Template:Did you know nominations/On Guard for Peace

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

On Guard for Peace

(

)

- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Seated Woman with Bent Knees
- Comment: Done!

Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC).

Interesting composition with quite a history, on excellent sources, offline and foreign sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I don't like the original hoo, because we have only one line for what this is, and I suggest not to waste it on what it is not. We probably need a link to oratorio for our general audience, so whatever the hook, I suggest to begin with the title, then say "an oratorio by SP", because otherwise we get a sea of blue. It also is welcome to have the bold link first, not to make clicks go to the composer. In ALT1, I'd drop the last bit (awful), the other two being more juicy. But do we really have to paint it that way. How about saying that it was the composers attempt to regain the favour of the powerful? Anyway, a year may help to clarify that this peace was born from World War II. - In the article, I noticed that he worked hard in 1949, but a quote before was from 1951, - wanted? - I'll read in more peace another day, and may make minor changes. Nothing in the way of a DYK approval. Go for GA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Please bear with me as I'm currently away from home and will not return home until Sunday. I'll respond to your points then (as well as complete the QPQ), but thank you for the GA encouragement. That was very nice to read. —-05:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, so I'm back. Thanks for your patience. With respect to the first ALT, I'd prefer to rewrite it according to your suggestions, but not eliminate. What the oratorio is not is precisely why it is how it is. After all, the choice of Marshak and the tone of his libretto were direct responses to Fadeyev's dislike of Ehrenburg's original idea. In respond to your second point, I could've conceived ALTs that on the surface were more respectful of Prokofiev and his oratorio, but chose not to because I felt that they would be boring, especially to a reader unfamiliar with the subject or the artists involved. What is to somebody unfamiliar with the subject that Prokofiev (who's that guy?) tried to restore himself to official favor with this oratorio (a whatatorio?)? As you know, I strongly prefer ALTs that use whatever razzle-dazzle the subject is capable of to pull eyeballs in. If that means having fun with the subject, even at their expense, so be it. The point is that once these readers' attention is drawn, they will read for themselves the true nature of the subject and, hopefully, come away edified. Which is why, again, I very strongly prefer rewriting ALT0.

Let me relate a personal anecdote. A long time ago, when Simon Morrison's Prokofiev book first appeared on the shelves of a local bookstore, I flipped through it when I suddenly stumbled upon Ehrenburg's original scenario for On Guard for Peace. "What is this?," I thought to myself. I then spent a long while reading the long and fascinating history behind a work that until then I had only a vague awareness of and no interest in hearing. Morrison's retelling of the saga behind the oratorio immediately changed my mind about it—and convinced me to buy his book in order to read more! Had I not found Ehrenburg's scenario all the way back while book shopping in 2009, I probably would never have gotten around to writing the article whose DYK we're currently discussing.

Now if such an experience happened to me, a seasoned listener of classical music, then imagine the average reader unaware of the genre, who is probably already predisposed against it, and convinced that its depiction in popular media as so much pretty and effete sonic wallpaper for pretentions people is accurate. Imagine how shocking and unexpected it would be for them to have those expectations subverted by coming across a mention for a classical work they've never heard of that was originally supposed to be set in a post-nuclear apocalypse—with the US and NATO as culprits, no less. That last detail in particular, given the current geopolitical situation in the "near abroad," would likely draw even more page clicks from curious readers. It certainly seems more enticing to me than reading an earnest blurb about things and people unfamiliar that seem to only relate that they do the expected things.

That's why that for me any ALT that brings in new readers to a subject that is unfamiliar to them is a positive one, not negative.

(PS: QPQ coming up later today, FYI.) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I understand. Waiting for a reworded ALT1 and the qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

ALT0a: ... that On Guard for Peace, an oratorio by Sergei Prokofiev composed in 1950, was originally to be set in a hypothetical Soviet Union devastated by preemptive nuclear strikes launched against it by the United States with assistance from NATO? Source: The People's Artist: Prokofiev's Soviet Years by Simon Morrison, pp. 360–362 —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I asked for a rewording of ALT1, and you give me one of ALT0 :)

Trimmed:

ALT0b: ... that On Guard for Peace, a 1950 oratorio by Sergei Prokofiev, was originally to be set in a hypothetical Soviet Union devastated by preemptive nuclear strikes by the United States with assistance from NATO?

Rewording of ALT:

ALT1a: ... that Sergei Prokofiev's oratorio On Guard for Peace has been called "Kremlin music" and "Stalinist era kitsch at its most egregious"?

I prefer ALT1a, nominator prefers to say what the piece is not, which is admittedly more sensational. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I expressed myself clearly as to which ALT I preferred. My impression was that you accepted my preference; now I find that you don't. As explained earlier, the piece is what it is precisely because of this ultimately unused scenario. In the last DYK of yours I reviewed (Giedrė Šlekytė), you will recall we had a prolonged back and forth based on our respective preferences for the sorts of DYKs we regard as ideal. Ultimately, I gave way to your desired DYK after you contacted me on my talk page with an impassioned plea to reconsider my position. When I did, you may also recall that my approval summary did not backhandedly make the case of my preference over yours; I simply yielded to your preference and approved. I do not see why you now cannot extend to me the same courtesy now. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I see that I misread your reply; I forgot that the first ALT are always "0," then followed by "1," "2," etc. So I apologize for having misread your reply, but my wish for another editor still stands. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(We had an edit conflict, this was an answer to your first comment, thank you for the second.) I possibly don't know enough English: why do you need another reviewer when your version is approved? The prep builder may take it (even likely, many of them tend towards sensation), or not, in which case you can talk to the prep builder. I, however, don't have to hide that I prefer the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

My version did not get approved; it was yours, you rewrote it according to your personal preferences. Had I understood what you said correctly to begin with, I would have insisted on using ALT1 as is. Not sure why "unspeakably awful" needed to be excised. Seeing something like that is definitely eye-catching and it's not like we have to abide by WP:BLP when Sergei Sergeyevich has been dead for nearly 70 years anyway. I would have at least appreciated the courtesy of allowing me to rewrite ALT1 according to my liking. That said, I also don't want to get into another exhausting clash of our personal DYK preferences again as occurred with Mira Mendelson and especially Brigitte Manceaux. So I'll reiterate to whoever closes this DYK nomination that I strongly prefer ALT0a or ALT0b and leave it at that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I really seem to have a problem with English. All hooks not struck are approved: ALT0a, ALT0b and ALT1a. It's the prep builder's choice. If you insist I can also approve ALT1, but the I feel that the third term is weak compared with the first two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)