Talk:Otto I, Count of Duras

renaming will probably eventually be needed

Problem with the name is that one of the main authorities, Baerten, has said the county of Duras probably did not exist in this generation. Contemporary records call him either just a count, a count of Loon (though his brother was apparently "the" count of Loon) and/or advocate of the Abbey of St Truiden. It is not known if the castle of Duras even existed in his lifetime. On the other hand a 14th century history from the abbey calls him a count of Duras. Problem with calling him "Count of Loon" would be that there is also an earlier uncertain Otto who was described as a count of Loon. So what to call him? "Count Otto, advocate of St Truiden Abbey"??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Before worrying about the name, the first sentence in the article needs to be converted to something resembling English. (If I wrote this sentence, then I apologize.) As usual, I don't know the subtleties on the transition of a territory into a county, but why would you regard Jean Baerten as a main authority? As I read it, he was a high school teacher. I don't read Dutch, but I assume his thesis said that the county of Duras didn't exist in the 11th century. Do his references support this, and do historians agree? As to the title, if it's "Count Otto....", then what was he a count of? If it's just "advocate of..." then maybe the article should be deleted. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, No Baerten was a university professor, although indeed much of his most well-known work was published during the periods around the time when he finished his Doctoral thesis in the 1960s. He argued that the county evolved from a very old one which even existed in 870. However, the actual name "Duras" is not found in any records before the 12th century, so his argument is a bit complex and indeed some parts have not had much confirmation from other historians. (But other parts have.) I have not really explained it in much detail here, but there is a bit more on County of Duras. Maybe have a look there first? Maybe it helps to mention that

• One part of Baerten's proposal is that Otto was in effect a count of Duras, except that it was not yet called Duras.
• He was certainly called a count.
• The advocacy he held IS a fairly notable subject, that is frequently discussed in journals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I know better than to try to win an argument with you, but will point out that elsewhere in Wikipedia, Emmo is referred to as one of the first Counts of Loon, as opposed to the current statement "an ancestor of the Counts Loon," leaving unsaid the odd phrasing of "the Counts Loon." As to Baerten, what I can see is that he taught at the Royal Atheneum Koekelberg (a high school) and later at the Free University of Brussels. Hardly a noted historian, he doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article in any language. His work alone (which sounds like an opinion) doesn't seem like sufficient justification to inject doubt into the article. I didn't mean to imply that the title of advocate was not important, just that there are no Wikipedia articles named X, Advocate of Y. If I had a vote, I'd leave the title as Otto, Count of Loon and explain the controversy in the main body. Count Otto of Loon sounds too much like a character from a romance novel. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Counts Loon" sounds like a typo. Sorry.
• Concerning Baerten, I understand what you're saying. The thing is that he IS cited constantly for Loon and Duras (and almost nothing else). So in other words for many points there is no counter argument against him that we can cite, unless we cite older sources (which I have in fact done in some cases). I presume this situation will change over time, but for now I have no simple solution.
• I also get your point on advocates. I do NOT propose putting advocate in the article title, even though he was an important example of an advocate. He was one of the first subadvocates, and one of the only subadvocates to be a noble (Count). (Martin Clauss, Die Untervogtei: Studien zur Stellvertretung in der Kirchenvogtei im Rahmen der deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts .)
• Concerning the name, I once again don't have a brilliant solution. I hereby ping @Srnec: who often seems to make good suggestions. I suppose many people would call him Otto, Count of Duras like we have now though, partly because of Baerten, and it might be the best solution for now. (He was not called Count of Duras, but his county would get a name change, according to Baerten.)
• Just out of interest, what point of concern do you have with Baerten? I ask because I might know another source for that point, or there might be some kind of misunderstanding. I know this topic fairly well. Also, do you read French? He worked in both languages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me the current title is okay. He was a count and the first of the line of counts of Duras. The title is an anachronism, but that can be explained in the article. "Holy Roman Emperor" was never a title and that doesn't stop us. Although I myself wouldn't have a problem with Otto (advocate of Sint-Truiden). Srnec (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear we are all happy to stay with the current name. (My original post was in 2019.) The "I" is needed in this case because of the grandson of the same name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)