Talk:Pastoral pipes

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Musical Instruments Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bagpipes Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bagpipes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bagpipes 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.BagpipesWikipedia:WikiProject BagpipesTemplate:WikiProject BagpipesBagpipes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

It is requested that one or more audio files of a musical instrument or component be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality by demonstrating the way it sounds or alters sound. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

Merge

I think it's a bit absurd to have two different articles entitled Pastoral Pipes and Pastoral pipes (note capitalization!). I'm proposing merging them, but I'm not doing it right away in case anyone would like to suggest a different name for one article or the other and keep them separate. --Craig Stuntz 13:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree - I reckon here is the better place as there is no particuar reason for the capitilisation. Calum 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned Edit

Restoration of former article by unsigned edit and restoration of cited sources removed by unsigned editor. The sources for the removal of the footjoint are cited, credible and come from a source in Cambridge university so they stay. Celtic Harper (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union pipe material belongs with Uilleann Pipes article

There is no real evidence that the Pastoral form of the instrument, i.e. the "New Bagpipe", was referred to as the Union Pipes. There is however good evidence that the name "Union Bagpipes" was applied to the foot-joint-less instrument prior to 1800. The name "uilleann" has not been documented prior to Grattan Flood's (now-discredited) assertion (c1903) that uilleann was the previous name of the instrument.

The consensus among scholars of the latter instrument is that "Union Pipes" and "Irish Pipes" were the names in circulation prior to Flood.

It is indeed thought, nowadays (though dissenting views exist) that the Pastoral instrument evolved into the "Union" instrument, which underwent further change during the late 19th and early 20th centuries; however the name change to "uilleann" seems to be only that - a name change - thus "Union" and "Uilleann" pipes are the same. There is a convention to refer to pre-20th-century union/uilleann instruments by the former name ("union" pipes) and "modern" instruments by the latter, but this is merely a convention.

Thus photos of and references to "Union Pipes" should be moved to the Uilleann Pipes Wikipedia article, and reference to their presumed origin in the Pastoral Pipes should be retained in this article. The current arrangement wrongly implies that pastoral and union pipes are the same instrument (e.g. "other names" in the RHS box), and uilleann pipes are something different.. A similar, but lesser, problem exists on the uilleann pipes page where the pastoral pipes are referred to as an "early form of the uilleann pipes".

I should point out that these origins are, while oft-repeated, still hypothetical and speculative - I have never encountered a contemporary account of removal of the foot-joint. Unfortunately much of the published material on these instruments is based on thin scholarship and a number of the views in this article are controversial - a reader of the article in its current form would not get any indication of this.

best regards,

Bill Haneman 86.42.95.228 (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the above comment is misleading the evolution of the union pipe is not "oft-repeated, still hypothetical and speculative" that is your opinion probably due to Irish nationalism Bill. Dissenting views exist (in a minority I might add) because some people have a problem with the shared history between Britain and Ireland with the development of the Uilleann/Union pipes. So much nationalists like Flood in 1904 gave this instrument an Irish gaelic make-over. The real development of this instrument is far more interesting than the speculative crap thats spouted out like "England banned marching instruments in Ireland therefore the instrument evolved from that" or the laughable Flood hypothesis of "woolian pipes" even Irish historians laugh at them now. The two octave union/Uilleann pipe of the British Isles has had enough speculation considering historical instruments prove the evolution from the pastoral pipes and the range was two octaves the same as the union pipes. Less nationalism please. Yaniukku (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pastoral pipes. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070928073634/http://www.bemccandless.net/pdfs/PastoralUnion_McCandless.pdf to http://www.bemccandless.net/pdfs/PastoralUnion_McCandless.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pastoral pipes. 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/20070928073634/http://www.bemccandless.net/pdfs/PastoralUnion_McCandless.pdf to http://www.bemccandless.net/pdfs/PastoralUnion_McCandless.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pastoral pipes. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]