Talk:Nikolai Roslavets

message: Just looking at the most recent changes. 
1) Roslavetz was ethnically Ukrainian. You have removed this and the fact that the place where he was born was in Chernihiv province which is currently in Ukraine.
2) You have changed the link to his article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia by changing his name. As a result it no longer links to his ARTICLE.
3) You have removed all vestigages of his Ukrainian ethnicity, and Ukrainian identity, and removed the articles from Ukrainian sources.
To me it does not seems to be a very scholarly manner of editing.
Please discuss these before changing.
Bandurist (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: The Ukrainian form of name Mykola Roslavets is not used by English speakers; nor was it used on Roslavets's publications during his lifetime. The only apparent justification for use if this form is the post facto argument that he was born in what is now Ukraine, but what for virtually all of his working life was the Soviet Union. There is no evidence that he himself used the form Mykola. All Western reference books, recordings etc. use the form Nikolai Andreyevich; this includes all the references, except for those published in Ukraine, which are given in the article. To give WP readers the idea that his name was 'Mykola' is therefore misleading. The article was originally written using the name 'Nikolai' and was moved  without explanation or justification. Encyclopaedic integrity would seem to require a move back to Nikolai. --Smerus (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: move effected by administrator 21.11.2008.--Smerus (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Being born in Ukraine or any of the one-time Soviet or Russian Empire territories west of the Urals was no guarantee of ethnicity/nationality, as Great Russians, White-Russians, Ukrainians all inhabited areas outside of their political boundaries; today, we are seeing the effects of ethnic divides in Ukraine as the eastern part of the country is mostly Russian in nationality, for example. If someone was claiming this composer for nationalistic reasons from western Ukraine, I'm guessing they did not investigate his heritage very much.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: You have removed materials regarding Roslavets's professorship and directorship of the Kharkiv conservatory (Kharkiv Music Institute) from 1921-23 and his position as the overseerer of the artistic education section in the Ministry of the Ukrainian SSR. Is there a reason?
Also Roslavets's works to the texts of Ukrainian poet T. Shevchenko. Any reason? Bandurist (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for these comments. This information was not removed by me; in fact I added the information about R. being director of the Kharkov conservatory to the article as I then found it. I don't have any information about R's work in the ministry of the Ukranian SSR, or about his settings of Shevchenko, so I suggest that you add this material With best regards, --Smerus (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed materials

message: Could someone please make the following in the Revival section comprehensible (looks like a machine translation of something):
"After that, dismissal by Lobanova from the Moscow conservatory was attempted as well as deprivation of her scientific degree and rights for teaching; soon, they tried to use an application of retaliatory psychiatry with the dissident diagnosis against Lobanova".  Thanks.  Davidships (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind comprehensible. Relevant. Yes, she's worked for Roslavets' revival, but her personal travails are relevant to a biographical article about her, not here. Schissel | Sound the Note! 11:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Lobanova's preface to the Schott first edition of this work, after explaining that the composer left the manuscript neither title nor date (nor movement headings except some internal ones- assuming those were not added by the editors), gives only "die wahrscheinlich 1940 entstand". No reason is given- in the preface anyway- for assignment of any date, whether ca.1940 (as in the Schott edition and the Naxos recording) or 1930s (as here). (It seems it could as easily be a work from rather earlier, perhaps pre-violin sonata 1. Lobanova notes that Roslavets lists 6 violin sonatas in the worklist he compiled in 1940, and that 5 of them had either been found or could perhaps be accounted for (she refers to the preface of the edition of the 2nd violin sonata, which I should, I admit, go read); no reason is given why the 6th is not, say, still lost and the sonata enclosed not some other work, e.g. a work of youth?, that Roslavets simply did not list...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 11:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail re violin sonata no.6