579:
but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject...The existence of a 'hook' in a given article is not a good reason to 'hang' irrelevant and biased material there." Here, the "hook" is the role of the biblical origin in
Georgian history, while the undue weight is in implying that this myth is of substantial enough current importance to deserve so much ink in the history of a deposed dynasty in a monarchy abolished more than 200 years ago. So the problem isn't that the article tries to make the myth sound "factual" (I apologise if I gave you that impression), but that it makes that aspect of the dynasty sound more important in reporting Georgian history than is warranted in a 21st century encyclopedia's coverage. Everything that happened in Georgia is part of its history, but not everything deserves maximum coverage. I agree that the legend and its role in Georgian history are notable -- just not notable enough for a separate article. The key points should be condensed and scaled so that they don't skew the emphasis of the
345:
the other hand, the first portion which consists of articles on kings of Judah and Israel, and is clearly sources from the Bible, soes not really belong here. I am sure that we have better articles on that period. However, the rest of it should be retained with a certain amount of introductory commentary, explaining the sources and indicating that the dynasty claimed descent from one of the last kings of Judah.
578:
I respectfully disagree that the article is fine as long as there is nothing in it "that makes this myth look like the reality". A coatrack is, by definition, not explicit -- and may be unintentional. A coatrack is defined as "a
Knowledge (XXG) article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject,
344:
from the 8th century. However, it is a legend that was no doubt long believed by the ruling family in later periods. There is an equivalent invented descent for the royal family of Wessex. I think the answer is that even if the descent is only legendary (and improbable), it is still notable. On
564:
The myth is still notable and once helped the dynasty to gain the foothold. The books cited in the article have entire chapters dedicated to the legendary genealogy of the dynasty. UNDUE/COAT are not the problems here as the text, including the intro, clearly states the
Davidic origin is legendary
670:. If someone wants to allege that the sources are being misrepresented I may change my vote, but as is this looks to the untrained eye like a meticulous article on an obscure legend of history; nothing wrong with that, and certainly there's enough material to be separate from the dynasty page.
541:
I had noted the changes. The problem is not whether or not plentiful sources can be found discussing the biblical origin of the
Bagrationi, but rather because that legend has been completely debunked (except, you say, to some members of the Bagrationi family!) it belongs to the nearly universal
170:
482:. I've moved my text to the main space. Comments and suggestions are welcome. "Biblical claim of the Bagrationi dynasty" is a very vague title. The title should make it clear that the article deals with the alleged/claimed/mythic/legendary genealogy. --
261:
396:
565:
and enjoys no currency in modern scholarship. Please reread the article. It just discusses the evolution of the myth and its treatment by modern scholars. How come this article glorifies the
Bagrationi? This is the article about the
531:
I don't think that merge is a good option now, when it has been converted to a full-length and balanced article, with a lot of good sources. Please note that The
Emperor's New Spy had voiced his opinion before I revised the article.
440:
375:
96:
91:
100:
83:
512:
as stand-alone article today, implicitly lending the legend a currency and prominence it has lost since remaining unconfirmed by post-Soviet, dynastic genealogy. No objection, however, to the present title of the article.
569:, which is definitely notable. Can you please cite any passage in this article that makes this myth look like the reality or otherwise "glorifying" the dynasty? If you cannot, then I'm afraid your rationale is flawed. --
164:
87:
277:
130:
542:
category of other myths alleging that historical dynasties descend from gods, and as such should be covered in the main article on the dynasty as an historical fabrication. Otherwise,
79:
71:
550:
which purports to explain mistaking a falsehood for truth for half a millenium, while glorifying the
Bagrationi by dwelling in the present on past myths about the family. Merge it.
297:
123:
185:
152:
317:
679:
652:
630:
617:
592:
573:
559:
536:
522:
486:
474:
456:
422:
354:
329:
309:
289:
268:
256:. I do think that the article needs some major reworking, addition of a lede, and a better title. It is certainly expandable; the sources abound (e.g., works by
244:
214:
65:
146:
142:
192:
452:. I will add sources as time permits. Comments and suggestions are welcome. And please think of a better title if the article survives. --
409:. It's important information, but I don't think it merits it's own article. We should just find a way to fit the information in the main
158:
17:
252:. This is not a theory, but a family legend which originated back in the 8th century. However, it is not only "notable", but it is
436:
392:
371:
698:
40:
501:
432:
388:
367:
227:
is. It's perfectly sourced and it is not a "non-notable" theory. Again you're confusing the family tree with the
228:
350:
622:
Merge with what? Is it really possible to merge such a huge text with any other article without violating
588:
555:
518:
418:
694:
36:
648:
613:
210:
178:
675:
636:
608:. The article has been sufficiently expanded, but the topic doesn't warrant a page of its own.
580:
449:
428:
410:
363:
346:
232:
224:
202:
639:, of course. And that isn't an argument for not merging: it's an argument for trimming it down
623:
543:
509:
584:
551:
514:
414:
325:
305:
285:
60:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
693:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
547:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
470:
240:
644:
609:
257:
206:
341:
671:
321:
301:
281:
231:. This is a claim which was maintained by the Georgian monarchs and royalty of the
54:
117:
466:
236:
627:
570:
533:
483:
453:
265:
505:
583:
article, and incorporated therein. And I note that most here concur.
546:
is given to the fable. The expansion makes it read even more like a
366:. Not sufficient information to stand alone as its own article.--
687:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
340:-- This is a difficult issue. The subject is the equivalent of
264:) and should be added. These shortcomings should be addressed.--
431:
instead of family tree or else it takes up too much space.--
52:. Merge discussions can proceed through normal channels.
465:
What about "Biblical claim of the
Bagrationi dynasty"?
113:
109:
105:
80:
Claim of the biblical descent of the
Bagrationi dynasty
72:
Claim of the biblical descent of the
Bagrationi dynasty
278:
list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions
177:
260:and Stephen H. Rapp to name a few. See also a more
191:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
701:). No further edits should be made to this page.
604:. I'm moving my recommendation from delete to
8:
316:Note: This debate has been included in the
298:list of History-related deletion discussions
296:Note: This debate has been included in the
276:Note: This debate has been included in the
201:Non-notable theory as to the descent of the
318:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
315:
295:
275:
223:. I'd advise you to get aware what the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
429:Genealogy of Jesus#Luke’s genealogy
427:Also try using the format used for
387:Changing vote because of changes.--
24:
448:. I'm developing the article in
1:
504:: interesting as historical
718:
690:Please do not modify it.
680:22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
653:20:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
631:14:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
618:13:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
593:20:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
574:11:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
560:08:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
537:05:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
523:01:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
487:14:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
475:07:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
457:21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
441:10:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
423:01:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
397:15:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
376:22:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
355:16:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
330:00:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
310:00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
290:00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
229:Family tree of the Bible
66:20:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
269:16:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
245:16:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
215:16:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
502:The Emperor's New Spy
433:The Emperor's New Spy
389:The Emperor's New Spy
368:The Emperor's New Spy
235:almost 1500 years.
637:Bagrationi dynasty
581:Bagrationi dynasty
411:Bagrationi dynasty
364:Bagrationi dynasty
233:Bagrationi dynasty
225:Bagrationi dynasty
203:Bagrationi dynasty
48:The result was
405:I'm going to say
338:Improve but Purge
332:
312:
292:
709:
692:
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
34:
717:
716:
712:
711:
710:
708:
707:
706:
705:
699:deletion review
688:
360:Merge or delete
258:Cyril Toumanoff
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
715:
713:
704:
703:
683:
682:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
526:
525:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
460:
459:
443:
425:
402:
401:
400:
399:
379:
378:
362:-- Merge with
357:
334:
333:
313:
293:
272:
271:
247:
199:
198:
135:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
714:
702:
700:
696:
691:
685:
684:
681:
677:
673:
669:
666:
665:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:
632:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
600:
594:
590:
586:
582:
577:
576:
575:
572:
568:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
540:
539:
538:
535:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
520:
516:
511:
508:but would be
507:
503:
499:
496:
495:
488:
485:
481:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
461:
458:
455:
451:
447:
444:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
398:
394:
390:
386:
383:
382:
381:
380:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
358:
356:
352:
348:
347:Peterkingiron
343:
339:
336:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
314:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
273:
270:
267:
263:
262:recent source
259:
255:
251:
248:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
62:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
689:
686:
667:
640:
605:
601:
585:FactStraight
566:
552:FactStraight
544:undue weight
515:FactStraight
510:undue weight
497:
479:
450:my userspace
445:
415:I Feel Tired
406:
384:
359:
337:
253:
249:
220:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
59:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
165:free images
645:G S Palmer
643:merging.
610:G S Palmer
207:G S Palmer
695:talk page
413:article.
322:• Gene93k
302:• Gene93k
282:• Gene93k
37:talk page
697:or in a
672:SnowFire
624:WP:UNDUE
548:coatrack
124:View log
39:or in a
602:Comment
480:Comment
446:Comment
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
55:postdlf
506:lacuna
500:, per
467:Jaqeli
254:famous
237:Jaqeli
143:Google
101:delete
635:With
628:Kober
606:Merge
571:Kober
534:Kober
498:Merge
484:Kober
454:Kober
407:Merge
342:WP:OR
266:Kober
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
676:talk
668:Keep
649:talk
641:then
626:? --
614:talk
589:talk
567:myth
556:talk
519:talk
471:talk
437:talk
419:talk
393:talk
385:Keep
372:talk
351:talk
326:talk
306:talk
286:talk
250:Keep
241:talk
221:Keep
211:talk
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
61:talk
50:keep
193:TWL
122:– (
678:)
651:)
616:)
591:)
558:)
532:--
521:)
473:)
439:)
421:)
395:)
374:)
353:)
328:)
320:.
308:)
300:.
288:)
280:.
243:)
213:)
205:.
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
674:(
647:(
612:(
587:(
554:(
517:(
469:(
435:(
417:(
391:(
370:(
349:(
324:(
304:(
284:(
239:(
209:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.