Talk:Pan flute

About the Photograph

In the picture of the man playing a "zampoña", he isn't playing one. He's playing an "Antara", like a "Zampoña" but bigger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.118.148 (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and change the caption then? +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

They say down at the bottom that the beatles have used the pan flute in their music. As far as I can tell this is wrong! I don't want to really get into the habit of editing wikipedia pages but someone else should fix that. Or if they believe there is a pan flute they should say which song! Because it was never used in their recordings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulywally (talk • contribs) 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sryinx

It seems to me that the name "syrinx" for the instrument predates the use of the word for the sound organ of birds. Surely the Pan pipes were being played before the anatomy of birds was investigated70.161.208.216 14:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree you are absolutely right. I made the change. Thanks for spotting that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanLover (talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

first panflutist

how come Douglas Bishop is before Zamfir and should his name directly link to his site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.41.251.137 (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

It's called - alphabetical order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.50.115 (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pan / Panic - Any Connection ?

Question ; Does anyone know if there is a direct connection between the term "Panic" and "Pan" ? Is there a story concerning a special note that Pan could play to make people lose control and run around wildly?? Thanks for any info.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a connection between panic and Pan, and there's a connection between Pan and the pan flute, but there's no connection, as far as I know, between a pan flute and the word panic. From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

from Gk. panikon, lit. "pertaining to Pan," in sense of "panic, fright" short for panikon deima, from neut. of Panikos "of Pan," the god of woods and fields who was the source of mysterious sounds that caused contagious, groundless fear in herds and crowds, or in people in lonely spots. ARealFool (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Flash history of the pan flute

It's already been reverted, but in case this becomes an edit war, I'd like to voice my support of ILike2BeAnonymous's removal of the links to "free pan flute lessons" and that flash history of the pan flute as indiscriminate linkage and spam. Ford MF (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That Flash history is brilliant. It has been featured on BBC World and requested at schools from primary to University level for music and history courses. Take a moment to watch it and you might learn something about this instrument. Stop being so abusive. It basically is a slide presentation with original music, the text is by one of this instruments leading teachers, with more than 50 publications. The pictures are rare and the information hard to come by. This was the first time that this information was brought together in an educational and fun presentation. It can not be called simply entertainment. That is ridiculous. This is a real asset to the pan flute community. It simply uses flash as the medium. If needed I can present letters of recommendations, the BBC world video etc. This is a well respected presentation.

I would like to add that I have contributed and watched over this article for years. I have reversed spammers and kids having fun by altering text. I believe in this presentation. There is no reason to be flippant and disrespectful. You may not agree but ILike2BeAnonymous is not the final arbiter of what is entertainment or educational. Yes I will continue to stand up for this. If this Wikipedia stands for anything, it cannot be ruled by a few wiki-buddies who just want to support each other. Even if you don't love this presentation, other everyday users do. Don't become a fanatic. There are more important things to do than to become fixated on opposing a history slide presentation. This is a history presentation with text, music and slides. That is what it is... and it is right on topic. As they suggest on the dispute page, take a break from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PanLover (talk • contribs) 14:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No one's being flippant or disrespectful, but more than one editor has expressed concern that the flash presentation is insufficiently encyclopedic, and your only response has been to act personally slighted. Ford MF (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you watch it and read all the text. It presents details and graphics that illustrate and educate anyone interested in the panflute. What exactly is your problem with this history. Are you saying it is inaccurate? It is a learning tool for teachers and has been used as such for many years. I don't understand why you two would have this attitude. Yes is is insulting when you make up a term like spamtaiment or something and casually dismiss a respected piece of work. What is covered in this presentation is a wider world look at this instrument than is even touched on the article. They are a complement to each other. Perhaps it should be embedded into the actual article and not just an external link. By the way what makes you an authority on the value of the work? This is a forum type of mentality. You two know each other from the time you spend on Wikipedia. You have a bias to support your friend. I don't spend as much time here, though I have spent a few years working on the article. Please stop making this an issue when it shouldn't be. I expect some substantial reasoning not glib one liners from you and your friend.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PanLover (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, PanLover. I have no idea who that other editor is who agrees with me, so there's really no need to act as if there's a cabal that's out to get you and your contributions. The fact that you're recommending it to be embedded in the article (not to mention that you're seemingly incapable of signing your talkpage comments) suggests that your familiarity with Wikipedia, its aims and policies, is fleeting. And maybe you want to think twice about throwing stones about "bias" when your username is PanLover and you're arguing about edits to the pan flute article.

At any rate, per Wikipedia:External links, I think the list of external links for this article is excessive, and should probably be half as long. Firstly, the flash presentation, which I have watched, really does not provide any unique information not already present in the article, despite your claims. Second, your claims about the merit of the material have been just that--claims--with no supporting citation that it's been featured on BBC World or anywhere else. I'm not saying that that would necessarily make a difference in my opinion as to the encyclopedic value of the video, just that you saying a thing doesn't make it true. As is, the flash video appears only to be the product of "Brad White". And third, you have continued to revert against the concerns of two separate editors, and as such are now on the boundary line of 3RR. Ford MF (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC video is here..

http://panflute.net/bbc/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by PanLover (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost the material in the presentation is unique. If you really watch the entire presentation you would see Costel Puscoiu listed. Mr Puscoiu is a well known teacher and author. http://www.melbay.com/authors.asp?author=98

You still have not presented anything substantial that would justify removing the piece. Lets have it arbitrated. Yes I do not know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Obviously you spend most of your day here. That does not make my position any less valid. You are only interested in being in control. This should go before an unbiased group. Until then leave it up.. until its been decided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PanLover (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you say you are not biased and know how to use Wikipedia better than I do, lets have this mediated? Yes? That seems fair to me. I'll abide by whatever they decide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PanLover (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:PanLover has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring over this issue. Unless consensus is that the external link should be in the article, then it should not, and the user should not have edit warred over it. Please gain consensus if you wish to re-add the link. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand this situation at all. If there is any place where people should be able to find help with learning, with pan flute lessons or otherwise, then that place should be Wikipedia. If not on Wikipedia, then where? It appears that there is some other motive behind this incident. Whatever that motive may be, I have no idea, but I think it's sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.246.174 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the "Free pan flute lessons" link that several editors keep removing? It's spam. Wikipedia is not a directory.Ford MF (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

O-kay......if Wikipedia is not a directory, then what exactly is it? Let's see.......you put a search term into Wikipedia's search, click Go, and any relevant results to your search term are displayed.....sounds a lot like a directory, huh?

It's supposed to be an encyclopedia. You did notice that big word up there on the main page, didn't you? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, one could say "spam" about any exterior link on this article, or any other article for that matter, couldn't they? But, my very relevant and very educational link (hardly fitting the traditional definition of spam), which has been of incalculable help to countless people all around the world, has been inexplicably singled out. I'm not selling a thing, the lessons are free, after all, so what is this talk about spam? It's obvious that something else is motivating things here, something that is impeding the availability of pertinent knowledge of the pan flute, and it's just sad. Go ahead and remove the link if you feel it's absolutely necessary (I won't try to post it anymore), but such an action is just not in keeping with Wikipedia's proclaimed mission of making knowledge available to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.222.186.80 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, those are your lessons? Then perhaps you need to read WP:COI as well. Ford MF (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can attempt to hide their wish to forcibly implement their will in something behind a set of open-to-interpretation rules, FordMF. It seems that this all comes down to, not the relevance of the link in question, but to your personal interpretation of my intentions. Would you prefer if I had someone else do the lessons for me? Those lessons are part of my work to help people around the globe learn the pan flute easily, nothing more and nothing less. The last thing I care about is self-promotion. Again, I'm not selling a thing. My goal with the lessons is educational. Period. Believe me or not as you like, and remove the link if you truly believe it to be absolutely necessary. Why my lessons link gets under your skin so much, I have no idea, but I won't lose any sleep over it if you take it down. It's not as if no one will ever see these handy free lessons again if you do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.195.164.144 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that you're arguing so ardently for the inclusion of your own link here looks bad. As the line goes, the lady doth protest too much, methinks. As another editor said, this raises big conflict-of-interest red flags. Better to just get over it and move on. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for anything. Have I not said to take it down if you feel it is necessary? How can you guys be so petty? I think you guys are the ones that need to get over it (and yourselves, too). It's as plain as the nose on my face that you and FordMF are a two man back-scratching society deluded with your own overinflated notions of your importance.

Isn't it silly and amazing at the same time, how some people allow their pettiness to manifest when they can hide behind a keyboard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.195.164.144 (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The same might be said of you as well. Pot kettle black and all that, you know. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing: blanking discussions in a fit of pique, as you just did, never makes you look anything but childish here. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I swear you guys are true Wiki-Nazis. What kind of online Mafia is Wikipedia running, that someone who can't even make their true identity known has the power to disrupt the flow of pertinent information, for no good reason? Is this where you guys go when you need to feel like you're important? And Wikipedia is to be trusted as a source of knowledge with guys like you in charge? Get real! What do either of you know about the pan flute? Nothing, maybe? Then, how about you try listening to someone with almost 28 years of pan flute experience and knowledge under his belt? You may be surprised at what you learn.

ILike2BeAnonymous, are you really such a simpleton? I had a clear purpose in mind when I blanked that discussion, and it had nothing to do with pique, and even less with childishness. It's simple, though you have seemingly not picked up on it - I wanted to give you a taste of your own medicine, to see your reaction. So, if you believe that such an action is childish, done only in fits of pique, what does that say about you, when you delete things far more pertinent to this page than your obvious need to be in control? Are you representative of Wikipedia editors? From what I have gleaned from many other accounts, this would indeed appear to be the case. It is people like you that are rapidly contributing to the degradation of Wikipedia as a quality resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.195.83.76 (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Mr. Bishop on this. ILike2BeAnonymous and Ford MF are totally out of control, and should not be permitted to continue their travesty of "editing". I first found the free pan flute lessons here, and they have proven to be a priceless resource. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, for making it possible for little guys like me to learn the pan flute! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.50.115 (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally replaced the free lessons link on the pan flute article, where it belongs. I hope that ILike2BeAnonymous and Ford MF grow up a little, and allow the link to remain there,, so it can continue to help many more people to learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.50.115 (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and I am happy to know my online work is useful for you. As for ILike2BeAnonymous and Ford MF growing up, well, one can only hope. If there is any problem with my lessons link, it is because those two individuals have the problem, and decided to make this into a problem. They, and no one else, are the ones to blame for making this into an edit war, and they should both be ashamed of themselves for trying to suppress this knowledge for their own shady purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.119.43 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people have problems finding a teacher for panflute that lives near enough to go to. For these people Douglas Bishop video lessons are a very good thing. So please do not remove them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.146.71 (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

These last couple of comments look, feel and smell like the work of sockpuppets; not in the strict sense used here, but as obvious shills—probably the original inserter of the links in dispute here—and therefore don't carry much weight in this argument. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do they feel that way to you? Because they disagree with you, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.48.98 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

These are real people. I don't know who they are, but I find it astonishing that you write them off in a way that is convenient for you. A consensus is obviously building here, but you are stubbornly refusing to see it. Again, some other motive is involved here, for in the face of consensus, the lessons link should remain in place.

Well, it's pretty clear that folks want the lessons link to stay where it is, so maybe the two Wiki-editors should leave it alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.220.94.243 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How could you possibly know that these comments are from "real people"? That is, unless it's actually you (or your friends or associates) who are responsible for them. Now I don't know anything about these "people" (well, except that they appear to be live human beings and not bots), since all we know about them is their IP address. But the fact that you say this sounds suspicious in and of itself. The weight of evidence is against you here:

• All these commenters have the same sloppy habit of not signing their comments (notice all the cleaning-up by SineBot here), betraying an ignorance of how things work in Wikipedia.
• Looking at the history for all of these IP accounts, they only seem to exist in order to edit this article.
• The edits appear more and more to be simply vanity edits, not admissible here at all. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh.....OK....since you don't know anything about the supporting posters except the IPs, they're not "real", and they don't matter? Damn, man, do you have any clue as to how arrogant you sound? Maybe these people are right to not register, and keep their privacy, if they are exposed to someone like you. And then, you whip up some kind of cybertalk like "vanity edits", as if that answers it all.

You don't get out much, do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.220.94.243 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Everyone, I have just been informed of this situation, and decided to chime in. As the two editors in question can see, I am signed in, and with an ID like Panflutejedi, no one should have any trouble to identify me.

What I have to say is this: I am happy and much moved to see this outpouring of support on behalf of my work. However, it is quite obvious that ILike2BeAnonymous and Ford MF are going to play the part best suited for them (that of arrogant boneheaded fools), no matter what support or consensus presents itself. Such is Wikipedia - both a blessing and a curse. But, so it is, something that, like Communism, only works in theory, as Eric Feola points out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcdC0af4jJY

My advice is that we move on, and let fools be what fools are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panflutejedi (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So now, in addition to possible sockpuppetry, conflicts of interest and vanity edits, sloppy editing and the rest, we now have personal insults, eh? Fine; the case for the inclusion of any of these disputed links gets weaker by the minute. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about any "case". Do you think people will stop finding my lessons to help them just because they're not listed here?

I think you just like to argue, ILike2BeAnonymous. Do everyone a favor, and get a life already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.220.239.233 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous, if it helps to cut down on any confusion, the person that has been speaking of "my" lessons wasn't me. I think I know who that is, and he has a habit of speaking in a colloquial fashion about such things. Just his way, I suppose. I am always permanently signed into Wikipedia, so it's not difficult to know when I am truly the one talking to you. I'll take care of this business on my end, with my figurative-speaking friend. In the meantime, if you like, you can go to http://www.panflutejedi.com/artistpage.html , and learn all about me that you will ever be pleased to ask for.

hfycfb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.44.201 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

pan flute

I have to say that i am suprised tha wikipedia have more information on the pan flute

For ,me it was very helpful!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.10.54 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There is much more information concerning the pan flute to be found, than that which is on Wikipedia, certainly. You will not see it here, because the Wiki page police that patrol this page are somewhat arbitrary in their choice of that which they will permit to be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.68.206 (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The major blind spot of the Wiki-Editors (aside from a predeliction for applying their rules rather unevenly) is that they do not understand the following: much that is known and understood about the pan flute is unverifiable in the traditional sense, for much (most, rather) of its history was never documented, and therefore little or no verification is available, aside from the accounts of panflutists themselves, and the research of a few panflutists who have spent many years assembling the available evidence. While the Wiki-Editors, doubtlessly, have the unenviable task of winnowing the proverbial wheat from the chaff, they would nevertheless benefit from stepping beyond their own notions, and consulting with those who have spent decades in this particularly obscure (but nevertheless intriguing) corner of musicology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panflutejedi (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Pan_flute

Is the instrument Traditional and is the panflute the instrument in the picture

(95.147.252.182 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC))

Math!

I may be wrong here, but I believe a better way of writing the formula L = (c / f) / 4 would be L = c / (4 * f) or even just L = c / 4f. I can't think of any way the first would be better, but I could easily be wrong, so I was just wanting to get some opinions on it first. Toastnbacon (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

African pan flutes

African Wind Instruments: The Nyanga Pan Pipes And Kudu Horns. Hope this might help. Komitsuki (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What is this article supposed to be about?

The siku and syrinx are completely different instruments! They're of similiar structure and method, but ultimately of different origins. And this article can't seem to decide whether it's talking about panflutes as a whole or a singular instrument. What is going on here? What is this article supposed to be describing?Artheartsoul1 (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ancestor of harmonica and pipe organ? Maybe not

I deleted the uncited claim about the pan flute being the earliest mouth organ and the ancestor of the pipe organ and harmonica. There was no citation and the passive voice didn't tell us who thought that. In any event, there is good reason to believe it is simply wrong. Harmonicas and pipe organs use fundamentally different modes of sound production from that of the pan flute. Although sheng-type harmonicas have similar-looking tubes and organs have pipes, that alone does not show a connection, much less one of ancestry. If authors want to make that claim, find a source that shows the connection and backs it up.

-Fenevad (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Article title should be "Panpipes"

The usual rule on Wikipedia is that articles should be titled with their most usual English language name. I was a little surprised to see it called "Pan flute" because I have never heard that name before; asking around the room, no-one else here had heard it before, either. Checking on Google Ngram viewer supports this: Ngrams of grouped variant names As with many compound words, there has been much variation on whether it should be one word, two words, or hyphenated. However these variants are an order of magnitude more common than the rather obscure (and also fairly novel) flute variants.

As for which variant of "panpipes" should be used: Ngrams of individual variations Here we see that while preferences have waxed and waned -- and all are common enough to warrant a redirect -- the variant "panpipes" has been the most common for 100 years. In fact for large parts of that period, it has been more common than all other variants put together.

As an interesting aside, the chart seems to suggest that this is probably due to Peter Pan. Prior to 1904, "panpipes" was the second-least common variant. All of its surges in usage coincide with major Peter Pan films. Of course, you don't get the hyphenation from a film; but perhaps people who liked the film went out and bought the book.

-- 122.200.24.28 (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am also very surprised that the present article is entitled "Pan flute". The Google ngram-viewer shows clearly that the name "panpipes" is by far the most common; "pan flute" and "panflute" barely figure. (See this link.) In view of this the article should be moved to "Panpipes", although first it will be necessary to delete the redirect page of that name. Kanjuzi (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Please start a formal WP:RM discussion. I see article-history evidence that this might be opposed by some editors. DMacks (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I listed the article but it seems nothing happened and the record seems to have disappeared. Shall I try again? It seems to me obvious that the title should be Panpipes, since this is much the most common name according to Google ngram-viewer. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

All you did was list it as an uncontroversial/obvious move. This is now the third time I'm telling you that this is not uncontroversial, and therefore simply telling an admin "please move it for me" is not going to work. Instead, and now for the third or maybe fourth time, "please start a formal WP:RM discussion." DMacks (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)