![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There is a Clan Burnett article and a Burnett of Leys article I suggest we merge the two into the Clan Burnett article. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 15:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Burnett of Leys page were merged into House of Burnett on 3 October 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I oppose the move of clan Burnett to "House of Burnet". To begin with Burnett is not a "house". House is a term usually used to describe a royal dynasty, see Royal house; Burnett in my view does not come under this category. In this sence it would be more appropriate to move the article to Burnett (family). However once again I would also appose a move to Burnett (family) given that Burnett is a Scottish family with a recognised chief, hence the label Clan Burnett is more appropriate. In a sense, a Scottish clan is a Scottish family with a chief (or which at one time had a chief). Note also that "House" is a term directly related to the royal line and is inappropriate for clansmen (and even branches) who can not identify their direct descendent to the king. Is this sense House of Stuart and Clan Stuart are two district and very different subjects. I noted the statement According to the Chief of the Name of Burnett, "even in the Lyon Court records, there was never a 'Clan Burnett'." in making the move to House of Burnett, yet such a declaration would need a reference, nor do I think such a statement justifies making the Burnett clan a royal house. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 11:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually I’m not arguing the Burnetts are a family (synonyms: house, name), that point is already established. I’m pointing out the necessity of calling something by its accurate and correct name. I would have thought that, when given a link to a web page, in this case the official House of Burnett family page, if you still had genuine doubts you might have thought to verify that it was first, called the House of Burnett; secondly that it was an official organisation recognized by the Lord Lyon. You could have taken the very simple step in contacting them to ask; given their contact information was at the bottom of the home page. You've also had ample opportunity to show me anything authoritative where the Lord Lyon officially recognizes this family (house, name) as a clan. BTW, the Ross Herald, Charles J. Burnett, who in an article published in 2000 refers to this family as the House of Burnett and James C.A. Burnett as the current head of the House. As for the use of the word house for a noble family, another source is J.H. Stevenson, Heraldry in Scotland, Vol. II (Glasgow: J. MacLeahose & Sons, 1914), passim. You'll notice how the author uses the word house as a synonym for family numerous times throughout the book. Also note instances of the terms: cadet house, noble house, chief of the house, motto of the house, and the specific mentions of several noble houses (Douglas, Hamilton, Murray, et al.). I think this might better help you understand how the word is used in Scots heraldic and clan law.
Let me correct a point you just raised. The House of Burnet does not have among it's members a Baronet of Leys at present; the title became dormant in 1959. But I'm missing something here, and perhaps you can help me understand; as a baronet is not a member of the peerage and a chief of the name is not required to be a baronet, I’m not sure why you brought this up. What was your point? The current Chief of Burnett of Leys petitioned the Lord Lyon in 1988 for his Standard and Pinsel as the Head of the House of Burnett (which flags were granted 26 February 1989).
I take responsibility as an editor to insure what goes into an article is accurate and verifiable and is not just an unsubstantiated opinion. So what I remain concerned with is a seeming lack of understanding of the difference between a clan and family and an apparent (and please correct me if I'm wrong) lack of interest in independently verifying what I've shown you. Even when corroborated by a reliable source on Scottish law there appears to be no interest in correcting what has now shown to be an incorrect understanding. I informed you there were problems with the article over a week ago but got no response. And as the formerly incorrectly named article using a single tertiary source (30 times) this was a real problem (please review WP:WPNOTRS) , but has since been corrected. An equally disturbing problem is the article in Scottish Clan and Family History, on pages 86–87, is from the first paragraph to the last is principally concerned with the Deeside Burnetts not the House of Burnett. It might also be interesting if you could point out to me where the word "clan" appears anywhere in this article. I can't seem to find it. In fact, the very first use of this source [1] failed verification on that very point. I thought to tag the problems here but there were so many and I had all the sources at hand, it was easier to rewrite it. Given the low activity in editing here the past year or so, tags could sit here for years and not be addressed. I would have gladly involved you in the name change had you shown any interest in discussing the problems. I’m sure you were unaware of them and were not and are not intentionally trying to insert bad or misleading evidence into a WP article. As we’re all experienced editors here I’m sure you realize as I do that inclusion of anything based on unsupported opinion or insufficient evidence (WP:VNT) or any misuse of sources (for example advancing a position not supported by the source itself) is not allowed at WP. None of us, I’m sure, are advocating anything of the sort which is why we need to discuss this further so as to reach a clear understanding of the points in question. I believe that with some genuine discussion we can come to an agreement on these issues. It's worked before and that's what we're encouraged to do. One point we can discuss is based on WP:AT : "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." This means that while the House of Burnett has been shown to the official name for this family, that as shown house is a synonym for name and family, and is supported by reliable sources—if it can be shown by equally reliable or better sources that there is any alternate name which is preferred we can discuss it and see if we can come to a reasonable consensus. Bearpatch ( talk) 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed this in the heading: The chiefly branch is the Burnett of Leys family although the senior branch is Burnett of Barns. I do not want to get into a long discussion like the one above, but is there really a difference between senior and chiefly? As it stands it looks confusing. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk)
If you’ll note I said above “… it is not in the purview of the Lord Lyon to determine whether an entity is a clan or family.” So I understand completely the role of Scots clan law and the Lyon’s role with clans and families today. But let’s get back to the changes you made here and elsewhere regarding your acknowledgement that clans and families do have some differences. OK, we agree on that point. But there is now a larger problem that can either be gone about the hard way or the easy way. For example, you removed Burnett from the List of Scottish clans. Wouldn't it be a much simpler and a more elegant solution to rename the page “List of Scottish Clans & Families”? Because otherwise there needs to be a separate page for Scottish Families and someone needs to remove a lot of names from that clan list because they also are families. What we do here for Burnett needs to be done for other families. Another example is the clan infobox you authored. Can it be used for both groups as-is, with a simple adjustment, or does it need to be duplicated for Scottish families? Give that some thought. Clans and families are both similar and different but they are sometimes mentioned together under the term clans. I was making the very same point when I said above: “There is a difference between clans and families but in general usage they are sometimes lumped together and not always incorrectly.” Then I went on to give Scottish clan law as an example of how they both came under the term clan. It’s our job as editors to explain any complicated or seemingly confusing ideas to the readers. We are an encyclopedia not a dictionary. It's what we do routinely. We need to have a rational and consistent approach so these pages are not seen to contradict each other or that we don't create so much duplication of effort that it confuses the issue even further. Now, this discussion is as regards the House of Burnett and so is appropriate here. If this grows to be a much larger question, then it needs to be taken elsewhere. But it doesn't necessarily have to. Minor adjustments here and there allow for the recognition that there are both Scottish clans and Scottish families. In their individual articles they need to be correctly identified which is which, and other places, with minor tweaks in the wording, they can be combined on the same lists or categories without confusion. So for the present, how do we integrate Burnett back into these pages and lists (templates etc.) realizing that what we do for Burnett needs to be done for a considerable number of other families? Like it or not what we hammer out as solutions here may have much larger ramifications. Bearpatch ( talk) 15:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the try but it seems to be more of a round peg in a square hole than before and English families (the examples were Percy and Neville) are not structured the same as Scottish families (houses, names) under Scottish clan law. So again best here is to use the one it was using. It's a near perfect fit and is in use on a number of other family articles. Should a larger segment of the community approve separating the two groups and the List of Scottish Clans is reduced just to clans, then we can readdress the issue if it's even an issue. A replacement infobox would be 99% the same as the current clan infobox and I'm not even certain it's worth having two for the insignificant difference of one visible word. Thanks anyway. Bearpatch ( talk) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Look you are seriously annoying me, reverting 3 times is both annoying and silly. I tried to help and make as many concessions as possible. It was ludicrous to me that Burnett was a House, and I think you are beginning to see that. If you dont want it to be a clan but a House, then help to remove infobox or other that links it to a clan. The infobox I gave was for houses and fully compliant with other House articles. If you want it to be a clan then it can have the infobox, and yes we can list in the article that such and such web site calls it a "House". This is a similar compromise to Clan Gordon. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
We seem to be going in a circle. This is how I see events. First you move the page to House of Burnett, I question this, you argue that Burnett is not a clan, you give this as reference. I argue against but finally agree. My reasoning at this point is that if Burnett is not a clan then it should not be listed as a clan. I remove Burnett from the various clan lists and take the clan info box and nav box off the page. You then re add the clan infobox saying that it should remain until a House infobox can be built. I add a House infobox noting that this House infobox is the standard one used by Houses on Wikipedia. You then remove the house info box and place the clan info box back saying that the House infobox is for English Houses (and is presumably inappropriate for Scottish Houses). I re add the House infobox noting that it is used for European houses (not just English). You then say that family and clan are the same thing. I presume you now accept Burnett is therefore a Clan and move the page back to "Clan Burnett". We go through an edit war where you disagree with my edits that start the article (now called Clan Burnett) with the words
You delete my edits and references and move the article to "House of Burnett" complete with clan infobox. You continue to argue that family and clan are the same thing. Yet you also argue that "Clan Burnett or House of Burnett" is not a compromise, it's a contradiction in terms and would only serve to introduce ambiguity into an article. The problem here is that you are also saying that Burnett is not a clan, never was a clan. Yet you are also saying Clan and House are the same thing. As far as I can see it all depends which references we give more credence to. If we rely of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs web site, we say Burnett is a clan and list it accordingly. In this case I see this version (titled "Clan Burnett") as being the best and it includes a compromise that notes a family web site that calls it a House. However, if we rely on the Burnett web Question and Answer page as the best source, then we should have this version (Titled "House of Burnett") in my view. I can accept either of those two last versions, but I can not accept the article as it stands. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 23:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
The fact that one of her 10x great-grandmothers was daughter of Thomas Burnett, 1st Baronet of Leys (as can be seen here- http://ourancestraltree.com/our-family-connection-to-diana-princess-of-wales-sources/#/ - with numerous sources listed) seems to be of questionable encyclopaedic value and the section appears shoehorned in. She is not in any meaningful sense a member of this family, so her inclusion- and that of her two sons- seems gratuitous and frankly strange. It does not appear the contributor has gone to all the other articles for families from whom Diana was similarly distantly descended and added equivalent content, so one questions the necessity of it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.203.140 ( talk) 22:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There is a Clan Burnett article and a Burnett of Leys article I suggest we merge the two into the Clan Burnett article. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 15:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Burnett of Leys page were merged into House of Burnett on 3 October 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I oppose the move of clan Burnett to "House of Burnet". To begin with Burnett is not a "house". House is a term usually used to describe a royal dynasty, see Royal house; Burnett in my view does not come under this category. In this sence it would be more appropriate to move the article to Burnett (family). However once again I would also appose a move to Burnett (family) given that Burnett is a Scottish family with a recognised chief, hence the label Clan Burnett is more appropriate. In a sense, a Scottish clan is a Scottish family with a chief (or which at one time had a chief). Note also that "House" is a term directly related to the royal line and is inappropriate for clansmen (and even branches) who can not identify their direct descendent to the king. Is this sense House of Stuart and Clan Stuart are two district and very different subjects. I noted the statement According to the Chief of the Name of Burnett, "even in the Lyon Court records, there was never a 'Clan Burnett'." in making the move to House of Burnett, yet such a declaration would need a reference, nor do I think such a statement justifies making the Burnett clan a royal house. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 11:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually I’m not arguing the Burnetts are a family (synonyms: house, name), that point is already established. I’m pointing out the necessity of calling something by its accurate and correct name. I would have thought that, when given a link to a web page, in this case the official House of Burnett family page, if you still had genuine doubts you might have thought to verify that it was first, called the House of Burnett; secondly that it was an official organisation recognized by the Lord Lyon. You could have taken the very simple step in contacting them to ask; given their contact information was at the bottom of the home page. You've also had ample opportunity to show me anything authoritative where the Lord Lyon officially recognizes this family (house, name) as a clan. BTW, the Ross Herald, Charles J. Burnett, who in an article published in 2000 refers to this family as the House of Burnett and James C.A. Burnett as the current head of the House. As for the use of the word house for a noble family, another source is J.H. Stevenson, Heraldry in Scotland, Vol. II (Glasgow: J. MacLeahose & Sons, 1914), passim. You'll notice how the author uses the word house as a synonym for family numerous times throughout the book. Also note instances of the terms: cadet house, noble house, chief of the house, motto of the house, and the specific mentions of several noble houses (Douglas, Hamilton, Murray, et al.). I think this might better help you understand how the word is used in Scots heraldic and clan law.
Let me correct a point you just raised. The House of Burnet does not have among it's members a Baronet of Leys at present; the title became dormant in 1959. But I'm missing something here, and perhaps you can help me understand; as a baronet is not a member of the peerage and a chief of the name is not required to be a baronet, I’m not sure why you brought this up. What was your point? The current Chief of Burnett of Leys petitioned the Lord Lyon in 1988 for his Standard and Pinsel as the Head of the House of Burnett (which flags were granted 26 February 1989).
I take responsibility as an editor to insure what goes into an article is accurate and verifiable and is not just an unsubstantiated opinion. So what I remain concerned with is a seeming lack of understanding of the difference between a clan and family and an apparent (and please correct me if I'm wrong) lack of interest in independently verifying what I've shown you. Even when corroborated by a reliable source on Scottish law there appears to be no interest in correcting what has now shown to be an incorrect understanding. I informed you there were problems with the article over a week ago but got no response. And as the formerly incorrectly named article using a single tertiary source (30 times) this was a real problem (please review WP:WPNOTRS) , but has since been corrected. An equally disturbing problem is the article in Scottish Clan and Family History, on pages 86–87, is from the first paragraph to the last is principally concerned with the Deeside Burnetts not the House of Burnett. It might also be interesting if you could point out to me where the word "clan" appears anywhere in this article. I can't seem to find it. In fact, the very first use of this source [1] failed verification on that very point. I thought to tag the problems here but there were so many and I had all the sources at hand, it was easier to rewrite it. Given the low activity in editing here the past year or so, tags could sit here for years and not be addressed. I would have gladly involved you in the name change had you shown any interest in discussing the problems. I’m sure you were unaware of them and were not and are not intentionally trying to insert bad or misleading evidence into a WP article. As we’re all experienced editors here I’m sure you realize as I do that inclusion of anything based on unsupported opinion or insufficient evidence (WP:VNT) or any misuse of sources (for example advancing a position not supported by the source itself) is not allowed at WP. None of us, I’m sure, are advocating anything of the sort which is why we need to discuss this further so as to reach a clear understanding of the points in question. I believe that with some genuine discussion we can come to an agreement on these issues. It's worked before and that's what we're encouraged to do. One point we can discuss is based on WP:AT : "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." This means that while the House of Burnett has been shown to the official name for this family, that as shown house is a synonym for name and family, and is supported by reliable sources—if it can be shown by equally reliable or better sources that there is any alternate name which is preferred we can discuss it and see if we can come to a reasonable consensus. Bearpatch ( talk) 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed this in the heading: The chiefly branch is the Burnett of Leys family although the senior branch is Burnett of Barns. I do not want to get into a long discussion like the one above, but is there really a difference between senior and chiefly? As it stands it looks confusing. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk)
If you’ll note I said above “… it is not in the purview of the Lord Lyon to determine whether an entity is a clan or family.” So I understand completely the role of Scots clan law and the Lyon’s role with clans and families today. But let’s get back to the changes you made here and elsewhere regarding your acknowledgement that clans and families do have some differences. OK, we agree on that point. But there is now a larger problem that can either be gone about the hard way or the easy way. For example, you removed Burnett from the List of Scottish clans. Wouldn't it be a much simpler and a more elegant solution to rename the page “List of Scottish Clans & Families”? Because otherwise there needs to be a separate page for Scottish Families and someone needs to remove a lot of names from that clan list because they also are families. What we do here for Burnett needs to be done for other families. Another example is the clan infobox you authored. Can it be used for both groups as-is, with a simple adjustment, or does it need to be duplicated for Scottish families? Give that some thought. Clans and families are both similar and different but they are sometimes mentioned together under the term clans. I was making the very same point when I said above: “There is a difference between clans and families but in general usage they are sometimes lumped together and not always incorrectly.” Then I went on to give Scottish clan law as an example of how they both came under the term clan. It’s our job as editors to explain any complicated or seemingly confusing ideas to the readers. We are an encyclopedia not a dictionary. It's what we do routinely. We need to have a rational and consistent approach so these pages are not seen to contradict each other or that we don't create so much duplication of effort that it confuses the issue even further. Now, this discussion is as regards the House of Burnett and so is appropriate here. If this grows to be a much larger question, then it needs to be taken elsewhere. But it doesn't necessarily have to. Minor adjustments here and there allow for the recognition that there are both Scottish clans and Scottish families. In their individual articles they need to be correctly identified which is which, and other places, with minor tweaks in the wording, they can be combined on the same lists or categories without confusion. So for the present, how do we integrate Burnett back into these pages and lists (templates etc.) realizing that what we do for Burnett needs to be done for a considerable number of other families? Like it or not what we hammer out as solutions here may have much larger ramifications. Bearpatch ( talk) 15:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the try but it seems to be more of a round peg in a square hole than before and English families (the examples were Percy and Neville) are not structured the same as Scottish families (houses, names) under Scottish clan law. So again best here is to use the one it was using. It's a near perfect fit and is in use on a number of other family articles. Should a larger segment of the community approve separating the two groups and the List of Scottish Clans is reduced just to clans, then we can readdress the issue if it's even an issue. A replacement infobox would be 99% the same as the current clan infobox and I'm not even certain it's worth having two for the insignificant difference of one visible word. Thanks anyway. Bearpatch ( talk) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Look you are seriously annoying me, reverting 3 times is both annoying and silly. I tried to help and make as many concessions as possible. It was ludicrous to me that Burnett was a House, and I think you are beginning to see that. If you dont want it to be a clan but a House, then help to remove infobox or other that links it to a clan. The infobox I gave was for houses and fully compliant with other House articles. If you want it to be a clan then it can have the infobox, and yes we can list in the article that such and such web site calls it a "House". This is a similar compromise to Clan Gordon. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
We seem to be going in a circle. This is how I see events. First you move the page to House of Burnett, I question this, you argue that Burnett is not a clan, you give this as reference. I argue against but finally agree. My reasoning at this point is that if Burnett is not a clan then it should not be listed as a clan. I remove Burnett from the various clan lists and take the clan info box and nav box off the page. You then re add the clan infobox saying that it should remain until a House infobox can be built. I add a House infobox noting that this House infobox is the standard one used by Houses on Wikipedia. You then remove the house info box and place the clan info box back saying that the House infobox is for English Houses (and is presumably inappropriate for Scottish Houses). I re add the House infobox noting that it is used for European houses (not just English). You then say that family and clan are the same thing. I presume you now accept Burnett is therefore a Clan and move the page back to "Clan Burnett". We go through an edit war where you disagree with my edits that start the article (now called Clan Burnett) with the words
You delete my edits and references and move the article to "House of Burnett" complete with clan infobox. You continue to argue that family and clan are the same thing. Yet you also argue that "Clan Burnett or House of Burnett" is not a compromise, it's a contradiction in terms and would only serve to introduce ambiguity into an article. The problem here is that you are also saying that Burnett is not a clan, never was a clan. Yet you are also saying Clan and House are the same thing. As far as I can see it all depends which references we give more credence to. If we rely of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs web site, we say Burnett is a clan and list it accordingly. In this case I see this version (titled "Clan Burnett") as being the best and it includes a compromise that notes a family web site that calls it a House. However, if we rely on the Burnett web Question and Answer page as the best source, then we should have this version (Titled "House of Burnett") in my view. I can accept either of those two last versions, but I can not accept the article as it stands. Yours ever, Czar Brodie ( talk) 23:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
The fact that one of her 10x great-grandmothers was daughter of Thomas Burnett, 1st Baronet of Leys (as can be seen here- http://ourancestraltree.com/our-family-connection-to-diana-princess-of-wales-sources/#/ - with numerous sources listed) seems to be of questionable encyclopaedic value and the section appears shoehorned in. She is not in any meaningful sense a member of this family, so her inclusion- and that of her two sons- seems gratuitous and frankly strange. It does not appear the contributor has gone to all the other articles for families from whom Diana was similarly distantly descended and added equivalent content, so one questions the necessity of it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.203.140 ( talk) 22:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)