Jump to content

Talk:Clan Young

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self-published

[edit]

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 

1.the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2.it does not involve claims about third parties;
3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Hobbe Yonge (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that many parts of the article are not only based primarily on self-published and questionable sources, they are almost exclusively based on such a source. The tabs are there to encourage editors to find other more reliable sources. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
another point to bear in mind is that the list given im my opinion relates to autobiographies, in this context we could consider Clan Websites publishing information about their Clan. note the "about themselves" is in bold. But Young, Douglas A. L. (2009-08). Youngs of Scotland: "For He Loved His Surname Best in All Scotland". Douglas Young should comes under WP:SPS not WP:ABOUTSELF. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Douglas A. L. Young does extensive and critical research before writing anything. As I have known the man he is dedicated to the family and Clan Young and would rather write nothing before writing about hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.61.116 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sources

[edit]

myclans.com does not exist. Why do ref tags keep getting changed to point to it?
http://www.scotclans.com/scottish_clans/clan_young/history.html and other websites are not better sources than clanyoung.info
They all use information given to them by clanyoung.info and do not print updates when information becomes out of date.
Do not add them as sources. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the Standing Council website: I'd like to point out the line "The clan is currently made up or over four hundred member families" which contains the spelling error "made up or" where it should say "made up OF". This exists because sometime around 20 years ago, the officers of Clan Young provided a press release to someone and it propagated through the internet. We have since fixed the issue, but it is near impossible to get website owners to change their pages. The point being: EVERY website that has information about Clan Young has obtained the information from us. As the primary researchers and the ones most interested in keeping information correct and up to date, we are the most logical authority to use as a primary source. It is not logical to demand secondary sources that are relying upon us for their data. As for the issues regarding the use of Douglas Young's book as a source, I agree that his primary sources should be listed instead of his book, and I plan to work on this matter in the future. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Óg

[edit]

I am amused that the addition of "Og" by QuintusPetillius in Sept 2014 is still present. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbe, provide a source to support your claim that Óg is either a Gaelic name of the family or a Gaelic form of the surname Young. If you can't, or won't, don't add it into the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability - it's a simple concept. The Scottish Gaelic adjective òg undoubtedly translates to "young" or "youthful", but that doesn't mean Òg (or the Irish Óg) are actual surnames or clan names. I can find reference to the surname being rendered Mac'Ill'Oig in Scottish Gaelic, but whether the latter has any historical connection with a border family I don't know.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third try: Seriously. I've posted this link three times now... HINT - CLICK ME - Is your position that the name was never used or that it was never used by Clan Young? Hobbe Yonge (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why waste your time and post a link to a webpage that makes no mention of the surname Young, or the clan, or to the supposed Gaelic surname Óg? What that page does show is that the surname Ogg is derived from the Gaelic adjective. That's it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, read Wikipedia:Edit warring and note the The three-revert rule.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should explain why you insist on vandalizing the entry... As far as I know, you are simply some sort of snob who has an affinity for Gaelic and doesn't want people using the language. "Young" is a descriptive surname. It exists in ALL languages. I have provided you with a link that shows "Og" to mean "young". I have provided a link that shows "Og" was used as a surname. Do you have a diferent translation of "Og" where it means something other than "young"? I am realy having a hard time understanding your line of thought. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just provide a source showing it as a Gaelic surname linked to either Young or the clan. It's that simple.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Brianann MacAmhlaidh on this one. The web page states that Og means young but in the sense of a young age meaning of the word. It does not say anything about the surname young.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We all agree that "og" means "young". We all agree that "Og" and "Young" are both surnames used in Scotland. But the surnames mean two different things? Why don't you tell me what the surname "Og" translates to? When you come up with an alternate meaning, I will accept your arguement. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question concerns the historical usage of the Clan Young’s name in a Gaelic form. To expand on Brianann’s point above (in my reading at least), unless there’s evidence of people being identified both as Ogg and as Young, or that one name was recognized as an alias of the other, there’s no reason to suppose the families are connected. From the Clan Young home page, Oggs do not appear to be included in the modern organization (FWTW). Note that Óg is frequently seen as an epithet, meaning “the younger“, like the American “Jr.“, for the son (or perhaps grandson or nephew) of another person of the same name.—Odysseus1479 05:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would point you to the parent organization and the following pages http://www.clanyoung.info/aboutus/namehist.html and http://www.clanyoung.info/aboutus/surnames.html I am highly amused that those two pages are considered "self Published Sources", yet the website that lifted information from us and edited it for content is considered a valid source. Puruse this line "After the marriage of King Malcolm III to the Saxon Princess Margaret around 1070, Anglo culture and speech became fashionable in the Lowland areas of Scotland, and thus, the use of other forms of the name Young, such as Og, would have decreased" and point me to a written resource publishe before 1070 where I might look up the name... Hobbe Yonge (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article content

[edit]

My thoughts on this article is that it is largely unsourced. Take the "The Historic Clan Young" section of the article - there is only one source cited at the end of all 3 paragraphs. A good article should have inline citations for each sentence of the article body. Also it would appear that the sources are generally unreliable.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could use some tender love and care, that's for sure. Could you give a third opinion on Hobbe's link in the section above -- a link that makes no mention of the surname Young, the clan, or even a Gaelic surname Óg -- so we can put this stupid edit war to rest.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish you would read some of what I say instead of spouting off with your constant tripe... For the FOURTH time - this link shows Og, Ogg and Oag, Uig, and Oge are all variations of the same surname, first listed as Og. >>> http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Ogg <<< Do you want the listing to say "Ogg"? Work with me here instead of being a prick. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is for listing the Gaelic name of the clan, not for translating its literal meaning or etymological origin. The problem is that haven't provided a source showing that Og is the Gaelic name of the clan. All you've given is a webpage showing that another surname -- the English Ogg -- is derived from the Gaelic adjective og, meaning "young". This derivation seems to be reliable, as it is consistent with reliable sources such as Patrick Hanks' Dictionary of American Family Names (OUP, 2006): "... Anglicized form of a nickname from the Gaelic adjective óg 'young'" ...", G.F. Black's Surnames of Scotland: "... from the Gaelic adjective og, 'young' ...", and P.H. Reaney's English Surnames (OUP, 1995): "Gaelic og, 'young'".
So these sources show that the Gaelic nickname Og gave rise to the English surname Ogg. Fine, but note that these sources aren't about a Gaelic surname, they're about an English surname derived from a Gaelic nickname. And note that the sources make no mention of the surname Young or the clan. This all means that they can't be used to show what the Gaelic name of the clan is (see WP:SYNTH for the construction of original ideas from unrelated factoids).
Now back to the surname Young, which would seem to be the surname that we ought to be concerned with. Colin Mark's The Gaelic-English Dictionary (Routledge, 2003) shows that the the English Young can be rendered into Gaelic as "Mac'Ill'Oig", giving the following example "Dubhghlas Mac'Ill'Oig Douglas Young".
So what you need to do Hobbe, is quit it with the hysterics and personal insults, and concentrate on finding a reliable source that specifically shows how Clan Young is known in Gaelic. I'd suggest following up on the Mac'Ill'Oig lead.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is your next step? To demand proof that Clan Young was ever historically referred to as a Clan? I don't see any notes anywhere that define "Gaelic Name" to mean "Gaelic Name - But only if a book at least 256 years old lists 25 or more people with the same name living in a Glen located North of Pitlochry". As a matter of fact, I find this: "gaelic names - enter the official Gaelic name of the clan, if one exists. If several exist, list them, however do not conjugate the name (i.e do not also list the name's Gaelic singular, collective, etc)". Please point out the requirement that demands a historical reference. If Clan Young says this is the official Gaelic name of the clan, who are you to argue with them? They also have an official plant badge, pipe song, tartan, etc. all of which are not "historical". Hobbe Yonge (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that you now understand how the link doesn't support what you once thought it did, and how the onus is on yourself to provide reliable verification for whatever you contribute to Wikipedia. Therefore I'm removing "Óg" from the infobox, and trusting you won't revert. If at some point in the future, someone comes across a good source for the name of the clan in Gaelic, or any fact concerning the clan, there's nothing stopping us from discussing it here or adding it into the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Just now turned up Douglas Young (classicist), which gives his name in Gaelic as "Dùghlas MacGill'Oig". Wikipedia articles are not reliable by themselves, and I can't find anything confirming the attribution of this name to him, and nothing turns up on Google; but I wonder if Mark gave the above-mentioned example for the surname Young ("Dubhghlas Mac'Ill'Oig Douglas Young") because of this fellow.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're a fucking idiot. Do you understand that there is NO information about Clan Young from more than 20 years ago? Is the Scottish Clans wikipedia a History section or an informational section? If you continue to travel this path, nearly all Tartan references should be removed. I'd suggest you kick this one upstairs again.Hobbe Yonge (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article re-write

[edit]

Seen as this article appears to have lots of unresolved issues, I would like to re-write it quoting from the Collins Scottish Clan Encyclopedia and Castles of the Clans book by Martin Coventry. That way it will focus on the "clan" aspect of the history. Comments appreciated. QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have removed all information provided by the officers of Clan Young and have instead substituted information from secondary sources who obtained their information from the officers of Clan Young. Clan Young did not exist before 1989. All information about Clan Young comes from the officers of Clan Young. There are no other sources. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what Wikipedia is about. Any info added to this article must be from a published secondary source. It does not matter what the CLan Young officers have to say, unless there is a published secondary source to back up their information. Unsourced information can be removed from Wikipedia. Self published sources are not allowed either.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you understand that all of the information that you've obtained from your "sources" (most of which are defunct) originally obtained that information from Clan Young Officers. If wikipedia's point is to be historically accurate, you must remove this page along with many other pages about Clans that were founded recently. If your point is to rehash a list of Scottish Clans, you need to relax a little and accept data from the sources that created the data. I'll say this very slowly: Clan Young was founded in 1988. It never existed before that. Now... please explain to me why YOUR opinion about "Og" may stand while the opinion of a Past President of Clan Young does not. Because it comes from an out of print $250 paperback written by someone who merely obtains material for travel guides from legitimate publications such as provided by Douglas (http://clanyoung.com/). In any case, Since "Og" is now acceptable, perhaps you'd like to clear up the smears applied to me by that jackass, Brianann MacAmhlaidh, and maybe transfer and apply the bans and reprimands to him... Hobbe Yonge (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clan Young (family Society) is a living, evolving entity, and has been since it was started in 1989. The rewrites I put in are as factual as you will find and are based on Douglas A.L. Young's book, Youngs of Scotland (http://clanyoung.com/). I've known Douglas for years and it is true that he will not publish un-researched facts. Clan Young is growing and as such, it needs to be recorded. Young has always been a Lowland name and there is not enough proof that Og was ever a surname, and therefore shouldn't be associated with Clan Young.User:StuartGYoung —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clan Young. 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) 19:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clan_Young&oldid=1206707995"