Talk:Gubal (instrument)

I see a problem with this article (own research and verifiability)
It's quite challenging to write an Wikipedia article on the Gubal at this time. Being the main author of the German Hang article and one of the authors of the English Hang article I therefore never tried to publish a Gubal article by now. We will get serious problems with No_original_research and Verifiability when writing this article. Currently almost no secondary literature about this instrument exists. So the article can be based only on the very few original publications by the builders and own research. The only reference cited in the article are currently only an article of the Gubal builders and a little article written by me and published on my website hangblog.org (that is NOT the "official website of the Hang producers"!) based itself on the PANArt article and own research. I fear this is not enough. But as Troyberg has started the article, perhaps he has an idea how to save it from deletion. As a first step I will correct or delete all mistakes and wrong information from the article. --Ixkeys (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Today an audio files request was added. I think, it doesn't make sense to request audio files as long as we have not solved the problem how to write this article without using own research and personal point of view. In fact: Explaining any Gubal audio file would be own research. --Ixkeys (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Idiophone instrument
The Gubal is definitely not an idiophone. The Gubal inventors describe the Helmholtz resonance as main property of the instrument that is combined with the modes in the ringding: From the Hang to the Gubal.

It is a problem with the Hornbostel-Sachs classification that it is not possible to assign an instrument to two classes. But this is necessary for the Gubal. Usually an instrument is assigned to the Hornbostel-Sachs class that is seen as its main property. If we follow this rule, it makes more sense to assign the Gubal to the aerophone class than to the idiophone class. Therefore I have changed this in the article. But I must declare: This is definitely own research and forbidden in Wikipedia (but assigning to the idiophone class is also own research or personal point of view). --Ixkeys (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting the article
As no one was able or willing to join a discussion on the article for many months, I have rewritten the article from the scratch. Perhaps this way it is possible to get a valid Wikipedia article. I have attributed the article to the category musical instruments. This is not a mistake but done intentionally because any other categorization would be own research as no sources exist that are dealing with the classification of the Gubal. --Ixkeys (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple Issues Template
Somebody added a Multiple issues template to the article with three statements. Sadly he failed in explaining why he did this in the talk page. I will add my point of view to these three statements here and ask for other opinions and advises how to improve the article especial by the user who added the template (he is informed on his personal talk page).

1) "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement." I don't have the foggiest notion which passages are meant. Being the author of the article I have been careful not to write text that is like advertisement. So if there is anybody who has another point of view: Please indicate the parts of the article that are written like an advertisement.

2) "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline." What does this mean: "may not meet"? This doesn't help me in improving the article. I think it meets. Therefore I improved the very bad initial version of the article in order to meet the Wikipedia standards. If anybody thinks that the article doesn't meet the guideline please do a deletion request. If the article has to be deleted it doesn't make sense to me to invest more work in improving it.

3) "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." I have added a secondary source from the Swiss newspaper "Der Bund" and an article by the American musician Matt Venuti. I hope this helps. If you think this is not enough, please indicate which information need better secondary sources and if the lack of those sources is tolerable or not. And if not please do a deletion request. --Ixkeys (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As there is nobody (especially not the user who added the multiple issues template), who contradicts my arguments, I think it is now time to remove the template. The issues are obviously resolved or not existent. --Ixkeys (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)