Talk:Roy

message: is ROY a caste? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.197.2 (talk • contribs) 
Roy is not a caste, but rather a conferred title of honour in India. During colonial rule by the British Raj, titles such as "Ray" were conferred and "Roy" was also used. As a family name among Europeans, it is a hereditary surname dating back to the Normans, of Normandy, France.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.6.44 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

message: 1. The Norman people and their existing descendants in the British dominions and the United States of America. Genealogical Pub Co. 1874. p. 301 & 384. ISBN 9780806306360. for the surname of "King" and "Roy".
2. Encyclopædia Britannica
*The first source is from the library of Oxford University. Curious as to why a claim of "unreliable" source is even uttered. Subjective opinion is not academic and thus removal of this source is unwarranted. You do not supersede or supplant this ACADEMIC source.
(remove irrelevancies)
*Usage of surname in the modern era is not an irrelevance. It gives historical context and current language usage in the modern era. It demonstrates origin of word.
(delete plagiarized sentence)
* Definition of plagiarism : Plagiarism is taking credit for someone else's writing as your own, including their language and ideas, without providing adequate credit.
Information was cited very clearly and linked to proper references and credited. Thus, this is not plagiarism and is sourced.
:That an academic library holds a copy of a source does not make it an 'academic source'.  The Norman People was anonymously self-published (i.e. the publisher did not play the role of independent editor, they they just published whatever the author paid to have them print), and the author was nothing but a diletant.  As to the Britannica reference, it is a reliable source, but has nothing to do with the surname Roy - it is about the Normans, which need not be described.  Likewise that recent legal English happens to use a phrase that contains the word Roy is not really relevant as it has nothing to do with the development of the surname. And it is indeed plagiarism to appropriate the exact text of a source, even when cited, if no attempt is made to show it is a direct quote.  (and this is not solved by the addition of quotation marks - a direct quote is only appropriate when the precise words of the source are critical.  If it is the concept you are conveying, which is the case here, then it must be paraphrased.  To top it off, the cited source describes the Ray surname, not the Roy surname, so it is not only plagiarized, it is taking text about one surname and presenting it as if it referred to a different surname.  This is outright fraud.
:All this aside, the article cannot stand in its old form.  We cannot say that Roy is a Norman surname, when it is also a Scottish surname and also an Indian surname.  A surname with multiple independent origins should be presented as having multiple independent origins, rather than stating it has ones specific origin, then immediately contradicting this by giving two other origins. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources for The Norman People being untrustworthy have been given at Talk:Hewitson.  THe Normans brought the Norman language to England, they did not bring the surname to England.  To take a quote directly from a page about the Ray surname and pretend that it applies to the Roy surname is a clearcut example of fraudulent citation.  It takes pretty extreme mental gymnastics to conclude that an Indian with the surname Roy is actually a bearer of a Norman surname. Agricolae (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of cited information 

message: Couple of links to check records of French immigrants into North America, demonstrating that Roy (formerly Le Roy) as pertaining to the French word was established in France already and not a derivative of roi. Instead, the article "le" was dropped and thus Roy derived from Le Roy.
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Roy-1390
Check Sources: Dictionnaire généalogique des familles acadiennes
L'Académie française a adopté l'orthographe « roi » en 1740
"The French Academy adopted the spelling "roi" in 1740"
http://www.academie-francaise.fr/essai-dun-portrait-du-roy  
( Article written Le 25 juin 1711) Showing Roy still in use.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.129.97 (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikitree is a self-published non-reliable source (WP:RS).  The French Academie article does not say anything about the etymology of either the word or the surname.  The fact that the Academie adopted a preferred spelling in 1740 says nothing about the origin of that spelling.  That being said, removal of any reference to the surname in the Francophone world hardly satisfies your complaint - did you consider fixing it rather than deleting it? Agricolae (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roy & Le Roy 

message: Unless someone can give me a good reason why a page about people named Roy should completely ignore a number of people named Roy Anderson, I will be putting back reference to the Roy Anderson disambiguation page. Agricolae (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it spans multiple categories, it would need to go in the see also section. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this really serving the readers, hiding this name at the bottom of the page? Agricolae (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: The claim here that "[i]n Anglo-Norman England, the name derived from the Norman roy, meaning 'king'" is contradicted by the following source:  Glades12 (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a little bit tricky to deal with, due to the way our page groups use as a given name and use as a surname.  Our source for the Norman origin is a surname dictionary, and is describing its use as a surname long before the Swedish source attributes its first use as a Swedish given name.  Also it appears to be specific to its use in Sweden and Finland - it puts the first use in 1881, when I can find it in England by the 1590s, in France by 1603, and in the US by the late 1600s, all in people with surnames not suggesting the Gaelic origin attributed by the Swedish source.  In short, I don't think a Swedish-specific source for usage as a given name in Sweden overrides a sourced use as a surname, or even as a given name, in other places and times. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Glades12 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman origin