Talk:Leo Tolstoy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The article should include the sourced statement that Tolstoy pronounced his first name as ‘Lyov’

In Tolstoy's day, his first name was written Левъ. Most people named Левъ pronounced their name [lʲef] – for the IPA challenged, that's ‘Lyev’ – but a number of people named Левъ pronounced their name [lʲɵf], i.e. ‘Lyov’. Tolstoy belonged to this latter group. An exact modern parallel is the English-language name Aileen, whose first syllable is pronounced like ‘eye’ by some of its bearers (/aɪˈliːn/) and like the letter ‘a’ by others with this name (/eɪˈliːn/). If you were to read somewhere that ‘Aileen Smith pronounced her first name /aɪˈliːn/’, you would have no basis on which to conclude that /eɪˈliːn/ was Aileen Smith's real name, while /aɪˈliːn/ (i.e. her own pronunciation of her name) was somehow not her real name. In fact, it's difficult to comprehend how someone could read the sentence ‘Aileen Smith pronounced her first name /aɪˈliːn/’ and then conclude on that basis that /aɪˈliːn/ wasn't her real name, wasn't her official name, wasn't her birth name. Surely, if the sentence ‘Aileen Smith pronounced her first name /aɪˈliːn/’ is all we have to go by, the only conclusion possible is that Aileen was her real name and that her real pronunciation of her real name was /aɪˈliːn/.

One source for the fact that Tolstoy pronounced his first name as ‘Lyov’ is this quote from Vladimir Nabokov's Lectures on Russian literature, p. 216:

Tolstoy pronounced his first name (spelled “Lev” in Russian) as “Lyov” instead of the usual “Lyev.”

Russian Wikipedia sources the same fact to Nikolay Gusev.

User:AveTory is currently blocking any mention of this fact in the article on the pretence that [lʲɵf] was somehow not Tolstoy's real name, as in this astonishing edit summary: Did you read your source? "Tolstoy pronounced his first name (spelled "Lev" in Russian) as "Lyov" instead of the usual "Lyev". It wasn't his birth/official/pen name. Just a little quirk if his (according to Nabokov). Despite quoting Nabokov correctly, AveTory concludes that [lʲɵf] wasn't Tolstoy's birth/official name, undeterred by the fact that this idea of his is completely without foundation in the sources. In a later edit summary, he repeats that ‘this has nothing to do with Tolstoy's birth or any official name, no matter how he [...] pronounced it’. I have endeavoured to show the fundamental flaws in this line of thinking above.

As it seems I am not going to convince AveTory, this issue has reached a stalemate, and I am inviting other editors to join in the discussion. Libhye (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I already provided you with a link that clearly states that "ъ" at the end of the word "had no effect on pronunciation". "Лев" and "Левъ" both read and pronounced as "Lev". This is his birth name (not "Лёв" - something you changed along the way), this is the name he used to sign his books and articles. The fact that Tolstoy himself supposedly referred to himself as "Lyov" (again, according to Nabokov - I keep repeating it, because Nabokov wasn't among Tolstoy's contemporaries and he didn't give any links in support of his words) may be interesting, but it doesn't make the name "Lyov" an official name, and it certainly doesn't belong to the lead. And since Wikipedia generally uses modern Russian language (since most references link to post-reform literature), I don't see why this one should provide Tolstoy's name as "Левъ". AveTory (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer; now that I finally understand exactly what it is you have misunderstood, I shall try to correct your misunderstandings:

I have never claimed that the hard sign had any effect on the pronunciation. The old spelling Левъ was pronounced [lʲef] (just like the modern spelling Лев) by many Левъs, but there were also Левъs who pronounced Левъ as [lʲɵf]. So your statement that Левъ was exclusively pronounced [lʲef] is untrue; both [lʲef] and [lʲɵf] were equally valid pronunciations of Левъ. Some Левъs pronounced their name [lʲef] and some Левъs pronounced their name [lʲɵf], and both [lʲef] and [lʲɵf] were equal standard pronunciations of Левъ, with neither pronunciation being more correct than the other. Today, you wouldn't know how someone named Aileen read her name unless you asked her, and back then, you wouldn't know how someone named Левъ read his name unless you asked him.

Your key misunderstanding seems to be that you think that [lʲɵf] is one name, while Левъ is pronounced [lʲef] and is another name. In reality, however, [lʲɵf] is simply one of two equally correct ways of pronouncing Левъ. Tolstoy didn't refer to himself by a name [lʲɵf] that was separate from the name Левъ. Instead, he read his official/birth name Левъ as [lʲɵf].

The fact that Tolstoy didn't spell his name with the letter ё would not be an argument; neither did his contemporary Fyodor Dostoevsky, and there is no doubt that the latter pronounced Ѳедоръ as [ˈfʲɵdər].

That leaves the question of how to render Левъ into contemporary Russian. With Ѳедоръ, there is no problem: it was pronounced [ˈfʲɵdər] by everyone, and so Wikipedia, which uses ё wherever possible, renders it as Фёдор. The spelling Левъ, however, was read [lʲɵf] by some and [lʲef] by others, and in those contexts where ё is used wherever possible, the spelling Лёв corresponds to the pronunciation [lʲɵf] and the spelling Лев corresponds to the pronunciation [lʲef].

It follows that when rendering Tolstoy's first name Левъ into contemporary Russian and using ё wherever possible, you render it Лев if you pronounce it [lʲef] and you render it Лёв if you pronounce it [lʲɵf]. The spelling Лёв corresponds to how Tolstoy and many of his contemporaries said it, while the spelling Лев corresponds to how many others of his contemporaries said it. Many modern Russians pronounce him [lʲef] and would therefore never spell him Лёв, but as we know from both Nabokov and Gusev, Tolstoy himself read Левъ as [lʲɵf], corresponding to the spelling Лёв in that form of contemporary Russian which uses ё wherever possible.

As for Tolstoy's birth name, it was Левъ-pronounced-[lʲɵf], corresponding to the spelling Лёв in that form of contemporary Russian which uses ё wherever possible, which is the form of contemporary Russian Wikipedia uses.

Finally, let us take a look at Nabokov's statement and what it means:

Tolstoy pronounced his first name (spelled “Lev” in Russian) as “Lyov” instead of the usual “Lyev.”

This sentence tells us how Tolstoy ‘pronounced his first name’; his first name was Левъ. It tells us that his first name was ‘spelled “Lev” in Russian’, i.e. Левъ. It further tells us that the usual pronunciation of Левъ was ‘Lyev’, i.e. [lʲef]. According to the sentence, Tolstoy ‘pronounced his first name [i.e. Левъ] [...] as “Lyov”’, i.e [lʲɵf]. So [lʲɵf] was Tolstoy's way of reading Левъ; it's not like [lʲɵf] was a nickname and his real name was somehow Левъ-pronounced-[lʲef]. Tolstoy's official/birth name was Левъ, and the pronunciation he used for his official/birth name was [lʲɵf], which according to the rules of logic means that the spoken form of his official/birth name was [lʲɵf]. Libhye (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Лёв seems very wrong to me, and should be reverted. Russian is my first language. Лёв looks much like kidding. No edited Russian encyclopedia could possibly pass Лёв as Count Toltoy's name. The Russian name is Лев. Лёва is a diminutive, and inappropriate in the summary. Anyway, it's either Лев or Лёва, there is no such thing as Лёв.109.94.180.195 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, Tolstoy ‘read Левъ as [lʲɵf], corresponding to the spelling Лёв in that form of contemporary Russian which uses ё wherever possible’. I am aware that, as I wrote above, ‘[m]any modern Russians pronounce him [lʲef]’ and spell him accordingly, but that doesn't change Tolstoy's own pronunciation, and the spelling Лёв does occur in modern Russian: https://books.google.no/books?id=wl_uIJUzCRIC&pg=PT69&dq=Лёв+Толстой+-Лев&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFurmYhrnbAhUkMJoKHfa7DbMQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=Лёв%20Толстой%20-Лев&f=false.

By the way, here is the cover of an English-language edition of Tolstoy's Севастопольскіе разсказы published in his lifetime, attributed to ‘Count Lyof N. Tolstoï’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leo_Tolstoy_-_Sevastopol_Book_Cover.jpg. Libhye (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

On the Lev/Lyov issue

While it was Libhye who changed Tolstoy's first name without starting any discussion, he insists that it should be me who must discuss his changes before returning the original name. I'll try again, since, as it seems, nobody else is interested in this sudden name changing of one of the most known authors, although after our previous discussion and editing summary I'm afraid Libhye is more interested in pushing his agenda and calling names those who disagree with him, while I don't even remove his addition from the lead.

First, Libhye's source (Vladimir Nabokov who - and I repeat this - was NOT one of Tolstoy's contemporaries, not even a Tolstoy's biographer, and thus can't be concidered an indisputable source, especially since he himself doesn't provide any links in support of his words) wrote exactly this:

"Tolstoy wrote "Levin", deriving the surname of this character (a Russian nobleman and the representative of a young Tosltoy in the imaginary world of the novel) from his own first name "Lev" (Russian for "Leo"). Alphabetically the Russian "е" is pronounced "ye" (as in "yes"), but in a number of instances it may have the sound of "yo" (as in "yonder"). Tolstoy pronounced his first name (spelled "Lev" in Russian) as "Lyov" instead of the usual "Lyev". I write "Lyovin" instead of "Levin", not so much to avoid any confusion (the possibility of which Tolstoy apparently did not realize) with a widespread Jewish surname of a different derivation, as to stress the emotional and personal quality of Tolstoy's choice".

So this short passage about how Tolstoy supposedly pronounced his name is enough for Libhye to make changes. Despite even Nabokov points out that Tolstoy is commonly known under the Lev/Лев, not Lyov/Лёв name, and this is more of a trivia that needs clarification. Which leads to the Wikipedia policy: here the spelling of the names is based not on one source you consider to be the right one, but on the most common spelling used by numerous sources. It is very easy to check which name is more common:

Google: "лев толстой": 3,630,000 results, "лев николаевич толстой": 543,000 results; "lev tolstoy": 483,000 results, "lev nikolaevich tolstoy": 23,400 results; "лёв толстой": 1,990 results, "лёв николаевич толстой" - not searchable, adds results for "Лев"; "lyov tolstoy": 175 results, "lyov nikolaevich tolstoy": 2 results.

Google Books: "лев толстой": 193,000 results, "лев николаевич толстой": 81,300 results; "lev tolstoy": 26,200 results, "lev nikolaevich tolstoy": 5,180 results; "лёв толстой": 153 results, "лёв николаевич толстой" - not searchable, see above; "lyov tolstoy": 288 results, "lyov nikolaevich tolstoy": 4 results.

In addition we have Encyclopædia Britannica and Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary right there in the lead that says "Leo or Lev" and basically every other source that follows, including Russian contemporary dictionaries such as Great Russian Encyclopedia which says ТОЛСТО́Й Лев Ни­ко­лае­вич. You won't find a "Лёв Толстой" book in a Russian bookshop or library. Ships and districts are named after certain Lev, not Lyov. The official Yasnaya Polyana website calls him Лев Николаевич Толстой, links to the Tolstoy-dedicated website that calls him Лев and provides the full collection of his works in 90 volumes signed "Лев Толстой". Even Tolstoy's signature says "Лев Толстой", not "Лёв". Well, it actually says "Лев Толстий", so maybe you'll want to change his surname as well? AveTory (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the previous discussion here to provide context for editors new to the issue.

You keep misunderstanding my argument. This is not a COMMONNAME issue, as the article is at ‘Leo’, not ‘Lev’ or ‘Lyov’. The two latter spellings are in the article simply as transcriptions from Russian, so it doesn't matter which one is more common as long as they are both correct Russian. Contrary to what you seem to think, I agree that the most common Russian pronunciation is [lʲef], that the most common modern Russian spelling is Лев, and that the most common transcription is Lev. However, as Nabokov and Gusev tell us (both are reliable sources, so it's irrelevant what you think of them), there is also another pronunciation, modern Russian spelling and transcription, namely [lʲɵf]/Лёв/Lyov. (See above for a link to a novel that uses Лёв.) While [lʲef]/Лев/Lev is more common, it's not Tolstoy's own pronunciation, and while [lʲɵf]/Лёв/Lyov is Tolstoy's own pronunciation, it's less common, so all in all, the two pronunciations are of approximately equal importance. Even if you don't agree that they are of approximately equal importance, that's no reason to remove [lʲɵf]/Лёв/Lyov from the lede. In my version of the lede, [lʲef]/Лев/Lev and [lʲɵf]/Лёв/Lyov are both mentioned prominently, as they are both reliably sourced. In your version of the lede, [lʲɵf]/Лёв/Lyov has been removed altogether. The main difference between your standpoint and mine is that you want to suppress reliably sourced facts while I want to include them. When there are two reliably sourced Russian pronunciations, contemporary spellings and transcriptions, the reader is of course best served by being exposed to both. It's irrelevant that one of the alternatives is more common, as a pronunciation or spelling being less common is not a valid reason to suppress it, and it's irrelevant that you don't trust Nabokov, as Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.

Tolstoy's signature doesn't say Лев Толстий (in Tolstoy's day, Russian didn't even have ий, only ій) but Левъ Толстой. As I've explained in excruciating detail above, only to be completely ignored by you, the spelling Левъ corresponds equally to [lʲɵf]/Лёв/Lyov and [lʲef]/Лев/Lev, therefore lacking any value as evidence. Libhye (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't remove "Lyov" from my last edits, you must read what you revert. I moved it to "notes" following the name, like it was previously done to the name "Lev", only without those countless "also Lyov", "also Лёв", etc. notes, transcriptions and pronounciations that made the lead almost unreadable. And yes, this is a common name issue, because Tolstoy is known by both Leo and Lev names outside of Russia as sorces I keep linking you to indicate. "Lyov" is not of equal importance, it is not commonly used in literature, and one book you found is nothing compared to thousands of books under the Lev name, including back from Tolstoy's time. And "Лёв" is not his original name at all (you yourself added "Левъ" as his original name in the notes). Also you never brought up Gusev before. And in fact he is referenced in the Russian version of the article - unsurprisingly - only one time as a "note", just like I did. And here's what he says in his work "Лев Николаевич Толстой":

"Tolstoy himself pronounced his name as Lyov keeping up with the folk traditions of pronounciation, same as his wife Sofia, son Sergei and V. G. Chertkov... Then again, many of his friends called him Lev Nikolaevich, not Lyov Nikolaevich".

That's it, the only time Gusev ever brings up this subject in his huge work. And still nothing indicates that this was his birth name or even a name he was generally known under. As for his signature, it clearly says "Лев Толстий", there is no "ъ" nor "o/i", sorry. AveTory (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the third time I bring up Gusev, not the first. As you have now proved you don't read my contributions, I'm not sure there's any point in discussing with you. As you yourself admit, Gusev says that Tolstoy pronounced his name as Lyov. Tolstoy's birth name was Левъ, as we both agree, and he pronounced Левъ, i.e. his birth name, as Lyov, as I've explained in full detail above.

You don't get to pretend sources don't say what they say. His signature does say Левъ Толстой, with a clearly visible ъ and a sloppily written о. There are three reasons it couldn't possibly be Лев Толстий: 1. In Tolstoy's day, a word could only end with a hard sign, a soft sign, an й or a vowel. 2. In Tolstoy's day, и could not occur before й (only і could). 3. We already know that the guy's name was Левъ Толстой. – Anyway, as I pointed out earlier today, Tolstoy's signature doesn't tell us anything about the pronunciation of his name (as е had two possible pronunciations), so it doesn't matter how he signed himself.

I said you removed [lʲɵf]/Лёв/Lyov from the lede, not from the article. As it was Tolstoy's own pronunciation of his name, it's too important to be relegated to a footnote. It's ridiculous to claim that my version of the lede is ‘almost unreadable’ – to an absurdly bad reader, perhaps, but Wikipedia is not dumbed down. We have the Simple English Wikipedia for those who have trouble reading.

WP:COMMONNAME is exclusively about article titles. It has no bearing on the treatment of various spellings inside the article. It is confirmed by two reliable sources that Tolstoy pronounced his name as Lyov, and the fact that this was his own pronunciation makes it so important that it needs to be shown next to the other versions even though it's much less common. Commonality is not the only measure of importance.

As I explain in as much detail as humanly possible in one of those contributions you apparently haven't read, Tolstoy's original name is ‘Левъ-pronounced-[lʲɵf], corresponding to the spelling Лёв in that form of contemporary Russian which uses ё wherever possible, which is the form of contemporary Russian Wikipedia uses’. Libhye (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Next time be sure to post a whole book in the comments describing your theory of name pronunciations and bury a reference somewhere in the middle instead of the actual article. Just don't get offeded that nobody reads your repeating original research thoroughly while you keep ignoring the fact that pronunciation and writing of a name are two different things. There is no "Лёв" name in contemporary Russian, nor there ever was, and "Левъ" has been abandoned since 1917, substituted by "Лев". I pointed this out from the start and provided you with multiple refs which you all ignored, since it's easier to discuss Tolstoy's signature - a subject I brought up not as some prove, but as an example of how historical name and author's original take on it may differ. And even then you keep pushing your agenda, going as far as trying to convince me that "и" is actually "о", that I somehow removed the "Lyov" pronouciation from the lede - which I didn't - and that this is a normal lede. While my take on it is clear and isn't even different from the "contemporary Russian Wikipedia". I can't say why you keep discussing this made-up problem with me instead of fixing the article, for example, which needs some serious rewriting. Probably out of stubborness. AveTory (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who's ignoring the difference between pronunciation and writing: you're the one who brought up Tolstoy's signature as evidence, even though the spelling Левъ is compatible with both pronunciations. And yes, you did bring it up as proof, writing: ‘Even Tolstoy's signature says "Лев Толстой", not "Лёв".’

If you want to be taken seriously as a participant in a discussion, of course you have to read what your opponents write thoroughly! Ignoring your opponents' contributions to the extent that you miss my first and second mentions of Gusev, claiming that my third time mentioning him is the first time i bring him up, is not acceptable. It's impossible to have a discussion when one party refuses to read what the other party writes.

I haven't done any original research, just tried to make you understand the implications of what Nabokov writes, since you were unable to understand his actually very simple sentence. My first attempt at that failed to even make you understand what I was arguing, so I wrote an even more detailed explanation culminating in a full analysis of Nabokov's sentence. This was necessary because you were unable to understand Nabokov's simple sentence even after my original 400+-words explanation. After that, you left the issue alone for months, so it must have had some effect.

You prove yet again that you don't read what I write by saying: ‘There is no "Лёв" name in contemporary Russian, nor there ever was[...].’ As I wrote only two days ago: ‘See above for a link to a novel that uses Лёв.’ I'll repeat the link here: https://books.google.no/books?id=wl_uIJUzCRIC&pg=PT69&dq=Лёв+Толстой+-Лев&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFurmYhrnbAhUkMJoKHfa7DbMQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=Лёв%20Толстой%20-Лев&f=false.

You did move the ‘Lyov’ pronunciation from the lede into a footnote. As it's Tolstoy's own pronunciation (as confirmed by two reliable sources and contradicted by none), it's too important to be relegated to a footnote.

It ought to be unnecessary to point out that signatures can be very sloppy; indeed, they can be completely unreadable. The letter Tolstoy writes is perfectly compatible with a sloppily written о, and the idea that Tolstoy has a hitherto-unknown variant surname Толстий, that happens to break a basic spelling rule of the Russian of his day, is far-fetched to say the least. Here is a signature where the о is clearer: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Signature_of_Leo_Tolstoy.jpg. Libhye (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I brought up Tolstoy's signature after I brought up other links which you ignored and keep ignoring, that's what "even" states for. Tolstoy also had this and this signatures - apparently it wasn't principal to him. And don't patronise me on what I have and have not to do, I edit Wikipedia in my free time and I choose what and how I read. It was you who decided that I was "unable to understand" Nabokov, and with your 400+-words on the Левъ pronounciation you went completely offtopic. I told you from the start that "ё" was used in Russia since the 18th century, yet nobody ever used it to write Tolstoy's name during his lifetime. Yet you keep bringing Nabokov as a "proof". Anyway, I asked for a third opinion which was voiced below and confirmed my words, so I'm returning my edit that includes his pronounciation as a note. If you still disagree, feel free to ask for other opnions. AveTory (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't ignored a single one of your links. But all they show is that [lʲef]/Лев/Lev is more common than [lʲɵf]/Лёв/Lyov, and I've never denied that. You wrote that Tolstoy's signature was ‘not "Лёв"’ as if that's indicative of anything. While ё has existed for a long time, it has never been common, and Tolstoy doesn't use it in any of his novels, so if ‘nobody ever used it to write Tolstoy's name during his lifetime’, that's irrelevant. And even if it were relevant, Nabokov is still a reliable source and therefore citable as proof.

Continuing to claim that I veered off-topic with my contributions in May only hurts your credibility. Both contributions were entirely about making you understand what Nabokov said; there was literally nothing in them that wasn't geared towards that.

I've no idea why you bring up two more Tolstoy signatures: one says the same as the two others, and the other one isn't in Russian. This discussion is about how Tolstoy pronounced his name, so spelling is irrelevant.

Nobody is saying you don't choose what you read, but it's not patronising to point out that if you want to participate in a discussion, you are required to read what your opponents write. If you don't, you can't demand to be taken seriously.

The MOS, as quoted in the third opinion, says that less important pronunciations should be relegated to a footnote, not important pronunciations like that of the subject of the article. It goes on to explicitly address the importance of ‘how a person pronounces their own name’, so I've restored Tolstoy's own pronunciation next to the other Russian pronunciation, which is where most readers will expect it to be. I've altered the lede and infobox slightly to be more acceptable to you. You're not going to get me to agree to relegate it to a footnote, however, so I suggest you spend your energy on working out a compromise on just how it should be presented in the lede. Libhye (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggested a compromise long time ago by placing his supposed pronounciation as a note, the same has been done in Russian Wikipedia (probably also following a long and pointless argument). Yet you keep reverting it even after I tried to resolve the issue by referring to an independent opinion. Most readers expect to see Tolstoy's most common name he has been known for centuries, which is used to sign his books and biographies, and not some obscure Lyov (not to mention Лёв). Either way, I value my time. Consider this your last warning. AveTory (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

First you choose to edit war even when implored to discuss the issue on the talk page, thus earning yourself a 48-hour block. Then you pretend you've ‘suggested a compromise’ when you've never done anything of the sort; indeed, this last part of the discussion came about precisely because I didn't accept your relegating it to a footnote against the spirit of the MOS, so relegating it to a footnote obviously couldn't be a compromise. Then you refuse to discuss my compromise suggestion, pretending that it's a revert, and finally, you accuse me of edit warring even though I've done no such thing, dishonestly providing irrelevant edits as evidence. In reality, you've refused to discuss the issue then sneakily reverted months later, edit warred and claimed you were exempt from having to discuss at the talk page, refused to discuss a compromise suggestion on the talk page even though all editors are obliged to discuss issues on the talk page (if they find they don't have the time to do that, they're simply required to let the issue go), and finally accused me of edit warring when I was explicitly trying to find a compromise solution. Let me remind you that no edit warring would have occurred on this article if it weren't for your policy-defying refusal to discuss on the talk page.

The sum of your actions makes you look very bad indeed. And then you have the audacity to warn me.

And for the umpteenth time, even though you've apparently made a bad-faith decision to simply pretend otherwise: Tolstoy signed his books with Левъ, which he pronounced as Lyov, and that's a cited fact. Libhye (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You also got a 48-hour block, then reverted everything again. YOU were supposed to discuss the matter before adding Tolstoy's supposed spelling to the lead, moving his common name that has been in the article for years to the brackets (which ended as a footnote), changing his birth/native names, and then reverting each and every edit back to your preferred version, calling it "a compromise". I returned the page to its original format while also leaving the information you added as a footnote. This is a compromise - at least as long as it hasn't been discussed by others. Tolstoy is one of the world's most acclaimed authors, you can't just come to his page and change his personal details whatever you like. Two other editors have disagreed with you on a general note by now. Yet you keep arguing and attacking me. I even ignored your regular childish insults - others would've simply reported you for harassment. AveTory (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: Is it not more important how his name is pronounced today than how he (may have possibly) pronounced it more than a hundred years ago? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation § Appropriate use states that Less important pronunciations should be omitted altogether, relegated to a footnote, or to a dedicated section in the article or infobox. On the other hand, the same MOS page also states that phonetic transcriptions may be useful to represent a specific accent, local or historical pronunciations, or how a person pronounces their own name. It then cites the example of Florence Nightingale, which is convenient for us as she lived about the same time as Tolstoy. However that article doesn't actually use her own pronunciation anywhere, so it doesn't really serve as an example. It certainly does not use it in the lead.

Summary style does not require us to include minority opinions/spellings/pronunciations in the lead. The first sentence of the lead is way too cluttered. My non-binding third opinion would be to put his own pronunciation into a footnote, the infobox, or a dedicated section on his name if there is enough material and sources to warrant such. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

!!

"the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, then part of the State of the Teutonic Order"

Is it joke? Grand Duchy of Lithuania was never been part of Teutonic Order... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.153.122 (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Leo Tolstoy's pronounciation of his name (Lyov/Lyof)

The consensus is that Leo Tolstoy's pronunciation of his own name should be included in the article in a footnote, not in the lead.

Cunard (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Leo Tolstoy's pronunciation of his own name ("Lyov" per Lectures on Russian Literature by Vladimir Nabokov) be included in the article in the lead or as a footnote? It's a very uncommon transliteration of the Russian name Lev, especially in connection to Tolstoy who has been widely known by the names Lev and Leo in Russia and worldwide, with few sources referring to him as "Lyov" as I showed on the talk page. The user who brought it up insists it should go in the lead even before the Lev name, while I agree to leave it as a footnote like in the Russian version of the article, without additional changes to his birth/native name and further clarifications. AveTory (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Footnote. (Summoned by bot) This struggle over this trivial detail is still ongoing, is it? Well if you two couldn't arrive at an agreement as to the matter, then I suppose its best you finally took it to RfC--though I doubt there is any chance this is going to result in a perspective any different from that already expressed by your 3O respondent, who (for my money) parsed this fairly straight-forward policy call correctly already. At the end of the day, while Libhye's arguments are clearly informed by a detailed consideration of the involved phonetic and typographical issues here, they contain an element of WP:Original research; they establish that this alternate name may have been used by Tolstoy himself, but their additional argument (that this ought to be considered Tolstoy's "true" name, or just one that is treated with equal currency to the WP:COMMONNAME) is not supported by the overwhelming majority of WP:reliable sources discussing the topic. So mention in the lead sentence seems WP:UNDUE for me. Nevertheless, its surely relevant (if not super important) detail, so inclusion in the article somewhere is appropriate. I would say a footnote would best serve that purpose, though a mention in the main body of the article wouldn't be out of the question either. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is exclusively about article titles, not lede sections. WP:UNDUE doesn't apply, as you yourself agree it should be included, and the lede section is normally where all variants of a name go, unless there is a whole group of them. Having a separate section on the name is unnecessary when it can all be cursorily mentioned in the lede; if anything, having a separate section is more undue.

The commonname is Leo, while Lev and Lyov are simply transcriptions from the Russian (and they both correspond to Tolstoy's own spelling, Левъ). There are no sources that deny that Lyov was Tolstoy's own pronunciation of his name and two that confirm it, so there's no element of original research. This is not about which names are more common, but about placing the different transcriptions from Russian next to each other, so they can be readily compared, rather than in two separate parts of the article, where they can't. When there are only two possible transcriptions from Russian, giving both of them doesn't overload the lede, and makes it easier for the reader to get an overview.

A problem seems to be that AveTory considers Lev an additional commonname, so maybe mentioning Lev along with Leo as an additional commonname, thus leaving Lyov as clearly nothing more than a transcription (and not in any way a variant English name), could be a solution? When [lʲɵf]/Лёв/Lyov is clearly represented as a variant Russian form, with no indication of Lyov being a variant English form, the arguments about Lyov not being common in English should lose their relevance. I'm imagining something like this:

Count Leo or Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (English: /ˈtoʊlstɔɪ, ˈtɒl-/; Russian: Лев (Лёв) Николаевич Толстой, tr. Lev (Lyov) Nikoláyevich Tolstóy; IPA: [lʲef] ([lʲɵf]) [nʲɪkɐˈlaɪvʲɪtɕ tɐlˈstoj] ; 9 September [O.S. 28 August] 1828 – 20 November [O.S. 7 November] 1910) was a Russian writer who is regarded as one of the greatest authors of all time.

Libhye (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree with several of your points there, but it might help to get us on the same page if I first point out some things about our workflow nomenclature here, which seem to have contributed to differences of opinion above. First, WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE are routinely used to refer not just to the question of whether to include a detail in an article at all, but also more specific questions of the most appropriate place for the content, if included. So for example, a particular sourced fact may be due for inclusion in the article, but undue for inclusion in the lead (which indeed, reflects the question here). And I think if you review my use of WP:COMMONNAME, you will find that I was not invoking the policy myself, but rather saying that I did not believe there was sufficient weight in the sources to support your opinion that this alternative spelling/pronunciation ought to be given parity with the common name in the lead sentence. This is where WP:Original research comes in: you have taken two sources (among many thousand reliable sources discussing Tolstoy's life) and WP:synthesized from their existence a conclusion that this is a name of equal importance to the one under which the world commonly knows the man.

Now look, I'm not saying it would be the absolute worst thing in the world to include the alternative spelling/transcription/pronunciation in a parenthetical in the lead (I find it a little concerning that only two sources validate this claim, but let's assume for a moment that they are top quality and highly credible sources for this claim); in fact, if I had seen you add the edit, I doubt I would have felt compelled to revert it. It's a trivial change of at least potential value. But there is an editorial dispute here and I received an RfC notice to provide my feedback, so I have to very finely parse which one of you two has the better nuanced argument backing these two very close alternatives, as analyzed under policy. And I'm afraid that your proposed edit, while clearly good-faith and not something I would have removed myself, just does not prevail against AveTory's interpretation of the relevant policies.

Moreover, I don't think it's going to make much difference--there are only so many of us phonology geeks who even notice what is in the parenthetical pronunciation glosses; the eyes of 99 out a hundred readers or more will (yes, I'll say it) gloss right over that detail. And for those who would be inclined to study the pronunciation, they will easily be able to see the notation, which will take them to the footnote, where the alternative pronunciation can be attributed and discussed in proper context--which is a big plus when we are going out on a limb by even mentioning the variant despite it being referenced to just two sources. All around, this seems like the best approach to the disputed content, and it even provides you with additional space to explain the background of this supposed variation which the two sources suggest Tolstoy preferred. Honestly, it seems like a win-win to me. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I usually oppose adding to the variant spellings and pronunciations that destroy the lede (they all do - adding unreadable text to what should be the most readable sentence in an article), but in this case Libhye's suggestion adds just two parenthesized words and a footnote to the mess that is otherwise there, and that seems OK to me to get completeness. But the footnote needs to clarify that the lyov pronunciation is not commonly used by people today.

Incidentally, I'm taking all my facts from comments above and just commenting on the proper presentation. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I believe AveTory's objections are less about clutter (though I personally would tend to agree with your assessment that extensive phonetic and typographical details can be problematic in many articles) and more about WP:WEIGHT. The debate between AveTory and Libhye has seemed to often come back around to WP:COMMONNAME, and I think to some extent they have been talking past eachother around this point. Libhye correctly insists that the policy is about naming articles, not formulating the content within them, including even in the lead sentence. But AveTory has never actually linked to WP:COMMONNAME; rather they used the phrase "common name" in more generic terms, whereupon Libhye seems to have assumed that AveTory was meaning to invoke that policy. I think from reviewing the course of their discussion that it likely that AveTory was initially using the words more generally, and that the longer the two went back and forth, the more muddled the miscommunication became. I think the point that AveTory was trying to get at was that the obscure alternate pronunciation is WP:undue for the lead sentence.

Which is a reasonable position: how many full biographies has Tolstoy had? A few dozen surely? Maybe in the hundreds if we look across all languages? Plus discussion of his life in many countless tens of thousands of works of scholarship? And only two mention that he favoured a pronunciation of his name that differs from that which most recorded history and scholarship attribute to him? That would seem to raise some question about the assertion, and even if those of us here on this article are convinced the two sources in question are accurate, it may still make sense to describe this in a footnote as an assertion put forth by two specific academics, to whom we can cite, creating attribution and encyclopedic context for the assertion, rather than just presenting it in the lead sentence as established and non-controversial fact, in Wikipedia's own voice, when an overwhelming majority of sources (let's conservatively say it's 99.98%) use the well known name and make no mention of Tolstoy's having a preference for another. That in a nutshell is where I think that AveTory was heading with his discussion--though (and no offense intended to AveTory here) I don't believe they put it forward as clearly as they could have, and failed to tie it in explicit terms to policy. Again though: I say this all as a third party being asked to decide where policy technically falls on this minor issue; in reality I would be happy with either proposed version, like you. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I got into a similar issue over whether to add "the" to "Perche" throughout that entry. Clearly, all writers familiar with the former French region refer to it as "the Perche," but when I asked for RFC, most readers did not notice all the citations I provided to champion that (most correct) usage.  :( OK, that's for old usage; the situation here is for new. I recommend neither footnote nor leded but a either "Miscellaneous" or "Naming" section near the end that describes the challenge of changes in English spellings for Tolstoy. That way, a search on "Lyov" for Tolstoy will find his entry more easily, while for future people can track subsequent trends and either promote or demote "Lyov" further. Respectfully Aboudaqn (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable middle-ground solution as well, though I'd suggest slipping the relevant description into the "life and career" section, which seems like the marginally most appropriate of the existing sections. It would also perhaps assuage some of Libhye's concerns by foregrounding the information early in the article. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Footnote (Summoned by bot) That would be my preference, based on the amount of text in the lead already talking about his first name. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Footnote. (Summoned by bot) WP:English and WP:Due. Borsoka (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Use a footnote, since this is just trivia (in the context of English Wikipedia). — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 21:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Footnote. Pronunciation information can get complicated if it's more than a line. I'd say that when it gets to that point, all the pronunciation information should be put in a footnote to avoid lede clutter, not just the anecdote about how the pronunciation of this particular name was different in Tolsty's time. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2019

{{Eastern Slavic name}} should be moved above the protection templates so as to avoid an awkward visible line break. Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2019 (part 2)

Category:Christian anarchists, Category:Russian anarchists, and Category:Russian Christians should be removed as they are parent categories of Category:Russian Christian anarchists. Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 11:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

"...arrived from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, then part of the State of the Teutonic Order." This is a gross factual error- the Grand Duchy of Lithuania NEVER was a part of the State of the Teutonic Order! Proposition: "...arrived from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania." 213.226.163.30 (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 20:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Advice on improvement

C-class for a level 3 vital article is unfortunate. Could someone with more experience of the quality criteria make some suggestions for improvement? Other articles, e.g. Talk:Speedrun, include TODO lists.AshSIreland (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest to take ispiration from the italian wiki on Leo Tolstoj? That's a pretty good page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:b07:a5b:4f1:d164:d207:3ec4:28c9 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Leo Tolstoy's influence into Leo Tolstoy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is all content that a reader would expect to be covered within a section of the biography on Tolstoy's influence/impact. It only warrants a summary style when that section and its sources overpower the rest of the article by weight. czar 01:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a sensible idea. I don’t consider that Leo Tolstoy's influence should be a standalone page. The content can easily be condensed and merged into Leo Tolstoy. Fieryninja (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no reason for the Leo Tolstoy article not to have daughter pages, covering specific subtopics. Dimadick (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary style states that subpages be first covered in the parent article. This is a split without ever having been incorporated in the parent. It's premature to say it justifies a separate article without having done the work of incorporation. czar 20:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add a further point in support of this proposal. I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Notability, heading “Whether to create standalone pages”, which states: “Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page.” I consider the information presented in Leo Tolstoy's influence to be out of context as it provides no background in relation to Tolstoy’s life and work. Also, certain topics are mentioned in both pages such as the Tolstoyan movement, so it is logical to merge this information.Fieryninja (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Support per above.--Grnrchst (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jonterc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Grammar mistake (not completely sure how to correct it)

From the Leo Tolstoy#In Soviet Russia section:

Following the Russian Civil War in 1917, writings that were formerly censored could now be published, since the all literary works were nationalized in November 1918.

I saw "the all" and realized it should probably either be "all the" or "all", depending on whether it was about all of Tolstoy's writings or everything written in the country. I'm guessing it's everyone's and not just Tolstoy's, based on what I see in the October Revolution article, but since the fix could be seen as changing the meaning of the sentence, I feel like it would make sense to check what the sources say. So until I have the time and energy to go to a library and hopefully find the answer, I think I'll leave it up to others to fix it. Pretended leer {talk} 16:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

his thirteenth daughter

"he named his thirteenth daughter Alexandra (Sasha) L'vovna Tolstaya"

A minor correction. Tolstaya was his fourth daughter and his thirteenth child. Photos of Japan (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Kind of surprised it lasted this long. ARandomName123 (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In the subsection entitled "Influence" which is under the Section entitled "Legacy" - change "Stalin to Lenin" in one spot.

The last sentence in the subsection entitled "Influence" which is under the Section entitled "Legacy" states that:

Nevertheless, Stalin concludes in his writings that despite the many contradictions in Tolstoy's critiques, his hatred for feudalism and capitalism mark the prelude to proletarian socialism.

It seems pretty clear that "Stalin" should be "Lenin" since the entire paragraph (as well as the footnote 94 to the above sentence) is all about Lenin's critique of Tolstoy 47.20.135.100 (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Done ARandomName123 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

-(The police tried to limit access to his funeral procession, but thousands of peasants lined the streets. Still, some were heard to say that, other than knowing that "some nobleman had died", they knew little else about Tolstoy.[86] )

-The above section should be removed as it portrays a wrong image of his legacy and influence on peasantry

-when it talks of his funeral, the source narrates how it was "said by peasants" that a noble man had died implying they didn't knew Tolstoy. When Tolstoy was a mayor figurehead of peasant society in his surroundings. From schools to sermons, for good or bad he was known by all. Please change this as it portrays an incorrect view of his legacy sources: every biography and documentary of him, he was really known by all Alhadir (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: your concern that the sentence portrays a wrong image of his legacy isn't a good enough reason to get rid of it. You have nor provided any specific sources for your claim that from schools to sermons, for good or bad he was known by all. However, the source for the sentence does not seem very trustworthy, so I have added a note asking for a better one. small jars tc 12:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

There's no mention of his autobiographical work: Confession.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Confession# PaUZz LYte (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Confession inspired people like Ghandi thus Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. PaUZz LYte (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

I would love to add a small portion about his autobiography, Confession:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Confession

As well as The Kingdom of God Is Within You:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You

Directly under this paragraph here under Novels and Fictional Works:

"After Anna Karenina, Tolstoy concentrated on Christian themes, and his later novels such as The Death of Ivan Ilyich (1886) and What Is to Be Done? develop a radical anarcho-pacifist Christian philosophy which led to his excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1901.[40] For all the praise showered on Anna Karenina and War and Peace, Tolstoy rejected the two works later in his life as something not as true of reality.[41]"

The small portion could simply read: "He also wrote Confession, a short autobiographical like, as well as The Kingdom of God Is Within You. Both of which are credited to have inspired people like Mahtma Gandhi (thus MLK as well)(this doesn't need to be included but i think it should be.) to do what he did. Proof of this is within Gandhi's autobiography here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_My_Experiments_with_Truth PaUZz LYte (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source as a citation. Lightoil (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Under: Initial Phase: Gandhi studies Tolstoy (1893 – 1909)

It mentions Confession at the bottom of that section, incorrectly referring to it as THE Confession as proven by Peter Carson's translation of it that includes The Death of Ivan Ilyich as a two books in one kind of thing, it's just: Confession.

http://www.asthabharati.org/Dia_Oct%20010/y.p..htm1909)

Here is further proof of their relationship:

https://medium.com/illuminations-mirror/how-leo-tolstoy-influenced-mahatma-gandhi-c006ff5b63dd PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I meant to say it incorrectly says: My Confessions. PaUZz LYte (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry just wanted to add that Peter Carsons translation was in 2015. PaUZz LYte (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I also own and can confirm that I do, Confession, experiments with truth and MLK's autobiography. PaUZz LYte (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

In the infobox on Tolstoy, under the category "Subjects", change "pacifism" to "Pacifism" and give a corresponding link to the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism Nullstar58 (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Done.Sbishop (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobel Prize "Controversies"

It seems clear that Tolstoy would be nominated for the Literature Prize - not so much for "Peace".

It would be an improvement to shed light on his Peace Prize nominations - why was he so-nominated?

Also, to lump all the nominations together - insofar as not winning any of them - is puzzling - as if the prizes for Peace and Literature are somehow identical. Jsusky (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I love how all these wiki pages on authors are written by people who never read them. Tolstoy was nominated for Nobel peace prize for a number of good reasons, including teaching Gandhi who he corresponded with, composing treatise on non-violence, teaching Martin Luther King (later, through his literature), renouncing his aristocratic materialistic life to teach peasants to read and so on.

Also, why is this “controversy “ in the opening paragraph? You know who else who has never won a Pulitzer Prize? Shakespeare. As if any of these silly prizes really matter in any serious way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B142:18B6:480A:533D:F288:177D (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Credible source or exaggeration?

This sentence "For all the praise showered on Anna Karenina and War and Peace, Tolstoy rejected the two works later in his life as something not as true of reality." seems like is an exaggeration. the source provided doesn't seem that credible... has anyone seen an actual quote from Tolstoy on this? When did Tolstoy himself say this? 143.89.90.9 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

For reference, this was added in 2010 without a page citation: special:diff/362653603 czar 11:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I had a quick look at this. It is mentioned by Pavel Basinsky [1] "Tolstoy really grew ashamed of having written "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina." This resulted from the "spiritual breakthrough," when Tolstoy disowned all his earlier works for the sake of his new religious convictions". rbth.com is not a reliable source but I believe the claim is accurate. I agree that the text on the article should be re-worded and a scholarly source should be found. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended content
In Fodor's since at least 1996 "In his last years , Tolstoy even disowned War and Peace because its patriotic elements violated his new sense of the universal brotherhood of man"[2] "He disowns War and Peace and Anna Karenina"[3] "Author of two universally acclaimed novels, he later rejected these and various other great works of literary art as immoral."[4]

I've recast the sentence using Bartlett,[5] who cites Tolstoy's What Is Art? Collapsed some other searches above. czar 08:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)