Talk:Jew's harp

Another early use of jaw harp

"The "jaw" variant is attested at least as early as 1774[10] and 1809,[11]"

See also Blue Laws (Connecticut), no. 35.

2001:171B:2274:7C21:C822:E68:E89D:BE33 (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This article contained a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory puboishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog.

The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.

Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

German composer Carl Orff is missing

While Koch and Eulenstein get mentioned the composer who will be most recognized by Germans for use of the Maultrommel or Jew's harp is Carl Orff. Many Germans are first introduced to the instument through Orff's Schulwerk music education pieces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Orff Please add. 2600:1700:1C60:45E0:B531:4DBA:1E06:66F7 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Orff's article didn't appear to me to mention his use at all. That said, if you have one or more sources, you're welcome to add the information yourself. DonIago (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Name change (10 years on)

The previous attempt at a name change was misguided, seemingly based on an incorrect etymology. Such is obviously not a valid reason for a change. However, I do think there is a valid reason.

I would propose the article itself be moved to the more neutral "jaw harp." This is still a common name for the instrument, and there is precedent for choosing the most neutral common name available. Plus I find that term "jaw harp" seems to have won out in more modern sources on the topic. If "Jew's harp" is mentioned, it's mentioned as an alternate or older name.

Sure, "Jew's harp" has a longer history of use, but there is no "original names" policy on Wikipedia. What is important is usually that the name is common (per the policy linked above). Wikipedia also strives for neutrality, and this essay mentions this also being applied to titles. And I'd propose it doesn't make a lot of sense for a constantly updating encyclopedia to have fossilized titles, using terms that are falling out of favor.

— trlkly 01:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a casual Google search (assuming I did it right) yields substantially more results for "jaw harp" than "Jew's harp". 4M versus 1.3M. DonIago (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

it should be moved to Jaw harp, I agree Always beleive in hope (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I've requested that the page be moved at WP:RMT. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I've initiated a discussion at WP:MR, since I think moving a page from such a longstanding title needs more discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The move review was closed since there was no requested move to review. A new move request can be started initiated per WP:RSPM. Vpab15 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please take the steps necessary to revert this page back to its original name. There is ample recent evidence in contrast to your claim.

The International Jews Harp Congress, the only international festival of its kind which unites jews harps musicians, academics, blacksmiths, and fans took place in Berlin, Germany on July 27, 2022.

https://jewsharpsociety.org/9th-international-festival

https://www.ufafabrik.de/en/20343/9-internationales-maultrommelfestival.html

There is a lengthy review of this exact controversy in the beginning Micheal Wright's book, The Jews-Harp in Britain and Ireland, published in 2015.

https://www.routledge.com/The-Jews-Harp-in-Britain-and-Ireland/Wright/p/book/9781472414137

Diedre Morgan has published her thesis on the instrument in 2017. The title, "Speaking in Tongues: Music, Identity, and Representation in Jew's Harp Communities." She too, goes in great detail regarding why she chose to use the name, Jew's Harp over any alternative name. Her new book is entitled, "Jew’s Harps and Metal: Folk Traditions in Global Modernity" is due to be published in the upcoming years.

https://www.academia.edu/35053173/Speaking_in_Tongues_Music_Identity_and_Representation_in_Jews_Harp_Communities_PhD_dissertation_

https://www.deirdremorgan.com/news/2022/10/24/new-book-under-contract-with-routledge-jews-harps-amp-metal-music-folk-traditions-in-global-modernity

The nomenclature of the world's largest event that is centred around this instrument and current researchers use of Jew's Harp is in direct opposition to your personal views on changing the well established and currently dominant name. Concluding Jew's Harp is a "fossilized title" is simply in error.

The primary growth in the term, Jaw Harp, likely stems from a single youtuber who has recently had a couple viral videos in which he refers to the instrument. In these videos, he refers to the instrument as Jaw Harp: https://www.youtube.com/@bebbcorpharpery7331/featured

A single youtuber doesn't warrant a change in established and currently active nomenclature. Researchers and academics on the subject use the term, "Jew's Harp." The most prominent players and blacksmiths use the term, "Jew's Harp." These facts cannot be overlooked. It is disappointing that proper research has not been done when changing the name of a page.

When changes are made without conducting proper research is why people lose confidence in the accuracy of Wikipedia, a resource we all love. 24.150.179.240 (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Range of the instrument is not correct

The range of the mouth harp is an interesting topic and is not a one size fits all. It could also vary (slightly?) from person to person due to different shapes of people's mouths. The notes a mouth harp can make are the higher harmonics (of the frequency at which the mouth harp vibrates) that your mouth is able to reinforce. Your mouth can only contort to reinforce frequencies in a particular range. Think of whistling, it works the same way. The range of your whistle is the range of frequencies your mouth can reinforce (while in a whistling shape, which is not the same as a mouth harp playing shape). Personally, I find my mouth can reinforce frequencies in a range roughly 500 Hz - 3000 Hz. So let's look at an example. G2 is 97.9986 Hz, we'll call it 98. The notes I should be able to hit are the multiples of 98 that fall within that 500 - 3000 range. These are the 6th through 30th harmonics inclusive! The lower the base frequency, the higher the number of the lowest harmonic we can hit, but also the more harmonics we can pack into our range. In my experience, the lower the harmonic (as in the number of the harmonic, not the frequency), the more clear and beautiful the tone, so it is preferable to play as low as you can play comfortably if you're trying to play melodies. There is talk on this page of using two mouth harps, one tuned a 4th above the other, to achieve, I guess some superset of a major scale. But if your mouth harp is tuned low enough to have both the 16th and 32nd harmonic in your range (e.g. C2), that is a chromatic octave right there (16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 27 29 30 32)

Taking a look at the chart we currently have, it says a "tenor" mouth harp (not sure what that means) has a range from the 4th harmonic to the 12th harmonic. This is a factor of x3 between the lowest and highest note. My roughly 500 Hz - 3000 Hz range is a factor of x6. Unless I happen to have double the range of a normal human (and I don't think this likely), this chart is just plain wrong. There is no way to my knowledge to design a mouth harp that is limited to this range, you will either be able to go below 4, or above 12.

sources: Me, as a player of the instrument, and varganist.ru

I would like to edit this article to make changes regarding these things. But I'm hesitant to proceed without some guidance. I'm not sure if I should try to add a different note thing to replace the old one, nor am I sure how much of the information above is appropriate to include, as this is Wikipedia, not a mouth harp playing guide.

Mason Mackaman (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to alternative Jew's harp. Consensus emerged for the alternative name. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 01:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Jaw harp → Jew's Harp – The name, Jew's Harp has been firmly established in academia and international festivals which focus on the instrument. It is still the most common active name.

The International Jews Harp Congress, the only international festival of its kind which unites jews harps musicians, academics, blacksmiths, and fans took place in Berlin, Germany on July 27, 2022. https://jewsharpsociety.org/9th-international-festival https://www.ufafabrik.de/en/20343/9-internationales-maultrommelfestival.html

There is a lengthy review of this exact controversy in the beginning Micheal Wright's book, The Jews-Harp in Britain and Ireland, published in 2015. https://www.routledge.com/The-Jews-Harp-in-Britain-and-Ireland/Wright/p/book/9781472414137

Diedre Morgan has published her thesis on the instrument in 2017. The title, "Speaking in Tongues: Music, Identity, and Representation in Jew's Harp Communities." She too, goes in great detail regarding why she chose to use the name, Jew's Harp over any alternative name. Her new book is entitled, "Jew’s Harps and Metal: Folk Traditions in Global Modernity" is due to be published in the upcoming years. https://www.academia.edu/35053173/Speaking_in_Tongues_Music_Identity_and_Representation_in_Jews_Harp_Communities_PhD_dissertation_ https://www.deirdremorgan.com/news/2022/10/24/new-book-under-contract-with-routledge-jews-harps-amp-metal-music-folk-traditions-in-global-modernity 24.150.179.240 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It was moved without sufficient discussion in the first place. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• COMMENT, does anyone have the ngrams? Not sure what the useage is.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Absolutely Oppose: Firstly, the Ngram, as one user mentioned, shows the term falling out of favor with academia. Secondly, the term "jaw harp" refers to a family of international instruments (e.g., the temir komuz or dàn môi) of which none are known by their country of origin as anything other than jaw harps. This is an international encyclopedia, despite using English. And since really only some Western scholars use the term, I prefer to use the more international, neutral, and correct term. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  The term, Jew's Harp, has been and is continuously supported by academia, as proven in the links above. The term, Jew's Harp, does refer to family of international instruments that you mentioned. "Jaw Harp" is not a recognized instrument internationally. Believe it or not, but the international word for the instrument is in fact, "Jew's Harp" as illustrated by the International Jew's Harp Society, which hosts board member from both Western and Non-Western countries. Please see: https://jewsharpsociety.org/who-we-are

  The Norwegians use the term, Jews Harp, in exchange of the local, Munnharpe. https://www.munnharpe.no/?lang=en

  The Yakutians (Russians) use the term, Jews Harp, in exchange for the local word, Khomus, during an international Jew's Harp playing competition in 2022: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52EI9pLd9Pw 208.72.125.4 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• oppose current name is slightly more common in recnet schoalrship [[1]] ,[[2]]—blindlynx 16:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Please show any recent scholarship that uses the term, "Jaw Harp". None such exist. 208.72.125.4 (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  A brief look at JStore under the search term Jaw Harp brought up 3,641 results. In many articles both Jew's harp and jaw/jaws harp is used together. Some samples:

  1972 On the Acoustics and the Systematic Classification of the Jaw's Harp, in the Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council, [3]

  1984 Functional Changes in Batak Traditional Music and Its Role in Modern Indonesian Society, Journal: Asian Music, [4], quote: music was normally individual music for solo instruments such as one of the several types of flutes, bamboo clarinet, paddy shawm, hasapi (the boat-shaped lute), jaw harp (genggong or saga-saga), tube zither, xylophone, or slit drum.

  1999, Lewis & Clarkiana, in Archaeology, [5], quote: They had a couple of fiddles, a tambourine, a jaw harp , and spoons

  1999, Tracking down the Trump: Jaw Harp Speculative Second Fiddle in the Expedition's Musical Ensemble, by Hugh Gildea [6] page 168

  2013 'If You Find Out Who Her Father is I Would Be Interested to Know' The Kwermin in an Eastern Min Context, in Oceania, quote: The jaw harp {tanam) This musical instrument is said...

  There are plenty of academic articles using both terms; however only one term is anti-Semetic. Jacqke (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  A brief look at JStore using the term Jew's Harp brought up 11,010 results.

  Clyne, A. (1928). The Jew’s Harp a Century Ago. The Musical Times, 69(1024), 508–509. http://www.jstor.org/stable/916388

  Crane, Frederick. “The Jew’s Harp as Aerophone.” The Galpin Society Journal, vol. 21, 1968, pp. 66–69. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/841429. Accessed 7 Feb. 2023.

  Ledang, O. K. (1972). On the Acoustics and the Systematic Classification of the Jaw’s Harp. Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council, 4, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/767676

  Kolltveit, G. (2009). THE JEW’S HARP IN WESTERN EUROPE: TRADE, COMMUNICATION, AND INNOVATION, 1150–1500. Yearbook for Traditional Music, 41, 42–61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25735478

  Nikolsky, A.V. (2020). “Talking Jew’s Harp” and Its Relation to Vowel Harmony as a Paradigm of Formative Influence of Music on Language. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/%E2%80%9CTalking-Jew%E2%80%99s-Harp%E2%80%9D-and-Its-Relation-to-Vowel-as-a-Nikolsky/f1ced922d9bf1662b618c93faa0667c34e7ff359

  The word 'Jew' is not antisemitic by default. Yaevinnn (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree it isn't anti-Semetic by default nor do I think it is widely used that way. As I wrote below, though, any perception of that should be taken seriously. To me that is the crux of the matter; it doesn't matter what the common usage is if it is wrong. I knew as a child that "Jew's harp" was not good. I saw that it was portrayed in American culture as backward and comical. Of course it isn't anti-Semetic...wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more... Jacqke (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  the google scholar link i provided has a 422 from the last ten years—blindlynx 19:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

•Support

Recognizability

- While there exists numerous academic articles using the terms, Jew's Harp and Jaw(s) Harp, more use the former, both presently and in the past.

Naturalness

- The reconizability doesn't entirely account for the casual use of the word, however. In an analysis of all newspapers published from 1750 to 1950 in Britain and Ireland, 90% of them used the term, Jew's Harp, when referencing the instrument.¹ This may be shifting recently, but there is a lack of evidence for such.

As mentioned above, the International Jews Harp Society hosts board members from around the world. It is still running and have recently conducted an international festival in 2022 using the term, Jew's Harp. This does appear to be the only international group dedicated to the instrument.

https://jewsharpsociety.org/fred-cranes-library

Precision

- Both fulfill this equally

Concision

- Both fulfill this equally

Consistency

- Both fulfill this equally

Finally, the possibility of an anti-semitic link is not cause for name change. The origin of the instrument's name in English is unknown and will likely always be. Many theories exist, but they are simply theories. There has also been no recent evidence of the name used in an antisemitic context.

1 Wright, Michael. The Jews-Harp in Britain and Ireland (SOAS Studies in Music). 1st ed., Routledge, 2015. Yaevinnn (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC) — Yaevinn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of MadTubeSock (talk · contribs).

Wow, another potential sock. I think there's a chance we should get an admin involved. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support While it may seem odd at first, the evidence presented here clearly shows a public international favoring of the proposed change. MadTubeSock (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)— MadTubeSock (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of MadTubeSock (talk · contribs).

This is your second ever edit on the encyclopedia (deleted content not included). I question whether you are a (like your name suggests) a sock puppet. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support, Jew's Harp appears to be far more common, both academically and casually. FranklinOfNull (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  According to whom? Other editors have claimed, with sources, that it's the other way around. DonIago (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, If there is a perception anywhere that Jew's harp is somehow anti-Semitic, then that view should be taken seriously. I find it believable that pasting Jew's on an object (that already has connotations of being backward or different) is not innocent. Someone had their little joke, at someone else's expense. Jacqke (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Lowercase "harp": The proposal, without explanation, includes changing "harp" to "Harp", and it's not a proper name. It should be lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Lowercase "harp": per BarrelProof. On the fuller question I am silent. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Jew's harp. Overwhelmingly common name in English-language sources for most of history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Dang, I didn't know history was the main reason to keep pages as is; as one user suggested above, let's rename African-American to negro; it wasn't until the 70s that the former became more popular, and the written record confirms that. As already shown above, the term jaw harp is slightly outpacing the term Jew's harp in modern academia. A historical basis is not a good one; we look to what modern researchers are using. Wikipedia is WP:NOT CENSORED, but if there's a chance that a name can be offensive when a suitable alternative exists, then I prefer the neutral alternative. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  if there's a chance that a name can be offensive when a suitable alternative exists, then I prefer the neutral alternative. Even if almost nobody ever uses it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Huh? You mean the hundreds of books and papers that use the term jaw harp? You can literally just look it up on Google to see people using it [7]. "Almost nobody" is pure editor opinion (and a frankly wrong one at that). Why? I Ask (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, come on, you know very well what the WP:COMMONNAME is! And unlike Negro, that has not changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:COMMONNAME: Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Oh come on, you know that defining an instrument as a "Jew's" harp can be potentially offensive. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  The fact still remains that Jew's Harp is more common, academically, commonly, and internationally. Please review your research further, this statement cannot be reliably backed up: "the term jaw harp is slightly outpacing the term Jew's harp in modern academia." 208.72.125.4 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Look, I hope you genuinely like the name out of nostalgia. The desire to bring it back worries me. It does not matter if Jews harp outpaces jaw/jaws harp 3-to-1 in the real world. The world that was innocent enough to create that name is gone. Jew's harp is an old fashioned term that has more than a little bit of anti-Semitism associated with it, a way to sneak it into your child's vocabulary. It is offensive and frankly needs to go the way of some other old words from the 19th and 20th centuries. So what if it's not the top term-- everyone who types it in will be led to the same article--where they will find their favorite epithet in bold in the first paragraph. Google will still bring up the Wikipedia page because the old term is part of the article. The only thing different will be a page that has joined the 21st century, it's editors choosing to put aside a not-quite clean or innocent reminder that making fun of others is a great way to make them into the other. Jacqke (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oh come on, you know that defining an instrument as a "Jew's" harp can be potentially offensive. Why would it be? Given that "Jew" is not considered to be an offensive term? It's no more offensive than French horn! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Completely different circumstances; the French horn was made and used by the French. It is part of their culture. The same cannot be said of the Jew's harp where it is not part of the culture. And even if some or even a small minority find it offensive, there is not reason not to use the just-as-common term in recent times, jaw harp. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't explain why anyone would offended by the term. If it used a pejorative then I would understand, but it does not. There is no right not to be offended in any case, particularly if most people aren't. And I'm sorry, but just as common? No way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment References are being made to ngram evidence but I am not actually seeing any such evidence. The apostrohe in Jew's is problematic for a normal search but apparently, it is not insurmountable. I just don't know myself how to overcome the problem. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. We do not capitalize names of musical instruments except where they contain a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Note that the lowercase form has also been proposed in the discussion above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support (with lowercase "harp") per common usage and arguments above. Ngram won't recognize apostrophe, but Google Scholar results for "Jew's harp" (383) plus "Jews harp" (287) are greater than the 422 for "jaw harp". —  AjaxSmack  07:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  there is a tonne of overlap between those two i'm not sure a straight addition works to show dominant usage—blindlynx 19:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  There is a small amount of overlap (e.g. a source that uses "Jew's harp", but cites a URL with "jews-harp"), but after checking the first couple of pages of results, I was surprised at how little duplication there was. If you're seeing something I'm not, let me know. —  AjaxSmack  20:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note to closer Someone has been attempting to sway consensus here by votestacking; I have struck through a couple of votes by socks above. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Health impact?

Is it possible to damage your enamel by playing it? 37.47.201.21 (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus in favor of the proposed move, and sufficient opposition to the move to make relisting unlikely to result in a different outcome. BD2412 T 18:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Jew's harp → Jaw harp – "Jew harp" has only 3,50,000 results, "Jew's harp" has only 1,75,000 results, but "Jaw harp" has 6,50,000 results on Google, while "Mouth harp" has 5,42,000 results.

"Jaw harp" is the WP:COMMONNAME.

Not only that, but "Jew's harp" is treated as anti-semitic by a number of sources.[8][9] This is yet another reason why we should avoid using this title. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the page-move discussion that's barely a thread above this proposal? If not, I would suggest that you do so, as that's barely a year old and your statement doesn't indicate that you're considering or addressing the points raised there. DonIago (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a neutral name. Jew's harp#Etymology confirms this instrument has nothing to do with the Jews. We should avoid the derogatory word. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous RM. Very clear common name. I get considerably more hits for Jew's harp and Jew harp on Google than for Jaw harp. Of the sources cited above that describe it as anti-Semitic, one is from a novel in which one character says another finds it offensive. The other is from a book actually called The Jews-Harp in Britain and Ireland which goes on to explain that it is the common name and is wrongly perceived to be anti-Semitic as nobody really knows why it is so-called! And "Jew" is not a "derogatory word"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessarily that it's derogatory. It just misrepresents the instrument and its history. I would liken it to the misrepresentation of Native Americans as Indians: There are plenty of academic and historical sources that call Native Americans "Indians". Members within the communities (of the instrument and the indigenous people) may either find it offensive or promote it. But we can assure that we won't misrepresent anyone with the neutral, common title of "Jaw harp" (or "Mouth harp", as a slightly less common alternative). The fact that the Wright book even talks about a controversy means that we should probably avoid it altogether. This is obviously one reason. The other is that calling Chinese or African mouth harps "Jew's harps" is dumb. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can't find any evidence that "jaw harp" is a common name, or that it has overtaken the name "Jew's harp" in the musical community. Nearly every reputable reference — [10], [11], [12], etc. – uses the original name, which seems unrelated to the Jewish people. As a Jewish person, I might wince at this, but it's not our prerogative to invent something and call it right.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Per my arguments on the previous move discussion. Jaw harp more accurately refers to the family of instruments. (Why would you call the Đàn môi from Vietnam a Jew's harp?) It also is just as common in academia without potentially being misconstrued as anti-Semitic. (People arguing that mouth or jaw harp are uncommon terms are wrong; ask me, and I can provide no less than 20 academic sources.) At the very least, Jew's needs to be de-capitalized to become the non-possesive jews harp, which is another preferred manner for several academics, such as Michael Wright. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. "Jaw harp" is more commonly used. For example, this book by David Holt is using "Jaw harp".[13] desmay (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the ngram evidence and google scholar evidence, Jew's harp is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. "Evidence" by assertion that it is otherwise is not evidence and evidence that certain sources use Jaw harp does not address the criteria of COMMONNAME, which requires us to survey a representative sample of sources (not just find sources that support one argument or the other and who can find the most sources). On the use of search results per the advice at COMMONNAME, searches of sources such as ngrams and google scholar are much preferred over more general google searches such as those provided by the nom. As commented previously, the name is no different from French horn. The assertion being made is that one can't say Jehovah Jew without offending someone and getting stoned (by rocks - not the other sort of stoned). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, the difference is the French horn is actually related to the French and there's a neutral page that already covers the family of instruments from other cultures (e.g., Horn (instrument)). Meanwhile, the Jew's harp is not related to the Jewish people at all and doesn't neutrally describe the family of instruments. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support (STRONGLY) per reasons listed by nominator and User:Why? I Ask. It's a significantly more neutral name — and the two terms are definitely quite close in popularity. Why not go with the more neutral name, truly. Also, since there's a controversy over whether the name is anti-semitic, why not avoid that controversy entirely.

Also, with what User:Why? I Ask said above: "Jaw harp more accurately refers to the family of instruments. (Why would you call the Đàn môi from Vietnam a Jew's harp?) [Jaw harp] is also just as common in academia without potentially being misconstrued as anti-Semitic." Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

And, the other point made by User:Why? I Ask sums it up really well: "It's not necessarily that it's derogatory. It [also] misrepresents the instrument and its history. I would liken it to the misrepresentation of Native Americans as Indians: There are plenty of academic and historical sources that call Native Americans "Indians". Members within the communities (of the instrument and the indigenous people) may either find it offensive or promote it. But we can assure that we won't misrepresent anyone with the neutral, common title of "Jaw harp" (or "Mouth harp", as a slightly less common alternative). The fact that the Wright book even talks about a controversy means that we should probably avoid it altogether." Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

AND, WP:COMMONNAME states: Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

...And, there's another point that's VERY apt, by @Jacqke: "If there is a perception anywhere that Jew's harp is somehow anti-Semitic, then that view should be taken seriously. I find it believable that pasting Jew's on an object (that already has connotations of being backward or different) is not innocent."

So yeah, definitely support. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, not convinced it's the COMMONNAME. And not convinced it's offensive either.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Commonly used name and it is not considered offensive by anybody unlike the current article title. Dympies (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the ngrams and other comments here and in the 20203 RM above. The present title appears to be the common and long-term name, and the instrument is only offensive to the ear. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per evidence I and others presented in the previous RM 13 months ago. —  AjaxSmack  17:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support clearly a common name and not problematic like the existing title. What happened in the previous RM is irrelevant to this ongoing RM. Azuredivay (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. My opinions on this have not changed since the last time this was discussed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the reasoning in the last RM. Jew's harp appears to be the common name, and there's no evidence anyone particularly considers it to be offensive.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.