Talk:Leo Tolstoy/Archive 1

message: I am surprised because I cannot see here anything about the claims that Tolstoy had actually converted to Islam or -at least- sympatize with this religion. This claim seems like sound and has to be checked in detail. Here is a source: 
--theperuvian 85.101.139.32 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim

message: Have the "cylinders" of his voice been uploaded online? Can they be added here? There was a link that said Leos Voice but it just linked to some religious website which had nothing to do with anything.
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio

message: At the bottom of the article there is a list of books written by Tolstoy.  I clicked on "Childhood" and it took me to an entry for the generic "childhood" not the Tolstoy book.  Fyi. -Raj
:Fixed. It now links to Childhood (novel), which doesn't exist yet. -- Sam 18:15, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link to "Childhood" is incorrect. 

message: I have deleted the section entitled "private life" as it appears to be directly taken out of another website: (Scroll down to Tolstoy)Refdoc 21:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Tolstoy once said, "Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."  Does anyone know the context of this quote and when it was said? (anon 28 May 2005)
:I presume it would have been in his journals if at all. I'd say he disagreed with Nietzsche's interpratation of Schopenhauer more than anything else. And the usual 'pacifism' vs. Nietzsche's glorification of war.Conor 13:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tolstoy on Nietzsche

message: Tolstoy and His Message is not, as described, "A very comprehensive biography of Tolstoy, with excellent information on his philosophy." It is a (pro-Tolstoy, Christian) polemic. It is also rife with pop-ups, ads, etc. I'd be inclined to remove it; failing that, it should certainly be more accurately described. I'd like to get opinions from at least two more experienced Wikipedians before I act on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not wait on people, they don't have time anyway. Garbage site should be deleted on spot. Pavel Vozenilek 18:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions sought about recently added link 

message: : w.r.t. Anna Karenina, "works alongside his serfs" became "works alongside the peasants". Were they not his serfs? Or should this be reverted? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serfs / peasants 

message: Reading this article you'd think Tolstoy should be deified. It manages to glance over him writing about the evils of adultery while he was sleeping with anyone he could talk into it. This is a HEAVILY biased article and I hope that someone with more time than I do will edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.35.165.82 (talk • contribs) 18 Nov 2005.
: Find someone citable who condemns his sexual practices and add it to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias! 

message: I was reading Anton Chekhov's "A Life In Letters" recently, and he had a memorable quote (at least to me) about Tolstoy on pg. 434 of the paperback edition. I added into the section where contemporaries comment on him. It's a bit lengthy, so I figured I'd note it and give a source and see if anyone objected. Frailgesture 04:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New quote 

message: I have in my posession A 1st Printing (june, 1962) of Leo Tolsty's  Fables and Fairy Tales, A New Tranlation By Ann Dunnigan. I would like to find out as much as i can about it. It is in excelent condition, Almost New, If anyone can tell me anything about this book please e-mail me at adt437@mchsi.com
: I'd suggest that you look at prices on AbeBooks.com. - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leo Tolstoy's ( Fables And Fairy Tales?) 

message: I have come across the following excerpt from his diaries, written before his marriage, at the age of 23: "I have never been in love with a woman,” the entry read, “but I have quite often fallen in love with a man. . . . I feel in love with a man before I knew what pederasty was. . . . Beauty has always been a powerful factor in my attractions; there is D—, for example. I shall never forget the night we left Pirogovo together, when, wrapped up in my blanket, I wanted to devour him with kisses and weep. Sexual desire was not totally absent, but it was impossible to say what role it played." (edit-- source: htt(p)://philosopedia.org/index.php?title=T.  This link was blacklisted and cannot be linked to if any further changes to this discussion page are to be made.—oac old american century talk @ 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I was enraged when :Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people was deleted in ru.wiki a week ago and left the project because of that, I'm equally annoyed with the tendency to homosexualize the straightest people in history. There is hardly a man who recorded his inner life so meticulously as Tolstoy; his diaries take up thirty volumes. We know all about his sexual preferences or lack thereof, so two lines written when he was a youth hardly count that much. It may be reasonably doubted that there has been a man who didn't experience attraction to motss once or twice in his life. Tolstoy, the father of thirteen children, hardly stands out of line in this respect. As a sidenote, he was the first high-profile Russian writer to describe a homosexual couple - in Anna Karenina, that is, as pointed out by Nabokov - yet the fact is too trivial to warrant attention. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may well be that everything lends itself to being homosexualized, the only thing we know to date is that everything also lends itself to being heterosexualized. Tolstoy's desires are fair game, especially since they do not at all seem to have been a "flash in the pan" but rather a theme in his early life, and perhaps, indirectly, later. The fact that he had 13 children is not an indication of anything. The fact that he says that he was attracted by masculine beauty but rejected it in favor of an intellectual attraction to women is thunderous. Look at this:  Haiduc 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim was that it seemed like a very significant aspect of his personal history, which is blatently false, since he never, historically had any homosexial encounters. Furthermore, he certainly did not only have an 'intellectual' attraction to women, he, by all accounts had frequent affairs with his female serfs, one of which he maintained for years (into his marriage) and seemed to be completely obsessed with. If you made a big deal over every opinion worth two or three lines in Tolstoy's journals, your head would explode, he's one of the most contradictory writers ever. I'm not going to try and reference all this. I know Natasha's Dance by Orlando Figes gives one pretty good overview.Conor 13:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no doubt that Tolstoy had serious issues (as the "contemporary entertainment media" would put it) when it came to sex. It might be worth devoting a section of the article to themes of sexuality in Tolstoy's life and work, from his early homoerotic feelings (kept in perspective) through his later promiscuity, and ultimately his "Kreutzer Sonata" phase. I think it would add to the article, or it could be split off. Any takers? And Lestrade, if you have a comment about Tolstoy, this is the place. If you feel the need to disparage homosexuals, homosexuality, or the refusal of homosexuals to hide their behavior when you're around, do it elsewhere. MastCell 03:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you MastCell.  And whether he can be labeled as "gay" or "straight" is beside the point.  The history of his sexuality in both directions is information that's interesting enough to include in the article.--Will.i.am 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tolstoy was the straightest man ever. His trouble is that he kept recording his most intimate and passing feelings in a diary for years. Those who wish to prove that he was a homosexual should consult his diaries in their entirety. As a very young man he once mentions that he felt a minute attraction to a peasant when they returned from a station together. That doesn't make him homosexual for life. Young Flaubert, for instance, openly declared in his letter to a friend that he dreams about a harem of three hundred young boys. Now you should pronounce him homosexual as well. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tolstoy relates that as a youth he once fell in love, crying with desire for a young man and covering him with kisses. There is other material as well. Why keep it covered, just because he repressed his feelings? Haiduc 10:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  on his attraction to men 

message: Discussion: "Find someone citable who condemns his sexual practices and add it to the article. jmabel". C.P.Snow does just this.
Comma splice much?
just in case u guys didnt know, he changed his ways. he ended up taking a vow of chasitity.
:Those two facts aren't necessarilly connected for Tolstoy. When he married he also vowed not to have relationships outside his marriage, but didn't.Conor 13:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sexual conduct

message: Just been reading through some of Tolstoy's work, but still have a lot to read. But what was his definition of 'God'? I'm still reading through his stuff, but so far it doesn't seem like the traditional idea held by Christians of a man up in the sky that controls everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.56.62.4 (talk • contribs) 13 June 2006.
"God is the infinite ALL. Man is only a finite manifestation of Him.
"Or better yet: 
"God is that infinite All of which man knows himself to be a finite part."
Leo Tolstoy said this on his death bed. If you would like to know anything more about Tolstoy's philosophy, let me know and i can tell you. 68.63.123.165 08:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolstoy's definition of 'God'. 

message: Why are there two articles on tolstoy???
one is called tolstoy and the other is called leo tolstoy
perhaps they should be merged... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.11.127 (talk • contribs) 15 June 2006.
: As it says at the top of Tolstoy, "This article is about the Tolstoy family; for the famous novelist, see Leo Tolstoy." Different topic, two articles are justified. - Jmabel | Talk 23:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  two tolstoys 

message: Actually, Tolstoy considered hanging himself BEFORE his conversion to Christianity. That's what it says in Confessions. Afterwards he was happy because he found the meaning of life.
I don't think it is important to put Schopenhaeur in this article. He was interested in Schopenhaeur for a while, but it was nothing compared to his over-the-top obsession with the teachings of Jesus, which he would base his entire philosophy and his entire life on. Does anyone object to me removing Schopenhauer? 68.63.123.165 07:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I object. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tolstoy's work in literature, which is by far the most important aspect of his life, was greatly influenced by Schopenhauer. He attempted to adhere to Schopenhauer's doctrine of the will being detrimental to the intellect's appreciation for art, and tried to reflect this in his work, ie, always attempting to be moralistic in most of his work.  Further to your point, his 'over-the-top obsession with the teachings of Jesus' didn't begin until relatively late in his life, up to then he was anything but a model Christian, and even afterwards, his work doesn't particularly express a Christian message. And to say he based his entire life - his hundreds of affairs, his gambling, etc. - on the teachings of Jesus, would be an overstatement. On the other hand, he wrote nearly all his work with Schopenhauerian ethics in mind.Conor 13:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy section 

message: Does the conversion section strike anyone as being unencyclopedic? It seems like it reads into reality a little too much. • Leon 13:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion Section 

message: Although he worked on it for ten years and it's characteristically monolithic, there doesn't seem to be anything about Resurrection (novel) in this article. Anyone want to remedy that? O'Hara 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurrection 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Leo Tolstoy]] 

message: I think this falls under allusion.. does anyone know what does "a Zulu Tolstoy" refer to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SiriusAlphaCMa (talk • contribs) 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume it refers to a remark (I believe by Harold Bloom, but I could be wrong) defending the Western "Great Books" canon against multicultural inclusionism by saying that the Zulus have not produced a Tolstoy or a Shakespeare. - Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zulu Tolstoy 

message: If no one objects (and points out how this is worth so much space on the Tolstoy's article), I'll be removing this box. It has little relevence to the entire article and takes up an awful lot of space. Conor 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevant in realation to him certainly, but saying the article is part of a series on Anarchism doesn't really sound right to me. Are we going to make every writer who wrote anything resembling anarchist thought (even if, like Tolstoy they never made any actual efforts to practice anarchism) a section in a series on anarchism? I mean Tolstoy was never even part of any real political movement, and never called himself an anarchist. This Christian Anarchism seems like a pseudo-analysis to me. Just look at the quotes on the Christian Anarchism main article from Tolstoy, it's seems like nonsense (but granted I'm no expert on politics). It seems like they're just looking for notable figures who they can 'technically' consider Christian Anarchsists based on their pacifism, spirituality or vegetarianism.
I wouldn't disagree with whatever texts the Christian Anarchists find so influential being part of this series, but do you not agree it seems out of place here? Conor 11:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of the Politics Series on Anarchism? =

message: Can anybody help me find the song he wrote about the Battle of Chernaya River?  I've had no luck.—oac old american century talk @ 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sevastopol Song

message: The addition of the external link: Free to read on a cell phone many works from BooksInMyPhone was undone as vandalism, but it seems essentially the same as the other external links to Tolstoys work. It seems reasonable to give people a link to another way to access his work. How does one undo the undo without starting an undo war? alternately what is really wrong with the site linked to?
:The link is question likely falls under various WP:NOT guidelines.  Perhaps WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#SOAP.  These include ridding the article of "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories" and "Advertising."—oac old american century talk @ 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any need for linking to phone-readable Tolstoy works.  Phone-readable books serve a niche market and I'd guess ~95% of readers wouldn't even consider using the link.  I'd also guess most people who plan on reading books on their phone already know various sites to find these sorts of phone-readable e-texts.  Why do you want the link on so badly?—oac old american century talk @ 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not adverse to having the link on, nor am I the member that removed it.  I was just trying to help explain others' possible reasons for not wanting to include the link.  Go ahead and add it again, but ultimately it's the will of the other Wikipedians that will decide whether or not the link will remain.  We do appreciate your civilized manner in discussing the issue (instead of becoming involved in an edit war).  I personally do take my laptop to bed to read Wikipedia, and thoroughly enjoy owning a hard copy of books I read (so I can refer to them later, underline sentences, and make important notes in the margins, etc., etc.).  To each their own :)—oac old american century talk @ 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The same discussion has been happening over at Charles Dickens; the decision there was to include the link and get rid of another that was offering very little. I don't myself read books on my phone, but I accept that others do; this is a link offering to complete works in a format that is not duplicated by the others, and it's not selling anything. Personally I'm inclined to support it. --Stephen Burnett 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this really vandalism ? 

message: I had just heard of Leo and I had to read one of his books, The 3 questions and his ways of writting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.90.144 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leo Tolstoy 

message: The opening part of the section on Tolstoy's philosophy is a gross misrepresentation. His philosophy was not based on Schopenhauer. Tolstoy quoted Schopenhauer in "A Confession" as an example of someone who believed life was meaningless, and then went on to conclude that life does have a meaning. He also criticized Schopenhauer in "Religion and Morality" and in "On Life." Tolstoy's philosophy was completely and unequivocally based on [his interpretation of] the teachings of Jesus. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or they haven't read Tolstoy's philosophical writings and shouldn't be editing this page. Schopenhauer should not be in it at all, let alone in a big box. If you are going to put a quote in a big box it should be something central to his philosophy, but the stuff you've done that with is not even in his philosophy at all! 
Also what is under the heading of "Conversion," oddly, is not really about his conversion but mainly other things.
Someone who wants to put Schopenhauer in here and take out Christian anarchism, when Tolstoy's philosophy beyond all doubt had nothing to do with Schopenhauer and everything to do with Christian anarchism, is not editing in good faith.
:::The person who wrote the above must never have read the fourth book of Schopenhauer's main work. Schopenhauer's 1819 description of Christian asceticism is a blueprint for Tolstoy's behavior in his later years. It explains his desire to renounce wordly possessions and to live the life of a wandering religous ascetic. If Schopenhauer's writing is not taken into account, Tolstoy's behavior seems bizarre or mad because the true cause is not realized. Do the following words of Tolstoy himself mean anything? Do you know what this summer has meant for me? Constant raptures over Schopenhauer and a whole series of spiritual delights which I've never experienced before. ... no student has ever studied so much on his course, and learned so much, as I have this summer. (Tolstoy's Letter to A.A. Fet, August 30, 1869)This is related to Christian asceticism, not anarchism.Lestrade 13:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schopenhauer 

message: I don't think this uncommented anonymous edit should pass without mention: it removed the sentences, "The teaching of mature Tolstoy is a rationalized "Christianity", stripped of all tradition and all positive mysticism. He rejected personal immortality and concentrated exclusively on the moral teaching of the Gospels." I have no opinion on what the article should say, but just felt that this probably merits discussion (and certainly this sort of edit merits an edit summary). - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for flagging.  Tolstoy wrote in My Religion (1884) that, "No matter how one might wish for the immortality of the soul, it does not exist, and it cannot exist because there is no soul.  There is only the awareness of God."  He wrote more afterwards, but it's certainly true that at one point in his life he disavowed personal immortality.  Possibly we need a Tolstoy scholar to sort this one out, but it definitely shouldn't be removed without explanation. --JayHenry 06:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Christianity 

message: The Conversion section doesn't talk about his conversion to anything.  It doesn't state what religion or mode of thought he converted to.  I'm not sure what the section is about.  Tempshill (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion section not about conversion 

message: Can someone alter his age under the photo on the right. 
According to that he was born in 1328 and was 582 years old when he died, unlike the body of the text which states his correct D.O.B. (1828)
I'd do it myself but I don't know how.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.62.127 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  500 Years Old????? 

message: Don't get me wrong, I think the article is wonderfully written, but this paragraph seems a bit POV. "Tolstoy had always been fundamentally a rationalist. But at the time he wrote his great novels, his rationalism was suffering an eclipse. The philosophy of War and Peace and Anna Karenina (which he formulates in A Confession as "that one should live so as to have the best for oneself and one's family") was a surrender of his rationalism to the inherent irrationality of life. Any notion that one could have control over one's own life and the lives of others was abandoned, in favor of the notion that the sum of the free wills of thousands made for the massive movements of history. Hence the greatest wisdom (according to War and Peace) consisted in accepting without sophistication one's place in life and making the best of it. But already in the last part of Anna Karenina a growing disquietude becomes very apparent. When he was writing it the crisis had already begun that is so memorably recorded in A Confession and from which he was to emerge with a new religious and ethical teaching." Seems kind of biased against Tolstoy at first, then goes on to being biased for him in that last sentence... thoughts before I change it up, because I may be reading it wrong or something.IronCrow (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it. Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issue 

message: ... commonly referred to in English as Leo (Lyof, Lyoff) Tolstoy ....
I've never heard anyone pronounce his first name as anything other than "Leo" (English) or "Lyeff" (Russian).  "Lyoff" is simply wrong, in either language.  There are the diminutive forms Лёва (Lyova), Лёвушка (Lyovushka), and Лёвка (Lyoffka) - but the primary name Лев is pronounced Lyeff, not Lyoff.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just try make a search on Lyoff Tolstoy to find that his childern were commonly referring (while writing in English) to their dad as Lyoff. Probably it is just another attempt to copy the Russian pronounciation which does not get any closer in English when we use Leo or Lev. I would rather instst on changing the entry, as the phrase "Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy, commonly referred to in English as Leo (Lyof, Lyoff) Tolstoy" suggests that somehow "Lev" was his real name. It is just the way we use to transliterate the personal name Лев for use in English in today's fashion. In his own time, and without objections from him, Leo was internationally accepted, while the spelling Lyoff was used to show being close to the celebrated author. Compare Russian нет for No, which in English-language media is continiously spelled as "nyet", while Russians typically transliterate it as "net". Neither is phonetically precise. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyoff???

message: We're currently using :Image:L.N.Tolstoy Prokudin-Gorsky.jpg. However, the website we sourced it from itself says that that is the scan from a postcard using the original colour photo from 1909; the same website has a gallery with a higher quality photo. I've also found another scan of the original with larger resolution. Is there any reason we're not using the original colour photo? Johnleemk | Talk 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically I like the color of the first one better, but the third one's resolution is undeniably superior. Peter Deer (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image 

message: Substituted at 20:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: "He was the fourth of five children of Countess Mariya Tolstaya, née Raevskaya. Tolstoy's parents died when he was young, so he and his siblings were brought up by relatives"
Mariya Volkonskaya died August 10, 1863. Tolstoy would of been 34 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.111.100  (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents death?