Talk:Didgeridoo

message: This article seems to have deteriorated over time, there are comments that have been inserted that are totally whacky they are verging on the pure fantasy such as the didgeridoo being used as a weapon and for smoking drugs. Simply not true. There needs to be concerted effort to edit this article to bring it up to scratch. The article seems to have been neglected for some time. --Rainbow warrior (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of this article

message: I added pictures of didgeridoo on the french wikipedia, use it freely :
*http://fr.wikipedia.org/upload/8/86/Didgeridoo_Entier1.jpg
*http://fr.wikipedia.org/upload/d/dd/Didgeridoo_Embout1.jpg
Aoineko 13:39 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
:Why is the photo showing an example of non-traditional instrument?  If there is only one photo, I think it is more appropriate to show a traditional, Aboriginal instrument.  The other alternative would be a show a range of instruments from the traditional to the modern and include examples of innovations like the didjeribone, didjbox, alternative materials, etc.  If there is just one photo, it would be much better to show a traditional instrument as the example.--Pdhadley 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current photo needs to be revisited. The current photo depicts instruments that do not in any way resemble instruments being produced today by Aboriginal people in Arnhem Land and adjacent regions of the Northern Territory, the region of the instrument's likely origin, so the use of the "traditional" label to mark these as somehow distinct from the purported "souvenir" bamboo didjeridu is somewhat dubious. I'd also like to echo Pdhadley's call for either a range of instruments or an instrument reflecting a long-standing craftsmanship tradition. I'd suggest that there either needs to be a photo including some alternative materials and recent innovations alongside more typical eucalyptus didjeridus, or there should be a photo of a single instrument made by a specific and well-reputed Aboriginal craftsman and a comment with attribution to that effect.--Pacdidj (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

text: The photo on this main page depicting a "traditonally crafted and decorated" didgeridoo is actually a mass-produced instrument for tourist trade and is not a traditionally decorated instruments. It may not even be made by Aborignals, and it is certainly not traditionally decorated. Such a photo is not appropriate. Please change the photo. I can supply photos if you need them.
Hmarin (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's how to upload a photo so it can be used on all language versions of Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects. It's probably easiest if you upload one that you've taken yourself. Graham87 14:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if I did it right, but I uploaded a photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australiandidgeridoos.jpg
Hmarin (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, you didn't do it right ... the photo needs a license tag (I recommend  and should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons rather than here so it can be used on other language versions of Wikipedia. If you like, I can upload it for you instead, but in that case, I'd need to get permission by email; you can email me at  for more details. I think imbedding sound samples and/or videos in this article would be a good idea as well ... I can help set that up as well if you like. Graham87 06:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason I can log into Wikipedia but Commons doesn't recognize my username/password. So I sent you the photo. Thanks. Hmarin (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia's page on unified login, you need to go to Special:MergeAccount so that your username will be recognised on Wikimedia Commons. If that doesn't work, try creating the account on Commons with the same username and password as your account here, then going to that MergeAccount page here at the English Wikipedia. I thought the process was automatic, but obviously not! By the way, did you get my follow-up email? Graham87 03:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've uploaded the image and put it at the top of the article. I hope I did it right ... as it says on my user page, I'm totally blind, so I don't really know what I'm doing with image placement. Tweak the caption as you wish ... but I'm not sure how much space there is there! The caption for "E" might need fixing; "very fine", as you wrote on the image description page, isn't really appropriate per the neutral point of view policy – perhaps briefly describe its similarities/differences to traditionally crafted instruments? Graham87 14:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, thank you. I cannot edit the photo's caption, so feel free to make the caption more neutral, as you mentioned above.Hmarin (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't you edit the photo's caption? I mean the actual caption on the Wikipedia article, not the file description on Commons (which is completely fine): you should be able to edit the text on the seventh line here if you want to. Graham87 01:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Is the correct spelling didgeridoo or didjeridoo? I'm seeing both spellings here. Can someone clean up the page with the correct spelling? Cheers
I would suggest that the top pic of the didg. have a caption mentioning that this example is much more ornate than many others. Most that I have seen have a very simple exterior design, if any. Matt gies 02:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - but does it need more explanation? Evercat 03:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: 203.202.120.156 removed some of the external links because there were too many commercial adverts.  First off, It's as Irish as - er - didgeridoo is a link to an article about the etymology of didgeridoo at Flinders University, not an advert.  A couple of the others, although they may be commercial sites have useful and relevant content, e.g. mp3 and flash files.
I don't know if the others are problematic (I haven't looked at them, but they're not bothering me by being there), but maybe a more detailed comment here would be in order before deleting them.  —Moilleadóir 08:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links vs. adverts 

message: A didg template for the Babel box is now available, the details are on the Wikipedia:Instruments page. - Rooivalk 01:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: User Template

message: The increasing additions of purported Irish Gaelic language origins for the name didgeridoo seems excessive, and highly implausible.  Badagnani 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an Irish speaker it seems highly unlikely to me too, but worth a reference.  I made an edit three years ago to try and make it clear that this was only a theory and not generally accepted.  What I don’t think we need is the completely unsourced (imagined?) story about the British officer and 'Gaelic' aide, which I plan to remove shortly.  It’s interesting to see how these folk etymologies get talked up though.  ☸ Moilleadóir (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish 

message: Notability can vary from topic to topic, and it's unlikely that didge players will get the same kind of coverage that a rock group does, nor would it be reasonable to apply the same standards. However, I might suggest that a minimum standard for notability would be:
*At least one independent review from a verifiable source, not including the subject's own site.
While I'm only passing familiar with didge "culture" it seems to be that this might be a reasonable standard. Any thoughts or suggestions on this? Doc  Tropics 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to make sense as a minimum standard.  But what does "review" mean?  A review of a CD or performance?  These don't always appear online (especially for Aboriginal players from remote regions) but in local newspapers and other periodicals.  Badagnani 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was specifically thinking "review of a CD or performance", but anything that establishes a "similar degree of notability" should probably be acceptable. There is definitely no requirement that material be online; non-tabloid newspapers (even local papers, in this context) are almost always acceptable sources, provided the info appears in an article, not an Opinion piece (Op-Ed pages, etc.). If we can agree and establish a standard for the page, I think it would resolve many of the related issues pretty easily. I'm generally involved in several projects at any given time, but I'm more than willing to wade through the list and help search for the refs. Also willing to keep the page watchlisted and help maintain it. Doc  Tropics 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess some kind of review is indeed a minimum. However, I'm not sure if it will always work with notable indigenous players. For "western" players I guess one needs to be carefull which reviews to use. On the one hand the risk of reviews written by the player himself, on the other hand there are notable players that are not so known in the English language area and have only non-English reviews. Didgeweb 07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, good point about indigenous players and non-english reviews. Normally, english-language refs are strongly prefered, but in this context, I don't think anyone could complain about using what is available. I've been preoccupied all day, but I do mean to look for some cites myself. Doc  Tropics 07:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By 'English language' do we mean 'written'? As I'd imagine that most written accounts of indigenous didg players would be written in English. And how will we determine sufficient notability if not by what is written about the player, while still abiding by wikipedias Verifiability policy? I'm not being retorhical  here, I'm honestly asking. Ashmoo 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point! Notability is a subjective thing and the 'verifiability' requirement of WP not easily met. What I am concerned about most is that indigenous players who are highly respected and considered to be notable in their respective communities, or across many communities in the case of the most prominent players, would hardly get a look in on WP as they are unknown to the English-speaking internet-using world. Not everything can be found or checked up on using google. It has limited function for Indigenous Australia! On the other hand, a guy in the US or Europe who can play a little - or even a lot - and who has put out recordings but is only a mediocre player might be thought of as a notable.--Rainbow warrior 03:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are some players in Europe, Japan, etc. which might be mentioned in non-English sources.  But my original comment dealt with players who might not have an online presence.  Probably most players who have numerous recordings, however, are mentioned somewhere  on the Internet.  Badagnani 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Maybe we need a new section in the article Man arrested over didgeridoo attack  --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you are joking. Ashmoo 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Often people are not to sure about my comments, but yes it's tongue in cheek. BTW, does anyone know anything about www.didgeridoostore.com, I want to get a starter didgeridoo and teach yourself CD. I can be emailed or answer posted on my talk page. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked this suggestion, as I saw about ten references to "attacks by didge" when searching through journals! But maybe this should go under its own "attacks with musical instruments" page.Chickpecking (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Other uses

message: Following up on a remark that the age of the didge was not supported by a reference I added a reference to Journey in Time, George Chaloupka, p. 189. Badagnani suggested to put references at the end of the document. Is this a good suggestion? 
So next to the external links add a section "references"? Didgeweb 15:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or call it "Bibliography" if that's preferable.  I think if the book is relevant and informative, its full publication details should be listed.  Also, we can see if there are any good books or articles that treat the didgeridoo, and list them too there.  Badagnani 15:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bibliography feels tricky to me. It may be yet another place where people want to place their merchandise (cf. Notable players). But it is an option. The mentioned book is afaik a relevent and informative book on Aboriginal Art. The didge is mentioned only on 2 or 3 pages, but in reference with dated evidence. Didgeweb 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps References and Selected Bibliography might be the way to go? It helps to look at other wiki articles that are very well done --Rainbow warrior 02:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I started this new thread so we can discuss possible additional and/or replacement images of the instrument being used.  I'd like to keep this to images that actually exist already, and we can use (there's no point talking about what we wish we could have).  I found this page which has this image.  It's not fantastic resolution, but it does focus more on the instrument, and there's a clear view of the end (mike side) of the instrument.  And it's public domain.--Rob (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say what you would like to have, perhaps someone has it readily available or knows where to find it  :-)  . And it may make discussion about the image more explicit. In other words, do we / you want to have examples of a didge just being used, or a didge being used in contemporary music, or a didge being used where it is not expected? Or something else? Cheers! Didgeweb (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: While I think the current main picture at the top of the article is very good, it gives little indication of relative size.  The image lower down showing a player is rather small. Could a new or additional image be added which shows an instrument being played? After all, as with any instrument, musical or not, it can only really be appreciated fully when plsyed, I guess. Just an idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image you refer to, :Image:Five Star Affair 1.jpg isn't small.  The thumbnail size may be small, but that can be increased, if wanted.  Perhaps you mean, you want an image focusing exclusive on the player+instrument, without much else?  If you want another image, I suggest looking through FlickR here, and uploading something you like to Commons.  There seems to be plenty of images licenced freely, that we can use.  --Rob (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, will do. Yes, I was thinking of a pictue of just one person playing, but showing the instrument in full. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image suggestions

message: I know very little about the instrument it's self, but is the clame that it is the oldest wind instrument credible. The text that goes with it says that it can be confirmed to have existed around 500 BCE. However, I am pretty sure the Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, and many other cultures had flutes and whistles well before that. 71.184.205.6 (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard evidence for the instrument's existence doesn't go back very far, other than rock paintings, I believe. Yes, there are wind instruments (primarily flutes made from the bones of birds, as well as bears) believed to date back to the Upper Paleolithic and earlier, back to c. 40,000 - 60,000 years ago. Badagnani (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do a search you will find that a considerable number of RS say "it is claimed to be the oldest" but it is true that flutes are older. Some scientific sources say the first didgeridoos were made from bamboo and that it is possible bamboo was always used as a form of didgeridoo so this could be where the claim comes from. As long as the article says it is only a claim it is accurate. Wayne (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  wind instrument 

message: :'"and some currently unsubstantiated claims peg times over one hour."'
Removed the above, unsubstantiated claims are not encyclopedic without a reference to the claim, and no reference has appeared in a year and a half.  User:Pedant (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked into this myself. The longest sustained note is only a few minutes but if the note includes the cyclical breathing then the claim is correct. Technically a note can't include such a technique but some people do not make the distinction. I put it in the too hard basket rather than delete it. Perhaps if anyone wants the claim included they can reword it to explain exactly what is meant. Wayne (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't a note technically include the use of a technique such as circular breathing? This has the risk of becoming a long discussion on definitions, and I will not pursue a long discussion ;-)  The thing is, it is not too difficult to make a continuous sound for -say- half an hour (done it before) or longer. So just wondering why a long, monotonous sound shouldn't be considered a note. Is the way the sound is created also important? ;-) Cheers! Didgeweb (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking around it seems there are two types of records for the longest sustained note. The longest with a single breath is 39.2 seconds. The longest with circular breathing is 2 hours 45 minutes on a saxophone by Rahsaan Roland Kirk but as it was during a live performance in the 1970's it did not make Guinness. What is in Guinness is 45 minutes by Kenny G also on a saxophone. Wayne (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsubstantiated claims 

message: (Moved from the main page. I'd suggest a new wiki page for this topic if this is really relevant. Didgeweb (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didgeridoo In Digimon 

message: I'm not knowledgeable about this subject so will leave it to others to decide whether this is significant enough to include, but here's a Daily Telegraph (UK) article about the Daring Book for Girls causing a row by including (in draft form, anyway) a section on didgeridoo playing. Mark Rose, quoted, seems adamant that females must not play the instrument, but that doesn't seem to fit with this piece (already mentioned in Wikipedia's article) which is a lot less clear-cut. 86.136.250.66 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your diligent caution has been matched by my undue haste, and at almost exactly the same time. Equally unknowldgeable, I'll let others decide if my addition should stay. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there have been many books, published and unpublished in various countries that have done the same, why is this any more notable than any others? It surely is no case for inclusion in an encyclopedia, if it was, it would be motivation enough to release my own book on the subject and get exposure and attention in encyclopedias like WP. Nick carson (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Publisher offends Aborigines by encouraging girls to play didgeridoo" 

message: The didgeridoo seems a relatively simple instrument to create. Are there any records of its invention by cultures independent of Indigenous Australia?--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there have been other cultures around the world who have used termite-hollowed tree trunks or branches to create woodwind instruments, but the key thing is that the didgeridoo became highly prevalent and widely used to the extent that it spread around northern Australia at least and it became used during their most important cultural and ceremonial activities. This hasn't occurred anywhere else in the world, but that's not to say there may not have been particularly ingenuitive individuals in other cultures who developed similar instruments independently of their greater culture. Nick carson (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  non australian didgeridoo 

message: Someone added barely changed text from this story about Nicole Kidman.  I've reverted the possible copyvio, but want to know whether it's worth mentioning in this article before readding a rewritten version. -- Skarl 10:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there's plenty of people who have upset Indigenous Australians by playing a didgeridoo in a non-indigenous manner. I myself have seen 3 non-indigenous females offend Indigenous Australians by playing the instrument. The fact remains that it is not taboo for females to play the didgeridoo in non-ceremonial occasions. I have also met Indigenous Australians who are unaware of this fact themselves. If some movie star, Australian or otherwise, wants to play a didgeridoo then that's their business, not ours, including the subsequent occurrences. Nick carson (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicole Kidman and the didgeridoo 

message: I've gone through and done a general copyedit of the entire article, reorganised sections, images, etc, added the musical instrument infobox and I may upload some construction photos and other images later. Can we please ensure that we source information and make actual contributions before we tag things with fact dates, whos and wheres, this is the only way we can improve articles on WP, by making actual contributions. Nick carson (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article clean up

message: Referenced in the article. No other references to "Ubarr in Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.11.28 (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What is an Ubarr Ceremony?

message: I don't think the Didgeridoo should be classified as a woodwind instrument. As far as I can tell it is a brass instrument, since you make the sound by oscillating your lips. Ahltorp (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Woodwind instrument?

message: Not sure where to put this suggestion but a popular game entitled "Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity" Features a didj as one of the main instruments on the course "Gigan Rocks"
Here's a link to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJ19ESXjWQ
Some pretty nice playing too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.142.87 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Secctions that only contain appearances in popular culture and other trivia are generally discouraged in Wikipedia, and I'm not about to create a new section just for that one computer game. A popular culture section written in prose form, not as a list of miscellany, might be interesting. Graham87 05:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of the didgeridoo in a popular game 

message: :: The claim of "world oldest wind instrument" is not even close. Bone flutes in excess of 30,000 years old have been found, and the use and construction of bone flutes is still very common in many countries throughout the world.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.249.113 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I've removed the claim. Thanks for pointing it out. Graham87 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: World's oldest instrument

message: I've taken out the section on Modern didgeridoo innovations, replacing it with a shortened section called "Didgeridoo in popular culture", and merged the previous innovations section into a 2nd article, Modern didgeridoo designs, on the basis that the modern didgeridoos are not technically authentic traditional didgeridoos. I'm also titling the main didgeridoo article "Didgeridoo (traditional)". This puts this article more inline with what musicologists recognize as the authentic traditional didgeridoo i.e. a traditional instrument made by indigenous Australians from hollow Eucalyptus logs eaten out by termites. The modern designs are also recognized by musicologists as being quite distinct from traditional didgeridoos, especially the multitonal qualities of sliding didgeridoos, with characteristics more inline with Western instruments. Wiki needs to reflect this in the articles, as the Cornu is as distinct from a French horn. Comments welcome. John Moss (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about either traditional didgeridoos or their modern variations. However parentheses are only used in page titles for disambiguation, not to signify what a page contains. The primary topic for the term "didgeridoo" is most definitely the traditional instrument made by indigenous Australians, and Wikipedia only uses disambiguators when absolutely necessary. Therefore I've boldly moved the page back. Graham87 14:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I see your point Graham...and I don't mind your boldness, as I was equally bold! It's true, musicology references primarily refer to authentic traditional didgeridoos, and so inherently it should not be necessary to use parentheses if the subject is primarily about traditional didgeridoos. So following that logic it also makes sense to separate the Modern didgeridoo designs into a separate article. John Moss (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Title change to [[Didgeridoo (traditional)]], and creation of separate article for [[Modern didgeridoo designs]]

message: I find this section problematic in that it makes several strong claims without citation. I have quoted the text and bolded the claims which I feel need substantiation or alteration with suggested changes in parentheses.
Perhaps(may be a weasel word) the majority of didgeridoos manufactured today are purely for souvenir purposes(non traditional). It is far more common to find didgeridoos made of non-native timbers, decorated incorrectly by non-indigenous artists displaying merely colourful designs or emulated dot patterns and no traditional dreamtime stories or generational designs. These souvenir didgeridoos also often vary widely in size and shape(don't traditional didgeridoos very in size and shape? they are made from found trees, and randomly hollowed by termites after all), many being thinner and straighter. As a result of the inadequate wood types(The physics of wind instruments are not impacted heavily by the material of the vessel), shapes and lengths, souvenir didgeridoos can rarely be used as musical instruments.(Music is a very subjective phenomenon. The claim that a majority of didgeridoos cannot be used to make music seems absurd)
Decoration of souvenir didgeridoos is often seen by(weasel words) indigenous communities as offensive, inappropriate, inadequate, inaccurate and in many cases, misleading(these could easily be boiled down into offensive. citation needed.). The copying of traditional artwork is also used to sell these didgeridoos to unsuspecting tourists. Mstraney (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  There is no basis for any of that section.  --Rob (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Souvenir didgeridoos 

message: The picture at the top of the page lacks any objects of known size to compare the size of the instruments with. To me, they look like they are the size of a flute.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture with perspective 

message: 'synonyms' (not the right term - these are rather words for didjeridu in various languages, e.g., 'pesce' is the word for 'fish' in Italian, not a synonym for fish) are inaccurate, at least in some cases. 'artawirr' is the Iwaidja word for didjeridu, not the Jawoyn word. And the words which are given as Iwaidja translations are not recognized as Iwaidja. Also 'djibolu' (Mornington Island) is not recognized. What is the source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucebirch (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but feel free to remove obviously wrong synonyms. Can you elaborate on what you mean by the terms being "not recognized"? Graham87 15:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Bruce, Having looked into this more deeply, it seems that they were sourced from this page from the Art and Culture Centre in Alice Springs. I'm inclined to trust you far more than that rather informal and touristy page, since you have done extensive field work in the Iwaidja community, so I've made your suggested changes. I hardly know anything about didgeridoos or indigenous languages; I only watch this article to guard against vandalism. Graham87 15:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

text: As far as I am aware the Jawoyn term is Gunbarrk, quite similar to the Gagudju term.    Djapa Owen 13:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've added that term to the article. Graham87 14:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The list of terms for didjeridu is inaccurate

message: I have removed the Cultural Index section as it looked like it was basicaly an advert for a single site rating system that has not had any independent coverage. As such it does not belong. WP:NOT and WP:WEIGHT. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cultural Index is a new method to attempt to educate consumers about the true background of the instrument, i.e., whether is is really an Aboriginal didgeridoo or  mass-produced instrument made by non-Aboriginals.
Hmarin (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Has there been any independent coverage of this index in third-party reliable sources, or is it hot off the press, as it were? Is iDIDJ a well-regarded organisation by didgeridoo experts? I assume that it has expert contributors, though the site seems to be in an embryonic state. Graham87 14:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The didgeridoo is not very popular when compared to other things in this world and so there aren't any "organizations" per se. The didgeridoo is being manufactured across the world with little regard to the Aboriginals, let alone the traditional custodians of the instrument. There is even a smaller circle of people who wish to keep the traditional custodians of the instrument in the forefront of all discussions of the instrument. I would say that iDIDJ is the leading proponent of Aboriginal rights in terms of the didjeridu, and it even sponsors philanthropy. Because of the general low-level of interest in the didgeridoo, iDIDJ is not spending a lot of time on the website. Instead, there are regular updates on the iDIDJ YouTube channel. The iDIDJ Cultural Index is not widely accepted because most people don't really care about the traditional custodians of the instrument. Need proof? Read the Talk pages of the people who maintain the Wiki didgeridoo pages! If you talk with Djalu (as I have), they regard the didgeridoo as their cultural property. We should respect that. They are accepting of the fact that the didgeridoo has spread all over the world, but only if that fact helps people understand and learn about Aboriginals in Australia. This didgeridoo page needs to re-focus its attention on the traditional custodians of the instrument. The iDIDJ Cultural Index is not widely accepted because people care about money, not about maintaining cultural integrity. If you care about the didgeridoo, and have respect for its cultural heritage, then we all should be respetful of the Aboriginal's cultural property.
Hmarin (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored a mention of the cultural index. I think it's important to note the point of view of traditional custodians of the instrument, either directly or through organisations representing them. As iDIDJ is the leader in this field, I think the cultural index is worth adding to this page. As I've said before, I know very little about didgeridoos and only have this article on my watchlist to keep it free from vandalism. So feel free to edit this page, but remember to cite reliable sources for your edits; Also notice the indentation of each post on this talk page. Graham87 03:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mucho gracias Hmarin (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What about adding a new section called Authenticity and placing the Cultural Index in that section? it is important for consumers to understand what they are buying.Hmarin (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a very good idea! Graham87 15:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

text: And I've removed it again. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on what has been published in reliable sources. Groups representing those with an direct interest are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is not here to promote Aboriginal rights. This didgeridoo page needs to focus its attention on what has been written about the instrument. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to put it back again without further discussion, but Self-published sources are reliable when talking about their own activities, as they are in this case. I see it as most analagous (but not entirely) to using tracts by followers of a religion to describe what its adherents believe ... which is of course encouraged on Wikipedia. I do think however that an authenticity section would be a better way of framing this debate. Graham87 15:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A section on traditional custodians/cultural integrity would be nice but not called "authentic" unless that's what sources use. Other Didgeridoo fit in with the definition of authentic. Pboably best fits in Cultural significance. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Index  

message: I know many Yolnju and Binninj who would object to the reference to "the paganism of the Australian tribes" in the popular culture section. Many Australian Aboriginal people do not consider that their culture has a tribal structure. While paganism may be applicable by some standards, I beleive that the association with european pagan beliefs may cause some confusion and perhaps offence and the term "spirituality" would apply just as well would it not?    Djapa Owen 13:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. I've replaced "paganism" with "spirituality" and "Australian tribes" with "Aboriginal people". Graham87 14:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the paganism of the Australian tribes? 

message: Well, apparently for Alan Dargin, a famous didgeridoo player it wasn't so "healthy". Wikipedia has an article about him that says this:
"Dargin was diagnosed with burst veins in his throat and was warned by doctors that continued playing of the didgeridoo to generate a "fast, complex and loud sound" in "his forceful style" could endanger his life.[2][5] In mid-February 2008 he admitted to Saint Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, and died of a cerebral haemorrhage on 24 February 2008.[6][7]
In light of the fact that playing the didgeridoo did in fact kill him, you better revise your alleged "health benefits" section to include a warning that didgeridoo playing can actually be dangerous to your health. LOL.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health benefits? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Didgeridoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110214193946/http://www.yirrkala.com:80/yidaki/dhawu/31samething.html to http://www.yirrkala.com/yidaki/dhawu/31samething.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110214193750/http://www.yirrkala.com:80/yidaki/dhawu/08howmade.html to http://www.yirrkala.com/yidaki/dhawu/08howmade.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently says: "The earliest occurrences of the word in print include a 1919 issue of Smith's Weekly where it was referred to as an "infernal didjerry" which "produced but one sound – (phonic) didjerry, didjerry, didjerry and so on ad infinitum", the 1919 Australian National Dictionary, The Bulletin in 1924 and the writings of Herbert Basedow in 1926."
There are demonstrably much earlier occurences, at least to 1908.
Here is a reference in a 1908 edition of the Hamilton Spectator (a newspaper in the western district of Victoria) which is probably republished from somewhere else: 
And here's an occurance in the Northern Territory Times and Gazette in 1914:  
Is that original research? The article's current statement isn't referenced at all either. Boneymau (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be acceptable IMO, but it'd be better to track down the original publication of the piece from 1908. While researching this issue, I checked the Macquarie Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary (available by getting an NLA library card), and the Australian National Dictionary (freely available, but their website is hard to link to). The Macquarie Dictionary doesn't give a date of first usage, but says the word could be Aboriginal in origin, while the Oxford English Dictionary gives 1924 and the Australian National Dictionary gives 1919. The Australian National Dictionary Centre finds an earlier version of one of the 1919 sources and takes it back to 1918. I've used that site as a source for now. Perhaps it'd be worth getting in touch with them to let them know about earlier uses? Graham87 08:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting.  Digging a bit deeper, the S.E. Pearson who wrote the 1908 article appears to be Sidney Evan Pearson, who according to this obit was originally from the Western District. That makes it more likely the article in the Hamilton Spectator is original and not republished from elsewhere. Pearson is recounting his experiences in the Northern Territory. He refers to the Mootburra tribe, which is probably the Mutpura from the north-central part of the territory.  All seems to line up. Looks reasonable to alter the article to say the earliest occurences in print go to at least 1908.Boneymau (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. I've added them. Graham87 04:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest reference in print 

message: The musical staff near the top of the page indicates the "written range" for the didgeridoo as being from F# below the treble staff to C two leger lines above it, then, parenthetically, the C an octave above that.  However, this is meaningless without further information.
The description "written range" seems to imply that the didgeridoo is a transposing instrument, which is to say that its pitch is traditionally written a fixed interval higher or lower than its sounding pitch.  This is news to me, as I have never heard that it is written as a transposing instrument; but if the notes written there be taken as sounding pitch, I think they are far too high, as I have frequently heard didgeridoos that go more than an octave below the lowest end of the range given here (if read as sounding pitch) - so that seems to support that the range is notated as if for a transposing instrument.  However, in that case, it is not indicated which transposition is used.  I am guessing that this written range would transpose to more than an octave lower, as I have heard didgeridoos that go at least as low as Eb one leger line below the bass staff.  On the other hand, I cannot even imagine any didgeridoo that can play in the upper range of the flute or piccolo.
I would be interested to know more about this, and to know whether the idea that the didgeridoo is a transposing instrument is widespread.
I came to this page to find out the actual, sounding range of the didgeridoo, and I come away from it no more enlightened than I was before I came.
Secondly, if two upper limits to the range are to be given, an explanation must be given as to why there are two upper limits, and whether there are situations where one or the other applies.  It is just ambiguous, though, to give two upper limits without explanation.  It would seem that there can be only one highest possible note on an instrument, so if the situation is more complicated and there may be more than one highest possible note, this needs detailed explanation.
Thanks. M.J.E. (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitch range indication needs more information.