Talk:Clan MacTavish

message: I do not under the deletion problem.  This my first time to enter information into Wikipedia.  The information has been given information as to the sources.  This information refers to the origination of an ancient Clan and how it came about.  The connected names are on the official web site, which is authorized by the Chief.  The web site link is given.  What are you looking for that decides whether the history of a Clan is important or not?  I'd like to leave this information here, but I do need some help.  Thank you.  Patricia Adams, Clan MacTavish Genealogist (e-mail address removed)
*Deletion is not a problem here.  We have a group of volunteers who look at new pages for vandalism, personal attacks, stubs (like "Jimmy is the cutest guy") and so forth, and mark them for deletion.  Sometimes a good article that is just getting off the ground gets tagged, and usually the tag gets cleared as a mistake, as it was here.  You should look at some other clan articles and read Your first article to get some help with formatting.  Also, there is a list of clans at Scottish clans that includes MacTavish; you should link that list to this article. Good luck and have fun. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Deletion Discussion

message: I needed to remove the FAQ until I know you understand and acknowledge the implications of the wikipedia content license, the Gnu Free Documentation License or GFDL.  Essentially, it means that anything you write here may be altered by anyone else as long as the history of changes is kept and attributed to whoever made them.  Anything you put here can also be taken out and used by any other site that respects and follows the GFDL.  For one thing, that means you can't have anything labeled with a contradictory copyright tag, as you did.  Second, it means you have no more control over the material once posted than any other editor here (e.g. you have no special rights or privileges just because you wrote it originally).  If you understand the implications of the GFDL and agree to have your content licensed that way, you can put the FAQ back without the copyright notices.
A second issue is that the FAQ may not be considered appropriately "encyclopedic" by other editors.  It might be neccessary to emend and rewrite it so that the essentials are there but in a more encyclpedic tone and style.  However, that is something that will occur over time as the article develops.  I just wanted to give you a heads up since I was on the subject of the FAQ anyway. Cheers. Thatcher131 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted FAQ 

message: ===Jacobite Army/Highland Army===
First of all it should be reffered to as the Jacobite Army. The 'Highland Army' is incorrect, firstly the majority of 'Highland' clans actually took the side of the government although they may not have all fought in a major battle. Also the Jacobite Army which was mostly made from Highlanders did include many Lowlanders too.
===Campbell Argyll===
Much of this article seems to be someone having a personal dig at Clan Campbell for taking the side of the British government. Well I could make a massive list of Highland clans who sided with their government. In fact this article seems to have more about the Clan Campbell than the Clan MacTavish. mjgm84 19:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Inaccuracies

message: Much of this article seems to be someone having a personal dig at Clan Campbell for taking the side of the British government. Well I could make a massive list of Highland clans who sided with their government. In fact this article seems to have more about the Clan Campbell than the Clan MacTavish. mjgm84 19:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Campbell Argyll

message: As can be seen from the content of some of the sites in the external links there is some major disharmony within the ranks of Clan MacTavish.  At least one of the links accuses the Chief of lying - should such links be retained?.  --Heraldic (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely some disharmony. I have a feeling that it is starting to creep into the article - see this edit piping the "Clan MacTavish Official Web Site" link from clanmactavish.org to mactavish.org which is actually the Dunardry Heritage Association site. I cleaned up the links so atleast don't have misleading titles. Well, i think the Dunardry Heritage Association link ought to remain, because it is relevant to Clan MacTavish, the organisation had been officially associated with the clan - so its not like the website was made with the sole purpose to attack the current chief. I'm not so sure about clanthompson.org, truemactavish.com, and garthbeg.com though, should they stay or go? Links aren't supposed to be used to promote websites - WP:External Links.--Celtus (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would bin # Clan MacTavish The True Story & # Clan Thompson Society links.  The former seems more concerned with the strife and the latter is not really relevant to the article. My two penny worth. --Heraldic (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, makes sense.--Celtus (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, User:Schvenky removed the link, along with garthbeg.com. Anyways, external links don't have to be officially linked to the topic of the article. It just matters if they are relevant and if they would be an interest to readers.--Celtus (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Clan Feuding & External Links 

message: 92.2.23.212 has made just two edits at Wiki both on this article.  Apart from the lack of sources I am concerned by the tone of the edits.  "not Tom as the uninformed would have you believe" is not the in keeping with an encyclopaedic entry.  Edit or delete 92.2.23.212's contributions?  --Heraldic (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that User:92.2.23.212 either got his information from, or has something to do with this website clanmactavishintl.com. Notice it mentions the graveslab of "Thamhais", and "Thamhais Mhor, son of Gilisbeag O'Dubhne" (the spelling alone gives it away: google the curiously spelt "Thamhais mhor" and "Gilisbeag O'Dubhne" which the editor added into the article, and notice the few websites which come up truemactavish, gartbeg, and clanmactavishintl). And surprise clanmactavishintl.com seems to be yet another website with a grief against the current MacTavish chief and the Clan MacTavish organisation. I think User:92.2.23.212 is knowingly or unknowingly adding more "alternate history" of the clan. I'm going to leave a note on the user's talkpage and encourage him to provide references. This article desperately needs a firm reliable, third-party, published reference Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'd support undoing those edits for now.--Celtus (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have undone the two edits by User:92.2.23.212 pending sources.  --Heraldic (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 92.2.23.212 

message: I edited out some derogatory text last evening that is mainly a rehash of what was previously edited out and seen as internal feuding. It also contained some derogatory remarks.  There was also a reference to a Clan Thompson Society, which seems to be the offshot of the Dunardry Heritage Association after they abandoned supporting Clan MacTavish.  If this new Clan Thompson wants their own Widkipedia page then they should establish it. I do however find that in the historical context there is no clan Thompson ever known. There was an old border clan of the name THOMSON, which did not use the P, mentioned is the Scots Parliamentary papers. I would therefore consider this Clan Thompson Society would to be a ruse, and something that should not be allowed. This however is up to the administrators. The Garthbeg Forum or Stratherrick McTavish family links also appraoch the Clan MacTavish in a deragatory tone.  This page should be left to the Clan MacTvish as it stands historically. The Garthbeg or Stratherrick McTavishes were related to the Dunardry MacTavish Clan, but are considered a sept of the Frasers, not of Clan MacTavish. The infuding is really not that at all, but appears to be a sept of another clan with the same name trying to insert their influence qwhere it does not belong. Jonones  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonones (talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  internal clan feuding and promotional text  

message: There is a story that Mactavishes fought a battle against the English where their chief was mortally wounded. As the English and Hessian troops moved up to bayonet the wounded including the dying chief, at each attempt a Mactavish threw themselves in the way and got bayoneted instead. Each time it was a case of "Another for Mactavish", which became the clan motto. AT Kunene (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another for Mactavish 

message: Lachlan MacTavish's financial difficulties leading to the sale of Dunardry 1785 have been glossed over, particularly with the claim that the building of the Crinan Canal led to a fall in rental income. Construction of the canal did not start until nine years after the sale. It is a canard that has been repeated on several websites since, which is a pity since prime sources in archives draw a more historically accurate and interesting picture - a scandalous attempt by Dugald MacTavish of Dunardry and Patrick Campbell of Knap to appropriate money that James Campbell of Kaims [d.1758] had left in Jamaica, intending it for the use of his nieces and grand nieces. The man who prevented this happening wrote, in 1768, "Dunardry's behaviour on this occasion has made me detest him"State Library, Sydney, New South Wales, Letter Books of Duncan Campbell, Duncan Campbell to John Campbell of Salt Spring, Jamaica, 9 December 1768.. Years of subsequent litigation had a profound effect on the finances of Dunardry and Knap.Dicko.p (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sale of Dunardry