# Talk:Sergei Prokofiev

"In 1948, Prokofiev was attacked for producing 'anti-democratic formalism'."
You don't say. By whom? Or do we want to avoid saying?
LewisChessman (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is it accurate to describe Prokofiev as a "Russian" composer? Honest question, not trying to revise things if that is true.
He was born in Ukraine, but was he ethnically Russian or Ukrainian? I think it's important to be accurate here for the sake of not inadvertently supporting cultural erasure. 
Even if he was ethnically Russian, he was born in Ukraine, so it seems fair to list him in the "Ukrainian Composers" category. Modern Ukraine is not an ethnostate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boringalias (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 

Prokofiev was born in what was then a part of the Russian Empire and was legally a Russian citizen; he remained one until his death (a Soviet Russian, anyway). Denoting him as a "Ukrainian" would be as anachronistic as denoting Immanuel Kant a "Russian" because he happened to be born in a city that is today part of Russia. Discourse about Prokofiev during his life and long after referred to him exclusively as a Russian composer. For example, Alfred Schnittke, himself a Russian-born multiethnic artist, referred to Prokofiev as "the greatest Russian composer of the time" ("On Prokofiev" in A Schnittke Reader, p. 62). Prokofiev's second wife Mira Mendelson makes no mention of him being "Ukrainian" in her memoirs and diaries. (Interestingly enough, Mendelson herself was born in Ukraine.) Simon Morrison wrote that the Kremlin viewed Prokofiev as "an ambassador-at-large of Russian (Soviet) culture" (The People's Artist: Prokofiev's Soviet Years, pg. 1). I don't believe Prokofiev himself identified as Ukrainian or identified closely with its culture; neither did his parents, apparently. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Is it not possible to at least call him Soviet-Russian composer? 95.118.62.132 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Unlike Shostakovich, for whom a similarly worded compromise was included in the lead of his article (“Soviet-era Russian composer”), a significant portion of Prokofiev’s professional career occurred before the Soviet Union existed. After the October Revolution, he spent the next 19 years in exile, first in the United States, then later in Europe. Altogether these total 27 years, versus the 17 he spent in the Soviet Union. Therefore, “Soviet-Russian” or some such would not be an accurate designation for Prokofiev. It’s also a bit of a mouthful and potentially confusing. Other editors may feel differently, of course. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

He was born in Ukraini. How come that in the text say that he was Russian? 89.152.100.251 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Because as I explained to the previous editor above, Prokofiev was born in what was then a part of the Russian Empire; thus, he was legally a Russian citizen and remained one until his death. Ukraine at the time of his birth was not independent and its status as a constituent part of the Russian Empire was not disputed. In addition, Prokofiev, while late in life expressing several times the desire to see his birthplace again, neither seemed to personally identify as Ukrainian nor identified with its culture. His parents, too, seemed to identify more as Russians; among the languages that he learned at home, Ukrainian is not documented to be one of them. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
When he was born, the Ukraine as a country would not exist for another 100 years. I doubt that he could even speak Ukrainian. He lived in Russia, the United States, France, and the Soviet Union, but never in Ukraine 2A02:AA10:D242:A080:811A:138A:9F84:6B0A (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Projofiev is NOT a russian composerget your facts straight Projofiev was born as ukrainian i know very well you will ignore this fact and continue w russian — but the truth is Prokofiev was ukrainian/ american composer having studied in russia Now who is right you are me? The history books got it wrong which is no big surprise to me paul kenner louisiana 2600:8807:4801:C900:7900:674:B1B6:16AC (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, why is there no Infobox about this great composer? What are the issues? Er nesto (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read this for more details on the infobox issue. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of Curry's insistence, it's only reasonable to say Russian composer born in present-day Ukraine 76.11.2.233 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

And how is this relevant to his notability? Mellk (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Mellk it's relevant to historical accuracy 2600:100E:B076:B036:7534:3D45:2FAF:E408 (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
There are guidelines on this, see MOS:ETHNICITY. Mellk (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
So he was Ukrainian 2A00:23C6:9C52:B301:F1BB:AC11:64D:A8F8 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It's clear that a single 'editor' has decided to monopolise the subject of Prokofiev's nationality and won't tolerate the slightest compromise on his insistence that the composer was ONLY Russian and not also Ukrainian. By that measure, the early Americans of the late 18th century would be British and not American (admittedly some of them did think that, though most didn't). Ukraine means lower border lands and the Rus started in Kiev, not Moscow. If anything, Ukraine has precedence in the nationality parade. 86.140.171.159 (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

My only concern here is to chronicle history accurately for readers. Boris Lyatoshinsky, for example, spent most of his life in the Ukraine, was deeply involved in cultivating its cultural life as something distinct from Russia, and on top of all that regularly found inspiration in Ukrainian folklore for his music. Prokofiev, aside from Semyon Kotko and his personal nostalgia for his pre-Revolutionary youth, appeared to have been little concerned with the Ukraine and its development. Nikolai Gogol often wrote about his being Ukrainian and how he felt like a foreigner among Russians in Saint Petersburg. But Prokofiev never expressed anything of the kind in his letters and diaries. The fact remains—and evidence abounds attesting to this—that not only was Prokofiev legally a Russian, then a Soviet citizen, but that he also repeatedly described himself and was described by others as Russian, and that in his final decades his life and art were deeply intertwined specifically with the cultural life of the Russian SFSR. Because the place Prokofiev was born in happens to no longer be Russian does not mean that somehow he is also no longer Russian. Maybe you think that Garibaldi is a French national hero? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Admittedly Prokofiev was born in an area that was Russian speaking, but that has always been contested as part of Ukraine. This is also true of many areas in Eastern Europe where Russian speaking minorities coexist within small countries desperate to remain independent of Russia. I am British by nationality but I am also English by ethnicity. Similarly, in the same way Prokofiev may have been Russian by nationality but Ukrainian by ethnicity. Like Prokofiev, I can incorporate both and would not insist on an autistic and pedantic definition of either, and certainly not to the point where I was threatening other 'editors' with a block if they didn't agree with me. 2A00:23C5:DA1D:9301:61F9:D82:C86C:F9C6 (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The key word is "may." He may have been what you purport he was, but unless you can provide evidence from a reputable source confirming that, it will remain an unverifiable fringe opinion. You can lob personal insults against me to your heart’s delight, but that will not change the fact that Prokofiev was Russian by nationality and ethnicity. As frustrating as it may be for you, Wikipedia is not a place to settle nationalistic scores or to crusade against perceived historical injustices. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This is simply self righteous blather and bluster. What verifiable sources do you need for knowing where the man was born for goodness sake? In what way is being born in Ukraine an unverified fringe opinion? He either was or wasn't. Nationalism and the current conflict in Ukraine has nothing to do with Prokofiev's birthplace. Please do not threaten other contributors with blocking or you will be reported to Wikipedia. 2A00:23C5:DA1D:9301:9D85:A09C:B819:8B1C (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
According to your logic, E. T. A. Hoffmann, Otto Nicolai, and Frederick I of Prussia would all be "Russian," not German. Again, whether we like it or not, the facts confirm Prokofiev was Russian and was born in a territory that was Russia at the time.
A passage from Leon Botstein's essay "Beyond Death and Evil: Prokofiev's Spirituality and Christian Science" in Sergey Prokofiev and his World  (pp. 532–533) is worth quoting from:
Prokofiev’s status as a Russian patriot—the manner in which he considered himself distinctly Russian—is confirmed and clarified by [his] diaries. […] At the same time, Prokofiev possessed his own enormous nostalgia for pre-1917 St. Petersburg and a concomitant sense of Russia's imperial destiny and grandeur. In his trips to Russia in 1927 and 1929, Prokofiev responded more to the continuities than to the changes. He felt overwhelmingly attached to the Russian urban landscape and the mores of his contemporaries in the intelligentsia.
However we may personally feel about it today, Prokofiev saw himself as Russian. His return to his native country in 1936—settling in the Russian SFSR instead of the Ukrainian SSR—speaks for itself. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot, so to speak, and I appreciate now that the warning messages over editing were probably AI generated and not necessarily indicative of personal rudeness and hostility to differing opinions? Your argument is well resourced and quoted, though of course ALL opinions, including those of the references we quote, are subjective. Our differences it would seem are purely temporal and are premised upon how a person may or may not have viewed himself in his lifetime. The only addition I would make is that Ukrainian nationhood has a proud separate history that goes back over a millennium and that Mr Sergei Prokofiev would have been aware of this. Even the present number one enemy of Muscovy, Mr Volodymyr Zelensky, is ethnically Russian and speaks Russian as his first language, even though he is VERY much Ukrainian. I would put Prokofiev in the same category. 2A00:23C5:DA1D:9301:9D85:A09C:B819:8B1C (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
2A00:23C5:DA1D:9301:9D85:A09C:B819:8B1C, please demonstrate that the majority of reliable secondary sources describe Prokofiev as a "Ukro-Russian composer" or "Ukrainian composer", otherwise stop wasting the time of others. This talkpage is NOTAFORUM. Aza24 (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
If you dont want me 'wasting' time then please learn how to be polite. If people think my questions are a waste of time, then why are they so pedantic on insisting on their own viewpoints with regard to  Prokofiev's origins and constantly trying to change the page to fit their view? If this talkpage is not a forum then what is a 'talkpage' for goodness sake? 2A00:23C5:DA1D:9301:D123:1AB6:5C09:FFA (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Zelensky is not even ethnically Russian. Where did you get that from? And that is a really bad comparison because Zelensky actually is a Ukrainian national. Mellk (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Nationality needs to be discussed as consensus hasn't been reached and no one editor is entitled to railroad that consensus. The following link is useful in determining the redefinition now being discussed.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/listening-to-russian-music-in-putins-shadow
Historicallibrarian (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the article? There is no "redefinition". Mellk (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes I did read the article and 'redefinition' is simply my word to explain it, and not a pedantic device to insist on my view. As I have said, if any self appointed 'editor' can present evidence of their accredited specialisation, then I will stand corrected with enthusiasm. Historicallibrarian (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It actually is your pedantic device to insist upon your personal view. Evidence abounds as to Prokofiev's nationality in the lead. We had this discussion before. (I assume you were formerly the IP editor that expressed themselves in similar fashion on this point.) Evidence has already been provided. If you can find verifiable evidence that Prokofiev was an ethnic Ukrainian and a citizen of an independent Ukraine upon his birth in 1891, please do share it here. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This is classic 'whataboutism'. Evidence has not been provided and the scraps you give are merely the opinions of writers you quote. Its clear from your obsessive responses that you feel that you own this subject. I just feel sorry for anyone else who tries to have input! Such is the danger of wikipedia and its army of basement bedroom 'editors'. Historicallibrarian (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This is sourced in the article, I am not sure why you are asking for some kind of evidence, it is not even a controversial claim. I am also not sure how that is a "whataboutism". The guideline is MOS:ETHNICITY. Was he of Ukrainian ethnicity, citizenship, or was his birthplace that is now modern-day Ukraine relevant to his notability? Not at all. Mellk (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Have it your way! Like Curry Talk you no doubt regard the subject of Prokofiev as your sole right of possession. 86.128.96.25 (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It is not my way. This is what the sources say and is also according to WP policies. Mellk (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
No doubt policies you interpret to fit your assertions! Lets just leave it now as we will never agree. Historicallibrarian (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
To start off, you need to show that majority of sources call him a Ukrainian. Then this can be properly discussed. Mellk (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I tried that initially to no avail. Discussion it seems comes after a decision by two 'editors' in particular to effectively lock the editing process in favour of their assertions. 86.128.96.25 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Not really, from what I can see, you gave one source (more of an opinion article) that describes as Ukrainian but in an "anachronistic" sense. Mellk (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes but I have discussed this here before without the benefit of an account. Your accomplice 'CurryTime7-24' noted this. My so called 'opinion article' is no more or less valid than the sources listed here on this page. What is any article, if not an opinion piece? Historicallibrarian (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
If you are going to describe another editor as an "accomplice", you may want to review WP:NPA. Mellk (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Im afraid that's a bit rich coming from you, but accomplice seems like a perfectly reasonable word in view of the situation. Directing me to volumes of wikipedia code is meaningless. Historicallibrarian (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Got it, you are just a time waster. Mellk (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to look at WP:NPA as now who is resorting to unpleasantness? Historicallibrarian (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
You simply are a person who thinks he owns the subject and won't tolerate dissension and resorts to rudeness when you can't get your own way. Historicallibrarian (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
His nationality was Russian; he was born in the Russian Empire, which makes him a Russian citizen. Please consult the sources in the lead for more information. "Consensus" won't change historical fact. Has consensus determined whether Aram Khachaturian was Georgian instead of Soviet and Armenian yet? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
No but it is you who insists on 'consensus'. Im happy to leave the subject alone and will humbly stand corrected if you can demonstrate some professional credentialisation on this subject? Historicallibrarian (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Aram Khachaturian was both Georgian and Armenian! Soviet is a political appellation and not an ethnicity. Historicallibrarian (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I stumbled on this discussion by chance. I have some sympathy with Historicallibrarian’s position. The facts aren’t in dispute – the argument is about policy, i.e. what nationality to ascribe to someone who lived when national boundaries were not what they are now. Wikipedia needs to be truthful, unbiased and consistent; “reliable” references written before the breakup of the Soviet Union really don’t help. Florian Leopold Gassmann seems to be an analogous case. I assume that by Currytime’s reasoning he would be described as “Austro-Hungarian”, but he’s actually described as “a German-speaking Bohemian composer”. Even so, I think it might be more misleading to describe Prokofiev as Ukrainian than as Russian, so I’d be inclined to leave the article as it is, but delete the 3 references in support of Prokofiev’s Russianness because they give an air of dogmatism to a rather tenuous claim. Colin.champion (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Gassmann isn't analogous at all. He was Bohemian. Moreover, the Kingdom of Bohemia was formally independent during his lifetime. It was in a personal, not a real union with the Holy Roman Empire (not Austria-Hungary, which did not exist until nearly a century after Gassmann's death). An analogous situation would be if there were suddenly a push to recognize him as Czech, despite the Czech Republic not existing during his lifetime and lack of evidence confirming that he personally identified as "Czech".
Interestingly enough, I was thinking about this issue the other day when I was reading about Prokofiev's nomination for the 1941 Stalin Prize. According to Marina Frolova-Walker, Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky made the short list during the second and third round of nominations, being demoted to the second-class nominees in the latter. When the short list was drawn up after the fourth round of nomination discussions, the work was removed in favor of Ukrainian composer Levko Revutsky's Symphony No. 2. The rationale given for this by Chairman of the Committee on Arts Affairs Mikhail Khrapchenko was that there had been a lack of representation from "national" (i.e. non-Russian) composers. The final list of second-class nominees were all from outside the RSFSR. The outcome disappointed Prokofiev and while he tried to reverse it, it is telling that he did not do so based on the idea that he himself was a "national" (i.e. Ukrainian or non-Russian) composer. Shortly thereafter, Nikolai Myaskovsky made a speech to the Union of Composers of the RSFSR defending Prokofiev, wherein he described his music as being part of the "Russian classics". (Stalin's Music Prize: Soviet Culture and Politics, pp. 46–60, 63–67) — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Prokofiev shostakovich khachaturian.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The Reddit thread linked (when read in full) illustrates a good argument for changing which of Prokofiev's two birthdays (or pairs of birthdays with OS) this article should consider the principal one (see note 2 below the article). We are currently in disagreement with the Encyclopædia Britannica, because of citation 6, an entry in a "concise" 1990s dictionary - potentially overestimating the trustworthiness of birth certificates and underestimating the importance of Prokofiev's own view of his birthday.  PurpleQuaver (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The argument made there appears to be that certificates can be wrong. One's own beliefs can also be wrong. That doesn't seem to be a strong reason to change what's here. What is the balance of sourcing for the two possible dates? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Prokofiev was born on 23th of april, not 27th. Fix it please. Glebushko0703 (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Prokofieff (i.e. Prokofiev) LCCN2014708419 Crop 2.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 25, 2023. A preview of the POTD can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-07-25. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Aviafanboi (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Does Golan v. Holder still apply to Prokofiev's works? As he died 70 years ago last year are his works now public domain? 2A02:A46A:2C29:1:95E3:C2DB:2C39:2D60 (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: I think that the Ukrainian name of Sergei could be added. For example, in the article Leonid Brezhnev, even he self-described himself as a Russian, there's also a Ukrainian name added which probably is because he was born in Ukraine. PoisonHK ✉ Sapiens dominabitur astris 16:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
According to the sources in the article, SSP's parents were ethnic Russians. At the time of his birth, the region he was born was a legally recognized part of Russia and often referred to as such. Moreover, although SSP referred to himself at times as a "guy from the Steppes", he neither ever proclaimed himself to be of Ukrainian ethnicity nor did he ever claim to speak the language. To the best of my knowledge, there is no testimony from friends, colleagues, etc. that confirm he spoke Ukrainian. Because of that, the transcription of SSP's name in Ukrainian Cyrillic that @PoisonHK: added a short while ago may be anachronistic. For what it's worth, their user page may suggest that this might be a WP:NOTADVOCACY matter. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't explain the rationale for the Brezhnev edit. It has no bearing here any way per WP:OTHERSTUFF. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
About your claim of "he was born was a legally recognized part of Russia and often referred to as such", I just want you to clarify did you mean the Russian Empire, or the modern Russian State. PoisonHK ✉ Sapiens dominabitur astris 16:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
At the time, SSP's birthplace was Russia. In 1936, he chose to repatriate to the RSFSR rather than the Ukrainian SSR. It's worth noting that in 1940 when he was first nominated for a Stalin Prize, the jury dropped him after the first round because there were too many Russians nominated and not enough "national" composers. Instead, the switched him out with Levko Revutsky, precisely because he was Ukrainian, whereas Prokofiev was not. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I think my argument of Brezhnev doesn't comply to WP:OTHERSTUFF since Brezhnev's article is a GA. Moreover, SSP was born in modern Ukrainian borders. In fact, many articles of anti-Ukrainian people or Russians born in modern Ukrainian borders got a Ukrainian name just like Brezhnev. PoisonHK ✉ Sapiens dominabitur astris 16:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
According to that logic, Brezhnev's Ukrainian name should be dropped from his article because SSP's article, which is also GA, does not include one. For that matter, why not add Russian Cyrillic to Immanuel Kant's article, since its subject was born in a city now part of Russia? Anyway, this is a discussion about SSP, not other people. There is no evidence that he ever used a Ukrainian name. He was not an ethnic Ukrainian, there is no evidence that he spoke Ukrainian, and his first Stalin Prize nomination failed because he was not Ukrainian. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Immanuel Kant's article shouldn't have a Russian native name, that's because Kaliningrad was never a Russian city before WW2. In this case, Sergei was born in a formerly majority Ukrainian-speaking region (before the Holodomor during 1932-33 fyi), that's why I do think the name should be added. PoisonHK ✉ Sapiens dominabitur astris 17:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe that what appears as superscripts [n 2] and [n 3] should appear in the article body, [n 2] for consistency with multiple other articles that show pronunciation info in-line, and [n 3] because it can interest people to know about his birthday.
I'm not experienced enough to do the editing myself.
[n 2] /prəˈkɒfiɛf, proʊ-, -ˈkɔː-, -ˈkoʊ-, -jɛf, -jɛv, -iəf/; Russian: Сергей Сергеевич Прокофьев, tr. Sergey Sergeyevich Prokofiev, IPA: [sʲɪˈrɡʲej sʲɪˈrɡʲe(j)ɪvʲɪtɕ prɐˈkofʲjɪf] ⓘ; alternative transliterations of his name include Sergey or Serge, and Prokofief, Prokofieff, or Prokofyev. In this name that follows Eastern Slavic naming customs, the patronymic is Sergeyevich and the family name is Prokofiev
[n 3] While Sergei Prokofiev himself believed 11/23 April to be his birth date, the posthumous discovery of his birth certificate showed that he was actually born four days later, on 15/27 April. AK2022 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it seems there must have been some consensus to indicate this information in superscripts. At least, I gather that from a number of articles that make similar use of superscripts (e.g. Dmitri Shostakovich, Vladimir Horowitz, Igor Stravinsky). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sergei Prokofiev was born on April 23, 1891 in the village of Sontsovka the Russian Empire. This village – now known as Sontsivka in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine – was part of the territory of modern Ukraine. Reputable sources consistently note Prokofiev’s Ukrainian connection: for example, Britannica gives his birthplace as “Sontsovka, Ukraine, Russian Empire”, and music publisher Boosey & Hawkes states that “Serge Prokofieff is the most important composer born in Ukraine, growing up on the family estate in Sontsovka near Ekaterinoslav in the Donetsk region.”. Likewise, biographical profiles (including one by IRCAM) describe Prokofiev as having been “born into a wealthy family on 23 April 1891 in Sontsovka (a village in the Donetsk region, today in eastern Ukraine)”. 
This is not a matter of anachronistic interpretation - it's a geographic fact that should be acknowledged according to Wikipedia's own guidelines for birth locations. Wikipedia's Manual of Style explicitly states that birth places should reflect historical context while providing current geographic information. Wikipedia's core policy of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) requires "representing fairly, proportionately" all significant viewpoints. Currently, only labeling Prokofiev as "Russian" violates this policy by ignoring his Ukrainian birthplace.
According to Wikipedia's biography guidelines, "previous nationalities" and "country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph" when "relevant to the subject's notability." Given the current war and scholarly discussion about cultural appropriation, this is clearly relevant.
Some may argue that calling Prokofiev "Ukrainian" is anachronistic. However:

Geographic accuracy is not anachronism - he was born in what is now Ukraine;
Wikipedia regularly uses contemporary geographic references for historical figures;
The "Russian" designation is equally problematic, as the concept of Russian national identity in 1891 differed significantly from today;
Dual identification (Ukrainian-born Russian composer) would be most accurate and neutral;

Acknowledging Prokofiev’s Ukrainian background is increasingly seen as important context, especially in recent years. Contemporary writers often prepend “Ukrainian-born” to his description to more fully reflect his heritage. This change in emphasis aligns with a broader re-examination of how we label historical figures from the multi-ethnic russian empire and soviet union. Once again, In Wikipedia’s own standards, the Manual of Style for biographies allows/encourages indicating the modern country of a birthplace when relevant -  for instance, saying someone was born in a place that is “now in Ukraine” if the political geography has changed. Many Wikipedia articles do this (e.g. “born in Lviv, Austria-Hungary (now in Ukraine)”, etc.), so adding Ukraine in Prokofiev’s case would be consistent with common practice. Given that reliable sources highlight the location as Ukraine, Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality policy would support mentioning this fact in the article’s lead or infobox. There is clear encyclopedic value in noting that Prokofiev’s birthplace is in present-day Ukraine, to provide full geographical context and to avoid the implication that he was “purely russian” by origin.

Therefore, it is necessary for Wikipedia to specify Prokofiev’s place of birth as Sontsovka, Russian Empire (now Sontsivka, Ukraine). This is fully consistent with Wikipedia’s Manual of Style, which explicitly calls for both historical and current geographic context in biographies. To omit the Ukrainian location is to present an incomplete and misleading account of his origins, which violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View by privileging only the Russian narrative. Reliable, independent sources - from Britannica to Boosey & Hawkes—already highlight Ukraine as his birthplace. Accurately stating that Prokofiev was born in present-day Ukraine does not impose anachronism; it ensures geographic precision, historical balance, and alignment with Wikipedia’s standards. This adjustment is not merely a matter of semantics - it is a corrective against cultural erasure and a requirement for encyclopedic integrity. Khrystya123 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The documentation for Template:Infobox person says: For historical subjects, use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership. What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text. The article already says: now known as Sontsivka, Pokrovsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine. Per MOS:NATIONALITY, the birthplace should only be mentioned in the opening if relevant to the notability and there is no evidence of this. Mellk (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. I agree that Wikipedia’s guideline for Infobox person says: “For historical subjects, use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership. What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text.” However, the issue here is visibility and neutrality, not just whether the information exists somewhere in the article.
At present, the lead and infobox only mention the Russian Empire, while the mention of present - day Ukraine is buried deeper in the biography. This creates the impression for most casual readers - who often only look at the infobox or first paragraph -that Prokofiev was simply Russian. That is misleading. Wikipedia’s own policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, MOS:BIRTHPLACE) require us to represent information fairly and proportionately and to reflect what reliable sources say.
There is a practical reason as well: readers expect the main summary (infobox and first paragraph) to contain the essential facts. If Ukraine is already accepted as Prokofiev’s birthplace in the body, then there is no policy-based reason to hide that fact from the most visible sections. In fact, omitting it from the lead/infobox while acknowledging it later creates an appearance of bias - especially given the long history of cultural erasure of Ukrainian origins by Russian and Soviet narratives.
It’s worth noting that other language Wikipedias (such as the French, German versions) already follow this practice, specifying Ukraine up front. English Wikipedia should be consistent: listing his birthplace as “Sontsovka, Russian Empire (now Sontsivka, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine)” in the infobox and lead both complies with MOS and gives readers a complete, neutral understanding. This does not anachronistically label Prokofiev as “Ukrainian” but simply reflects geographic fact in a balanced way.
For these reasons, I strongly believe the current wording underrepresents reliable sources and unintentionally reinforces a one-sided narrative. Including Ukraine in the infobox and lead is not only appropriate but necessary for accuracy, neutrality, and encyclopedic integrity. Khrystya123 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
You say: This creates the impression for most casual readers... that Prokofiev was simply Russian. He was not of Ukrainian descent. He considered himself a Russian composer and his contemporaries thought of him as a Russian composer. His father, Sergey, was born in Moscow, and his mother, Maria, was born in St. Petersburg. His father moved to Sontsovka because this was one of the family estates of Dmitry Sontsov, a former classmate who needed a soil engineer to manage the estate. Mellk (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
You’re not really addressing my point here. I am not trying to argue over Prokofiev’s self-identification or ancestry—I specifically raised the issue of visibility in the infobox and lead. Right now, Ukraine only appears buried in the article, which means most readers never see it. That is exactly the problem: if the fact is already accepted in the body, there’s no reason not to show it in the summary where readers expect essential information.
By only mentioning the Russian Empire up front, the article gives a distorted first impression and hides context that reliable sources consistently highlight. This is not about “making him Ukrainian,” it’s about geographic accuracy and neutrality. Khrystya123 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I have already stated that including the present-day country is discouraged by the infobox documentation. The manual of style also discourages mentioning the birthplace if it is not relevant to the notability. Your argument now is that Ukraine isn't "visible" enough and that there is a history of "Russian and Soviet narratives" erasing Ukrainian origins of people. You have not really provided any policy-based argument against this except misrepresenting what WP:NPOV, WP:V, MOS:BIRTHPLACE say. Mellk (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
You’re not actually engaging with what I’ve said. I’m not “misrepresenting” policies - I’m pointing out how they are applied.
MOS:BIRTHPLACE: it does not forbid adding the modern country. It says “use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership” and that modern equivalents belong in the article. In practice, many biographies include both (e.g., “Lviv, Austria-Hungary (now Ukraine)”). Pretending this guideline bans including Ukraine is incorrect.
WP:NPOV and WP:V: both require us to represent what reliable sources say. Britannica, Boosey & Hawkes, and IRCAM all note Sontsovka as being in present-day Ukraine. If we leave that out of the infobox and lead, we’re omitting verifiable, significant context that multiple high-quality sources highlight.
MOS:NATIONALITY: it discourages clutter, yes, but also explicitly allows birthplace when “relevant to the subject’s notability.” Given Prokofiev’s birthplace is claimed in multiple scholarly and cultural discussions  this clearly qualifies.
What you’re doing is narrowing in on one line of documentation while ignoring how the guideline is applied across thousands of biographies. The result is that the English article treats Ukraine as an afterthought, while other language Wikipedias give full, visible context. That creates a distorted presentation for readers, which is exactly the kind of imbalance WP:NPOV is meant to prevent.
So to be clear: this is not about re-labelling Prokofiev’s nationality. It’s about geographic accuracy and parity with how Wikipedia already handles similar cases. English Wikipedia should not provide less clarity to its readers. Khrystya123 (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
MOS:BIRTHPLACE says: Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates. Prokofiev being born in present-day Ukraine has no relevance to his notability (as a composer). You misunderstand what relevant to notability means here. None of the sources you provided show that his birthplace has any relevance to his notability, they simply mention Ukraine where the birthplace is listed (and they have a different manual of style). Please cite authoritative sources like Prokofiev: A Biography and show me evidence that his birthplace is relevant to his notability. Otherwise, please seek clarification at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on what "relevant to notability" means. Mellk (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
You keep narrowing the discussion to “relevance to notability” as though that is the only test, but that is not what MOS:BIRTHPLACE actually says. It states that birthplaces can appear in the lead if relevant, but it does not forbid including modern equivalents in the infobox. In practice, Wikipedia consistently presents both the historical and modern locations in biographies where borders have shifted. This is not an exception but an established editorial norm, and there is no policy-based reason to exclude Ukraine from Prokofiev’s infobox - only your personal interpretation.
Nothing in policy requires reverts when the information is verifiable, accurate, neutral, and consistent with how other biographies handle similar cases. MOS:BIRTHPLACE and the Infobox documentation both allow flexibility, and reliable sources such as Britannica (“Sontsovka, Ukraine, Russian Empire”) present Ukraine as part of his birthplace. If adding “(now Ukraine)” is not against policy - and you have not shown that it is - then what is the policy justification for repeatedly deleting it? Reverts should be based on clear policy grounds, not personal preference.
Other language Wikipedias, including French and German, already give readers the full geographic context by listing Ukraine clearly in both the lead and infobox. There is no reason why English Wikipedia should provide less clarity. If this approach is acceptable practice across multiple versions, there is no justification for treating Ukraine as secondary here.
If you still believe your interpretation of MOS overrides both established precedent and reliable sources, the correct next step is to open a broader discussion (RFC, Third Opinion, or the MOS talk page) rather than continuing to revert sourced and neutral information. Until such a consensus is reached, there is no policy-based reason to erase Ukraine from the infobox. Khrystya123 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCONTENT. I can also cherrypick examples: the infobox for Immanuel Kant does not mention Russia because the present-day country is not relevant to his notability. Other Wikipedia editions are also completely separate projects with different rules.
You now say that I have not referred to any policy and this is just my personal preference while also repeating the same disproven points. Sorry, but you are wasting my time now. Mellk (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
This is to notify you that I have opened a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard regarding our ongoing dispute on the Sergei Prokofiev article. The case is now active and can be followed here:
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sergei Prokofiev discussion Khrystya123 (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)