Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of national instruments (music)


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 19:05, 4 May 2008.

List of national instruments
I thought this would be an interesting list to work on (and it was), and I think it worked out pretty nice. I didn't think I'd find as many free pictures as I did (though see below). I think it meets all the criteria, and would be glad to satisfy any concerns. A few points:


 * I included Hornbostel-Sachs numbers without sources for the specific number (background: this is a system used to classify musical instruments, using numbers, so that 321.322 connotes a "necked bowl lute" for example), which I suspect some might call original research, perhaps thinking of it as similar to biological classification. The key difference is HS numbers are objective - if I have a source that calls an instrument a "necked bowl lute", that will always be 321.322. In contrast, if we cite a CNN article on a new animal discovery and CNN calls it "furry", it would be original research to say the new animal is in the order Mammalia because we don't know if that's the case (tarantulas are described as "furry" too...). A "necked bowl lute" can't turn out to have a different HS-number (it's not like we'll discover it's secretly a double-headed barrel drum masquerading as a necked bowl lute) unless the source is mistaken or I misinterpreted it (both of which are possible with or without the numerical system).
 * Should I strictly use only images and sounds that are representative of the tradition in question? For example, there are similar, if not identical, instruments listed for Sakha and Tuva - neighboring regions of Russia, but we have a picture of only one; I used the same picture for both because I'm fairly certain that any differences between them are indistinguishable or nearly so from the photograph, and because it's better to include a photo than not, even if it's not the perfect image. The instrument in question (a jew's harp) looks like it may very well be factory-made anyway, in which case it seems probable that the same model is sold in both regions, despite any traditional differences. Similarly, the "guitar" and "accordion" is listed for several countries, and I've done my best to include the most useful possible photos, but most of the images of guitars on the Commons (and elsewhere) don't even say where the instrument is from. Even if there is a difference between the Argentinian guitar or accordion and other such instruments, I suspect that, in practical terms, many Argentinians probably don't use "Argentinian guitars" or accordions. Similarly, even if there is something significant visually to distinguish between an "African American banjo" and a different banjo, most African Americans have probably used more-or-less the same banjos as others (i.e. they're probably made in China). And anyway, are we looking for a fiddle made by or played by Dutch people (as another example), and how are we really supposed to know? So, I came to the conclusion that we should cast a wide net for pictures, even if the image isn't perfect. But then we come to the Serbian/Macedonian/Yugoslavian gusle, and the issue becomes closely intertwined with nationalism and such, so I haven't used the picture of the Serbian gusle for the Macedonian entry, though as far as I am aware, there is no difference between the Serbian and Macedonian gusles. (for background: the gusle is a stringed instrument used across much of the former Yugoslavia. I found a source calling it the "national instrument" of Yugoslavia, and one for Macedonia and Serbia, both former parts of Yugoslavia. Since the image and sound sample are both very clearly labelled Serbian, I strongly suspect some might object to using it for the Macedonia entry, even if it is the same instrument (AFAIK there are no differences whatsoever). If it wasn't labeled with a country at all, I don't think anyone would bat an eye.)
 * Lots of instruments could be seen as "national instruments", and I searched as widely as I could for uses of that term, including essentially all instances that I found. But a list like this can't be guaranteed comprehensive - in fact, I'd wager there are sources out there that would expand this list (the Japanese shamisen for example, which I specifically scoured the Internet for to no avail). I think it is reasonably comprehensive, and omits no major component in that the term is in very wide use for maybe a dozen or so instruments, all of which are included (Welsh triple harp, Finnish kantele and Guatemalan marimba, are three big ones). The rest I found a source or two for, and more could definitely always be added (most indigenous American, Australian and African tribes probably have at least one instrument that could reasonably be called a "national instrument", which could theoretically add hundreds to this list... but this only lists documented examples of actual usage, even if there are other instruments that are just as much a national instrument as some of those on the list.

Sorry if all this is long and confusing, but I'd like to get feedback from a wide audience. I brought it up during the recent peer review, and the sole commenter supported my position. Tuf-Kat (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, some list! Some brief comments... That's a starter from me, a lot of issues here, so I have to regretfully oppose for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * It's very long. Over 100Kb makes it not entirely universally accessible.
 * True, but there are, I believe, both featured articles and lists that are longer. I'm not sure where it would be possible to split the article either, exception by making a separate historical article for defunct countries like ancient Greece and Yugoslavia. But it wouldn't be clear where to draw the line (the reference to the bell being the national instrument of England comes from Handel ultimately, so it's kind of a historical claim even if England still exists). And there's only a half-dozen or so historical entries, so that wouldn't help very much with the overall length anyway.
 * Why not remove the images? It would speed up loading time, plus they don't really do anything for the list (you click a link to see what it looks like, don't you?).   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  22:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think being able to see them (even small versions of them) can be informative. Maybe I'm not normal in that, so I'll bow down to consensus, but the length doesn't seem too bad for me. Tuf-Kat (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Citations should be (a) in numerical order and (b) not have spaces between them.
 * B done
 * Not quite. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After the last full use of Hornbostel-Sachs, put (H-S) so it's clear what the abbreviation in the table means.
 * Done.
 * Other names Image column is badly named and confusing.
 * I've revamped the layout considerably.
 * Why sort on Description? Is it useful?
 * It's somewhat interesting to do - the first word or two is almost always a general informal classifier like "bagpipes", so sorting by description does produce some useful groupings. But if it's possible to make it not sortable by that column, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Someone more technically inclined than me might also be able to merge the H-S number and description column in such a way that it will sort by the number. I'd be fine with that too, but don't know how to do either solution.
 * You have a list of "national" instruments but then it's listed against "Tradition". It's confusing for the non-expert to understand the linkage.
 * Is the H-S column sorting correctly? I'd expect the lowest at the top and highest at the bottom (and vice versa) - doesn't seem to work that way for me.
 * I think these two are fixed in my revamping.
 * Some instruments are in italics, others aren't. Why?  It's unclear.
 * All non-English words are italicized. Do you think they shouldn't be? Tuf-Kat (talk)
 * Self-Comment: I redid the code for the table and knocked a couple kb off the total article size. It looks fine now, I think, except that one picture, the duduk, is extraordinarily large, and I'm not sure why or if there's a way to fix it without going back to the old method. Does anybody know how to fix this? Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Any missing images should be given an mdash, not a hyphen, per the MOS
 * Fixed.
 * Not sure they all qualify as "nations". "African American" and "Arab", and a whole lot more are enthnicities.
 * Some names are countries, while others are demonyms, such as Bashkir.
 * Hawaii is a US State, not a nation. Also, is there no national instrument of America or Canada?
 * Not true according to nation, and irrelevant anyway. I included uses of the term "national instrument" without editorializing on what should qualify. I used countries when the source used a country, U.S. states when the source used a U.S. state (e.g. Hawaii and Texas) and ethnic groups, nationalities, religions or linguistic minorities when the source used those groupings. I'm not aware of any source that describes any national instrument for America or Canada. As I noted in my nomination, it's possible to describe lots of things as a "national instrument". The question is whether or not anyone (or a reliable source, anyway) does so. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With so many missing images, it might be better to present (some of) what is available as a gallery instead.
 * I don't tend to like galleries, personally, and don't think this would benefit from it. They always look ugly, IMO. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nation doesn't mention "Hawaii", so I'm not sure what you mean by "not true". Hawaii was a nation, in the 1800s or something, but it has been a US state for over 50 years. That the word "nation" is being used in the column which has things that are not nations is incorrect, as would be the page title of "National istruments", as some given are not national instruments. Either change the wording, or remove the instruments that are identified with religions, ethnic groups, linguistic minorities or states. The first sentence of the lead, "This is a list of national instruments, containing musical instruments of symbolic or cultural importance within a nation, ethnicity, tribe or other group of people" contradicts itself. An instrument used by a group of people doesn't make it a national instrument. -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of nation defines the term: "A nation is a defined cultural and social community". Hawaii is definitely that. In any case, a reliable source calls the ukulele a national instrument of Hawaii. It would be original research to limit the scope of this list using our own judgement about what should qualify; all we can do is list instruments that others have described as national instruments. The first sentence you quote is arguably redundant (since ethnicities, tribes and other "groups of people" in the sense meant here are all nations as well), but not contradictory. See also the American Heritage Dictionary, Ardictionary and Encarta on the word "nation"; also the Collins Thesaurus lists a number of synonyms in addition to both "country" and "state". Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

More comments The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you had to explain to me the meaning of the use of italics, I'd suggest a key.
 * I've explained it in the lead.
 * Why embolden the instruments?
 * To draw attention to them - it's a "list of instruments", after all, even if the most useful ordering is by nation, the instrument is still what makes the list. The emboldening makes it clear that it's sorted by nation so you can find what you're looking for, which is probably the name of an instrument.
 * The Barbara Stewart you link to is a New Zealand politician, is that who you intended as your kazoo impresario?
 * Fixed, it's at Barbara Stewart (composer).
 * If alternative names are given then it'd be worth either having a key to say that or explain why the instrument has more than one name.
 * I've put an explanation in the lead. I don't really think it's necessary to explain why specifically. There's an article on every instrument, which does or should go into more detail, and it's not really relevant directly to this subject. They're mostly variant spellings and other rather boring things, like the ancient Greek aulos, which is singular, but since some English sources use the plural auloi, I included that too. If you really want an explanation, I guess I could, but it would be a lot of work for some linguistic tedium better suited to other articles, IMO.
 * Do all alternative names (e.g. for the didgeridoo) have citations?
 * Yes, there might be a few of the spelling variants that don't, but I could supply one if someone really wants. All of the didgeridoo-like totally different alternative names are included in the citations given. (the didgeridoo all come from the same source, I'm pretty sure it was the Rough Guide, but could be the other one, if you really want to know I can find out, but not easily at this moment)
 * Some countries have more than one instrument, eg Brazil. Is it worth mentioning this in the lead?
 * This is a good point. I've added A number of countries have more than one instrument listed, each having been described as a national instrument, not usually by the same source; neither the presence of multiple entries for one nation, nor for multiple nations for one instrument, on this list is reflective of active dispute in any instance. (which is a bit tortuous)
 * Still need to work on citations per WP:CITE, i.e. placement and numerical ordering.
 * Fixed, I think.
 * Sometimes you link zither (for example), sometimes you don't. Be consistent with linking.
 * They all link now (will double-check tomorrow, as I probably missed a few).
 * References which have page ranges need to use the en-dash to separate them rather than the hyphen, per WP:DASH.
 * Fixed.

I've only reviewed this superficially, but I'm not ready to support it. (Oppose for now.) --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I've checked off several of my comments that I think are now fully resolved. I am still concerned about the way the sound files are identified in the heading; maybe someone else has a good idea on that...
 * Comments from
 * ✅ The title bothers me. "Instrument" has many meanings. (Before I looked at the article, I thought it was probably about music, but I wondered if it might be about national constitutions -- a form of "instrument" -- or possibly something completely different.) To avoid ambiguity, could this be revised to List of national musical instruments?
 * I don't think that's a good idea - if you do a google search for "national musical instruments", almost all of the results are using it in a much broader sense, meaning something like "any instrument that is part of a nation's distinct musical instrument repertoire". (I think people who use that term are mostly thinking of "national music" (i.e. the music of a nation), then specifying which field within it (instruments). The term "national instrument" has totally different results on a search, all of which are talking about a specific instrument in the sense meant in this article. National Instruments is the name of several companies, and I think the term does have some sort of legal sense, possibly along the lines you're suggesting, but I figured if it was all that important of a term, we'd probably have an article about it by now. I'll move it to list of national instruments (music), which I think is better, and I'll make a dab page, so maybe somebody can define it in a legal sense. (I'll ask at the Law WikiProject)
 * I did a Google search on "national musical instruments", and the results appear to me to be using the term in exactly the same context as this WP article. (Apparently you are seeing a subtle distinction that escapes me.) Here are a few representative hits: thinkquest article about Morin huur in Mongolia; About.com article about the mbira in Zimbabwe; web page about music of Kyrgyz culture and the instruments used and identifying the komuz as a musical symbol of Kyrgyz; and page of factoids about the accordion, identifying it as the official musical instrument of the city of San Francisco and the source of "a signature sound for music from Italy, France, Germany, Russia, Argentina and more" (does not actually use the term "national musical instrument"). --Orlady (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (There must have been a typo in my original search or something, because I'm getting a totally different array of articles this time) But still, I get less than 800 Google hits for "national musical instrument" (with quotes) and more than 63,000 for "national instrument" with music. It's just by far the standard way of referring to this idea. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I don't think the names of the instruments should be in bold face. WP:MOS discourages use of bold face for emphasis. (Here I'm agreeing with The Rambling Man.)
 * Okay, I fixed it.
 * ✅ I'm no template maven, and I don't see where and how Template:List of national instruments forces column widths, but the table appears to have excessively wide fixed widths for all columns except "Description" and "Image". Can that be adjusted?
 * I'm also no template maven, but I don't think there is a fixed width (it would be at Template:List_of_national_instruments-_start. Those columns are wide because a few entries are much wider than the others (like the didgeridoo's alternate names stretching out the name column). But I could be wrong.
 * Alternate names should not stretch the column width unless you have unnecessarily forced nonbreaking spaces between them. The column width that bothers me the most is the one for the numbers. It appears that the wide width for that column is enforced by the entry "422.112.2-62+422.221.1-621", Is that a single number, or does the plus sign indicate that two different numbers are used? If this is two different numbers, the plus sign should not be used in that manner. If those are two different numbers for the same instrument, probably the most straightforward way to render them would be on two separate lines (separated by a line break). --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the plus sign is the official method of denoting a Hornbostel-Sachs number for an instrument that is made up of more than one instrument. It's one number, the plus sign indicates that there are two instruments combined into one unit. Tuf-Kat (talk)
 * ✅ Why is the "Image" column sortable?
 * I don't know that it's possible to make some columns sortable and some not.
 * It's easy to make some columns unsortable when the table specifications are contained within the article. I'm sure it's also possible when the table specifications are embedded in a template, but as I've said I'm no template maven. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed this one by editing Template:List_of_national_instruments-_start. Meanwhile, I see your reasoning for sorting "Description," but it's not clear to me that the wording of descriptions is sufficiently standardized to merit sorting. --Orlady (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal, I've made it unsortable (thanks for figuring out how!)
 * After reading the intro, I looked in the table for sound files, but did not find them quickly. They aren't mentioned in the table headings, and it wasn't obvious to me that they would be under "Description." I don't know how I would handle this, but I think it should be more obvious where to find them.
 * I've adding "Recordings" to the heading for the description column, but I'm not sure if that really looks good. Moving the recordings to the image column would be ideal, I think, but that would extend every row with a sound sample since the pictures always fill up the box more than any other column, so it would add a bunch of white space.
 * ✅ I would like to see more internal wikilinks. For example, it's not immediately obvious why some nationalities are linked in the intro, but not others. (Be consistent in the intro; link all nationalities even if they are also linked in the table.) Also, can terms such as "stringed instrument" be linked?
 * I've added some linking in the lead, and some elsewhere in the list. I was specifically avoiding linking stringed instrument because it's used very often, and adding so many links would be redundant and add to the article's size (not it's length, but it already takes a while to load). I could just link every seventh use or something, but that tends to not last, as casual editors continually add more links. If you really disagree on that one, I'll link them, but I think it's a bad idea. I think more than half of the instruments listed are string instruments.
 * Link terms such as "stringed instrument" the first time they are used. It definitely would be excessive to link them every time they appear. There's some good advice at Manual of Style (links). --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've linked the first use. Tuf-Kat (talk)
 * Thanks. :-) However, I gave that just as an example. There may be other music terms or musical instrument terms that still deserve links, such as fret, cane, soundboard, and diatonic. (I don't know the terminology or the WP articles well enough to know what can be linked.) --Orlady (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I had already linked a whole bunch others, including, i think all those. Tuf-Kat (talk)
 * I am a bit bothered by the matter of determining what belongs on this list. Two items in the article that don't seem right to me are:
 * (1) The comments in the introduction about the movement to make the kazoo a national instrument in the United States. As near as I can determine, this "movement" consists of Barbara Stewart, and it appears to be a tongue-in-cheek proposal (almost a hoax). I don't think that deserves to be highlighted in the intro, unless perhaps the paragraph focuses on the fact that although there are few government-designated "national instruments" some musicians get media attention for their campaigns to get their preferred instruments so designated.
 * I don't think that's really a tongue-in-cheek campaign. She's a well-accepted composer who has performed at Carnegie Hall and the Lincoln Center, and worked with the Smithsonian. I don't know how many people agree with her, but she seems to be serious. I don't see anything that indicates it's tongue-in-cheek (and even if it is, she's notable enough that I don't think that matters; she's the only "notable" person in the world, AFAIK, who is actively attempting to make a particular instrument a "national instrument", whether it's for serious musicological or academic reasons, or if it's frivolous, is irrelevant.). Tuf-Kat (talk)
 * (2) The entry indicating that the accordion is the national instrument of Texas. Not only is it questionable whether Texas can claim the status of a nation or ethnicity, but it appears to me from the cited source that accordion's only claim to being a national instrument in Texas is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek suggestion by one person, Joe Nick Patoski.
 * Texas is unquestionably a nation, and Patoski has written numerous articles on Texas and music (bibliography). His writings run the gamut of Texas music, from Willie Nelson to Stevie Ray Vaughan to Selena. I don't see any evidence that this is tongue-in-cheek either. Note that while he is attempting to make the accordion the official national instrument, this is treated differently than Stewart and her kazoo because she is attempting to make the kazoo the national instrument, while his source implies that he is trying to get Texas to recognize the accordion, which he sees as already being the national instrument. Tuf-Kat (talk)
 * One reference to the accordion as "National Instrument of Texas" in one blog post by a journalist does not create a fact that needs to be memorialized in Wikipedia. Similarly, Stewart seems to have gotten a lot of positive P.R. visibility from talking about the kazoo as a national instrument, but I don't see any evidence that she is seriously working to make it a national instrument. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you linked to this. It's not the source I used. I cited Texas Folklife, a nonprofit organization. It's not a "blog post", and he's not merely a journalist - he's written several books about Texas, and has been writing about Texas culture, especially music, in major newspapers and magazines (local, statewide and national) for more than a decade; he seems perfectly well-suited as a source for the importance of the accordion in Texas culture. Regarding Stewart, as I said, I don't think it needs to be "serious" - the kazoo isn't on the list, it's mentioned in the lead as an example of an instrument whose "national instrumentness" is actively manipulated. She's clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and she's the only Wikipedia-notable person I'm aware of who's doing that (FTR, I'm not aware of any non-notable people who are doing that either). Tuf-Kat (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to "I don't know why you linked to this"; I linked to that blog post because you pointed me to this link to indicate the scope of Mr. Patoski's work. Earlier I had read the cited source, where the reference to the accordion as Texas' national instrument struck me as offhand and possibly tongue-in-cheek. After seeing your new reference, I searched his website for the term "national instrument" and found only that one blog post. I see that he's written a lot, but having skimmed some of his writings I don't see Mr. Patoski as a reliable source on the subject of identifying "national instruments". --Orlady (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He's not presented as a reliable source on the subject of identifying "national instruments" - he's presented as a reliable source on Texan culture. His claim is identical to saying "the accordion is and has long been an instrument of particular cultural importance to many Texans". It doesn't require any special abilities or training from the musicological end, only knowledge of Texas, which is demonstrated in abundance by his bibliography. Tuf-Kat (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if any of the other entries are based on equally ephemeral designations. --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. I have trouble with the notion that there's a clearly defined national instrument for all of these countries: says who, in each case? We're not told in the list whether it's by declaration of the national parliament, by widely accepted tradition, or is just conjectural. For example, who says the didjeridoo is Australia's national instrument? This is a bad case of an idea for a list that doesn't quite fit reality—not widely, anyway. And why is the concept one of a single instrument? In the case of indigenous Australia, why not the clap-stick, which is indeed universal, as opposed to the d. This list just creates category problems and fosters cultural distortions; I think it should be deleted, or at the very least renamed with a less presumptuous title, such as "List of examples of musical instruments from around the world", because that's about all that could be claimed. In terms of the requirement that a FL be properly embedded in WP, relating usefully to related articles, well, I think it weakens the body of knowledge contained in the linked articles on specific instruments. So many cultures do not map onto European-imposed nation states. China as a single musical entity? No way.

Let's take one example: The didgeridoo is a trumpet? When you say "indigenous", are you referring to both indigenous races, or just one? The use/existence of the instrument varies significantly from place to place on the continent. TONY  (talk)  13:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is explained in the lead. Each instrument is described as a "national instrument" by the source cited. The clapstick is not listed because I'm not aware that anybody has ever called it a national instrument of anybody. I don't understand your point with this: This is a bad case of an idea for a list that doesn't quite fit reality—not widely, anyway -- yes, it's a messy and debatable concept, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. Some instruments are more important within a given culture than others, and many of them are called "national instruments". I'm sorry that there's no objective way to evaluate that, but that doesn't make it irrelevant, unreal or uninformative to cover. Luckily, Wikipedia doesn't have to go through the work of deciding if the clapstick should be a national instrument, we cite sources instead. Your objection seems to be that the term "national instrument" is vague, which is true but irrelevant, as it's a widely used concept which is only used here where a notable source used it.
 * The concept is very much not one of a "single instrument" - did you even skim through the list? The lead says some entries have more than one instrument, and there are a number of examples of that. The didgeridoo is in the general class of trumpets (try googling didgeridoo and trumpet - more than 200,000 results). If you'd looked at the sources cited for the didgeridoo, you'd see the claim comes from the following quote: “It has not been a national instrument until quite recently, the previous range was primarily in the northern third of the continent.” which I think answers your question on that. Cultures do not need to map onto European nation-states to fit this concept (there are many entries that are not European nation-states, such as Swedish Estonia and the Ryukyu Islands), and nothing on this list says that China is a single musical entity. Each "nation" is given as described in the source using the term "national instrument" (so if the pipa source had said it was the national instrument of the Han Chinese, that's what I'd put). Tuf-Kat (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think if you asked most Australians what their national instrument(s) were, you'd receive a blank stare. And clap-sticks are a functional musical instrument, and much more widespread than the d. Musical instruments (of the traditional type, especially) typically don't map onto modern nation states, and you're conceiving them as such. And you're forcing a binary category on, say, all of the traditional instruments in Chinese musical cultures (yes, there are many): some are somehow "national" and others somehow fail to make WP's list. I think it's a very difficult boundary to call, and should not be attempted. A lot of people would be upset if they saw it—that is, if they had access to a computer and knew where to look. For the rest of us, it compartmentalises so much rich, multilayered human culture in a way that might make us feel satisfied that all is controlled in little boxes, but it doesn't get at the true picture, either large or small. Sorry to be so negative. I studied ethnomusicology for a while, and I've no doubt you have expertise in that field. TONY   (talk)  17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PS and to be legalistic, I think it fails the "completeness" criterion. It's neither "finite" (knowable) nor "dynamic", is it? TONY  (talk)  17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your objection. It is not up to you or I to decide whether the didgeridoo or the clapstick or anything else is a "national instrument"; we need to cite sources that do that, even if you or I agree. While somebody could certainly make an argument for the clapstick, maybe even a good argument, it doesn't matter because no one has. I understand very well that clapsticks are a real musical instrument, and they may very well be much more widespread than didgeridoos (neither functionality nor widespreadness are related to "national instrument" status - a national instrument is one that is of particular social or cultural importance, especially as a symbol of cultural identity. The Welsh triple harp is very commonly described as a national instrument, but it hasn't really been a major part of music for people in Wales for centuries, I think. It's still a symbol of Welsh identity for some people.). Please stop referring to "nation-states" - it has nothing to do with this list, which includes numerous entities that are not modern nation-states, from Swedish Estonia to the Ancient Egyptians to the Lobi peoples of Ghana; the term "national instrument" is entirely unrelated to the term "nation-state", and nothing in this list implies that there is a connection. Your objection to the Chinese entries is unfounded -- the presence of entries for China on this list doesn't mean anything more than the existence of an article on the music of China, and in any case, your quarrel is with the source that calls an instrument the national instrument of China, not with this list which reports that fact. While you're right that the term "national instrument" oversimplifies music, that doesn't make it irrelevant or unworthy of being covered in Wikipedia. It's a commonly-used term, even if its usage is sometimes arbitrary or inconsistent; we just need to only use the term when it is cited to a reliable source.
 * It is "dynamic", I think. Currently existing nations have cultures that change, and what was once an instrument of no real importance could become a symbol of national identity in the future; scholarly understanding of past cultures can change to, leading to a reappraisal of the importance of an instrument in a historical nation. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.