Talk:Glass flute

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Whether "twerking" is important to the description of Madison's flute being played at the Library of Congress:

Here is the official Smithsonian Magazine article about the glass flute event, where Lizzo's "twerking" is described as "signature"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/lizzo-played-200-year-old-glass-flute-james-madison-180980861/

It is mentioned in nearly every article, and is the source of no small amount of cultural discussion. It remains a relevant detail. Lizard Commissioner (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the twerking is significant in the context of this concert and the subsequent Discourse, is it significant enough to warrant mention on the Wikipedia article for glass flutes, really? 1f68875f4efde818 (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is an accurate description of the circumstances under which the most famous public concert of the glass flute occurred. I added an additional claim because there seemed to be considerable disagreement as to whether the videoed event took place. Lizard Commissioner (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Twerking is mentioned in sources. Editors who are looking to remove this information should engage here first. Jno.skinner (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lizzo content could probably be reduced to one sentence, like "On September 27, 2022, artist Lizzo played the flute at the Library of Congress after accepting an invitation and later played it at a concert". With the sources there, not much more needs to be said, at least in the context of the history of glass flutes. Mapsax (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, we could eliminate the mention that Claude Laurent was also a clockmaker, or the observation that the LoC has the world's largest flute collection. But no one contests these mundane facts. It is only the mention of twerking that seems to be debated. Why? Jno.skinner (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my proposal eliminates the name of the Librarian of Congress as well. My only thought in keeping the Claude Laurent descriptor as is is that he doesn't have his own article where that would be listed. I also think that the founding father title for James Madison should be removed from the photo caption; identifying him in the text as a U.S. president should be enough. In fact, it might be appropriate to merge the whole article to Western concert flute if not for the fact that the construction material is so rare. Note also that I have no problem with the contested Lizzo material being put on her article, or on The Special Tour. I also have no problem with the photo itself of her being here; I think that it illustrates the topic very well. Mapsax (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking over your comment, I broke the material about Lizzo into a paragraph separating it from the origin of the Madison flute. A story from the 19th century shouldn't be mixed in with one from the 21st. I also removed the "founding father" caption per your idea. Jno.skinner (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of image and content

An IP editor removed much of the article's content and its only image; then Koshchki123 reverted these removals, which seems justified to me. But Koshchki123 immediately reverted their own change with the message "Sorry, didnt see the edit summary!"

I don't understand what edit summary you mean. Restoring the article seems like the right call to me. Can you fill me in on your thinking here? Jno.skinner (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jno.skinner I did not see the edit summary

I quickly reverted my own change after I saw the removals had an edit summary. I assumed that the it was good faith because it had a reasonable edit summary. I now understand how I was wrong, how do I proceed? Koshchki123 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the old version for now. If you disagree with it, please feel free to revert my edit. Koshchki123 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Koshchki123 for helping me to understand your thoughts! Your edit looks good the way it is. Jno.skinner (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]