Talk:Clan Cumming

[Untitled]

Who deleted the tartans on this page? 70.111.88.141 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Rattray, Aberdeenshire

In this now non-existant medieval Royal Burgh there was a castle owned by the "Comyns", ikely destroyed in 1308 by Robert the Bruces brother, Edward. Although this is all the infomation I have, I know there were two castles; the Castle of Lonmay and Rattray Castle. Does anyone know which belonged to the Comyns, or even if it was another castle they had? thanks, Bobbacon 09:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

update:I have found a source that says the Comyns were the original owners of Rattray Castle. Bobbacon 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Worthless Article

Mains Castle is in Dundee. Not in Strathclyde. Most of this article seems factually inaccurate. Typical wikipedia garbage.

Mains is now corrected. You can easily fix a mistake yourself. It takes about two seconds.--Celtus (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unload from article page

The following was dumped on the article page and has therefore been removed to here. Motmit (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Having just this evening come across the page with entries relating to the clan Cummin/Comym/Cumming I am to say the least dismayed, even allowing for the differences between Standard Queen's English and e.g. truncated American English to see so much poor spelling, various inaccuracies on several levels including facts of fundamental importance as well as those of interpretation. The almost total lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the clan system per se, accuracy at the Scottish legal, cultural and societal levels quite apart from that of historical accuracy is a huge disappointment. Falacies remain falacies however often they are repeated, it is however so sad to realise that innocent third parties risk picking up on some of this muddle and accept it as gospel, ce la vie.

As a Fellow of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland as well as the Shennachie (hereditary historian and genealogist) for clan Brodie and chieftain of the oldest branch of the Brodie clan c. 1300) I feel it best to avoid commenting on the entries under my own clan other than to say that much of the content there is on the level of similar egregious nonsense.

Does nobody within Wikipedia subject content to a referee or referees? I really do sincerely fully appreciate and salute the concept of Wikipedia and all power to your elbows, now and in the future, however in order to maintain credibility it seems obvious that WIKI needs to work towards some method by which there is editorial oversite in terms of factual accuracies as a bare minimum, this would not need to compromise the right to free speech or meddling with people's rights to hold contrary opinions, but none of that is not at odds with factual accuracy.

Ordinarilly I would not have had the time to roam around the "Net" but working as I am away from home following a fairly major surgical 'event' in hospital I find myself with unexpected, and welcome free time hence burdening you with the comments above.

Best wishes for the future of Wikipedia and hopefully as it matures there will eventually be an ability to introduce aspects related to rigour in the use of facts and historical information, whether for the benefit of members of Scottish clans or any and all of the many other wide range of interest groups.

Regards, Brodie of Falsyde FSA. Scot. genealogy@falsyde.sol.co.uk

Well any information added to Wiki is supposed to have some sort of source or reference given. Most of this article has no references. QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow the link about "verifiable" below the edit window, and you'll see than Wikipedia holds verifiability above "truth". If a view is commonly held it's supposed to get mentioned (abet with reference if at all possible). By all means include text/reference saying something is untrue, if you can verify that it's not just you who reckons that it's untrue! On such lines might R. R. McIan's Costumes of the Clans of Scotland be considered a suitable reference source? There would seem to be lots of information within it suitable for referencing, even if that were (when paired up against other sources) to illustrate "myths". eg along with mention of a Norman origin for Clan Cumins, McIan documents a possible non-Norman origin.[IMHO and as such almost certainly original research I see little reason why both might not be partially true? people such as the Vikings, who became the Normans, DID move around a fair bit] Online copy of McIan here... http://www.archive.org/details/mcianscostumesc00mciagoog ("Clann Chuimein -The Cumins" starts on page 266) 82.47.136.229 (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:V means that before anything is added into an article it needs to have a source, not matter if it is "true" or not - that doesn't mean everything that is verifiable is suitable for an article. McIan is not a reliable source for medieval history. There is tons of stuff written about the 'Norman' families of Scotland by modern scholars. Head over to Google Books and search for G. W. S. Barrow and the Comyns. Barrow's a guy we should be using for this article. If modern scholar's consider a Gaelic origin for the family then we should mention it, if they don't we shouldn't either. If your serious about this article, maybe you could check and see if your local library has Robert the Bruce's rivals: the Comyns, 1212-1314, by Alan Young, published in 1997 by Tuckwell Press.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Motto

The slogan links to the discussion page, here, where it is not mentioned at all, so why? 142.120.125.127 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)