# Talk:Olaf Guthfrithson

references moved to the article page...  Tbarron

Hi - While I'm happy to see the Irish rendering of this guy's name, I'm a little taken aback, because I've never seen it before, and in books I've seen he would be either Anlaf or Olaf Guthfrithson or Guthricsson.  Now of course there weren't any set spellings for any of these names, but it is possible we can have a set of alternatives, not too long, in the header somewhere so we can be sure what we're talking about and be able to relate this to stuff we might read off Wikipedia?  I know how touchy a subject this can be for people - am not bothered about which one is chosen for the article name, just want fellow readers not to be scratching their heads when they arrive.  This goes for this guy's relatives too.  Cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding this article's title at Talk:Olaf Guthfrithson. Ben MacDui 07:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Olaf Guthfrithson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I will be taking on the review for this article. Expect a full review on the article by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I will be using the above table for my review, my comments will be in the table. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Retroplum, I have completed my initial review of the article and am willing to place it on hold for the issues to be rectified. I have more serious concerns about 2b and 2c regarding the work, they'll be the primary thing to address. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Mr rnddude: and thanks for the review. Apologies for the lateness but I've been away for a few weeks and I've only just noticed your review. I should, I hope, be able to do some editing and address some or all of your concerns in the next few days. Retroplum (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Right, I think I have addressed everything with regards to 1a but a few explanatory comments might be helpful. I included the sources section (aka the background section) mostly because there are a few statements in the text and in the secondary sources which are "probable" or "possible" and it might be helpful for the reader to understand why that is the case, although its very easy to go over the top and give too much information. I've kept the section but I've done as you suggested and moved it to the bottom. An analysis of the sources is, after all, not the point of the article. Everything else in 1a seems straightforward enough and I've made the necessary changes.
Now to deal with the tricker issues. I think the main issue is probably incorrect sourcing. All the conclusions drawn are - I think - in one or other of the secondary sources listed but I've had issues with over-referencing in the past so in this article I tried to keep it down to a minimum, which inevitably has lead to some statements not being supported by the given citations. It's not a particularly long article though, so I should be able to go through paragraph by paragraph and check the referencing and such. Retroplum (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I have now updated the pdf link as per 2a. Thanks for finding where it had been moved to. Retroplum (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
And I've now corrected the citing of Thrope, Murphy and Stevenson. However, I'm not quite sure what to do about the others. They are not published sources but online compilations of different translations of original manuscript sources. These online sources have multiple compilers, and are based on works by multiple translators, and have additional corrections and revisions by other editors. As such I'm not sure how to reference those sources in a way which is better than how they are now, but if you have any suggestions let me know. For now, I'll leave them as they are and move on to some of the other issues. Retroplum (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Understood, I'll take a look at it as soon as I can. Having a busy week. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, having looked at it I think it might be best to just remove the sources section. There are some referencing issues and it doesn't add a great deal. Retroplum (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Up to your discretion, it's not doing any harm but it's also not a vital component. Many articles don't discuss the actual sources at least not up to A or FA class. Some do, some don't. It's a small component, if it's going to have sourcing issues then I'd recommend removing it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: Ok, I've now went through the whole article adding citations for previously uncited statements and conclusions. In a couple of places I've removed statements which are not properly supported by the sources, although I've tried to keep textual changes to a minimum since you've already reviewed the article. If you want further guidance as to what changes I've made and why just let me know. I think I've (hopefully) dealt with all the issues you brought up so if you could take a look when you get the chance we can see what issues are outstanding. Thanks. Retroplum (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Retroplum, will do, I'll have a look at it either tonight or tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Retroplum, apologies for the delay, I have updated much of my table, there are two minor issues under 2a and a couple things I'll need to go through. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: No worries. Those two sources were previously cited but are no longer so I've removed them. Retroplum (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Simples, this passes GA in that case. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Here the death date is written as 941, but the Anglo Saxon Chronicles put his death at 943... Pizza09743 (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Your edits and queries are based on original research, which is not allowed under Wikipedia rules as we are not experts in interpreting original sources. The ASC is often a year or two out and historians date his death to 941. Also, there were two Olafs, Guthfrithson and Sihtricson. Your edits confuse them. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Dudley, I was aware of there being two Olafs, as the Chronicle references the second Olaf as well. However, the sentence "This year King Edmund beset King Anlaf and Archbishop Wulfstan in Leicester; and he might have conquered them, were it not that they burst out of the town in the night. After this Anlaf obtained the friendship of King Edmund, and King Edmund then received King Anlaf in baptism" seems to indicate that the Anlaf in Leicester was the one he baptised. Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society says it was Guthfrithson who occupied Leicester. This combined seems to indicate that Guthfrithson was the one baptised, not Sihtricson. Pizza09743 (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Your deduction of what ASC seems to indicate is not a reliable source. Dorothy Whitelock, in her notes to ASC (English Historical Documents, p. 221) says that Olaf Guthfrithson died in 941, and dates the baptism to 943. The recommended translations of ASC are the ones by Whitelock and Swanton, and even they should not be used except as interpreted by reliable secondary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Is the translation by James Ingram (1774-1850) a good source? Pizza09743 (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
As an addon, the ASC dates the baptism and Olafs date to the same year, while Ingram dates the baptism to 941. Pizza09743 (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Ingram's translation is not a good source. It is never used by historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)