Talk:The Kingdom of God Is Within You

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL


This is the terxt of a lecture by Tolstoy. If it didn't have a pentecostal resonance, it wouldn't be noticed. Wetman 22:09, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This sentence is unclear to me: In it, Tolstoy speaks of the doctrine of nonresistance as the reply to violence propounded by Jesus. It can read either as: reply to violence, which was propounded by Jesus or: doctrine of nonresistance, ..., which was propounded by Jesus. Greenman 14:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikisource addition[edit]

Does anyone have the skill to add this book [1] to wikisource? I believe Tolstoy left all his work to public domain on his death. --nirvana2013 20:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original language[edit]

What is the Cyrillic for this title? gren グレン 04:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article seems to attribute the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" to Jesus Christ. Maybe some cleanup is in order? Smithfarm 12:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if the title in question makes that assertion, but that particular passage is part of the decalogue and not attributed to a saying of Jesus Christ. However, Christianity maintains that the decalogue was given by God and Christ was also God, so Tolstoy may have been making his statement in that context. Regardless, I think you are correct in that some reference should be made to the origin of the concept of 'thou shalt not murder.' 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clean Up?[edit]

This article needs to be re-written so that it isn't opinionated. Just present his ideas. Not your opinion about those ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Bias[edit]

"Tolstoy recounted challenges by people of all classes that his views on non-resistance were wrong, but argued that no matter how the challengers tried to attack the doctrine, its essence could not be overcome." This seems like a pretty clear cut case of bias. Gossen (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why, yes, Tolstoy was biased towards Tolstoy's point of view. What's wrong with that? — Sebastian 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed that sentence. What was wrong? It was off-topic (that is, it said nothing meaningful about the article's topic) and unsourced. At the same time it made two misleading generalizations: "people of all classes" could be misunderstood as "all classes of people", "essence could not be overcome" could be misunderstood as a encyclopedic fact not as a Tolstoy's opinion. --Kubanczyk (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think it's pretty clear what needs to be cleaned up in this article... There is no sourced information on its background, development, or reception, which leaves undue weight for the parts that are there (a coatrack for the Gandhi section). czar 15:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I tried to change and reformat a little bit, but was hampered by the fact I haven't finished reading the book yet. Hopefully, I can add more to this page relatively soon. - Borderlandor (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Kingdom of God Is Within You. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Bevel, THE MAJOR 1960s strategist of the civil rights movement.[edit]

Hello Randy,

On the talk page of Tolstoy there was a consensus (with the exception of Randy Kryn) that James Bevel should not be characterized as "one of the three major nonviolent activists of the of the 20th century." In this article you characterize James Bevel as the major 1960s strategist: no major reliable source characterizes him as such. The user who was most sympathic to Randy Kryn's arguments, Snow Rise, suggested to call James Bevel "another civil rights movement strategist". I think that that is a very neutral way to characterize James Bevel, and therefore a good suggestion of Snow Rise.

Randy, how would you feel about changing the sentence to "James Bevel, a strategist of the 1960s civil rights movement."?

For new readers, it might be useful to know that YoPienso pointed out that Randy Kryn has a conflict of interest with James Bevel, and that, to describe it in the words of YoPienso, Randy Kryn might have a "sincere blindness to his bias".

Yuyuhunter (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. The attached reliable source for the use of the word "the" comes from the title of the source itself, "James L. Bevel: The Strategist of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement". This article was used as a source in the Pulitzer Prize winning history Bearing the Cross by noted Civil Rights Movement historian David Garrow (who later printed my paper in full, with a new addendum, in his 1989 book We Shall Overcome, Volume II). During the Leo Tolstoy talk page discussion Snow Rise's suggested use of the word "another" was in reference to Dr. King, whose name preceded Bevel's in his proposed language, and not, as he made clear, that Bevel was just "another" strategist. I like the language "sincere blindness to his bias" as poetry, but not as related to historical fact. Bevel's work in the 1960s, and its relationship to the 1960s movements and their surrounding and evolving context, justifies the use of the word "The" in the title of the 1989 source. In short, and there are other relevant actions and events not listed here, James Bevel:
Initiated the 1963 Birmingham Children's Crusade
Strategized the " " " "
Directed the " " " "
Called the 1963 March On Washington (initially planned as a march of the Birmingham students from Birmingham to Washington D.C.)
Co-Initiated [with Diane Nash] SCLC's Alabama Project
Initiated the 1965 Selma Voting Rights Movement
Strategized the " " " " "
Directed the " " " " "
Initiated the Selma-to-Montgomery March
Directed the " " " "
Initiated SCLC's role in the 1966 Chicago Freedom Movement
Strategized the 1966 Chicago Open Housing Movement
Directed the " " " "
These collective events defined the Civil Rights Movement, and my analysis of their collective importance resulted in the use of the word "The" in the title of the 1984 article. As for my editing relevant pages, as a subject-matter expert this is allowed, and I don't abuse that privilege. The information's use on this page is relevant to the page format, as it follows an interesting subsection on the book's relationship to Mohandas Gandhi's thinking and actions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've been pinged, I'll comment briefly, though I do not presently have the time for another discussion of the length and involvement of the one at the primary Tolstoy article--and I think any discussion is likely to be duplicative of the one there, anyway. In short, I do not think it would be appropriate to describe Bevel as the "the" strategist of the civil rights movement, no matter the article in question. Indeed, per my previous comments, I would judge this to be a WP:SNOW call, given the clear WP:WEIGHT of sources on the matter. The most I would be comfortable with, in light of the deep scholarship on the movement which (with the exception of the one academic commenting here) does not describe Bevel in the way previously proposed, would be to say something along the lines of "a major strategist in the 1960's African-American civil rights movement". I think that would be more or less appropriate. I hope this clarifies my position. Snow let's rap 00:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I could not write or agree to the words "a major strategist" because changing 'the major strategist' to 'a major strategist' is bringing a lie into Wikpedia, which I don't do (except once for a find-the-cat). Are their sources which contain a list of other named major strategists? For many years of Bevel's strategic influence his wife Diane Nash would often second-his-motions and work on the campaign. People like Bernard Lafayette, Hosea Williams, Wyatt Walker, Charles Sherrod, C. T. Vivian, and others would direct strategy from time to time. But when the home run hitter came to the plate the bases were always loaded and the ball always out of the park. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
p.s. And if I have a "sincere blindness to my bias", as the editor who opened this discussion perceives, then so be it. But the opposite may also be true, a good-faith "sincere attempt to not see the forest for the trees". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi YoPienso, what is to be done in this kind of situation? It appears that, again, Randy Kryn will not agree with any other characterization than his own. Yuyuhunter (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, it's up to you and others. But changing the sentence to "a major strategist" from "the major strategist" is just something I personally can't agree to or act upon because I know it isn't exactly accurate, and thus would bring a worded-mistruth into Wikipedia. That Bevel is "the" major strategist of the movement is easily proven, for anyone arguing that side of a debate. I just happened to be the first journalist or historian to give his history that label. So my admitted bias towards what I know to be true, not countered anywhere that I've heard of, doesn't allow me to personally change the sourced edit. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for explaining your position. Now I see and respect that it is not an option for you to make such an edit. Yuyuhunter (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]