Talk:Akins

Unreliable sources

Steven L. Akins

Fraud.

Heraldry

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 don't see any reason for including the badge then.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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).

My reasoning is that article already has a coat of arms with the exact crest and motto. This article is full of pictures already. I doubt one crest and motto have been the symbol of the entire Akins surname for over 200 years.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:00, 11 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)

The arms pictured in clan articles are those of currently recognised chiefs, or ones from the past; the crest badges are derived from these. In some cases, for whatever reason, the heraldry of the chiefs is not specifically recorded, or a surname had numerous families, so a leading Scottish armiger's arms are used for the crest badges (like the MacEwens). It shouldn't be too hard to find refs for the heraldry in most of the articles. The biggest problem with your image is that there is no reliable source to to back it up. For example there's nothing showing that it exists outside your Myspace page (copied and pasted from Steven Akin's websites), and content created/submitted by Steven L. Akins; no source showing it is even accurate; and there's no evidence that it has been noted elsewhere in reliable sources). That's why I'm removing it (again). According to Wikipedia policy, every piece of information on Wikipedia needs a source (see the quote I posted in the heraldry section below). I've challenged all the heraldry you've uploaded, you need to show with reliable sources that the images are accurate, notable, and suitable for this article. Please do not add the arms and badge into the article until some sort of an agreement is worked out on this talkpage. If you find questionable sources, or unverifiable content in any article you ought to challenge it. That's a good thing. Just saying that dubious info appears in such-in-such article does not mean it should be tolerated in another.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a huge jump from a coat of arms on a gravestone to a claim that it's an early example of an Akins coat of arms. I see no source at all for that claim. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 15 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)

House of Names, Celticstudio, etc are not reliable sources and should not be used. I've removed the crest. Please don't put it back without an impeachable source. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wyvern, what's your excuse for replacing this with no discussion? Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

He switched the reference for that image to: "The Clan Akins: A History of the Clan Akins published by the Clan Akins Society, 1996". It doesn't turn up on Google at all. Again Steven L. Akins is the source for his own heraldry.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:03, 16 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.. 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)

Thank you. I also endorse the removal also. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I full expect then, based on that reasoning, that several of the other Scottish crest badges should be removed, MacArthur and Gunn are two that come to mind off the top of my head. The fact is that crest badges (and clans in general) are not something that is regulated by any law. It is in fact the expressed opinion of law that "clan and family mean the same thing" (see MacLean of Ardgore vs. MacLean.--Wyvren (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(this comment is outdated; Wyvren logged in and signed his comments. Just for clarification: you are Wyvren, right? You should probably log in so it doesn't look like you're sockpuppeting. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Czar Brodie has stated "Actually I do not have any problems with showing referenced heraldry of the Akins family on the Akins page" I am readding the Akins coat of arms to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren (talk • contribs) 03:43, 31 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

Sources not adding up

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.

1. which is the genitive form of Aiken, a Scots word meaning "oaken" The ref is: [6]. Nowhere is "oaken" mentioned.
2. Often erroneously used interchangeably with the Scottish surname Aitken which George F. Black, author of The Surnames of Scotland, suggests is a pet form of Adam, The ref is Black's Surnames of Scotland. The "Often erroneously" part seems like it is the editor's personal opinion.
3. although some Irish Aikens claim that their name is derived from the Gaelic name Mac Aodhagain. The refs given are: A Guide to Irish roots, by William and Mary Durning; and Guide to Irish Surnames by Edward MacLysaght. The MacLysaght book is on GoogleBooks, and doesn't contain the words "Akins", "Aikens", or "Aodhagain". MacLysaght says: "Aiken This is the Scottish form of the English Aitken" (p.19); and "Eakin see Aiken" (p.74).
4. In other cases the surname Akins may also represent the Scots' form of Eachann, the Scottish Gaelic rendering of the Norse name Haakon The refs given are: "Encyclopedia of American Family Names" by H. Amanda Robb and Andrew Chesler, Harper Collins, 1996; and "Dictionary of American Family Names" by Elsdon C. Smith, Harper & Row, 1972.
5. In other cases the surname Akins may also represent the Scots' form of Eachann, the Scottish Gaelic rendering of the Norse name Haakon. The refs given are: Dictionary of American Family Names, by Elsdon C. Smith; and Black. There are two points in this sentence. The first: Akins may represent Eachann; the second: Eachann is a form of Haakon. So which ref supports which part? See this link: [7] Eachann is a Gaelic name, but was confused with Haakon.

Per #5, Black actually stated that "in Orkney", Aitken was thought to be a form of Haakon. Nothing about Akins, or Eachann. So we need clarification as to what Smith actually says. I also noted that Black references Paterson (p.87, vol ii, Ayrshire), but I can't find anything on that page, in Paterson's History of the county of Ayr, vol 2, on GoogleBooks.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

1. Acain What's the source for this name? No ref was given.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Now the article is saying: In other cases the surname Akins may also represent the Scots form of Eachann or Acain, the Scottish Gaelic rendering of the Norse name Haakon But the quotes kindly provided for the two refs state: "the name was given to those who were from the area near Akin, a strait in Scotland named for King Hakon of Norway" (Encyclopedia of American Family Names), "Akins, Akin - variant of Aiken; dweller near Akin, a strait in Scotland named after King Hakon of Norway" (Dictionary of American Family Names). The problem is the words Eachann Acain, Gaelic aren't even mentioned in these quotes. Both refs are saying the surname is named after a place-name. The article has to accurately reflect the sources.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:05, 8 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).

The two sources are pretty clear. They say the name is derived from the place name, and denote a person who lives in that area. The sources don't say that Akins is Acain, or Eachann; so that stuff should not be combined into the statement. Read this WP:SYNTH. You can't combine unrelated sources to make up an original statement.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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. MacLysaght states the Ulster name English and Scottish in origin, so please do not continually remove "English". Kyleakin is the placename, so a picture of the town is more appropriate than a castle.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Here [8], Ancestry.com cites Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-508137-4. You can search for variants of the names. The article claims that Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-508137-4, states: "Akins, Akin - variant of Aiken; dweller near Akin, a strait in Scotland named after King Hakon of Norway". That doesn't turn up on Ancestry pages for "Akins" or "Aiken"; the surname "Akin" doesn't even turn up. Supposedly, the Encyclopedia of American Family Names makes a similar claim about the straight, but I wonder if this source is misquoted as well.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove how Black notes the Atty, Arthur derivation. Please do not remove (again) how O'Laughlin and MacLysaght state the Ulster name is English.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:26, 16 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)

Black seems to have considered Akins to be a variant of Atkins; so if he notes that it has been thought that Atkins is from Arthur/Atty then it is relevant. It's another possibility.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a possibility that Black dismisses. --Wyvren (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bell

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)

Durning

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)

Just stick to what the Durnings say. I think the second one is actually talking about the pedigree of the O'Hagans. Is it? We've got three other sources that clearly say the names that came over in the 1600s were the Scots/English surnames, derived from a form of Adam. They also note that variations of these surnames were used by the O'Hagans as Anglicisations of their Gaelic name O'hAodhagain. Nowhere in the three sources is it said that the incomers and the O'Hagans are one family, so I doubt such a connection is made by the Durnings. This means that combining a statement about the ancestry of the O'Hagans with the incoming Plantation families is misleading. Two separate statements, about two different groups, covered in two different books.

Scratch that; I'm not sure the second bit is about the O'Hagans at all. Can it be the Hogans? MacLysaght lists a family of that name, but i don't think that this family the Durnings give can be the same one. There seem to be a couple families with the name [10] (search "hoga", and numerous families pop up). I reworded the first part of it a bit; does it still reflect the source (is "Akin" the specific name)? If the source actually says Akin is an Anglicised form of O'Eakin, then there is a problem. O'Eakin is already Anglicised. The letter "k" doesn't even appear in the Irish alphabet. I switched O'hOgain to Ó'hÓgáin, which seems to be the correct form.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be more clear if we split the names into a British section and an Irish section. The British section would have: the Adam-name; the Kyleakin-name; the Atty/Arthur-name; and the Orkney Hakonson-name. The section on Ireland would would have a bit on the names coming over in the 1600s; and a separate bit on variations of these names being used as Anglicisations of a Gaelic-language name.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I've done that.--Wyvren (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Black

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)

Request quotation

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&

Is File:Akins coat of arms complete.jpg the exact coat arms that appears in the burial grounds? For example, the illustration is coloured, has a generic "Akins" on a scroll at the bottom, and also has a motto along the top. Is that how it is illustrated in the Steele Creek sources? What do the Steele Creek sources actually have to say about them?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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 either accurately represents the engraved arms, or it doesn't. Is there a motto on the engraved arms? Is the engraving coloured? Does the name "Akins" appear on a scroll? What is the blazon given in the Steele Creek sources?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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 illustration is coloured, but the engraving isn't. Where does the motto appear on the engraved arms? Looking at the photo submitted at the findagrave webpage, I can't see any motto. The crest in the photo does not look like the ravens/crows in the illustration, they look more like pheasants, or peacocks; the birds have very long tails. The supporters in the photo appear to be different from one another; the one on the left has a little tail, but the one on the right is different, it appears to have a mane, and doesn't have the little tail. The quality of the photo isn't tat great, and it has been heavily edited, though. Obviously the illustration is quite different that the arms. Do your Steele Creek sources give a blazon, or describe the arms at all?.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:38, 11 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://up.wiki.x.io/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)

(For the fourth time) what do the two Steele Creek publications actually say of Thomas' arms? Can you specifically quote here what MacDowell said of the arms? Is a blazon given; are the arms described at all? Are hatchings described? Is a motto described with the arms? Anything? Other than Putman's photo, every findagrave photo you linked to was uploaded by Steven L. Akins, who is completely unreliable. I'm removing the arms from the article because it is unquestionably inaccurate with its colours. Judging from the photos, the crest is clearly wrong too. IMO, no one would automatically think those long-necked, long-tailed birds were ravens. Although the supporters appear to be different, IMO it is possible that a chalk-smudge could skew things a bit. I can't see any trace of a motto anywhere, and the bottom ribbon very thin.

Wikipedia policy states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy." This quote pretty much sums up everything. Provide a source that clearly shows that the illustration is accurate and suitable for this article. If you can't, it doesn't go in the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:23, 13 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)

You didn't actually answer any of the questions. What you think of the arms is not important, what is important is what the source says of them. What do the sources say of the arms? Are they legit? Were they just dreamed up by the cemetery engravers? How do they relate to the arms actually granted by Heraldic authorities? One of the arms in the cemetery is that of the Duke of Argyll. Is he buried there? Do the sources give a blazon of the arms? If no hatchings are given, and the engraving is not coloured, how can a coloured image represent the arms? If they are not described in the source, and no blazon is given, how can anyone know for sure what birds they are, or what any heraldic element is? Though, I noticed you coincidently left out the description of the "ravens" in your reply.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:14, 16 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)

For the man, see the weblinks in the first section of this talkpage. Please read my comments above. My reasoning, and Wikipedia policy, is laid out there for you. I'll italicise policy to make it easier for you to separate it from my comments.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:29, 14 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)

3O

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)

There's no dispute on the Scots derivation, this is about the Ulster name. MacLysaght is considered very reliable on Irish names. O'Laughlin also gives the same origin as MacLysaght. We stick to what our sources tell us, not what we personally believe. If they say the Ulster name is of Scottish and English origin, that's what we put. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:29, 21 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)

If the village did not exist until recently, then I agree, it doesn't make sense to picture it. What's your source for that? Here's the origin of the placename, from A Dictionary of British Place-Names [11]. No mention of the castle, the strait is what is important. If the village didn't exist, then I propose that the picture be of the strait. Here's a couple we could easily use [12][13].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:48, 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)

The source says "the name was given to those who were from the area near Akin, a strait in Scotland named for King Hakon of Norway". It's the strait, not the castle.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

People lived in the castle - no one was living in the water.--Wyvren (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that some people have lived in the castle, but that has nothing to do with the surname. The castle is not even mentioned in the source. That's the point. I suppose a compromise would be use a picture another derivation of the name. The Adam etymology would be easy to picture. The castle is simply not supported.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:29, 21 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)

Again no reliable source for the crest badge. So nothing is solved.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:29, 21 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)

Third opinion

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)

The problem with sourcing is, of course: what sources are truly reliable, and who decides that they are? Is Black truly reliable? Is MacLysaght? Is O'Laghlin? How can anyone be certain that they are reliable, and in every single instance? How can anyone know whether or not they are just parroting misinformation? To say that they are reliable is merely an opinion, it is not a fact. If the veracity of their opinions (and that is all these learned men have ever given) cannot be proven as facts, then to present their opinions as facts to the exclusion of other (in some cases more authoratative) evidence, is to continue to spread misinformation.--Wyvren (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's false. We have rules here on what is considered reliable; you can read them at WP:RS. Websites written by random people aren't reliable; books that aren't self-published, scholarly studies and so on are. So, for example, Black's book would be considered a reliable source because it was published by the University of Wisconsin (see here). But besides that: you're removing cited, verifiable text from an article to further your own perspective, which is not acceptable. And I'd kindly request you not to do it again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with sourcing: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:57, 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)

The link I sent you above says "Original from the University of Wisconsin - Madison", and I'm pretty sure that that means the original version of the book was put out by Wisconsin, but then NYPL republished it. Further, a self-published book is when a book is put out by Lulu.com or a vanity press. As a side note, please stop blindly reverting the text. You've got two editors who have told you that the text shouldn't be this way, so you're not really following the consensus. Please remember the 3RR rule. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"About the author:

George F. Black was a noted bibliographer and historical scholar at New York Public Library for over thirty-five years. This monumental reference book is the product of over forty years’ research, which was put in order shortly after the author’s retirement. Despite various attempts to publish it during the late 1930s, it was published finally in 1946 by the New York Public Library and has remained in print ever since." Source: http://globalgenealogy.com/countries/scotland/resources/106050.htm --Wyvren (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but the book is still in print and is currently put out by other publishers; that page says it's put out by Birlinn. Either way it doesn't meet the criteria given at WP:SELFPUBLISH. He didn't pay to have the book published, and there's no claim of expertise. If you'd like we can take this to WP:RSN, though that's unnecessary - there are three editors (myself, Czar Brodie and Brianann MacAmhlaidh) who have said that the source is acceptable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:16, 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)

We're not here to debate the veracity of the books - as stated above, the guidelines for inclusion are based on verifiability, not truth. So if one source says it, then it goes in the article. Whether or not you believe it to be true is irrelevant; the source says it, it's verifiable to the source, so it goes in. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Which means Wikipedia can be used as a tool for spreading misinformation, or for presenting a biased point of view, a situation that should be corrected as far as possible.--Wyvren (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to take sides; they're supposed to accurately reflect the statements in the sources. So if you have two people saying completely conflicting things about a subject, the best way to handle it is merely to state what both people say, and that's it. If you're using this article as a battleground for your beliefs on how Wikipedia should handle things, well, that's not right - and you should take your axe elsewhere. Either way, would you please restore the text you removed? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:45, 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)

*sigh* Alright. I've opened a thread about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentiousness on Akins. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Crest badge

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)

Czar Brodie actually commented up here, but by and large I agree with that logic. Would you have a problem with including the tartan, though? That seems to be verifiable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

yes, sorry, I did not see the discussion down here. My thinking about agreeing to the removal was that the crest was set out as a badge. Actually I do not have any problems with showing referenced heraldry of the Akins family on the Akins page, but taking an element from somebodies gravestone and creating a Scottish clan crest badge may constitute original research. Re the tartan, the Scottish parliament recently agreed to officially register the tartans, this has in effect allowed anybody (or any organization) to register a tartan, typing in random letters in the search engine thereto shows a sample of the vast array, eg. I do not think we can argue against this, the registry is after all official Scottish government policy. Given the ever growing size of this directory, I can see an the argument of Wikipedia is not a directory gaining ground, but one must consider that the tartan may have other sources and may be added in good faith. My thinking is that an image of the tartan is o.k, but the crest badge seems to me to be unsourced, an image with both is in my opinion misleading. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Crest out, tartan in. I'm okay with that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Another set of edits

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 undid this edit because it violates WP:SPS. Self-published sources, like personal websites and so on, aren't acceptable to use as sources. The site used there, bowesonenamestudy.com, is self-published. According to its about page, "As administrator of the Bowes surname study and its DNA Project, I receive no financial renumeration of any kind. I am strictly a volunteer pursuing my hobby." So this isn't based on studies done in a research or academic setting; it's just an amateur doing their on work - and therefore cannot be used. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:08, 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)

No; blogs count as self-published sources and aren't acceptable. The Ulster Heritage project, by the way, isn't acceptable either - per their main page, "the UlsterHeritage DNA Project is not a commercial enterprise and the administrators are Volunteers." They're not a scholarly source or anything like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And that NYTimes article isn't an acceptable source either, because it doesn't mention Akins directly. Unless it specifically states that the Akins are related to Niall, it's original research and is therefore inadmissable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:38, 26 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)

No, it's not me being obtuse - it's me having an understanding of Wikipedia policy. The Akins DNA surname project is just some amateur running a website, so the information on there isn't credible per se. What's to stop me from creating a website that says that the subclade doesn't match? And as to the Egan thing, well, it's unacceptable by way of synthesis. Basically that policy says that you can't take two separate sources and draw a new conclusion from them. In this case, you have the NYTimes article that says that the Egans are related, and you have (theoretically) a source that says that the Egans and Akins draw from a similar parent name. You're then saying that from the two, we can assume that the Akins are related. It sounds logical enough, but by Wiki standards it can't be included. Further, it's your own original research that Egan derives from O'hAodhagain; the Wiki article (which, by the way, is not a reliable source either) says that it comes from Mac Aodhagáin. Similar, sure, but not the same. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that technically the DNA stuff shouldn't even appear; but having just a carefully worded sentence on it can't really hurt much. What makes such sites dubious is that it is all user submitted data, so who knows how accurate it is. I think the average family tree tends to be sloppy, and tends to be a work in progress. Sometimes people just copy-and-paste what they see on message boards or websites, without double-checking their sources. Here's an example of the dangers of online genealogy, where someone alerts others of the unreliability of certain Akins information [14]. Also, there's really only a handful of people who have even participated in this study; that means there's a real chance the results are completely skewed. For example, a large chunk of participants could be just a couple of suspected-cousins who have banded together to see if they are indeed related, so their family's genetic imprint is out of proportion to that of other families with the same name. This study is really only made up of people with people from the American South (Virginia, the Carolinas, Oklahoma). Only two of the people even claim Scottish ancestry, and they are in only one group (one isn't even sure of his Scottish ancestor). There's only one guy with "R1b1b2a1b5b", but Wyvren makes it seem that is the genetic marker of the entire name Akins! So there can be some huge problems. I agree with HelloAnnyong, that the NYT article only mentions Egan, and it is obviously wrong to equate that to Akins, or this study.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:21, 27 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&current=steele_creek_01.jpg and http://s1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical%20records/?action=view&current=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)

Brianann MacAmhlaidh, can you verify any of the text that's been added to this article? I'm assuming that it's all supported by those sources, but.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You can verify them yourself if you check the sources:

Genealogical and Personal Memoirs Relating to the Families of Boston and Eastern Massachusetts pg. 1032 - http://books.google.com/books?id=kFoLBC2TwFYC&pg=PA1034&lpg=PA1034&dq=Aiken+Genealogical+and+Personal+Memoirs+Relating+to+the+Families+of+Boston+and+Eastern+Massachusetts+by+William+Richard+Cutter,&source=bl&ots=7Xsl_tHIwO&sig=jlJdDOo_4CrqGNsVhiIsIMD98P0&hl=en&ei=_oRRTNHlIMP-8Aa5v5iYBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Baronage of Angus and Mearns pg. 3 http://books.google.com/books?id=4FwBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA3&dq=Aikens+aikman+The+Baronage+of+Angus+and+Mearns&hl=en&ei=KoZRTNLlGYH88AbD9ZiyBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false --Wyvren (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Alright, then. I'm still going to trim down those quotes, as they're really pushing WP:WEIGHT. The article should be more about accurately summarizing the contents of the sources and less direct quotes; that's how we do things on Wikipedia. Similarly, I see absolutely no reason for the History section to list a random assortments of Akins. It's not encyclopedic; it's just showing that your family has been listed in various sources for several hundred years. This isn't a place to promote your family, and it doesn't belong. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The first link Wyvren gave isn't viewable for me. I've found a viewable form of it online though, so I'll link to that one instead.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:57, 30 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)

By the way, I disagree with removing the cited entries that were in the history section. As this article deals with a surname, it is most likely to be accessed by those who are interested in learning about the history of the surname, and they would appreciate having the information that you removed as it would be of historical interest and use to them. This isn't about promoting a surname it is about supplying useful information. --Wyvren (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No; Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety". To that end, a bunch of random people that you found through extensive family research does not belong in the article. There's the "People with the surname" section, and that's sufficient. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of those names were sourced from Black. I think a point worth noting is that none of them are specifically Akins. Actually, I can't even find the name Akins in Black's Surnames of Scotland. Those names are given as early instances of the surname Aiken (and variations: Aitken, Aitkin, Aitkins, Atkin, Atkins). Agree with HelloAnnyong about the directory thing. We've got the earliest instance, which is really the important part. The only problem is we don't have a source that specifically says that's the first instance of a form of Akins. I think it's more accurate to say that is the earliest occurrence of Aiken, because Black doesn't even mention Akins.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, anyone named in this article should be notable by our standards. And named Akins. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms?

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)

I think I have been taken out of context, my opinion was that showing the tartan was o.k. but not with the "badge", I also think that showing arms is O.K, but I see this mater has been disused as a separate issue. Looking briefly a the matter, I find no reference to any Akins arms in the general armory, this seem odd given the image of the arms: File:Akins coat of arms complete.jpg has supporters which is quite rare and usually indicates a member of the Peerage. The Helmet (heraldry) in the image is open and is another indication of nobility: Duke, Earl..., see [[15]]. I did a brief search and found no peer named Akins. I also see no indication of the Tincture (heraldry) of the references above, so I do not see how the Escutcheon (heraldry), supporters or crest can be shown in colour. I note this issue of colour was discussed above and in my view is quite important. Making up the tinctures is not correct in my view. In brief conclusion I think the arms as given are a very bold claim and such would need very strong references. I have not seen any strong references. Accordingly I think that the arms seem dubious and should not be added. Hope this helps. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that supporters are rare at all, in fact they are quite commonplace. The fact that they may signify some social rank in Britain has no bearing on what they may or may not signify elsewhere. I would ask you to peruse the photographs in the following link as they contain quite a number of very old, very historic coats of arms, both with and without supporters, that can be taken as examples of the state of heraldic usage in America in the colonial and post-colonial period: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnncox/sets/72157606107237661/ --Wyvren (talk) 17:56, 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.wiki.x.io/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)

No, Wikipedia does not know the colors used unless there is a reliable source for them. doing as you suggest would be original research. If you disagree, take it to the WP:NOR discussion board.. And where ( is the evidence that the coat of arms on the gravestone is official? Anyone can design a coat of arms and put it on a gravestone, and the commercial sites you point to are not reliable sources for this. How do we know they didn't just look at the gravestone and make the assumption that was the official coat of arms? So far as other articles are concerned, that's a discussion to take place there, problems, if they exist, in one article are not an excuse for problems in another. And you can edit any article you wish. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller on this. As to other articles, while it's true that other stuff exists, that doesn't mean that a judgment made here is applicable to other pages. Let's stick to what we know about this article, and only that. The fact is that Wyvren's text above is original research. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:06, 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)

You haven't given us an actual reliable source; all you've given is your own research based on a tombstone. So that violates two basic Wiki policies, WP:OR and WP:RS. But beyond that, it seems strange that, although you can trace your family back through Scotland and all that, there's no coat of arms from back then. It's incongruous in my opinion. Either way, just a picture on a tombstone is not necessarily indicative that it's really the coat of arms, even though it may look like one. Further, you've skewed it yourself by tainting the source. By that I mean that, the findagrave.com link you gave us is clearly your own work - it says "Originally Created by: Steven Akins". We can't use your own work as a reference. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have in fact given you a source of reference: The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 which contains a citation of the arms and shows an illustration of them identified as such, which you can see for yourself at: http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical%20records/steele_creek_01.jpg and at: http://s1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical%20records/?action=view&current=008.jpg The same arms also appear noted and illustrated in Historic Steele Creek Burial Grounds, Mecklenburg Co., North Carolina To my knowledge these are the only printed texts that reference the Akins coat of Arms that have been published outside of my own work.

As for there being no record of the Akins coat of arms in Scotland, it must be remembered that Lyon Register only dates back to 1672 - beyond that any earlier records that may have existed in Lyon Court were lost or destroyed, which is why the New Register of all Arms and Bearings in Scotland was established in 1672. However my own family had already left Scotland in the years prior to the establishment of the New Register of Arms, taking part in the Plantation of Ulster and then as colonists in North America. They brought the coat of arms with them to the American colonies and were using them here before any sort of heraldic record keeping was ever set up in Scotland. --Wyvren (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a whole lot of original research in how this image turned into Akins coat of arms complete.jpg. There's a lot more embellishment on yours, including different text, style changes, and just elements that are in one and not the other. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Stylistic details such as mantling, helm, shape of shield, shape of scroll, etc. have no bearing on a coat of arms - heraldry allows some room for artistic individuality in those departments. The important elements - the charges and their position on the shield, the crest, the motto, supporters, etc. are all maintained in the more modern rendering that you have seen. Nothing heraldically speaking has changed. Everything is as it should be. --Wyvren (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Steele Creeke history stuff is just someone saying 'this is a coat of arms' so far as I can tell. I can't see why you think it meets our criteria at [{WP:RS]] to show that this is anything more than a coat of arms on a gravestone, but if you think it does, argue your case at WP:RSN. Reliablity is not the default position, you have to show it. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

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." [16] MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The same could very well be said of any coat of arms - the Royal Coat of Arms of Britain - someone just says it is the Royal Arms - this is ridiculous, I am dealing with obtuse fools here. --Wyvren (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I still think it's unusable and should not be included. It seems wrong to show a coat of arms for a Scottish clan that is not registered in Scotland, and whose only claim is printed in an American book. What's to stop everyone from just coming up with a coat of arms and displaying it on their family's surname page? Doesn't work for me. I don't think the book itself meets the reliable source criteria, to be honest; it's not scholarly, it's not a news article, and it's not published by a credible publisher. And I still find the embellishments between the one in the book and the one uploaded here to be troublesome. But like Dougweller said, we can take this to RSN. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What does "Scotland" have to do with Scots? It is just a country where some Scots settled at one time which was named for the people who settled there. The Scots existed as a people long before there was ever a country named for them, and they exist as a people both within and without that particular corner of Britain. The fact that there is a country named for the Scots in no way means that all Scots the world over are subject to the laws, observances or regulations that happen to exist in one part of the world that happened to be named for them, no more than the laws, observances and regulations existing in Scotland, Arkansas, do. The Scots are a people independant of any place that may have adopted their name. --Wyvren (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to take it to RSN, Wyvern does. As for your paragraph above, Wyvern, you comments have nothing to do with what can go in this article. And now we know quite a lot more about the context of this debate, there's no way the Steele stuff can be used. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd!--Wyvren (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In case it has never dawned on any of you - all coats of arms are "made up" by someone, somewhere, at some point in time. That is their nature. Their purpose is to serve as identifying symbols of the individuals or families who bear them. Coats of arms do not fall from the heavens ready-made by the hand of the almighty - they have to be created by mortal men for the purposes they are designed for. In some countries the designing of such devices is heavily regulated, in others (such as the United States) it is not. But in either case all the coats of arms in existence are created fabrications made up by someone, somewhere at some point in time and born by their owners as symbols of their iidentity. --Wyvren (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think that the utterances posted in an internet newsgroup such as "rec.heraldry" (or any other) would qualify as reliable sources of information. If anything, they are trafficking in disinformation and personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren (talk • contribs) 19:26, 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)

In what way is the source dubious? It is a book on the history of a church that has a very historic cemetery dating back to the 1700's. The coats of arms carved on the tombstones are no more dubious than any other coat of arms - they are a historical fact having existed for over 200 years. --Wyvren (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been stated over and over why it's dubious. Time to put down the stick and let it go. You've got four editors telling you that the source is unacceptable. Consensus has been formed, and there's no point in repeating what's been said. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:05, 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)

Okay Doug, I've taken it over to WP:RSN as per your suggestion.--Wyvren (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

For all those involved, note that there's now an RSN thread; it's at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Akins coat of arms. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think Czar Brodie summed up how the booklet does not support the Steven Akins' coat of arms, and both HelloAnnyong and Dougweller have made it very clear that Wyvren's connect-the-dots form of OR is not acceptable.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem as I see it with Mr. Brodie’s argument is that he seems to be suggesting that Scottish coats of arms that may or may not have been “made up” in America are somehow inferior or less legitimate than coats of arms that are “made up” for those Scots living in Britain by armorial fabricators of the sort that work out of Her Majesty’s New Register House. In either case the arms are equally “made up” by someone hired to create them. The arms found on the gravestones in Steele Creek cemetery belonged to Scots with names like Akins, Alexander, Barnet, Campbell, Davidson, Gilmore, Greer, Irwin, Maxwell, McCleary, McDowell and Polk - individuals who were ethnic Scots by blood, every bit as much as the Scots still living in Britain. The only difference being geography and government. The Scots still living in Britain had tried repeatedly to tell the government that they were subjects of to bugger off, however their rebellions proved unsuccessful. The Scots living in America on the other hand succeeded in telling the exact same government to bugger off, and they legislated a new one, a government that didn’t seek to regulate heraldry and tax it the way the British government chose to. No less than 20 out of the 27 signers of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence were Scots, just as Scottish as the signers of the Declaration of Arbroath (who also bore coats of arms that were at the time unregulated by imposed government restrictions). The fact that the arms borne by the Scots buried in Steele Creek cemetery were not subject to monarchial British regulation does not in any way make those arms less legitimate. It simply makes them free of restrictions applied as a means of collecting revenue for the British Crown masquerading under the guise of tradition. The arms borne by Scots in America are still every bit as much a part of Scottish heritage and tradition as those things that have evolved in Britain since the Scots first began to settle there after leaving their former home in the north of Ireland. The Scots bring their culture and customs with them wherever they go - be it to northern Britain or any other place they have traveled to. The British province that came to be named after the Scots who settled there is, after all, just one of the many places this tribe of people has made their home; it was not their first nor has it proved to be their last - there are many Scotlands outside of Britain, just as there are many Scots outside of the northern third of the United Kingdom, and the culture and customs of the Scots outside of Britain is every bit as legitimate and as authentic as that of their less intrepid British kinsmen. The Scots who fought for independence from the British Crown in the Revolutionary War earned the right to bear their arms unregulated by the imposed government of foreign monarchs descended from the German House of Hanover. Those who supported King George didn’t.--Wyvren (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This 'many Scotlands' thing is original research and doesn't belong here. Please don't treat this page as a forum. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not "original research", Doug, it's a fact: Scotland, Alabama; Scotland, Arkansas; Scotland, California; Scotland, Connecticut; Scotland, Florida; Scotland, Georgia; Scotland, Indiana; Scotland, Maine; Scotland, Maryland; Scotland, Massachusetts; Scotland, Mississippi; Scotland, Missouri; Scotland, New Hampshire; Scotland County, North Carolina; Scotland, Ohio; Scotland, Pennsylvania; Scotland, South Dakota; Scotland, Texas; Scotland, Virginia - and that is just in the United States. source: Places named Scotland --Wyvren (talk) 16:51, 5 August 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) I just put it back in. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Speculation by members of an internet newsgroup such as rec.heraldry cannot in any way be considered as reliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Break

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)

Yes; in my view the talk at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard was getting sidetracted into issues of chiefs, clans, genealogy, etc...my view remains: File:Clan Akins crest badge.jpg is original research. File:Akins coat of arms complete.jpg is also original research. File:Thomasmem1785.jpg is dubious, and I found (or saw) no indication that the image on the stone is nothing more than a made up set of arms for a deceased. File:Akins clan tartan.jpg is acceptable: even if the Scottish government is recording any old tartan patterns, this is never the less an official record. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

On a sub note, I have examined the File:Thomasmem1785.jpg image in greater detail. My conclusions differ from Wyvren's (but my conclusions are also original research and so not usable etc.) The image on the grave stone appears to be a division of the field by marshalling per pale. this practice is often done to indicate a marriage (and represents only such a marriage, otherwise I think the shield would be quartered and not per pale), or funeral (see Hatchments). See as an example located in my graveyard, indicating a union between Brodie and Baillie. This practice is not unusual, see for example the "turberville window". see also The general armory page ix. The further clue to this practice on File:Thomasmem1785.jpg are the two crests at the top, another practice often used in marshalling. e.g.: . Given this division the "Akins" side would be what appears to be an image of a "lion", and probably a default symbol to represent Scotland as Akins has no known arms, e.g . the other side would represent the wife. I think it unlikely that the crests are ravens, but possibly two crests, each of a dove. This does not mean that the "coat of arms" is not made up, it confirms in my view that it is made up, illustrating an event. Hope this helps. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A while back I Googled the motto "time how short" and found that it was the title of a hymn by John Newton (1725–1807). It's actually on Wikisource here: [18]. It was one of the Olney Hymns, published in 1779. Thomas Akins died in 1785. I think there's a chance that this hymn is the real source of Thomas' motto. I wonder if any of the other engravings done by the Binghams contained quotations or adaptations of period hymns. If any others contained bits from Newton that may clinch it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, seems very probable to me. I think the poem confirms that the arms are made up to represent an event (death of a husband), the bird crest may refer to the lines "Swifter fly, ye rolling years" (the crest and motto often represent or refer to the same thing) and the two birds may refer to husband and wife. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:10, 4 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)

I'm going to ask everyone involved in this page to please stop beating a dead horse and let this issue go to rest. There are a plurality of editors who feel that it doesn't belong. A consensus has been formed. This conversation is not going anywhere, and all we're doing is spinning our wheels. It's over. Let's move on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

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)

It's no more acceptable. The image bears Wyvern's stamp of 'own work,' although when posting it he claimed it originated at Electricscotland. A pattern has emerged of Wyvern ignoring consensus and doing whatever he chooses. This image of arms should be deleted. Nor, judging from the discussion so far, does any other Akins purported heraldic image hold any weight. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wyvern, stop. It should be abundantly clear that you shouldn't be adding a new image without discussion here first. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The images originate with the coat of arms depicted on the headstones that mark the graves of my various Akins ancestors, all of which are well over two centuries old; I'm only 44 so I don't see how you can argue that they originate with me. --Wyvren (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you have produced a total of one (non-verified) image of a tombstone associated with a putative ancestor. That tombstone was the work of carvers thought to take liberties with a lineage for the sake of a snazzy image. You've produced no proof that this coat-of-arms had anything to do with anyone in your family, other than a fellow underneath it who likely had nothing to do with it in his lifetime. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I can provide you with quite a few links that show this coat of arms is still in use and is still very much associated with the Akins surname - however you seem to wish to completely ignore the fact that it is in use and is used as an heraldic symbol of identity for the Akins family; so your argument that it isn't is completely fallacious. We are not talking about what goes on in one small, remote corner of the world - heraldry exists worldwide and its usage and etiquette vary widely from one country to the next. Do not attempt to dictate that the provincial manners associated in one region must therefore apply to the usage in other parts of the world - they don't, no matter how much you might wish to pretend that they do. --Wyvren (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about heraldic esoterica. It is about the veracity of wikipedia and its editors. You've posted a single image you've massaged into a highfalutin lineage. While the Akins arms may be splashed about one household in Jasper, Alabama, that doesn't mean they should be plastered on Wikipedia as currency for an entire 'clan.' This conceit you've elevated to a going concern – exposed by other web postings – is undeserving of a site that is encyclopedic.MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think File:Akins-coat-of-arms.jpg is any more acceptable in the article. NB I have investigated the rights of File:Akins crest.jpg and similar images with a black band at commons:Category:Scottish crest badges and have been contacted by family-crests.com by email. The email said the following:

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)

This is troubling. I've left a message for admin Doug Weller about this. Thanks for letting us know, Czar Brodie. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the guy who runs that site has been marking some of those for deletion. This is a hard one, because some of the images actually are different. For example, look at File:Adair clan crest.jpg vs http://www.family-crests.com/ProductImages/clans/adair-clan-crest.jpg. Similar, sure, but the inside is different. Either way, all of those images are on Commons (not en.wiki) so you'd have to bring it up there. I don't know what you mean by a page block, but a full protect of this page is unneeded. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Followup: I opened a thread at the commons AN board. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

noted. Whatever the difference, family-crests.com still claim ownership. I will direct my corespondent hereto and at the commons AN board. Thank you. I nominated for deletion the images at commons with reason: my received email (I forgot to sign in thereto...often get mixed up between the commons and here...sorry). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:30, 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)

Images nuked, Wyvren (on Commons) warned. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wyvren and 2 socks blocked here, 3 socks blocked on Commons. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean clarified

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)