Talk:Scottish clan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rewritten

I felt I just had to rewrite this article, and give a more accurate historical background to the Clan system than before.

I plan to add more soon about the historic use of tartans, the kilt, clan badges, etc - and their revival in more recent times.

Agendum 23:59, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Clan Macx or Macx or MacX ?

I think the individual clan links should be to Clan X, etc. Eoghan 22:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I have stuck to the more usual Scottish usage, which is to just name the clan. I personally don';t think it really matters.

What is more important is that recent additions (viz the inclusion of Akins) - which is not and never has been a Highland clan, the Burns clan (which doesn't exist) and the link to the Ku Klux Klan (which may be amusing to some, but has nothing whatever to do with this article) will need to be dealt with appropriately.

The first two are probably products of the over-eagerness of many Americans and Canadians to claim Scottish ancestry, but they are fanciful and speculative. The latter is nothing more than vandalism.

The inclusion of the link to the Mac is amusing, and I laughed out loud (as a Mac user myself) - well done, that man! Agendum 23:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia convention is to make article titles as unambiguous as possible (eg. Glencoe, Scotland). Nobody in Scotland actually says "Glencoe, Scotland". As it is now, clicking on those links takes you to a page with listing lots of irrelevant towns. And there already are links to (unwritten) clan pages here and there. I'd dispute what you say about it being less common to say Clan Cameron, etc. That's what folks in the Highlands say.

But boot out the non-clans, by all means. Eoghan 00:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I also think the links to the clan pages should be Clan X not simply X, because:

• "Clan X" is perfectly correct, perfectly traditional
• "Clan X" is different from the X family (for example, I'm a member of the Clan MacFarlane, but not a member of the MacFarlane family), and the name differentiates this properly
• as the current state of the page shows, most of the X pages are either something else, or a disambig page.

-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

My copy of Scottish Clans and Tartans (1973, by Dr.Ian Grimble, a fellow of the royal historical society) ISBN 1850517479 uses the Clan X form extensively: "...thenceforth Clan Forbes were constantly menaced..."(p84), "...the present chief of Clan Morrison, Iain Morrison..."(p222), "...Langton Robertson...Chief of of Clan Donnchaidh, lives at Kingston in Jamaica..."(p237) etc. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Less authoratitive than Grimble, but still scholarly, Magnus Magnusson's Scotland:The History of a Nation (ISBN 0006531911) also uses the Clan X form, e.g.: "The lordship of the isles had been a private fiefdom of Clan Donald for more than a century..."(p232)

I just disambiguated the clan named MacLeod on this page and the MacLeod page as MacLeod (clan). I wasnt aware of any other formats. I just stumbled upon this page as it showed up in my watchlist (since I edited this page!) --Chuq 01:48, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, which brought me here :) It looks like there's only three such disambigs, so it's no biggie to fix later. I won't make the change yet - I'd do it after the weekend, unless there is opposition (or sooner, if a few people agree and no-one disagrees). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:56, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I have also just found than a Clan MacLeod page already exists (I don't know why I didn't look for it before). I've changed my link to the non-existant MacLeod (clan) to Clan MacLeod. I have also created a Fergusson article, without either format at the present (also because disambiguation doesn't seem to be needed, yet) --Chuq 03:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, I fear there is some (albeit incredibly tenuous) connection between Scottish Clans and the KKK. Some historians think that the KKK's founders modelled the Klan on that rather odd version of clan history as espoused by Walter Scott [1]. I think a judiciously-worded sentence to this effect wouldn't be out of place in this article. Some other far-right groups in north america also use traditional scottish regalia (I recently saw some with a swastika and a black-background-saltire on TV) and use highland games in the US and Canada for recruitment. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

There indeed isn't a Clan Burns. Grimble (mentioned above) says "This very ordinary Lowland name, possessing no clan history, has been raised by the genius of a single brief life above every other in Scotland...". There is a Burns Tartan, but that doesn't make for a clan (after all, there's a Black Watch tartan). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:05, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Since MacDonald and Campbell are existing pages I didn't try to put MacDonald etc. into the origins bit, but if this gets standardised as (well) suggested above will be glad to change them..dave souza 01:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Akins

Recently, one Steven Akins of Alabama has claimed to be Chief of a Clan Akins. His claims are examined here.

The page linked from there makes it clear that not everyone believes the claims of Mr. Akins. Why, then, does the Clan Akins page call his page the official clan website? Marnanel 01:57, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Because it is nothing but an echo of the same old lies promulgated by the selfsame self-styled "Akins of that Ilk", a man caught out in fraud and lies quite nicely before.

WikiProject Clans of Scotland

There was an effort a while back (eek! 2002!) to organize WikiProject Clans of Scotland, which I signed up for (being a good Munro lass) but never got around to following up on. Might be worth reviving? I'd like to see this area of Wikipedia filled in...  :) --Catherine - talk 02:30, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd certainly be interested in keeping the Fergusson section of this project up to date! --Chuq 03:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation

It looks like there's a problem with the capitalisation of some of the names here. Generally a name like Macdonald is capitalised thus, whereas a name like McDonald is capitalised thus. As far as I'm aware something like MacLean is incorrect since it should be written Maclean or McLean (according to family usage) in English and mac Lean or nic Lean (according to gender) in Gaelic. Comments before I change them ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:27, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Can we address the capitalisation issue? The generally accepted capitalisation is Macdonald or McDonald but not MacDonald. I will start correcting it shortly unless you give me good reasons why I should not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:02, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

I began making alterations to the versions such as Macdonald because I had personally always understood that this was incorrect, and that it should be MacDonald. I have a close friend who insists that the spelling of his name is MacKenzie and any other version is wrong. However, I didn't make changes without checking -- I went the the Electric Scotland site, and to the List approved by the Court of Lord Lyon, King of Arms at http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/clanmenu.htm -- where the answer is pretty clear.... Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 14:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A little research shows that this is an even more complex area than I had assumed. See in particular [2] which basically agrees with you but also gives a rule which states that only proper names following Mac should be capitalised, thus MacGregor (Son of Gregor) but Macintyre (Son of the joiner). Further a Macdonald comments on the page to explain why Macdonald is an exception to the rule. It's all anecdotal of course, but interesting nevertheless.

The Times Online Style Guide M suggests that these names should be treated on a case-by-case basis and checked in Who's Who. Translating that to Wikipedia I would suggest that it implies that we should use the capitalisation which the Clan Chief uses for his own surname. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:27, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

My grandmother and everyone in her family are named MacDonald, with that capitalisation. Furthermore, every non-related MacDonald I have ever met has spelt their name with the capitalised 'd' in both he case of McDonald and MacDonald. --Poorpaddy 01:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, good for you but surely you're not suggesting that because you, personally, have only met MacDonalds that Macdonalds do not exist ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Don't straw man. --Poorpaddy 02:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

??? -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Chief of her Clan, The Lord Macdonald (The Macdonald of Macdonald, Chief of the Name and Arms of Macdonald), doesn't. Proteus (Talk) 11:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In everything I've ever read he does. --Poorpaddy 02:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How much have you read ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

As this problem seems mainly to affect M(a)c(D)(d)onalds, I have put a note on the Clan Donald page as follows: There is no significance to the variant spellings of the name in English and it is a matter of personal preference whether one uses the prefix Mac or Mc or a capital or lower case D. In the late 18th Century the prefix M' was also used and the name has also been angicized by the use of the suffix son, i.e. Donaldson. That said, it was generally the Keppoch and Glengarry branches who adopted the MacDonell spelling and the Antrim family tend to use McDonnell. The variant McConnell is also popular in Ireland.

Furthermore, there has never been a Clan Macdonald. As a newbie to Wikipedia, I thought I'd consult here before wading in and editing the main article. Godfrey James Macdonald of Macdonald is the High Chief of Clan Donald and is acknowledged as such by Sleat, Clanranald, Glengarry, the Earl of Antrim and, as far as I know, MacAlester.

Incidentally, MacLean in Gaelic is Mac Ghille Eoin. Ruaridh Mhor

Some members of my family have insisted that MacKinnon be written with the capital "K" while others insist a small "k" is accurate. I for one have come to believe that it does not matter for this and other Scottish names since their English spellings are derived from non-English words.

--Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

New chart of Clan names

While I applaud the idea of showing the Scottish clans in chart form, with hyperlinks where available, the new list from the Court of Lord Lyon includes many smaller unheard-of clans, and not necessarily all Highland clans. It does not tally with the authentic original list at the foot of the page, and I would suggest that advice be sought on which are the "correct" clans to include. Comments or suggestions, please. Agendum 23:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the one hand, I think the authentic list is important. On the other, it could be a skirmish fought over and over again as new Scots and Scotophiles find the page and add the "missing" clans. My suggestion: leave the current list at the foot of the current page, with a link to "full listing of Scottish clans". Move the new and growing chart (which I also think is well done) to List of Scottish clans, with the addition of a column to designate the significance of a clan. It could include notations such as "original", "minor", "disputed", even "spurious" (if Clan Akins should insist on raising its head again), and/or note "sept of X", if desired. Complicated cases could simply say "see clan article". What do you think? Catherine | talk 02:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that we add the clans whose names begin with I to Z. I cannot believe that this is Lord Lyon's complete list. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:35, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

It was added by User:212.39.109.161 on October 24 and added to by User:212.39.112.226 on October 27 (the same user, I'd think). I assume it is a work in progress; this person is putting in a lot of work to type it, construct the tables, and research the correct links to existing articles on clans and clan chiefs. I'd suggest we give it more time to grow; but by all means help it along if you can. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 18:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, Catherine. I can see that I am sounding abrupt and ungrateful. My apologies to the anonymous editor, I didn't intend to be rude. Actually, I did a search to see if I could find the Lyon register online with the intent of adding the missing information. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be available. Electric Scotland have a list at

   http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/clanmenu.htm

which looks pretty good but doesn't include the chiefs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:46, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

What worries me is that the chart of Clan names bears little resemblance to any list of authentic Scottish clans - it is just a listing of Scottish familial names. There is a clear distinction between Scottish Clans and Families - each of which have a precise definition, the former being (generally) associated with the Highlands, and the latter with the Lowlands (and neither category includes any name that just happens to be Scottish).

This is a distinction I attempted to draw when I contributed to this article earlier this year. Nor does this list of family names in any way tally with the excellent Scottish Clan Map provided by GsI.

I would certainly dispute the Lord Lyon business – it looks more like a Scottish tartan manufacturer's catalogue to me, designed to increase his sales of kilts. The list at Electric Scotland appears to perpetuate this myth. Surely, there must be a way of checking with the Office of Lord Lyon? Agendum 21:10, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In favour of that: I tried to draw attention to this problem of lists and maps showing all of Scotland by adding an intro to this list - a member of clan macsouza living next to the ancestral clan Darroch House which is on the wrong side of the clyde from the Highlands...dave souza 00:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article by Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Baronet, Queens Counsel, Rothesay Herald of Arms (ie one of the four most senior members of the Lord Lyon's court) states what is almost certainly the court's official position on the legal difference between clans and families -- which is basically that there isn't any difference. It states that the perceived Highland/Lowland split was something that arose during the Victorian era. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:06, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

even before reading this it sounds logical, and I've taken the liberty of modifying the article to reflect the claims of lowland families to be clans as shown in the wee collins guide I've borrowed from the library. If the consensus is that this is the way to go I'll look into adding these families onto the clan map while keeping the red line for those wanting to differentiate The guide also has interesting info on the highland clan justice system, tacksmen etc which I intend to add into this article when time permits. dave souza 23:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm still not sure. I don't personally think that Electric Scotland is a reliable source of information - you've only got to look at the list of ads down the side. I'd like to think about it for a couple of days. The article referred to mentions Septs (which have long since ceased to exist), whereas Scottish Families and Clans still do. I guess we've got to decide whether to go the 'traditional' route, or the more contemporary (tartan manufacturers') way.... The Highland/Lowland split always existed, afaik - not just geographical, but in terms of society, language and culture. The clanns were a feature of the former. Agendum 00:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can understand why you might think that Electric Scotland is not a generally reliable source. There's no doubt that they will want to please their advertisers. However in this case although ES is the publisher, Agnew is the author and I find it unlikely that a man in his position would put his name to a public document which he felt to be inaccurate. It would be too damaging to his reputation to do so. As for Septs, he, like you, seems rather "sceptical" about them. As for the traditional/contemporary decision, we surely want to use the tradition but I think that a big part of the problem is identifying a reliable source for it. I assumed that that was why we were using the Lord Lyon's register. If it's not a reliable source of the tradition then what source can we use ? Finally on the Highland/Lowland split, there's little doubt that it's existed since time immemorial but the question is where the geographical line should be drawn. It has moved over time. There are parts of Scotland, particularly in Aberdeenshire, which were historically Highland but which are now Lowland, culturally, if not geographically. As a result there may be clans/families where were once thought of as Highland and which are now thought of as Lowland.-- Derek Ross | Talk 05:22, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

A little further reading of the Electric Scotland site indicates that they get their list of Clans from the Lord Lyon's register and their list of Clan Chiefs from the 107th edition of Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage. In fact to be fair, Electric Scotland are quite good generally about giving the sources for their clan information, so anything that they publish can be quite easily checked. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:46, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

This is the official web site for the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. It includes a list of Clans and Armigerous Clans, the latter being a recognized clan that doesn't currently have a chief (e.g., Buchanan). Looks like the same information as on Electric Scotland, but without the ads. As a newcomer I'm violating the 'be bold' advice, but this is a complex page and I'd rather not mess it up. Especially given a family tree loaded with Macdonalds of Clanranald. OtherDave 19:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Given that who is and isn't "authentic" is disputed, surely the article should show this ('Lowland clans' section) without taking sides. Collins Clans and Tartans includes lowland "clans" like Hamilton, Ramsay and Maxwell (complete with pictures of their tartans), should this article take the decision to exclude them? The idea of the list getting an added column to categorise clans has merit, provided a suitable external reference gives authority to the decisions. "Spurious" should be used with great care, though I'd accept the "Robin Hood" tartan in that category. dave souza 08:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like the sound of that approach. It would be applying the NPOV which is the right thing to do to a debatable topic like this one.. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:57, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

Agreed with most of that as the best way forward. I still have reservations that some Lowland names should be shown as Families rather than Clans, and also that the table listing gives very different names (even before you get to those beginning with 'Mc'...!) than those in my list just below, which was from a source that I regarded as authentic. btw, I have to admit that it wasn't totally comprehensive - I omitted some lesser-known names, but kept what I regarded as those which would be most recognisable. -- Agendum 01:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Geoff/Gsl who created the Scottish clan map has responded that he is happy to make additions to this map, and on User talk:Gsl I've suggested ScottishRadiance — A Map of the original Location of Scottish Clans as a good basis for showing Lowland clans. I've added an alternative lists and maps section to the Scottish clan page. p.s. no Hamilton on the list? dave souza 23:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That sounds good. I still think an additional Lowland map is the best way to go, but agree with the sources. There are at least three (maybe more) websites which have the same map as ScottishRadiance — at CensusFinder Scottish Clans Map and at Skye's Scottish & Celtic History Website. These are identical, and clearly come from the same original source, although the latter is clearer and may show more detail. There are other minor changes to the first map, which I have already suggested to Geoff (now archived), and will repeat for the sake of convenience - so we're all singing fra' the same hymnsheet. Bruce, aka Agendum 20:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm in the process of revising my map using the various sources I've been pointed to. I've applied your suggestions Bruce (singular names, "Fraser" instead of "Frazer" -- sorry for taking so long about it) but have done a combined Highland and Lowland map, larger scale than the current version. Because I don't have any Lowland clan boundaries, I've dispensed with the boundaries for the Highland clans too and have also dropped the numbered key so I have given up trying to list the clans like "Clan Macian or MacDonalds of Ardnamurchan & Sunnart" which came from my original source (published in 1939). I wasn't sure whether I should be showing the earls (Earl of Huntly, Earl of Murray, Early of Argyll, etc) so have dropped those as well.

I will be able to churn out these maps pretty easily so it can be continually revised until it's to everyone's satisfaction. I can also provide a blank map in case anyone wants to do their own version or want to have customised maps for each clan (showing the clan's territory only). Geoff/Gsl 22:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You spoil us, Geoff! Thanks again - yes that 1939 source may not be too reliable. Best to stick to the othe that have been proposed, I guess. The earls - I think I agree with you, although I'll check. What do others think? Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 23:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've uploaded my revised version. At the moment it's a mixture of my original source, the Electric Scotland map and the Scottish Radiance map. Any suggested ammendments are welcome. It will be easy for me to generate new versions so don't hesitate to criticise my errors. And it's easy enough for me to do separate highland and lowland versions, if required. Geoff/Gsl 03:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

many thanks, the map looks good to me. The earls added confusion and I think we're well rid of them..dave souza 23:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They also seem to be missing some names.66.82.9.87 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Differentiation between a Clan and a simple surname

One thing which I hope that we can agree on is that a Clan (or a Family) must at one time have had a Chief recognised by the Lord Lyon, even if it does not currently do so. This will allow us to differentiate between a Clan/Family and a group of Scots who just happen to share the same surname (ie those named Witte). -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:03, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Some lists have lists of family names to look up which Clan (and tartan) you can relate to, but if I recall correctly the article by Sir Crispin Agnew made it clear that the chief gets to say who's in the clan - any need for further clarification in the Scottish clan page? dave souza 23:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My original list now appears to have shrunk considerably, and outlived its usefulness - I see no real reason for it to remain, as most of the names now appear on the enlarged chart above. btw, congratulations to whoever is responsible for that chart - it's looking good. Bruce, aka Agendum 20:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for Page Move

Wikipedia policy is to use singular titles rather than plural ones where possible since this makes linking easier in most cases. I have moved the page in line with this policy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:52, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Outlaws

I don't think that we should be using the term "Highland outlaws". "Outlaw" was a specific Scottish legal punitive measure applied only to a person convicted of a crime and was still on the books until the end of the 1940s. Its use to describe Highlanders in this article is confusing because of the Scottish context. Even those Highlanders who were law-breakers, were unlikely to be outlaws. It was reserved as a punishment for serious criminal acts. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I agree. 'Outlaws' is a bit strong - when referring to the entire Highlands! Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 00:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good edit, I didn't know that about outlaws: bandits would have been a better term to express the lowland feeling about highlanders, but that's now fully covered above.That's me done now, hopefully. Still uneasy about "Romantic "revival" of interest", think Romantic enthusiasm is any better? dave souza 19:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Membership

If your mother is part of a clan, but your father is not, do you count as a member of the clan? -Branddobbe 09:04, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I would imagine that it depends upon whether your mother is married and perhaps whether a dowry was paid. If she was married to your father at the time, you would probably not be a member of the clan, if she wasn't married to him, you probably would be a member. It's difficult to be sure but if there was some dispute, or if you wanted to be a member, you could write to the clan chief asking to be a member. You count as a member of the clan if the clan chief accepts you as a member, I would think. But that's just my opinion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:53, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

The Clan Chief does indeed have authority in that matter. Though in older times, You would usually pay the chief something for their protection, the modern Lady Saltoun, Chief of Clan Fraser, says something akin to: "If you respect the Clan Chief as your own, and consider yourself a member, then I'm proud to call you a Fraser." Canaen 23:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there in any such thing as actual 'membership' any more. If you have the same surname, then some would say you qualify purely by virtue of that fact. I believe that others would insist that you should be able to prove descent from some of the original clan family groups. I'm not sure that it really matters any more. What I can say is that the mother's name is important and (under Scottish law) I believe you can legally take that name instead of your father's. So you could just be accepted as a member of her clan. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 00:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The authoritative Sir Crispin Agnew (same link as above) says plenty about this, including:

a chief is empowered to accept anyone he wishes to be a member of his clan or decree that his clan membership shall be limited to particular groups or names of people. All persons who bear the chief's surname are deemed to be members of his clan. Equally, it is generally accepted that someone who determines to offer their allegiance to the chief shall be recognised as a member of that clan unless the chief has decreed that he will not accept such a person's allegiance, Thus, if a person offers his allegiance to a particular chief by joining his clan society or by wearing his tartan, he can be deemed to have elected to join that particular clan and should be viewed as a member of that clan unless the chief particularly states that he or his name group are not to be allowed to join the clan.....In summary, therefore, the right to belong to a clan or family, which are the same thing, is a matter for the determination of the chief who is entitled to accept or reject persons who offer him their allegiance. . dave souza 07:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

People need to remember that many of the modern rules and taboos are based on English laws and notions. The Anglo-Normans put the focus on the paternal line only. The Gaels could focus on maternal, paternal or mixed lines. The Anglo-Normans passed ranks and titles to the eldest son. The Gaels could pass ranks and titles to anyone with a shared heritage going back up to 4 generations. The Gaels did not originally use surnames as they are used today, so it is clearly a more modern rule for the Clans to focus on surnames. Your "surname" would typically equate to "Son of <a parent>", so it could change every generation. This started to change as surnames were adopted to reflect important ancestors. O'Brien, for example, was adopted to point to Brian Boru, High King of Ireland, as an ancestor. You could even use a surname based on a famous female ancestor.

The article cites the Lord Lyon for a reference about who is a member of a Clan. This makes absolutely no sense because the Lyon Court operates based on English notions of heraldry and not Gaelic notions of the Clans. You can adopt a maternal surname just as easily as a paternal one, so you can focus on a maternal Clan. Clan Donald is an example of Gaels focusing on both lines to define who you are. Genetic testing discovered a Norse marker in the Donald paternal line and attempts have been made to dismiss their long history of Gaelic descent. This is because the paternal-only mentality of the Anglo-Normans is again being applied to Gaels that cared about all lines. Clan Donald has Viking blood and is also descended from the Kings of Ireland. They are not mutually exclusive because the Clan does not focus solely on paternal lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.30.155 (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tartans and kilts covered elsewhere

looking at the comment from Agendum at the start about planning to add more about the historic use of tartans, the kilt, clan badges, etc - the articles seem to be covering the first two pretty well, perhaps a linking section here and also links to a separate article on clan badges would be best? These clans have just growed..dave souza 07:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, Dave. However re your previous comment on membership, I think it might be worth adding a Membership section to the article which has the information in your comment. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:55, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I never got around to it, I'm afraid.... The article is looking good now, certainly much better than the previous offering. I'll try and find time to do something on clan badges, which are relevant to the subject as distinguishing crests -- Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 01:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Curses, fell for that one. OK, I've had a go and left a start on clan badges to be expnded (and changed) when it suits..dave souza 00:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lowland and Border names

Recent mention of a Borders family brings me to the question of what we do about Lowlands and Borders families in general. I have long held that these are very different from clans (and don't claim to be so), but have long and distinguished histories of their own. Names like Black, Scott, Elliot, Bell, Muir, etc, etc.

There are many lists - some of the names appear on websites about the Reivers - although there are many who were further north than the Borders. I tend to think that these families possibly merit their own chart, similar to the Clans one - although there are fewer details (no clan chief, although some have coats of arms or badges, and/or mottoes).

What do you think - should I begin a page devoted to the Lowland and Borders families (not just the Reivers)? There are many well-known (and instantly recognisable) Scottish names that could be included. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 13:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

as was discussed under the clan map section above, some kind person's provided a column to draw these distinctions, but no-one had put anything in it yet so as a trial I've put Lowland & Highland in against Hamilton, which indicates that they're a Lowland clan/family and also (to a lesser extent) a Highland clan. Since they all seem to have tartans and clan websites, societies etc any more distinction would seem rather contentious...dave souza 23:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On futher thought it would indeed be worthwhile having a separate page (or two) on Lowland and Borders families (with lists), in addition to keeping their names on the Scottish clan list wherever they're recognised as a clan/family by Lord Lyon Court. The ones I've looked at all now claim to be clans, hence the section on this Scottish clan page about Lowland clans: this section could link to a more detailed page. Aside: the stub page reive explains the term and could also link to a new page covering the Border Reivers....dave souza 14:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MyClan.com

MyClan.com provides extensive information covering the majority of known Scottish clans. For those of you who aspire to write a clan entry to progress completion of the Clan list, you may want to review this site. Adraeus 02:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been using that as a basis for working through the clans, unfortunately, the work is copyrighted as it is taken from a book. I have been rewording, paraphrasing and using other sources to try and get a good entry for each clan (slow work, yes). It is a great staring point and pretty comprehensive, everything that wikipedia should be in this respect. Nfras 22:26, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Arrival of Frasers

The article lists the Frasers as coming into Scotland around the Wars of Independance. However, the earliest records showing Frasers in Scotland date from 1160, more than a century before the first war. I'm removing them from that list. Canaen 05:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Clans and Armigerous Families

The Clan list we currently have isn't consistent or complete. It seems to be made up of Clans (as recognised by the Lyon Court) and Armigerous Families (families who are currently without a chief but at some point in their history an individual or family has been granted the use of Arms). I suggest we limit the Clan list to the 140 Clans of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs and simply link to another page on Armigerous Families, defining and listing them (there are over 200 if someone needs something to do). Any thoughts before I implement this? Nfras 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, people are looking for Scottish Clans when they come to this article. If it's done neatly, and in a more tidy manner, then go ahead, I guess. As long as the information is readily available.Canaen 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree totaly with Nfras. As I have mentioned above, under Lowland and Border Names, there are many Scottish families whose names are well-known, but which are certainly not recognised as Clans. The accepted view is that these may be families who owed obeisance to a nearby clan chief and came under his 'protection'. Whether this actually ever happened is open to debate.

I would support the idea of pruning the list to include only recognised clans and linking to a completely separate new article listing Lowland families (I am only familiar with those in the Lowlands but it may apply to Highland families too). - Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 12:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

From my research, only the 140 somthing clans of the SCSC are officially recognised under Scots law. As arms are granted to an individual, any clan or family without a chief is not recognised by the Lyon Court, does not have the right to bear arms and has no standing under Scots law. Some of the armigerous clans have simply lost the genealogical link with the chiefs (usually following 1745 for obvious reasons) and some are really just ancient families. I'll try to get a first draft of a page up before the end of the week and we can continue any discussions there. (Nfras 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

I have put up a page for Armigerous clan and it is open for discussion as to how we proceed. I'll leave it a week or so before I tidy up the clan list here and take out the non-recognised clans in case it puts anyone's nose out of joint. (Nfras 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

This gets more and more confusing. The list appears to omit many families that one would normally understand to be clans - eg, Bruce, Fraser, Lindsay, etc and include many, many Lowland families that are definitely not clans - and should be kept separate. Sorry, but it defeats the object (in my opinion) by confusing the issue even further. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the Lord Lyon's website A clan or family which has a recognised chief or head confers noble status on the clan or family which gives it a legally recognised status and a corporate identity. A family or name group which has no recognised chief has no official position under the law of Scotland. Highland clans and lowland families with recognised chiefs have a legal standing under Scots law. Armigerous clans have had this status in the past but not currently. Remember that in the eyes of the law and the court of the Lord Lyon, family and clan are interchangeable terms, and lowland families are deemed clans. The objective behind moving the armigerous clans away from the main Scottish clan page is that there are over 200 of them and it's a big enough task doing a write-up of all of the recognised clans (the ones listed under Scottish clan) which, I believe, should be the main aim at the moment. Nfras 04:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bruce and Lindsay, as far as I've understood are accepted as families, but not clans. Fraser, on the other hand (and this is not just heredital bias) has been considered a clan for ages, partricularly Fraser of Lovat. Canaen 06:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Lord Lyon is concerned, family and clan are one and the same and does not distinguish between them. While there is a distinction to be made historically between highland clans and lowland families it is not a difference recognised by Scots law or the court of the Lord Lyon. Essentially, any clan or family that has a chief recognised by the Lord Lyon is a "clan". Any clan or family that has in the past had a chief but no longer has one is an "armigerous family or clan" and has currently no standing under Scots law, however much of an impact they may have made to the history of Scotland. A good example of this is Douglas, undoubtedly one of the most influential families in the history of Scotland, but since the chiefly line became Douglas-Hamilton and cannot be chief of the clan, Douglas is not a 'true clan' (ie has no standing under Scots law) and is an armigerous family. Does this make sense? PS - Love the work you have done on the Frasers, Canaen. (Nfras 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

Ah. Yes, it makes much more sense now. Thank you. The standard which we were using was a bit unclear to me. On the note of Clan Douglas, I see that our table lists the chieftain as "Unknown." It seems like the Hamilton issue should be noted somehow. As for Frasers: Thank you; I sort of started them off and stopped for a bit. I should go back and fill 'em up. Canaen 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone with the majority view and included my own lowland family in the list - noticing that many others have already been added during my recent absence. I still maintain that there is a difference between clans and lowland families, but who am I to disagree with Lord Lyon! Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 13:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to start a war but Porteous is not a recognised clan. Even the "Laird Elect" admits that there are no genealogical ties to the Porteouses of Hawkshaw. Porteous is an Armigerous Family. If we list every recognised clan alongside every armigerous clan we will have a list of over 300 clans. Better we keep the list on this page to recognised clans and have a link to the armigerous clans. I'll leave the page as is over the weekend for comment and decide on whether to remove Porteous to Armigerous clan on Monday. (Nfras 22:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

No, we are actually in agreement! I have always maintained that the Porteous family was not a true clan (in common with other families like Tweedie, Veitch, Jardine, etc), and have strenuously supported a distinction between the two - see some of my postings above and elsewhere. But I was beginning to think I'd better give in gracefully - and add my family to the ever-growing list of clans and families.

Ironically, it was removed the same day, when you decided that families were not, after all, the same as clans - which is correct - whatever they maintain that Lord Lyon dictates! I really have no problem with removing Porteous to another list - I was just somewhat put out that, after discussing this for many months, it should be decided to remove families on the very same day that I returned after an absence and gave in to what had been the majority.

By the way, I assume that the removal of some families to Armigerous Families is a majority decision? Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 16:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I moved Porteous was that it has no recognised chief, which means that it isn't a clan rather than it being a lowland family, but I think we may be talking at cross purposes because we have different definitions of clan and family. Sorry if it made you feel put out. The whole clan vs family debate is, I feel, an odd one. I can see both sides as highland clans were very different from lowland families in structure and history, however, after the '45 and the dismantling of the clan system there was a gap ion Scottish identity. The resurgence of highland dress and the clans after George IVs visit has led to the "clan" system we have today, much of which is an invention of the 18th Century and is a blend of both highland and lowland traditions. However, as the Lord Lyon is the ultimate arbiter in all things heraldic in Scotland, I feel we have to abide by his definition. On the subject of major armigerous families, would it be worthwhile including some of the better known ones (Douglas etc) in a separate note to avoid confusing those seeking information on their clan? (Nfras 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree totally. Porteous has no chief as such (only a 'laird-elect' appointed by a family research organisation, which is something rather different), so let's move Porteous and other similar families to a different page, as you suggested. As I have mentioned above, under Lowland and Border Names, there are many Scottish families whose names are well-known, but which are certainly not recognised as clans (see my posting above dated 18 December 2005). Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistency

It seems to me, especially when we have so many Clan articles, that we should strive for at least a bit of consistency. I've been using Template:Scottish Clan (created by User:Adraeus) viewable at Clan Fraser and Clan Ramsay that I think works well.. At least, the page looks a bit more tidy than some of the other Clan pages I've seen, which have large, bulky images and bunches of blank page space. The biggest issue is that entire sections are devoted to as little as one or two senctences, sometimes even only a few words' worth of information (Clan Ross is a good example of this). What do the rest of you think? Canaen 00:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not all clans have a consitant format. You see not all will have an individual badge, motto, crest, coat of arms etc.... Also many clans have different histories over the last 1000 years. Maybe a picture of the clan crest in the top right of the page would be a good start.

This is true. But many of the more developed ones do; Fraser, Ross, MacDonald. Some sort of uniformity can certainly be acheived, as evidenced by websites such as http://www.MyClan.com

I've already encountered a lack of information when starting up the Clan Cameron of Erracht article. Since the clan is no longer around, it has no website. Easy fix: delete the website portion of the template. It's quite simple, and it seems to me to looks more organized.

As well, I'd appreciate it if everyone would sign their comments, using four tildes ( ~~~~ ). It helps us to know who's saying wha, and know which talk pages to use if we need to. Canaen 01:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Clan Map

The correct spelling is Munro for that clan. Not Monroe. Monroe,Munroe and Monro were all 'Septs' of the actual main Clan which is correctly spelt Munro.

That has to be the most awful, inacurrate clan map I have ever seen. I'm going to find a better one.

The Clan Map was kindly done by contributor Geoff/Gsl from the best available information on the web, with one or two changes which were suggested. It is not completely accurate (nor will a map of this kind ever be) and other corrections have been suggested, which he is quite wiling to take in. If the anonymous correspondent above will list any proposed additions or corrections, I am sure he will consider making them. Bruce, aka Agendum|Talk 11:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

For a start it should say Munro not Monroe. Munro was the clan who owned the territory. Monroe was a sept who lived inside there. Also MacKenzie is written twice. Although their territory was large (so large they struggled to defend). The top writing of MacKenzie is actually pertruding well into what is MacKay country. That should be removed and the lower writing of MacKenzie left which would be much more accurate.

Feel free to edit the map yourself, and show us your improved version. Canaen 06:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There is now a blank version of the map at Image:Scottish_clan_map_blank.png on Commons. Feel free to make your own. 58.163.128.201 11:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone feels like editing it, Clan Maclachlan should be added to the clan map.--Celtus (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear! What a poor map we have today. Shipsview (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Best Clan Map

Ok by far the best clan map, most accurate with correct spellings can be found here:[[3]] You click on parts to see them in good detail. If you click in square B1 you will see how the territory of Clans Ross, Munro & MacKenzie should be. Ross's and Munro's territory actually overlaped. Clans Ross & Munro had always been allies throughout history.

I can't seem to edit the map, but hey someone has corrected the spelling to Munro, well done.

Still where MacKenzie is written is still wrong. If you go here: :[[4]] and click on the map there, you can see how the Territories of Ross, Munro and MacKenzie were.

At the moment the clan map here is wrong where MacKenzie pertrudes inbetween Ross and Munro.

I'll make the changes when I get a chance. Any other corrections that need to be made? Geoff/Gsl 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add Nesbitt and Swinton, just below Hay. Topographically Nesbitt is at Duns and Swinton at Swinton, both Berwickshire. thanks! Mark Nesbitt 13:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new version having moved "Mackenzie" and added "Nesbitt". I wasn't able to work out where "Swinton" is in Berwickshire. Geoff/Gsl 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Swinton is literally at the village of Swinton (which neighbours Edrom, home of the Nesbitts). If you were to put Swinton straight under Nesbitt, that would be accurate. Mark Nesbitt 08:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Geoff/Gsl 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey the clan map is looking much better. Nice one.

Here is an excellent reference map:[[5]] I'd like to add clan Stirling just north of Stirling and just north of Glasgow. Over the last 900 years clan Stirling held lands on both sides of the highland/lowland demarcation. Thoraldus 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For the Northern shires by far the best map is here: [[6]]

Could you put MUNRO in slightly bigger writting please so it at least reaches the East Coast of their Territory, thanks.

Update

Using latest Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs list, have updated table to include Broun, Colville, Elphinstone, Guthrie, Hope, MacArthur, MacDonald of Keppoch, McLaine of Lochbuie, Macleod of the Lewes, MacTavish, Napier, Oliphant, Primrose, Riddell, Sandilands, Stuart of Bute. I think this list is now complete. Also made some careful corrections to spellings - surnames not always the same as the clan name. Mark Nesbitt 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Clan Chattan motto - now in the form as used by the Chief and matriculated by him at the Lyon Court, though the Clan Society mentions a more archaic form "Touch not the cat bot a glove". I'd suggest that as the list of clans is that recognised by the Lord Lyon, the mottoes should be those recognised by the Lord Lyon. The place to mention archaic spellings is perhaps the relevant clan page.

Authoritative mottoes can be obtained online from [7], admittedly not an exciting website but important because the history and heraldry in it were used word for word from Way and Plean's authoritative Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia, itself based on original research at the Lyon Office, and endorsed by the SCSC. I also use Burke's Landed Gentry (2001).Mark Nesbitt 22:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Highland/Lowland status

Have made a start on updating this, using the geographical definition of H/L as in the clan map, and checking original clan territories using Burke's Peerage and maps. Mostly unambiguous, but there might be some clans on the H/L border that self identify themselves differently. Mark Nesbitt 23:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Completed this. I have taken the 16th/17th century centre for the clan as deciding the region/cultural affiliation - not the modern distribution of surnames. I have tried to avoid blanket "Highland/Lowland" affiliations. Mostly clear, a few borderline cases. Would be great if any changes were mentioned here in Talk so we can clarify them. Mark Nesbitt 17:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be some contradiction between the status of the Clan Colquhoun on the clan map/list of this page and the clan article. The map and this general article lists Colquhoun as a highland clan, whereas the Colquhoun article itself lists the clan as a lowland clan. The confusion may lie in the fact that the clan arose near Loch Lomond on the highland/lowland border and affiliated itself with many families on both sides of the border. For example, my sept, which is usually listed under Colquhoun, lived much farther south in the Dumfries area. Regardless, as it stands the two articles are in conflict with each other and one needs changed. Kirkpatrick 14:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Highland Border

I'm sure the Highland Border is in the wrong place. In fact I'm sure the most southanly highland clan was Campbell. The border line should go under Campbell and inbetween Grant(higland) and Gordon(lowland).

I think the best solution would be to find another map to use. I am Australian, not Scottish, so can only rely on the sources available to me. Unfortunately it appears the source I based my original map on (The Scottish Clans & Their Tartans, W. & A.K. Johnston, 1939) is not particularly accurate (that's where the highland boundary came from) and my merging of other sources, such as the positioning of "Gordon", has only made things worse. I suggest that someone who does know what they are doing make a map out of a blank Scottish map or find another free map. Or print out a blank map, write the clan names in the correct spelling, position, size and orientation, scan it in, uploaded it, and I will update my map based on that source. Geoff/Gsl 22:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think the Highland fault line has moved futher south throughout history. The Gordons were definatly once a Lowland clan. However a Regiment was once formed called the Gordon highlanders and also many other clans wanting to be known as Highlanders. The fault line is probably roughly in the right place....

Campbell, MacDonald feud

Does anyone know the names of any battles which took place between the Clan Campbell and Clan MacDonald ? Or was it more of a political feud, becuase I can't seem to find any.

Thanks.

The best known is probably the Battle of Inverlochy, fought on 2 February 1645, although it should be borne in mind it was not all Campbells on one side and Macdonalds on the other. The whole campaign conducted by Alasdair MacColla-a leading member of Clan Donald-in 1644 and 1645 was essentially aimed against the Campbells. Clan struggles were never simply blood fueds; politics always played an important part. Rcpaterson 00:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If course, one must consider the Massacre of Glencoe as one of the most famous Campbell-MacDonald events. --Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Clan Wars

Some of the info here was researched using an online version of a book first published in 1764 by the Foulis Press. It was called "The History of the Feuds and Conflicts Among the Clans in the Northern Parts of Scotland and in the Western Isles: from the year M.XX1 unto M.B.C.XIX". It can be found here, modernised to 1890 orthography standards:[[8]]

Template:Clan stub

I've created the following stub for use with Scottish clans and related articles. You can use it by putting {{Clan stub}} at the bottom of an article. Hopefully this will help facilitate not only the organizing of Scottish clans, but also the construction, as we'll be able to see which ones desire more attention than others. Granted, right now it seems more will be on the stub list than not. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ate babies?

This article says quote "the government displayed the Highlanders as ...... that ate babies". I believe there should be a line reference, as this itself sounds ridiculous and not of a NPOV. Rshu 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Much of the government army was made from Highlanders anyway. 195.137.109.177

Buchanan clan

Historically from stirling. No clan list is complete without it. Clarior Hinc Honos!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.108.33 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

They are a clan without a chief on the Armigerous clan list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.109.177 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Checking surname for Sept or Clan affiliation

What is "Barnes"? I have seen GENUKI provide a guess and tried to scour internet atlases, but have found nothing apart from Barnes Castle in East Lothian. A last name would have to be older than the castle, which was built rather late. Burnett and Campbell both seem to claim Barnes, but I confess to be certain of nothing apart from the origin of this name. Rhode Islander 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clan Ruthven

Someone has deleted the Clan Ruthven article. Why ???. That took lots of work and effort. 195.137.109.177 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You can read the reasons here, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clan_Ruthven. There still is an article on the Ruthvens but it's at Ruthven (family). -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

the redirection from "clan system" is unnessesairy. Scots are not the only ones with clans. Therefore, there should be a disambiguation page to allow the selection of the clan systems of various people, such as Japan, or an article about clans in general 71.169.38.237 21:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems quite reasonable to do so, if there are enough other Clan systems to disambiguate to. If you can collect the various clan systems and put together a useful disambig page, it seems like a good idea. But if these articles don't exist or are stubs, perhaps wait until they're fleshed out better? Isoxyl 21:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

SUGGESTION

I was trying to find out what the difference between a determinate cadet and an indeterminate cadet was... I assume the determinate cadet is more closely related to the clan chief, but I couldn't find anything on the subject anywhere on the web. I'm wanting a grant of arms from Lyon, and was told that my request would imply that I was a determinate cadet. So, I am trying to research the matter. What better place than here?  :-) Anyone? User: InsightfullySaid 19 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, determinate cadet is someone KNOWN to be related to the clan in question. Indeterminate cadets have no KNOWN relationship, but because of the Scottish heraldic system they are PRESUMED to be related by common or similar surname. Typically, determinate cadets may have heraldry more similar to a Chief's arms than indeterminate cadets. I think, and I may be wrong, that TWO somewhat significant changes from the Chief's arms may be required for all indeterminate cadets, while ONE may be sufficient for determinate cadets (such as a bordure or difference). What I gather is that Lyon saw only one change from the Chief's arms and is saying that your request implies a determinate cadet, but that since you can't prove it, an additional change is needed? Isoxyl 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you recommend further reading? User: InsightfullySaid 20 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.68.50 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is true, but couldn't find much on the web. Only sites I found with references:

Scroll down to "Clan Membership" for a brief explanation [9]

Post a query to the Heraldry Society of Scotland forum [10]

Hope this is somewhat helpful, the best I could do. But if you find a book on Scottish Heraldry, it should have an explanation I would think! Isoxyl 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Clann

It is a common misconception that the Scottish Gaelic word clann translates the word "clan". This is wrong. Although the English word is derived from clann, it merely means "children". It can be found in the names of many clans whose names (not the anglicised forms) include "Clann" or "Siol" (Offspring) as their first element. Cinneal or cinneadh is the usual name for a clan in Scots Gaelic - both of these are distantly related to the English word "kin". --MacRusgail 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Clan Duille

Was there ever such a clan, as Clan Duille? I've found only the fewest google results from it. 67.5.156.254 (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be talking about the Conduiligh Rankins (or Condullie Rankins) . The Conduligh Rankins were a well known piping family in the highlands, like the MacCrimmons and MacArthurs. The Conduligh Rankins had a "piping college" in MacLean country and were pipers to the MacLeans.--Celtus (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Manrent

I am preparing an article on the clan practice of manrent. the reference in the Scottish clan#Social ties article needed more clarification. Fundamentally Manrent was an exchange of troops (Man rent), given the Scottish clan#Social ties article referring to Manrent, Fosterage, and calps in the same paragraph, the reader may be confused into linking these closely together. I noticed that various clans have links to manrent, so I fell there is a need to have a page on the subject. I noticed that a page was created on manrent in the past but was deleted, does anybody know the history of this? Czar Brodie (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The old Manrent article was created in 2005 as a stub by pasting the information from this article. It was deleted in 2006 under speedy deletion criterion A7:

"An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead"

As you can see by reading the above, criterion A7 doesn't really apply, so the deletion was improper. However having read the stub I can see why it was done. The stub didn't establish its significance particularly well. I wouldn't have deleted it because I prefer expanding weak stubs to deleting them but others have a different opinion. I don't think that you will have a problem with people wanting to delete your new article, since it looks like you are going into a bit more depth than the original stub article and you've got some good sources. I can undelete the old article if you want but I don't really think it's worth undeleting. Your call though... -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the info. i just now posted the article Manrent, so I will not be needing the old article, thanks.Czar Brodie (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we needed a manrent article, nice job. Here's an excellent book on manrent which i have referenced on wikipedia: Wormald, Jenny (1985). Lords and Men in Scotland: Bonds of Manrent, 1442-1603. Edinburgh: John Donald. ISBN 0 85976 127 4.. A large part of the book is listing every known bond of manrent from 15th to early 17th century. Awesome book, but i don't have access to it at the moment. You might be able to find it though.--Celtus (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What about nowadays?

Amazing article. It only lacks one more thing: what about the clans nowadays? You write that the original clan system collapsed up until the 19th century. But after that there was a romantic age, and I see that many clans have a legal Chief right now. There are clan events, so I presume many Scottish people care about their ancestors. But as a foreigner, I would like to know more about this. So please write something about it. To be able to imagine a "21th century Scottish clan life". It could help a lot to comparison cultures, too.

Thanks DJS (157.181.106.1 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It just doesn't count for much in Scotland nowadays. It's an interesting hobby to people who like researching their family history and that's about it. I know who the Chief of Clan Ross is. I even know approximately where he lives and who he works for. But most Scots don't even know that much about their clan. We haven't written about a 21st century clan life in Scotland because there isn't one basically. If anything there's more clan-based activity among the Scots diaspora but again that tends to be concentrated around Clan societies and is very much a hobby activity. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In Scotland, peoples' clan history is of real interest only to those who are interested in their own family history and in history in general. Unfortunately, most people arent. That's not to say some people don't having a passing interest but that's all it is for the most part. They might know enough to choose a particular tartan when they hire a kilt for their pal's wedding and such like but that's it. The diaspora is much more interested in their clan history than anyone living in Scotland. This is to be expected since the diaspora is in greater need of ways of connecting with its roots. It can also be argued that the diaspora has a greater interest in clan history since much of the diaspora is directly decended from clan members who left the old country in the aftermath of the jacobite uprisings and the clearances. For the record I am Scottish and live in Scotland and own my own kilt, and know my Scottish history, but sadly I'm probalby in the minority! --86.160.70.61 (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The diaspora deserves a mention, especially in relation to the modern clan and their societies. Many of the clan articles touch on the subject of Clan Societies, some give external links to these. It seems amiss that these societies are not mentioned. Perhaps a paragraph about the societies, with a picture of (e.g.) a Grandfather Mountain gathering. Perhaps an outline of their objectives. The societies objectives are usually summed up in their constitutions. My summary of the Clan Societies objectives would be:

• to foster clan sentiment (including tartan, kilts, bagpipes);
• to honor distinguished clans folk (keep biographies of those who share the name);
• Preservation of records of the history of the Clan, and to display or publish these;
• to encourage and assist members in their genealogy;
• to participate at Highland Games and gatherings
• to give a sense of pride to all those who share the same surname.

Note that some of these societies are getting seriously involved in real-estate, buying territories associated with the clan and the clan castles. Czar Brodie (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are good points. It probably is worth adding something about that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There were of course different surnames associated with single clans. For example, the Mcgregors, although the predominant name with the clan chief, would also have clan members with different surnames. Which is perhaps why when Scots looking for their clan name are often assosiated with a larger clan. Skipper 360 (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical Reliability of Clan Genealogies and Histories

I'd be interested in the general view of the reliablity of the Clan genealogies and histories. Is the general conscenous is that they cannot be taken as authorative sources? Or are they, as some claim, on average at least as accurate as more recent scholarly research? --Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about genealogies but many of the histories seem more or less sound, as most clans have their own clan historians who painstakingly research every nuance of their clan's history. Obviously quality will vary from clan to clan, but most of those I've read are pretty good. --86.161.238.87 (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Portrait of George IV

Couple of problems.

• There are very few pictures in this article. I cannot imagine why this picture has been placed to the left so that it looka out of the article instead of into it, as per wiki style.
• Is there no available picture of someone who might actually belong to a clan, with which to illustrate this article?
• Is there no picture of anyone in Highland dress, except this portait of an Englishman (with a little Scottish blood) who wore this outfit just once in his life?
• Is there no picture of reasonable quality with which to illustrate the article? This one is blurry round the edges, having been saved over itself several times.

Also, presuming we must have this picture, then let's have a relevant caption. The caption has been copied from the comment under the pic when it was uploaded. it says:

David Wilkie's flattering portrait of the kilted King George IV, with lighting chosen to tone down the brightness of his kilt and his knees shown bare, without the pink tights he wore at the event.

Problems?

• The fact that the portrait is flattering is irrelavant to this article and is POV.
• The fact that the light chosen by the artist tones down the brightness of the kilt is irrelevant to this article and requires citation.
• The fact that he wore pink tights under his kilt is fascinating, I'm sure, but totally irrelevant to this article.
• "...at the event". At what event? If this picture is of any relevance whatsoever, then the thing that makes it relevant is "the event".

Sure, somewhere in the text, "the event" is mentioned. However, if you are going to use the picture at all, cut all the stuff about the artist's intention and give your reader a straight statement that informs them that this portrait:

1. represents King George IV
2. in Highland Dress
3. a commemorates a particular occasion

Note:

• "Commemoration" is a key word here. This is not the King at the event, because it is not a photo.
• George IV knew that this was a big deal for the people of Scotland, and that it was also a significant moment in the history of the monarchy. This is why he has sat for a major work by a major artist.
• Unless you are writing a commentary on the artistic works of the artist or the satorial excesses of the king, none of the other stuff is anywhere near as important as a simple statement of who it is and what it is for.

Amandajm (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'notes' section

I just replaced the 'notes' formatting from this style <ref group=Note>xxx</ref> to this style {{#tag:ref|xxx|group=note}}. I did so because i couldn't figure out how to place a ref at the end of a note with the first style. It seems like the only way you can add the ref is by typing it out manually (you can't use the <ref>xxx</ref> inside the <ref group=Note>xxx</ref>. But you can use <ref>xxx</ref> inside the {{#tag:ref|xxx|group=note}}. Atleast thats what it seems like to me. So now we can reference the notes if needed.--Celtus (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Template of clans

Bon, given that the list of Scottish clans is growing beyond capacity, I've gone back to the drawing board and suggest two new options: *a list on the page as the example at User:Czar Brodie/sandbox

• or a template at the bottom of page, the advantage here is that all clan articles can use this (hidden or open). Example of template (colours still need adjusting, and many more clans to add):

Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're trying to make me feel guilty now, aren't you? :-) Strikes me as the least bad option so far, at least it should encourage people to "wander" around the clan articles, my only quibble is that 10kb or so seems a a lot to transclude into an article. So possibly that mega-one for this article and then have smaller ones (chief/armiger or Highland/lowland?) for the actual clan articles? Oh, and my other quibble would be to use one of the standard colours rather than black. Unless there's an option to do tartan. :-)) Le Deluge (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review May 2009

Since I've not been involved with this article hitherto, I thought I'd do an informal review with an eye on bringing it to Good Article status. I've sorted any minor things that came to my attention as I went along, and done some major rearrangements as well....

Major problems

• References, references, references!!! Although the WP:Good article criteria only require "in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" and no original research, it's a good rule of thumb to have at least one reference per paragraph. And no {{fact}} tags! In the long-term, you want to add references for each sentence you add to the article.
• Lead section needs to be expanded considerably, to reflect all the subsections
• Needs more history between 14th-16th centuries
• Copyediting - the whole thing could do with it and I'm happy to do some. It's particularly necessary since I've done some rearranging of sections for the long-term good of the article, but which don't yet meld together yet - for instance the Lowland section is particularly bad as I've rearranged it to give it more historical flow. A large slug of the Lowland section could perhaps be integrated into the main history, it's a bit long as a section at the moment.

Content

• Not bad - the 1911 Britannica may show up a few areas of weakness, but in general it's OK. The 1911 layout was an influence behind me making more of a distinction between the "mechanics" and the history, although I see the logic in how it was before.
• However there's another history section to be added covering the late Middle Ages eg the Lord of the Isles versus Edinburgh/Moray/Ross, when the clans were at their peak.
• Jargon - again not too bad, keep those wiki links going to help your readers, but things like Manrent could perhaps be better explained within the article.
• The list of clans needs to be nuked - not only is it "vulnerable" to vandalism and enthusiastic amateurs and deprecated per WP:EMBED, WP:NOTDIR etc, it's duplicating List of Scottish clans. As I've been discussing with Brodie, this is only staying until he's finished with it for List of Scottish clans.
• Are there any infoboxes (unlikely?) or navboxes that could be added? Brodie's "bottom" navbox with all the clan names in could be one option.
• No obvious out-of-date stuff, although Brodie is probably better able to spot that kind of stuff for the general clan stuff. But as long as the list of clans is there, you'll be updating a new chief every month or two - obsolete by design, not good.
• Categories look fine.
• Images look a bit sparse in the first half, although I'm not sure what you could add. Any paintings of clan battles for instance?

Cleanup, Copyediting, & Formatting

• Whole thing needs a general rewrite for style, as I mentioned above, and I'm happy to do a large part of that
• It's not looking too bad on the niggly WP:MOS stuff though, it may not be FA quality but I've sorted most of the things I've come across. Except for....
• References need to use {{citation}}, {{cite web}} etc - and preferably filled out with publisher, accessdate (for web stuff), publish date and so on.

Accuracy & Neutrality

• Again OK - although in places it does try to harangue the reader a bit, telling him what to think. Editors might like to have another read of WP:Neutral point of view, but a lot of that will fall out in the copyedit.
• Be careful about the general statements of "most clans do this..." or "several clans do that..." - try to be more specific if you can rather than use WP:WEASEL words.
• As I said above, it's hard to have too many references - just hunting down those {{Fact}} tags would be a great start if anyone's at a loose end.
• I'm not wild about Electric Scotland as a WP:RS - be nice to replace those references with "harder" ones (Google Books, SCSC, archive.org etc) where possible

So overall, it's not as bad as I feared. Between looking at the 1911 Britannica, and the WP:Good article criteria, I'm fairly happy. It's still going to need a fair amount of work and a good scrub before it goes to Good article nominations, but it's not irrevocably broken. Please don't hesitate to stick your oars in though, I'm not doing this on my own! :-) Le Deluge (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I wonder if there's scope for two articles, one more on the "theoretical" aspects of clan-ness, and another on the more historical aspects of actual clans? Le Deluge (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've a bit more time now - I'll start copyediting and cleaning up with a view to nominating it for GA in the next few weeks. Le Deluge (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Clan

Editors are invited to give their opinions and suggestions at Template talk:Infobox Clan on the new updated Clan info box. examples of this infobox can be found at: Clan Campbell, Clan Donnachaidh, Clan MacLeod, Clan Kerr etc...(full list here). Your opinion is encouraged as this infobox may be adopted by all clans. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Inter-clan Marriage...

A wee bit of an issue... My mum is of the MacLeod clan and my Dad is of the Stewart (or Stuart) clan, so which clan do I belong to? Would I be inherent to the Stewart clan from my father of the MacLeod clan from my Mother? Or can I choose? -Allismera 10:41, June 06, 2009 (EST)

As the article says, clan membership goes with the surname but these days people are increasingly flexible about that. Le Deluge (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Gathering 2009

I think there should be some mention of The Gathering 2009 on the Scottish clan page. It is an important moment in the history of the clans.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why it should be mentioned at all, but certainly what was here was much too much.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it does need a mention. Not sure about the placement in the opening paragraph. My thinking is that Gatherings and the modern clan scene should have a mention under a new paragraph under History - Romantic revival, perhaps entitle History - The modern clan. I noted that editors reviewing the clan articles sometimes ask about the clan in modern times, e.g. Talk:Clan Maclachlan#Good Article Review, Clan Macfie#The modern clan is a good article in my view that addresses this recent historical aspect of Clans. Under a paragraph The modern clan I would add info of clan participation in gatherings (the Gathering 2009 should also be mentioned as it is in my view a very notable clan gathering), DNA research, and perhaps the role of modern chiefs. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think The Gathering 2009 definatley needs a mention in this article. After all the article is about the Scottish clans and the gathering is the most important event for the Scottish clans in modern times. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No Such Government Existed

This section is problematic:

"Successive Scottish governments had portrayed the clans as bandits needing occasional military expeditions to keep them in check and extract taxes. As Highlanders became associated with Jacobitism and rebellion the government made repeated efforts to curb the clans, culminating with brutal repression after the battle of Culloden."

Jacobitism didn't exist militarily in Scotland until the rebellion of 1715.

In 1707, the Scottish government ceased to exist, and was replaced with the British Parliament.

Referring to the government which attacked the clans and treated them as bandits as a "Scottish Government" assumes that the Scottish government existed at the time, which it did not. Between 1707 and 1999, there was no "Scottish" government, only a British one. Unless someone can suggest better wording in the next month or so, I plan to change the word "Scottish" to "British." While not perfect, such wording would be more accurate, if indeed it's a discussion of Jacobitism.

Opening Paragraph

I don't feel that the introductory section to this article clearly and immediately states what a clan is, and in line with wikipedia's recommendations I'd say that it should be rewritten. I mean, it's nice to know that clans give a sense of identity, but given this is an encyclopedia, surely that information is secondary to an explanation of what a clan is, however basic or obvious that may be. Muchos gracios. KosmischeSynth (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Recently added clan map

The recently added clan map showing supposed territories of the clans is somewhat inaccurate. In that it gives the impression that there were not any clans in the Lowlands - which was an idea brought up in the Victorian era - and the map itself dates from the Victorian era.mjgm84 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Major re-write

The article has been tagged since May 2009 as having a lack of citations. The article contains masses of unsourced information. Much of the info is over bloated and long winded. I intend to re-write some of this - with sources, and remove some of the unsourced information. My main source will be the Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia, which was written with the approval of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, published in 1994.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have found that large amounts of the existing article have clearly been taken from the same source as the one I am using (Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia), however who ever wrote the original article failed to include citations. Even so I have re-written large sections under the "Clan Organization" heading specific from this source. Any unsourced material can be removed from Wikipedia. I have not touched the section on Lowland clans - even though it is completely unsourced. It is important information and my source does not have much info on that specific subject. In the "History" section, to start off with I have completely re-written the "origins" section. The origins section in the existing article was completely unsourced, and as mentioned before any unsourced material can be removed. Also it began with an explanation of the Gaelic kingdom of Dal Raita - now of course some Scottish clans may be of this origin but it certainly does not apply to all of them and should not be the main theme of the origins of the clans. However I have mentioned the Gaelic and Celtic origins in my re-write. The same pretty much applies to the "Civil wars and Jacobitism" and "Collapse of the Clan System" sections - both of these were completely unsourced and have now been written with sources. I have not touched the romantic memory section or the section on clan symbols - however I intend to add references to the latter. I have also removed the coloured clan map - the reason being that it portrayed the Victorian era idea that only Highlanders lived in clans.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am all in favour of the rewrite. I have quite a few sources that deal with historical issues if needed, but I think it best you do the rewrite and then I will see if there is anything to add in (or re-add) with sources. Keep up the good work.--SabreBD (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sabrebd, I have now entered in my re-write. It is very similar in structure to the original article but has been re-written with sources as mention above. If we could find some sources for the "Lowland clans" section and also the "Romantic memory" section that would be great. I will come back and make referenced edits to the "Clan symbols" section at some point in the near future. For now I need to take a break. Thanks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's good news, because those are the sort of things for which I have sources. I am pretty busy today but will try to find some time soon to look at those sections.--SabreBD (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Does anyone know if this site is a mirror of this article or do we have text that maybe a copyright violation of this (probably unreliable) site?--SabreBD (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I can explain what has happened here. The website in question has copied the information directly from the Wikipedia article into their own dodgy website. It is a growing problem where people create their own websites and copy the information direct from Wikipedia so it is in fact a Copyright violation of Wikipedia on behalf of the website. I should point out however that the website has taken its info from an old version of the Wikipedia article which is now considerably different to the current one. It certainly does not contain any of the information added by muself or SabreBD from the 10 February 2013. However I think we will need to make further changes to ensure that there is no risk of being a violation of the website, despite that site having taken its info from Wikipedia.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically they cannot break Wikipedia's copyright, since the content is released under a creative commons licence and we don't need to worry about a challenge from them if it was here first as it remains in the public domain.--SabreBD (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sabrebd I have added a Tag to the top of this talk page as per guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first, trying to explain that the info was on Wiki first.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Scottish clan → Scottish clans – This seems to fall under "Articles on groups or classes of specific things" as described at WP:PLURAL. I'm no expert on the subject, but as I understand it, there is a set number of these clans, and this article discusses them as a whole. BDD (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Many years ago the article was actually called "Scottish clans" but there was a discussion about it and it was changed to how it is now, "Scottish clan". I see no reason why to change it back again.QuintusPetillius (talk)

Do you have a link handy to that discussion? All I see is the #Reason for page move section above, which is a notification rather than a discussion. And WP:PLURAL looked very different at that time, so that move doesn't seem particularly valuable as precedent. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It was a long time ago and I certainly do not have the time to look for it. I am not bothered if the page is moved providing that all pages that are currently linked to it are re-directed to the new page name as is the norm. I have noticed that the Irish clans page is plural.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears to just be an explanation as to why it was moved in 2004. Apteva (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - This problem has come up for other plural / singular questions and it is not easy. I suggest that it is about the group or class it should be something unambiguous such as Clans of Scotland. Imc (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I have read the guideline several times, but I am still not sure which side of the line this article falls to. I could probably accept the Clans of Scotland suggestion as a solution, as that at least is clear as to the subject matter. I am just not sure it is worth doing.--SabreBD (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is more about the "concept" of "clan-ness", whereas something like List of Scottish clans is a better fit to WP:PLURAL. I think a good way of thinking about it is the context in which you might wikilink to the title of the article - in most cases you will be talking about the concept of clanness rather than a bunch of specific clans. Think about linking from the "daughter" articles like clan badge, the opening sentence is "used to identify a member of a particular Scottish clan". That kind of usage becomes awkward if you start having article titles as plurals, and indicates that clanness is a bit more than membership of a list. As an aside, the "set number" criterion is problematic, as there's a lot of sub-branches that commonly get refered to as clans even when they're not technically, and of course there's the "problem" of the armigerous clans. Leave it where it is.Le Deluge (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with everything Le Deluge has said.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It looks odd. The usage of "clan" thoughout the article, starting from the second word, is plural. If not changed, the lede lede words and section titles should be changed to match the article title, which would increase the oddness. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – it does not appear to fit the criteria or examples of the "groups or classes of specific things" exception. The lead could be written with singular and be just as sensible. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• If so, then I would think it should be changed to "A Scottish clan ...", or "The Scottish clan ...", as in "The typical Scottish clan". I don't "Scottish clan" is a generic object. Compare with family, tribe & dynasty (Each begins "A ...", in the singular. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lowland clans section

I intend to do some work on the Lowland clans section of this article. It currently contains a large amount of unsourced information. Unsourced info can be removed from Wikipedia. I think it can be shortened down to a better sourced more efficient section.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Highland clans and Lowland clans? - Sections for both? Shipsview (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I think there only needs to be a separate section for the Lowlands clans as as present to explain that Lowlanders did live in clans as well - in order to dispell the myth that only Highlanders lived in clans.QuintusPetillius (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Archived content

The many discussions on this Scottish clan talk page have been archived. Until they are restored,they can be found using the search function on this page. Shipsview (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)