Talk:Saint Olaf

Untitled

There is a wrong wikilink here "to win back the kingdom after Knut the Great's vassal Håkon Jarl was lost at sea" The grandson of this Jarl is meant here. I dont know if there is an article about him in English. It is at least in Norwegian.

Apparently subsequently resolved by Rrostrom --Frans Fowler (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Olaf vs. Olav

You NEED to pick one and stick to it in this article. "Olav" is suddenly used as a section header name and then within that section without any prior reference. Very confusing. Moncrief 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

All the Olavs are with v not f in Norway. Inge 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you either need to change the whole article to "v" or keep it all "f." The point is you can't change the spelling of the subject of the article halfway through without explanation. It's called standardization and it's expected in all articles. Moncrief 19:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, in England his name is spelled Olaf. Besides the ON spell was Óláfr, the English spelling is therefore closer to his actual name, and pronunciation, than the modern Norwegian form. DDH89 00:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the evidence points to Olave being the traditional spelling in English (English spelling convention follows a v with e in a word ending, unless directly adopting a foreign word in modern usage). The churches of medieval foundation in England dedicated to the saint, before 1055 in the case of St Olave's in York, are invariably spelt in this way. Is there evidence of spelling with an 'f' in English before the nineteenth century, when this spelling was probably preferred because it followed the then common Nordic spelling convention? The point is recognised in the paragraph on the English churches but the article heading and box should acknowledge the alternative spellings. It isn't a case of the different spellings being right or wrong even though there is a need for consistency in the body of the article.AJHingston (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Olave added to lead paragraph--Frans Fowler (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The map is wrong

According to the map was Jämtland a part of Olav's realm. This is incorrect since he made two failed attempts to collect taxes from Jämtland. The population there preferred to pay their taxes to Sweden and killed the Norwegian tax collectors. See Heimskringla, Olav the Holy's saga chapter 63 and 141.

Incorrect. Jamtland ruled themselves at first, but as it grew it became more and more interesting for both Swedish and Norwegian kings. Both countries tried to gain controll and while Sweden failed, Norway suceeded. 155.55.60.110 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The map is still wrong. Iceland, Orkneys, Man etc were parts of Norway at that time.St.Trond (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jämtland, deriving from Jäm-, or Jem-, which possibly was a Rus-landian word for Häme, and Hämeenmaa (trans. Jämland) is still an understandable reference to this day. The year 1008 mention of this "Häme" in the Sagas paints a somewhat clearer picture of Olav's realm, Battle at Herdaler which no doubt is the first written mention of Finland, is posiibly the last mention of Varjags or Vikings in Jämtland, even though archaeological finds prove trade continued. Jämtland's population only turned to church e.g. Sweden when Novgorodians came foraying, Norwegians had the least influence as a people, other than Rurik and his men according to the Primary Chronicle. Swedish catholic influence and control only come to picture in mid 12th century, according to the legend of Eerik the Holy (Eerik IX Jedvardson), this however is not considered reliable source. Chronicles of Erik, written in 1320's describes a so called second crusade against Häme. Early Finnish cultures were sometimes referred all to be Jäm Jem Jam Yem or Jäämi by Russian chronicles during the Finnish–Novgorodian wars.

Possible citation for statement under "Christianisation"

There is a Citation needed for the statement, "Olaf is generally held to be the driving force behind Norway's final conversion to Christianity."

Professor Kenneth W. Harl, in his series "The Vikings" for the Teaching Company says this, "But far more important was his defeat at Stiklestad which is seen as a great Christian martyrdom. And from that point on there is no way Norway is ever going to go to the pagan cults and traditions. To be sure, many Norweagens continue to worship the old gods, but henceforth Christianity is the religion of the court. They have their own royal saint. It is the legitimate, the only legitimate religion in Norway and and associated with this only legitimate family."

This can be found in the last two minutes of the thirty-second lecture in the series "The Vikings". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogus (talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Massive and messy

I think that the present article is very compact, and thus also messy and difficult to read. Should there be more space in the article, and especially between the sections? Is it perhaps good if also all images are placed on the article's right side?--- Aaemn784 (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The table of contents was 'compacted' with a special template, which I've just removed. I think removing it may have helped a bit. Maybe a few of the images can be spread evenly throughout the article too. It's not a good thing to have two images opposite each other with text squished in the middle.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that the article looks improved already. I will try to fix the images, be it by giving them identical sizes. Thanks.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Propers of the Mass for the Feast of St. Olaf

While tidying this article, I found a statement in the notes that the translation of this section was copyrighted. I moved the copyright statement to a footnote and have now deleted the section as copyvio; the translator named appears to have died in 2012 and there is no evidence of the translation being released under a compatible licence. It remains in the history in case such permission can be shown to have been granted. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Why does this article have two different infoboxes? He's just one person. If there are two different interesting aspects to his life, then try to cover it in the article text; or if you really need an infobox then try to summarise everything in that one infobox; but retaining two infoboxes is silly. bobrayner (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion Removed from Infobox

I am removing the Religion line from the infobox. Olaf's own religion is apparently unclear or controversial (see the Problems of Olaf as Christianising king section in the article), and he is venerated and commemorated by various churches now (see the article's lead paragraph). At the time of my edit, Olaf's religion was stated in the infobox to be Catholic Christianity and in earlier versions of the article it had been Chalcedonian Christianity, both of which descriptions seem anachronistic and misleading: Olaf died before the east-west schism and long before the reformation, and long after the Council of Chalcedon. --Frans Fowler (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've restored Chalcedonian Christianity since that is the common appellation of the pre-schism church, and is listed as the religion of other contemporary figures on Wikipedia (see e.g. Æthelstan).--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 02:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sea Serpent; dead link

The dead link 20 to the picture of the sea serpent should be replaced by http://kulturminneatlas.avinet.no/object/dbarticle_preview.aspx?id=745 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.17.86 (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The mountain "Syltefjellet" is visible in street-view on this reference, which should be added as well. The sea serpent is on the side facing the sea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.17.86 (talk • contribs)

I've tweaked the link per the first comment.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Olaf II of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306232712/http://saintolaf.org/about-us/st-olaf-patron-saint-of-norway/ to http://saintolaf.org/about-us/st-olaf-patron-saint-of-norway/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Background for Stiklestad battle

Hi,
the section "Reign" contains the following claims: " ,,, ... in 1029 the Norwegian nobles, seething with discontent, supported the invasion of King Cnut the Great of Denmark. ..... he fell in 1030 at the Battle of Stiklestad, where some of his own subjects from central Norway took arms against him". These claims reveal an ignorance of the legal situation
I think it is necessary to recall that at the time, it was the people who decided who got to be king and who did not. Any would-be ruler of Norway had to be hailed as king by the various regional tings (yes, I know, but "regional things" reads so awkward). As heir, Knut had a legitimate claim to rule Norway, and he was accepted and hailed as king at the Øyrating. As of that moment, Olav was no longer the king, and the inhabitants of Norway were no longer his subjects. IOW, although Knut showed up in force, this was not an invasion.
When Olav returned to try to regain - or usurp, one might say - the throne, one of the perfectly valid legal claims by his opponents was that he acted in contravention of the Law, and the punishment for this, whoever did it, was death. So Stiklestad was more of a police action (no problems with police brutality in that period) than anything like a rebellion. Olaf was the "rebel", not the ones who killed him. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motstandsretten is a NO language page on the people's right to regicide if the king broke the law, given in para 75 of the Frostating law; in support of Olav II being killed at Stiklestad because he acted in contravention of the law. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sainthood

Why dosent it say that he's a saint in the quick links. In almost all wiki articles about saints theres a yellow banner confiriming Sainthood. If there was one it would be easiser to see that hes a saint straight away Fgzeb (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm Catholic but.

I'm Catholic but, now days we all know the Catholic Church was so corrupted on those centuries. He was a criminal, and even he was main reason to bring Catholicism to those countries. Naming him a Saint is not right 69.126.87.79 (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Olaf II of Norway → Saint Olaf – Google Ngram shows that the most common name for the king is Saint Olaf. Векочел (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Olaf was not regarded as a saint in his lifetime (and is rather a strange conferral, given his character). In contrast, he was certainly regarded as a king of Norway, so the regnal number is at least appropriate to the later numbering convention. If any move is considered, it should be to "Olaf Haraldsson", as he was known in his lifetime. SRamzy (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

But we have the article of a medieval Swedish king located at Saint Erik, and he certainly wasn't called a saint during his lifetime. Same with Alfred the Great, Æthelred the Unready, and Edward the Black Prince. Векочел (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

In traditional Christian theology, sainthood does not require one to live a morally perfect life; it simply means the person repented of all of his sins by the time of his/her death and has thus entered heaven. Olaf II was officially canonised as such, so there is no issue with his sainthood from an Orthodox or Roman Catholic perspective. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 17:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Saint Olaf is more recognizable. Also, clearer evidence that "Saint Olaf" is a WP:commonname is given by an Ngram which includes the variant "St Olaf": [1]. He is referred to as "Saint" 10–50 times more often than with a numeral (though some of the results will be about churches and other institutions named after him), or 5–50 times more often than "Olaf Haraldsson" (years between 1960–2020). Nobody is a saint during their lifetime, but the article is not only about the historical man, but also about his legacy as a cult figure. Olaf was the most important of the Scandinavian royal saints, so using "Saint" in the title does seem appropriate, even if his conduct is not what we would expect of our saints today. To illustrate the weight given in a single source to the historical man and the cult figure, in Cambridge History of Scandinavia Vol.1, "Olaf Haraldsson" is mentioned 16 times, but "St Olaf" is mentioned 37 times. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per Ngram findings of @Векочел and @Jähmefyysikko 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 17:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.