Talk:Clan Napier

message: My Dear Lee Napier 
It amuses me that you have so promptly removed my explanation of the etymology of the surname Napier. I assure you that it is correct! You have neither the knowledge nor the understanding of the subject to judge my submission! In time, when you cool off and reread what was written you may gain further understanding.
If you chose to run from the truth then feel free to do so, I will not pursue you. The world is full of surprises. All people live in a little fairyland world of their own, they are happy there.
Regards.
--Antone1 (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The assumption that the name Napier is either french or polish is not a new assumption, and while there is documented evidence that the name is of scottish extraction, there has never been any evidence proffered of french or polish extraction.  I assure you this is a very old debate, with which I am quite familiar.  Should you be able to provide some proper citation to support your claim to a polish etymology of the name, then by all means return your assertion to the article.  As it was, it represents original research and as such has no place in the article. - LeeNapier (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Anthony, I think LeeNapier would like some references to back up the etymology you suggest. Follow that link he posted for Wikipedia's definition of 'original research'. Maybe you have access to a French or Polish book that you can quote from? Unless you can find something credible that says what you suggest, i think the 'fact'—however 'obvious' it is—is still considered 'original research' here on Wikipedia.--Celtus (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Look at this link: Ancestry.com, citing Dictionary of American Family Names has the Scottish name as an occupational name for a naperer. The name is also a shortened form of the Polish Napieral or a similar name. No mention of the 17th century 'Na peer' story. The Polish etymology doesn't mean the Scottish family can or do derive their name from a Polish name, just that some Napiers in fact do.--Celtus (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Observation

message: After all the trouble I went to explain my analysis it seems I am totally misunderstood. The work could well be described as original research, unfortunately it appears I’m then only man living with this sort of knowledge. The earlier article I have written has already answered most of the issues you bring to bear in the later posts! The article I have written is not a casual opinion but rigorous argument and needs to be studied, unfortunately.
With respect to references I have looked at etymological dictionaries and they just don’t address the issue. See above. I have stressed that the link to a Pole is obvious, on a casual basis! However if there are other facts which are plausible they must be considered.
You mean to tell me that the Nae Peer story is a tall story, I am shocked! I’m looking for hard data and facts! The reason I’m using the discussion pages is because there isn’t consensus on the matter, I don’t like thrusting my views onto people if they disagree. I seek to resolve the matter by consensus. When I wrote my first post it was promptly deleted as nonsense. Yet these new posts support my original stand?
In order to resolve these interesting matters we need to approach the matter thoroughly. I have looked at four factors:
1	I have dismissed the napkin theory as trivial as a basis to naming a mighty warrior! Of course if the mighty warrior is fiction..?? I personally prefer the mighty warrior version.
2	I have shown that the Nae Peer basis can in fact be rendered as Napier by standard linguistic methods, I call them ‘laws of convolution’. It’s plausible linguistically but is it historically true? It has a suitably glorious basis.
3	Thirdly I have accepted the proposition that there was no Polish ancestor. Now you tell me that you expect there is? This is of course the easiest explanation. If there is no Polish ancestor then a reason for the “apparent Polish usage” needs to be found. Eg Nae Peer.
4	Fourthly there is this “John Napier of >>> Rusky <<<, the 3rd Laird of Merchiston was killed”. This RUSKY is a Slovonic link. Where did that come from??
I hope this makes things a little clearer. I find this debate and the subject fascinating. Czar Brodie (I cant help it, but are you a Pole, Czar means Charm in Polish???) am I surrounded by Poles pretending to be Scots, do I blame Bonnie Prince Charlie?
The question I have is what stand does LeeNapier say since he challenged me in the first place?
--Antone1 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I still say the same thing - your work, however fascinating it may be, is original research and has no place in the article.  Unless you can cite a reference from which you draw your assertion, it's original research. - LeeNapier (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, the "Rusky" thing you keep hitting on... John Napier of Rusky came from the area of Loch Rusky, which, rendered in the original Gaelic, was "Loch an Rusgaidh" or Loch of the Peeling.   This has nothing at all to do with Russia or Poland.  Gaelic is an entirely different language than Polish or Slovonic, and although similarities may exist, one cannot infer connection.  Correlation does not equal causation. - LeeNapier (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Napier etymology cont