Talk:Oleg the Wise/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 Wikipedia: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)