Talk:Scottish clan/Archive 2

Collapse of the Clan System

This section does not seem to reflect the view of most historians. This may be because it relies on a single source (so I have added the appropriate template to the section). I would particularly recommend Clanship to Crofters War by T M Devine as a potential source. Here (and in other relatively recent work by other respected historians) you would find the view that the decline of the Scottish Clan was a lengthy, gradual process. Among other elements, Divine looks at the economic reasons for change. The growth in cattle droving was a major driver in bringing the Highlands into the cash economy (though, to complicate the story. there was legislation that also limited the payment of rent in kind).

Early influencers in the process, such as the Statues of Iona should be discussed (they are only mentioned as a link in the article). The section should certainly step away from suggesting that the 45 rebellion was the major event in the demise of clanship. If the rebellion had never happened, the same collapse would have happened - perhaps a little more slowly, and certainly with less distress.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you can not point to just one date or one incident that marked the decline in the Clan system as it was a combination of factors from the rise in power of the Crown and the Union of the Crowns, the defeat of the Lords of the Isles, the economics of sheep over crafters and the military loses of the dynastic conflicts that all combined with the continued push to Anglicise all of Scotland, that created The Clearances as well as the fall of the clan system in Scotland. It is well worth a page on it's own as it is far to complex to add as a small sidenote here. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly the point - it was a complex, slow, evolutionary process. Whether or not there is a separate article, this one should steer clear of the simplistic "persecution after the Jacobite rebellion destroyed the clan system". An interesting point is that the demise of the tacksman was a major component in the demise of the clan system. (The reference is Devine, Clanship to Crofters War, page 34.) It is probably not a politically acceptable thought for some people who are passionate about Scottish History, that the clan was destroyed by (among other things) the loss of its middle classes; it is well argued by Devine and others, and makes sense when the economic role of the tacksman is taken into account.

I would have thought that there was room to cover this adequately in this article - it is not overlong at present. If a separate article is needed, it might be wiser to expand that into the collapse of clanship and Gaelic culture. That would then extend into the loss of the language (paradoxically, to the modern mind, driven by the ambition of 19th century parents wanting their children taught in English - because that was the language of work. This, again, is discussed in Clanship to Crofters War. And it is probably not an acceptable idea to those whose sources are the poorer quality "souvenir shop" books on Scottish history.) (I should add that my own views on suppression of Gaelic in schools are modified by the work-colleague I once had who started school only able to speak Gaelic and left only able to speak English. I clearly need to be careful on retaining NPOV.)

I have been trying to cover this subject in Highland Clearances, but getting improvements safely installed in that article is a bit like swimming in treacle. By way of respite, I may apply some thought to this article - but I would want to finish reading all the major source material first - particularly Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788 by Allan I Macinnes, which is often cited and seems important and well argued from what I have read so far. I don't know if you have any sources to recommend?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

As you might of guessed from my name, of the Morrison of Lewis; that narrative of "persecution after the Jacobite rebellion destroyed the clan system" does not work very well as they were destroyed by the new found power of the Scottish King when he gained the English Crown as well and began the final push to bring the Lords of the Isle to heel. I can't remember if the Letter of Fire and Sword was ordered in the early 1600s and the McKenzies were happy to oblige. By the early 1700s, Clan Morrison was a shadow if it's former strength and few in numbers left in Scotland as most were shipped off as brigands to the colonies. There is also major factor of the Anglicisation of the country which started as the Angles of Northumberland pushed north and the later establishment of the shire system in the lowlands, this of course gained momentum after the Jacobite wars, but it did not start there. I say all this only to reinforce that depending on where you were and what religious views you held meant a great deal to how quickly the old ways were dismantled as it was not uniform across Scotland. Then you had the fact that even in the colonies, parts of the Clan system still endured, from the Grants in Ontario raising militia by the 'crann-tara/fiery cross' in 1820[1], to the feuding of the Hatfield and McCoy; the old ways still continued. Think of it more like the tribal nature we currently see in parts of South Asia and the Middle East, it was very complicated and it is not easy to unravel. Best to cut it into smaller slices and reference back and forth between them, starting with some of the easier piece to dissect like economic shifts from cattle to sheep, or the shifting politics, or the Anglocisation of the Scottish court in the 1400s until Union; something like that and build these parts into a larger and more complete picture. As for ready material, I will have to give that more thought as you are dealing with a time-frame from the 1400s, through the 1800s. It has been years since I researched this subject, but the University of Glasgow has some fine scholars on the subject.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

On getting sight of the cited source for much of this section, it is clear that the article does not fully reflect the content of that source. Way of Plean (as the source is referred to in the text - but there is a confusing muddle on the referencing, see below) makes clear that the commercialisation of the position of clan chief had an "insidious contribution to the demise of clanship". This important aspect has been completely ignored in using this source. Furthermore, other historians give slightly more prominence to this part of the story.

The referencing of the source with the ISBN 0-00-470547-5 is a complete muddle. The references talk about "Way of Plean; Squire (1994)", but the bibliography does not even list George Way as the author. Furthermore, some of the content is written by additional contributors, such as Prof Allan Macinnes. It needs a lot of sorting out.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have sorted out the Bibliography error.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure if it is possible, with this referencing method, to identify a contributor who is not an author, as pages 13 to 20 of the Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia are written by Macinnes, who is listed as a contributor on page 9. That would be relevant if the views of other historians were incorporated in the article. I am used to using something like:
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Clan MacDonald of Clanranald spelling incongruency

The Clan MacDonald of Clanranald is spelled correctly on Uist but the sequence and the spelling for the area between Salen and Glenfinnan is not right.

ICE77 (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not of any great significance. It is still obvious which clan it is.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, spelling and order is significant. You say MacLeod of Harris and not Harris MacLeod.

ICE77 (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but in the case of the Clan MacDonald of Clan Ranald, most historical sources will refer to them simply as Clan Ranald or even Clanranald. Your example above of MacLeod of Harris is also different in that Harris is a geographic location where as Ranald refers to the clan's progenitor. The title Clan MacDonald of Clan Ranald is the official name of the Clan but it is a modern prefix. I don't think anyone should have any difficulty in understanding the map how it is now. If you want to change it then that doesn't bother me, but we need to preserve the other existing names on it. There are also some notable omissions that need to be added too. Clan Boyd for example. QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Further to my previous reply above, I have added the clans Boyd and Murray of Aberscross to the map. The latter although not having a chief in modern times did once have a chief with a coat of arms, as with several of the clans already on the map. If you want to change the title of Clan Ranald MacDonald then you will have to do it yourself.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You stated that "Clan MacDonald of Clan Ranald is the official name of the Clan". If that is the case, the map should use that name and not two variations of the same clan name. Also, if the above is the official name of the clan the Clan Macdonald of Clanranald article should be entitled in the same way and list variations.

ICE77 (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Improvements to the clan map

I believe the map of the clans can be improved and here are some comments.

1. For the vast majority of cases the map does not use the word "clan" (Sutherland or Sinclair are proper examples). It's understood that the map is for clans so using "clan" is intentionally redundant (Clan Chattan is an example of redundancy). Redundancy is unnecessary.

2. Some clans like Maclean are spelled in such a way to split the name of the clan and show as "MAC LEAN". This should be avoided since it's a single word.

3. Some clans like Mackintosh or Campbell wrap around the name of the clan on two lines. This should be avoided. The map has plenty of space and text can be moved or the font can be reduced.

4. "Clan Donald "STH" and "NTH" are not proper names of clans. This should be avoided because it's not proper and because it is confusing (especially to peoples whose native language is not English - it took me a while to realize what NTH and STH meant until I saw both).

5. Bullets for a few major cities like Inverness would be appropriate.

6. It would be nice if the map spelled names of clans properly according to the official standard showing clans like Mackenzie rather than MACKENZIE.

ICE77 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, problems with variants in English spelling of some of the names is a distraction. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If anyone wants to go ahead and adjust the spelling and grammar of the names on the map then that is fine by me. However, in terms of the placing son the map I think the way it is now is pretty accurate. There maybe some more clans to add, particularly those in the Lowlands.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A clan map can only be accurate at one moment in time. It is not clear when that moment is for this map. Which century are we in here? Shipsview (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I was assuming the 1600s by the placement of the clans, I may be wrong. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think the most accurate clan map that has been produced is the "Scotland of Old" that was produced in the early 1980's by Sir Iain Moncreiffe the Albany Herald. However, there are three known versions of this map which I should warn of before going any further. The original produced in the 1980's which gives not just clan names but geographic settlements as well as wider geographic regions, as well as details of castles. If you are lucky you can still buy from new a slightly smaller version of this map in which some of the more specific details have been made so small that it is almost unreadable. The third version which is available on ebay/amazon only includes the clan names and does not include any of the geographic or castle details, and is not of much use when doing research. Anyway, the original version states on it "The lands coloured for each name indicate general spheres of influence usually about the time of King James VI but taking the history of each distinct family as a whole". Now I note that it says "general spheres of influence" but taking in "general history of each ...as a whole". Taking an obvious example the Isle of Lewis is given as being territory of the Clan MacLeod of Lewis (with the Morrisons shown in small print), although any clan historian will know that it was conquered by the Mackenzies in the 17th century. But "generally" speaking, when you talk of the clans whose territory was on the Isle of Lewis you would say the MacLeods and not the Mackenzies. So although it is impossible to have a perfect clan map because the territories often changed, you can have an accurate map of general spheres of influence.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing like being on the receiving end of a 'Letter of Fire and Sword' to shift the power structure and start clans to moving. The relative stability of the clans from the 1200s through the 1500s was broken as the King took control of England and thus was able to crush others in Scotland and secure more fully the power to govern unto himself. From the 1600s through the 1800s, you see massive shifts in the population across Scotland as many are displaced with the loses of the Lords of the Isles and the Jacobite risings, any maps after 1600 will not give as good of an historical understanding of where the clans started before the massive changes that were to come. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with C. W. Gilmore that variations in spelling on the map are distracting. Regarding the "optimal" map, let's stick to the current map which is not bad and settle down for the "general areas of influence" or maybe make 2 or 3 maps with snapshots in time like 1600s, 1700s and 1800s. However, I think we could focus on doing some cleaning first (items 1 through 6).

ICE77 (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Indo-European argument

The edit summary: "The page is about an Ethno-Cultural topic within the indo-European cultural group" demonstrates that the arguments for including this are particularly weak. Since Indo-European languages are by far the most predominant class, this label could be applied to most ethnic and social groups - but would this make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? I don't think so - as it would be overloaded with excessive information that would divert the reader away from the main points of the article. There are very many other articles that would, if the arguments in this edit summary are correct, also be brought in under this topic - but, again, what value would that have?

I really think we need some clear and logical arguments, with examples of how Wikipedia handles this in a number of other similar articles, rather than brief edit summaries that are testing the boundaries of edit-warring.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Celtic people, language and cultures are part of the Indo-European Ethno-Cultural group, as is virtually every other culture in Europe. That is not "excessive" fact, it is simply fact. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

In looking for how this is handled elsewhere: Welsh language and Welsh people are articles that have an appropriate mention of their relationship to the Indo-european group of languages, but neither have the highly prominent Indo-European topic banner installed at the beginning of the article. The same applies with German language and Germans, though the latter article does not mention any Indo-European relevance. This situation applies to French language and France. It seems that one could trawl through Wikipedia and struggle to find any currently existing group of people who have had this topic banner prominently inserted in their article - I am not saying there isn't one - but it seems hard to find.

So if that is what is happening elsewhere in Wikipedia, you have got to come up with some compelling arguments why this article should be different. Is there some particular aspect of Scottish Clans that makes them different? Given that this article is not solely about Highland Clans, but includes, for instance, those from the Borders, there is no unifying ethnic bond between all persons who are in a Scottish Clan. Nor is there, or ever has been, a bond of these various clans all speaking Gaelic. The logical argument is that this article has less relevance to the Indo-European topic than many other articles that might possibly have some reason for displaying the topic, but do not. Scottish Clans collectively are not an ethnic or linguistic group - they are a method of social organisation. If you wish to start spreading the Indo-European topic box across Wikipedia, I suggest that there are many more appropriate places to do it than here - though I would probably still question that. At most, I think a mention (when appropriate) in the See Also section may be needed in some cases (but not here).
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A Scottish clan is not an ethnic group? That is a ludicrous assertion. The are a social group that people are born into, therefore by definition ethnic. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, let's have another go at explaining this to you. If you compare the Mackenzies, Gaelic speakers from a Celtic dynasty, with a Border clan like the Armstrongs, whose leaders (and most of their members) were Anglo-Danish and who never spoke Gaelic - there is no unifying ethnic bond between these two clans. The thing that they have in common is their method of social organisation and the difficulty that Scottish kings have had in controlling their activities. There is no overall ethnic commonality across Scottish clans. One might add, perhaps controversially to many people, that the ethnicity of clan leaders was not always the same as the clan members - there are suggestions that the rulers of some clans had Anglo-Norman heritage, whilst the clansmen did not. In later years, the heads of clans in the Highlands have not been able to speak Gaelic, whilst their people did (for instance the first Duchess of Sutherland).

From your attack on a point that I did not explain well, I presume that you have no further arguments to support your position.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You have not provided any argument other than your own unsubstantiated POV. Scottish Clans are an inherent element of traditional culture in Scotland. The origin of the individual clans is irrelevant to this fact. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The various points of substantiation to the above are:
Info on Mackenzies and Armstrongs: Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia (reference used in this article)
For some detail on the workings of clans - see Clanship to Crofters' War by T M Devine and Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart by Allan Macinnes.
For confirmation that the Duchess of Sutherland spoke no Gaelic see Set Adrift Upon the World: the Sutherland Clearances by James Hunter.
For the points of information about other articles in Wikipedia - I think you can look these all up for yourself.
I still wait to see any of your reasons for selecting this article for application of this topic box, beyond the simple point that people who are members of Scottish clans speak an Indo-European language (in common with more than 40% of the world population) - and, I would add that, particularly historically, this has not necessarily been the same language for all people who are members of a Scottish clan of one sort or another.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the Indo-European application is because that is what it is. You've offered no basis for declaring it to be otherwise. As for your Mackenzie/Armstrong (et al.) argument; it is fascinating, but still irrelevant to the issue at hand. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There are two main points:
WP:DUE states (in part) "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to .... prominence of placement...". I presume that you agree that the topic box that you restored had a prominent position in the article. Whilst you have presented an argument that the subject is relevant to Indo-European studies (with which I do not agree), there seems to be no rational argument that the relationship between this article and Indo-European studies is so important that the it is the most obvious thing at the start of the article. It is quite easy to find other topic relationships that are much more important - yet your repeated reverts suggest that you believe otherwise. You seem to be confused between (a) the fact that there is a (in my view, tenuous) link between this article and Indo-European studies and (b) the overall importance of that link to the article.

Secondly, I am not the editor who started trying to remove the topic box. That immediately says that there are 2 editors who do not think the Indo-European topic box is a good idea. I appreciate that we are dealing with small numbers, but any immediate search for a consensus would presumably go against you.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am the editor who started trying to remove the Indo-European box. It is completely irrelevant to this subject and does not belong here. Mediatech has tried arguing that this Indo-European thing is language related, but this article is not a language article. It is also mis-leading to say that Scottish clans are in someway connected with India. We have consensus of two to one.QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Section "Lowland Clans"

Virtually all of this section relies on something posted on electricscotland by someone who appears to have no particular credentials in the subject. As any editor can find out for themselves, if you write something that sounds vaguely plausible, electricscotland will post it on their site. Given that there are other sources that discuss Lowland clans, that the existence of Lowland clans appears to be generally accepted, and that this section seems to imply that this might not be the case, I don't think this section adds anything to the article. It certainly is not supported by a WP:RS. Unless I have missed the point, the section, as written, should be deleted.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, what you're saying is that the existence of Lowland clans is generally accepted and that there are other sources that support this. Agreed on that. You then say that the paragraph in question says that that might not be the case. It does not say that and does in fact support the existence of Lowland clans. So I don't see what you are getting at. If anything this section should be expanded for further clarification that yes Lowland clans existed but most of them were not part of the Gaelic culture like the were in the Highlands. QuintusPetillius.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The section says "It has been argued that this vague phrase describes Border families as clans."

It also says "The idea that Highlanders should be listed as clans while the Lowlanders should be termed as families was merely a 19th-century convention" - Both suggest that there is some degree of argument over whether or not Lowland clans can be called clans. I know the conclusion is that they can, but it is misleading to suggest that there is any sort of debate on the matter.

Then look at the quality of the reference (which provides the vast bulk of the problem text). electricscotland is a commercial blog. They will include any material that they think might get people reading the site, so that they have statistics to impress their advertisers. This is a very long way from a WP:RS. Do you know who Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Bt is? What are his qualifications as an authority on this subject? Did electricscotland verify that their contributor actually is Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Bt? (Though that does not matter if he is not an authority on the subject.) When I have previously complained to electricscotland about the accuracy of their content, they said (a) they don't check historical material and (b) they asked if I would like to contribute to their site - and they have no idea who I am or what I know. So, in short, the cited source is of such low quality that we should regard this section as being un-referenced.

If you wanted evidence that Lowland clans existed, you could go to the commonly used reference for this article, Way and Squire, Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia. Or you could even look to the map in the article, which is sourced from The Scottish Clans & Their Tartans, W. & A.K. Johnston, 1939.

I just fail to see why some text from a dodgy source, introducing a random quote from Scottish legislation and a list of some of the Lowland clans - together with the suggestion that we might start calling "clans" "families" - why this adds anything to the article. I am not saying that the article should not have a section on Lowland clans - it just needs to say something more informative, sensible and accurate than what is there right now.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no, there is a lot of debate within the clan communities on whether or not Lowlanders lived in clans. The way some Lowland clan associations have it is that the term "clan" is only used to describe their modern association or society, and that back in the middle ages/early modern period they were Lowland families, unlike the Highland clans. So I think it is important that here on Wikipedia we cover the fact that there is a lot of debate out there over this issue. The writer of the Electric Scotland article, Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw, is the chief of the Lowland Clan Agnew. Who better to put to bed the long held debate on this subject than the chief of a Lowland Scottish clan ? He is also a Scottish herald. QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the background. But I also think that your explanation here on the talk page is clearer than the relevant part of the article (obviously it could not be transferred as is). However, I do stand by the concerns I have over electricscotland. The best you can say about them is that, as a source, it is something of a Curate's egg (in the more modern sense). It is unfortunate that there is not an additional source.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The chief of Clan Agnew is not a dodgy source. A clan chief is someone who can be given some credence on the subject, especially as he is a Lowland chief and also a Scottish herald. Quoting historic legislation is also exactly what it is all about and adds strong evidence to the point being made. QuintusPetillius.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the reference should say "Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw in electricscotland" - that would give a clue that the editor had identified reputability by virtue of the author, whatever the quality of the publication he had appeared in. Just a thought....
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a matter of modern semantics. If 'clan' just means a 'family' then any Scottish family can claim to be a clan. But if it is used in its original sense it can only refer to Highland tribes. The 'problem' is that in the early 19th century Scottish history was 'disneyfied' by Walter Scott and others. Scottishness and particularly 'Highlandness' became hugely fashionable - everyone jumped on the bandwagon, and kilts, bagpipes, celtishness and clans which were once only associated with the Highlands are now claimed by all Scots as their 'heritage' - however erroneous that might be in historical reality. Well-known 'Clans' such as Bruce' Stuart' 'Douglas' are in fact Anglo-Norman families and not clans in the original sense. Indeed these families and many more are not even 'Scottish' in the original historical sense which once only referred to the Highlands or Scot-land - after which the mostly Anglic (rather than Celtic) kingdom was eventually, if misleadingly, named. It's a complicated story. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.57.163 (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Crests and badges

1. Crests and badges do not have a formal definition. They should.

2. "However, the badges attributed to clans today can be completely unsuitable for even modern clan gatherings." Why?

ICE77 (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Scots or Irish Illustrated?

The woodcut which is described as showing Scottish soldiers in Stettin in 1631 is a subject of debate.

The original inscription in High-German reads: In solchem Habit Gehen die 800 In Stettin angekommen Irrländer oder Irren. (In such clothing the 800 Irishman or Irish arrived in Stettin).

Scottish Lowlanders referred to Highlanders as 'Irish' at this time. So it may be that is what it means. But on the other hand the 'Scottish' mercenary army included English, Welsh and Irish recruits - so who can be sure See: See Scottish Mercenaries in Denamrk and Sweden http://theses.gla.ac.uk/941/1/1973fallonphd.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.57.163 (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)