Talk:Oleg of Drelinia
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 4 January 2025
edit
It has been proposed in this section that Oleg of Drelinia be renamed and moved to Oleg of Dereva. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Oleg of Drelinia → Oleg of Dereva – "drelinia" appears to be an WP:OR toponym, it is not widely attested in English-language WP:RS. Therefore, as pointed out in 2011 by User:Ghirlandajo, there is no such term as "drelinia". It was a good thing he decided rename the article to "Oleg of the Drevlyans", although that is still not quite what the text says. (Some English literature suggests "Oleg among the Derevlyans", but only for translating this specific sentence in PVL 69.8–9). Nevertheless, in 2018 this was reverted back to "Oleg of Drelinia" by User:Iryna Harpy with the comment revert: Undiscussed move. Drelinia is attested to in English language texts, whether correct or incorrect. Is WP:OR as WP:TITLE. Well, I could find only 1 hit on Google Books (Ase Berit, Rolf Strandskogen 2015, which may have been influenced by this enwiki article), and 0 hits on Google Scholar.
So let's get back to the basics. The land in question is simply called Дерева Dereva, which in modern Ukrainian and Russian still simply means "the trees" or "the woods" (plural; in singular wikt:дерево), i.e. "the Woods".
Въ лѣто 6478. Святославъ посади Яропълка въ Кыевѣ, а Ольга въ Деревѣхъ.
(PVL 69.8–9 Ostrowski et al. 2003- Vŭ lěto 6478. Svyatoslavŭ posadi Yaropolŭka vŭ Kyevŭ, a Olĭga vŭ Derevěkhŭ.
6478 (970). Svyatoslav set up Yaropolk in Kiev and Oleg in Dereva.
Cross&SW 1953 p. 87
- Vŭ lěto 6478. Svyatoslavŭ posadi Yaropolŭka vŭ Kyevŭ, a Olĭga vŭ Derevěkhŭ.
деревѣхъ
(derevěkhŭ) is the plural locative of дерево in Old East Slavic. It literally means "in the woods". Sometimes it is nevertheless translated as Derevlyans or some spelling variation of that ethnonym (e.g. Thuis 2015 Derevljanen), but in this case, it is a toponym, referring to a land (Dereva "the Woods") and not to a people (Derevlyans "the Wood-Dwellers"). In 12 cases in total, Cross&SW rendered the toponym as Dereva, and never as "Drelinia". In the incident in which Oleg kills Lyut', Oleg's hunting grounds are similarly called "in the forest", but with a different word: въ лѣсѣ
vŭ lěsě (PVL 74.12–14; Cross&SW p. 90).
Compare with the next event (1):
В лѣто 6485. Поиде Яропълкъ на Ольга, брата своего, на Деревьску землю.
PVL 74.22–23- Vŭ lěto 6485. Poide Yaropŭlkŭ na Olĭga, brata svoego, na Derevĭsku zemlyu.
6484-6485 (976-977). Yaropolk marched against his brother Oleg into the district of Dereva.
p. 90
- Vŭ lěto 6485. Poide Yaropŭlkŭ na Olĭga, brata svoego, na Derevĭsku zemlyu.
Compare with a previous event (2):
И послуша ихъ Игорь; иде въ Дерева въ дань.
PVL 54.20- I poslusha ikhŭ Igorĭ; ide vŭ Dereva vŭ danĭ.
Igor' heeded their words, and he attacked Dereva in search of tribute.
p. 78
- I poslusha ikhŭ Igorĭ; ide vŭ Dereva vŭ danĭ.
Some English-language literature suggests simply Oleg of Dereva
, or Oleg Sviatoslavich of Dereva
. Going by our own enwiki conventions, we could also go for Oleg, Prince of Dereva, but that has the problem of translating knyaz, which is a whole other discussion that we better avoid. interwikis suggest Oleg Sviatoslavich (Prince of Dereva or Oleg Sviatoslavich (Derevlyan prince) (but those would not conform to enwiki conventions), or simply Oleg Sviatoslavich (but that already redirects to Oleg I of Chernigov).
All things considered, Oleg of Dereva
is the most obvious title: it conforms to our conventions, it is WP:CONCISE, it is somewhat attested in literature, plus Dereva
separately is overwhelmingly attested in English-language literature as the toponym's WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is WP:OR and cannot be maintained anymore, and the other options all have certain problems that Oleg of Dereva
does not have. NLeeuw (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- support per nom's detailed reasoning—blindlynx 17:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both versions are utterly nonsensical and smack of original research. "Dereva" has never been used in English as a toponym, and to speak about "Oleg of the Trees" is extremely odd. The only correct title is the one that the article had from 2011 until 2018: Oleg of the Drevlyans. Ghirla-трёп- 22:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Dereva" has never been used in English as a toponym. It has, very often. The most widely referenced scholarly English translation, Cross&SW 1953, uses it all the time:
Igor' heeded their words, and he attacked Dereva in search of tribute.
p. 78So Igor' was buried, and his tomb is near the city of Iskorosten' in Dereva even to this day.
p. 78The Derevlians (56) then announced that their tribe had sent them to report that they had slain her husband, because he was like a wolf, crafty and ravening, but that their princes, who had thus preserved the land of Dereva, were good, and that Olga should come and marry their Prince Mal.
p. 79For the name of the Prince of Dereva was Mal.
p. 79When the Derevlians heard this message, they gathered together the best men who governed the land of Dereva, and sent them to her.
p. 79She then passed through the land of Dereva, accompanied by her son and her retinue, establishing laws and tribute.
p. 816478 (970). Svyatoslav set up Yaropolk in Kiev and Oleg in Dereva.
p. 876484–6485 (976–977). Yaropolk marched against his brother Oleg into the district of Dereva.
p. 90Upon looking for Oleg, Yaropolk's men were unable to find him, until one native of Dereva reported that he had seen Oleg pushed off the bridge the night before.
p. 91When Vÿsheslav, the oldest, died in Novgorod, he set Yaroslav over Novgorod, Boris over Rostov, Gleb over Murom, Svyatoslav over Dereva, Vsevolod over Vladimir, and Mstislav over Tmutorakan'.
p. 119
- In the genealogical table at the end, they mention Q4411634 as
St. Svyatoslav Pr. of Dereva, k. 1015
. NLeeuw (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC) - A History of Russian Law (2017) p. 340 by Ferninand Feldbrugge:
[Sviatoslav] had two sons by a wife whose name is not recorded in the Chronicle; these he installed as subordinate princes, Iaropolk in Kiev (...), and Oleg in Dereva (970). (...) In 976-977 Iaropolk made war on his brother Oleg of Dereva, killed him and took over his principality. (...) Of the younger sons, Gleb received Murom, Sviatoslav Dereva, Vsevolod Vladimir [in Volynia], and Mstislav Tmutorakan (...).
NLeeuw (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Basil Dmytryshyn, Medieval Russia: A sourcebook 850-1700, (1991), 48.
Yaropolk marched against his brother Oleg into the district of Dereva.
Evidently, he is quoting from the Cross&SW 1953 English translation, as 90% of scholars writing in English still do, unless they decide to make their own translation for a specific section that requires closer textual analysis. - This is often justified because Cross&SW 1953 often do not translate literally, e.g. they sometimes provide sentences in indirect speech, although the entire PVL is written in direct speech. Whenever I see that, I consult Thuis 2015 or Ostrowski et al. 2003 or some other translation or critical edition to get a better rendering of the original OES text. However, in most cases Cross&SW 1953 is a very adequate translation. And as I've shown in my rationale, they follow the original OES very closely in translating
Дерева
(in various grammatical cases) asDereva
, and most other English-language scholars follow their example. NLeeuw (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basil Dmytryshyn, Medieval Russia: A sourcebook 850-1700, (1991), 48.
- "Dereva" has never been used in English as a toponym. It has, very often. The most widely referenced scholarly English translation, Cross&SW 1953, uses it all the time:
- I tried looking into indexes of textbooks on Russian history to see how he is disambiguated in those. Maureen Perry's Cambridge History of Russia, Vol. 1 was the only useful entry I found:
Oleg, son of Sviatoslav (d. 975), prince in Derevlian lands
. This is quite verbose, and could be truncated to Oleg (prince in Drevlyan lands), or perhaps some other formatting more in line with WP:NCROY, but Oleg of the Drevlyans also seems acceptable (and is WP:CONCISE), unless the difference between Drevlyans and Drevlyan lands is deemed important. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- Well, we could go for something like that, but the problem is that there are probably 20 different ways of spelling that ethnonym and connecting it to Oleg. Derevlyan, Derevlian, Drevlyan, Drevlyan, Derevlyanian, Drevlyanian, Derevlyanyan, Drevlyanyan, etc. And I have barely scratched the surface now, because then we need to decide whether it is Oleg the Derevlyan, Oleg of the Derevlyans, Oleg, Prince of the Derevlyans, Oleg (Derevlyan prince), etc. etc. etc.. Multiply that by all the combinations you could make in spelling and phrasing. Meanwhile, I can already hear people complaining that this or that spelling "wrong" because it is "Russian" or "Ukrainian" or whatever.
- On the other hand, Dereva is uncontroversial, because it is spelt exactly the same in Ukrainian, Russian and Old East Slavic, it is also what the text actually says, it is concise, it is easy to remember in English, and the WP:COMMONNAME for the toponym in English. It's a winner. NLeeuw (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first choice between the different spellings can be determined with WP:CONSUB: The article title is Drevlians, so we should choose Oleg of the Drevlians for consistency. For the latter choice, I've no immediate answer on which one would be the ideal choice. Based on the above examples which you've provided, Oleg of Dereva also seems ok. Both are improvements over the current title. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It would be my second choice, after
Oleg of Dereva
. NLeeuw (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It would be my second choice, after
- The first choice between the different spellings can be determined with WP:CONSUB: The article title is Drevlians, so we should choose Oleg of the Drevlians for consistency. For the latter choice, I've no immediate answer on which one would be the ideal choice. Based on the above examples which you've provided, Oleg of Dereva also seems ok. Both are improvements over the current title. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about Oleg (son of Sviatoslav I)? Ghirla-трёп- 22:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems more recognizable than anything of the form "Oleg of X" and by using an explicit disambiguation, we are not inventing a name (or giving undue weight to some rarely used name). This would also be in line how e.g. Franklin & Shepard 1996 disambiguate him through his father. Their index has two Olegs:
Oleg Sviatoslavich [Sviatoslav Iaroslavich]
andOleg Sviatoslavich [Sviatoslav Igorevich]
. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems more recognizable than anything of the form "Oleg of X" and by using an explicit disambiguation, we are not inventing a name (or giving undue weight to some rarely used name). This would also be in line how e.g. Franklin & Shepard 1996 disambiguate him through his father. Their index has two Olegs:
- Support the alternative Oleg (son of Sviatoslav I). Per my comment above. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose the alternative Oleg (son of Sviatoslav I), because barely anyone knows Sviatoslav I to begin with, and this article title is easily confused with Oleg I of Chernigov alias Oleg Sviatoslavich. Therefore, disambiguation is needed, and WP:COGNOMEN 3. stipulates using
a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed.
. Therefore, we need of Dereva, or something with the Derevlyan or of the Derevlians etc. asterritorial designation
. NLeeuw (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I think this only applies to sovereigns. Does he qualify, or would it be something like WP:NCPRINCES instead? I have not really looked at the new changes to the convention. Mellk (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a possibility. This is commonly done for later non-sovereign Muscovite and Russian nobility (16th to 19th century), but I know no examples for Kievan Rus' knyazi. If you look at a category like Category:Princes of Smolensk, there are several possibilities:
- [Name] [territorial designation] (e.g. of Smolensk) > Yury of Smolensk
- [Name] [number] [territorial designation] (e.g. of Kiev) > Rostislav I of Kiev
- [Name] [father's name] -ovich > Vyacheslav Yaroslavich, Davyd Rostislavich
- [Name] [father's name] -ovich [territorial designation] > Mstislav Rostislavich of Smolensk
- [Name] [nickname] > Theodore the Black
- ...but they don't start with Prince [name] etc.
- It is used for princesses (kniagini) sometimes, though. One example of WP:NCPRINCES is Princess Bagrationi of Kiev, which I came up with recently because the previous title Bagrationi (daughter of Demetrius I of Georgia) was very unhelpful, not defining and not WP:CONCISE. Another one is Olava, Grand Princess of Kiev, but there the title is placed after the name, not before it. NLeeuw (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a possibility. This is commonly done for later non-sovereign Muscovite and Russian nobility (16th to 19th century), but I know no examples for Kievan Rus' knyazi. If you look at a category like Category:Princes of Smolensk, there are several possibilities:
- I think this only applies to sovereigns. Does he qualify, or would it be something like WP:NCPRINCES instead? I have not really looked at the new changes to the convention. Mellk (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not important whether "anyone knows Sviatoslav I to begin with". Most people nowadays don't know any medieval monarchs at all. It's a standard practice of naming articles when a person's dates of life are not certain: e.g., Bernard (son of Charles the Fat), Johan (son of Sverker I), George, son of Andrew I of Hungary... I don't see a valid reason to make an exception from the rule. Srnec, can you comment (as perhaps the most experienced creator of articles about medieval people)? Ghirla-трёп- 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think "Oleg (son of Sviatoslav I)" is okay. I think "Oleg of the Drevlians" is okay, although the spelling should match Drevlians unless/until that page is moved. I feel like "Oleg, Prince of the Drevlians" would be better. Ghirla, why do you say
"Dereva" has never been used in English as a toponym
? I found a paper by Fedir Androshchuk entitled The place of Dereva and Volhynia in Norse–Slav relations in the 9th to 11th centuries, so it seems to be used. Srnec (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think "Oleg (son of Sviatoslav I)" is okay. I think "Oleg of the Drevlians" is okay, although the spelling should match Drevlians unless/until that page is moved. I feel like "Oleg, Prince of the Drevlians" would be better. Ghirla, why do you say
- Oppose the alternative Oleg (son of Sviatoslav I), because barely anyone knows Sviatoslav I to begin with, and this article title is easily confused with Oleg I of Chernigov alias Oleg Sviatoslavich. Therefore, disambiguation is needed, and WP:COGNOMEN 3. stipulates using
P.S. As for Princess Bagrationi of Kiev, such a name for the article strikes me as rather silly. It's dubitable that such a person even existed, to begin with. All the chronicles say is that Izyaslav married "an Abkhaz woman". It was Nicolas de Baumgarten who suggested that an Abkhaz woman should be none other than a daughter of the then reigning Georgian king. See his famous paper "Généalogies et mariages occidentaux des Rurikides Russes du X au XIII siècles" in Orientalia Christiana Vol. IX - 1, No. 35, May 1927, p. 25. He quotes Chron. russes I 146, II 74, IX 198 and Brosset Bulletin Hist. de l´Acad. de St. Pétersbourg I, p. 220 but I don't see a Georgian connection in any of these sources. The three sources quoted in your articles are rather mechanical compilations repeating Baumgarten's theory as a solid fact. (The use of Voytovich's compilation is especially discouraged, as it includes many long discarded genealogical connections and lacks a minimal critical assessment.) What is the purpose of creating an article about a person about whom nothing is known? I suggest prodding it. Ghirla-трёп- 18:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Off topic, but I do not like "Princess Bagrationi of Kiev" as a title at all. Srnec (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)