Talk:Olga of Kiev

message: There is a hypothesis that Olga was a Bulgarian princess (from Pliska, and not from Pskov). She may have been the daughter of either Tsar Simeon the Great or of his deposed brother, the apostate Prince/Khan Vladimir-Rasate. Olga's presumed Royal Bulgarian origin could explain the ease with which her son, Prince Svyatoslav, managed to conquer both Danubian Bulgaria and Volga Bulgaria. --Vladko 20:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ru.wikipedia has that 78.130.157.241 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian origin of Olga 

message: According to the most accepted version, Olga was born near Pskov (what is present day Russia) and spent most of her life and became famous in Kiev (what is present-day Ukraine). Both languages are relevant. What was the reason for your edit war with Sashazlv? Just to remove the mentioning of Ukrainian language?--AndriyK 13:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected and inserted a special ru/ua template I deviced some time ago just for the cases like these. Hope everyone's happy. --Irpen 17:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no such language "Cyrillic" 

message: Surely the title in the succession box shouldn't be Prince, rather Princess or Regent.
Lemmy Kilmister 09:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince of Kiev? 

message: Lev Gumilev's account of Olga:
:Having assumed the supreme power in 945, Olga broke with the policy of the Khazar-Rus' alliance, conducted by her predecessors. Like her grandson Vladimir, she declared in favour of the Byzantine alliance. In 949, she sent her troops to take part in the Byzantine expedition against Crete. In 957, she went to Constantinople, converted to Christianity and declared war on Khazaria. Seven years later, her youthful son, in alliance with Pechenegs and Torks, sacked Atil, Samandar, and Sarkel. At that very period, the level of the Caspian Sea rose by five meters, submerging the delta of the Volga, together with the capital of the Khazars. Ibn Haukul reports that, after sacking Samandar, the Rus' started a war against Rum and Al-Andaluz, i.e., Byzantium and Spain. Indeed, the Rus effected a landing in Galicia in 968; they sacked Santiago, killed the local bishop and were not repulsed (by Count Gonzalo Sanchez) until 971.
Any comments? What of this should be reflected in the text of the article? --Ghirla -трёп- 13:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see here anything terribly new apart from the ides that it was Olga's initiative to break with a Rus'-Khazar alliance, but Gumilev is probably the only historian who thought that way. The rest is actually not about her. Beit Or 07:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lev Gumilev]]'s theory 

message: This seems to be a simply a large quote without any processing or even marking, and with style sharply conflicting that of the previous parts of the article. Perhaps some rewriting is in order (i.e., put encompassing text and mark the quotating as such?) I'm willing to do that, provided some reason doesn't exist of keeping that section as is. IgorSF 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it should be moved to WikiSource. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Gibbon section 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: How can anyone who murdered people become a saint??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my question. Olga was clearly blood-thirsty which was probably not unusual for the warlike time she lived in. But it's kind of crazy that someone responsible for mass murder could be made a saint simply because she converted to Christianity. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it's not like she's the only one. There's a much more recent example, whose responsibility for events like Bloody Sunday (1905) is much better documented. Finstergeist (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Who spells it Olgha, in English? Source or it goes. And don't lie when you make changes this time, Lifeglider--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  source for clunky claimed spelling? 

message: The article on Igor of Kiev suggests that Olga first became upset with the Drevlins not because of their insisting she be married, but because they killed her husband:
:Igor' was killed while collecting tribute from the Drevlians in 945. The Byzantine historian and chronicler, Leo the Deacon (born ca 950), describes how Igor met his death: "They had bent down two birch trees to the prince's feet and tied them to his legs; then they let the trees straighten again, thus tearing the prince's body apart."[2] Igor's wife, Olga of Kiev, avenged his death by punishing the Drevlians. The Primary Chronicle blames his death on his own excessive greed, indicating that he tried to collect tribute for a second time in a month. As a result, Olga changed the system of tribute gathering (poliudie) in what may be regarded as the first legal reform recorded in Eastern Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_of_Kiev
Yet here there is no mention of these even though there is an illustration at the bottom titled "Olga's revenge for her husband's death."  Ileanadu (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The poliudie is mentioned under Regency. She's famous not for avenging her husband's death, but for holding on to power and for keeping Kiev from being absorbed into rival territories. As a woman and as a grieving widow, she was expected to be weak and remarry, instead she became a ruthless bloodthirsty killer, and that's what made her a Christian saint. Oh, the irony! Feel free to add whatever you think is missing from the story. USchick (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenge for Husband's Death 

message: The link to the source is provided above (I'm talking about this edit). Noraskulk (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karpov 

message: As the title says.  Kiev is an antiquated term that no longer reflects the reality of the naming convention of Kyiv in any official sense.  Kiev is an adaptation of Musvovite Russian "Киев", which reflects Russian rule, not medieval East Slavic linguistic conventions nor respects Ukrainian independence.  While there is something to say for historical contexxt, the problem here is that the historical context here was "Kyjevъ", which is much closer to Kyiv than "Kiev".  The historical context for the Muscovite name finds itself only in Muscovite rule over the city from 1648 to 1918, and then from 1920 to 1991.  Ukrainian culture is ancient, drawing itself back to the East Polyans, Volynians, Buzhane, and other East Slavic tribes in the area of modern Ukraine and then Rus, overshadowed in recent centuries by Muscovite imperialism.  There is also a new culture war going on, with pro-Moscow editors removing from articles such as Olga of Kyiv and others the names of Ukrainian cities and settlements, including any mentions of "Kyiv" and "Kyivan".
This war is also waged on the Russian language version of Wikipedia.  Rather than respect modern conventions of the spoken Russian language, terms and constructions such as "Byelorussiya" and "na Ukrainye" (Белоруссия and на Украине) are considered correct, despite the former being outdated, as the official and correct way to refer to "Byelorussiya" is either Belarus or the Republic of Belarus (Беларусь/Республика Беларусь), and the latter both outdated and offensive, as the polite (and correct) construction is "v Ukrainye" (в Украине).
This is a symptom of Russian chauvinism that has only grown since 2014, where Russian insistence that such frankly offensive and derisive terms are correct because it is in the official Russian lexicon, regardless if that lexicon was written entirely to serve Russian, as in Muscovite, interests, including the Russian territorial ambitions to take over Ukraine and Belarus in terms of influence and direct territorial ambitions.
A note about other languages, such as German.  Due to the English language's position of being an effective global lingua franca, many governments which have asked for a change in naming convention have mainly made the request for the change to be for the English variant.  Weiss Rusland means Belarus and Kiew means Kyiv, but the political reality dictates that it is the English language that will be using the transliterated term, rather than "White Ruthenia/Russia" or the Muscovite term "Kiev".  In the end though, this aspect no longer matters, as the English speaking world chose to respect these new conventions that were established in 1991.  It's not historically dishonest to use Kyiv, but it certainly is to use "Kiev".  Certainly in Russian, "Kiev" is correct, but then there are other ways that language is used to belittle Belarusian and Ukrainian identity.
:Irrelevant. "Olga of Kiev" is the WP:COMMONNAME. On top of that, see Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9#RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles for the consensus on using Kyiv/Kiev. Also please sign your comments. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the old word is "Кꙑѥвъ", according to Wiktionary. I don't understand how you see it as being "much closer" to one when they are equally different. Mellk (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing any mention of Kyiv from "Kiev", as well as Kyivan from "Kievan" to better fit the proper spelling of the city in English.  The Old East Slavic (Kyjevu/Києвъ) reflects this spelling as well in a phonetic sense too. 

message: Kiev should be changed to Kyiv. 2600:8807:C2C9:7500:7D98:4149:19AF:B8DC (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022 

message: Please change:
Even though it would be her grandson Vladimir that would convert the entire nation to Christianity, because of her efforts to spread Christianity through Rus', Olga is venerated as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church with the epithet "Equal to the Apostles" and her feast day is 11 July.
To: 
Even though it would be her grandson Vladimir that would convert the entire nation to Christianity, because of her efforts to spread Christianity through Rus', Olga is venerated as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church with the epithet "Equal to the Apostles." Her feast day is 11 July.
The reason for the change is that the date of St. Olga's feast day is not because of the preceding items in the sentence (but only the fact that she has a feast day is due to the preceding items in the sentence). therefore, the suggest change resolves a potential ambiguity. Off2port (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022 

message: Miss ya 2600:1001:B00B:FCEE:E10B:8CC2:8885:7B9C (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Us 

message: This article is misleading since it portrays events which are clearly fantastical as if they are documented history. I understand that the Primary Chronicle is the only available source on Olga's life, but that doesn't make it a reliable source (and it's reliability is widely questioned). This story is clearly a folk tale, it is even written as one. Yet it is included in the "Life" section which is of a more factual nature. I believe Wikipedia standards would be better met if the story of the revenge would be transferred to a separate section under a more conservative title, such as "The Alleged Story of the Drevlins Revenge" or whatever you think would clarify to casual readers that this is a story that appears only in a source of questionable reliability without any corroboration rather then a widely accepted historic fact. נוף כרמל (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth presented as history 

message: Change "Saint Olga of Kiev" to "Saint Olga of Kyiv".  This is the proper spelling of Ukrainian Capital. F3nix411 (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2023 

message: Kyiv or Київ are the Ukrainian spellings. Kiev is the Soviet Russian spelling. Please correct the names of people containing "of Kiev" to reflect this. "Kievan Rus" should be "Kyivan Rus". 2604:3D08:6B7B:3650:15BC:3F05:D946:5E9 (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please change spelling to Kyiv 

message: The article frequently calls Olga a "regent" after Igor's death in 945, but the Primary Chronicle never calls her that. There are several instances in which she is called a княгиня knyaginya or more precisely кънягыня kŭnyagynya (cognate of modern German Königin and modern Dutch koningin, more distantly English queen), the female equivalent of a князь knyaz. For example, 56.21–22  
It is also alleged that Olga abdicated the regency upon Sviatoslav's coming of age sub anno 6472 (964). Although Sviatoslav is indeed repeatedly referred to as a князь from that year onwards, there is no indication that Olga was no longer a княгиня. For example, in the narrative of the Pecheneg Siege of Kiev (968) sub anno 6476 (968; pages 65.19–67.20), page 66 lines 17 to 19 state:
 Cross & SW 1953 rendered this as  We should note here that the young Princes are her aforementioned , so calling her a "princess" makes her no more a reigning monarch than her three grandsons, but the same goes for calling her son Sviatoslav a "prince" from 964 onwards. In this context, that may merely indicate that they were members of the reigning dynasty. (Sidenote: Cross&SW end her life story with , but the text in 68.6–7 says   There is no "princess" in the original. Similarly, 61.12 says   instead of .)
The last passage mentioning Olga as a princess that I was able to find is in the so-called Rus'–Byzantine Treaty (945) sub anno 6453,  Iskusevi Olga kŭnyagynya Cross&SW: . This was when Igor' was supposedly still alive, as he is mentioned several times in the text of the supposed treaty as well, so that unless we assume a co-reign / co-regency here, this should be understood as princess consort or queen consort. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that Olga has her own representative in a supposedly legally binding treaty between sovereign states; that suggests she had political and diplomatic authority and was not just the "wife of", even before her husband died.
Descriptions such as in page 67.23 that have Sviatoslav saying (just before Olga's death)    do not necessarily denote his "ownership" of Kievan Rus' either. By that logic, we should recognise Olga's "ownership" of Kievan Rus' in page 62.7–8:   Incidentally, right after that, Olga is compared to the Queen of Ethiopia: , literally  Cross&SW: . Apparently she was not just a regent or comparable to a queen, but comparable to a reigning tsarina. NLeeuw (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess regnant after 945 or only regent for Sviatoslav?