Talk:Oleg the Wise

Comments
Oleg currently redirects here. Shouldn't it be a disambig instead? Or is this, without any doubt, THE OLEG?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe it is the Oleg. Redirect is correct. --Ghirlandajo 10:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

removing sourced materials
You cannot remove sourced references to peer-reviewed, academic journals because the conclusions make you uncomfortable. I will, when I get a chance, put in more detail about which Russian chronicles back up Dr. Zuckerman's conclusions. In the meantime, leave the scholarly materials alone; removing them is vandalism. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled at the removal. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you continue to remove this material without discussion, your actions constitute vandalism and will be reverted. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You duplicate the stuff presented in the page about Schechter Letter (to which a link is included) in order to propagate your pet fringe theory, one of zillions that exist on the subject. As usual, you refuse to discuss the subject, neglect edit summaries, and label every content dispute not to your liking "a vandalism". I've had enough of it in other articles. Now you have to explain why you insist on judaizing the articles on early East Slavic history. Otherwise your trollish activities will be promptly reverted. -- Ghirla -трёп-  14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And I repeat what I said in my original comment, in case you failed to see it: HLGW and Oleg are distinct names, you need to prove that they denote the same person. Mainstream historians do not accept the identification of "HLGW" and "Oleg", as "helgu" means "a priest" in Norse and may have been used to refer to every ruler of Rus (just like kagan and knyaz most likely were). Besides, if Oleg, who became the guardian of Igor in 879, was still quite active ca. 945, i.e., 66 years later, he must need be at least 100 years old! Talk about chronological consistency then. -- Ghirla -трёп-  14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no chronological problem. If the theory is correct, Oleg did not become Igor's guardian in 879, but significantly later. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Which "mainstream historians" discuss this issue? Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Check Nazarenko of the Russian History Instutute, for instance. I believe that every theory should be presented in Wikipedia, but not in such a peremptory tone as favoured by Briangotts. There are half a dozen mentions of Oleg in chronicles — and zillions of speculations waving a thick web of guesswork around these. All the facts known about him are mentioned in the article. If we had a lengthy review of theories following it, I wouldn't mind a passage discussing Zuckerman's proposal, among others. But when there are no other theories presented, a long passage delivering Zuckerman's speculations as an ultimate truth makes the article POV and misleads the readers. -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you add some alternate theories, per WP policies, rather than engage in a campaign of revert warring? And your accusation that Zuckerman's speculation is presented as "ultimate truth" does not hold water; the passage CLEARLY identifies Zuckerman's theory and analysis as his own. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ghirla, I find your assertion that material found in one article cannot be duplicated in another odd, to say the least.
 * Nevertheless, when I have time, I will review the sources and provide citations as per your request. I expect that, contrary to past experience in dealing with you, this will end your policy of trying to eliminate information that you find objectionable personally.
 * Presentation of a minority view published in scholarly sources and peer-reviewed, clearly identified as a minority view, is entirely appropriate in an encyclopedia article, especially where, as here, the minority view in question explains gaps in the historical record. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have placed extensive citations in the text to both Zuckerman's and other scholars' work and theories. Will add more when able. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

al-Miskawaihi
Al-Miskawaihi said that the Rus took Bardaa, the capital of Arran. It is quite a stretch to connect this account with the flight of defeated Oleg to Persia. -- Ghirla -трёп-  09:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it a stretch? Arran borders Persia, was historically under its domination, and "Persia" was often used in a very generic sense. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you can't see a difference between taking a capital of a strong kingdom and fleeing to covert in disgrace after a defeat. -- Ghirla -трёп-  14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you read the two texts in question? The Schechter letter says HLGW fled to Persia where he died. It gives no details. Miskawaihi says that the Rus captured Bardaa and then shat themselves to death. Viking leaders often fled from one location in defeat only to conquer (sometimes briefly) some other place - see Ketil Flatnose, Eirik Bloodaxe, Hrolf Ganger, Skallagrímur Kveldúlfsson just to name 4 off the top of my head. In my opinion, the stretch is reading a contradiction in where none exists.
 * This is not to say that the accounts are 100% identical or that Oleg=HLGW=the Rus leader from Misawaihi. The parallels, however, are remarkable and have been noted by more than one accredited historian. If you can produce counter-arguments, then please do so, but bear in mind I will hold you to the same incredibly stringent citation requirements that you asked of me. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"many"
Are you trying to be funny? How many sources do I need to cite before "many scholars believe HLGW refers to Oleg" becomes accurate? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
 * The lead is very short, please expand it to include a more detailed discussion of the contrasting accounts and a better picture of Oleg's reign as reported in the sources.
 * Could do with being a bit longer even (say 2 paragraphs) but this is not serious enough to bar confirmation as GA


 * "the Varangian Helgi" - Is this Oleg? If not, why does Oleg appear without introduction later in the sentence? If it is, why is this form used without explanation?
 * "Oleg of the East Slavic chronicles" This section needs introducing - what are the "East Slavic chronicles" and what is their relevence to Russian history? Why should their account carry any particular weight? This is sort of covered below, but it should be in at the start, otherwise the section is confusing.
 * "romanticised by Pushkin in his celebrated ballad," - what ballard? link to it or at least name it.
 * "the Schechter Letter's account is in sync with " - in sync is not encyclopedic, would "corroborated by" be appropriate here?
 * I have added a tag, please address it by referencing which of the sources it was that made this suggestion.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Great work, I'm very happy to pass this, nice to see the article is being so well maintained.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Missleading name
The article naming is missleading. The city of Novgorod didn't exist during the lifetime Oleg of Novgorod. Novgorod was built in the late 10th c. Besides, Oleg is known as a knyaz of Kiev, rather than Novgorod.--126.177.127.75 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Погоджуюсь. Honest of History (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The name is indeed misleading and just plain wrong. Not to bring any conflict in here, I'm going to change it to "the Wise" as he is known among the Eastern Slavs. Fatty Strider (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This goes by WP:COMMONNAME. And the area nearby was settled during this time. Hence Holmgard. Mellk (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Good thing you mentioned WP:COMMONNAME! Now, a search through sources clearly shows that Oleg the Wise is in fact the common name for the historical figure. At least it had been until very recent time, namely until 2012. As to your argument about Holmgard, it's so far-fetched, it starts to seem like POV-pushing. Let me try and follow this logic. We know about a semi-legendary ruler Oleg that may or may not have ruled in Kiev, in the 9th or 10th century. In the same time, there may or may not have existed a town called Novgorod (the archaeologic findings do not show any presence of a town before mid-10th century in its place). And certain Scandinavian sagas refer to a city named Holmgard, which may or may not have been Novgorod. Oh, and obviously, the area nearby was settled. I don't really see how on Earth, from all this, you arrive to the conclusion that this historical figure should be named Oleg of Novgorod. It's not a tradition of the chronicles, it's not the common name used ubiquitously in historical literature, it doesn't correspond with any historical evidence. So why Novgorod, again? --Fatty Strider (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The results on Google Books for "Oleg of Novgorod" and "Oleg the Wise" return about the same number. But an analysis of the results is needed because, for example, a number of results for "Oleg the Wise" include "Песнь о вещем Олеге" by Pushkin. Mellk (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And the reason he is called as such is because Novgorod is mentioned in the chronicles (and the area is still referred to as Novgorod land). Mellk (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe, this is a pointless debate now. You are right that a lot of results for "Oleg the Wise" are actually referencing the poem's name and not the historical figure. And I don't know if it counts for common name. If it is true that both names are used throughout historical literature (I also found that a lot of historical works just plainly say "Oleg", without any titles or nicknames), then I believe it appropriate to use both in the article lead. What do you say to that?
 * P.S. I understand what you're trying to say about Novgorod, but there must be a real reason. I mean, there were a number of historical/legendary figures who supposedly came from Novgorod and settled in Kiev to rule there, but none of them is nicknamed "of Novgorod" in English, except this one. And the tradition goes to the beginning of the 20th century, so I am wondering, how it came to be and who was first to call him that. Best regards, Fatty Strider (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I think often he is simply called "Oleg" or "Prince Oleg" in English (with the context of the text being enough). But as an article title I don't think those meet WP:CRITERIA, specifically recognizability and precision. And "Oleg the Prophet" seems to be rarely used in English. I suppose "Oleg the Wise" could be included as an WP:ALTNAME in the lead.
 * I do not know about the origins of this title in particular but the history of this time is primarily based on the chronicles. So for a long time Oleg has been referred to as a duke of Novgorod etc, see for example. Mellk (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. The title seems to have been in use for some time indeed. And although I believe it to be a misnomer, it's not for me to decide, but for historians. Otherwise, I'm glad we came to an agreement. I would also argue for including "according to the Primary Chronicle" / "according to the Rus' chronicles" in the lead, as this figure is only known from the chronicles (if we don't count the Schechter letter, which is a more reliable source, but only confuses things even more). Fatty Strider (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As he is considered as a semi-legendary figure, some details will forever be unknown (maybe this Oleg of the chronicles never existed). In terms of the wording, from what I am aware of it is the Primary Chronicle that describes Oleg as a relative of Rurik and that he died in 912, but the Novgorod First Chronicle describes him differently and that he died in 922, not 912. I think there is too much detail on the Schechter Letter, and not enough about his life as described in the chronicles (this figure after all is based on the chronicles). So I think some changes are needed in that regard. Probably a standalone section on alternative theories/views instead. I do not see the letter mentioned in other encyclopedias articles about Oleg for example so maybe it is undue. Mellk (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you were trying to say now, I suppose that makes sense about the wording, I guess he could also be called semi-legendary in the first sentence instead. Mellk (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed name change to Oleg the Wise
Per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME, this article should be renamed Oleg the Wise (currently a redirect to Oleg of Novgorod). Conclusion: Although "Oleg of Novgorod" isn't an incorrect name, it wasn't the WP:COMMONNAME when created in 2002, and overall probably still isn't when compared to the total amount of "Oleg the Wise" (despite the latter being overtaken in frequency in new publications in the past 11 years, probaby due to WP:CITOGENESIS). "Oleg of Novgorod" is a legitimate WP:ALTNAME, but no more legitimate than "Oleg of Kiev" (or "Oleh of Kyiv"), "Oleg the Seer" or "Oleg the Prophet". And per WP:NPOV, there is a compelling reason to go for a neutral name such as "Oleg the Wise", and the relevant language-Wikipedias in question also use it already. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Oleg of Novgorod" indirectly conveys a pro-Russian POV, while "Oleg of Kiev" indirectly conveys a pro-Ukrainian POV. The previous talk page section [sic] demonstrates this implicitly (see also Talk:Kievan Rus'). "Oleg the Wise" doesn't have this problem.
 * Wikidata shows that all three names are used in various language versions of Wikipedia with no clear majority, but the relevant East Slavic languages all name him "Oleg the Wise": Алег Вешчы, Олег Вещий, Олег Віщий.
 * A Google Books word search (like the one Fatty Strider did in December 2022, but plus some extra names) for "oleg of novgorod,oleg the wise,oleg the prophet,oleg of kiev,oleg the seer,oleh of kyiv," has telling results: in English literature findable on Google Books, "Oleg the Wise" has consistently been by far the most frequently used name until 2012, only briefly challenged by "Oleg of Novgorod" and "Oleg of Kiev" in the late 1950s, and by "Oleg the Seer" in the early 1980s. The rise of "Oleg of Novgorod" and the fall of "Oleg the Wise" in the 2000s and 2010s could in part be explained by the fact that this English Wikipedia article was created in 2002 under the name "Oleg of Novgorod" (and hasn't been moved since; the opening sentence named him "Oleg of Kiev" until "of Kiev" was removed in 2005). In that same time, English Wikipedia broke through as the no. #1 online English-language reference work, setting a certain standard that could have influenced later authors in the way that we observe on Google Books. This may well be a case of WP:CITOGENESIS.


 * This needs a proper analysis because some of the results for "Oleg the Wise" are references to a ballad by Pushkin. Mellk (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a fair and interesting point, although the ballad's title is also known as "The Song of the Wise Oleg" and other variants, which needs to be taken into account. Google Ngrams shows interesting variation, but for most of the last 100+ years "oleg the wise" was far more common than "the wise oleg". But this can't tell us how often it was part of the title phrase. This is what I got in Google:
 * "song of the wise oleg" 5,260 results   (compare: "the wise oleg" 7.490 results)
 * "song of oleg the wise" 4,550 results   (compare: "oleg the wise" 20.300 results)
 * "song of wise oleg" 1,990 results
 * "ballad of oleg the wise" 10 results
 * "ballad of the wise oleg" 1 result
 * Conclusion: in English, the ballad's title is somewhat better known under the name "The Song of (the) Wise Oleg", and the total percentage of search results of "oleg the wise" which refer to "song of oleg the wise" is less than 25% (22.4% to be exact). Subtracting these from our Google Ngram results above, "oleg the wise" still remains by far the WP:COMMONNAME before "oleg of novgorod". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: One could argue that Pushkin has indirectly made the name "Oleg the Wise" even more popular by writing this song under this name about thim. In some sense, we actually shouldn't subtract these results. But for the sake of argument, even if we do, it looks like the name remains the most popular one. Also: "oleh of kyiv" is still very rare, I can find it almost nowhere (4 results in Google), and "oleh the wise" got 30 results, so traditional spelling should be favoured in this case. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The other thing to consider is WP:AGEMATTERS. If recent sources are preferring one name then this must be also be considered (and also to see how reliable these sources are). I am not yet opposed to moving to "Oleg the Wise" but I think it needs more discussion first. Mellk (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To add, I get about 1,550 results for "Oleg the Wise" and 1,540 results for "Oleg of Novgorod" on Google Books. If set to 21st century only, then 686 and 1,230 results, respectively. I am not sure about the reliability of the number of results but this is just an observation. Mellk (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also not sure if such a basic Google search is good enough. For example I get 5,320 results for "song of oleg the wise" and 7,570 results for "oleg the wise". Mellk (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Valid points. I've done a Google Scholar search limited to 2000–2023:
 * "oleg the wise" 53 results (21 of which were "song of oleg the wise")
 * "the wise oleg" 37 results (22 of which were "song of the wise oleg")
 * "oleg the seer" 21 results (3 of which were "song of oleg the seer")
 * "song of the seer oleg" 1 result
 * "oleg the prophet" 36 results (0 of which were "song of oleg the prophet")
 * "the prophet oleg" 3 results (1 of which was "song of the prophet oleg")
 * "oleg of novgorod" 53 results (at least 2 of which are plagiarised from Wikipedia)
 * "oleg of kiev" 15 results
 * "oleh of kyiv" 0 results
 * When written as "the wise oleg", it usually refers to the ballad, but when written as "oleg the wise", it usually means the historical person. "oleg of novgorod" always refers to the historical person because it obviously doesn't follow from a translation of the song's title, and in that sense it is unambiguous. However, I think we should keep in mind that "the wise/seer/prophet" are all English translations of the same East Slavic root word Вешчы/Вещий/Віщий used in the relevant native-language Wikipedias, and when combined, they easily overmatch "oleg of novgorod", even if we leave out all the song references ("the prophet/seer" almost never refer to the song, regardless of word order). It's also notable that none of the 3 relevant native-language Wikipedias ever call him "aleg/oleg/oleh of nouharad/novgorod/novhorod" or "kijeu/kiev/kyiv"; it seems the East Slavic languages don't really connect him to either city, and steadily go for "the Wise". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: I am seeing some, if limited, evidence of WP:CITOGENESIS in the results. Oualaalou (2021) wrote Around 882 BP, Prince Oleg of Novgorod seized power in Kiev, laying the foundation for the powerful state of Kievan Rus’. The prince’s ambition did not stop there. He launched an attack on the city of Constantinople... That is almost verbatim copied from how this Wikipedia article stated for over a decade: ..seizing power in Kiev (Kyiv) from Askold and Dir, and, by doing so, laying the foundation of the powerful state of Kievan Rus'. He also launched an attack on Constantinople... This author unmistakably read this Wikipedia article and partially 'plagiarised' it, and opted for "Oleg of Novgorod" as the guy's name, which wouldn't have been a coincidence. That means the 2 Oualaalou results for "oleg of novgorod" are CITOGENESIS. However, I can't find much other direct evidence of this. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mellk are you okay with it if we change the title of this page to Oleg the Wise? TylerBurden below has also voiced support. We could also go for a formal WP:RM if you'd like to bring other users into this review. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, go for it. But probably it should be kept as an alt name. Mellk (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added the altname in the opening sentence, it is indeed clearly significant enough as an altname and may be displayed as such. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reason to keep the Russian preferred variant if the neutral name ″Oleg the Wise″ is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME. TylerBurden (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)