on the history of the instrument: until there is enough information here to create a separate historic article it should be left. JoBaWik (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

request to change main image[edit]

Can we change the current main image? The Chinafest Düsseldorf one? It's blurry and you can barely see the instrument. How about something clearer like? Tooironic (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)