Talk:Clan Hay

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clan Hay article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

@CzarBrodie

This is NOT Vandalism

Please read the forum post here http://forum.clanhay.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=400 AND the facebook group "the REAL Hays" which wikipedia forbids links to, therefore we cannot "reference" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.28.218 (talk • contribs) January 2, 2009

Firstly I am not a fascist. My political views are strictly none of your business. I take your talk edit title hereto as an offence. Secondly, your edit, being controversial and failing to meet Wiki guidelines, was not referenced. I believe face book references are blocked as they are generally not considered references. Your edit seemed to me to be vandalism, I saw a similar edit was deleted, and this due to its reference. I did a quick Google search for the subject matter, found nothing, and considered the issue to be a hoax.

I note the new added reference, namely: forum.clanhay.net. I read the links information and take issue with the subject matter being included in the article clan Hay. I think the information in the added paragraph, titled “Disputed Chief” should be deleted. My reasons for thinking this are: WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:SPS. yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, User:94.192.28.218 those links don't cut it. Forums and social networking websites can't be used as references, and shouldn't be linked to in the 'external links' section (Wikipedia's guidline of 'External links'). You need to find something that comes from a reliable source, like something published (Wikipedia's guidline of 'Reliable sources'). The article isn't suppose to promote one movement or another, only state relevant info that has been published about the clan.--Celtus (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely ludicrous points of view. Especially not promoting movements. You ARE promoting the current incumbent and disputed clan chief, and not allowing the truth to be told. Once again it seems that I have come across ridiculous policy in Wikipedia - Once before I wrote an article about a sports club only for it to be repeatedly deleted - despite them being a founder member of the sport in Scotland. A Little research showed much less informative pages about clubs in Northern Ireland. I guess it's who you suck [strike]off[/strike] up to on Wikipedia.

Well done for supporting the "institutions" which have raped Scotland over and over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.28.218 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And nice of you to uphold the "mighty" Good Faith that is supposedly promoted here!![1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.28.218 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your 'research' didn't take you far [2] proof that the current line ARE NOT hays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.28.218 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down. The Wikipedia guidelines mentioned are there in part to keep people from giving undue weight to sort of 'fringe' takes on a subject. The article is supposed to be a balance of what has been reliably published about a certain subject. So adding a bit about a movement that has never recieved any media coverage or that has not been mentioned by a reliable source is giving it undue weight. Thats the whole point. No one is stopping you from writing about how the chiefship has descended through the years. You can do that. Just follow what your sources say.--Celtus (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celtus has a good point. While it appears there is not (yet) enough sources to place the "Disputed Chief", nothing is stopping you including information (with Reliable sources) to the subject matter that appears in your links. Some of the contributors in your links advance claims and information in their arguments. This information, always being well referenced, may well be relevant to the subject matter of Clan Hay. Basically what I am saying, is that in my opinion it is not appropriate to add the information you advanced, these are unreliably sourced conclusions (opinions), but I do not see a problem with adding the information/history/genealogy that created these conclusions (but please note the references can not be the talk pages thereto).

Re you reference to good faith. You are correct in thinking I should have considered your edits in such light. As explained, I originally deleted your edit out of hand as it had already been deleted. When you reference the matter to talk, and listed a none-Face Book link, it was clear your edits were in good faith. However, the reason I did not mention such is that in my opinion good faith requires a certain degree of courtesy, I think that your subject title of your edit at the talk hereto lacked this courtesy. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure you can base this on "(opinions)". As it is clear for the evidence of the line of succession of the earl of errol and lord hay, that the clan was indeed "stolen" (the stolen bit may be an opinion) but a Boyd changed his name to take the clan Hay. This is A FACT - a well documented FACT - despite your assertions that this is unheard of. To leave out this major fact, I feel, is un-encyclopedic. So be it - Wikipedia is hardly a source to be trusted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.131 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki does in fact refer to the name change, see James Hay, 15th Earl of Erroll. There is however nothing unusual about this. As I understand it, the title of clan chief (and some other titles) can pass through a woman if there are no male heirs. the children/descendents of this woman must change their name to that of the clan in order to succeed as chief. This has happened in many Scottish clans, Clan MacLeod, Clan Sempill, Clan Mackenzie being a good examples, see in perticular the paragraph tilled The modern Clan Mackenzie. sometimes this name change does not happen (or has happened in reverse), in which case the clan has no "chief" until he changes his name, Clan Innes is a good example here. sometimes, as in Clan Hay, and because the families of clan chiefs often marry into each other, the chief is entitled to two chiefdoms, but because of the law, can only hold one name, therefore one clan; Clan Douglas and Clan Hamilton are a good example here, where the Duke of Hamilton is entitle to both clans, but as his last name is Hamilton, can only legally be chief of Hamilton. (if he changed his name to Douglass, he would perhaps be Chief of Clan Douglass and no longer that of Hamilton). Occasionally errors have happened, leading to interesting complications, a good example here is Clan Mar and Clan Erskine and the shared title Earl of Mar. Occasionally the situation can be very confusing indeed, even to the clan, such as the case of Clan Fraser where in effect there are two chiefs.

If a descendent male can be found from the Chief of Clan Hay (and be able to prove this descent to the Lord Lyon King of Arms), he may be entitled to petition (to the lord Lyon or the Court of Session or the House of Lords for the tittles) for the undifferenced arms of Hay, he would not gain the titles (unless the situation was like that of Mar), as they seem to have been proven to go no other way, than through female descent, he (or she) would then be chief of Hay.

wiki, once you take the time to read it, is in fact a very good source of information. It would be good if you could contribute. You may know sources of information regarding clan Hay and have the time to sort through and give the information. The article on Clan Hay is sorely needing references an extra information. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather, the title seems to have passed to someone with little or no blood relation to the Hays - not simply through a woman as you suggest. I would suggest this is what makes it unusual. From the links provided it would seem that a Michael and Stephen have already petitioned the Lord Lyon to 'retrieve' the clan but are meeting "200 years of sculduggery" (quote from Alex Salmond). They seem to be fairly certain that a 'pureblood' Hay exists - that a number existed at the time, but their status as Jacobites made them ineligible. As the 'head' of the Clan holds lands and titles, I expect it to be a very one sided fight to 'reclaim' the Clan, but I look forward to the battle. I've always found it strange that such a 'big' Clan has little history, going from High protectors and constables of Scotland, to little more than English lapdogs, perhaps this explains it. Ntbear (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my view seemed like a suggestion, I was referring to the link referred to by 94.192.28.218. I am familiar with this reference, having discussed a few genealogies with the sites owner, Darryl Lundy. His references and research are usually excellent; so it was without question that I reviewed the genealogies as given in the link. If you click on "pop-up pedigree" just under the title: James Hay, 15th Earl of Erroll, you should see a list of ancestors. In this list you should see Lady Margaret Hay, clicking on her gives you a page informing that she is the daughter of John Hay, 12th Earl of Erroll. accordingly, James Hay, 15th Earl of Erroll, is a blood relation to the Hays and a descendant of the Hays blood line of the chiefs, the Earls of Erroll, the chiefs of Clan Hay. from the same source, I noted that John Hay, 12th Earl of Erroll had a son, the 13th Earl, who died unmarried, a daughter, Lady Mary Hay, who, there being no male heir, became Countess of Erroll; she died without issue. 12th Earl of Erroll had a third daughter, Lady Margaret Hay. Margaret married James Livingston, 5th Earl of Linlithgow; they had two children: Lord James Livingston and Lady Anne Livingston. It is unclear if Lord James Livingston had issue, Lady Anne Livingston however married William Boyd, 4th Earl of Kilmarnock and had four sons: Captain Charles Boyd, Captain William Boyd, William Boyd, Lord Boyd, and James Boyd who became James Hay, 15th Earl of Erroll. as to the history of the Boyds, Charles "escaped abroad" as he was a Jacobite, William died unmarried, the other William died young, and the eldest, James changed his name to Hay and became the 15th Earl of Erroll and chief of Clan Hay. I fail to see how he "stole the clan". It should be noted that James Hay, 15th Earl of Erroll was also a descendent of several families of Jacobites, his father being captured at Culloden was beheaded and James was forbidden to inherit his tittles, his mother "detained" General Fawley at dinner in order to achieve a Jacobite victory, his grandfather James Livingston, 5th Earl of Linlithgow had his tittles confiscated as he joined the Jacobite uprising. Many of his family died in Rome at this time. Rome was the court of the Exiled Jacobite kings. Few families in Scotland can boast such a Jacobite pedigree. I can well understand the Earl of Errol not replying to the letter addressed to "Mr. Merlin Moncreiffe" and posted at link. No doubt he was very saddened, as I was, to read that text. I think the Hays have a lot to be proud of, the foremost being their chief and his extraordinary Jacobite heritage. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a minor inaccuracy in your reasoning here. You state that James Hay "is" a blood relation to the Hays. It seems that Lady Margaret Hay did not inherit any of the titles, as she died long before her older sister. Her son became Lord Livingston. It seems odd that the children of Lord Livingston's older brother should inherit the titles of the Hays? It does to me anyway. It is a very spurious blood relation at best. As his grandmother never inherited the titles, and he "had" to change his name to "claim" the titles. To be clear, James Boyd's grandmother was the younger sister of a one time Countess of Errol. I suppose in absence of 'better' evidence to suggest a more 'correct' heir existed, we should assume in "good faith" that the lineage is correct. However, if "the real" clan hay can offer a better lineage for the Hay Clan, and they seem determined to, there may well be a challenge to this. They also mention an ancient rite of Elders to elect Clan Chiefs. Surely this method would also strip the titles from Lords and Earls? However, as there is a "Real Clan Hay" in existence, I would have thought it's mention here is appropriate as encyclopaedic. Ntbear (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about any minor inaccuracy - Mary, became countess as there were no male heirs. When she died without issue, the line passed to her younger sister Margaret (there still being no male heirs). Margaret was also a child of the 12th Earl of Errol. Margaret, however, died before her older sister. Therefor the title passed to Margarets direct male heir as she, on the other hand, did have issue (failing which, this would of passed to her direct female heir etc.). If titles could not pass through dead people there would be very few left. I do not see anything odd about this. As explained above, it is not uncommon for the titles to pass through the female line if there is no son, see the Clan Mackenzie#The modern Clan Mackenzie example. I do not think that the direct surviving descendent of the 12th earl of Errol is a "very spurious blood relation ", quite the opposite. I have been checking other references, and did not find any information that contradicts Darril Lundy's genealogy. The Genealogy of the Existing British Peerage By Edmund Lodge is of interest. It mentions on page 186 the contract related to the Earl of ~~Mar~~ Errol. This contract, granted by Charles II of Scotland in 1666, is given in greater detail at link, stating "he (The 11th Earl) obtained a regrant of his honours, with the special power to nominate his heirs. In 1674 he nominated his cousin, Sir John Hay of Keillour as his heir (The 12th Earl), and failing him, Sir John's heirs female (Mary and Margaret), and failing them, certain Tweeddale Hays(Marquess of Tweeddale)". Not sure what the "ancient rite of Elders to elect Clan Chiefs" is, however, it is worth noting that the regrant by Charles II is rock solid and cannot be changed or even challenged by clansmen. For reasons already gone into, I do not think the "Real Clan Hay" is encyclopedic. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "ancient rite of elders" is mistaken view of what an ad hoc derbhfine is. A certain number armigers and landowners, with a Lyon Court Herald present, can choose someone to petition the Lord Lyon, in order be appointed as Commander of the clan. Until something like that is covered in the press i don't think the "Real Clan Hay" really exits or is notable.--Celtus (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I actually took the time to investigate the "REAL Clan Hay" and spoke with Michael - who has already spoken with the Lord Lyon about all of this. I will not replicate his messages to me without his consent - however - He insists the lord Lyon has said Merlin (head of the clan) cannot be challenged, but when he dies his cousin will take over and there is 20 years to challenge him. (not his son who is already lord Hay). The Lord Lyon has decided that when Merlin dies, Merlin's son switches to chief of the Moncrieff's, Lord Boyd's son will take over the Hays, and Moncrieff's son will take over the Boyds. That doesn't sound a very clever idea really - it sounds like a stitch-up, but I do expect you two to defend it! In any case 1. I was expressing my personal view that the inheritance ( James Boyd's grandmother was the younger sister of a one time Countess of Errol - but the younger sister never inherited the title) is wrong. It is my personal opinion that rather than descend a dead younger female relative, the title should have passed upwards until a male Hay was found - that is MY opinion - please do not state this is wrong - as it is my opinion. You may not share it - I don't really care if you do or not - to me it seems fairly arbitrary and to me it is less arbitrary to find a male heir by traversing upwards rather than downwards through dead relatives. 2. Celtus in my conversations with Michael he mentions several methods of "reclaiming the clan" one is the old Scots tradition of 9 elders of the clan 65+years of age meet up and elect a clan chief based on merit , blood, and passion for the clan and Scotland. Which to me does not include landowners, etc etc.- so I don't buy your assertion - and it is not very polite to make assertions like that. 3. It is not up to Mr Celtus to decide the legal status of the "Real Clan Hay". It is an organisation with a constitution, therefore, saying it "does not exist" is misguided as it is an entity - maybe not a clan - but it exists in some form.

As for inclusion of this material - there seems to be 2 votes for and 2 against, so unless someone breaks the tie, I guess it stays out. Ntbear (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Chief

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)[reply]

Origin of the name and early history

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.

The surname of Hay is derived from La Haye in the Cotentin peninsula of Normandy. A haie is a stockade, such as surrounded Norman castle motte-hills. The surname is written de Haya in charter-Latin, to indicate that it is de la Haye and not de Haye: it was rendered into English as Hay and eventually into Gaelic as Garadh, which is from the same linguistic root and has ultimately the same meaning. 'Hedge' comes from the same root: it all might really be called zareba, like the thorn hedges Africans made to keep wild beasts.

The first Hay in Scotland was William de la Haye, Butler of Scotland and first baron of Erroll, who appears in the Scottish Court from about 1160 and was an Ambassador to England in 1190. He was a nephew of Ranulf de Soules, lord of Liddesdale and also Butler of Scotland (whose family became Hereditary Butlers of Scotland but were forfeited for plotting to seize the throne itself during the Wars of Independence). Soules was the manor bordering on the Hay fiefs of La Haye-Hue (now called La Haye-Bellefond), La Haye-Belouze, Villebaudon and Beaucoudray, near St-Lô in Normandy—whose La Haye seigneurs bore for Arms the same three red shields on silver as have always been borne by the Hays of Erroll in Scotland. The motte, or artificial mound on which the first baron built his wooden tower at Erroll in the twelfth century, still belongs to his descendant Diana Hay, Countess of Erroll, as 31st Chief of the Hays in Scotland.
— Moncreiffe of that Ilk, Iain (1967). The Highland Clans. London: Barrie & Rocklif. pp. 187–188.

--Celtus (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

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)[reply]

The historic seat(s) of the Hays

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I understand why you think that the whole matter of the “historic seats” could become so cluttered that it might become a bit of a joke. However, turning specifically to Clan Hay, I believe that listing the historic seat as Slains Castle when there are two of them is going to lead to avoidable confusion. I suggest a compromise; simply refer to that historic seat as Slains.

Errol was not simply lands. Wm de la Haya built a motte and bailey castle there (1). The motte is still there, is illustrated on the web (2), and is marked on recent maps. Moreover, after all the Chief is the latest of a long line of Earls of Errol. Errol was the seat of the Barons of Errol until the then chief was awarded Old Slains. If we are going to recognize Slains, we should recognize Errol.

In summary, I suggest that we change the heading to read: Historic seats: Slains and Errol.

Addendum. I note that Family seat states that a clan seat refers to the seat of the chief of a Scottish clan, but, when you think about it, that is the seat or residence of the chief, not really of the clan. No seat is shown for the Earl of Errol in Scottish Nobility Family Seats.

References

(1)Moncrieffe of that Ilk, I, Hicks, D. (1967). The Highland Clans. New York: Bramhall House, pp.187-93.

(2) http://cid-408ffd4afd9af786.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Motte%20near%20Errol

I enjoy our debates. Cordially.Inver471ness (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Legend of Luncarty; source required

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)[reply]

Deletion of paragraph supporting legend

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the disagreement is more imagined than real. Reporting evaluations done by others, published and accompanied by reliable references, is not original reasearch. Including one's own criticism of such evaluations would be original research, as would including publishing new data. However, there is no reason why you and I, and other editors, cannot discuss these evaluations on talk pages. My objection to the reference to Lew Hayes is that it is not a reliable reference. I have come across discussions on a Clan Hay blog in which nobody has really identified that book.

I do wonder if there is much need to evaluate the legend. It is, after all, just that, a legend. Like most legends, it probably contains a kernel of truth, but I doubt we'll ever know. Having said that, and being me, I shall probably look further. Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is no question that Wikipedia should not be used to promote clan legends. I certainly am not doing so. However, were you not the one who originally contributed a version of the legend? That's fine, because that the legend exists is a fact. What it contains is basicaly fictional, although one cannot prove that the battle did not occur. If it did occur, that would be the missing kernel. CordiallyInver471ness (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Luncarty: last paragraph re. reliability of legend.

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)[reply]

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 ^{[citation needed]} 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)[reply]

I submit that John Hill Burton's opinion is just that, an opinion. At present, all we have is an unamplified statement by Fox Davies that Burton strongly suspected that the Battle of Luncarty never occurred. Surely, thorough academic investigation requires that the original source be consulted to verify exactly what Burton wrote and what his reasons were for his conclusion. Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your adding the John Hill Burton reference satisfies my concerns. Thanks. We now have his reasons for his conclusion. Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,11 July,2011

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)[reply]

Evidence that the battle occurred

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)[reply]

Discrepancy about date of battle and the identity of the Scottish king.

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]