Talk:Duduk

Armenian origin

I checked the sources presented for the Armenian origin of the instrument. None of them says anything about the origins. The link to UNESCO is dead. I suppose it was supposed to be this: [1] However the article says nothing about the origins of the instrument, and does not represent the opinion of UNESCO. It says: The Duduk and its Music ©Samvel Amirkhanyan. So it is the opinion of this person, apparently provided by the Armenian ministry of culture to describe the instrument. The second source is this, [2], it is in Armenians, so I'm unable to read it. I don't think it is possible to trace the origin of any instrument to any particular nation, especially when the instrument is played in most countries of the region. The word duduk itself is of Turkish origin, according to GSE and other Russian sources. And not just Russian. So the intro must be worded more neutrally. Grandmaster 12:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Samvel Amirkhanyan is the person, mentioned here as the "Head of Staff of Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia". [3] He is a governmental official in Armenia. Grandmaster 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to UNESCO isn't dead http://www.unesco.ru/rus/articles/2004/Valya20082007123347.phpApserus (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a different link. The one that was in the article before was dead. And this new link also does not say that duduk has Armenian origins. Grandmaster 05:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the UNESCO link Don Kikos (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the instrument is of Armenian origin is not supported by the sources provided. Plus, it is impossible to claim that duduk was invented by Armenians. No one knows who was the person who invented it, and it exists among all the nations in the region. It is quite obvious that the instrument existed from immemorial times, as long as humankind existed, same as other simple instruments like drums. Encyclopedia of Islam says that duduk is a Turkish instrument, and that source is written by top international experts, professional historians. In any case, in my opinion, it is better to avoid attribution of the instrument to any particular nation, as the sources conflict on this. Grandmaster 05:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At first armenians was playing on duduk before turks-mongols came to Asia Minor,so it isnt turkish instrument.I think that encyclopedia of islam isn't neutral,becouse turks are muslims. Here is http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?RL=03 link to English version of UNESCO. The duduk, the Armenian oboe, is a double-reed wind instrumentApserus (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam is not a Muslim source. Read the article about it. It is an encyclopedia about the Islamic world, not a Muslim or an Islamic encyclopedia. It is written by the best Western experts. UNESCO site is not a source on history, and the article there is written by Samvel Amirkhanyan, an official in the ministry of ecology in Armenia. It is not a reliable source. Plus, it does not say that duduk is of Armenian origin. It says that duduk is Armenian instrument, but it is as much a Turkish, Azerbaijani, Georgian, etc. instrument. The sources that say duduk is the instrument of a certain nation do not claim that it was invented by them. So please stop removing sourced info. Such actions are not tolerated here, it is an arbitration covered topic. Grandmaster 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Gasparian is not a reliable source on the etymology of the word duduk. He is a musician, not a philologist. The word dudka in Slavic langauges also derives from Turkic duduk:

The word "Dudelsack", for bagpipe, is traced to the Turkish word düdük, for pipe, from where it supposedly reached us via the Balcans and Slavic languages.

Christine Wessely. Die Türken und was von ihnen blieb. Verband der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs, 1978.

As one can see, the word dudel came to Slavic langauges from the Turkic düdük, and from there reached the German language. Grandmaster 05:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You have no clue of what you are talking about, the standardized duduk (the Armenian oboe) is a double-reed aero-phone (woodwind) folk instrument with a cylindrical bore made of aged apricot tree wood. That's quite different than the non-standardized Bulgarian, Balkan Duduks, balaban which are closer to those used in the Ottoman (the Turkish version, the Ney), or the Georgian duduki and neither produce the sound of the Duduk. They're not the same... the modern Duduk is based in the 13th century version, it's a specific instrument which in an earlier form was found in Tigran's court as the Armenian Duduk is an early prototype of oboe (Musical instruments: craftsmanship and traditions from prehistory to the present, Luci Rault, Harry N. Abrams, 2000, p. 210). It is quite possible 'duduk' could be a Turkish word, as in the Armenian manuscripts it was not called duduk, but when the instrument existed there was no Turks in the region, in fact the Turkic wind instruments brought from the steps of Mongolia were different in size and shape and were certainly not double-reed. UNESCO recognizes the Armenian oboe as 'duduk' as well as the very large majority of the sources. Specific musical encyclopedias are unanimous, for example this one. Besides, had your gesture been in good fate, you would have followed the alphabetical order, you didn't even do that. Please stop bringing conflicts from Russian Wikipedia over here. In her book, "Folk musical instruments of Turkey", Laurence Ernest Rowland Picken's definitely classifies it as Armenian... all those are specialized books about musical instruments. - Fedayee (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Duduk cannot be Armenian or anyone else's. Many nations are using the instrument. It is the same as saying that violin is German or Italian or Swedish. No source says that the instrument is of Armenian origin. There are sources calling it Armenian, Turkish, Bulgarian, etc, but it just means that all those nations use this instrument. The cyclopedia you quote mentions Armenian duduk and Georgian duduki, which is the same instrument. Encyclopedia of Islam mentions Turkish duduk, which is also the same. And in Iranica you can read about balaban, also called duduk. [4] Obviously, it is the same instrument used by various people. Grandmaster 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I restored the source and information as you cant just delete sources like that. Neftchi (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Some sort of common-sense is needed here. The duduk is TODAY seen pre-eminently as an Armenian instrument. Most of its players are Armenian, most recordings of it are made by (and probably purchased by) Armenians, it is seen as a national instrument in Armenia, and, worldwide, the music produced by it is widely recognised and called "Armenian". Meowy 20:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Many nations consider this instrument to be theirs. Just an example:

Stoian Petrov offers description and recordings of Bulgarian popular instruments, the strings gadulka (bowed) and bulgaria or tambura (plucked); the winds gaida (bagpipe), kaval (shepherd's pipe), and the various reed pipes: svirka, dvoianka, duduk, etc.

Wilton Mason. Reviewed work(s): Journal of the International Folk Music Council, Volume XII by Maud Karpeles. Ethnomusicology, Vol. 5, No. 2 (May, 1961), pp. 150-151

Should we write now that duduk is a Bulgarian instrument? Claiming a popular instrument to a certain nation is nothing but a nationalistic approach. It is impossible to ascertain the origins of the instrument, unless one has a time machine to travel back in time to the very moment when duduk was created to check the ethnicity of its creator. Common sense says that duduk is an international instrument, used by many people in the Middle East, Caucasus and East Europe. Claiming it to only one nation leads us nowhere. One can describe in the article the importance of duduk to the Armenian culture or the prominence of Armenian players, but saying that duduk is of Armenian origin, or that it is only an Armenian instrument is not reasonable. Grandmaster 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also saying that most of duduk players are Armenian is not accurate. There are as many players in Azerbaijan and Georgia. They are simply not known outside of their countries, because Azeris and Georgians don't have big Diasporas outside of their countries. Grandmaster 20:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I must note the massive use of socks and SPAs to edit war in this article in favor of a certain ethnic POV. If this does not stop, I will have to ask for the admin intervention. Grandmaster 20:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you denying that the duduk is today seen pre-eminently as an Armenian instrument. Are you denying that most recordings of it are made by (and probably purchased by) Armenians, that it is seen as a national instrument in Armenia, and that, worldwide, the music produced by it is widely recognised and called "Armenian"? Meowy 21:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

When all else fails, they blame the Armenian diaspora. The duduk became popular in the West because of Djivan Gasparyan's collaboration with Hans Zimmer on the Gladiator soundtrack. And last I checked, Gasparyan is not from the diaspora. Gasparyan advocates usage of the term dziranapogh, by the way. TA-ME (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, because the word duduk is Turkish. However it is the internationally accepted name for the instrument. The fact that Gasparian popularized duduk in the West does not make the instrument Armenian. Grandmaster 08:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, even if it is seen as a pre-eminently as an Armenian instrument (which is not so), it does not mean that duduk is of Armenian origin or that it is Armenian. In fact, in many countries it is seen as their national instrument. I quoted the source about Bulgaria, here's another one:

Дудук (дудуки), грузинский духовой деревян. инструмент в роде нашей свирели. Звук его мягок и слаб. См. "Грузин. народн. песня" М. Ипполитова-Иванова. [5]

Says that it is a Georgian instrument.

Pre-Soviet Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, published in 1890s:

Дудуки — кавказская дудка, имеющая довольно нежный звук. Д. по преимуществу инструмент комнатный и входит в состав оркестра, сопровождающего пляску. [6]

Says that it is an instrument from the Caucasus. Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

Дудук, дудуки (от тур. düdük), духовой музыкальный инструмент: небольшая (около 300 мм) трубка с 9 игровыми отверстиями и двойной тростью. Обычно играют на двух Д. — один исполнитель ведёт мелодию, а другой извлекает непрерывный звук (органный пункт). Распространён у народов Кавказа. [7]

Modern Russian dictionary:

ДУДУ́К, -а, м. Духовой деревянный музыкальный инструмент в виде цилиндрической трубки с отверстиями, распространенный у народов Кавказа. [Тур. düdük] [8]

Says that the instrument is popular with the people of Caucasus. So even if Gasparian is the most famous duduk player, it does not mean that the instrument is Armenian, like the article claims. It is also Georgian, Azerbaijani, Bulgarian, Turkish, etc. We must adhere to WP:NPOV, and present the facts in a neutral fashion. Grandmaster 08:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But I did not state that the duduk is Armenian because Gasparyan plays it. I mentioned how it came to be popular in the West. You were asserting that Gasparyan's popularity is somehow the fault of Armenian diaspora communities.

I don't care if the duduk is popular with the peoples of the Caucasus or the Balkans (so is Nasreddin), that doesn't determine its origins or place in a country's national identity. The violin article mentions that the instrument has "ancient origins" while highlighting its importance in Italian culture. Perhaps something similar can be done here. You contradict yourself when you say that its origins cannot be traced to any one nation yet add that it is "Turkish in origin" in the introduction. Anyway, we need better sources than those Hetq/UNESCO articles and that Encyclopaedia of Islam passage (all one-minute Google dig-ups). TA-ME (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We have no sources to support the Armenian origin either, yet we have that statement in the intro. We only have sources that call duduk Armenian, Turkish, Bulgarian, Georgian, etc instrument. I suggest we remove any origin claims as OR. We must state that it is an instrument popular in many cultures. I don't mind info about the importance of duduk for the Armenian culture, as long as it is sourced. --Grandmaster 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the Hetq and UNESCO articles are not sufficient. But I agree with Meowy about the instrument being considered pre-eminently Armenian despite its obscure origins. If the "of Armenian origins" statement was unsourced you could have tagged or removed it, not added "of Turkish origin" using a source that is focused on the Islamic world. A proper discussion should have been held on the talk page before such an addition was made. Now there is another edit war. TA-ME (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit war is waged by a sock account. Once the admins investigate the issue, the problem will be solved. If you have a reliable source that the instrument is viewed as pre-eminently Armenian, we can include it. I suggest the following wording for the intro:

The duduk is a traditional woodwind instrument, popular with the people of Caucasus, Middle East and Eastern Europe.

And then we can discuss in the main body the specifics of duduk in each country or region. You can describe in detail the importance of duduk for the Armenian culture by creating a section dedicated to Duduk in Armenia. I think this could be a workable solution. Grandmaster 08:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the regional identification should be limited to the Caucasus and the Middle East, and exclude Eastern Europe. Bulgarian/Balkan music may sometime employ the word duduk to refer to a whistle but this instrument has no organological similarities to the Caucasus/Middle East one discussed in this article, just the name is identical perhaps from the slavic "duda" (meaning pipe). It could be solved with a disambiguation page redirecting to Kaval, an article where the Balkan duduk is already included (because of its organological characteristics), which to me means the "Balkan Duduk" part can be removed from this article. The Armenian duduk does indeed deserve its own subsection, because the duduk that has become famous in a global context today is the instrument which underwent a specific organological development during the 1930s in Armenia as it was redesigned by Armenian musicologist Vardan Buni to suit the needs of a Soviet solo concert instrument (it is also called a "bunifon" sometimes). This info comes from the book "The duduk and national identity in Armenia" by musicologist Andy Nercessian. So it's not the duduk which is Armenian per se, rather there is a specific Armenian duduk . Lanterfantski (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

Lanterfantski that's the whole issue, the major claim that it is not mostly identified as Armenian instrument came from the belief that the Balkan Duduk is the same instrument when they are not. Grandmaster whole problem here with Duduk being refered as mostly an Armenian instrument is that the same instrument is claimed as being Azerbaijani, but who need to put this in this article when a FORK article for duduk exist by the name of Balaban (instrument) where it is claimed as an Azerbaijani instrument. But of course Grandmaster has no problem with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papabu (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I added a clear Unesco reference which states that "The music of the duduk, an Armenian wind instrument, was proclaimed a Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity in 2005. Armenia also works with UNESCO and various donors to examine the manner in which culture can be used to stimulate economic and social development." This is enough to justify that it is an Armenian insturment. The sentence clearly states that THE DUDUK an Armenian wind insturment not like the Armenian Duduk ....Ali55te (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead says that duduk is a traditional Armenian woodwind instrument but it is also a traditional instrument of other nations too. The lead now is not neutral. --Quantum666 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No source. Prove it. --Aram-van (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)ARAMVAN

e.g. Iranica. --Quantum666 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read carefully, there isn't a word, that balaban or duduk is a traditional Azerbaijan or Persian instrument and writing just one sentence doesn't mean the neutrality is disputed.

Funny ))) then see this one: World music: the basics by Richard Nidel, page 213. And have you seen what is written in the tag: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Another one The Caucasus: an introduction by Frederik Coene page 199, which says: duduk is the national instrument of most Caucasian people. And see page 206. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No original research. See [[9]].--Aram-van (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)ARAM VAN

See the sources and stop adding controversial information. --Quantum666 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The first link[10] does not say it has Armenian origin at all. Since in this case they are talking about Duduk in Armenia and using Armenian duduk. Therefore it cannot be interpreted as Duduk has Armanian origin. The seconf link[11] is dead so I cant say anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.194.102 (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional UNESCO referance has been added related to the origins of the insturment. Ali55te (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is written by the Armenian government. The author is "Head of Staff of Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia". Not a reliable source. And according to Encyclopedia of Islam, duduk is a Turkish instrument. So why should we only use the sources claiming that it is Armenian and ignore those that say it is Turkish, Bulgarian, Azerbaijani, etc? How is it even possible to establish who invented the instrument without having the time machine to travel back in time and see who exactly was the inventor? The origins of instruments like duduk, or drums go back to prehistoric times, and arguing over their origins is pointless. Clearly, things like duduk or dolma shared by many cultures, and claiming them to one particular culture is absurd. I'm restoring the consensus version, and suggest stop arguing over ethnic origins and concentrate on improving the info about the actual instrument. Grandmaster 18:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You are just talking nonsense. It is like the Chewbacca defense in the south park episode. The references are published sources from UNESCO. That publications are reviewed by UNESCO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The article in the Encyclopedia of Islam is referring to an instrument called the Mizmār, not the duduk (and even then it doesn't specify a Turkic origin). The Turkic migrations to the Iranian and Armenian plateaus didn't begin until the eleventh century, by which time the duduk had been existence in Armenia for at least one thousand years, so the attribution to the Turkic groups is not only highly unlikely but misleading.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The article in Encyclopedia of Islam mentions "Turkish duduk". And how do we know that duduk existed in Armenia one thousand years before 11th century? There's no serious proof of that. Plus, duduk is part of national tradition of non-Turkic people such as Georgians. How is it possible to claim a particular ethnic origin of the instrument? Do we know who was the person who invented it? And see above a whole lot of sources that say the instrument is common to all people of the region, we cannot ignore all those sources. Grandmaster 19:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So what you're basically saying is that the UNESCO source which says that the roots of the Armenian duduk go back to the time of Tigran II is just joking around and is not taking itself seriously? As for, for that matter, is the professor who says that duduks were portrayed in medieval Armenian manuscripts? It's even doubtful if the "Turkish duduk" the author of the article in the EOI is talking about was found during the initial invasions of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We know who wrote that UNESCO source. You cannot pick certain opinion over others, when clearly there's no consensus in the scholarly community about the origins of the instrument. Grandmaster 22:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is getting pretty annoying. If you look at kamancha article it is clearly stated that it has Iranian (Persian) origins . If you look at zurna article it is states that i has Turkic origins. These articles don't have even a reasonable reference state that. Duduk has Armenian origins and we supply enough and reasonable reference for this. Stop removing this. Claiming that this insturment is used on all around Caucasia is Chewbacca defense. Mugham music for example a traditional Azeri music. You can find people in Armenia also who plays mugham music but this does not change the fact that it mugham music has Azeri origins. Stop maliciously vandalising the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 19:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added reliable sources and altered the intro to reflect what the sources say:

"The duduk is a traditional woodwind instrument indigenous to Armenia. Variations of it are popular in the Caucasus, the Middle East and Central Asia"

There are plenty more sources out there that support this wording, so I think this matter is closed unless anyone thinks otherwise? --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How could it be indigenous to Armenia, if it is indigenous to the wider region? And how it is possible to prove that it is indigenous to one particular nation? It is the same as saying that violin is indigenous to Italy, because Stradivari made the best violins. As for sources, there are plenty of sources quoted above that say the instrument is popular among many peoples. And also, I would not say that variotions are popular, it is the same instrument that exists in other cultures. There are plenty of shared cultural heritage in the region, including music, cuisine, traditions, etc. And arguments about origins are pointless. Grandmaster 22:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The origin of the insturment has nothing to do with the regions which is played right now. Please give up repeating the same argument again and again and again and again and again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Which "wider region" are you talking about? Simply because the instrument is popular among many people doesn't mean they can all lay claim to it, and arguments about origins are not "pointless" as you claim because they are a topic of discussion for a reason. Just let it go and enjoy the music. I like pizza, that doesn't mean I'm going to claim that I invented it. Աշոտ (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• SERGO.TEL - April - duduk-improvisation2.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

doo-DOOK or DOO-dook?

I don't speak Armenian, but my duduk instructor does, and he says DOO-dook. Am I hearing this wrong? DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC) I'm asking because it's transliterated in this article as doo-DOOK.DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

XpetVarpet is right, the stress falls on the second syllable. Աշոտ (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

it's always doo-DOOK UserXpetVarpet (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Name of the article/hostility towards Armenian contributors

Is there such a policy on Wikipedia that requires the (in this case, the instrument's) article to be named in a way that is familiar to most people? Be constructive in your replies and reference a rule/policy/guideline.

The reason I am asking this is because this is an Armenian instrument and its' more popular name (düdük) is unfortunately of Turkish origin. Given the fact that Armenian culture - and Armenia itself - is currently under vicious attack by Turkey and Azerbaijan, I believe I represent all Armenians when I put forward the motion of the article's name being changed to "Tsiranapogh" ("apricot pipe"). This is the real name for it and it has been attested by Movses Khorenatsi (~ 410 AD - ~ 490 AD) in his work "History of Armenia", which is the earliest written account of the country's history. If citations are needed to verify this, they will certainly be provided, albeit that may take some time, as verified English translations are hard to come by.

"Tsiranapogh" is what we called it before the Turkification of this region, and "düdük" is nothing but an onomatopoeic Turkish dumbing-down. "Düdük" has appeared in the Armenian language as a loanword - Turkish loanwords are quite widespread in colloquial Armenian speech, despite more phonetically comfortable Armenian equivalents existing - and does not prove a single thing about its origins. There will be individuals who claim that loanwords determine everything, and the counter to that is this: loanwords don't mean a thing when you have native equivalents from them, which existed way before the loanwords were...well, loaned. To contrast this hypothetical argument: the extreme majority of Turkish words are borrowed from Arabic and Persian, along with Armenian, Greek, and some Laz words being very common and not having Turkic equivalents, but I don't see anyone making a fuss about that. However, the linguistic debate should be saved for a different page, so let me progress onto my point.

I can basically see the train of "criticism" from negationist Turks and self-proclaimed "defenders of neutrality" coming, along with the accusations that changing the title into an Armenian one is a nationalistic approach. First of all, there is nothing wrong with nationalism, it's extreme nationalism or ultranationalism we all have a problem with, the Turkish variant of which is coincidentally the sole cause for this debate. Besides, Armenian nationalism emerged as a defensive movement against an oppressive Ottoman form of governance, and the defensive attribute is something that Armenian nationalism unfortunately has to maintain even in the 21st century, yet its the only form of nationalism I see that is under attack everywhere it shows itself. To those who engage in this behavior, here's some friendly advice: restrain yourselves, take a step back and ask yourself why you're so xenophobic. Could it be perhaps that you're squatting on stolen land, and would just totally hate for people to find out? Anyway, I digress.

I see a lot of criticism in the spirit of "why do Armenians want to monopolize the instrument?", and that is not at all why we're pushing to get the real name accepted. Let me give you all an example: bowed string instruments in Europe originated either from the Iranian kamancheh or from Central Asian bowed instruments such as the Mongolian morin khuur. I think no one in their right mind can dispute either of these. Now, does that mean that Italians have no right to play the violin? Of course not, but its' origin is widely known and appreciated - that is, by those who care enough to inquire about it. Why do people insist that if the tsiranapogh is acknowledged as inherently Armenian - mind you, this has already been done, we're just talking about Wikipedia - then no one else will be able to play it? This narrative is mainly pushed by the Turks, who constantly feel threatened by any acknowledgement that cultures other than Turkish exist on former Ottoman soil, and this is part of the Sèvres syndrome that they suffer from.

I know that my message will be met with hostility, but I'll say it anyway: relax, kanka (Turkish word for "mate", also borrowed - from the Romani language). No one is trying to take anything away from you. If it threatens your identity when people reaffirm their culture, then you need to do some serious soul-searching and dig to find out why exactly you feel like a cornered animal when that happens. Աշոտ (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The naming convention on Wikipedia is generally or principally to use the version of a name or term used most commonly in English, a policyknown as WP:COMMONNAME. In the case of this instrument, Tsiranapogh has very little usage in English, while Duduk has widespread usage, often phrased as the "Armenian Duduk", including in books by subject-matter experts on the subject of ethnomusicology. See: The Duduk and National Identity in Armenia by Andy Nercessian. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Iskandar323, for your constructive reply. Աշոտ (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Majority of the Turkish words are not borrowed from any language in the daily use of Turkish. The basis of modern Istanbulite Turkish is vulgar Turkish which was spoken by the Turkish peasants in Anatolia which had little to no influence from Persian and Arabic in contrast to the Ottoman Turkish. Besides to further dismantle this racist rhetoric, Turks are native to their lands as much as you’re, you can’t steal lands which you’re native to (perhaps even more so than your nation). Your kind is famously known for attacking Turkish identity for not being ‘Central Asian’ enough, they’re even more native than you to Western and Central parts of Anatolia. You’ve nothing to look for there, if anything the so-called Western Armenia is now inhabited primarily by the Kurds not Turks, get your facts straight.

You have no right to call others xenophobes when you call a language spoken by more than 90+ million people “dumbing down”. There is no mention of Düdük prior to the arrival of Turks to the area, you remind me of the Armenian nationalists on the Dolma page where they’re proposing an Urartian (not even a language related to Armenian) etymology for the word Dolma which has it’s origin clearly in Turks.

Let me rephrase:

I know that my message will be met with hostility, but I'll say it anyway: relax, akper. No one is trying to take anything away from you. If it threatens your identity when people reaffirm their culture, then you need to do some serious soul-searching and dig to find out why exactly you feel like a cornered animal when that happens. Gokchen19 (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear Turk, reminder to remain civil unless you'd like to get booted off Wikipedia.

1. There are tens of thousands of Turkish terms borrowed and derived from other languages, as is the case with most other languages, including mine—albeit to a much lesser extent. It's not your fault that the proto-Turkic language wasn't very articulate, and this fact doesn't even suggest that Turkish is somehow "inferior". I don't know how you read racism into that.

2. There is no racism in my hypothesis, merely historical consideration. Turks are native peoples elsewhere, not the western Armenian Highlands or Asia Minor or the Balkans, buddy. Turks came to this region in the 10th century, and I will not be having any arguments from you regarding whether they were present earlier or not - they weren't, that's the end of it.

3. Our western land is indeed primarily inhabited by the Kurds, the reason behind which any person with any sense of history knows. To put it into context: a major Ottoman law stated that whoever lived in one place for 10 years was going to get that land, and it wouldn't matter who inhabited it before. The numerically superior, nomadic and Muslim Kurds took advantage of this law and started settling en masse in our territory, which is precisely why you see a Kurdish majority in the western Armenian Highlands today. Anyway, would you rather have us return and then call the region Batı Ermenistan? Personally, I'm from Sasun, and I'm not afraid of living in Turkey; I just think I'd feel a bit lonely with not many conscious Armenians beside me. Also, WOAH PAL, cool it with the racism. "Your kind"? Are you really suggesting that group identity is paramount? If that's the case...your kind is known for denying, justifying and glorifying genocide at the same time. I think that's far worse than a couple of people on the internet going "haha Turks should look like Mongols lol".

4. The number of Turkophones is irrelevant and does not prove that "düdük" is not a dumbing-down. Let's compare the two, shall we? "Tsiranapogh" in Armenian means "pipe instrument made from apricot wood". "Düdük" means...."thing that makes the du-du sound". Now, both of them make sense, but one is inherently simpler than the other. So yes, Gökçen, it is a dumbing-down, and—once again—the number of how many Turkophones exist is absolutely not topical in regards to this discussion unless you're trying to psychologically intimidate me. I really hope that that's not the case, because otherwise you're wasting your time.

5. At this point, I'd like to speak with your English teacher. How can you claim that there's no record of the instrument before the Turks when I literally mentioned one such record above?

Also, I don't like dolma, and I don't care where it's from. Gastronationalism is the stupidest idea to emerge, ever. All food ends up as crap, it doesn't matter if an Armenian made it or a person mixed with 13 different ethnicities.

And of course, like the unoriginal person that you are, you stole and failed to rephrase my end statement. I expected nothing more and nothing less! Աշոտ (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, it's not "akper". Since Turkish doesn't have the խ (x) sound, you'd pronounce it as "ahper". Get the term right if you're gonna reply using it. Աշոտ (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)