Talk:Clan Davidson

I have a book here in my collection "Clans and Tartans of Scotland" that this page appears to be copied "word for word" from. However I do not know if the books source is copyrighted.

editing needed

Tulloch Castle is now a hotel. Hasn't been associated with Davidsons for years. The reference must of came from the above mentioned old book written back in the early 1900's.

The current chief lives in New Zealand and some mention should be made. petedavo 07:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Davo.png

The image File:Davo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Davidsons of Tulloch

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

Vandalism by IP user: 24.188.32.225

IP User: 24.188.32.225 clearly does not understand the rules of Wikipedia. He/She is removing already well sourced information and replacing it with information that is unsourced. The user is also adding his/her own opinion to the article. This is starting an edit war and the IP user is the one not playing by the rules.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have advised the IP user on his/hers talk page to see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

The so called sourced information is sourced from garbage. The bottom line is the information is wrong, and it doesn't matter what the rules are when someone is posting blatantly false information and then justifying this slanderous and false information because it has a source. Vandalism is continuing to insist in posting false information when you've been told it is false. And again, I couldn't care less about the rules, it has nothing to do with understanding them, it has to do with posting lies and continuing to do so. You've basically made this page completely useless to anyone who wants to know the true history of Clan Davidson and for that, you are about as low as one can go. This page is now a fairy tale with no basis in fact and what comes around goes around my little friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.225 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Would like to add a more permanent change to the origin section of the Clan Davidson article. The information provided about Davidsons descended from Clan Cumming is not accurate, as it is based on later sources. Clan Davidson is a Pictish clan with Celtic roots, not Norman ones. The earliest sources clearly point out that the first Davidson were direct descendants from Ghilliechattan Mor, who is from MacBeth's family line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticus25 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Yes that is helpful thank you. I tried to put in a source using the how to, unfortunately I must've been doing something wrong as I couldn't get it to work. It's not that it is a passionate matter for me, though I am a Davidson by descent, but a matter of accuracy. The Clan, while cited in MS 1467 as being from Ghillechattan, has other proofs that would show that it is indeed a Celtic, and not a Norman, family. Yes genetic DNA testing is one way of finding out, though I would prefer to use historical annals, and anthropologic/archaeology proofs as well. Principally speaking, the major central highlands area where they hail from has of course been predominantly Celtic throughout the Dark Ages and into the Medieval period. Take MacBeth for instance, descended from both the Dal Riatan Irish on one side (Ui Neill kindred)and the Pictish rulers of Moray (or as it was know in those days, Fortriu) Which comprises Moray, and parts of Inverness though not all of it. Now, considering the Norman nobility being invited north by David I as an Anglicising influence (For David not only would have prefered Norman feudal law to Celtic, but also more importantly the laws of succession in Norman law as it would allow his immediate family to retain the throne of Scotland. MacBeth gained the Scottish throne through rightful election by his peers in accordance with Celtic law after slaying Duncan in battle [by all accounts not a very good or well loved king contrary to Shakespeare's misappropriations]; Malcolm took the throne back by force using English help.) the Normans that were brought north would not have scattered so quickly and freely over the length and breadth of Scotland as Scotland was not one entirely united realm at the time. In the central highlands and the north especially, these were under the rule of petty Gaelic kings like Donald Lord of the Isles and the "Kings" of Moray. Even Clan Campbell was it's own separate power in Argyll most of the time in Scottish history. So in that instance, David would have used Norman lords to gain more control in the north, since he moved the capital of Scotland (his court actually) from the central highlands to the south, Edinburgh, which was closer to the Norman power base. Another of my ancestors, the Pattons, gained lands in the central midlands in this way. Slowly pushing north generationally, not a single, sudden transplanting of the native Celtic ruling aristocracy. That would have caused a rebellion. So, in a sense, Davidsons are Celtic/Pictish (which ironically is the same thing, since Picts are British Celts similar to the Welsh) because of that rather than that Clan Cumming (don't you find it strange that Davidsons, if descended from the Wolf of Badenoch, would take up with his longtime enemies?) spawned Clan Davidson. Also the Cummings did not control the area where the Davidson originate from. That was clearly MacKintosh/Chattan land. (Also please do not take offense to this paragraph as I'm pointing out some general history, not trying to start a text war or anything.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticus25 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome to add anything as long as its reliably sourced all you have to do to cite the most simple reference is to add this without the brackets and the space between < and r: (< ref>) and then at the end of the source add this without the brackets, again without the space between < and /: (< /ref>). If you're citing from a book state author's name, surname first, name of the book and the page number. That will do. As for the DNA thing I have looked at the Davidson DNA project here:[1] Most of the participants have the R1B halo group which is found throughout western Europe and despite what people think is not necessarily a sign that you are celtic or gaelic. There are some others that have the halo group R1A which is found mostly in north-west Europe, in the Scandinavian countries - and some people have suggested that this may be a sign of Viking ancestry, but nothing is certain.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you again. I'll try to add a source onto the end of the paragraph for the article. On the DNA project, it doesn't surprise me actually. Unless you're looking at genetic material to a specific historical figure (for instance the DNA project on Niall of the Nine Hostages, or the project on Somerled.) you're unlikely to seperate, shall we say, a definite genetic stream or pattern of migration. Also, these events happened centuries ago, which means that unless you're ancestors were isolated in one spot all that time (and what Scot/Irish/Norse is? I mean we're talking about the explorers and sea rovers of the ancient world, they've found Celtic graves as far away as China! Lol.) you're going to have a Heinz '57 genetic mix. So, I agree with you on that fact about the DNA testing. Unless we could have the genetic material of Ghillechattan Mor (who doesn't have much historical coverage and so would be difficult to find) and it matched a number of Davidson descendants, than we can only really rely on the historical records and genealogical tables. Of course, considering that point, instead of removing the story about the Davidsons originating from the Comyns, what if we put both stories (for that they are stories until we have more definitive proof one way or the other.) in the article as both ends of a given argument and let the reader decide for himself which is right? Perhaps someone reading this may yet discover something in the near future that may enlighten the conversation. I think that they are Pictish not so much for the genetic tests or MS 1467, but because of the evidence that they have a Gaelic name (MacDhai) which, with the exception of Gordon (Gordonach), most of the Norman clans just have an Anglicized name. Also, the fact that they are so closely tied with MacKintosh, the main enemies of the Comyns would point more towards a non-Comyn origin. :) Either way it is an interesting idea. If they be Norman, what of it? Normans are neither better/worse than Celts. Most "Norman" clans kind of "went native" anyway after a few generations. Just look at Ireland. The Normans there considered themselves as Irish as any Celt by the time you get to Henry VIII's conquest. Also, the paragraph I added, the parantheses for the source (Skene, "Celtic Scotland") that's what you meant by a simple source right?Celticus25 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Hi Brianann MacAmhlaidh, Thanks for pointing out that MS 1467 does not mention the Davidsons, I was going to mention it myself. It seems as though the IP user is referring to the information in MS 1467 for the Clan Chattan, which cannot be used for the Clan Davidson themselves. Firstly it is non-sourced specific. And anyone who knows the Chattan history will know that there was once a separate Clan Chattan before the confederation of clans that includes the Davidsons.

That's fine for a Norman, but not for a Pict descendant. YDNA does NOT change, other than str mutations in the number of repeats. As further evidence, there is now an established DNA link between Davidson, Shaw, Smith and Mac Kay members. The Comyns were ENEMIES of Clan Chattan, Robert de Bruce KILLED a Comyn, and Clan Chattan FULLY supported Robert de Bruce. Please use your heads and stop with the Norman/Comyn crap for my Clan, it's slanderous and just stupid to persist in posting blatantly false information regardless of it having a source. There is NOTHING proving any validity of that source but much more information that does prove our Celtic/Pictish origin. Stop being pigheaded and go mess with some other clans if that is how you get your enjoyment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.225 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Very valid point. I have been to the Clan Davidson USA website and it mentions both origin stories. Given that the one is an older source, I would assume that it may be the more legitimate though. Also the website gives a different interpretation on the Battle of the North Inch. In that the MacPhersons and Davidsons are not the main opponents, but that a Davidson happened to join in on the MacPherson side of the dispute fighting another opponent. Which, being of the same confederation, would make more sense. Here is a link to the article in question: http://www.clandavidsonusa.com/about-clan-davidson/history-of-clan-davidson/battle-of-invernahavon/

Also, to the user above who keeps going on about his "bloodline" being soiled, I have the same "bloodline" dude, and it may horrify you to know that you have more than just "Davidson" blood in you (unless you're a product of inbreeding, in which case you'd probably be seriously mentally handicapped at this point).

Considering the location and geographic history of the Davidson homeland, I don't believe there was much Normanization in that central part of Scotland. The Comyns, while a powerful Norman family (and I should think they'd be an equally proud lineage to have considering that they also were contenders for the throne of Scotland, were distantly linked to the ancient Gaelic line, and they had dozens of castles and land throughout Scotland and other countries. Also one of their members is called the Wolf of Bandenoch, which sounds pretty friggin awesome to me. But I'm also open to being related to MacBeth, and the Picts of Moray.) I mean either way, it's a win win for those of you who take all of that so seriously.Celticus25 (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Sources

Here's what looks like a good book: Alison Cathcart's 2006 Kinship and Clientage: Highland Clanship, 1451-1609 published by Brill. It's focused on the Grants of Freuchy and Clan Chattan [2]. It's a continuation of her 2001 PhD thesis (Patterns of Kinship and Clanship: the Mackintoshes and Clan Chattan, 1291-1609). On page 80 of her book, she mentions the Davidsons in the context of fosterage: "Throughout Highland society fosterage was relatively common, designed to create a relationship akin to that of blood and in many cases remained important throughout life. As in the case of Lauchlan Mackintosh of Dunachton, fourteenth chief, a son of the chief or a son of the Mackintosh fine would be fostered with a family from a cadet branch or satellite kindred, binding it closely to the parent clan. Lauchlan was the nephew of Duncan Mackintosh, eleventh chief, and as a close member of the chiefly family he was fostered within the Clan Dai or Davidson, a satellite kindred that had joined the Clan Chattan in 1350". For this statement she cites: "HRA, Ballie of Dunain Papers, 3 unbound volumes of C. Fraser-Mackintosh, Kith and Kin of Clan Chattan, 123-5; NLS MS 9854, fol. 14". Fraser-Mackintosh's book is viewable online, and pages 123-125 cover the Davidson-Comyn origin [3]. Although Fraser-Mackintosh's book is over a century old, since Cathcart uses it as a source we ought to be able to use it in the same context without any problems. From searching Google, it looks like her book's got good reviews in a couple academic journals: The Innes Review ("... Cathcart has substantiated some hugely significant new conclusions about the nature of clan society, the inner workings of clan life and the role of the chieftains. In doing so she has overturned several simplistic historical assumptions, in particular on the overriding significance of kinship in securing clan loyalty. Her astute choice of two very different types of clans underlines the diversity of clan structure and leadership: the Grants of Freuchy were an example of the traditional caricature of a kinship-based clan, whilst the conglomeration of different kindreds, the Macphersons, Davidsons, Macgillivrays, Macleans and cadet Mackintosh branches within the Clan Chattan, all recognised the Mackintosh chieftain as their own. In the sixteenth century these were the Mackintoshes of Dunachton".) [4], and in the The Journal of British Studies [5]. So Cathcart's book seems like a good academic source for Clan Chattan, and Fraser-Mackintosh's book looks like it should be okay as a source for the origins of the Davidsons.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Brill is an academic press. Moreover, it's a non-vanity academic press. (By contrast there are some outfits that will recycle any doctoral dissertation.) I am not a historian, but your description of the book makes it sound good. I note that the book currently most cited for this article is written by a couple of people who, according to blurbs at Amazon, are not historians but instead antiquarians and/or heraldr-- um, whatever's the appropriate derivative of "heraldry" for a human. -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the main source for this article the Scottish Clan Encyclopedia, it is more than an acceptable source as far as Wikipedia guidelines dictate. In regards to who wrote the book. I have a copy and in the small list of contributors, is included: Allan Macinnes Professor in History and Head of Department, History and Economic History Department, University of Aberdeen. Also included is Kathleen B. Cory FSA (Scot) - Professional Genealogist. The other people listed have mainly been used for the other part of the book which is about the Heraldry. I think you should really do some research into the subject matter before you start nit-picking. As for the IP user, he or she is constantly breaking the rules of Wiki by removing sourced information and also replacing it with non sourced information. He/she is also becoming abusive which is not allowed either. I have tried explaining to the IP user that if he/she can come up with any source at all to back up his/hers claims then we could possibly include some of the information. But so far the only source that the IP user has given has been found to include absolutely nothing to back up the information that the IP user would like in the article.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree with you about the IP. Thus the block I gave him. The Scottish Clan Encyclopedia may indeed be good; certainly material sourced to it should not be removed from the article unless there is good reason, and neither the "original research" nor [let me think of some appropriately mystical term for this nonsense] the "blood knowledge" of any contributor need be considered, let alone taken as superior to material in such a published book. I'm glad to hear that a historian is among the contributors to relevant bits of this encyclopedia. But I'm happy to hear of a relevant book from a company that has the stature of (even though it is not) a university press. -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well thank you very much for the ban you have administered. He/she was abusive on my talk page. But I am more concerned about the article content. There are nearly always books published about individual clans which could come in useful. I'll see if I can find one for the Clan Davidson. The subject of Scottish clan could seem quite bizarre to someone who is not familiar with it. Thus I have tried hard to explain it on Wikipedia in way that might make sense to someone who is unfamiliar with it. The Scottish clan article is always linked in to the article about any individual clan and I hope that helps to make sense of the subject.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a block, not a ban. (Yes, there's a difference.) ¶ The Scottish clan article is indeed good (as far as I am competent to judge); it's the ancillary articles that tend to worry me when I come across them. Take Clan Gregor for example: it seems a little confused in places, but for the most part it seems a conscientious and pretty good attempt to present myth, question-mark-attached history, and fairly straightforward history as what they are, and to derive an understandable narrative from them. The history fizzles out during the 18th century and ends in 1774. OK, I'll give it an A grade thus far. But then, suddenly, The current chief of Clan Gregor is Sir Malcolm Gregor Charles Mac Gregor of Mac Gregor, 7th BT, of Lanrick and Balquhidder, 24th Chief of Clan Gregor. Aside from the fact that the man's name is reminiscent of a winner in a dog show (his "Gaelic designation" is sensibly far shorter), this reader doesn't know what this 2013 "Clan Gregor" is that he's chief of. (Apropos of dog shows: we read of Best in Show that "Christopher Guest directed", not that "Christopher Haden-Guest, 5th Baron Haden-Guest directed".) -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh a "block", of course. As for the Clan Gregor article, it is lacking sources to start with. I think a lot of the information could have been taken from websites - possibly unreliable. I haven't touched the article because it is constantly being edited and I do not want to get into an edit war. There are only so many articles I can try to look after. As I have heavily contributed to the Clan Davidson article I have therefore made a stand on it.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Should non-Scots take this stuff seriously?

The fracas visible two sections above drew my attention to this article. (I gave a 31-hour vacation to one participant.) Fracas aside, I have to say that the article, together with related articles here, looks a bit off. While I was writing this message, Brianann MacAmhlaidh posted something (section immediately above) that I'd hope will soon make what I say obsolete. However, as for now:

The great majority of this article is sourced to what's described as:

Way, George and Squire, Romily. Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia. (Foreword by The Rt Hon. The Earl of Elgin KT, Convenor, The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs). Published in 1994. Pages 381 - 382.

Apologies to any Scots (Scottish, Scotch, whomever) among you, but my impression from a cursory reading of related articles in WP is that for over two centuries the notion that there still exist "clans" to have "chiefs" is absurd. (There were clans, there are surnames, and there are also tartans devised for these surnames after the clans disappeared.) Well, OK, let's grant that they do exist, in some form -- not that I can find any explanation of what they are. But why are we told that this earl is a "rt. hon."? And in 1994 what could a council (whether standing or sitting) of Scottish chiefs have possibly meant?

I turn to the article Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. This starts off with the stunning assertion, completely unsourced, that:

The SCSC is the definitive and authoritative body for information on the Scottish Clan System.

(Not just definitive, not just authoritative, but definitive and authoritative! And this is not its info, but instead itself.) Odd: I'd have thought that clans were part of Scots/Scottish history, and thus a matter for historians, who will grope for historical facts but can only hope to capture them. (Publishers may call their history books definitive or authoritative; I doubt that any scrupulous historian would do the same.)

That non-article on the "Standing Council" continues by saying:

The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs was founded in 1952 in the reign of King George VI by the then Lord High Constable of Scotland, Diana Denyse Hay, 23rd Countess of Erroll, on the advice and recommendation of Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, Lord Lyon King of Arms.

Why must we be told that somebody was both the Lord High Constable and a 23rd countess? Is the bit about George 6 intended as disambiguating this particular 1952 from other 1952s (such as the 1952 in the reign of Jigme Dorji Wangchuck)? Or is it perhaps intended just to pump the article with more pomp? If the latter, can this in turn be an effort to deflect readers' attention from the lack of any independent sourcing whatever, but for the information that certain "chiefs" ("graces" and "right honourables" for the most part) are not in this "standing council"? All in all, a very low signal to noise ratio, where "signal" means sourced historical facts and noise includes mere mumbo jumbo.

Back to this article. It has miscellaneous oddities, such as the (sourced!) assertion that a given place remains a focal point for Davidson traditions. What might these be? We read about the many Davidsons fighting the American Revolutionary War: were these in any meaningful way members of the clan, or did they just bear the surname? (Were they more clannish than, say, this interesting-sounding bloke?) Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Lets just get one thing straight. Under Scottish law, Scottish clans still exist and still have chiefs. Obviously not in the same manner as say 265 years ago but at the end of the day Scottish clans and their chiefs still exist under the laws of the country. Should non-Scots take this seriously ? Well its for them to make that choice. I can tell you that there are many millions of people around the world who are of Scottish descent (the Scottish dispora) who do indeed take it very seriously. In regards to the "Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs" article it could do with some work but it is about a well established, legal organization. In regards to the section about the focal point for Davidson traditions, yes that is perhaps not clear someone who is clueless about the subject. What it is referring to is Davidson clan gatherings. As for the line about Davidsons in the American Revolutionary War, this is typical of a published Scottish clan history in that it gives some info into what the clansman did after the clan system collapsed in 1746. - Not forgetting that Scottish clans still exist today, with chiefs under the laws of the country.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's me you're calling clueless; if so, well said! ¶ So clans still exist, as do their chiefs. I infer from a skim-reading of relevant-looking articles that clan membership brings a right to wear this or that insignia, according to ideas thought up after the disappearance of clans that have any meaning that I can discern. And of course they're associated with a surname. Nothing wrong with any of that, and I'm accustomed to news stories about meetings of people with this or that surname. Now, if this is pretty much all there is to it, I've nothing against it and don't want to disparage or ridicule it. I merely point out that if there is more than this to the clans of today, then interested, informed contributors may wish to write this up (from reliable sources, of course); and if there isn't, then perhaps the mentions of "right honourable", "his grace" and so forth should be radically trimmed, because the aura it imparts is not of dignity but rather of Freedonia. (This article, the one on the Davidsons, has little of this kind of material in it, I'm happy to say.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs article but the only source I have for it is their own approved Scottish Clan Encyclopedia. (By the way I wasn't trying to be offensive by using the word clueless).QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Hoary raised a good point about the council. It's not impartial at all, but a pressure group that represents certain men and women ('chiefs') who possess the plain coat of arms ('undifferenced arms') associated with a particular surname/family. These people have the privilege of possessing heraldry that is superior to that of of anyone else of their surname/family. The council was set up to educate people of this privilege and to protect the heraldry of these chiefs from being used against their wishes [6].

So I don't think that the council's encyclopaedia should be automatically regarded as the 'definitive source on clans', but should be treated for what it is, a publication from a group that actively promotes the interests of modern chiefs. So if we keep that bias in mind, it shouldn't be surprising that there's some title-puffery in the council's encyclopaedia and webpage. Since the encyclopaedia is totally slanted towards the heraldry of the current chiefs, I think it's likely a great source for that kind of stuff. I think that the history within the encyclopaedia is probably better than most clan websites, which tend to be based on long outdated stuff from the 19th century. But in terms of history, especially medieval history, I'm certain we can find better sources to improve our articles (like probably Cathcart's book for Clan Chattan articles). There's no shortage of high quality publications on Scottish history.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well if the Encyclopedia contains history that is, and I quote you probably better than most clan websites, which tend to be based on long outdated stuff from the 19th century. Then I do not see a problem in using it until a better source can be found. Especially to make amends to the masses of unsourced information that is found on so many of the individual clan articles.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree and think you're doing a great job cleaning things up.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I had nearly moved on when I felt completely compelled to comment on this statement "probably better than most clan websites, which tend to be based on long outdated stuff from the 19th century. Then I do not see a problem in using it until a better source can be found. Especially to make amends to the masses of unsourced information that is found on so many of the individual clan articles". I can only interpet this as something is probably better because it is newer?? This makes no sense to me. History is what it is, it should not change for the sake of change. If it was accurate over 600 years ago, it is just as accurate today. Again, if something is true and accurate hundreds or even thousands of years ago, it is not and should not be subject to change because someone decides to re-write it for either personal gain or an agenda. That is exactly what has happened with the origins for many Highland Clans. For any that might be interested, William Skene's and John Murray's collaboration of The Highlanders of Scotland: Their Origin, History and Antiquities is a wonderful and refreshing read. This is more than likely the truest accounting for several of the Highland Clans. It asserts that many of the origin claims put forth in more recent times are attempts to gain a foothold on the Chieftainship, by usurping the rightful lines. You'll find that cadet septs used this technique to basically try to re-write history for their own selfish gain. You'd have to read the book to see how this played out but as I said before, nearly ALL of the Highland Clans being "bastardized" as Norman/Anglo-Horman/Flemish, etc. are really Dalriadan and Pictish mixes. Examples would be Campbell, Cameron, Grant, Davidson, Wallace, etc. I of course have distant YDNA connections to ALL of these surnames, but I know no one wants to hear about that as any sort of evidence. I'll admit not one of these surnames or clans has a pure lineage, but they all have a lineage going back to the Picts and Gaels. I am of that lineage, which is quite rare and continues to be established. The masses are not of that lineage, they are a mix if R1A1, other R1B haplotypes, the I haplotypes, etc. I will be the first to admit there may be hundreds of families, not even related through a shared male ancestor, sharing a surname or Clan. My concern is with the origins only, and the original Chiefly lines. And please don't tell me how we are a mix of so much dna, I am only referring to YDNA, the male lines. I am not talking about MTDNA nor Autosomal. What I don't understand is why when there is so much sourced information out there, some editors choose only to use factually inaccurate "sourced" information. There is substantial "factually accurate" sourced information out there however it is not my intent, to correct these erroneous articles or to present an "opposing view". There is no opposing view, there is either the truth, or their are lies. Either the Celtic version is correct, or the Comyn version is correct, or neither is correct. There can't factually be multiple versions of an origin, it is what it is and there is only one true origin. This is not a contest to see who can provide more recent sources. I would hope wikipedia would want the truth out there, and not contests of who can out edit who, which is what wikipedia appears to be. There, my case is presented to the message and not a specific messenger. Clan Davidson is Celtic, it descended from Celts and it has no connection to the Comyn family. It did not descend from a Comyn male. They came from a very ancient Gaelic ancestor, an ancestor shared by several Highland Clans, before surnames even were in use. One other greatly incorrect update to this site was the battle alleged between the Davidson's and the MacPherson's....this never happened. The battle was between the Clans fighting for the Chief of the Clan Chattan, the battle was fought between the Mackintoshs and the MacPhersons.The MacPhersons were the true chiefly line, but were "out-documented" by the usurping Mackintosh. This is pretty much exactly what is happening here, on this very page. I hope someone else has more time and energy to properly update this page with the correct information and let's bury the lies and factually inaccurate information comprising most of this article. It was originally much more factually accurate, but over the course of time has been corrupted with sourced information that is not also factually accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.225 (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, IP number.

What I don't understand is why when there is so much sourced information out there, some editors choose only to use factually inaccurate "sourced" information. There is substantial "factually accurate" sourced information out there [...]

Splendid. So let's see the latter.

[...] however it is not my intent, to correct these erroneous articles or to present an "opposing view".

It's primarily your own time that you're wasting. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not anymore. You could rename the site to Suckipedia?? I have a source that justifies the name change to Suckipedia, it's right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.225 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

valid information with complete garbage?

I think you are doing a lousy job polluting valid information with complete garbage. So, I will no longer link to the wikipedia Clan Davidson "article" and will link to the correct history: ACCORDING to the Highland manuscript believed to be written by one MacLauchlan, bearing the date 1467, and containing an account of the genealogies of Highland clans down to about the year 1450, which was accepted as authoritative by Skene in his Celtic Scotland, and believed to embody the common tradition of its time, the origin of the Davidsons is attributed to a certain Gilliecattan Mhor, chief of Clan Chattan in the time of David I. This personage, it is stated, had two sons, Muirich Mhor and Dhai Dhu. From the former of these was descended Clan Mhuirich or Macpherson, and from the latter Clan Dhai or Davidson. Sir Aeneas Macpherson, the historian of the clan of that name, states that both the Macphersons and the Davidsons were descended from Muirich, parson of Kingussie in the twelfth century. You suck, and this site sucks and your edits are complete crap but I'm sure you feel justified somehow in your pathetic view. Like I said, this page is utter bunk, filled with nothing but false information and I'm done with it because there are plenty of sites out there that actually have legitimate information. Gee, it certainly is funny how I keep getting very distant genetic matches to members of Clan Chattan that are NOT related to the Norman Comyn scum. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.225 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about users editing, if you have good sources feel free to add the info yourself. I have divided the clans origins to take into consideration this second version of the clan's origins. This can act as a stub for your edits with further information and their sources. Please also be polite; the editors of the clan articles are doing their best but are sadly few in number. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

EY

Hey I'm a member of the clan! Cool!

Will2022 (talk 12:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clan Davidson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070923143200/http://valleyforgemusterroll.org/Reg_5NC.htm to http://valleyforgemusterroll.org/Reg_5NC.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clan Davidson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080718174431/http://www.clandavidson.org.au/ to http://www.clandavidson.org.au/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.clandavidson.free.fr/Davidson

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

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clan Davidson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130703232436/http://www.clan-macpherson.org/museum/mem/007b_chattanclans.html to http://www.clan-macpherson.org/museum/mem/007b_chattanclans.html

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Clan chiefs section needs more information

"1917-1997 vacant and disputed" is too vague to be encyclopedic. We need information on who these people are/were. For example, a Sir David Davidson of Allt Dinnie (not a David Davidson we have an article about), was apparently taken to be sufficiently authoritative as the clan-chief claimant to register a replacement Clan Davidson tartan with the Lord Lyon in 1961 [7].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)