Talk:Clan Davidson

message: Tulloch Castle is now a hotel. Hasn't been associated with Davidsons for years. The reference must of came from the above mentioned old book written back in the early 1900's.
The current chief lives in New Zealand and some mention should be made. 
petedavo 07:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: editing needed

message: The image :File:Davo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Davo.png

message: I've just added more detail on the Davidson owners to the Tulloch Castle article but I don't know if they were all regarded as Clan Chiefs at the time. Opera hat (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davidsons of Tulloch 

message: IP User: 24.188.32.225 clearly does not understand the rules of Wikipedia. He/She is removing already well sourced information and replacing it with information that is unsourced. The user is also adding his/her own opinion to the article. This is starting an edit war and the IP user is the one not playing by the rules.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have advised the IP user on his/hers talk page to see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
The so called sourced information is sourced from garbage. The bottom line is the information is wrong, and it doesn't matter what the rules are when someone is posting blatantly false information and then justifying this slanderous and false information because it has a source. Vandalism is continuing to insist in posting false information when you've been told it is false. And again, I couldn't care less about the rules, it has nothing to do with understanding them, it has to do with posting lies and continuing to do so. You've basically made this page completely useless to anyone who wants to know the true history of Clan Davidson and for that, you are about as low as one can go. This page is now a fairy tale with no basis in fact and what comes around goes around my little friend.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.225 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

text: We are still not getting anywhere are we ? LEARN HOW TO CITE A SOURCE. But also be aware that the MS 1467 as interpreted by Skene might not be considered reliable either. See the MS 1467 page where it details criticism of Skene's work on the MS 1467.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Hey, you're welcome to add anything as long as its reliably sourced all you have to do to cite the most simple reference is to add this without the brackets and the space between < and r: (< ref>) and then at the end of the source add this without the brackets, again without the space between < and /: (< /ref>). If you're citing from a book state author's name, surname first, name of the book and the page number. That will do. As for the DNA thing I have looked at the Davidson DNA project here: Most of the participants have the R1B halo group which is found throughout western Europe and despite what people think is not necessarily a sign that you are celtic or gaelic. There are some others that have the halo group R1A which is found mostly in north-west Europe, in the Scandinavian countries - and some people have suggested that this may be a sign of Viking ancestry, but nothing is certain.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I can only find one instance where the Davidsons are mentioned in Celtic Scotland. In volume 3, page 315, he states: "The eight septs who then formed the Clan Chattan proper were the Clan Vuirich or MacPhersons, and the Clan Day or Davidsons who were called the old Chattan, and six stranger septs, who took protection from the clan".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Skene's transcription and translation of MS 1467 appears in Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis. On the bottom of page 50 starts the Clan Chattan pedigree. No mention of the Davidsons. The pedigree that Skene gives in Celtic Scotland for Clan Chattan appears in volume 3, pages 478-479. No mention of the Davidsons. Not a mention of anyone named David.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Hi Brianann MacAmhlaidh, Thanks for pointing out that MS 1467 does not mention the Davidsons, I was going to mention it myself. It seems as though the IP user is referring to the information in MS 1467 for the Clan Chattan, which cannot be used for the Clan Davidson themselves. Firstly it is non-sourced specific. And anyone who knows the Chattan history will know that there was once a separate Clan Chattan before the confederation of clans that includes the Davidsons.
That's fine for a Norman, but not for a Pict descendant. YDNA does NOT change, other than str mutations in the number of repeats. As further evidence, there is now an established DNA link between Davidson, Shaw, Smith and Mac Kay members. The Comyns were ENEMIES of Clan Chattan, Robert de Bruce KILLED a Comyn, and Clan Chattan FULLY supported Robert de Bruce. Please use your heads and stop with the Norman/Comyn crap for my Clan, it's slanderous and just stupid to persist in posting blatantly false information regardless of it having a source. There is NOTHING proving any validity of that source but much more information that does prove our Celtic/Pictish origin. Stop being pigheaded and go mess with some other clans if that is how you get your enjoyment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.225 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Again I don't think you quite understand what Wikipedia is about - reflecting what your sources say. In regards to the history of Clan Chattan or the Chattan Confederation there were in fact feuds between its own members. Reflecting what the sources say the Davidsons and Macphersons did not like each other because the Davidsons had the Comyn connection and the Macphersons had helped Bruce in defeating the Comyns. I am just going by whats stated in the sources. According to Brianann MacAmhlaidh above, there is little mention of the Davidsons in Skene's Celtic Scotland so I will have to check that out as well. And lets also remember not all of the clans that formed the Chattan Confederation were related, and those that were, were not always related through the male (Y) line. As for your DNA results, if you can provide a source to back up your theory for the clan as a whole then maybe we could use it in the article. Noting also that not everyone in a Scottish clan was related even if they had the same surname. Not everyone was related to the chief, even if they shared his surname.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Also I would be interested to know if the a representative of the Davidson's chief's family has been Y-DNA tested, going on the fact that not all clan members were descended from the chief.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I am jumping into the deep water of this a bit late in the day. First off I think I have managed to edit the article in a way that suits both positions. Now to MS 1467, I think we can not use this as source as it is a primary source, hence we must use sources that interpret this text. Secondly it does mention David on verso (Daibidh [or Daibith]) but this per my interpretation is irrelevant. Skene interpreted this text (whether or not he listed David in the appendix genealogies), so we can use his interpretations as a source. Sure Skene had criticism, but all historian have their critics, this in my view is not a reason to reject a source. Also I think we should note that the article was, prior to my edits, almost relying solely on Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia. Other sources are needed and Skene would be a good counter balance. Also note that Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia is written in a way that links all clans to surnames and shields. This is creating conflict with clans (notably those in the highlands) that believe their tradition and history goes beyond and dates prior to names and shields. Much of old clan tradition is based (proudly) on myth, descent from mystic kings, legends etc and I think some modern text fail to appreciate the importance of this within the clan structure. For example the Encyclopedia notes the name of the clan was Clan Dhai (Clan Day as given by Skene) and tries to explain this by justifying the name change to a prescription of Cumming (was it proscribed? Can anybody confirm this?). Dubious in my view, names of clans sometimes had little to do with surnames prior to 1400 (e.g Clan Vuirich (Clan MacPherson), Clan Revan (Clan Macqueen)). Pushing the names with clans and shields seems to be following a modern trend to link the office of the Lord Lyon King of Arms as authority of clans (who is an authority on "Name and Arms". Given the position of  those who wrote the book there could be construed an agenda. This organization of the clans under the Lord Lyon is welcome by many clans, given that there is (contrary to what some think) absolutely no official modern recognition of clans, and  especially welcomed by clans who need to find their chief or have just found one. Squires work is fantastic and the source is very good, only I think we should be aware that it tries to standardize the clans and organize them in ways that alienate some. What I have said here is my opinion, and of course original research and can not be mentioned, but what I think we can do is balance the articles with sources that say different things, even if (and especially if) they contradict each other. I deplore IP User: 24.188.32.225 rudeness and think he has failed to respect sources but I think he or she did act in good faith and has a point. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism by IP user: 24.188.32.225

message: Here's what looks like a good book: Alison Cathcart's 2006 Kinship and Clientage: Highland Clanship, 1451-1609 published by Brill. It's focused on the Grants of Freuchy and Clan Chattan . It's a continuation of her 2001 PhD thesis (Patterns of Kinship and Clanship: the Mackintoshes and Clan Chattan, 1291-1609). On page 80 of her book, she mentions the Davidsons in the context of fosterage: "". For this statement she cites: "". Fraser-Mackintosh's book is viewable online, and pages 123-125 cover the Davidson-Comyn origin . Although Fraser-Mackintosh's book is over a century old, since Cathcart uses it as a source we ought to be able to use it in the same context without any problems. From searching Google, it looks like her book's got good reviews in a couple academic journals: The Innes Review ("".) , and in the The Journal of British Studies . So Cathcart's book seems like a good academic source for Clan Chattan, and Fraser-Mackintosh's book looks like it should be okay as a source for the origins of the Davidsons.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Brill is an academic press. Moreover, it's a non-vanity academic press. (By contrast there are some outfits that will recycle any doctoral dissertation.) I am not a historian, but your description of the book makes it sound good. I note that the book currently most cited for this article is written by a couple of people who, according to blurbs at Amazon, are not historians but instead antiquarians and/or heraldr-- um, whatever's the appropriate derivative of "heraldry" for a human. -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to the main source for this article the Scottish Clan Encyclopedia, it is more than an acceptable source as far as Wikipedia guidelines dictate. In regards to who wrote the book. I have a copy and in the small list of contributors, is included: Allan Macinnes Professor in History and Head of Department, History and Economic History Department, University of Aberdeen. Also included is Kathleen B. Cory FSA (Scot) - Professional Genealogist. The other people listed have mainly been used for the other part of the book which is about the Heraldry. I think you should really do some research into the subject matter before you start nit-picking. As for the IP user, he or she is constantly breaking the rules of Wiki by removing sourced information and also replacing it with non sourced information. He/she is also becoming abusive which is not allowed either. I have tried explaining to the IP user that if he/she can come up with any source at all to back up his/hers claims then we could possibly include some of the information. But so far the only source that the IP user has given has been found to include absolutely nothing to back up the information that the IP user would like in the article.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I completely agree with you about the IP. Thus the block I gave him. The Scottish Clan Encyclopedia may indeed be good; certainly material sourced to it should not be removed from the article unless there is good reason, and neither the "original research" nor [let me think of some appropriately mystical term for this nonsense] the "blood knowledge" of any contributor need be considered, let alone taken as superior to material in such a published book. I'm glad to hear that a historian is among the contributors to relevant bits of this encyclopedia. But I'm happy to hear of a relevant book from a company that has the stature of (even though it is not) a university press. -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thank you very much for the ban you have administered. He/she was abusive on my talk page. But I am more concerned about the article content. There are nearly always books published about individual clans which could come in useful. I'll see if I can find one for the Clan Davidson. The subject of Scottish clan could seem quite bizarre to someone who is not familiar with it. Thus I have tried hard to explain it on Wikipedia in way that might make sense to someone who is unfamiliar with it. The Scottish clan article is always linked in to the article about any individual clan and I hope that helps to make sense of the subject.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a block, not a ban. (Yes, there's a difference.) ¶ The Scottish clan article is indeed good (as far as I am competent to judge); it's the ancillary articles that tend to worry me when I come across them. Take Clan Gregor for example: it seems a little confused in places, but for the most part it seems a conscientious and pretty good attempt to present myth, question-mark-attached history, and fairly straightforward history as what they are, and to derive an understandable narrative from them. The history fizzles out during the 18th century and ends in 1774. OK, I'll give it an A grade thus far. But then, suddenly, The current chief of Clan Gregor is Sir Malcolm Gregor Charles Mac Gregor of Mac Gregor, 7th BT, of Lanrick and Balquhidder, 24th Chief of Clan Gregor. Aside from the fact that the man's name is reminiscent of a winner in a dog show (his "Gaelic designation" is sensibly far shorter), this reader doesn't know what this 2013 "Clan Gregor" is that he's chief of. (Apropos of dog shows: we read of Best in Show that "Christopher Guest directed", not that "Christopher Haden-Guest, 5th Baron Haden-Guest directed".) -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh a "block", of course. As for the Clan Gregor article, it is lacking sources to start with. I think a lot of the information could have been taken from websites - possibly unreliable. I haven't touched the article because it is constantly being edited and I do not want to get into an edit war. There are only so many articles I can try to look after. As I have heavily contributed to the Clan Davidson article I have therefore made a stand on it.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I think you are doing a lousy job polluting valid information with complete garbage. So, I will no longer link to the wikipedia Clan Davidson "article" and will link to the correct history: ACCORDING to the Highland manuscript believed to be written by one MacLauchlan, bearing the date 1467, and containing an account of the genealogies of Highland clans down to about the year 1450, which was accepted as authoritative by Skene in his Celtic Scotland, and believed to embody the common tradition of its time, the origin of the Davidsons is attributed to a certain Gilliecattan Mhor, chief of Clan Chattan in the time of David I. This personage, it is stated, had two sons, Muirich Mhor and Dhai Dhu. From the former of these was descended Clan Mhuirich or Macpherson, and from the latter Clan Dhai or Davidson. Sir Aeneas Macpherson, the historian of the clan of that name, states that both the Macphersons and the Davidsons were descended from Muirich, parson of Kingussie in the twelfth century. You suck, and this site sucks and your edits are complete crap but I'm sure you feel justified somehow in your pathetic view. Like I said, this page is utter bunk, filled with nothing but false information and I'm done with it because there are plenty of sites out there that actually have legitimate information. Gee, it certainly is funny how I keep getting very distant genetic matches to members of Clan Chattan that are NOT related to the Norman Comyn scum. Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.225 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is about users editing, if you have good sources feel free to add the info yourself. I have divided the clans origins to take into consideration this second version of the clan's origins. This can act as a stub for your edits with further information and their sources. Please also be polite; the editors of the clan articles are doing their best but are sadly few in number. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  valid information with complete garbage? 

message: Hey I'm a member of the clan! Cool!
Will2022 (talk 12:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  EY 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Clan Davidson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070923143200/http://valleyforgemusterroll.org/Reg_5NC.htm to http://valleyforgemusterroll.org/Reg_5NC.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Clan Davidson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080718174431/http://www.clandavidson.org.au/ to http://www.clandavidson.org.au/
*Added  tag to http://www.clandavidson.free.fr/Davidson
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Clan Davidson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130703232436/http://www.clan-macpherson.org/museum/mem/007b_chattanclans.html to http://www.clan-macpherson.org/museum/mem/007b_chattanclans.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "1917-1997 vacant and disputed" is too vague to be encyclopedic. We need information on who these people are/were.  For example, a Sir David Davidson of Allt Dinnie (not a David Davidson we have an article about), was apparently taken to be sufficiently authoritative as the clan-chief claimant to register a replacement Clan Davidson tartan with the Lord Lyon in 1961 .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clan chiefs section needs more information