![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Fraud.
97.82.45.48 ( talk · contribs) / Wyvren ( talk · contribs) is using the following links as sources for the crest badge: [1] [2]. I don't see how either of these sites are reliable. The editor also used this link as ref for the coat of arms: [3]. I shouldn't be considered reliable. It's user submited content, from a dubious source (see above section on Steven Akins).-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 04:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
WyvrenPlease note that I have submitted as a source the following published work: [The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 published by Craftsman Printing and Publishing House, Charlotte, N.C., 1978] which contains both illustrations of the Akins tombstone from 1785 displaying the coat of arms, as well as burial information on the desceased. This content serves to verify the information included in the aforementioned link at: [4].
In regard to the dubious authenticty of crested clan badges it should be noted that these are a late 19th century innovation popularized during the Victorian era and are not a form of heraldry regulated by Lyon Court or any other heraldic authority; indeed there is absolutely no evidence of their existence or use prior to 1860 and they exist today, much like named "clan tartans," merely as a result of their popularity as an invented tradition of the 19th century. See Wikipedia article on Clan Badges.
I have included it because it exists as a symbol of identity associated with the surname, just as other clan crest badges exist as symbols of identity associated with their respective surnames. The crest and the motto associated with the Akins name date back well over 200 years and are thus a longstanding cultural tradition intimately associated with the Akins name. What is your reason for being so purposely obtuse and personally vendictive in regard to this article? -- Wyvren ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC).
This same arugument would also therefore apply to all the other articles on Wikipedia relating to Scottish families that feature images of both coats of arms, crest badges, tartans, etc. As the contributors to these articles saw fit to include images of both coats of arms and crest badges in their entries, then there is no reason why they should be excluded from the Akins article. Indeed to do so would show an unfair bias on your part against the Akins entry.-- Wyvren ( talk) 16:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
How is it a huge jump to state that an early example of the Akins coat of arms appears on the 225 year old tombstone of Thomas Akins, and to show a color rendering of the coat of arms? I have given two independant published sources that include drawings and notations of the same coat of arms and tombstone, so what is your problem? It isn't a claim, it is a verifiable fact.-- Wyvren ( talk) 22:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the "Akins crest" [5]. As read in Scottish crest badge: worn to show one's allegiance to an individual or one's membership to a specific Scottish clan. [1]. Akins is not a Scottish clan and so does not have a Scottish crest badge. The crest (heraldry) belongs to an individual, not a family; as read at Crest (heraldry): There is a widespread misconception, due in part to Victorian stationers' marketing of engraved letterheads, that a crest and a coat of arms belong to everyone with the same family name; but usage by persons not descended from the original grantee constitutes usurpation.. I have further removed the "Akins crest" at List of crest badges used by Scottish clan members. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 13:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Evidence in the case of MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean:
P.220) (Q.) "In your view, what does the word "clan" mean? (A.) It has a general meaning of family, ordinary meaning of family, but there is a peculiar sense in which it is used for this quasi-feudal organisation in the Highlands, or you might say feudal organisation. (Q.) But its primary meaning, I think, is family? (A.) Yes. (Q.)In your view, did the clans in fact consist either of persons linked by blood or persons linked by reason of place of dwelling in a territory? (A.) That is the defination of the Act of Parliament. (Reference Acts 1587 & Act of 11 Sept, 1593 A.P.S., IV, p. 40) (Q.) Do you see a reference there to the pretence of blood or place of dwelling? (A.)Yes. (Q.)Are those familiar terms? (A.) Quite familiar. Pretence means claim....(Q.) So that in your view do you get this dual element entering into the composition of the clan, blood-relation and place of dwelling? (A.) Oh, yes, you have both.
Evidence of the Very Rev. Lachlan Maclean Watt, LL.D., Bard of the Clan MacLean Association: (P. 517) (Q.) (Referred to Mackenzie's "Works," II, 574, 618: (Q.)Do you deduce that Sir G. Mackenzie considered that from a heraldic point of view the "head of the clan" the "chief of the clan" or the "representer of the family" all meant the same thing? (A.) I respectfully suggest that it is a matter of "Head of a Family" and "Head of a Clan." He was a Highlander and he knew that clan means a family. Clan and family mean exactly the same thing."
Lord Wark, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 657:
"I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan. [...] The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law."-- Wyvren ( talk) 01:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
References
I'm noting some instances where the references added by 97.82.45.48 ( talk · contribs) / Wyvren ( talk · contribs) don't seem to add up to the claims in the article. The quotes from the article are coloured.
I asked Wyvren, on his talkpage, to supply page numbers. That might help others verify things.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 04:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The place name referenced in the above cited sources is known in Scots' as Kyle Akin (Kyleakin) and in Gaelic is called Caol Acain meaning the "Strait of Hakon" Acain is the Gaelic rendering of Haakon in the instance of its use as a place name; while the name Haakon is otherwise often rendered Eachan in Gaelic when used as a personal name, hence Eakin/Eakins/Akins, etc. - Wyvren ( Wyvren|talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC).
Re: Atty/Arthur derivation - Black states that this attribution is dubious, and in any case it is more relevant to the name Atkins, not Akins. I suggest that this derivation be moved to the Atkins or Aitken surname article since it is more specific to that surname.-- Wyvren ( talk) 22:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a possibility that Black dismisses. -- Wyvren ( talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Wyvren, you added this into the body of the article as a quotation from Bell's The Book of Irish Surnames: "Aiken is of Scottish origin. It is the Scottish form of the English name Atkin, which comes from Adkin, a pet form of Adam. The name was very common in the parish of Ballantrae in Ayrshire and many of our Aikens may stem from there. There are many variant spellings. It was recorded as being used interchangeably with Eakins in Belfast, Ekin in counties Derry and Donegal, Ekin in Co. Donegal and Egan in Co. Down." That seems to be just a copy-and-paste from this website [9]. Did you actually quote this from the book, or just take it from the net?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 06:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The quotation is direct from the book in both cases. -- Wyvren ( talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion in the second paragraph, concerning the books by the Durnings. The first part says that the names Aiken, Akins, and Eakin, came over to Scotland during the time of the Plantations. I noticed that Wyvren gave no mention of the etymology that the Durnings gave for these names. I would think they would have meant the Atken/Adam name, just like how MacLysaght, O'Laughlin, and apparently Bell. I think the second part, from the second book, is about a specific family, separate than those that came over during the Plantations. It seems to me, that the "pedigree" bit seems to actually be about the Irish "O'hOgain" family, who were in Ireland long before the Plantations. The problem is that the whole paragraph is structured in a way to make it seem like the three surnames that came over during the Plantations have a Milesian pedigree.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 07:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The Scots actually came from Ireland circa 501 A.D. when an Irish tribe from Ulster called the Scotti crossed over to northern Britain and established a colony called Dalriada in present day Argyllshire. 1100 years later land in Ulster was being resettled by Scots as part of the Ulster Plantation; so it is entirely possible to have a Milesian Gaelic pedigree and also be descended from Ulster-Scots planters. Atkins and Adam have no actual relation to the Akins surname - this is simply an erroneous theory that has been repeated due to the similarity of the name Akins with Atkins, or Aiken with Aitken - you have the same type of similarity with Johnston(e) and Johnson, but the names have completely different meanings. An Akins is no more related to Atkins than they are to Arkins or an Askins. In fact, genetic research has backed up the validity of the the Irish claim that the name is derived from the Gaelic name Aodhagain, as both Akinses and Eagans test positive for the Niall Irish modal genetic subclade.-- Wyvren ( talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, I've done that.--
Wyvren (
talk)
02:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Some issues with concerning Black. We had the following: Black cites the name of Magnus Attkinsone, a tacksman of Garth in Harray in 1492, which he states "may be a misreading of Awkinsone." Black noted this man in his book, but it had nothing to do with the names we are dealing with in this article. Black notes Magnus when he is describing the surname Acheson (and variants: Aicheson, Aitcheson, Aitchison, Atkinson). This occurs on page 5, not 11. Page 11 is where Black describes Aiken and variants. So I have removed Magnus. Black states that he believes that the "of" in the name "John of Akyne" is a mistake. So that should be noted in the article. He also notes that the same story related in The Baronage of Angus and Mearns is too silly to believe. So that should be noted as well. BTW that derivation was for the name Aikman, not Akins. So that should be made clear.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 05:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
97.82.45.48 ( talk · contribs) / Wyvren ( talk · contribs) added the following book as a reference for the coat of arms: A List of those Buried in Historic Steele Creek Burial Grounds - Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, North Carolina: 1760-1953, compiled by Mrs. Robert McDowell, Steele Creek Presbyterian Church. How does this relate to the arms? Can someone verify this source, can someone provide a quotation?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 04:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Wyvren The source A List of those Buried in Historic Steele Creek Burial Grounds - Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, North Carolina: 1760-1953 contains illustrations of various 18th century gravestones in Steele Creek cemetery, including the Akins tombstone displaying the coat of arms. These illustrations and burial records are also included in The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 published by Craftsman Printing and Publishing House, Charlotte, N.C., 1978, which I have since referenced as a source for the provenance of the Akins coat of arms. Photographs of the actual monument can be seen at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSfn=Thomas&GSbyrel=in&GSdy=1785&GSdyrel=in&GSst=29&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=5677664&
Perhaps you should read what the caption associated with the image file says: "Akins coat of arms, an early example of which appears on the gravestone of Thomas Akins (1758-1785), an Ulster Scots settler who lived in colonial Charlotte, North Carolina at the time of the Revolutionary War." - the image file linked to the article is a depiction of the Akins coat of arms, the 1785 tombstone of Thomas Akins also bears a depiction of the same coat of arms. A coat of arms can be rendered in various types of artistic media - in stone (as is the case with the carving on the tombstone), in wood, on paper, on metal, embroidered on cloth, etc. As long as the elements that make up the blazon of the coat of arms are the same, it is the same coat of arms - and you very well know this, you are merely being antagonistic and biased against this article due to whatever personal dislike you evidently harbor toward its subject. Wyvren ( talk
The image of the Akins coat of arms is an accurate representation of the coat of arms on the 1785 tombstone of Thomas Akins - the crest, motto, supporters and charges are all consistant with the depiction executed 225 years ago.-- 97.82.45.48 ( talk) 10:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The difficulties in photographing 200+ year old tombstones are further complicated due to weathering/deterioration of the subject as well as the primative folkish craftsmanship used in producing the original monument. The colors of the blazon are indicated by "hatching" a heraldic method of indicating colors by using lines (vertical lines representing gules (red), horizontal lines representing azure (blue), etc.) which are not apparent in the photographs. Having seen this monument in person, one can tell that the supporters are both deer - the supporter on the left has no "mane" - this is simply chalk residue (used to highlight the careved relief) that overran the side of the carving. The motto appears in the scroll that the supporters stand on in the carving. The photograph at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=5677664&PIpi=5767217 made by Rebecca Putman in 2007 shows the monument in its natural state without chalking to highlight the carved images. Other examples of heraldic monuments located in the same cemetery can be seen at: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=steele%20creek&w=71753167%40N00 Comparisons to the coat of arms depicted on the grave of Thomas Akins with the renderings of the coats of arms on the gravestones of Alexander Akins at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=25978854&PIpi=10181905 and Archibald Akins at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSfn=Archibald&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=in&GSob=n&GRid=5677681& clearly show that the supporters are both deer and that the blazon consists of a lion rampant in dexter and a dexter forearm embowed and armored holding a battle-axe in sinister. It is thought by Akins researchers that the arms may have been based on the ancient arms of Norway, due to the connection between the Scottish name Akins and Norse name Haakon (see the seal of Hakon V of Norway: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Haakon_Magnussens_segl-013.jpg ). The two ravens that form the crest are believed to be representations of Hugin and Munin, the "twa corbies" belonging to the Norse god Odin. The manner in which the charges in a coat of arms are rendered varies according to artistic interpretation, but such variation in style of artwork are not considered to be deviations in the actual blazon. As an example, compare the images of Norway's coat of arms shown here: http://www.ngw.nl/int/nor/images/norway6.jpg with the depictions of the same coat of arms shown here: http://www.ngw.nl/int/nor/images/norway5.jpg and here: http://www.icenews.is/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/norway-coat-of-arms1.png - the way in which the lion on the shield is depicted varies greatly and in the last image is barely recognizable as a lion, yet these are all depictions of the exact same coat of arms done at different times by different heraldic artists. -- Wyvren ( talk) 13:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Both the McDowell book on the Steele Creek Burial Ground and the book History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church show identical drawings made by an artist of the various coats of arms depicted on different gravestones in the cemetery. The drawing for the coat of arms that appears on Thomas Akins tombstone shows a lion rampant on the left of the shield and a man's armored arm embowed ans holding a battle axe on the right side of the shield, the supporters are both deer and the drawing clearly shows the motto written on the scroll to read "Time How Short". This may not be clear in the photographs of the tombstone but it is quite evident in person and it appears as such in both the published works. -- Wyvren ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
What is your basis for making the statement that Steven Akins is not a reliable source of information? What is the basis for considering yourself any sort of authority to determine what does and does not go into this article? The caption included below the picture of the arms is completely clear, it says that the picture is of the Akins coat of arms and that an early example of the arms can be found on the 1785 tombstone of Thomas Akins in Steele Creek Cemetery. You have no authority to determine what does or does not go into the article. -- Wyvren ( talk) 12:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have looked at the websites that you have cited, which appear to be nothing more than personal opinions expressed by a couple of individuals who (like yourself) seem to have some sort of vendetta against the Akins clan. Both of the websites are replete with lies, inuendo, and half-truths aimed at prejudicing the reader against the topic through misinformation. To clarify things a bit for you, and for anyone else who may be equally ignorant of such facts as yourself, I should refer you to the following:
Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. 613:
"From an allowance of proof the Court excluded all questions relating to the chieftainship and the relative positions of the parties within the clan, holding that neither chiefship of a whole clan nor chieftainship of a branch of a clan was a legal status justiciable in a court of law, but had the character of a social dignity only, and, accordingly, that the Lord Lyon had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of who had right to the chieftainship either directly or incidentally when disposing of the claims for supporters and for a birthbrief. [..] Observations: [...] on the meaning of "chief" and "chieftain" in the law and practice of arms, with opinion by the Lord Justice-Clerk that in the recorded cases in which a Lord Lyon had made a declaration of chiefship the declaration had been merely a ministerial act and not a finding in his judicial capacity upon a disputed question."
Lord Justice-Clerk, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 636:
"There is no instance in the registers of any judicial decision by Lyon in a disputed question of chiefship or chieftainship. The only instance founded on by the petitioner was the finding by Lyon regarding the chiefship of Clan Chattan on 10th September 1672 [...] It will be noticed that this declaration proceeded simply upon a perusal by Lyon of evidents and testimonies from "our histories, my own Registers, and bands of Manrent" and that it was in no sense a finding pronounced in a lis or contested process. It vouches nothing beyond that in this particular case Lyon made a declaration of chiefship. Similarly, the matriculation of the arms of the chief of the M'Naghtons proves nothing [...] This is not a decision in a lis: again it is simply a recording of the dignity of a chiefship acknowledged by attestation. The only other case to which reference need be made is the case of Drummond of Concraig [...] This is the only instance to which we were referred of a chief of a branch being mentioned, and it is only designation. It is not a declarator or a declaratory finding of chieftaincy. In none of the writs which were before us can I find any support for a conclusion that Lyon at any time either claimed, or exercised, a jurisdiction to determine disputes as to which of competing claimants to chiefship or chieftainship was to be preferred."
Lord Wark, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 657:
"I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan. [...] The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law. It was decided in the case College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v. College of Physicians of Edinburgh (1911 S.C. 1054), that Lyon has no jurisdiction except as is conferred by statute, or is vouched by the authority of an Institutional writer, or by continuous and accepted practice of the Lyon Court. [...] in my opinion, there is no practice or precedent which entitled Lyon to decide a question of disputed chiefship or chieftainship, either by itself or incidentally to a grant of arms. There is direct authority, by way of precedent, for Lyon considering an acknowledged chiefship of a clan as incidental to a grant of arms with supporters. The case of Macnaghton (13th January 1818, Lyon Register, vol. ii, p. 172) is a case of that kind. But it is a different thing altogether to say that in a case of dispute Lyon has jurisdiction to determine and declare who is chief. For that no precedent has been cited to us. In my opinion, it is outwith his jurisdiction to decide because (1) at best it is a question merely of social status or precedence; (2) this social status is not one recognised by law; and (3) and, most important of all, it depends, not upon any principle of law of succession which can be applied by a Court of Law, but upon recognition by the clan itself. Like your Lordship, I am at a loss to understand how any determination or decree of Lyon ever could impose upon a clan a head which it did not desire to acknowledge."
See also the Wikipedia article on [ clan chief]:
"Clan Chiefs" and "Clan Chieftains" While Scottish law recognizes the existence of Scottish Clans, Chiefs and Chieftains,[7] this recognition is only one of social dignity or precedence, and as such does not involve any interest which the law has jurisdiction.[8] The Lyon Court can make a recording of the dignity of a chiefship acknowledged by attestation, but can not declare judicially a chiefship.[9] Further, no Scottish court can exercise a jurisdiction to determine disputes of competing claimants to a chiefship or chieftainship;[4][10] to quote Lord Aitchinson in the Court of Session: "Historically the idea of a chief or chieftain submitting his dignity to the arbitrament of it Court of law is really grotesque. The chief was the law, and his authority was derived from his own people.".[4] -- Wyvren ( talk) 11:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the problems is reliable sources for the images. IMO, and the opinion of Dougweller, the sources he uses do not satisfy WP:RS. The discussion concerning them is located in Talk:Akins#Heraldry. The other problem is tendentious editing. In some cases, Wyvren's sources don't add up with the content he adds into the article. He is also editing with a bias, refusing to include "English" etymologies for the word that are included in several of the sources he has used in the article. One of the sources Wyvren uses, supposedly says the name originates from a place name, but instead of picturing that place he uses a picture of a castle nearby. The discussion on the names is Talk:Akins#Sources not adding. The discussion in Talk:Akins#Request quotation is about a source that Wyvren uses for the coat of arms image; the problem is, IMO it doesn't support the image. The discussion got way off track in Wyvren's bottom-most comment on chiefs etc. (immediately below my comment dated: 05:29, 14 July 2010). Reverting has been going on for several days, but the differences can be seen in the latest comparison between 10:27, 18 July 2010 and edit 06:19, 19 July 2010.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 07:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: "English" etymologies - Briannan has Aitken listed as an "English" surname - Aitken is in fact a Scottish surname, it is the Scots form of the northern English surname Atkins - which is the Borders version of the standard English spelling Adkins (in northern English the "d" sound gets sharpened to a "t" sound due to the Border dialect, and in the Scots dialect Aitken is pronounced "Ate-ken" so that the "t" is barely heard. I have included the "English" etymology in my edit, which reads: "It is thought that these surnames may derive from the personal name Aitken, the Scots form of Atkin, a Northern English variant of the name Adkin, which is a diminutive form of Adam." as this is far more accurate that Briannan's edit that has Aitken classified as an "English" name, which it is decidely not.-- Wyvren ( talk) 19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Earlier you said that O'Laughlin and MacLysaght did't even mention the name "Atkin", now you are all about it; you are contradicting yourself. So, which is it? ":The O'Laughlin and MacLysaght sources don't even have the word "Atkin" in them, so don't add that into the article. How can anyone assume good faith with a contributor who continually adds supposedly sourced material, but when the sources are checked by another, they don't support the contributor's claims."-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 05:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)" -- Wyvren ( talk) 10:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: the photo of Dunakin castle at Kyleakin vs. the photo of Kyleakin village at Kyleakin. Here's the deal - Kyleakin or Kyle Akin (as it was originally spelled) is a strait separating the Isle of Skye from the Scottish mainlaind. The area of land on the Isle of Skye adjacent to the strait is known as Kyleakin after the strait itself. This land has for many centuries been the site of Dunakin (Dun Akin) castle, the ruins of which are shown in the photograph I have posted. The castle, like the strait itself, was named for King Haakon of Norway, who is etymologically connected to the origin of the surname Akins - Acain is the Gaelic form of Haakon and Akin is the Scots' form of Acain.
The village that now stands at Kyleakin did not exist until 1811 when it was first begun as a planned community originally called "New Liverpool" - thus my reasoning for using a photograph of Dunakin castle instead of a picture of Kyleakin village is that the castle which dates to at least the 15th century is more pertinent to the history of the area where the Akins surname may have originated than a village that did not exist until the 19th century. Both the castle and the village are located at Kyleakin, so why preference a picture of houses rather than historic ruins?.-- Wyvren ( talk) 10:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
My reasoning for including a photo of the castle ruin is that it was called Dun Akin castle and that it, like the strait on which it was located, was named for King Hakon of Norway, and in Gaelic is called Dun Acain, thus it shares an etymological connection to the surname Akins, as well as being a prominent and historical focal point for the area of Kyleakin, since the castle is the earliest extant human habitation surviving in the area. As for sources on the establishment of the village at Kyleakin, see: http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/skye/kyleakin/index.html "Though Kyleakin has a history as old as its castle, most of what you see today dates back to a planned village created in 1811"-- Wyvren ( talk) 11:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
People lived in the castle - no one was living in the water.-- Wyvren ( talk) 10:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Instead of using two separate color depictions of the Akins tartan and the Akins crest badge, I have contributed a photograph showing both the actual Akins tartan and an actual Akins crest badge in a single image. The metal Akins crest badge is the type worn on Scottish balmoral or glengarry bonnets (caps) and was manufactured in Scotland by a commercial firm who is a major supplier of such crest badges to all the various clans of Scotland.-- Wyvren ( talk) 19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that Brianann MacAmhlaidh has an obvious bias against Akins as a Scottish clan; for some reason he appears to have singled out this one article for whatever personal axe-grinding he has with his "not in my neighborhood" attitude in respect to the Akinses as part of Scotland's history and cultural heritage. He has made his prejudiced attitude obvious and has sought to denigrate the Akins name by suggesting that they are of English origin based on nothing more than a near dissimilarity of surnames (such as can be found between the Scottish name Johnston(e) and the English name Johnson). Brianann has gone out of his way to interfere with the publication of factual information on the Akins name and has made it exteremly obvious that his continual re-editing of the article is merely a means of acting out whatever personal grudge he has with the Akinses. -- Wyvren ( talk) 23:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
First, I find it a bit much to load this article with images of the crest and coat of arms, though it's really not the end of the world. Next: I agree with MacAmhlaidh on the sourcing. Without truly reliable sources, nothing should make it into the article. Wyvren, I don't know if you're a conflict of interest towards the Akins clan or what - in fact, you probably are, given that you uploaded a picture of the tartan and crest from your own work - but accusing others of tendentious editing and bias isn't right. If George Fraser Black noted something about the derivations and it's verifiable, then it should get in. Just because you don't like the implications of that doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the article - and in fact, to remove text like that is skewing the page, which violates WP:POV. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
George F. Black's "The Surnames of Scotland" was originally published in 1946 by the New York Public Library. Black was a bibliographer and historical scholar at New York Public Library, which makes his book a "self-published" work. -- Wyvren ( talk) 14:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying the Black is "unacceptable" as a source, I am simply pointing out that his book isn't free from errors and that it was pretty much a self-published book, since he was employed by the New York Public Library and the New York Public Library ended up publishing it after no one else would. People take Black's book as gospel, but it contains errors and those errors get repeated over and over again by others who use his work as a reference. As an example Black indicates that the Scottish names Aiken(s), Aikin(s), Akin(s), etc are all derived from the similar (but not identical) surname Aitken, which he assumes is the Scottish version of the northern English surname Atkins. In fact these are all different surnames and have different possible etymologies. Aitken may be a variant of Atkin, or it may be a contraction of the surname Acheson/Aitcheson; just as Akin may be the Scots form of Acain, which is the Gaelic form of the Norse name Haakon. Black cites a reference to a "John of Akyne" but then Black says that the "of" in that case seems to be an error as he knew of no place by that name in Scotland - in other words he did not know that there was a place on the Isle of Skye called Kyle Akin (the Strait of Haakon)- but then Black goes on to admit that in Orkney the name Aiken and its variants had come to be used in place of the Old Norse Names Haakon and its derrivitive Haakonson. So, Black is obviously a fallible source, as is anyone else whose work is based on taking Black's word as being irrefutable truth.-- Wyvren ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My only interest is in seeing that this particular article contain the most useable, beneficial and reliable information as possible. When someone without any viable interest in the article comes in and starts tampering with facts simply becauase they can, or because they have (for whatever reason) a grudge against the subject of the article; then I will endeavor to see to it that their efforts are thwarted as far as possible so that the useful, beneficial and factual cointent remains standing and unmolested by vandalism.-- Wyvren ( talk) 14:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
HelloAnnyong, can you specifically comment on the crest badge? Wyvren keeps adding it without giving a source. He's masking it beneath refs concerning a tartan, which IMO is an example of tendentious editing. Coincidently, both the crest badge and the tartan are creations of Steven Akins.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 05:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
So I just readded the quote about O'Laughlin. I believe it needs to stay in the article so that we maintain a neutral point of view. The article needs to show all viewpoints, so rather than just stating what Bell says, the line about O'Laughlin keeps the article balanced. I'm mildly concerned about the addition of all the people in the early records. That part of the article should not grow any further; merely listing a bunch of people doesn't really make the article better in any way. I've also undone the text about Niall of the Nine Hostages, because it's not in the source ( http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/akins/results) given. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I just readded the citations for Durning. I believe it needs to stay in the article so that we maintain a neutral point of view. The article needs to show all viewpoints, so rather than just stating what Black, MacLysaght and O'Laughlin say, the citation from Durning keep the article balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have readded the citation of Ulster Heritage magazine article as a source for the reference to Niall of the Nine Hostages genetic subclade.-- Wyvren ( talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The link I cited to the Akins DNA surname project identifies the primary genetic subclade found in the majority of Akins males whose Y-chromosone DNA has been tested as R1b1b2a1b5b, which is the DNA subclade identified with Niall of the Nine Hostages as shown in the other sources that I have cited. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the DNA associated with the Akins surname is subclade R1b1b2a1b5b and the DNA subclade associated with Niall is also R1b1b2a1b5b, then we are talking about the same thing. To try to deny this is simply being purposely obtuse on your part. -- Wyvren ( talk) 01:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW - the New York Times article and several other sources I have cited as per the DNA thing do mention that Irish males bearing the Egan surname belong to the Niall subclade - Egan is yet another Anglicization of O'hAodhagain - the same root name that the Irish Aikens claim that their surname is derrived from; so from a genetic standpoint, Aikens and Egans are both O'hAodhagains and are descendants of Niall.-- Wyvren ( talk) 01:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The prefixes "Mac" and "O'" that often precede Irish surnames simply imply that one is a descendant of an ancestor whose name was the same as what the prefix preceeds. The prefixes themselves do not affect the etymology of the surname. Mac in Gaelic means "son"; O' in Gaelic means "descendant" or "grandson"; though in the case of modern surname usage this is never a literal relationship, so both Mac and O' would merely imply that someone was a descendant of an ancestor whose name was preceeded by either prefix.-- Wyvren ( talk) 03:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW - Wikipedia is "just some amateurs running a website" to use your definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
In response to the request for verification of the Akins coat of arms, I went to the library and photographed the pages from the book A History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 that pertain to the tombstone of Thomas Akins who is buried in the cemetery. I have uploaded photographs of the pages from the book onto photobucket, they can be viewed at: http://s1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical%20records/?action=view¤t=steele_creek_01.jpg and http://s1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical%20records/?action=view¤t=008.jpg I have also been in contact with a Mr. John Cox in Charlotte, N.C. who is a photographer that posts photos on Flickr. He has a photograph of the back of Thomas Akins' tombstone on his photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnncox/4061843066/ and has agreed to take a new photograph of the front of the monument showing the coat of arms in better detail.
In addition there is a court record relating to Thomas Akins death that is recorded in the Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Minutes of the Probate Court, which reads as follows: 1785. September Session "Ordered that Letters of Administration on the Estate of Thomas Akins, Decd., issue to William Akins who produces Hugh Parks as Security, bound in £600, Administrators Sworn."-- Wyvren ( talk) 02:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, I just used the quotes because anytime I try to summarize things like that, other editors start accusing me of taking things out of context or using references that don't match the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Wyvren just readded the coat of arms. It was my understanding from the above discussion that the coat of arms wasn't suitable for inclusion. At the very least, I (and I think Brianann) are against its inclusion. Wyvren's edit summary said "per Czar Brodie's comment" - but was that what was intended? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
We know the tinctures (colors) used in the achievement from the depiction of the coat of arms carved on the 1669 tombstone of Alexander Akins in Spesutia Church Cemetery, Harford Co., Maryland, as the carving gives the proper hatchments denoting the colors of the charges in the blazon, see: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSfn=Alexander&GSbyrel=in&GSdy=1669&GSdyrel=in&GSst=22&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=25978854&df=all&
As for your descision to exclude the Akins crest badge, in think it is only fair that you should also exclude the crest badge of the Clann Gunn as "The elements within the crest badge are not derived from the chiefly arms. No undifferenced arms of the name Gunn have ever been recorded" as well as the crest badge of MacAulay for whom "No chiefly arms have been recorded in the Lyon Register" and MacEwan "This motto is not from the chiefly arms, but is derived from the arms of the McEwen Baronets" and MacFie "This motto is not from the chiefly arms, but is derived from a coat of arms registered in 1864" and MacInness "This motto is not derived from the chiefly arms, but from a modern coat of arms (from the arms of MacInnes of Malagawatch)" as per the citations noted at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crest_badges_used_by_Scottish_clan_members - you cannot have it both ways - if these crest badges are allowed, then so too should the Akins crest badge be allowed. -- Wyvren ( talk) 16:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by verifying whether or not a coat of arms is "official" - official according to whom? The Lord Lyon? He has no jurisdiction outside of Scotland and the Lyon Register dates back only to 1672. The earliest depiction of the Akins coat of arms is on a colonial Maryland gravestone dated 1669 - three years before Lyon Register was begun and 3000 miles from Scotland. Several years ago I petitioned Lord Lyon to confirm these as "ancient arms" meaning that they would recognized as Scottish arms predating the establishment of Lyon Register, however Lord Lyon was unable to recognize them as they exist outside of Scotland and are therefore outside of his jurisdiction. The arms exist, they are authentic, but they exist in a country that has no officially established body for the regulation of heraldry. This does not make them inauthentic or in any way inferior to arms that are recorded in official registers in countries that have such governing bodies; they simply exist as authentic historical arms in a country without regulated heraldry.-- Wyvren ( talk) 17:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that the source is dubious at the very least. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever read WP:IRS? In what way does it meet our criteria as a reliable source for the insertion of the image? As I've said, reliability is not the default. Here on this talk page you are the only one saying it's reliable, so it doesn't go in. If you can convince the folks at WP:RSN maybe you can convince us, but there's not a lot of point going on discussing it right now. Dougweller ( talk) 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed comment issue
|
---|
I wish to reinstate my previous comment that Wyvren deleted: A number of heraldic sources have pointed out that the Bigham family of gravestone carvers, responsible for most of the stones at Steele Creek, often borrowed from heraldic textbooks to create stones which had nothing to do with those interred under them. "...analysis of other armorial gravestones in Steele Creek Cemetery on the newsgroup rec.heraldry indicated that the arms on the memorials are generally either assumed or the imaginative work of the Bigham family of headstone carvers." [17] MarmadukePercy ( talk) 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
|
As I stated on the RSN page, I think that we really need to put this issue to rest. Wyvren is the only person who thinks that either the coat of arms or the gravestone picture belong on this page. I had initially thought that the gravestone would be okay as a compromise, but after reading the comment left on RSN by Enric Naval about how it puts undue weight on it, I agree that it doesn't belong. So can we put the stick down and move on? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
While your theories concerning the Akins coat of arms looking (to you) as if it is marshalled per pale might be plausible if there were an actual vertical division between the dexter and sinister side of the shield - there isn't - nor would there be as Thomas Akins was unmarried and died without issue; which is why my great-great-great-great grandfather, William Akins (Thomas' older brother) was appointed administrator of Thomas' estate by the court of Mecklenburg Co., North Carolina - "1785 September Session: Ordered that Letters of Administration on the Estate of Thomas Akins, Decd., issue to William Akins who produces Hugh Parks as Security, bound in £600, Administrators Sworn." If Thomas had been married then his widow would have been one of his executors, as was the case when my great-great-great-great-great grandfather Stephen McCorkle (William Akins' father-in-law) died in five years later - Heirs Executors and Administrative Records of York Co, SC - dated: 19 Oct 1790 for Stephen McCorkle "Know all once by these presence that we, Ann McCorkle William McCorkle, Archibald Barron & John Forbes of York County & State of S. Carolina are held and firmly bound to William Burton, Wm. Miley, Abraham Smith Justice of our County Court of York afore said in the present sum of Four hundred pounds lawful money of the state afore said for the true payment whereof we bind ourselves our Heir Executors & adminis. firmly by their presents. Sealed with our seals & dated this 19th day of October 1790." You also fail to take into consideration the fact that many (particularly Irish) coats of arms often have two charges placed on the field, rather than a single charge or multiples of the same charge. You can see a number of examples of two different charges being placed side by side or one on top of the other without any sort of per pale marshalling going on at all here: coats of arms. So, no, the Akins coat of arms is not marshalled per pale, it is simply two charges placed side by side, and the crest consists of two ravens ("twa corbies") as is indicated by other examples of the Akins coat of arms found on earlier tombstones: Alexander Akins gravestone Archibald Akins gravestone.-- Wyvren ( talk) 16:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Struck my own comment above because there's a new image to discuss. I don't think File:Akins-coat-of-arms.jpg is any more acceptable in the article. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
From: david@family-crests.com
Subject: Re: Contact Us Submitted
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:40:34 +0100
> Hi These are our images, drawn by ourselves, for which we have the original layered artwork. We do not allow authorship to be claimed on any of our work and is a violation of copyright. I would like to know who this person is. Thank you for enlightening us about this.
I am unfamiliar with the procedure involved with a user who disregards copyright issues, and I suspect that the shield images may also be violations. Can another user take up this issue and contact an administrator. My thinking is that Wyvren is abusing copyright issues in order to prove a point. I think we should perhaps request a page block while this issue is investigated. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
family-crests.com cannot in any way claim ownership of the crest badges (they certainly don't own mine). It is a different thing altogether to allow companies to manufacture crest badges for use by clanspeople (as I myself have done), but it is impossible for such a company to claim ownership of the crest badges or the images thereof, as these are the sole property of the owner of the coat of arms from which the crest badge is derived.-- 97.82.45.48 ( talk) 00:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In addition, File:Akins-coat-of-arms.jpg seems to be straight from 4crests.com: [19]. -- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 07:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Wyvren has frequently quoted MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean on this talk page. I presume (although it is not entirely clear) that this case is being quoted to give "Clan Akins" some kind of legitimacy along with its "chief". Clan Akins is not a recognized Scottish clan nor does it have a chief. I am the editor who rewrote Scottish clan chief taking into account the MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean case, largely to clear up confusion regarding the role of the Lord Lyon in clans. It is ironic that this confusion persists now in an opposite way. If Wyvren is trying to use this case to prove the existence of an unknown clan he/she has misunderstood the legal point involved in the said cause. What the judges were pointing out was that the Lord Lyon King of Arms' jurisdiction is heraldic and that he has no business appointing chiefs, recognizing hereto unknown clans, or settling disputes of chieftainship where such a dispute exists; nor do any Scottish courts. However the Lord Lyon can recognize a clan and a clan chief, or, put in legal wording: The Lyon Court can make a recording of the dignity of a chiefship acknowledged by attestation. To explain in lay man terms: the Lyon Court grants arms and these arms are usually granted to dignitaries (e.g. generals, bishops, doctors, clan chiefs,) and such arms have hereditary properties. To explain what the judges mean: the Lyon Court (or any Scottish Court) can not appoint generals or bishops or doctors or chiefs etc, nor can it settle disputes relating to these distinctions; but the court can recognised a general, a bishop, an academic, a chief etc. Given that there is no longer any body that appoints chiefs (unlike generals, bishops etc…), and that chiefs are hereditary, the Lyon Court has been used by clans to find and confirm their chiefs. The Lyon court needs absolute proof before it can confirm an individual is holder of an honour ect and any forgeries placed before the Lyons Court is a serious offence (the Lyon Court is a Court of Law and has powers and officers who can check the validity of documents/prof for forgeries and perjury, contempt etc are deal with heavy fines and prison sentences) . This makes the Court of the Lord Lyon very useful to the community of clans and the union of chiefs. Once the Lord Lyon is satisfied that such and such is chief of such a clan, the matter is voted at the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. The Lyon Court recognizes no arms, chief, or clan by the name of Akens nor does the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. Naturally we live in a free world and any individual can call themselves as they please, whether this be “General MacSmith” or “The Right Rev MacSmith” or “Professor MacSmith” or even “MacSmith of that ilk”. But if the distinction is made up, that person is derided within that community (i.e. a made up professorship is not taken seriously within the academic world). Hope this clarifies matters. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 12:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Fraud.
97.82.45.48 ( talk · contribs) / Wyvren ( talk · contribs) is using the following links as sources for the crest badge: [1] [2]. I don't see how either of these sites are reliable. The editor also used this link as ref for the coat of arms: [3]. I shouldn't be considered reliable. It's user submited content, from a dubious source (see above section on Steven Akins).-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 04:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
WyvrenPlease note that I have submitted as a source the following published work: [The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 published by Craftsman Printing and Publishing House, Charlotte, N.C., 1978] which contains both illustrations of the Akins tombstone from 1785 displaying the coat of arms, as well as burial information on the desceased. This content serves to verify the information included in the aforementioned link at: [4].
In regard to the dubious authenticty of crested clan badges it should be noted that these are a late 19th century innovation popularized during the Victorian era and are not a form of heraldry regulated by Lyon Court or any other heraldic authority; indeed there is absolutely no evidence of their existence or use prior to 1860 and they exist today, much like named "clan tartans," merely as a result of their popularity as an invented tradition of the 19th century. See Wikipedia article on Clan Badges.
I have included it because it exists as a symbol of identity associated with the surname, just as other clan crest badges exist as symbols of identity associated with their respective surnames. The crest and the motto associated with the Akins name date back well over 200 years and are thus a longstanding cultural tradition intimately associated with the Akins name. What is your reason for being so purposely obtuse and personally vendictive in regard to this article? -- Wyvren ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC).
This same arugument would also therefore apply to all the other articles on Wikipedia relating to Scottish families that feature images of both coats of arms, crest badges, tartans, etc. As the contributors to these articles saw fit to include images of both coats of arms and crest badges in their entries, then there is no reason why they should be excluded from the Akins article. Indeed to do so would show an unfair bias on your part against the Akins entry.-- Wyvren ( talk) 16:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
How is it a huge jump to state that an early example of the Akins coat of arms appears on the 225 year old tombstone of Thomas Akins, and to show a color rendering of the coat of arms? I have given two independant published sources that include drawings and notations of the same coat of arms and tombstone, so what is your problem? It isn't a claim, it is a verifiable fact.-- Wyvren ( talk) 22:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the "Akins crest" [5]. As read in Scottish crest badge: worn to show one's allegiance to an individual or one's membership to a specific Scottish clan. [1]. Akins is not a Scottish clan and so does not have a Scottish crest badge. The crest (heraldry) belongs to an individual, not a family; as read at Crest (heraldry): There is a widespread misconception, due in part to Victorian stationers' marketing of engraved letterheads, that a crest and a coat of arms belong to everyone with the same family name; but usage by persons not descended from the original grantee constitutes usurpation.. I have further removed the "Akins crest" at List of crest badges used by Scottish clan members. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 13:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Evidence in the case of MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean:
P.220) (Q.) "In your view, what does the word "clan" mean? (A.) It has a general meaning of family, ordinary meaning of family, but there is a peculiar sense in which it is used for this quasi-feudal organisation in the Highlands, or you might say feudal organisation. (Q.) But its primary meaning, I think, is family? (A.) Yes. (Q.)In your view, did the clans in fact consist either of persons linked by blood or persons linked by reason of place of dwelling in a territory? (A.) That is the defination of the Act of Parliament. (Reference Acts 1587 & Act of 11 Sept, 1593 A.P.S., IV, p. 40) (Q.) Do you see a reference there to the pretence of blood or place of dwelling? (A.)Yes. (Q.)Are those familiar terms? (A.) Quite familiar. Pretence means claim....(Q.) So that in your view do you get this dual element entering into the composition of the clan, blood-relation and place of dwelling? (A.) Oh, yes, you have both.
Evidence of the Very Rev. Lachlan Maclean Watt, LL.D., Bard of the Clan MacLean Association: (P. 517) (Q.) (Referred to Mackenzie's "Works," II, 574, 618: (Q.)Do you deduce that Sir G. Mackenzie considered that from a heraldic point of view the "head of the clan" the "chief of the clan" or the "representer of the family" all meant the same thing? (A.) I respectfully suggest that it is a matter of "Head of a Family" and "Head of a Clan." He was a Highlander and he knew that clan means a family. Clan and family mean exactly the same thing."
Lord Wark, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 657:
"I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan. [...] The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law."-- Wyvren ( talk) 01:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
References
I'm noting some instances where the references added by 97.82.45.48 ( talk · contribs) / Wyvren ( talk · contribs) don't seem to add up to the claims in the article. The quotes from the article are coloured.
I asked Wyvren, on his talkpage, to supply page numbers. That might help others verify things.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 04:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The place name referenced in the above cited sources is known in Scots' as Kyle Akin (Kyleakin) and in Gaelic is called Caol Acain meaning the "Strait of Hakon" Acain is the Gaelic rendering of Haakon in the instance of its use as a place name; while the name Haakon is otherwise often rendered Eachan in Gaelic when used as a personal name, hence Eakin/Eakins/Akins, etc. - Wyvren ( Wyvren|talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC).
Re: Atty/Arthur derivation - Black states that this attribution is dubious, and in any case it is more relevant to the name Atkins, not Akins. I suggest that this derivation be moved to the Atkins or Aitken surname article since it is more specific to that surname.-- Wyvren ( talk) 22:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a possibility that Black dismisses. -- Wyvren ( talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Wyvren, you added this into the body of the article as a quotation from Bell's The Book of Irish Surnames: "Aiken is of Scottish origin. It is the Scottish form of the English name Atkin, which comes from Adkin, a pet form of Adam. The name was very common in the parish of Ballantrae in Ayrshire and many of our Aikens may stem from there. There are many variant spellings. It was recorded as being used interchangeably with Eakins in Belfast, Ekin in counties Derry and Donegal, Ekin in Co. Donegal and Egan in Co. Down." That seems to be just a copy-and-paste from this website [9]. Did you actually quote this from the book, or just take it from the net?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 06:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The quotation is direct from the book in both cases. -- Wyvren ( talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion in the second paragraph, concerning the books by the Durnings. The first part says that the names Aiken, Akins, and Eakin, came over to Scotland during the time of the Plantations. I noticed that Wyvren gave no mention of the etymology that the Durnings gave for these names. I would think they would have meant the Atken/Adam name, just like how MacLysaght, O'Laughlin, and apparently Bell. I think the second part, from the second book, is about a specific family, separate than those that came over during the Plantations. It seems to me, that the "pedigree" bit seems to actually be about the Irish "O'hOgain" family, who were in Ireland long before the Plantations. The problem is that the whole paragraph is structured in a way to make it seem like the three surnames that came over during the Plantations have a Milesian pedigree.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 07:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The Scots actually came from Ireland circa 501 A.D. when an Irish tribe from Ulster called the Scotti crossed over to northern Britain and established a colony called Dalriada in present day Argyllshire. 1100 years later land in Ulster was being resettled by Scots as part of the Ulster Plantation; so it is entirely possible to have a Milesian Gaelic pedigree and also be descended from Ulster-Scots planters. Atkins and Adam have no actual relation to the Akins surname - this is simply an erroneous theory that has been repeated due to the similarity of the name Akins with Atkins, or Aiken with Aitken - you have the same type of similarity with Johnston(e) and Johnson, but the names have completely different meanings. An Akins is no more related to Atkins than they are to Arkins or an Askins. In fact, genetic research has backed up the validity of the the Irish claim that the name is derived from the Gaelic name Aodhagain, as both Akinses and Eagans test positive for the Niall Irish modal genetic subclade.-- Wyvren ( talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, I've done that.--
Wyvren (
talk)
02:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Some issues with concerning Black. We had the following: Black cites the name of Magnus Attkinsone, a tacksman of Garth in Harray in 1492, which he states "may be a misreading of Awkinsone." Black noted this man in his book, but it had nothing to do with the names we are dealing with in this article. Black notes Magnus when he is describing the surname Acheson (and variants: Aicheson, Aitcheson, Aitchison, Atkinson). This occurs on page 5, not 11. Page 11 is where Black describes Aiken and variants. So I have removed Magnus. Black states that he believes that the "of" in the name "John of Akyne" is a mistake. So that should be noted in the article. He also notes that the same story related in The Baronage of Angus and Mearns is too silly to believe. So that should be noted as well. BTW that derivation was for the name Aikman, not Akins. So that should be made clear.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 05:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
97.82.45.48 ( talk · contribs) / Wyvren ( talk · contribs) added the following book as a reference for the coat of arms: A List of those Buried in Historic Steele Creek Burial Grounds - Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, North Carolina: 1760-1953, compiled by Mrs. Robert McDowell, Steele Creek Presbyterian Church. How does this relate to the arms? Can someone verify this source, can someone provide a quotation?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 04:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Wyvren The source A List of those Buried in Historic Steele Creek Burial Grounds - Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, North Carolina: 1760-1953 contains illustrations of various 18th century gravestones in Steele Creek cemetery, including the Akins tombstone displaying the coat of arms. These illustrations and burial records are also included in The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 published by Craftsman Printing and Publishing House, Charlotte, N.C., 1978, which I have since referenced as a source for the provenance of the Akins coat of arms. Photographs of the actual monument can be seen at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSfn=Thomas&GSbyrel=in&GSdy=1785&GSdyrel=in&GSst=29&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=5677664&
Perhaps you should read what the caption associated with the image file says: "Akins coat of arms, an early example of which appears on the gravestone of Thomas Akins (1758-1785), an Ulster Scots settler who lived in colonial Charlotte, North Carolina at the time of the Revolutionary War." - the image file linked to the article is a depiction of the Akins coat of arms, the 1785 tombstone of Thomas Akins also bears a depiction of the same coat of arms. A coat of arms can be rendered in various types of artistic media - in stone (as is the case with the carving on the tombstone), in wood, on paper, on metal, embroidered on cloth, etc. As long as the elements that make up the blazon of the coat of arms are the same, it is the same coat of arms - and you very well know this, you are merely being antagonistic and biased against this article due to whatever personal dislike you evidently harbor toward its subject. Wyvren ( talk
The image of the Akins coat of arms is an accurate representation of the coat of arms on the 1785 tombstone of Thomas Akins - the crest, motto, supporters and charges are all consistant with the depiction executed 225 years ago.-- 97.82.45.48 ( talk) 10:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The difficulties in photographing 200+ year old tombstones are further complicated due to weathering/deterioration of the subject as well as the primative folkish craftsmanship used in producing the original monument. The colors of the blazon are indicated by "hatching" a heraldic method of indicating colors by using lines (vertical lines representing gules (red), horizontal lines representing azure (blue), etc.) which are not apparent in the photographs. Having seen this monument in person, one can tell that the supporters are both deer - the supporter on the left has no "mane" - this is simply chalk residue (used to highlight the careved relief) that overran the side of the carving. The motto appears in the scroll that the supporters stand on in the carving. The photograph at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=5677664&PIpi=5767217 made by Rebecca Putman in 2007 shows the monument in its natural state without chalking to highlight the carved images. Other examples of heraldic monuments located in the same cemetery can be seen at: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=steele%20creek&w=71753167%40N00 Comparisons to the coat of arms depicted on the grave of Thomas Akins with the renderings of the coats of arms on the gravestones of Alexander Akins at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=25978854&PIpi=10181905 and Archibald Akins at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSfn=Archibald&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=in&GSob=n&GRid=5677681& clearly show that the supporters are both deer and that the blazon consists of a lion rampant in dexter and a dexter forearm embowed and armored holding a battle-axe in sinister. It is thought by Akins researchers that the arms may have been based on the ancient arms of Norway, due to the connection between the Scottish name Akins and Norse name Haakon (see the seal of Hakon V of Norway: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Haakon_Magnussens_segl-013.jpg ). The two ravens that form the crest are believed to be representations of Hugin and Munin, the "twa corbies" belonging to the Norse god Odin. The manner in which the charges in a coat of arms are rendered varies according to artistic interpretation, but such variation in style of artwork are not considered to be deviations in the actual blazon. As an example, compare the images of Norway's coat of arms shown here: http://www.ngw.nl/int/nor/images/norway6.jpg with the depictions of the same coat of arms shown here: http://www.ngw.nl/int/nor/images/norway5.jpg and here: http://www.icenews.is/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/norway-coat-of-arms1.png - the way in which the lion on the shield is depicted varies greatly and in the last image is barely recognizable as a lion, yet these are all depictions of the exact same coat of arms done at different times by different heraldic artists. -- Wyvren ( talk) 13:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Both the McDowell book on the Steele Creek Burial Ground and the book History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church show identical drawings made by an artist of the various coats of arms depicted on different gravestones in the cemetery. The drawing for the coat of arms that appears on Thomas Akins tombstone shows a lion rampant on the left of the shield and a man's armored arm embowed ans holding a battle axe on the right side of the shield, the supporters are both deer and the drawing clearly shows the motto written on the scroll to read "Time How Short". This may not be clear in the photographs of the tombstone but it is quite evident in person and it appears as such in both the published works. -- Wyvren ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
What is your basis for making the statement that Steven Akins is not a reliable source of information? What is the basis for considering yourself any sort of authority to determine what does and does not go into this article? The caption included below the picture of the arms is completely clear, it says that the picture is of the Akins coat of arms and that an early example of the arms can be found on the 1785 tombstone of Thomas Akins in Steele Creek Cemetery. You have no authority to determine what does or does not go into the article. -- Wyvren ( talk) 12:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have looked at the websites that you have cited, which appear to be nothing more than personal opinions expressed by a couple of individuals who (like yourself) seem to have some sort of vendetta against the Akins clan. Both of the websites are replete with lies, inuendo, and half-truths aimed at prejudicing the reader against the topic through misinformation. To clarify things a bit for you, and for anyone else who may be equally ignorant of such facts as yourself, I should refer you to the following:
Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. 613:
"From an allowance of proof the Court excluded all questions relating to the chieftainship and the relative positions of the parties within the clan, holding that neither chiefship of a whole clan nor chieftainship of a branch of a clan was a legal status justiciable in a court of law, but had the character of a social dignity only, and, accordingly, that the Lord Lyon had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of who had right to the chieftainship either directly or incidentally when disposing of the claims for supporters and for a birthbrief. [..] Observations: [...] on the meaning of "chief" and "chieftain" in the law and practice of arms, with opinion by the Lord Justice-Clerk that in the recorded cases in which a Lord Lyon had made a declaration of chiefship the declaration had been merely a ministerial act and not a finding in his judicial capacity upon a disputed question."
Lord Justice-Clerk, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 636:
"There is no instance in the registers of any judicial decision by Lyon in a disputed question of chiefship or chieftainship. The only instance founded on by the petitioner was the finding by Lyon regarding the chiefship of Clan Chattan on 10th September 1672 [...] It will be noticed that this declaration proceeded simply upon a perusal by Lyon of evidents and testimonies from "our histories, my own Registers, and bands of Manrent" and that it was in no sense a finding pronounced in a lis or contested process. It vouches nothing beyond that in this particular case Lyon made a declaration of chiefship. Similarly, the matriculation of the arms of the chief of the M'Naghtons proves nothing [...] This is not a decision in a lis: again it is simply a recording of the dignity of a chiefship acknowledged by attestation. The only other case to which reference need be made is the case of Drummond of Concraig [...] This is the only instance to which we were referred of a chief of a branch being mentioned, and it is only designation. It is not a declarator or a declaratory finding of chieftaincy. In none of the writs which were before us can I find any support for a conclusion that Lyon at any time either claimed, or exercised, a jurisdiction to determine disputes as to which of competing claimants to chiefship or chieftainship was to be preferred."
Lord Wark, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 657:
"I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan. [...] The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law. It was decided in the case College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v. College of Physicians of Edinburgh (1911 S.C. 1054), that Lyon has no jurisdiction except as is conferred by statute, or is vouched by the authority of an Institutional writer, or by continuous and accepted practice of the Lyon Court. [...] in my opinion, there is no practice or precedent which entitled Lyon to decide a question of disputed chiefship or chieftainship, either by itself or incidentally to a grant of arms. There is direct authority, by way of precedent, for Lyon considering an acknowledged chiefship of a clan as incidental to a grant of arms with supporters. The case of Macnaghton (13th January 1818, Lyon Register, vol. ii, p. 172) is a case of that kind. But it is a different thing altogether to say that in a case of dispute Lyon has jurisdiction to determine and declare who is chief. For that no precedent has been cited to us. In my opinion, it is outwith his jurisdiction to decide because (1) at best it is a question merely of social status or precedence; (2) this social status is not one recognised by law; and (3) and, most important of all, it depends, not upon any principle of law of succession which can be applied by a Court of Law, but upon recognition by the clan itself. Like your Lordship, I am at a loss to understand how any determination or decree of Lyon ever could impose upon a clan a head which it did not desire to acknowledge."
See also the Wikipedia article on [ clan chief]:
"Clan Chiefs" and "Clan Chieftains" While Scottish law recognizes the existence of Scottish Clans, Chiefs and Chieftains,[7] this recognition is only one of social dignity or precedence, and as such does not involve any interest which the law has jurisdiction.[8] The Lyon Court can make a recording of the dignity of a chiefship acknowledged by attestation, but can not declare judicially a chiefship.[9] Further, no Scottish court can exercise a jurisdiction to determine disputes of competing claimants to a chiefship or chieftainship;[4][10] to quote Lord Aitchinson in the Court of Session: "Historically the idea of a chief or chieftain submitting his dignity to the arbitrament of it Court of law is really grotesque. The chief was the law, and his authority was derived from his own people.".[4] -- Wyvren ( talk) 11:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the problems is reliable sources for the images. IMO, and the opinion of Dougweller, the sources he uses do not satisfy WP:RS. The discussion concerning them is located in Talk:Akins#Heraldry. The other problem is tendentious editing. In some cases, Wyvren's sources don't add up with the content he adds into the article. He is also editing with a bias, refusing to include "English" etymologies for the word that are included in several of the sources he has used in the article. One of the sources Wyvren uses, supposedly says the name originates from a place name, but instead of picturing that place he uses a picture of a castle nearby. The discussion on the names is Talk:Akins#Sources not adding. The discussion in Talk:Akins#Request quotation is about a source that Wyvren uses for the coat of arms image; the problem is, IMO it doesn't support the image. The discussion got way off track in Wyvren's bottom-most comment on chiefs etc. (immediately below my comment dated: 05:29, 14 July 2010). Reverting has been going on for several days, but the differences can be seen in the latest comparison between 10:27, 18 July 2010 and edit 06:19, 19 July 2010.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 07:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: "English" etymologies - Briannan has Aitken listed as an "English" surname - Aitken is in fact a Scottish surname, it is the Scots form of the northern English surname Atkins - which is the Borders version of the standard English spelling Adkins (in northern English the "d" sound gets sharpened to a "t" sound due to the Border dialect, and in the Scots dialect Aitken is pronounced "Ate-ken" so that the "t" is barely heard. I have included the "English" etymology in my edit, which reads: "It is thought that these surnames may derive from the personal name Aitken, the Scots form of Atkin, a Northern English variant of the name Adkin, which is a diminutive form of Adam." as this is far more accurate that Briannan's edit that has Aitken classified as an "English" name, which it is decidely not.-- Wyvren ( talk) 19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Earlier you said that O'Laughlin and MacLysaght did't even mention the name "Atkin", now you are all about it; you are contradicting yourself. So, which is it? ":The O'Laughlin and MacLysaght sources don't even have the word "Atkin" in them, so don't add that into the article. How can anyone assume good faith with a contributor who continually adds supposedly sourced material, but when the sources are checked by another, they don't support the contributor's claims."-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 05:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)" -- Wyvren ( talk) 10:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: the photo of Dunakin castle at Kyleakin vs. the photo of Kyleakin village at Kyleakin. Here's the deal - Kyleakin or Kyle Akin (as it was originally spelled) is a strait separating the Isle of Skye from the Scottish mainlaind. The area of land on the Isle of Skye adjacent to the strait is known as Kyleakin after the strait itself. This land has for many centuries been the site of Dunakin (Dun Akin) castle, the ruins of which are shown in the photograph I have posted. The castle, like the strait itself, was named for King Haakon of Norway, who is etymologically connected to the origin of the surname Akins - Acain is the Gaelic form of Haakon and Akin is the Scots' form of Acain.
The village that now stands at Kyleakin did not exist until 1811 when it was first begun as a planned community originally called "New Liverpool" - thus my reasoning for using a photograph of Dunakin castle instead of a picture of Kyleakin village is that the castle which dates to at least the 15th century is more pertinent to the history of the area where the Akins surname may have originated than a village that did not exist until the 19th century. Both the castle and the village are located at Kyleakin, so why preference a picture of houses rather than historic ruins?.-- Wyvren ( talk) 10:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
My reasoning for including a photo of the castle ruin is that it was called Dun Akin castle and that it, like the strait on which it was located, was named for King Hakon of Norway, and in Gaelic is called Dun Acain, thus it shares an etymological connection to the surname Akins, as well as being a prominent and historical focal point for the area of Kyleakin, since the castle is the earliest extant human habitation surviving in the area. As for sources on the establishment of the village at Kyleakin, see: http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/skye/kyleakin/index.html "Though Kyleakin has a history as old as its castle, most of what you see today dates back to a planned village created in 1811"-- Wyvren ( talk) 11:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
People lived in the castle - no one was living in the water.-- Wyvren ( talk) 10:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Instead of using two separate color depictions of the Akins tartan and the Akins crest badge, I have contributed a photograph showing both the actual Akins tartan and an actual Akins crest badge in a single image. The metal Akins crest badge is the type worn on Scottish balmoral or glengarry bonnets (caps) and was manufactured in Scotland by a commercial firm who is a major supplier of such crest badges to all the various clans of Scotland.-- Wyvren ( talk) 19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that Brianann MacAmhlaidh has an obvious bias against Akins as a Scottish clan; for some reason he appears to have singled out this one article for whatever personal axe-grinding he has with his "not in my neighborhood" attitude in respect to the Akinses as part of Scotland's history and cultural heritage. He has made his prejudiced attitude obvious and has sought to denigrate the Akins name by suggesting that they are of English origin based on nothing more than a near dissimilarity of surnames (such as can be found between the Scottish name Johnston(e) and the English name Johnson). Brianann has gone out of his way to interfere with the publication of factual information on the Akins name and has made it exteremly obvious that his continual re-editing of the article is merely a means of acting out whatever personal grudge he has with the Akinses. -- Wyvren ( talk) 23:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
First, I find it a bit much to load this article with images of the crest and coat of arms, though it's really not the end of the world. Next: I agree with MacAmhlaidh on the sourcing. Without truly reliable sources, nothing should make it into the article. Wyvren, I don't know if you're a conflict of interest towards the Akins clan or what - in fact, you probably are, given that you uploaded a picture of the tartan and crest from your own work - but accusing others of tendentious editing and bias isn't right. If George Fraser Black noted something about the derivations and it's verifiable, then it should get in. Just because you don't like the implications of that doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the article - and in fact, to remove text like that is skewing the page, which violates WP:POV. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
George F. Black's "The Surnames of Scotland" was originally published in 1946 by the New York Public Library. Black was a bibliographer and historical scholar at New York Public Library, which makes his book a "self-published" work. -- Wyvren ( talk) 14:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying the Black is "unacceptable" as a source, I am simply pointing out that his book isn't free from errors and that it was pretty much a self-published book, since he was employed by the New York Public Library and the New York Public Library ended up publishing it after no one else would. People take Black's book as gospel, but it contains errors and those errors get repeated over and over again by others who use his work as a reference. As an example Black indicates that the Scottish names Aiken(s), Aikin(s), Akin(s), etc are all derived from the similar (but not identical) surname Aitken, which he assumes is the Scottish version of the northern English surname Atkins. In fact these are all different surnames and have different possible etymologies. Aitken may be a variant of Atkin, or it may be a contraction of the surname Acheson/Aitcheson; just as Akin may be the Scots form of Acain, which is the Gaelic form of the Norse name Haakon. Black cites a reference to a "John of Akyne" but then Black says that the "of" in that case seems to be an error as he knew of no place by that name in Scotland - in other words he did not know that there was a place on the Isle of Skye called Kyle Akin (the Strait of Haakon)- but then Black goes on to admit that in Orkney the name Aiken and its variants had come to be used in place of the Old Norse Names Haakon and its derrivitive Haakonson. So, Black is obviously a fallible source, as is anyone else whose work is based on taking Black's word as being irrefutable truth.-- Wyvren ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My only interest is in seeing that this particular article contain the most useable, beneficial and reliable information as possible. When someone without any viable interest in the article comes in and starts tampering with facts simply becauase they can, or because they have (for whatever reason) a grudge against the subject of the article; then I will endeavor to see to it that their efforts are thwarted as far as possible so that the useful, beneficial and factual cointent remains standing and unmolested by vandalism.-- Wyvren ( talk) 14:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
HelloAnnyong, can you specifically comment on the crest badge? Wyvren keeps adding it without giving a source. He's masking it beneath refs concerning a tartan, which IMO is an example of tendentious editing. Coincidently, both the crest badge and the tartan are creations of Steven Akins.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 05:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
So I just readded the quote about O'Laughlin. I believe it needs to stay in the article so that we maintain a neutral point of view. The article needs to show all viewpoints, so rather than just stating what Bell says, the line about O'Laughlin keeps the article balanced. I'm mildly concerned about the addition of all the people in the early records. That part of the article should not grow any further; merely listing a bunch of people doesn't really make the article better in any way. I've also undone the text about Niall of the Nine Hostages, because it's not in the source ( http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/akins/results) given. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I just readded the citations for Durning. I believe it needs to stay in the article so that we maintain a neutral point of view. The article needs to show all viewpoints, so rather than just stating what Black, MacLysaght and O'Laughlin say, the citation from Durning keep the article balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have readded the citation of Ulster Heritage magazine article as a source for the reference to Niall of the Nine Hostages genetic subclade.-- Wyvren ( talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The link I cited to the Akins DNA surname project identifies the primary genetic subclade found in the majority of Akins males whose Y-chromosone DNA has been tested as R1b1b2a1b5b, which is the DNA subclade identified with Niall of the Nine Hostages as shown in the other sources that I have cited. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the DNA associated with the Akins surname is subclade R1b1b2a1b5b and the DNA subclade associated with Niall is also R1b1b2a1b5b, then we are talking about the same thing. To try to deny this is simply being purposely obtuse on your part. -- Wyvren ( talk) 01:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW - the New York Times article and several other sources I have cited as per the DNA thing do mention that Irish males bearing the Egan surname belong to the Niall subclade - Egan is yet another Anglicization of O'hAodhagain - the same root name that the Irish Aikens claim that their surname is derrived from; so from a genetic standpoint, Aikens and Egans are both O'hAodhagains and are descendants of Niall.-- Wyvren ( talk) 01:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The prefixes "Mac" and "O'" that often precede Irish surnames simply imply that one is a descendant of an ancestor whose name was the same as what the prefix preceeds. The prefixes themselves do not affect the etymology of the surname. Mac in Gaelic means "son"; O' in Gaelic means "descendant" or "grandson"; though in the case of modern surname usage this is never a literal relationship, so both Mac and O' would merely imply that someone was a descendant of an ancestor whose name was preceeded by either prefix.-- Wyvren ( talk) 03:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW - Wikipedia is "just some amateurs running a website" to use your definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
In response to the request for verification of the Akins coat of arms, I went to the library and photographed the pages from the book A History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 that pertain to the tombstone of Thomas Akins who is buried in the cemetery. I have uploaded photographs of the pages from the book onto photobucket, they can be viewed at: http://s1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical%20records/?action=view¤t=steele_creek_01.jpg and http://s1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical%20records/?action=view¤t=008.jpg I have also been in contact with a Mr. John Cox in Charlotte, N.C. who is a photographer that posts photos on Flickr. He has a photograph of the back of Thomas Akins' tombstone on his photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnncox/4061843066/ and has agreed to take a new photograph of the front of the monument showing the coat of arms in better detail.
In addition there is a court record relating to Thomas Akins death that is recorded in the Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Minutes of the Probate Court, which reads as follows: 1785. September Session "Ordered that Letters of Administration on the Estate of Thomas Akins, Decd., issue to William Akins who produces Hugh Parks as Security, bound in £600, Administrators Sworn."-- Wyvren ( talk) 02:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, I just used the quotes because anytime I try to summarize things like that, other editors start accusing me of taking things out of context or using references that don't match the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Wyvren just readded the coat of arms. It was my understanding from the above discussion that the coat of arms wasn't suitable for inclusion. At the very least, I (and I think Brianann) are against its inclusion. Wyvren's edit summary said "per Czar Brodie's comment" - but was that what was intended? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
We know the tinctures (colors) used in the achievement from the depiction of the coat of arms carved on the 1669 tombstone of Alexander Akins in Spesutia Church Cemetery, Harford Co., Maryland, as the carving gives the proper hatchments denoting the colors of the charges in the blazon, see: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSfn=Alexander&GSbyrel=in&GSdy=1669&GSdyrel=in&GSst=22&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=25978854&df=all&
As for your descision to exclude the Akins crest badge, in think it is only fair that you should also exclude the crest badge of the Clann Gunn as "The elements within the crest badge are not derived from the chiefly arms. No undifferenced arms of the name Gunn have ever been recorded" as well as the crest badge of MacAulay for whom "No chiefly arms have been recorded in the Lyon Register" and MacEwan "This motto is not from the chiefly arms, but is derived from the arms of the McEwen Baronets" and MacFie "This motto is not from the chiefly arms, but is derived from a coat of arms registered in 1864" and MacInness "This motto is not derived from the chiefly arms, but from a modern coat of arms (from the arms of MacInnes of Malagawatch)" as per the citations noted at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crest_badges_used_by_Scottish_clan_members - you cannot have it both ways - if these crest badges are allowed, then so too should the Akins crest badge be allowed. -- Wyvren ( talk) 16:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by verifying whether or not a coat of arms is "official" - official according to whom? The Lord Lyon? He has no jurisdiction outside of Scotland and the Lyon Register dates back only to 1672. The earliest depiction of the Akins coat of arms is on a colonial Maryland gravestone dated 1669 - three years before Lyon Register was begun and 3000 miles from Scotland. Several years ago I petitioned Lord Lyon to confirm these as "ancient arms" meaning that they would recognized as Scottish arms predating the establishment of Lyon Register, however Lord Lyon was unable to recognize them as they exist outside of Scotland and are therefore outside of his jurisdiction. The arms exist, they are authentic, but they exist in a country that has no officially established body for the regulation of heraldry. This does not make them inauthentic or in any way inferior to arms that are recorded in official registers in countries that have such governing bodies; they simply exist as authentic historical arms in a country without regulated heraldry.-- Wyvren ( talk) 17:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that the source is dubious at the very least. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever read WP:IRS? In what way does it meet our criteria as a reliable source for the insertion of the image? As I've said, reliability is not the default. Here on this talk page you are the only one saying it's reliable, so it doesn't go in. If you can convince the folks at WP:RSN maybe you can convince us, but there's not a lot of point going on discussing it right now. Dougweller ( talk) 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed comment issue
|
---|
I wish to reinstate my previous comment that Wyvren deleted: A number of heraldic sources have pointed out that the Bigham family of gravestone carvers, responsible for most of the stones at Steele Creek, often borrowed from heraldic textbooks to create stones which had nothing to do with those interred under them. "...analysis of other armorial gravestones in Steele Creek Cemetery on the newsgroup rec.heraldry indicated that the arms on the memorials are generally either assumed or the imaginative work of the Bigham family of headstone carvers." [17] MarmadukePercy ( talk) 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
|
As I stated on the RSN page, I think that we really need to put this issue to rest. Wyvren is the only person who thinks that either the coat of arms or the gravestone picture belong on this page. I had initially thought that the gravestone would be okay as a compromise, but after reading the comment left on RSN by Enric Naval about how it puts undue weight on it, I agree that it doesn't belong. So can we put the stick down and move on? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
While your theories concerning the Akins coat of arms looking (to you) as if it is marshalled per pale might be plausible if there were an actual vertical division between the dexter and sinister side of the shield - there isn't - nor would there be as Thomas Akins was unmarried and died without issue; which is why my great-great-great-great grandfather, William Akins (Thomas' older brother) was appointed administrator of Thomas' estate by the court of Mecklenburg Co., North Carolina - "1785 September Session: Ordered that Letters of Administration on the Estate of Thomas Akins, Decd., issue to William Akins who produces Hugh Parks as Security, bound in £600, Administrators Sworn." If Thomas had been married then his widow would have been one of his executors, as was the case when my great-great-great-great-great grandfather Stephen McCorkle (William Akins' father-in-law) died in five years later - Heirs Executors and Administrative Records of York Co, SC - dated: 19 Oct 1790 for Stephen McCorkle "Know all once by these presence that we, Ann McCorkle William McCorkle, Archibald Barron & John Forbes of York County & State of S. Carolina are held and firmly bound to William Burton, Wm. Miley, Abraham Smith Justice of our County Court of York afore said in the present sum of Four hundred pounds lawful money of the state afore said for the true payment whereof we bind ourselves our Heir Executors & adminis. firmly by their presents. Sealed with our seals & dated this 19th day of October 1790." You also fail to take into consideration the fact that many (particularly Irish) coats of arms often have two charges placed on the field, rather than a single charge or multiples of the same charge. You can see a number of examples of two different charges being placed side by side or one on top of the other without any sort of per pale marshalling going on at all here: coats of arms. So, no, the Akins coat of arms is not marshalled per pale, it is simply two charges placed side by side, and the crest consists of two ravens ("twa corbies") as is indicated by other examples of the Akins coat of arms found on earlier tombstones: Alexander Akins gravestone Archibald Akins gravestone.-- Wyvren ( talk) 16:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Struck my own comment above because there's a new image to discuss. I don't think File:Akins-coat-of-arms.jpg is any more acceptable in the article. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
From: david@family-crests.com
Subject: Re: Contact Us Submitted
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:40:34 +0100
> Hi These are our images, drawn by ourselves, for which we have the original layered artwork. We do not allow authorship to be claimed on any of our work and is a violation of copyright. I would like to know who this person is. Thank you for enlightening us about this.
I am unfamiliar with the procedure involved with a user who disregards copyright issues, and I suspect that the shield images may also be violations. Can another user take up this issue and contact an administrator. My thinking is that Wyvren is abusing copyright issues in order to prove a point. I think we should perhaps request a page block while this issue is investigated. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
family-crests.com cannot in any way claim ownership of the crest badges (they certainly don't own mine). It is a different thing altogether to allow companies to manufacture crest badges for use by clanspeople (as I myself have done), but it is impossible for such a company to claim ownership of the crest badges or the images thereof, as these are the sole property of the owner of the coat of arms from which the crest badge is derived.-- 97.82.45.48 ( talk) 00:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In addition, File:Akins-coat-of-arms.jpg seems to be straight from 4crests.com: [19]. -- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 07:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Wyvren has frequently quoted MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean on this talk page. I presume (although it is not entirely clear) that this case is being quoted to give "Clan Akins" some kind of legitimacy along with its "chief". Clan Akins is not a recognized Scottish clan nor does it have a chief. I am the editor who rewrote Scottish clan chief taking into account the MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean case, largely to clear up confusion regarding the role of the Lord Lyon in clans. It is ironic that this confusion persists now in an opposite way. If Wyvren is trying to use this case to prove the existence of an unknown clan he/she has misunderstood the legal point involved in the said cause. What the judges were pointing out was that the Lord Lyon King of Arms' jurisdiction is heraldic and that he has no business appointing chiefs, recognizing hereto unknown clans, or settling disputes of chieftainship where such a dispute exists; nor do any Scottish courts. However the Lord Lyon can recognize a clan and a clan chief, or, put in legal wording: The Lyon Court can make a recording of the dignity of a chiefship acknowledged by attestation. To explain in lay man terms: the Lyon Court grants arms and these arms are usually granted to dignitaries (e.g. generals, bishops, doctors, clan chiefs,) and such arms have hereditary properties. To explain what the judges mean: the Lyon Court (or any Scottish Court) can not appoint generals or bishops or doctors or chiefs etc, nor can it settle disputes relating to these distinctions; but the court can recognised a general, a bishop, an academic, a chief etc. Given that there is no longer any body that appoints chiefs (unlike generals, bishops etc…), and that chiefs are hereditary, the Lyon Court has been used by clans to find and confirm their chiefs. The Lyon court needs absolute proof before it can confirm an individual is holder of an honour ect and any forgeries placed before the Lyons Court is a serious offence (the Lyon Court is a Court of Law and has powers and officers who can check the validity of documents/prof for forgeries and perjury, contempt etc are deal with heavy fines and prison sentences) . This makes the Court of the Lord Lyon very useful to the community of clans and the union of chiefs. Once the Lord Lyon is satisfied that such and such is chief of such a clan, the matter is voted at the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. The Lyon Court recognizes no arms, chief, or clan by the name of Akens nor does the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. Naturally we live in a free world and any individual can call themselves as they please, whether this be “General MacSmith” or “The Right Rev MacSmith” or “Professor MacSmith” or even “MacSmith of that ilk”. But if the distinction is made up, that person is derided within that community (i.e. a made up professorship is not taken seriously within the academic world). Hope this clarifies matters. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 12:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)