Talk:Odo of Metz

Category
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)
 * we have sources for his work on the Germigny church in 806–811; doesn't that suffice? – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 . (That whole sentence was originally added with just the Ching citation, see .) 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  L ondon 20:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead change
PCC556, your edit here does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia's policies: 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.
 * 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  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  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!

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

Deleted source, language text and script, dates
And PCC556, why on earth was it neccessary to delete this material from the lead: including a source? Why? I have restored this, too. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)