Talk:Sergei Prokofiev/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early Operas

I'm going to slightly alter a the information on his early operas, as I have a source and more information than is offered at the moment. Ian

Link problem

In the list of compositions, I wrote: [Piano Sonata]s

It fails to link to the [Piano Sonata] article. erl 216.19.218.50 20:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page says a lot about his early life, gets to the first symphony, and then more or less ends, and announces his death. How about all the music??! --Tb 05:17 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry about this, I started writing this article a long time ago and never got around to finishing it. It's a translation of an essay I wrote for school which I thought I had lost, but I found it today and finished the translation. Hope you like it although it is rough. I'd love it if someone with a good grasp of english went through it and brushed up the language. --Jofo 03 October 2003

I've had a quick pass through it. I've a question: when you write "He reaffirmed his contacts with the russian ballet and with Stravinsky" do you mean Diaghilev's Ballets Russes by "russian ballet", or just the Russian ballet scene in general? It sounds like a could be something you translated that didn't really need translating ;) Good work on this, by the way. --Camembert
What I meant was the Ballets Russes, thanks for pointing that out. I've changed that and added a link. /Jofo

Russian name

Something about his name: Are you really sure these accents are written in Russian??! This Russian page doesn't write his name with any accents: http://staratel.com/music/classic/composers/photo1079.htm

Is there anyone with perfect Russian knowledge and can tell me whether those odd accents can be safely removed? I don't want to do it without discussing this before. -andy

The accents are Polish or Czech or smth, clearly not Russian. None of these accents are used in Russian. But what do you want from a person who translate "Zdravitsa" (meaning "Toast!" in Slavic) as "Hail to Stalin"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.186.77 (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's simple stress-marks (lexical stress, one in each word). In Russian they are written only in some dictionaries, some children's books and in textbooks for people studying Russian language. --.:Ajvol:. 20:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The stress marks are NOT part of the official orthography. It's just that the placement of the stress in Russian words is often difficult to predict, and so for the assistance of learners stress marks are often inserted in pedagogical texts, as Ajvol says. However as this is an encyclopedia, not a primer on how to pronounce foreign words, I would leave the stress marks OUT. This is a very different situation from the Scandinavian languages, Hungarian, French, Vietnamese, Czech, Polish and some other languages, where the diacritical marks are absolutely part of the letter. Do svidaniya JackofOz 22:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers.

Well, I'd rather switch to underlined vowels instead. Or mark the stressed vowels in italics, or, or ... But DO get rid of those accents. Please consider that Greek readers knowing Russian might be confused by this, as for Greeks accents ARE part of the official language, not just for foreigners in newspapers :) In Russian this confirmedly IS NOT part of the language, and thus should be removed. -andy


Hum ... me once again. I found a lot of Russians that write their name as Prokof'ev. This is very good, as the ' perfectly denotes the existence of a mellowing sign (looking similar to a small b, but with a bigger belly :)) after the 'f'. Maybe this alternative writing could also be integrated into the site, or even aliased for redirection. My 2c. -andy

I propose to keep the accents. They might be confusing to Greeks but they are very helpful to many non-native Russian readers (giving the name in cyrillic including accent marks is roughly equivalent to giving the IPA transcription). Moreover, when stress is marked in Russian, it is common practice to do so with accents (and not underlined or italic or...). See for example this russian wikipedia article where stress is marked on the last name since it is not obvious (Ivanov usually has the stress on the last syllable, but in this case on the second). Greetings. --Lenthe 09:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. :/ Someone has put the accents in again. Please people, MAKE UP YOUR MIND thanks. -andy 80.129.98.104 19:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the final alternate spelling: Profevjew? I am a fluent speaker and the only verisimilitude I find here with the Russian tongue is its long standing history with anti-semitism. Can someone please demonstrate the -jew ending had merit?

Prokofjew is the German spelling of Prokofiev. I've never seen it spelled that way in English texts. Removing 'Prokofjew'
Russian is not totally phonetic. The use of a "V" at the end of words sounds like an F. In other slavonic languages say Ukrainian (especially Western Ukrainian) the "V" ending is pronounced like a W as in Windows. In central Ukrainian it is a V. In Eastern Ukrainian the spectrum changes to a Russian influenced F. These are the various dialects which influence speach throughout the Slavic world. The diacritical marks show were the stress is placed in pronounciation. Some languages (ie Polish) have a stress on a particular syllable and it does not change from word to word. In Russia the stree may change. In the one word, a stress change can change the meaning of the word totally, and as a result Russians usually place the stress in the words in dictionaries and encyclopedic entries. --Bandurist 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lina

I have added a brief para on Lina's later years and death, but not sure if this is POV - I did know her, but the assertion about paranoia is also supported by writers elsewhere e.g. Downes. Because the gist has been asserted elsewhere I don't think it's an invasion of privacy. Barnabypage 01:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

My late grandmother was good friends with Mira Mendelson in college, during the time she met Prokofiev. My mother says that Mira adored Prokofiev (he was the last of several older, renown men that she did or tried to fall in love with), and if anyone "forced" him to leave Lina, it was Mira. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.215.227 (talk) 00:14, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

If he never divorced his first wife, why is the caption of he and Mira stating she's his "second wife"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.26.250.204 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

His picture

Couldn't there be a little better picture to represent him? This one is a little too funny.

The pieces he is most known for.

Does anyone know the pieces that Prokofiev is most known for.

Thanks in advance,

Michael

- well among his most popular are 

piano works I would say his toccata, and his first piano concerto

The first? I think the editor 'probably' meant the third, as the first is pretty marginalized in the concert hall. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan 

- then would be his opera "The love for three oranges"

- also, of course his "Peter and the Wolf" suite at the end it mentions that when stalin dies his wife is let out.... but he dies on the same day as stalin. How does that work?


- Piano Concerto No. 3 is undoubtely one of his most famous and recorded works. I remember reading somewhere there are more than seventy different interpretations of it already recorded. M Marcondes de Freitas 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that his Symphony No. 5 is most popular. So is everybody else's Symph 5, I guess, except Brahms, of course, who never got to it. Lazy bastard. Reggie Rueffer, Arlington, Tx Reggierueffer@sbcglobal.net 00:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Romeo And Juliet is his most memorable. Especially the Dance of the Knights.

And let us not forget the venerable War Sonatas.

His Leutenant Kiji Suite is very popular. Nevsky Suite/Cantata(?) is also popular. Also his "Classical" Symphony is very well noted and played often on the radio.

____

In 1977, Prokofiev got a major boost with a younger generation, when Carl Palmer of the "art-rock" prog-band Emerson, Lake & Palmer recorded the second movement of the Scythian Suite playing all the percussion-arranged for a modern drum kit-with a symphony 'backing' him. It's a decent cover (so to speak) and added another piece to the stack of classical music works (ouch!) that ELP brought - honestly or dishonestly - to many (ignorant) rock fans. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


I'd say most people hear Prokofiev's music as a child with "Peter and the Wolf". Dance of the Knights from Romeo and Juliet are often used in a popular "context". (commercials, festivities, etv.) His "classical" symphony is often played by "popular classic" radio. -- megA (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

More Left?

I checked Political Compass and actually Bartok & Schonberg were more social left than Prokofiev. Although Prokofiev was more economically left than both. http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/composersNicholasPrakash 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Music

There are sections on Prokofiev's biography and works, however there is no section which describes the style of his music. It is suggested such a section is added (Music) and the list of works be moved to a new page (List of compositions by Sergei Prokofiev).

Transliteration of father's name

It's a feeling thing, but I'd prefer Sergeyevitch instead of simple ch. OK, I know whom you're thinking about: Milla Jovovich, who has the -ch too. :) But the ч feels harder than an "ordinary" "ch", so I'd prefer to have the t in. -andy 80.129.121.7 23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate

It's now widely accepted that he was born on 27 April, not 23 April. I first became aware of this when reading Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, 8th ed, which was compiled by Nicolas Slonimsky, and published, I think, in 1992 (15 years ago). Slonimsky himself died as long ago as 1995, so this is hardly new information. I'm surprised anybody still has any doubts about this. I don't have access to Baker's, or Grove which I'm sure would also back me up, but see this. JackofOz 09:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I did not know until now that this was an issue. And it appears to be an interesting one.
The New Grove has 23 April -- in the main encyclopedia (online) -- article by Dorothea Redepenning. The New Grove Dictionary of Opera has an article by Richard Taruskin, and gives the birthdate as, no kidding, 27 April. (I thought those two publications shared their biographical info!!) When I'm home from work I can look it up in my 1980 20-volume Grove but I suspect it will have the older, i.e. 23 April date as well.
Neither article gives any information on the controversy, or on how the birthdate is known. I tend to trust Slonimsky because he's trustworthy, but that's just my personal bias. Maybe we should report both birthdates? Antandrus (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And more. The 1980 Grove article, by Rita McAllister, did have 23 April, but it's probably 30 years old now. My big Slonimsky (likely the same book you have) gives 27 April, and states that "[Prokofiev] erroneously believed that the date was April 23; the correct date was established with the discovery of his birth certificate." Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd have to go to a library to see what Baker's 8th said verbatim. I know that's where I first read about this. But what I do have in front of me is the soft-back Webster's New World Dictionary of Music (1998 ed). This is published by MacMillan, and seemingly drawn from Baker's 8th and also Slonimsky's own Lectionary of Music. It's edited by Richard Kassell; the preface says, in part "Thanks to the deft and experienced hand of editor Richard Kassel, virtually every entry has retained Slonimsky's renowned tone, wit, and scholarship".
  • Webster's entry on Prokofiev says: "b. Sontsovka, Apr. 27, 1891; d. Moscow, Mar 5, 1953". No discussion, no debate, just a bald uncontroversial fact.
  • We do report both dates, but 27 April is currently a footnote awaiting a citation. The main entry still says 23 April. I believe the main entry should say 27 April, and information about why it was formerly shown in reference works as 23 April should go in the footnote. JackofOz 03:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
(Coincidentally) I've just added the Taruskin as a source to the article, but unfortunately I don't have anything to add to the above. --Kleinzach 03:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and made him four days younger. Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And thank you, Antandrus, for your help with this. Now finally, I can mention a bit of trivia that's been in my head for the past couple of days. Rostropovich not only studied with Prokofiev, and premiered some of his works, but also died on his birthday.  :) JackofOz 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the date 23 April is engraved on his tombstone, presumably by his family who ought to know. There are a number of errors in this article - for instance saying that he was to study composition with Alexander Goldenweiser. He might have been intended for Goldenweiser as a piano student since Goldenweiser was eventually regarded as one of the Conservatory's leading pianists though he would have been young in those days, in any event Goldenweiser never taught composition. The posthumous section makes some pretty opinionated claims as well - most popular composer of the 20th century - does anyone agree this needs addressing? For now, I'm just going to fix the birthdate and the Goldenweiser thing.Gillartsny (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)GillArtsNY
Changed birthdate back to 27 april as per discussion above and footnote nr 3 at the bottom of the article. An inscription on a tombstone is not a more reliable source than the publications mentioned above. Regards.Francesco Malipiero (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • @ User:Jerome Kohl: Why are we reverting the above consensus 5 years on? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • My error. The change to 27 April was made several weeks ago and, when I checked New Grove, discovered that it agreed this was one of the two dates (Old and New Style). I added the other one, and everything seemed fine. I failed to check this Talk page, and the doubly buried footnote-within-a-footnote in the article that eventually leads to Slonimsky 1993 (which, by the way, gives both Old Style and New Style dates—essential in historical references of this type in order to avoid ambiguity. Of course it should be changed to conform with Slonimsky but, please give both forms of the date. Just one date looks suspicious. And, while we are at it, can we do something about that ridiculous double-footnote thing?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Coherence on cause of death in the section "Return to Soviet Union"?

In the third-from-last paragraph, it is stated that "Prokofiev died at the age of 61 on 1953-03-05 (on the same day and from the same cause as Soviet premier Joseph Stalin)." However, in the next paragraph, this certainty as to the cause of death disappears with "Prokofiev's death is usually attributed to cerebral hemorrhage (bleeding into the brain) but it is known that he was not well for 8 years before he died and was plagued during that length of time by headaches, nausea and dizziness[2], so the precise nature of Prokofiev's terminal illness is uncertain." Randomusernamealso 08:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Major issue

First of all, instead of saying he composed a piece using F major without the B flat, would it not be more accurate to say he composed it in F lydian, and perhaps put the bit about F lydian being F major without a B flat in brackets? Secondly, I hope you all enjoyed my frankly hillarious pun on the word "major". Kindest regards, D'ragos Morgul (Messenger of Magnus) 12:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

Graduation

His departure from the Conservatory was not all glamour, he was not well regarded by the composition faculty. This being said, he won the Anton Rubinstein Prize (awarded to the best student pianist). He won the prize (the piano mentioned in the article) with a performance of his First Piano Concerto. I'll look around for some sources on this and change it if no one has objections. Sonuvafitch (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I've added citations from various web sources, but I can't find some informations. The uncited formulations are more of "trivia character", I think it's possible to delete or re-formulate itVejvančický (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

Russian or Ukrainian?

I'm curious, and the article seems vague on this issue. If this can be clarified here, maybe it can be clarified in the article as well. The question being, was Prokofiev a Ukrainian, a Russian from Ukraine, or did he live too long ago for this kind of distinction to exist on a conscious level? I can see how, regardless, he can be thought of as Russian in that he was a subject of the Russian Empire when he was born. But what was Prokofiev's ethnicity? - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that he was a Russian from Ukraine, based on the wording of the intro and the fact that I've never heard of anyone claiming that he was ethnically Ukrainian. He lived well into the reign of the Soviet Union, so he lived through various times when Ukrainian nationalism was pretty prominent. This leads me to believe that if he was actually Ukrainian he would have claimed to be. However, this is just speculation. Zytsef (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Prokofiev by paternal line is Russian from Moscow (where his father was born), by maternal line Russian from Tula region (family moved to S.-Petersburg where his mother was born). Prokofiev never spoke nor understood Ukrainian (see hist Diary 1907-1933). How exactly he can be "Ukrainian"? Oh, and if you refer to citizenship it was Russian Empire, Ukraine was created only in 1917 and Prokofiev moved to S-Petersburg 10 years before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Russian and Ukrainian are mutually understandable, so with a very little effort, they can understand each other.50.111.19.2 (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

High import

I've moved this article to "High" importance (though I really think it should be "Top". Prokofiev was one of the most popular and influential composers of the 20th Century. He certainly does not deserve to be ranked with Busoni and Zappa. --Paul (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree. I've moved it to "top" importance. It's a no-brainer. Jusdafax 10:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The place of birth of Sergei Prokofiev

There is a mistake in the article about Prokofiev's place of birth. He was born very far from Dnepropetrovsk. Sergei Prokofief was born on April 11 (23) 1891 г. in the village of Sontsovka, Bakhmut uyezd, Yekaterinoslav province (now the village of Krasnoye, Krasnoarmeysk district, Donetsk region, Ukraine). So it would be correst to say he was born not far from Donetsk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upasaka108 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No. He was born on April 27th. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Composer project review

This article has been reviewed as part of the Composers project review of B-class articles. You can find my review on the comment page. If you have questions or comments, feel free to comment there, here, or on my talk page. Article remains B-class. Magic♪piano 16:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

black notes

The main lemma talks about 'black notes'. Shouldn't that be black keys or does it originates to a quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.97 (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliably sourced information vs personal opinion

A certain contributor has persistently been tweaking the Prokofiev article to express matters of opinion rather than matters of fact. Can there be some quality control so that if opinions such as 'the works have been subsequently interpreted as representing Prokofiev "venting his anger and frustration with the Soviet regime."' are added, they are at least supported by concrete evidence, please? And referencing to anonymous/non-bylined articles (eg http://spotlightonmusic.macmillanmh.com/national/teachers/articles/composers-and-lyricists/sergey-prokofiev) does nothing to improve Wikipedia's reputation. Alfietucker (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is apparently still an issue especially in regards to Prokofiev's return to the Russia and work during the 1930's and 40's. The interjection of personal opinions or analyses on the Soviet Union or Josef Stalin is obnoxious and unrelated to the actual source material that is being cited, where no such language is used. If there is confusion as to why staying true to the actual material is necessary; WP:SUBSTANTIATE and WP:REFB are excellent starting points for understanding how to reference properly and appropriately. Garlicbreadtea (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Posthumous Reputation

In line with Alfietucker's comments above I do feel that parts of this article express matters of opinion, and the last paragraph somewhat gushing in tone and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I think that the last sentence is inconsistent with WP:Crystal Ball but I'm not sure how best to change it. There is no doubt about the composers notability and importance but the way this article goes on about it makes it sound very personal and subjective-even if references are given. I do not have access to some of these references so I can't check them, but I definitely think it needs to be written in a more neutral toneGodfinger (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian Cyrillic version of Sergei Prokofiev's name

The Ukrainian Cyrillic version of Sergei Prokofiev's name has been in this article since late May 2009 and nobody complained about it until it was recently removed by Mhym. I recently had some unpleasant encounters with him (in part my own fault). I can not help to think this is some sort of Vedanta-move from his part. Anyhow I do not agree with Mhym's explanation of WP:UEIA as it says nothing about how long a person is supposed to have lived somewhere to be a "native". And since nobody removed the Ukrainian Cyrillic before there seems to be a common consensus it should stay in this article. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 04:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Also Mhym claimed that the current Donetsk Oblast was part of Poland in Prokofiev's lifetime; it was not... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 04:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The WP:UEIA policy is clear: the lede should contain "common names by which its subject is widely known." I am unconvinced the Ukrainian version is "widely known." Either way, the burden of proof is on User:Mariah-Yulia. The time the error was introduced and how many people complained about it is irrelevant if it is against the policy. Finally, I wish the editor does not take edits of others personally as per WP:AGF policy. Mhym (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I apoligise for not 100% believing in "Good Faith" but here and here you can find good reasons I do not do that anymore... Anyhow; how about 15.000 google hits for the Ukrainian name of Sergei Prokofiev (Сергій Прокоф'єв) and books published in Ukrainain about music? If we take "common names by which its subject is widely known" literaly we can include the Japanese form of his name in the lead since Prokofiev is "widely known" right about everywhere. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record (cause I can not shake away the feeling that Mhym thinks Ukrainian is a marginal language); currently Ukrainian is the only official language of Ukraine but Russian is more spoken in daily communications in Ukraine than Ukrainian. In an October 2009 poll by FOM-Ukraine 52% of the respondents state they use Russian as their "Language of communication"; 41% of the respondents state they use Ukrainian and 8% stated they use a mixture of both (Source: FOM-Ukraine (bottom of page) (in Russian)). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And since nobody removed the Ukrainian Cyrillic before there seems to be a common consensus it should stay in this article - I would not necessarily draw that conclusion, Mariah-Yulia. Apply the same argument to some silly typo that's been in an article for years and nobody ever noticed, until one day someone did, and fixed it. Does the fact that it went uncorrected for so long mean there was a "consensus" to have it in there? No. Just that people's attention was elsewhere. Same with this. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point... but I noticed you yourself edited this article last March 27 and did not alter the lead then. Did this mean you haven't paid attention to the lead in a long time or you didn't mind the Ukrainian Cyrillic was in it? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:59, 29 June 2010
Probably the former. I can't remember ever being consciously aware the Ukrainian was ever there - but that means nothing since my watchlist is over 9,000 articles and I can't remember the current state of every article I edit. All I'm saying is that "nobody disagrees" cannot always be extrapolated to mean "everyone agrees". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


Firstly, forgive my ramblings. Also note, that although I will be speaking in the present tense, I haven't been an active editor for a while.
While I was writing this "treatise", Jack of Oz replied and clarified whether he had seen at all the Ukrainian part. But I'm taking this one step beyond really.
I will concur with Jack of Oz on the issue of the Ukrainian variant of Prokofiev's version. For anyone to remove any text in article (short or lengthy), they should take note of it (not just read it: the typo was a great example). Then, they should either be sure that is patent nonsense or just wrong (say, "Mozart was French") or really care about it ("Mozart was Austrian" -- "No, no, no, he was German").
I have no idea what the ethnic identity of Prokofiev was or even if the Ukrainian language was important enough for him, to warrant mentioning regardless, supposing he identified himself as Russian and not Ukrainian.
But that identity would need to be established in order to decide about the Ukrainian variant. The argument, "it's been there and no one has removed it for a while", is not at all valid in my take. And I will note, that when I see (this has occurred countless times) people changing the nationality or any such attribute of the subject of an article, I just don't bother. I suppose that many people who are neither Russian or Ukrainian, say in the case of Prokofiev, could have the same attitude. I can't speak for JoO, but as for myself, there have been numerous occasions when I edit an article and I do not mess with text that I don't think is a good idea to do so: there are other such cases other than the nationality of a person.
Mariah-Yulia, you might have noticed and remember, that when you added "present-day Ukraine", essentially I moved it. I did so, on the one hand because I happened to stumble upon it: you had just made the edit, when I was going through my watch-list, something I hardly do these days. So pure chance there. On the other hand, it was pretty clear to me, it made better sense and seemed quite uncontroversial. Judging from the fact that you accepted the edit without an afterthought, you were satisfied with the result. That would make it indeed a simple, uncontroversial edit on my part. When you later deleted a passage, which evaluated Prokofiev (I've been polling the article since my first encounter), I didn't do anything, although part of what you deleted was sourced. That was because, you had good justification in deleting a heavily slanted assessment and I didn't want to go into the trouble of cherry-picking the part of the passage that could actually be included, especially since it wasn't really important.
I'll sum up once more, because I've been going on and on all over: Especially regarding a person's nationality some editors just don't care. Obviously Mhym did care. Given this, the door has opened for this discussion.
Mhym's motivations might be a little relevant, but they would have more to do with the both of you rather than the article. If Mhym's edit was correct, regardless of hir/her motivation, we can't really say they're wrong. Other than that, I've glanced at the two links and saw that they are lengthy arbitration procedures. I didn't look at the details, but if this is anything like that, this discussion should be transferred from the article's talk to somewhere else. All the more, since the user pages of both of you make quite clear that one is Ukrainian and the other Russian. Especially, you Mariah-Yulia, proclaim adamantly your ethnic identity and place great importance upon it.
Mhym claimed that Prokofiev was born in Poland... I don't know much about the early 20th century history of the region between Germany and Russia or about exactly where on earth Prokofiev was born, but it seems to me that way off target....
As for widely used variants, I think the point is again moot. You will find countless hits on "Allemagne", but you wouldn't include it in an English language article on Germany. Obviously Ukrainian people are very interested in Prokofiev, so the Ukrainian variant of his name will be in fact very common. Returning to the issue of whether it should be included in the English article on him, well we need some real arguments. I don't know either way.
While I was writing this, I was pondering on the composer (what I know of him). I myself really can't argue for or against the Ukrainian variant. On the one hand, the article is in English (so surely we need an English variant). On the other hand, Prokofiev lived and worked in an environment where Russian was the dominant language. So that goes in too. Regarding Ukrainian, I know (think) he was born in what is now Ukraine, but I have no picture at all of the importance of this for him, either from his own point of view or from a detached point of view.
I will end digressing again: discussions about whether Mozart was Austrian or German went on and on. They usually ended without any kind of consensus, but because it had been too long and... (of the rest I cannot draw an accurate picture: you can see for yourself in the Moz. talk history/archives)
If I seem to fall of the face of the earth, that will mean that I didn't have the time or the inclination to log in to Wikipedia in general. So, everyone please don't take offence and don't wait for me....
I apologize for the long essay....
---Atavi (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion about "nationality", "ethnicity", relative importance of languages, etc. is beside the point. It's all about Prokofiev's bio. As anyone knows and can easily check, "Sergueï Prokofiev" is extremely well known in France. Google hits gives 92,000 hits with quotes and 490,000 without (compare with puny 15,000 Ukrainian hits found by User:Mariah-Yulia). In fact, Prokofiev lived and worked in Paris for a while, staged his first ballet there, and was locally professionally known under this version of the name. Sounds like a case to include the French version, right? Compare with Ukrainian. He was born in the Russian Empire where Russian was dominant and Ukrainian undermined by Tsar's decrees (quite unfairly, I might add). Early in his childhood (at 11) he moved from what is now Ukraine to what is now Russia and never again lived in a Ukrainian-speaking territory. It is likely that professionally he was never referred by the Ukrainian version of the name. I say the French version has at least as much relevance if not more than Ukrainian. So what do we do? The WP:UEIA policy says that we should limit ourselves to the most popular version(s). My parsing of the policy implies that neither language makes the cut.
To drive the message home, let's slowly consider the case of Golda Meir (so as not to violate WP:OSE). She was born in Kiev, Russian Empire (today Ukraine) to a Yiddish speaking family. She moved to the US at the age of 5. She later moved to multilingual British Mandate for Palestine, and later became Israeli Ambassador to Soviet Union (lived in Moscow), and eventually Prime Minister of Israel. In the mean time she changed her name twice (first when she got married, then when she hebrized it) not to mention different spellings. She is certainly better known under her numerous Yiddish, Hebrew, English, Russian and Arabic versions of her multiple names than under Ukrainian "Голді Мабович" which she may have been referred the first 5 years of her life (even then, she was probably better "known" in Russian and Yiddish). The editors of Golda Meir article made the right decision to list in the Lede only her Hebrew name under which she became world famous, not her numerous other names/spellings/transliterations in other languages. The same basic standard should apply to Prokofiev as well. Mhym (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Notice that the Ukrainian version is actually included in the Golda Meir article, not in the lede but in the bio portion. That could serve as a reasonable compromise, perhaps. Mhym (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Starting off, I see more merit in including the Ukrainian variant in the article lead, rather than anywhere else.
I see no point at all why the French variant should be included.
Mhym's first paragraph seems convincing, although it must be noted that search engine hits are not indicative, for a number of reasons, the most important of which in this case being that there a lot more French web sites than Ukrainian. I used "Allemagne" as an example, but it obviously goes both ways. In any event we can't use Google as the ultimate truth verification machine.
--Atavi (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Ukrainian version of his name should not be included because:

  • He was of Russian ethnicity and he never lived in Ukraine. When he was born in Donbass it was still a part of Russia, and it was given to Ukraine as a gift when the Russian SFSR wanted to convince the communists in Ukraine that one state is a good idea, but the fact is historically that region was not Ukrainian and that's why even now the majority there is Russian and almost everybody speak Russian. The historicall name of the region was New Russia.
  • No one in the world ever referred to him by his Ukrainian name because he was Russian and he spoke Russian and he never identified with Ukraine in any way.

I don't think we should add the Ukrainian version of the name to every person born on the territory which is now Ukraine. It should be added to people who lived in the Ukrainian SSR and Modern Ukraine or to people who were of Ukrainian ethnicity before that. 94.0.160.176 (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested in a revival of a 4 year old discussion. But I am ready to correct mistakes of other editors: According to the Russian Imperial Census of 1897, ethnic Ukrainians comprised 52.4% of the population of the Donbass region, whilst ethnic Russians comprised 28.7%. See url=https://books.google.com/books?id=d5b689wW7qwC&dq=history+of+donbass | title=Freedom and Terror in the Donbas: A Ukrainian-Russian Borderland, 1870s–1990s | publisher=Cambridge University Press | author=Hiroaki Kuromiya | year=2003 | pages=41–42 | isbn=0521526086 — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

2017

This topic has now re-emerged following this edit, by an anon IP editor who is now at WP:3RR. Is it time for an RFC, article protection, IP editor sanctions or a combination of one or more of these? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP was just doing his job. Removing vandalism. The admins who blocked the vandalist-IP which added the Ukrainian spelling to this article also reverted its other Ukrainian spelling edits on other articles. (One was a Polish artist which the IP made Ukrainian somehow.) Thank God Wikipedia has great admins who don't continue the job of vandalists.. HunajaOtso (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank God, I'm sure. Do you think the above discsussion has a definite agreed outcome? Perhaps an RfC would reach a clearer outcome? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Admiration of Profofiev

The following seems contentious to me and I contend that he is as much admired now as Stravinsky and Schoenberg are, though that may not have been the case before, however such a thing as admiration of music can be measured. I would suggest the contrary, that he has won the admiration ...

"Yet he has never won the admiration of Western academics and critics currently enjoyed by Igor Stravinsky and Arnold Schoenberg, composers purported to have a greater influence on a younger generation of musicians.[74]"

How old is the Grove that is cited? I play in orchestras and the feeling is of great excitement and admiration from players and audience when Prokofiev is performed.

P0mbal (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I'd chime in and agree with this. The sentence is POV, and should be pulled out. Jusdafax 04:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC) UPDATE: On further thought, if that sentence is pulled, the rest doesn't make a lot of sense. The whole section is awkward, yet well-sourced and well-meaning. Something about the tone is a bit more like an essay than an encyclopedia, especially the sentence under discussion, and the final sentence as well. This needs to be discussed further, in my view. Jusdafax 09:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
ALL critical evaluations are POV of the reviewer. It is properly cited and needs to stay. Read carefully what it says - "academics and critics" - it doesn't refer to audiences or orchestral players. If there are other more "pro" RS views then add them and cite them accordingly. I like P's music very much, but it's without question it didn't have the impact of a Stravinsky and certainly not Schoenberg's. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

copy-edits

Enjoy...

Lfstevens (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Prokofiev amd Neo-Classicism

I have added "citation needed" next to the phrase which introduces the idea that the "Classical Symphony" is the first neo-classical composition. I'm not so sure that the state of research into the topic can allow this milestone to be pinpointed quite so exactly as of yet. Only recently has musicology -- and only among a small minority of musicologists -- allowed to entertain the idea that "neo-classicism" is something that deserves a status of a subgenre, as opposed to a mere style. I don't know of any study currently that weighs the particulars in detail. Ferruccio Busoni's notion of "junge klässizitat" was a related and significant development, as was the work of Erik Satie, which inspired the first neo-classic experiments of Stravinsky and all of those Franco-Swiss composers in Les six, who are not far behind Prokofiev or Stravinsky in working in this idiom. All of this seems to coalesce about 1915, and neo-classicism was the predominant stylistic vehicle in Western music between 1920 and 1950. So I would drop the comparison between Prokofiev and Stravinsky and simply say that Prokofiev was one of the principal purveyors of the style, at least until we have something to sink our teeth into in terms of a study.Pinikadia 18:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Pinikadia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinikadia (talk • contribs)

A totally fair point - I've reworded that sentence accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

POV

The article seems to have a distinctly POV tone to me, trying to talk up Prokofiev as being underrated. Ben Finn (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's possibly true, but do you have particular sentences or parts of the article in mind which you think particularly POV? Alfietucker (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Still some work to be done

Quickly glancing through the article reveals some missing key events, such as Prokofiev's run-in with the RAPM on his 1929 visit to USSR (over Le pas d'acier). Also there's next to nothing about the evolution of his style, most particularly his creation of a 'new simplicity' which led him to believe that there was a possibility of finding a sympathetic audience and acceptance in the USSR in the 1930s. There's probably more, but I thought I should flag up these issues as a measure of how much more needs to be done to bring this article 'up to scratch'. Alfietucker (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco?

This photo looks like it was taken in a classic San Francisco flat in 1918. The uncropped version on the LOC website also shows the classic high ceiling common to the Edwardian, Victorian, and Queen Anne architecture during that time. Any further information? Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead photo is from the same series, but the caption says it was taken in New York. How do we know this? The image information does not say that. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources say he came to San Francisco on August 21, 1918, left on August 28, and traveled the scenic route to New York through BC and Chicago. He did not arrive in New York until September 6. For some reason, this article says he arrived in San Francisco on August 11 and cites Prokofiev Diaries 1915–23, p. 321. I just checked that source on Amazon and it says he was in Hawaii on August 13, and that he arrived in San Francisco on August 21. Since the sources in this article are at odds with what they actually say, this is grounds to fail the current GAN nomination, but I think it can be fixed due to special circumstances, namely the use of the Gregorian calendar, which explains the discrepancy. It wasn't until January 18, 1918, that the Gregorian calendar was used in Russia. It was finally implemented on January 31, while Prokofiev was planning his trip to America. It looks like the date problem might be due to the implementation of the new calendar system. Thus the note by Phillips on p. xxiii, explaining the problem. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ext. links

Am I the only person who thinks all the external links are overkill? George8211 // Give a trout a home! 10:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say start trimming if you can. There are too many unimportant or even dead links in that section. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sergei Prokofiev/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 07:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  • In general this work is very well sourced. In fact, because of this in the places where it isn't I want to push for better sourcing. I am probably pushing more than I should just for a GA, so let me know if I push too hard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on. I seem to have become the editor who's done most (but not enough) for this article, so I'll try to tidy up or otherwise respond to issues you identify as and when I have a moment. Alfietucker (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The toolbox to the right shows over 20 dead links in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I see this is down to 14 dead links.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Only 8 more left.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
All dead links now replaced or at least removed. Alfietucker (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
It also shows a couple of dab issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is a genuine dab issue - it's just the standard direct to the dab page for other Prokofiev articles, which naturally includes this one. Alfietucker (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
somewhere in the article the wikilink Prokofiev is used which points back to the top of this page. Such a link is frustrating for a reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I think I found it here - now removed. Alfietucker (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
That is a different type of circularity. The problem remains.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Ask at the help desk.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you posted a request?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Not yet - unfortunately have to dash now for a RL appointment, but will get back to this. Alfietucker (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Request now posted. Alfietucker (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
User:PrimeHunter has confirmed that this is a side-effect of the coding inside {{redirect}} template. The dablinks report is a false positive and can safely be ignored. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:LEAD
Maybe this needs to be discussed on the article's talk page, but I don't think the absence of an infobox is a bar against qualifying for GA status, since it's not one of the six good article criteria to have one. Alfietucker (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Infoboxes are mentioned in at least two of the blue links in WP:WIAGA 1b.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I have checked this carefully: yes, MOS articles linked from 1b do *mention* infoboxes, but nowhere do any of those say that infoboxes are compulsory. Indeed, two of them - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (see Elements of the lead} and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (see The lead section} - explicitly say that having an infobox is "optional", while the remaining third - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (see see Section organization) - implies that having an infobox is optional by mentioning it in the same sentence as a disambiguation hatnote (not an element one would expect to see in every article!). Alfietucker (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
After consultation at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Infoboxes_optional.3F, I will let this one rest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "who mastered numerous musical genres" seem less natural than "who was a master of numerous musical genres" (Keep in mind on this suggestion and throughout that I am not a musical scholar).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought it best not to repeat the construction "was a", but see your point about natural phrasing. Hope the rewrite I've done seems both more natural and digestible. Alfietucker (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • what is with all the adverbs? I don't think you need to modify your adjectives like this for emphasis. It comes across as WP:POV. "ferociously dissonant" and "highly successful".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I think "ferociously dissonant" works, since they are not only undeniably dissonant but are aggressively so. Would perhaps "aggressively dissonant" be preferable? I've "spelled out" what is meant by "highly successful". Any other adverbs that should be addressed? Alfietucker (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It can be misread, I suppose, so I've reworded this. Alfietucker (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Linked to Chicago Opera Association. Alfietucker (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Formal education and controversial early works
Fixed all these. Alfietucker (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Life abroad
Done. Alfietucker (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. Alfietucker (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. Alfietucker (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. Alfietucker (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I think I see your point, but I'm not sure what to do about this, given that there are already several articles about various productions based on Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet. Maybe it deserves a little subsection of its own in the Sergei Prokofiev article, but I think the priority for now is to get the rest of that article up to scratch. Alfietucker (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you possibly buff up "Today, this is one of Prokofiev's best-known works" to something like "There have been prominent ballet choreographies to this work and Today, this is one of Prokofiev's best-known works" with the proper citations? Let me know if you are uncomfortable with this because I also feel I might be trying to cram in a mention for my own work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I've hesitated to add comment about the various choreographies done to Romeo and Juliet, as it seems to me more pertinent to the ballet itself than to the article devoted to its composer (particularly as the major alternative choreographies were done after his death). However I agree that not quite enough had been said about the ballet's importance, so I've now added a fair bit of pertinent material to that effect. Alfietucker (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Tony, thanks again for all your work. Just a small request: though I am the editor who has done the largest number of edits on the article, that is not to say I have done them all. The article has been around for considerably longer than I have been editing here, and I must admit my work on it has been very piecemeal rather than systematic until now. Would you mind saying something like "the article understates" rather than "you understate" - the process will feel a bit more collaborative then. I am happy to work on this not because I "own" the article, but because a) apart from you, I seem to spend more time on this than any other editor (which is a pity); b) I do have some relevant books in my library. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for noting my plea. Very glad to have your input/prompts for improving this article. Alfietucker (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Added a bit more detail - is that enough? Alfietucker (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
First visits to the Soviet Union
Expanded. Alfietucker (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Some paras are In YYYY comma and some are In YYYY or In YYYY and YYYY no comma. All should have commas. (In 1923, and In 1931 and 1932)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. Alfietucker (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Return to the Soviet Union
Have almost totally rewritten that paragraph, which is now fully covered by citations. Alfietucker (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Post-war
Expanded a bit. Alfietucker (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Images
Thank you - and thank you for having taken the time to read and report on the article. It's all the better for it. Alfietucker (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Sontsov family

This topic is being opened since an editor, User:Altenmann, has persisted in making an edit with a links to a disambiguation page, most recently here. I would welcome an article being written on Dmitri Sontsov, so long as this is based on reliable published sources; however, until this happens, there is really no point in linking to this page. Please could Altenmann desist from making this link, and only link when there is a credibly sourced page to link to. Alfietucker (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Alfietucker: have you ever heard the term "work in progress"? And how the link to a family is of no use is your personal opinion. The manor belonged to a noble family. In Russian Empire 95% of land belonged to nobility and aristocracy. Does that surprize you? Or you contest the fact that Sontsovka belonged to Sontsovs? then read the references to complete Prokofiev's bios existing in the article. -No.Altenmann >t
PS and the phrase "isolate rural estate" is a stupidity I don't know where came from. A village of 300 persons at the time can hardly be called "isolated". -No.Altenmann >t 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Altenmann - work in progress is fine, but to avoid sending readers to an unhelpful disambiguation page I really recommend that you do this work in your sandbox, and transfer it to live Wikipedia pages when it is actually ready for use.
Describing Sontsovka as an "isolated" community is based on several reliable sources, including Sergei Prokofiev's own autobiography. According to the English language translation (published 1979), the nearest rail station was 40 kilometers away (p. 8), and "most of our neighbors lived fifteen or twenty kilometers away" (p. 10). The fact that the village had 300 persons, or even more, does not make it any less isolated. Alfietucker (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
"Isolated" is wikipedian's original research. In coutryside everything is isolated by necessity, in varying degree, unlike cities. Distance to railway in this place and time means nothing. "Neighbor" 15 rm away means nothing: nobles did not count their serfs "neighbors". There may well have been 10 small villages between. (not to say about a small word "most", which implies "but not all") Therefore the word "isolated" is a wikipedioan's conclusion from contemporary point of view of a city dweller. -No.Altenmann >t 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry, but even you admit that "in countryside everything is isolated by necessity", so you can hardly turn around and claim that this is "wikipedian's original research". Besides, as I said, there are several reliable sources which can support this statement: Nestyev, in the English language translation of his biography, describes Sontsovka as being surrounded "all around" by "the limitless Ukrainian steppe" (p. 1); Harlow Robinson describes it as a "remote Ukrainian village" (p. 8); and David Nice describes it as "in the remote Ukrainian steppes" (p. 6). So no, this is not WP:OR. Alfietucker (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
As for my work, I have a different opinion. If you don't see any useful information in some page, that's your judgement, please allow me to have a different opinion: any small piece information is of help in search of more information. As for sandbox, not all wikipedians post FA in one piece right away. I have my own ways, thank you. I spent some time to figure out about Sontsovs, and I feel this information must be shared. -No.Altenmann >t 15:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
On a final note, your WP:OWN attitude cost me half an hour of life. Instead of fending you off I could have written stubs for Sonstovka, , Dmitri Sonstov and what's not. Now I am pissed off, and fuck with this all. You may even post these Sonsov family pages for deletion. -No.Altenmann >t 15:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Altenmann: you have this all topsy-turvy. You may indeed have got on with writing stubs for Sontsovka, Dmitri Sontsov et al, but you should do this *before* imposing a link on this article; until you create those articles, these links you have tried to add are frankly of no use to any reader. I have tried to explain what the problem is and to present a solution of how to set about creating the articles, but have received in return abuse and total lack of ability from you to consider anything but your own convenience. If you now lose your temper, quite frankly that's your problem, not mine. When you have calmed down, I am prepared to re-open this conversation. But I warn you, if you carry on in this way, I shall have to consider reporting you for disruptive editing and behaviour. Please think about this, and let me know when you are prepared to work in a more collegial and collaborative manner. Alfietucker (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I would like to put an infobox at the top of this page, but when I saw the request in the editing section, I decided to go to the talk page and get consensus first. So, is an infobox a good idea? If not, why? As a reader, infoboxes at the top of pages really help me get the gist of an article, and this sentiment is probably heightened for non-Wikipedians. Thanks. BenLinus1214 (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of respecting the request about infoboxes. I presume you have read the position expressed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes, as linked in the editorial note. It seems to me that, in the particular case of composers of so-called "classical" music, the problem with infoboxes is that they actually obstruct the reader who wishes to "get the gist of an article". This is in part because they concentrate on largely irrelevant biographical data (date of birth, and so on), but also because they invite summary style terms that are either overgeneralized, misused, inaccurate, incomprehensible technical terms, or some combination of these. The project position also mentions the fact that the infobox needlessly duplicates material that is required in the lede paragraph. What is wrong with looking for such oversimplified or misleading information there?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for clarifying. That makes sense. When I think about it, it probably is better for people to read the lede section of the article if they want to understand an article in a short period of time. BenLinus1214 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sergei Prokofiev/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==Composers Project Assessment of Sergei Prokofiev: 2008-11-14==

This is an assessment of article Sergei Prokofiev by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by {{{user}}}.

If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down.

Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status.

===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described?

  • Good

===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • Good

===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • Good

===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article.

  • Good

===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)?

  • While reception of his music in the USSR is touched on in the bio section, there is no separate section discussing his musical style or critical commentary.

===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.)

  • Article could use more images. There are no audio samples.

===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references?

  • Article is generally well-footnoted (although some are misplaced (WP:REFPUNC)). References used and footnote quality may come under scrutiny in GA/FA review (how reliable is prokofiev.org?).

===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.)

===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review===

  • Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD)
  • Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE)
  • Article text formatting needs work (e.g. quotation methods, punctuation, inconsistent styles)

===Summary=== It's a nice biography, but there's little musicological discussion. The article could use audio clips and more images (especially if it is expanded to include the critical discussion).

The article is apparently well-referenced. Some of the sources would almost certainly be questioned in an FA review (answers.com?), GA reviewers may be less picky on that count.

This is a B-class article, but it has room to improve. Magic♪piano 16:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 05:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Religion

Isn't there a contradiction?

  1. Section 'Life abroad': "In around 1924, Prokofiev was introduced to Christian Science. He began to practice its teachings, which he believed to be beneficial to his health and to his fiery temperament, and to which, according to biographer Simon Morrison, he remained faithful for the rest of his life." + source to the book of S. Morrison
  2. Section 'Death': "He was an atheist." + two sources: 1) confirmation of his atheism during the first marriage in 1923 before he became a Christian Scientist in 1924; 2) some propaganda source of 1960.

It's impossible to be religious and completely irreligious at the same time. --Wolverène 12:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Quite - I have cut the atheist claim, which was made by a Soviet biographer (who was bound to make that claim) and a relatively early biography by a writer who did not have the access to Prokofiev's papers and above all his diary which have become available to scholars since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Prokofiev's adherence to Christian Science from the 1920s up to at least his return to the Soviet Union is well documented (i.e. we have no admission from Prokofiev, for obvious reasons, to any CS faith he may have had during his Soviet years). Certainly the claim he was a lifelong atheist does not stand against the evidence we now have. Alfietucker (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sergei Prokofiev. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sergei_Prokofiev/Archive_1&oldid=1142319948"