Talk:Vuvuzela/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit request from 193.106.165.65, 18 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the "Controversy" section, please remove the last line which reads, "Broadcasters have considered filtering the sound out of their broadcasts.[57]" This is misplaced and quite clearly stated other places in the article.

193.106.165.65 (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Done You're quite right. I rescued the ref from the orphan sentence in case it might be useful. toot toot! DBaK (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

external links

I suggest adding this below sentence with one of the links, it shows how Vuvuzela can be played alternatively. (The first one is purely about the technique, second is about the project; the choice is yours.) devenirchaud Devenirchaud (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• See various vuvuzela playing styles, by Dr. Bruce Copley and the Rainbow Vuvuzela ensemble project.

[1] OR [2]

Would someone please add this link to an article/photo of the giant vuvuzela mentioned in the article. Thank you.

http://af.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idAFJOE65H0MC20100618 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.133.145 (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks very much, good call. DBaK (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

lips or reed?

There is a reference to an early one being made from a car horn. They have a reed. Does the vuvuzela have a reed? That would explain how they all play the same note and not harmonics, and also how everyone who blows it seems to be able to get a good note, when as most people know, first attempts on a trumpet or bugle are usually a failure.--Hugh7 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Lips. This is dealt with in the text where it explains that it's a brass instrument technique. It is very easy to get a note out of a vuvuzela compared with a trumpet; conversely, it is quite difficult for an unskilled player to get anything much more than the first harmonic, hence the general sameness of the note you hear. Big short floppy wide-bored horn, huge mouthpiece, it just works. Trumpet: tighter, smaller pipe and mouthpiece, precision job, harder to lock in. At the stadiums, some will be getting the (near-) octave 2nd harmonic (or more!) but it'll probably get drowned out and blended into the lower one as they will be a smallish minority. The shape of the horn makes it just buzz - and pretty effortlessly - with its (rather high) fundamental but basically the higher you want to be able to go up the harmonic series the longer you need the horn to be, and the more appropriately-shaped the pipe, and the nicer the mouthpiece! If you look elsewhere on this Talk page under "recording" you can hear me nearly killing myself going for the 4th harmonic! It's nasty. And it hurt.Cheers,DBaK (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Bijou Notette: I unpacked a couple more vuvuzelas the other day and they have better, and less painful, mouthpieces than the first one I tried. If this dramatically effects the performance I might redo the recordings! :)DBaK (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

PS:

Nasty. :) DBaK (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Kuduzela

• Vuvuzela too loud? Wait for the kuduzela (telegraph.co.uk) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A request for circumstantial positivity

My excuses for the repetition (I have previously placed them in line with past threads). Here is couple of suggestions which may contribute to the 'positive' covering of the Vuvuzela article, however only circumstantially. Kind regards, Devenirchaud (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Yes you did indeed post this before and were rudely ignored. Sorry, that seems to happen sometimes: if it makes you feel better please search this page for my name and then check how many replies I get! :) I'm getting into a slight state of despair about this article at present so I am probably not the best person to comment here, lest I end up just saying "Burn and Salt"!!! But I feel guilty that you have been trying to help and no-one's even said boo (let alone "toot"!) so I will have a try. I only looked, so far, at the Bruce Copley things you sent so apologies for that, and if the other stuff is very different then I am doing it all an injustice, but my work-life-wiki balance can't take it! I can see what you are trying to do but I think it falls back to a fundamental flaw which I suppose is maybe notability, though I am not very good at the use of Wikipedia Terms of Art so it might be something else. You gave me a very good reply about flying cars, but that's still the issue. For more or less any wp topic I suspect we could find examples of novel uses, but these would not necessarily be worthy of inclusion. Most of Copley's stuff - and it is a very nice and clever extract, and I enjoyed it - is about playing the vuvuzela in a manner unlike a vuvuzela. It's a brass instrument but only one of his techniques is brass instrument technique - for the rest, almost any object would do as long as it offered an aperture or a tube. It's a novelty thing, but has nothing to do with the vuvuzela. You could, for example, find something on how to play a kettle, and put that in the kettle article, and then find something about cardboard rolls from inside posters, and put that in the article about posters. It reminds me a bit of a year or two back when more than a few articles were invaded for a while by some kind of lunatic spankophile, who insisted that since a hairbrush or a ruler could be used for the purpose it had to be faithfully recorded in every case. Since most objects which don't actually have a nail through them could presumably also be used for this purpose (no, I have not tried), you can see that this was not an approach that was sustainable. I assume he's now gone off and founded Spankopedia and is happy there, but meanwhile over here on wp I still feel it's a real problem to pursue trivial uses too much lest you end up having to mention every trivial use in every article. Category: things that can be made into a useful ashtray. Category: things that make a musical noise if you push them off a 100ft cliff into a pile of timpani. And so on. It's true that these things are out there, but I do not feel it is necessarily true that we have to report them.

Sorry, you've waited all this time for a reply and it's all just negativity and what's worse is I still feel guilty about you in maybe 2-3 different ways, 4 if I put my mind to it! I will try to look at the other sources you gave and that will take one off the list. For now, I still don't yet see anything which I feel needs to be in the article, even though I ought to be grateful for anything which looks like it helps balance it. I suppose that's my problem - the negativity is about the vuvuzela at and near matches, and we can't balance it with positive things about how lovely it is if you whistle or sing down one, because (effectively) no-one will do so, despite Copley's lovely video. The nice thing about wp though it that someone else may sort it out, or you might, or I might think about it some more, or all of the above, and more. Certainly, if the article were to be restructured out of its current horrid mess then there might be room for this more fringe, art-music stuff. Thanks again for your input. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the most slanted-sounding Wikipedia article I have ever read

The only people quoted as supporting the use of the vuvuzela are in the Controversy section, way at the end of the article. The intro lists a lot of accusations people have thrown at it (hearing loss, spread of disease, etc.), which is not what I expect from a Wikipedia article intro. Would it not be enough to say that the vuvuzela has sparked lots of controversy and put the quotes and claims in the article proper?

To me, the way it's organized (lots of negative stuff at the very beginning, the positive buried at the end) makes the whole thing read very slanted to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseyroberson (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're sort-of right. This issue is already mentioned, several times, above. (I had said "and adding more new topics complaining about it all again with slightly different wording doesn't exactly help" but that's a bit snotty and maybe, on reflection, it does! So instead I will say thanks for raising it again). The problem is that although plenty of people recognize the issue, no-one seems to be willing to tackle it. There's not actually that much wrong with the content. The negative claims are all/mostly supported by references and it is hardly surprising that they are in the majority since this seems quite a good reflection of coverage. As said several times before in this talk page, it'll calm down eventually but it's almost bound to be a bit unbalanced during this somewhat hysterical period. I do not agree entirely with what you say about the order though I think you're right about the lead, just not the rest. The complaints come first since they make all the noise, then the attempts to counter them come afterwards, as they do in real life. It's very hard to see what's wrong with this. It would be weird to start with the defence of the instrument then explain what it was defending against. Where you are absolutely right is that the structure is screwed at the moment, especially in the matter of headers. Someone trying to improve the article did a big edit a while back and messed up, seeming to think that only positives should be put in under "controversy" and leaving all the negatives in what looks like the main body, though it isn't, really. Unfortunately it's not as simple as just moving the controversy header though it is tempting - there's two much of a mix of (at least) two lines of thought, one being historical (other tournaments vs the present one) and one being the controversy - vuvuzelas are good vs bad. I'd also quite like to just revert the whole thing to before the stupid edit, but we'd lose tons of work done since then so that comes over a bit nuclear ...

I do think this article is in a real mess at the moment, or at least a bit of a mess. We've got all these different lines which are mixed. We've got the origin problem. We've got a lot of people, me included, who think/hope they know a bit but don't really have access to authoritative sources, which leads to a horrible anecdotal approach with people reaching backwards in time - yeah, I remember one being played at Middlesbrough in 1921, etc. Everyone knows about vuvuzelas but no-one knows about vuvuzelas. And finally, because it is a hot topic, we've got the world and his wife plus Colin the dog popping in for a go, which is nice in a way but can be dispiriting to editors who are used to working in calmer waters. Well, alright, to me then. My problem is that I can see lots of ways that this article is wrong but I am not sure I am the right person to sort them out. Actually I am sure I am not. As a trumpet player, and one with a special interest in this kind of (non-art-music) topic, I'm pretty pro-vuvuzela biased, and I am having trouble containing my impatience with the negativity and the fact that some people just want it to be www.ihatevuvuzelas.com.

What occurs to me is that there's some sort of guild of copy editors or some such title (they have a round table I hope, or at least enamel badges) and I don't know if they have someone who would help. Maybe I will ask. Cheers, and sorry for the long ramble, DBaK (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have put the {{Copyedit}} tag on here and asked for help on the Guild's page. To be honest I am not sure that copy editing per se is what I am asking for, but I hope it is, and the expanded tag talks of "cohesion" which is definitely an issue here. Further, I note that they have a backlog of 7000+ articles, which is slightly worrying. Nevertheless maybe someone will show up to give a hand. Otherwise it's just us lot! :( Toot toot! DBaK (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: On a lighter note, sorry, I meant to add, Casey, that if it is true that "This is the most slanted-sounding Wikipedia article I have ever read" then I fear you haven't read enough Wikipedia articles. This one certainly has its problems but isn't even breaking sweat in getting its slant on, compared with plenty of others! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What unique about this one-sided faux "Controversy" section is that it contains lengthy rebuttals defending the numerous and constant blowing of vuvuzelas against arguments opposing their use which don't appear in this section. The rebuttals ought to be moved to the sections which discuss the alleged problems. This isolated section could only be titled "Response to Criticism". patsw (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bubuzella

There needs to be a redirect thingy so that a search for 'bubuzella' directs here. I could not find the page for a long time because I thought it started with a 'b' not a 'v' and it certainly sounds like a 'b' not a 'v'. Someone who knows how this sort of things gets done should please do it. If you do a google search the bubuzella turns up. Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.132.157 (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done A quick google search shows that this is a plausible spelling mistake so I've just set up a redirect. I've done this for both bubuzella and bubuzela. I'm not sure if these terms are spelling mistakes or alternative names, but they both seem to be in wide use according to a google search. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually someone beat me to bubuzella, but I've modified it to eliminate a double redirect. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite! :) DBaK (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. You people are good! 71.17.132.157 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The theory of Vuvuzela is much older than you nthink

The Hindus are blowing conch shells in their religious rituals for more than four thousand years. The technique is the same as a modern Vuvuzela. Hence the man claims to INVENT it in 1965 is a fraud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.171.241 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this helps us. The article makes it clear that the guy "claims" to have invented it, but does not state that he did so, and it already makes it clear that there are lots of known sightings of it before its (re-)emergence in SA. Furthermore, you have to read not more than twenty words into the whole article before it tells you it is a "blowing horn", and if you follow that link you get educated even more! :) Given these facts, I'm not sure what you would like the article to do about this. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Image request

Does anyone have a photo of the mouthpiece portion of a vuvuzela that they could upload? — RockMFR 04:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela mouthpiece

Hi, I've taken a few pictures for you. Same instrument, a few different angles, with and without a ruler. Please see:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vuvuzela_mouthpiece_1_without_ruler.jpg

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vuvuzela_mouthpiece_1_with_ruler.jpg

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vuvuzela_mouthpiece_2_without_ruler.jpg

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vuvuzela_mouthpiece_2_with_ruler.jpg

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vuvuzela_mouthpiece_3_without_ruler.jpg

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vuvuzela_mouthpiece_3_with_ruler.jpg

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vuvuzela_mouthpiece_4_without_ruler.jpg

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vuvuzela_mouthpiece_4_with_ruler.jpg

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vuvuzela_mouthpiece_5_without_ruler.jpg

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vuvuzela_mouthpiece_5_with_ruler.jpg

These are all on Commons but a standard syntax of the form [[Image:Vuvuzela mouthpiece 1 with ruler.jpg|thumb|300px|Vuvuzela mouthpiece]] would get it into the article.

Hope this helps. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, great contribution! Thank you for taking the photographs and sharing them. Davtra (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You are certainly dedicated to this article, DBaK. I wonder how one of these images might be appropriately incorporated into the article, though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think one will be enough. There are so many choices . Davtra (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@Davtra: My pleasure, thanks. Less stressful than text! :) @GW: Dunno, I just wanted to meet the user's request, since I could. I'm agnostic on their use! :) I'm trying to get less dedicated to this article, as it happens ... Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@DBaK Yes, it certainly is. If the image was to be added in article, I think the one with the ruler is best. I don't have a vuvuzela, so I'm not familiar with its size. Just by looking at the image, it conveys a lot of information. Plus it's a close up photograph of a real vuvuzela. Davtra (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the image shown on this thread (the first image with ruler) is probably the most appropriate one. It's just a matter of where to place it so that it benefits the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Other types of vuvuzelas

Are these horns blown in the same indescriminate, incessant manner as they are in South Africa ? Or are they blown in rhythm, after goals and other noteworthy events in a match ?--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The plastic version of these were available in Argentina already in the early 1980's, if not even before that. I remember them exactly in red as in the photo. If memory serves well, they were not played incessantly but blown in some rudimentary rythms (they are not that easy to handle many people could not get a sound out of them) or blown after noteworthy events in the match.--Jorge Pullin talk 09:30, 28 June 2009 (Central Time)

And these have been available in the US for a number of years. I bought and used one at minor league hockey games about 2000 or 2001. Of course, I did not blow it incessantly, only to celebrate goals or to spur the team on at critical times.--Wschart (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We had one while growing up in Silicon Valley in the 1970s and 1980s. And they have been an obnoxious presence in the stands of Oakland A's games since at least the 1980s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatkins679 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I had one of these horns in thin plastic back in the mid 60's, bought here in the USA at a college football (American football) stadium. Other people had them too, so I question the dates in the article. -NKB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.138.92 (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That orange one pictured in the article looks like the one my brother got 30 years ago. Back then he was (perhaps still is) a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. It used to annoy me and the family when he blew it, but from a distance (i.e. radio), I kinda like it. It does sound like bees or hornets. ;-)205.189.194.208 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention of the Central/Latin American horns that plague games in that region but make exactly the same noise. I'm not sure what they're called, but there should be some mention of their relation to the South African variety in this article.Ellsass (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember red horns, very similar to the picture, were sold at the Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) in Toronto back in the 60's. I also question the dates in the article. Blue horns were available in the 70's from the CNE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.138.117 (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember them, too. Similar horns have been widely used throughout North America since the 60s. The important difference may be in the technique -- in North America they're blown with a trumpet embouchure, or like a post horn. John FitzGerald (talk)

I just noticed this issue is settled definitively below. Again, though, I think the important difference is in the embouchure. John FitzGerald (talk)

I don't see how the following discussion resolves this issue at all. Surely the fact that similar instruments have been widely available in North America and elsewhere for at least 25 years or more is worthy of being referenced in the article. Ikester (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela

The World Cup is here! And the world has been (noisily) introduced to the Vuvuzela. My question is: Is there a collective noun for VUVUZELAS? Or can we "create" one? DJ3007 (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really the place. Wikipedia is not a forum and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day... Zaian (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations there on a splendidly po-faced response to what was almost certainly a light-hearted comment. Jesus. 90.217.137.126 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if we didn't get the joke, but you would not believe some of the things people suggest here in all seriousness. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but "splendidly po-faced" is frankly unfair. The folk asked a question, I gaves the answer. Zaian (talk)

It's called "a po-face of vuvuzelas", on wiki at least.Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's called "a murmuring of innumerable vuvuzelas" --Hugh7 (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Let's remember that the talk pages are NOT forums! (sorry to rain on your parade) Thanks Dockofusa (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

trademark quarrel

Mention this: several companies attempt to claim a trademark on the term "vuvuzela" despite it is a generic local language term for the instrument and thus unpatentable.

• One company is: http://www.vuvuzela-europe.com/
• For info see: http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/307/44495.html "Vuvuzela is in public domain"

89.50.58.21 (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I removed a WP:DRIVEBY NPOV tagging because I feel very strongly that people need to do what the policy clearly states, which is very much not to driveby-tag. Nevertheless, the tag for NPOV may have had some justice to it as the article does seem very imbalanced in favour of negative views of the vuvuzela. Can this be fixed? Is it a real bias or just a reflection of what is out there, or what?? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's inevitable that the article will be dominated by the overwhelmingly negative media attention that has been put on the subject in the last few days. That said, we should still be careful to write as neutrally as possible -- write about the controversy but don't endorse it, etc. The recent edit that took out all of those ridiculous Internet petitions was a good start, for example. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously it is difficult at the moment while feelings are running high and there is so much press. It's at times like this that I like to remind myself that it's nice that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a news service, because it gets (for me) a bit rubbish when we push too far that way. In a few weeks this will all have calmed down a bit and lost its urgent focus. For the moment, I still think there's a bit of a balance problem - the controversy pretty much defines the article, there's less about what it is and more about its effect than I'd think balanced, and the lead goes into much detail that could perhaps be lower down. You know, there's a lot going on in there that reads a bit like we're trying to get everything into one paragraph - for example the SIX different descriptions and figures of speech for the sound are fun, but might be more appropriate further down than crammed into the lead. However, like I say it will all blow (aha) over and can be looked at calmly in late July when it will present a somewhat different aspect. :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to compliment everyone. Given the nature of the subject matter, this is actually quite a decent Wikipedia page.66.92.37.74 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I don't speak for anyone except me and I have only played a very small part, but, off my own bat, thank you for noticing. It has been an interesting time! :) Toot toot!! DBaK (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree; the article isn't particularly NPOV given the controversy and the (deserved ;-) negative media attention. I'm in favor of removing the NPOV tag. smurfix (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If people conclude that the article is neutral, the tags can be removed. However, I'll place the clean-up/rewrite tag to those sections. The article isn't well structured and written yet. Davtra (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A request for circumstantial positivity

My excuses for the repetition (I have previously placed them in line with past threads). Here is couple of suggestions which may contribute to the 'positive' covering of the Vuvuzela article, however only circumstantially. Kind regards, Devenirchaud (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

External links

• The Vuvuzela Orchestra. [3]

• See various vuvuzela playing styles, by Dr. Bruce Copley and the Rainbow Vuvuzela ensemble project. [4] & [5]

In popular culture

• The Dutch pop duo, Gebroeders Ko has made a song titled “Vuvuzela” for the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa. [6]