Talk:Otto the Great/Archive 1

message: This article needs a separate, detailed section of family information. Otto had two wives and at least nine children. --Michael K. Smith 03:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsorted text 

message: The "Bambergian knight" is not a statue of Otto the Great, maybe it doesn´t depict a historical person at all. 
Perhaps it is Kaiser Henry II who was a generous maecen of Bamberg, but since the statue was created in the 13th century it neither can´t claim similarity with the person Henry who died 200 years earlier. -- User:Alfred E. Neander
:Absolutely. Srnec 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Picture 

message: I am Deutche-illiterate, so I cannot understand the legend on the inserted map without a translation. Can anyone help? It would make my European History thesis a bit less complicated. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoggedtruth (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the map 

message: That sentence in the intro is totally useless and needless... How is he arguably the first Holy Roman Emperor, when, without argument, it is accepted that Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Empire, I think the comment needs to be deleted or revised...
:It is not 'without argument' accepted that Charlemagne is the first 'Holy Roman Emperor' - the Frankish empire was a very different institution to the Empire Otto ruled over. Michael  Sanders 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sanders is absolutely right about this.  The Holy Roman Empire grew out of the East Frankonian Empire which in turn was one of three realms into which Charlemagne's empire had been divided within two generations after his death.Cosal (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a doubt, Charlemagne was "Roman Emperor", too, just as Otto. Charlemagne wasn't "king of Germany" or make it "king of the Eastern Franks". The Empire grown out of East Francia wasn't called "Holy Roman Empire" until the 12th century and none of the Emperors called themselves "holy roman emperor". I'm not sure if that'S a title that is actually used in English. In German it is not. You could say Otto was the first Roman-German emperor. That's what it's mostly called in modern German literature.--MacX85 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguably the first Holy Roman Emperor??? 

message: "Otto I was related to every other king of Germany." In which case, so was every other king of Germany! It's unclear what this is meant to convey.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.218.162 (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  German relations 

message: Moving some content here for safekeeping:
*Although never Emperor, Otto's father Henry I the Fowler is considered the founder of the Ottonian dynasty. The Ottonians would rule Germany (later the Holy Roman Empire) for over a century from 919 until 1024. Henry's actions in consolidating power in Germany allowed Otto to expand his authority into southern and central Europe. Otto's youngest son, Otto II, would succeed his father as Emperor. After a ten year reign, Otto II was succeeded by his son Otto III, Otto's grandson. Though reigning for nineteen years, much of this time was under various regents. When Otto III died suddenly, he was succeeded by Henry II, Otto I's great-nephew. Henry II reigned for twenty-two years. Following his death, the Ottonian dynasty came to an end. Dominion over the Empire went to the Salian dynasty, which did have family ties to the Ottonians by marriage.
==> Most, if not all of this information is better suited for Ottonian dynasty itself or already covered in the remaining article (Henry's influence on Otto's policy is covered in detail in several sections). To limit article length, content needs to be directly related to Otto I himself and as notable as possible. GermanJoe (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope - family and children 

message: With the vast improvements throughout the last year based on the German translation and the content being quite stable at the moment, i have submitted the article for a round of GOCE checking and polishing. Some sections may need a little more trimming and some more sources, but i believe the article is already in good shape. GermanJoe (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy edit completed as of 20 January 2013. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 05:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing 

message: On first glance i was tempted to remove this well-intended addition as solely based on a discouraged, subjective, WP:PRIMARY source (Widukind of Corvey). On second thought maybe the section could be kept, if the article clearly mentions this fact, treats the description as simple quote and provides a reliable secondary source for the translation. What do other editors think? GermanJoe (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For articles on this period, we shouldn't be using Primary sources in this way; they typically require extensive interpretation. If reliable secondary sources (e.g. modern historians on Otto I, of which there are plenty) regard the description and assessment as reliable, then we should be citing thesee secondary sources. Without such a secondary source, I'd be strongly against keeping it as a simple quote: it misleads the casual reader into believing it is accurate (why else would it be prominently placed in an an encyclopaedia article?) when that may very well not be the case. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually didn't consider casual readers - good point. While this is no formal RfC, i'll remove (Done) the problematic section soon (if nobody objects). GermanJoe (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Appearance and character" - [[WP:PRIMARY]] issue? 

message: Boldly transformed all references to citation format (other references will follow later). I am aware, some editors dislike templates for various reasons and sometimes they can cause minor issues. However for further improvements and hopefully growing reference lists templates are the better method (imo). By the way, if other editors have sources for lacking sections, i'd appreciate any additional citations. GermanJoe (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As a fyi for interested editors, I am currently focusing on German-language sources for reference improvements (as they apparently provide a more detailed narrative about Otto's life). If anyone has access to modern English sources of similar detail, please feel free to exchange some German refs. GermanJoe (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Wasn't the title 'Holy Roman Emperor' only applied retrospectively? The page on the Holy Roman Empire says: "The term sacrum ("holy," in the sense of "consecrated") in connection with the medieval Roman Empire was used beginning in 1157, under Frederick I Barbarossa ("Holy Empire") -- the term was added to reflect Frederick's ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy; the form "Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward." 105.228.157.203 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (belated response) I have added a brief footnote to clarify this slightly confusing but common usage and also added a brief clarification to the section about his coronation. GermanJoe (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   August Emperor of the Romans 

message: As written on the page of Harald Bluetooth, the story of his conversion is in dispute between accounts given by Widukind of Corvey and Adam of Bremen, with historians leaning towards Widukind. Yet this article only mentions the account of Adam (Under the section "Northern Slavic Wars"). Would it be permissible to rewrite this to mention the dispute?
Nukleon (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While the current version was the most likely one (imo), I have removed that detail as too disputed. The Harold sub-article lists 3 different versions for the conversion. Explaining the background of every single possibility would be far too much detail for this article, and can be checked in the Harold article by interested readers. GermanJoe (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion and Conversion of Denmark 

message: Is Otto I a Roman Catholic monarch or not?  I am tired of seeing the category coming and going every day.  I honestly do not know, so please give your honest opinion and reference it to see if we can put this item to rest.  
Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term `roman catholic´ or even `catholic´ connected to early-medieval issues is always a difficult one. The eastern-church (orthodoxy) used that `katholika´ to describe its religion at first. roman-catholic is more a confessional term for theologists and not a descriptional expression for monarchial claims.--139.30.128.38 (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  To answer the original question (from 2008, just saying): Otto I was a follower of a religion, which developed over time and is today best known as "Roman Catholic". For a summary, encyclopedic article the term's usage is fine. To add more historical nuance would just blow up the article with secondary information and confuse the average reader. Also this change of terminology is already covered in the religious sub-articles for interested readers. GermanJoe (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reverted the latest IP (dynamic unfortunately) changes to the long-standing version (here and in all related rulers' articles), pending possible further discussion. The Great Schism was part of a process, which had already stated long before the schism actually happened. "Eastern" and "Western" Christianity were already clearly distinguished earlier, while still forming a theoretical unity. Please discuss sweeping changes beforehand. GermanJoe (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic Monarch category 

message: Inaccurate map as the first Polish Kings and later Dukes of Silesia all paid tribute to the HRE. 86.165.191.30 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely not always in the early 11th century (before the first Polish kings obviously), considering the worsened relations between the two realms since Henry II became king (German–Polish War (1002–18)). The maps are certainly not ideal and simplify some political nuances, but they show a general geographical overview of the involved territories. It doesn't help map-making, that the situation in the border region changed several times in the late 10th and early 11th century (borders shifted, marches got re-organized, etc.). An experienced map-maker with a few months of spare time would be helpful of course :). GermanJoe (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate map