Talk:Odo of Metz

Category

@Fayenatic london: Regarding this revert, I don't want to be pedantic, but it's only certain that Odo of Metz lived during Charlemagne's reign as king of Francia (end of 8th century), not certain whether he still lived during Charlemagne's reign as emperor (beginning of 9th century). I have also changed Category:Medieval French architects to Category:Medieval architects, since Metz (if that is were Odo came from, supposedly) did not become French any earlier than in the 16th century, until then Metz belonged to the Holy Roman Empire, and both France and HRE did not exist yet in the 8th century anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: we have sources for his work on the Germigny church in 806–811; doesn't that suffice? – Fayenatic London 07:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Okay I won't insist, although I can't find any online confirmation about it (while all online sources mention Theodulf of Orleans as the sponsor). However I would expect that the second source (about the Soviet Union) is a mistake. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I copied the citation from the Germigny article, where it is placed at the end of the sentence that includes the dates, but perhaps it only confirms Odo's Armenian origin. Let's ask the editor who inserted it, see [1]. (That whole sentence was originally added with just the Ching citation, see [2].) @Nocturnal781: do you still have access to The complete guide to the Soviet Union, or might you remember what relevant facts were stated in it? – Fayenatic London 20:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead change

PCC556, your edit here does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia's policies:

1. Use of a research article citing a newly-introduced commentary about Odo's doubtful Armenian origin: Having read the article, it's very interesting, makes some good points. But while it's academic research, it's speculative. In the face of all the accepted scholarly works describing Odo as "Armenian", or "possibly", or "probably Armenian", one can't then say in wikivoice: "Oh, Odo might have been from Armenia, and it's all based on this one article"
2. From this one source, PCC556 has then gone on to base a large point about his putative Armenian origin – in the lead – as if it comes solely from this missing Latin stone inscription (that Yevadian's article discusses). Belief in Odo's Armenian origin certainly does not come from just from this missing inscribed stone (found between 1965 and 1968). The belief arose for a variety of reasons, particularly Odo's architectural style, and existed long before the 1960s!

These approaches are not suitable for an encyclopaedic article. They amount to using primary sourcing (because the article is original research making a novel point) as support for a crucial aspect of the Wikipedia article; and the edit strays into both original research and synthesis. Please try reading the Wikipedia guidance on these points at WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS.

I'm not saying Odo is Armenian. The point PCC556 made is valid. But it belongs as discussion in the body – not the lead. And it needs to be accurate:

1. "no evidence of the inscription has been found yet" is not true. The whole article PCC556 cited discusses the evidence! It just not conclusive evidence
2. "He could have been of armenian origin based on an alleged latin inscription" – Again, that's not what the belief is "based" on.

I have restored the article's lead to its earlier state, but if PCC556 would like to incorporate a discussion of why Odo is only considered possibly Armenian and the uncertainty, may I suggest they ask for views or assistance here on the talk page? Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The article I referenced doesn’t claim that Odo's Armenian origins are directly based on architectural similarities with Armenian designs. Instead, it acknowledges that while Armenian architecture of that time shared similarities with Odo's work, so did Byzantine and Georgian architecture, as all these regions were under Byzantine influence. Here’s a translated excerpt from the article: "We came to the conclusion that Armenian architectural tradition could have influenced the style of both churches, although there is no conclusive evidence to prove that Odo was of Armenian origin. Similar buildings were constructed in other countries by Georgian, Byzantine, and even Holy Land architects." So your reasons to eliminate any reference to the scholarship that doubts Odo's armenian origins seem don't make sense. On the other hand the article makes it clear that the only direct evidence that points to Odo being armenian is the alleged inscription that hasn't been confirmed. Also where does the cited article or any source claim that Odo's armenian origins were already discussed before the inscription was found? PCC556 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

1. PCC556 wrote: "The article I referenced doesn't claim that Odo's Armenian origins are directly based on architectural similarities with Armenian designs." Agreed. I do not refer to any such claim in that journal article, so why do you state this as a reply to me? The translation you supply is an echo of other architectural scholarship. What is your point?
2. My so-called "reasons to eliminate any reference to the scholarship that doubts Odo's armenian origins seem don't make sense" are non-existent. Please go back and read these parts of my post above

• A): "if PCC556 would like to incorporate a discussion of why Odo is only considered possibly Armenian and the uncertainty"
• B): "... not saying Odo is Armenian. The point PCC556 made is valid. But it belongs as discussion in the body – not the lead. And it needs to be accurate..." [emphasis added]

AukusRuckus (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Deleted source, language text and script, dates

And PCC556, why on earth was it neccessary to delete this material from the lead:

"(Armenian: Օտոն Մացաեցի; Latin: Oton Matsaetsi; 742–814)"

including a source? Why? I have restored this, too. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

PCC556 you've been reverted by three separate editors, You're adding a statement to the lead that's not an accurate reflection of the rest of the article. The majority of the RS call him Armenian. Furthermore you've been restoring your preferred content with inaccurate edit summaries. Golikom (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Armenian script

Could we please have a discussion about deleting the Armenian script?

I do not see that it should be (even if there is low-to-nil evidence that he was Armenian.) He is quite widely reported as such, so it would seem appropriate to keep it, as being useful to readers. And as long as the actual evidence is reported, its utility for readers is surely the main thing, no? The article – now – is very clear that there is really zero evidence of Odo's origin, but still reports several quite respectable sources saying he was (also "probably" and "possibly" was).

And, the Latin – it's used all the time in sources. After all, topic is related both to church history / late antiquity, so that's a given! But both went ...

I'm restoring, pending discussion. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

1) His Armenian ancestry is not well-established, but even if it was: 2) He did not write in Armenian to our knowledge. 3) The Armenian spelling of his name is not attested in medieval sources. So how exactly is it "useful" to readers? ----Երևանցի ^talk 13:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. It is spoken of, especially in Armenian (which I don't read, I'm not Armenian, nor anything like) or Armenian-linked sources, so I just thought if people who do know (some) Armenian can see the Armenian name in the WP article, that's useful to them, even if it's only to tally the two together! I guess I don't have a really well-developed argument, after all - much like Odo's putative Armenian origin.

As for 1) I know: I've just spent the better part of a week or so researching and sourcing that! And putting it into the article. All the explicit info here about "no good evidence" is there because I put it in, so you're preaching to the choir.And to tell the truth, I really just wanted to avoid more edit warring from a different set of users, which I know will come. (And I know that's not a good argument!)

But we must keep the Latin ... AukusRuckus (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of them reading it in modern sources, though ... surely that's useful, if attested in those? Because it's mediaeval a subject of late antiquity, only things present in the primary sources are useful to know? Can that be right? Maybe, but that doesn't sound right to me: A version of a name or term, etc, not used at the time, cannot be useful to modern readers? Hmm ...

Much more convincing to me is Golikom's point that it seems to be OR / unsourced (which I had not cottoned-on to). AukusRuckus (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any value to it, it's pretty obvious OR, and looking at the Armenian Alphabet page it appearss to contain letters not even added to the Armenian alphabet until 4-500 years after his death.

The whoel first source looks a little suspect - the author is clearly part of the Armenian diaspora in France now discussed later in the article. - both the Armenian transliteration of his name and the putative dates assigned to him smell a bit funky to me. Golikom (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that it not being in use in his time is, by itself, a reason not to keep it. I'm thinking of people needing or wanting to know the versions they may encounter, whatever language. And whether he's Armenian or not, the Armenian version will be encountered!

However, I take your point: if it's not well-sourced, it should not stay. I wish I'd known the dtes were doubtful. I hadn't realised. I'm sure I saw dates somewhere in my recent reading - but I can't go back over all that now to find it again. Now that you come to mention it, how could there be really firm dates, with no documentary evidence? ... Strange are the ways of historians of antiquity and the Middle Ages. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The dates are given in Guréghian. But I think the should be removed. The dates were added without a source when the article is created - they're repeated across the internet but that looks like citogenesis, and as Guréghian was published in 2020 I think there's a significant chance his dates, also without any indication of sources, are drawn from here Golikom (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Also I remembered 742-814 are the dates for Charlemagne (742 a and alternative birth year - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#cite_note-birth-1) - that's almost certainly where this has come from Golikom (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting through that, Golikom; I think you're right. Can we please put the Latin back though? That does appear in a contemporaneous source (the recorded inscription in Charlemagne's Vita), and later. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Golikom. I've decided to proceed with restoring the Latin version of Odo. It looks well attested. Also adding floriut dates in lieu of the unattested birth and death years. Let me know if you see any problems. Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree on the Latin - but do you have other sources? I can only find a couple of google scholar for example and they don't look good - it also doesn't align with the actual inscription in Latin very well at all and Matsaetsi looks like dog Latin, and tellingly it's a direct match with the English transliteration of the made up Armenian name that was removed.

I agree on the principle of fl. but what's the basis of the particular dates you chose? Golikom (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)