Talk:Santur

"there is an American company named Santur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.122.52 (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with Santoor

Oppose merge. As of this comment we have six clear and cogent arguments against the merge, versus one comment (Jan 2006) from a user who has no evidence beyond similar pronunciation and who clearly is not speaking in terms of the two different instruments in question. The proposed-merge note in the main article is confusing and it will divert some users to a different instrument. Has that note really sat there in the article for 3.5 years, despite the obvious agreement here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.3.251 (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why you brought Santoor in Greece and Babylon (a Great Semitic civilization) we all are aware. There is no such instrument in this region. Ardeshir

Oppose merge. NOTE: Because of transliteration issues, those terms are sometimes confused, but the clear standard in English is santur for the persian instrument and santoor for the Indian instrument. Therefore, disambiguation between the two terms is actually an important goal for both articles in the English Wikipedia, and the presence of the merge request bar itself is likely misleading. Santur and santoor are entirely separate instruments; their physical construction, tuning, playing styles, cultural history and repertoire are different. --quelasol —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose merge. I don't think this article should be merged with santoor. This is like wanting to merge the setar article with the sitar articles because the names sound similar. The physical differences, playing styles, and famous musicians between the Persian and its derivative Indian santurs are different enough to merit different articles. I think a simple renaming of the articles to maybe "Santoor (Persian)" and "Santoor (Indian)" would be sufficient. There have been many deletes (by anonymous editors) in the Indian santoor article concerning the Persian santur, and I feel that if the articles get merged most of my contributions about the Persian santur will eventually get deleted. --jonsafari 23:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "سنتور" in Farsi is both of Santoor and Santur.I think these articles must merge. If there are different you can write.(مهدی 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose merge. While Indian santoor and Persian santur are both hammered dulcimers, they are certainly two separate instruments with their own distinct histories and playing styles. The articles should absolutely remain separate, regardless of the similarity of the instruments' names. I completely agree with Jonsafari above regarding distinction between the names and perhaps renaming the pages to "Santoor (Persian)" and "Santoor (Indian)" as well as providing disambiguation links at the top for anyone who might be looking for one and finding the other. The santur page could then redirect to the Santoor (Persian) page. Thanks! --Swellbow 03:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. These are two separate instruments in the hammered dulcimer family, constructed in different fashions and in different nations, from different materials, with different tunings. One is used for Persian music and the other for Hindustani (Indian) music. Badagnani 08:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. I also oppose the merge and while the two types of "santour" are not as different as "setar" and "sitar" are, there are sufficient historical and physical differences to necessitate two separate articles. I concur in the suggestion of having two articles called "Santoor (Persian)" and "Santoor (Indian)" or at least having a "disambiguation" explanation on top of each article, directing the user to the other article for clarification.--Smalek 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge.

The santour appeared after the santur. Further, the construction is different. Dogru144 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

santour / hammered dulcimer

Why isn't the santour cross-referenced on the hammered dulcimer page? There is only a vague reference to Iran as the origin of the dulcimer.

That should be asked on the hammered dulcimer page. –jonsafari 18:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of "santur"

I think the various spellings of "santur" should be included in this article. The current spelling of "santur" does not read the same way as it is pronounced in Farsi. Other spellings (most commonly "santour" and "santoor") should be included (perhaps with a disambiguation link) to keep true to the actual pronunciation of the word. TarTar Sauce 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add other pronunciations of the name. BTW, santour already redirects to here. –jonsafari 18:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

Please! Let's have some history for this article. Dogru144 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to most credible resources, other than nationalistic inspired ones, the santur was invented in ancient Babylonian (1600-911 BCE) and neo-Assyrian (911-612 BCE) eras.. At some point, the Persian empire ruled that part of the world (known as Mesopotamia). But, the Persian empire ended its rule of Babylon/Assyria and, today these lands are part of current day Iraq. This is also cited by a Persian santur website. See http://santoori.com/santoor_tuning_chart.html

Iraqi classical music (Iraqi Maqam music), unlike Iranian classical music, used the santur 100% of the time, along with a spike fiddle called "Joza (djoze, jozeh) by Iraqis. Please discuss and include this information. It seems like this wiki page is dominated by mostly overly emotional and nationalistic posters. Babylon does not exist today, this should make it neutral since, Iraqis do not claim it to be "theirs", unlike Persians.

74.57.65.117 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Link

Link to related instrument "Qanun" under picture does not link to a related instrument, but to an article about Islamic Law. Link needs to lead to "Kanun" but I don't remember how to make that change. Garbagemania (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TECHNICAL INFO FOR SANTUR

Below is a proposed paragraph to correct mistakes that are currently on the page.

I shortened my last post and figured out how to edit a lot better myself and placed the correct citations.

Santur:

The santur (also santūr, santour, santoor ) (Persian: سنتور) is a Persian hammered dulcimer. It is a trapezoid-shaped box often made of walnut wood. The mallets (Mezrabs) are feather-weight and are held by the thumb, index and middle fingers. The 72 string Persian santur has two sets of bridges, providing a range of approximately three octaves. The right-hand strings are made of a copper or brass strings, while the left-hand strings are made of steel. Two rows of 9 bridges called "kharak" (total of 18 kharaks) divide the santur into three octaves. Over each bridge crosses four strings spanning horizontally across the right and left side of the instrument. There are three sections of nine pitches: each for the bass, middle and higher octave called Poshte Kharak (behind the left bridges) comprising 27 notes all together. The top "F" note is repeated 3 times, creating a total of 24 separate tones in the Santur. The Persian santur is primarily tuned to a variety of different diatonic scales utilizing 1/4 tones (semi-tones) which are designated into 12 Dastgah's (modes) of Persian classical music. These 12 Dastgah's are the repertory of Persian classical music known as the Radif.

Derivations: Similar forms of the santur have been present in neighboring cultures like India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Armenia, Turkey, Iraq and Greece. The Indian santoor is wider, more rectangular and has more strings. Its corresponding mallets are also held differently played with a different technique. The Chinese yangqin and the Greek santouri also derived from the santur. The eastern Europe version of the santur called the cimballum which is much larger and chromatic is used as an accompanying instrument in gypsy music.

--Santurman (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On your last comment above—"so I'm gathering the citations to support what we wrote below"—exactly right. Wikipedia deals in verifiable claims, so it will indeed be important that you gather reliable sources for which you can write a citation that supports each claim. I will happy to help you learn to do good citation formats. Just ping me on my Talk page when you have the sources, including titles, publisher, date of publication, etc. – and I will help show you an easy citation format that you can learn and utilize for your other citations. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATES FOR SANTUR

I spent a long time cleaning up this page. Unfortunately there's an IP user who keeps altering my work and it's really lame. I learned how to edit and cite references. He removes my work from a PHD from a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving persian music. and then Cites a Blog with a bunch of BS Iraqi names of people who don't exist or have any verifiable data. lame-o

FROM WIKIPEDIA - EDIT A PAGE -

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG

I spent a long time on this page. coming here cleaning up drama from people who have a stick up their rear.

This page looks better than it ever did. I'd like to keep it that way.

I have a lot more to offer:  The construction, tuning methods, samples of info students need.

Santurman (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U mad bro?

File:Santur babylon.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Santur babylon.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and sources are needed

Please be sure that all additions to the Santur article are verifiable. Many existing claims are currently not verifiably cited. New items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made.

As a courtesy to editors who may have added unsourced claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, some of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged ^{{{citation needed}}} to allow some time for sources to be added. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Vandalism of this page continues

User: Iraqisantur keeps removing cited-referenced material on this page. This isn't a battle or an extension of the Iraq-Iran 10 year war. This user made a page called Iraqi Santur. I went on that page and noticed a bunch of un-cited references to an unverified Blog with a bunch of misinformation on it. On the Iraqisantur Talk page there's a message about this users references and citations:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Iraqi Santur has been reverted. Your edit here to Iraqi Santur was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://iraqimaqam.blogspot.com/p/musicians.html, http://iraqimaqam.blogspot.com/p/musicians.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Santurman (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]