Talk:Ovsianniko-Kulikovsky's Symphony No. 21
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An entry from Ovsianniko-Kulikovsky's Symphony No. 21 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 30 June 2006. |
 |
++Lar: t/c 17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Title
I am a bit puzzled with the title of the article. It looks like Mykola Ovsianiko-Kulikovsky is not a notable person and does not deserve a separte article. On the contrary, the fact of symphony hoax is interesting. Actually, the article is about it rather than about Mykola Ovsianiko-Kulikovsky.
What about changing the title?--AndriyK 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know whether the person himself is notable or not; however, it's clear that the current article is about the symphony and not the person. So for now, let's split off the part about the symphony into its own article, leaving a stub here. If enough time goes by and the stub is not expanded, then it can be proposed for either merging into the symphony article or deletion. If there are no objections, I intend to make the initial split in 72 hours. Seahen 17:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. To put in my two cents, I think that the person is notable because of the fact that a symphony was attributed to him. The fact that he was only said to have done this doesn't make much difference, as I see it. What matters is that many people believed that he was notable because he wrote a symphony; this makes him notable. Nigelquinine 18:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Here's my reasoning for making the article about Ovsianiko-Kulikovsky, and not about the symphony itself. The symphony made ripples upon its discovery, but this was because of the nationality of its purported creator - if the symphony had just been a piece with no name attached to it, or the name of some unknown German or Frenchman, no one would have cared. Furthermore, the print source which I have available (didn't cite because it's a bit outdated - I can add it in if requested) treats the matter of the hoax under the name "Ovsianiko-Kulikovsky". Also, I think that more people remember the name "Ovsianiko-Kulikovsky" in connection with the incident than they remember Goldstein; indeed, I've been having trouble finding out much about him besides the fact that he perpetrated this hoax. Consequently, I think that Ovsianiko-Kulikovsky is notable enough because of the fact that his name was attached to the hoax. --AlbertHerring 20:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that there's nothing further to tell about Ovsianiko-Kulikovsky apart from this supposed symphony should make it clear that the suggested splitting the article isn't called for. The subject here is the hoax. Titles should reflect contents. Any title that reflects the content of this article should be just fine. --Wetman 22:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- The idea behind the salami tactic of first splitting, then merging is that it gives the benefit of the doubt that someone might find something else to say about the person. Seahen 03:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] info on symphony
Ovsianiko-Kulikovsky: Symphony No. 21. full score, 22.2 x 30cm 79pp. Moscow, Muzgiz, 1951. 480 copies printed. First and only edition of a forgery which occasioned a major scandal. The perpetrator, violinist-conductor- composer Mikhail Goldstein, was lucky to survive this Stalin- era peccadillo to emigrate to West Germany in 1964. The full story may be found at http://www.panix.com/~checker/ ok.htm Cover is frayed and worn at corners, mended with tape on spine, and has pencilled Roman transliteration of its exclusively cyrillic titling. Interior is clean and tight. $150.00
