Talk:David Soslan

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to alanica

Abaev's article on Soslan's origins (and the website hosting it in general) pretty clearly takes sides, so it is better to insert the link in the passage which deals with the controversy itself. Furthermore, the Tsarazon theory is already mentioned in the text, which intentionally follows the sources about David and theories about his origins in a chronological sequence to avoid giving one of them preference over others. Mentioning Tsarazon theory twice, plus within the lead sentence and adding the phrase "would have belonged" clearly gives preference to one of these theories. --Kober^Talk 15:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So. How can you explain your deletion of ossetic language? --Bouron (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you please provide any Ossetian spelling of his name from the contemporary sources? I'm restoring it, but still waiting for your version. The 20th-century modification of the Cyrillic script next to the name of the 12th-century Georgian general looks pretty much ridiculous. As for the rest of your changes, you will have first to address the concerns raised above step by step. "There is nothing controversial" is not an argument. You should provide your own arguments and explain why you are upholding a grammatically flawed, purely constructed, POVish and not properly sourced edition. --Kober^Talk 11:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bagratid origin

For many years it was accepted without question that Tamar's descendants were male-line Bagratids because her consort David Soslan was alleged to be a Bagratid. Those myths were debunked decades ago and it's long since been clarified that we don't know his patriline or even precise kinship with Tamar. Wikipedia articles on the Bagrationi, like this one, have recently been seeing re-insertion of the myth back into documented history, ignoring the lack of authoritative sources and ignoring or soft-peddling the now prevalent doubt that Soslan's male-line ancestry can be traced to the Bagrationi dynasty. It is worse than a grave disservice to Wikipedia, its readership and the dynasty itself to revive this speculation (which is often also used to buttress the claim that the Bagrationi are the "oldest" dynasty in Europe, ignoring the lineages of both the Capetian dynasty and the Irish royal families). Strong, reputable, unambiguous sources are needed to make any assertions about David Soslan's ancestry, and authors who challenge his Bagratid origin must be given due prominence alongside other theories. FactStraight (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but that version has never been fully "discredited". It's disputed, but not fully rejected. It has been dominant for centuries and enjoys some currency even today. So, I see no reason to remove the chart once it is properly attributed and sourced. I'm from being a supporter of this version, but still it does have a place in this article. --Kober^Talk 16:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Soslan. 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/20110727024231/http://www.alanica.ru/article/18.htm to http://www.alanica.ru/article/18.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)