Talk:Tar (string instrument)

I have added some more information

I have added some more information to this page and will add a bit more about the Iranian Tar. This will include a picture too. I can also add some information about the Azarbaijani Tar. But I would prefer and welcome if people more familiar with those countries would contribute to this article. Shabdiz 11:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Turkic Rebab origins

However, it is now widely accepted that the tar is derived the Turkick (Central Asian) "rebab".

Just curious, what sources do you have to back up this claim? If you do have references, that would be great to add to the article. --jonsafari 21:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Armenia

I have restored this article to the version that included Armenia. If anyone wants to remove Armenia, they have to offer proof. Otherwise I suspect Azerbaijani nationalists behind those edits or just simple mistakes. Shabdiz 11:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

quiz of the month

Concerning the edit I would like to ask the editors of this page: is leading paragraph a place to put "country A issued money B in currency C picturing a Tar?--Xashaiar (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the fact that the Azerbaijani government considers this musical instrument of enough symbolic significance to depict it in its currency is interesting to our readership, and worthy of mention in a single, short sentence.

A government's decision to showcase the instrument as a symbol of a culture (for that is what the banknote depiction connotes) is quite interesting. – To be honest, I cannot understand why this fact wouldn't belong in the article.

Notice however that I did not add the sentence to the "leading paragraph", but as the very last sentence of the lead section (diff.). – In what section to mention it can always be discussed; and a new section on "Tar in Azerbaijan" can always be created. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One should respect the style of pages. 1. It has become difficult for me to explain the most obvious argument ever made in the history of writing: but I try to do so: example: Find me an article about a flower in wikipedia and try to put the picture/or mention of a panty depicting that flower in the lead section. You can imagine what will happen. Don't you think it is just irrelevant what you do? Tar is a musical instrument and is significant to anyone playing it or enjoying it, no doubt. 2. If you want to contribute positively to this article (and alike) then create a section called "trivia" and put all this "symbolic appearance" there. (this is usually practiced in wikipedia, see here...) --Xashaiar (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot sensibly compare a government's decision to showcase the instrument in its currency as a symbol of the country's culture with *sigh* depictions in random panties or other products.

The example was to show that "your addition is fine but not in right place, maybe a trivia section would be ok?". otherwise every trivia to tar is "sensibly comparable" .--Xashaiar (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

An article about a flower ? Two days ago I added to our entry on the Gentiana lutea the simple fact that the plant is depicted on the Albanian 2000 lekë banknote (diff.). Nothing has happened so far. – Of course, I consider such additions relevant to the articles, or I would not make them. :-)

By the way, if you cared to actually read the essay on Handling trivia you're linking to, you may notice that "[t]he style guideline at Wikipedia:Trivia sections suggests that trivia sections should be avoided in favor of presenting information within the framework of the article's main text." (see the Trivia sections section).

The style guideline itself states: "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined." - Best, Ev (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you read the article I mentioned: I copy-paste here: Some articles may, with their title, imply that they are good places to put unimportant information; for instance an article called Three's Company trivia would be a bad idea in the first place. In addition to the likely problems with the content of such an article, the title may also need to be addressed, just as a "trivia" section in the Three's Company article may need to be renamed to achieve some selectivity and context. Other articles are merely de facto trivia articles. That is, they have a title that seems like a real article, such as "Leprechauns in popular culture", but in fact the entire article consists of a list of trivia. Now 1. Tar is not de facto trivia. right? 2. Any article like Threre's a Banknote depicting Tar is just silly to create, right? 3. Help yourself and try to understand wikipedia.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, Wikipedia:Handling trivia is not an article, but an essay. And you are reading the section dealing with independent trivia articles instead of the one dealing with trivia sections within an article. — Please notice that we are not dealing here with a separate Trivia related to Tars article, but with adding a noteworthy fact to this one. - Regards, Ev (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

isn't "your banknote stuff" kind of "miscellaneous information" not completely related to Tar?--Xashaiar (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. I already explained (in my first response of 18:24 UTC) why I consider this short sentence to be a good addition to this entry. - Ev (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

all right. Then we wait until I get time and put very interesting shining stuff later.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

It's written in the article: Tar is one of the most important Iranian/Persian and Azerbaijani musical instruments. In other words, this is not like the guitar, well-know all over the world. I agree with Ev, both as an editor and as a reader. The fact is both relevant and interesting. One should not compare depicting on banknote as trivial as depicting on other random stuff. That the instrument is honoured with its presence on a nation's banknotes implies cultural significance. I would neither be surprised nor disappointed to find this fact in a serious encyclopedia. Also, two the both of you, please reconsider your discussion techniques. This was not pleasant reading. --Eivind (t) 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, Eivind. I was rather exasperated with Xashaiar's argumentation & article editing, and that probaby came across in my comments. Thank you for providing a third opinion. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for giving your opinion. But 1. Yes Tar is the beloved instrument here and there. 2. I do not see why "banknote comment" should be in lead section. 3. I agree with inclusion of "banknote comment", but it does really belong to TRIVIA/legacy/see alo/... sections. (look what we usually do: Rhazes is the name of a university and named after one of the greatest physicians in history, but look where we mention this:legacy). --Xashaiar (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, if you agree with the inclusion, why are you still reverting blindly to remove the sentence altogether (diff.) instead of simply moving it to another section ? - Ev (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with inclusion, but I disagree with its location. That's all. I left it to you to create the section that you want "TRIVIA", "Legacy", ... whatever. You first agree with me that the lead section is not the place for that? Then we decide what should be the new section. I guess "Legacy/Trivia" should be fine. So, is a new section called "legacy" fine?--Xashaiar (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't need to be in the leading section – but I can't see why we need to label it as "trivia". I've made a new section called "Tar in Azerbaijan" ... hopefully that is sufficient. --Eivind (t) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my very first comment, including the sentence in another section is fine with me. However, that section should not be:

• a "Trivia" section, because those are disfavoured (as explained above).
• a "Legacy" section, because this musical instrument still exists, continues to be played. The word legacy does not apply to this instance.

I have no problem with the current "Tar in Azerbaijan" section. Thank you for your help, Eivind. - Ev (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

January edit war

User:1241edit currently appears to be engaged in several edit wars, on this article and a number of others. Please stop your constant reverts, and explain to us as clearly as possible why you want to make these edits. Green Giant (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Retitling of article

"Tar" may refer to a different musical instrument, as this article notes ("For other uses, including another type of musical instrument, see...") For that reason, I am in favor of a retitling of this article to "Tar (string instrument)" or "Tar (stringed instrument)". From what I can tell, no one has yet proposed this. Being new here, though, I'm not sure how easy it is to change the title of an article. --Elmsbye (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I didn't see any objection to this for some months so I went ahead and took the disambiguating action to move it over. Mike Simpson (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Extreme Misinformation!

The article includes this paragraph which is just completely false:

"It was invented in the 18th century[6][7] [8]and has since become one of the most important musical instruments in Iran and the Caucasus, particularly in Persian classical music, and the favoured instrument for radifs. "

Tar is MUCH MUCH older than 18th century. What is the source for 18th century claim? We have poetry that refers to Tar the instrument. How did this make it through?

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Painting tar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)