Talk:Vuvuzela/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

2010 FIFA World Cup controversy

http://www.vuvuzelapetition.org has called a petition to ban the vuvuzela from the 2010 FIFA World Cup. quote: "The noisy vuvuzela horns that South African fans promise to bring to this summer's World Cup games were widely assailed during last summer's Confederations Cup by coaches, players and TV broadcasters and viewers. Yet FIFA refused to ban them while calling them a South African soccer tradition.

Let us let the vuvuzela go and get that singing spirit back. Pro passion, emotions, singings, chants and world cup feeling! Against Vuvuzela! Sign the petition now!"

Maybe this should be added since fans all over the world are complaining about the noisy sound and the lack of atmosphere (chants, singing, "oohs" and "aaahs"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metzgerr (talk • contribs) 05:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find a few more sources on it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The vuvuzela is not just a South African tradition, but an African tradition. Every single game on the continent is dominated by these horns. If you want a World Cup in Africa this is what you get. Sepp Blatter is even quoted as saying as much: http://www.1000goals.com/sepp-blatter-vuvuzelas-will-not-be-banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.39.219 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but no one outside of Africa and FIFA wanted an African world cup. Heck this was World Cup that was dedicated to African only bids. TPershiganv50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

Attempts to avoid the sound

I've marked this section as being somewhat advertisement-like since it lists some software which can be used to perform this function, where I feel it'd be more appropriate to instead discuss how it is done. There's nothing inherently wrong with mentioning software which can do it, but it'd be more appropriate if it was justified as to why these pieces of software are significant (which one first developed the technique(s), which one has been reviews as being most effective, etc.?) Comments welcome. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

They are all free software, serving a simple task, available to anyone with no costs. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Being free software doesn't necessarily mean that this isn't advertising, and without an explanation of why each piece of software is significant and relevant, I don't think this section is appropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wunsch regarding the tone. Further, I believe the "Technical measures" section covers the same material but in a more encyclopaedic fashion (describing the approaches taken rather than listing software). My suggestion is to remove the "Attempts to avoid the sound" section; however, I wrote half of the "Technical measures" section so I think another editor should make the judgment.--mcld (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed this section. You're right, it covers much the same information but with a focus on the means of filtering the sound rather than which companies have produced software to do it. I'll be bold and remove the "attempts to avoid the sound" section now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

I'm not sure why this article is protected, but someone should capitalize "World Cup" in the third to last paragraph. 68.82.179.158 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, like most semi-protected articles, this article has recently received a lot of vandalism from unregistered users, most likely as a result of the controversy during the world cup. If you need to request another edit to a semi-protected page, I'd recommend using the {{editsemiprotected}} template, as this will alert users who may be able to help review the change you are suggesting. Thanks for your contribution. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely, you must mean "controversy during the World Cup"? or am I just being controversial? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Being a bit picky there Martin; it may be necessary for a formal article, but I can't be bothered to capitalise it in a comment ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and I can't even be bothered replying to your comment about me being picky. As you can see. D'oh! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Main argument against

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs292.snc3/28260_403475273213_600513213_4528545_2186401_n.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looris (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Meaning? Davtra (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a guess, looks like the main argument against is that they never, ever stop. --98.232.209.203 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

vuvuzelas causes cancer

Many people assert that vuvuzelas cause cancer. Especially in hot climates when people blow strongly into them. The cancerous agent comes from paint pigments in the plastic. So according to scientists they should be avoided at all times.Please warn everyone at the world cup in SA so this epidemic can be stopped.124.38.87.83 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Which people assert this? Do they have any scientific evidence? According to which scientists? This sounds like a hoax to me; there are plenty of non-toxic plastics which would be safe for this type of instrument, so why would they use carcinogenic pigments? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Experience the Vuvuzela as YOU try to concentrate.

{{editsemiprotected}} My friend showed me this, thought it'd be interesting to add to the Wiki as a link or mention somewhere.

www.vuvuzela-time.co.uk "Browse the internet just like you're sat at the South Africa world cup with Vuvuzelas!" Kingofthekaiju (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please change your request to the format "please change X to Y" and try again. I don't see how this site has any relevance to the article, however; it seems like advertising to me. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(B♭3) note?

is that a typo? What is the 3 for? Kingturtle (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It's been there before I made the major edits. We need a musician.  Davtra  ^(talk) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not here. But if I was, I would have added Scientific pitch notation to the "3" just now, and mentioned it here. All it's telling you is it's the B flat below middle C. I think "B flat below middle C" is very roughly 1698.45% more meaningful to 78.32% of readers than the pitch notation, but I'm trying not to edit this article any more ... Byeee! :) DBaK (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's OK. You can take a peek but no touching the article .  Davtra  ^(talk) 12:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The "3" indicates which octave it is, it's a pretty common way of specifying the note, at least in the music analysis circles I move in. But maybe it's worth clarifying since it's at the head of the article, I'll add a bracket --mcld (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, mcld. It's great that you could clarify it for us.  Davtra  ^(talk) 12:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

South African English?

That South Africa flag seems quite appropriate up at the top of this talk page, but is this article really "written in South African English"? It looks very much like Britsh English to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw this I took a look at the page explaining the differences: essentially, it seems South African English has a few dialectical colloquialisms added, but is otherwise primarily British english with some american terms. Unless any of these South African (or American) terms arise, it's likely to be indistinguishable from British English. If you spot something which you think isn't correct South African English, be bold and change it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at this in case you're not fluent in South African English ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm not fluent, so I had a look. Shouldn't football be changed to soccer throughout this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not sure, the article about South African English doesn't seem completely clear about that, and for example it says "usually". It's probably not a good idea to change every instance of the word for the sake of "usually". I think this should be supported by finding some sources about the world cup written in South Africa, given that they're hosting it that shouldn't be too hard to find. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Like these maybe: [1], [2], [3] [4] [5]? But perhaps editors who actually live in South Africa and/or who are fluent in South African English should decide this? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I think the sources you've provided here demonstrate that "soccer" is the norm in South Africa, so to keep it in line with that I'm going to change each instance of "football" to "soccer" now. This can be further discussed here if other editors have issues with that change. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's  Done now; I used a script I threw together but manually reviewed each change since most occurrences of "football" were actually in quotes, references, wikilinks, etc. where they shouldn't be changed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh, apparently I killed the unicode. I'll try again in a sec. Another user fixed it already, never mind. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I thought the use of South African English would be most appropriate. I'm not familiar with South African English and I had to ask the Reference Desk about it. I'm about to submit a rewrite for the 2010 FIFA World Cup section. I wonder if there is a South African English dictionary online?  Davtra  ^(talk) 01:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I found this: http://www.oxford.co.za/dictionaries/southafrican/. If only there was online access.  Davtra  ^(talk) 11:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

World cup horns

This identical plastic horn was sold in the US when I was a kid, 40 years ago. What is its origin? Was it originally made in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.219.114 (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

At this stage, its origin is unknown.  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture?

The YouTube developers seem to think that vuvuzelas are disruptive. It's worth starting a popular culture heading to include this, I think. .Absolution. (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just send the boys at xkcd a written invitation? Josiah Stevenson 04:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiahstevenson (talk • contribs)

A mention by name in the alt attribute is, at best, provably circumstantial. .Absolution. (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this different from horns at Olympics?

Having watched various Olympics over the years (winter and summer), there seem to always have been people blowing horns at events where competitors race each other. Is this the same horn? If not, in what way do they differ? 70.50.63.63 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was wondering the same thing.. I've seen cheap plastic horns used at sporting events of all kinds in the US. A neighbor kid had one a few months back.. it was loud and annoying but didn't sound like "bees" --Frantik (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edit Rewrite Request

I'll be copy-editing (or rewriting) this article. Anyone is free to help as well . I looked at the article's history. It appears the article was structured and put together quickly. I won't do much today as I'll be heading off to bed. I'll try to get the first introductory paragraph in a good state. Davtra (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has so far been viewed +80,000 per day since 15 June 2010. Is this when things started to get messy? Anyways, as per Wikipedia's style guide, apply italics to vuvuzela. It's a foreign word and uncommon in everyday English, yes? Davtra (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Davtra and thank you very much for coming to help. As you know from my edit help request, I felt very strongly that we could do with some calm, uninvolved, outside help. To answer your points, as far as I am able (and again I'd be delighted to see others pitch in here):

• Certainly the article in its present form has developed pretty fast, yes, in response to current events. As we're not a news site, I think this is almost always a bad way to develop an encyclopaedia.
• I could not swear to the exact date but, yes, the rapid expansion and ensuing mess is pretty much contemporaneous with the World Cup! There was a bit of a flurry of activity last year when the Confederations Cup was on and it was discussed a fair bit. Since the World Cup, though, it has really become a major topic in the (British, at least) media and obviously this will reflect here ... to put it mildly.
  • Query: when you say "This article has so far been viewed +80,000 per day since 15 June 2010," where is that information? Sounds interesting, if ordinary people like me can access it!
    • It's accessible to everyone. Go to View history tab of article and click Page view statistics Davtra (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• The question of italics is a very interesting one: thank you for raising it. Actually, I think the word may already have jumped past foreignness to the point - in the UK at least - where it is already "common in everyday English" per MoS. If you are not here you might not see/hear this but I honestly, seriously don't think you could find an English speaker in the UK who does not use the word comfortably and know exactly what it means. More "quiche" than "weltanschauung", if you see what I mean. It will undoubtedly be in the next edition of all major BrE dictionaries and I very much doubt that it will be treated there as a foreign word - it's pretty much just slid (or honked) Its way into the language. I don't know the situation wrt South African English but I'd bet it's even further assimilated into mainstream English there. So, to stop waffling and to answer your question: no! :)
  • Note: When I claim that it's become common English usage, I am not sure how one could document or demonstrate this, without waiting for dictionaries to release new word-lists in a year or whatever. Hmmmm.
  • I think, for now, it is safe to apply italics on the word. Davtra (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I do hope, Davtra, that you will find a moment or two to read the rest of this Talk page where many editors' concerns about the structure are aired. Yes, I have an interest here, but so do lots of others. It's a mess of different strands, and in particular the Controversy bit has somehow become only the positive stuff, whereas the negative dominates the main body, and, in bizarre detail, the lead. This older version, though possessed of many other faults, certainly uses the Controversy material, and positions its header, in a way that makes a bit more sense. As I said before, it's not, in this article, that the material is necessarily bad, just that it's badly used at present. But I really am waffling badly now and should stop. Thanks and best wishes, toot toot, DBaK (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I spent two hours looking at the article, and I can't get pass the lead (introduction) section. This article is a complete mess. I'm not going to read the article from start to finish. I am going to check the references and see if they meet Wikipedia's criteria. If they do not, the reference and its associate contents will be removed without me reading the content. I believe this is the first step to cleaning this article. Davtra (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The references were not that bad. I removed a couple of stores and a personal blog. Davtra (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Purpose?

Can someone please tell me the purpose of using vuvuzelas? This needs to be added in lead section. After that, the "controversy" paragraph will flow nicely. Davtra (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

After doing some research, I found its purpose in academic journals (these are reliable). Davtra (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section

I rewrote the lead section, added new content and references. You may compare the current version with the old version. It will require a copy-edit. Davtra (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Body

The aim and purpose for each section needs to be defined. I'm currently thinking about the "Origin" section. I can see that perhaps the "Use at international tournaments" section and "Controversy" section may be merged. These sections are written like a news report as they contain too many direct quotes. These need to be summarised. I bet you they can be summarised in five or less paragraphs Davtra (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

An update, I've rewritten and cleaned up most of the article. I've got this "Controversy" section to go through. I don't know what this section goes on about.  Davtra  ^(talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

BBCs Chris Evans

On 25 June BBC Radio 2 presenter Chris Evans featured a vuvuzela, alledgedly sent back for him from South Africa by fellow BBC presenter Mark Pougatch of BBC 5 Live, playing it repeatedly throughout his two hour show. But not sure how this could be cited unless it found its way into a text report somewhere? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It can be cited as a broadcast, but I don't see how this is relevant to the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

References in popular culture?? 20.133.0.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC).

No way, these are classic trivia magnets.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OMG! do they have permission to copy Wikipedia articles like that?? imho Evans is a trivia magnet himself anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.140.221 (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ian. Also, 86.143.140.221, wikipedia material is released into the public domain, and anyone may use, edit, copy, distribute, or even sell wikipedia content for profit. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

When did it begin to be blown non-stop?

That's what I want to know. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Which sentence are you referring to? It may be poorly expressed.  Davtra  ^(talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an annoyed question from a football fan rather than a question about the article, Davtra. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that INDIVIDUAL vuvuzelas are typically blown "non-stop", because this would require a circular breathing technique similar to that used for the digeridoo? As with any conventional trumpet, there has to be a small gap between notes while the player draws breath? But at football matches one continuous note is produced as many thousands of players overlap their individual notes by playing in unison. More notable, for those who have attended the recent World Cuop matches, is the rhythmic unison playing, which produces a regular "throbbing wall of sound" effect, from the collective single notes. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the clarification. I do believe that such practice en masse is a relatively recent phenomenon that should be distinguished from the relatively older origin of the instrument. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it'd be more or less impossible to reliably identify a specific date on which these became popular at football matches, especially as the threshold for what is "popular" (or what constitutes "non-stop", if you like) is an opinion; the origin section, however, seems to give what little information is known about the origin of the vuvuzela, and mentions that it was made popular in football matches in 2002, so I think the article already answers this question. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

need more information on the instrument

how does it make its sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.15.253 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wind instrument should be sufficient to answer your question, I think. Please remember to sign comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) in future. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Brass instrument answers it better since that is what it is. There used to be a link in explaining this and referring to technique but that was 9,368 edits ago. :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, surely it's just a Natural horn, as already tagged? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops... you're right, my mistake; being a horn, it's a brass instrument, not a wind instrument. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure it does, necessarily - not all natural horns are "brass instruments", certainly many are not made of brass, or indeed of any metal? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

From the brass instrument article: "The view of most scholars (see organology) is that the term "brass instrument" should be defined by the way the sound is made, as above, and not by whether the instrument is actually made of brass. Thus, as exceptional cases one finds brass instruments made of wood like the alphorn, the cornett, and the serpent, while some woodwind instruments are made of brass, like the saxophone." GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all natural horns are brass instruments, in the sense that they are lip-vibrated aerophones. It doesn't matter what the hell it is made of. The cornetto (wood and leather traditionally or ABS resin nowadays) is a brass instrument. The lur (bits of tree) is a brass instrument. The sousaphone, even when it is made with three tons of plastic in the bell, is a brass instrument. Similarly, saxes are woodwind and so are flutes even though 96.523% of them (approximately) have never seen a tree. I don't think many cheap clarinets grew on a lovely mountainside either. The classification is about how you make the sound, not what material is in the instrument. Some twit made a glass trumpet - I would still categorize it as a brass instrument, just before smashing it over his head. I'm not even sure it's actual brass per se in many "real" brass instruments. It's the technique, not the plastic. There used to be a phrase that said "played with a simple brass instrument technique blah blah yadda" which I thought worked and answered that point but it's no longer there. Oh G*d, please help me to stop looking at this Talk page, for it doeth me no good. :) Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You could try taking it to AN/I and proposing a community ban on yourself? ;) interestingly, I've seen more perplexing cases. User reporting themselves to AIV, anyone? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, DBak, couldn't resist. But that one seems to have worked. Now I know what Chrissie was singing about. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)