Talk:Clan Hay

message: The so-called Chief is alleged to descend from the Boyd family who stole the Clan with the help of the English king. The Boyd's had fought at Culloden against the Hays and only sought their lands and castles to sell for profit.
A movement to have the Clan returned to "real" bloodline Hays has started on facebook (please search for Real Hay Clan as the wiki-naz1s won't allow a direct link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.28.218 (talk • contribs) January 2, 2009
: “Disputed Chief” deleted re WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:SPS. See This is NOT Vandalism above.  yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Chief

message: I've got Moncreiffe's book handy, so i'll just quote two paragraphs on the clan here. So according to Moncrieffe, there is a real heraldic connection between the Scots Hays and lands bearing 'Hay-like' place-names in Normandy. He also links the name Soules to the same area in Normandy.
--Celtus (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name and early history 

message: Added suggestion that William II de Haya be merged into this article, probably at History: Origin of the Clan. please Discuss at Talk:William II de Haya#Merger proposal. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: At the moment the historic seat of the Hays is noted as Slains castle, but since there were two of them and also because Errol was the seat before Slains, I suggest that the heading should read;
Historic seats: Errol, Old  Slains castle and New Slains castle. Any comments?Inver471ness (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The "historic seat" is a bit of an invention on my part to handle the many dubious sites who insist on labeling a castle (particularly if the chief no longer lives in one, and especially if the Castle has the Clan name) that the chiefs of old lived in as "Clan seats". There is realy no such thing as a Clan seat unless you consider the clan and the chief are one and the same thing, and in this case nothing changes as the seat of the chief is the seat of the clan (and not the seat of a chief of old labeled dubiously as the seat of a modern clan). If we were to label all the places the many chiefs of a Clan lived in this could turn the hole matter of "historic seat" into a bit of a joke. "Slains Castle" is fine in my view, it can be either New Slains or Old Slains, and both are true. As to Errol, those are lands, not really a seat. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The way I see it, the Template:Infobox Clan is just a brief summary of the clan, its intention is not to replace the info in the article. If you think all the chiefs residences should be listed in the article, go for it, but please keep ye old info box simple and to the point. Take titles for instance, some chiefs have titles that stretch for pages (see Clan Campbell#Chief) but the infobox need only list the most important title, and the article list, explain, quantify etc all others. As you can see with titles, this works quite well. As I explained "historic seat" is a bit of an invention, its intention is not to list all the past places the chiefs resided in (admitted that the wording seems to indicate such an intention), but a place for those endless edits that refer to the "clan seat" without transgressing the true seat. In essence the "historic seat" is a hook to catch what people consider the seat to be without regard for the way seats work. So my thinking is, try to fill in historic seat with one entry that you feel will satisfy those who think this location to be the "clan seat", or better still, find one of those references that place the location as the clan seat. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The historic seat(s) of the Hays 

message: There are numerous versions of this legend. While they are essentially similar, they do vary in details. It is therefore important that the source of the version quoted here is identified.Inver471ness (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend of Luncarty; source required 

message: I have deleted the paragraph,"Doubts....farm." for two reasons. First, you have not quoted a reliable source; quoting Lew Hays is insufficient. See WP:V. Second, it is not within Wikipedia's scope to evaluate the legend. Doing so would come under its policy of no original research. See WP:NOR. It would be acceptable, although probably unnecessary, to state simply that the legend has been challenged and why, provided that a published, reliable source is cited.Inver471ness (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: noted, but i think the deleted paragraph may have been an "answer" to an earlier edit i made, noting from various scholars/historians that the legend/battle/and surname attribution is an invention. Re added my text with adjustment and references. Hope this helps in explaining matters. Not sure I agree that evaluating the legend is original research, if the evaluation is done by others, and published and shown with and as a reliable reference, this would be very important information to add, but jumping to ones own conclusions from data would however be original research in my view. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Na, not even a kernel in my opinion. I think it necessary, if clan stories, legends etc are put on the page, that academic opinions on these stories (if they exist) are in turn added. It is important, in my view, to keep the Wikipedia clan pages as an encyclopedia and not turn them into clan web pages promoting the legend/romance etc of respective clans. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of paragraph supporting legend 

message: I have no problem with the statements made in this paragraph, assuming of course that Fox-Davies quoted his sources accurately. However, I wonder what evidence John Hill Burton gave to conclude that the Battle of Luncarty is an invention of Hector Boece. My objections to this conclusion are, first, that, while it may be possible to prove that an event occurred, it is not possible to prove that it did not.  I admit that the evidence suggested by 142.46.205.194 on 15 June, 2010 that the battle did in fact occur is very weak and certainly does not convince me. Second, while I am aware of Boece’s poor reputation for historical accuracy, I do not know how it can be proved that he invented the battle. Incidentally, if references 21, 22, and 23 are identical, isn’t there a way to just use the same number once?Inver471ness (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view Arthur Charles Fox-Davies is a better reference than our opinions. Re: "it may be possible to prove that an event occurred, it is not possible to prove that it did not" I think most historians (I humbly put myself in this category) generally rationalize the other way round, i.e that if Hector Boece (as a "historian") gave no evidence or sources for an event then this event is dubious.  This process works a bit like the wiki Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Boece resembles the editor who submits information that nobody else has ever heard of, with no reference or source. No doubt Fox-Davies, like the editor who adds the  tag, questioned Hector's information and rejected it as dubious. There are good and bad historians and the difference usually lies in the quality of the references and sources they use. References 21, 22, and 23 are identical as last time I added one reference to the section the whole was deleted. The same number once would need organization in notes, bibliography, references sections, do not think this is, at this stage, urgent. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Added ref to John Hill Burton's The History of Scotland from Agricola's Invasion to the Revolution of 1688. Inver471ness, if you are not satisfied with the single ref then add the others, for my part it is perfectly acceptable to quote Fox Davies. Are you insinuating Fox Davies is unreliable? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend of Luncarty: last paragraph re. reliability of legend. 

message: Ender3989 was correct in deleting the material recently added by 142.46.209.194 because it cannot be verified. Unfortunately,this material is found in various Clan Hay publications and will probably surface again.Inver471ness (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Comment,11 July,2011''' 

message: The best evidence that a battle occurred at Luncarty lies in the contents of the tumuli on the site. The reference to the battle by Bower around 1440 AD, the longstanding local tradition, which is unlikely to be completely fabricated, and the names of Redgorton parish and Turnagain Hillock are supportive. It is very plausible that the Danes could have attacked in this region; they were doing so up and down the east coast of England and Scotland at the time. Local names such as Denmarkfield, Battleby and the King’s stone are not good evidence for the battle because such names can be based on legendary accounts as much as on true events. In short, there appears to be good evidence that the battle did occur, but this statement does not imply support for the legend that has grown around it.Inver471ness (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence that the battle occurred 

message: Further to my paragraph on this subject in the article, it appears that either the usually accepted date of the battle, 980 AD, is incorrect or, if the date is essentially correct, the king was Kenneth II.Inver471ness (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy about date of battle and the identity of the Scottish king.

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Clan Hay. 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/20110726201953/http://www.clanchiefs.org/p/chiefs.html to http://www.clanchiefs.org/p/chiefs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716192930/http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/1555/hay-clan%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D to http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/1555/hay-clan%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716192950/http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/1215/hay-and-leith-1800%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D to http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/1215/hay-and-leith-1800%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716193016/http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/1850/hay-or-stewart%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D to http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/1850/hay-or-stewart%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716193023/http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/1556/hay-white-dress%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D to http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/1556/hay-white-dress%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716192955/http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/6921/hay-and-leith-1880-clans-originaux%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D to http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/6921/hay-and-leith-1880-clans-originaux%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716193007/http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/3106/hay-htg-trial%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D to http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/3106/hay-htg-trial%26tartan_name%3Dhay%26tartan_name_search%3D
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) 18:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified