Talk:Oleg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guys, if you need to list here all the guys named Oleg, you should persuade us that your edits should not be classified as another sample of Wikilistmania. What's the point? Do you think someone will search for Oleg Tabakov or Oleg Yankovsky as "Oleg"? Please take a look at John or Mary to see how such things are arranged in other articles. Besides, I still wonder who assigned those numbers to the rulers of Ancient Rus. If it's your own invention, then we should classify it as original research. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• I find your insistance that Oleg of Novgorod is the only "Oleg", when many other Rus leaders (and myriad others) bear the name, odd to say the least. It is POV and misleading to highlight one individual as "the Oleg" and there are many other pages that list people by name; to the average reader Oleg of Novgorod is not necessarily more identifiable as "the Oleg" than Michael IV the Paphlagonian is identifiable as "the Michael". See, e.g., Frederick, Michael, Ivan, etc. The numbering scheme comes from Bruce Gordon's Regnal Chronologies, which cites the following works. As for your contention that the name originates with Oleg of Novgorod, I find that claim highly dubious at best. That seems classic original research to me. What source definitively states that he was the first person to bear that name? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Your comparison of Oleg, the first recorded person to have the name and the one who brought it to the Rurikid dynasty in particular and to the Slavic countries in general, with an obscure Byzantine ruler, one of eight who had the name and not even the most famous of these, shows your perfect ignorance of medieval genealogy and prosopography. Since most pages linking here allude to Oleg of Novgorod, this should be a redirect to Oleg of Novgorod, whence the {redirect} template should refer to Oleg (name). It is the standard practice in Wikipedia. Otherwise, readers following the link Oleg from, say, Rulers of Kievan Rus and arriving to this lengthy disambiguation instead, will get lost.
  • I still cannot understand your basis for assigning numbers to the 13th-century rulers of Chernigov whose very existence is disputed. Not only did you fail to seek advice on naming patterns of the Middle Ages, which you so obviously ignore, but you proceeded to abuse admin tools and call your opponents "vandals" in order to settle the issue in your favour. Please take notice that your arbitrary page moves and alarming habit of name-calling will not be tolerated here. I may explain your ignorance of WP policies only by your limited experience in this project. I have six times as much edits as yourself and know for sure that future relapses of such behaviour are liable to bring you into trouble. Please reform and take care, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Your pattern of personal attacks and attempts at intimidation are tiresome in the extreme. Having "six times as much edits" [sic] as another user does not give you ownership of Wikipedia or any of its articles; and does not entitle you to arbitrarily dictate naming policy. As I have told you, you are welcome to bring whatever proceedings you feel appropriate against me; I am prepared to both defend my actions here and to chronicle your lengthy history of abuse. The remainder of your comments about me here and elsewhere are without the barest scintilla of merit and I will not respond to them in the future, except to make a note of them where appropriate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• And Vorgol is not a "phony toponymn" simply because you haven't heard of it.[1] Your trollism is getting tiresome. If your vandalism continues I will commence with appropriate RfC/RfAr steps. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I see you didn't bother to answer any of my concerns, but preferred - as you always do - to call your opponents "vandals" and "trolls". Moreover, you invited your buddy to protect the page which he did. For the umpteenth time, you abused your admin tools by using rollback to revert my edits as if they were vandalism and deleting the redirect Oleg (which had a history of several edits) in order to move Oleg (name) back there, rather than requests it on WP:RM as it should have been done. Don't think that yout underhand activities go unnoticed. The only remedy in such cases is desysoping, which I am going to seek. Good bye, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Brian asked me to come and opine. I have agreed with Ghirlandajo and have reverted Brian's edits. Let's take a 24 rest now from this war, please. It's appropriate to list 'the' Oleg at the top as the 'original'. I take no position on whether the article should be named Oleg or Oleg (name). - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 page protection 1.1 Briangotts' position 1.2 Other positions 1.3 unprot

[edit] page protection

User:Briangotts has requested that I come take a look at what's going on on this page, and from what I can see, it looks like there is a disagreement between two users that needs to be worked out here on the talk page. I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone involved that edit warring is not only not constructive, it is actually destructive. I'll come back and check whether or not any progress has been made in 24 hours, and consider taking off the protection at that time depending on what's happened here in the interim. Thanks, and be nice to each other! :-) Cheers, Tomer^talk 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, if you and your buddy Briangotts stick together on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, it doesn't follow from this that you have authority to protect any page he requested. In case you don't know, we have WP:RFP for discussing such matters. Since you two decided to settle the matter by protecting the page in the spirit of cronyism and collusion, I'm going to raise the issue of admin abuses on WP:ANI. I'm not going to suffer Briangott's attempts at bullying and intimidation any more. Take care, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? I am also on WP:JEW. Big deal!? Are you suggesting that this is conspiracy against the goyim? - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? everything else is. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • I just want to say that calling a buddy to protect the challenged page, rather than nominate it on WP:RP, is against the spirit and letter of WP. Such underhand tactics should not be tolerated by the community. It's a pity that they are. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, I contacted two well-respected admins and asked them to look at the discussion and history. I did not ask for protection of the article. One of them happened to agree with you, so you have very little room to complain of me "calling in a buddy". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Briangotts' position

• It is entirely inappropriate for "Oleg" to redirect to Oleg of Novgorod. The reader could be looking for any of a number of Russian rulers by that name and it behooves Wikipedia to make it easier for them to navigate to the one they want.
• As noted above, many pages exist on Wikipedia to disambiguate given names such as Frederick, Michael, Robert, etc., which may refer to any number of different rulers and other people.
• Oleg of Novgorod cannot be definitively said to be the first person to ever have this name. If you have a source that says he is the earliest recorded individual, then say that and cite it. Otherwise it's like saying that everyone who's named John is named after John the Baptist, which is absurd on its face.
• The numbering scheme is not original research, because it derives from well-documented scholarly sources. If you have sources that give a different numbering scheme or you have a better way to refer to these people (by patronymics, for instance), then by all means, let's do that.

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other positions

I generally agree with the article been protected to prevent the edit war. I think that action was entirely appropriate. Regarding the page. I think the page should be a disambig to the Royalty. I am ignorant in the genealogy but if the numbering of Olegs of Chernigov is an OR then the years of rule could be used. The long list of non-Royal people with the first name of Oleg is unusable and difficult to maintain, on the other hand I do not see much harm in this list either. I would remove it, but if it dear to somebody then lets keep it, both ways are OK with me abakharev 09:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed to removing the list of nonroyals for the most part. I do think that a few particularly notable individuals (Penkovsky, Antonov, Kalugin, to name a few) should be kept but the other less notable types I don't mind removing if consensus says that they should go. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The non-royals are not ambiguous, anyway. Either this is a disambig or it's an article about the name, but it's not a list of people first-named Oleg. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the page Ivan, which I think is instructive here. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to reasoned discussion and a consensus-based conclusion that (a) the nonroyals should stay or (b) they should go or (c) some should stay and some should go. If a consensus develops I would of course respect that. What I object to is one user, in this case Ghirla, imposing his will by first insisting that the page be a redirect to the "one true Oleg", erasing the hard work of other users, and then unilaterally moving the page; all the while failing at any point to justify his actions rationally and accusing others of vandalism and being "trolls". And now, of course, he has leveled threats against me of de-sysoping, which I intend to contest vigorously. -Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note for the record that Ghirla erased two comments of mine from this talk page; it is difficult for me to assume good faith. I have restored my comments and re-inserted a comment of his which was lost in the reversion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that people first-named Oleg are misplaced here, only rulers named Oleg should remain. Indeed, disambig by first name should IMHO only be used for ancient characters, when the very concept of last name was not widespread in Europe, or for kings where it was not used for etiquette reasons. Just my $.02. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a clearly and indisputably stated purpose of disambiguation pages: an aid for navigation between topics that could possibly have had the same name. Oleg Tabakov is not commonly identified as simply "Oleg" with the exception of narrow contexts where disambiguation is unnecessary (e.g., in the article about Oleg Tabakov he can be referred to simply "Oleg" because we already know which Oleg is spoken about). `'mikka (t) 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I find this a reasonable position to take. I disagree with it, given the treatment of other given names on Wikipedia, but it has a logic to it as far as the various nonroyals go. However, to remove the various royals from the page is incomprehensible to me and seems like a very bad move. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am hesitant to unprotect the article until we've heard from Ghirlandajo... I'll check back in about 24 hours. Tomer^talk 00:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what's the thought here? I see Ghirlandajo, who was deeply involved in this conflict from the outset, hasn't seen fit to contribute to its resolution at all. Are we ready to unprotect w/o his input? Lemme know. Cheers, Tomer^talk 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe consensus is to leave it as a list of the various royals and to remove the rest. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One concern I have is that I wish there was a better way to refer to the royals than by number, which is a bit of an artificial convention. Perhaps patronymics? I don't have info on their full names though. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the primary sources mentioning the 4th and 5th Olegs (according to your terminology). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you denying that there was a fourth and fifth prince of Chernigov named Oleg? There doesn't have to be a primary source identifying a number for a ruler who ruled before numbering schemes were used to identify royalty. Rameses II and Darius III didn't refer to them by Roman numeral; it is an artificial convention used by modern scholars. What is your objection to the inclusion of Oleg "IV" and Oleg "V"? If you have an alternate way of identifying them, that you feel is more appropriate, I have invited you REPEATEDLY to use it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I find such lists unsustainable. Given the sparse record of the Chernigov Principality after 1240, there is some probability that there were numerous other princes, some of them named Oleg, which have not been attested by extant sources at all. In my opinion, the page should be moved to Oleg (name), redirect to the Oleg restored, and Oleg (name) linked from Oleg of Novgorod through Template:Redirect. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as stated above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unprot

I've unprotected the article. Hopefully the issues that led to the edit war, if not resolved, at the very least won't result in another. Happy editing, folks! Tomer^talk 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)