Talk:Lachlan (name)

Pronunciation

To my knowledge, having lived in both countries, the name is pronounced /ˈlæxlən/ in Scotland and /ˈlɒxlən/ in Australia. --Wikiain (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

Re "The name is an Anglicised form of the Scottish Gaelic Lachlann, which is in turn derived from the earlier Gaelic personal name Lochlann.[2]"

Is there an authority or researcher that can confirm the above citation by producing or pointing us to an early Gaelic document where "Lachlann" is used? I have only ever seen the Gaelic form as Lachan/Lachann/Lachainn, except where modern translators have altered the original.

The following Hebridean poem show it's proper Argyll context

"Mar mhadadh ag ol eanruich ainmean Chlann ‘ll ‘Eathain “Eachann, Lachann.”

"Like a hound lapping broth are the names of the Clan Maclean “Eachan, Lachan “_”Hector, Lachlan.”

           (Gaelic names of (Mamalia), birds, fishes, insects, reptiles etc. A. R. Forbes 1905)

Given the fact that "Eachann" is etymologically unrelated to it's Anglicised version "Hector", it would appear likely "Lachann" is also etymologically unrelated to it's Anglicised version Lauchlan/Lachlan.

Also the article relates to the name Lachlan, but fails to explain how it is correct to pronounce it "/ˈlɒklən/". That is a different name. Just because so many people in Australia pronounce it incorrectly, does not make it right. I know some Gaelic words are spoken very differently to their spelling, but Lachlan is not one of them.

Theirishslave (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't add 'original research' into Wikipedia articles. That means our personal opinions and theories about Lachann and Lachlan can't go in. What you've laid out above with the poem is called 'synthesis' on Wikipedia ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source"). If no one has used a particular poem to prove a point about a particular name neither can we.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again. We can't insert original research into articles. Specifically, if no one has ever used a proverb published in Gaelic Names of Beasts as evidence concerning the name Lachann we can't either. Remember that Wikipedia articles aren't platforms to publish our own research. Similarly, we can't dissect published analysis and present original arguments in rebuttal.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument get a little more irrational each time you add to it. So all my entries and their references (including dictionary definitions) are "OR", personal opinion or lies in order to skew the article. It seems to irk you when the article titled "Lachlan (Name)" has content added that actually pertains to that subject. It appears that this article has been created and maintained by people pushing an agenda.

As for the proverb, I included it to prove the popularity of the name in the Maclean family, confirmed by the fact the proverb is obviously created by an outside entity, likely a Macdonald. When I come across someone regarded as an "expert authority" like Black, who asserts his opinion that the proverb is contemporary, and using as reference an altered version from a 1912 novel, I will call it out every time, as it can be considered 'synthesis', though you appear cool with it and continue to run with it. Another way to 'synthesis' an article is by omission. If there are multiple entries your "M.O." is to delete all and "take article back to last "reliable" version, or your reality. Sorry I stand by my entries, and there are many more to come. Theirishslave (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you can't publish your opinions in the article. It's as simple as that. You also have to accept that you can't take facts from unrelated facts and weave them together to create new ideas that no one has ever made.

You can't take a random proverb and use it a prove a point that no one else has ever made. Do you understand why? Because it would be your own original research.

You can't dissect someone's analysis with your own conjecture, personal opinion, and unrelated factoids. Why? Because that would mean you have synthesised an original claim or your own, one that no one else has ever made.

So what this all means is that your musings about poems and proverbs, conjecture about nineteenth century chiefs named Charles, and personal opinions about etymologists like George Black, can't be added into the article. It's not about what you think, it's what others have published in reliable sources.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the proverb at all. I have merely added it to note its existence.

I have made no conjectures regarding Blacks analysis, they are not required by anyone with simple comprehensive skills. It is there for all to see. He synthesised his opinion into fact regarding the name by linking it with a contemporary work of fiction, when it had in fact been published in previous works by Gaelic Scholars.

I have no opinion of Black. You used Blacks' reference to the proverb as an invention of a 20th century novelist as evidence to make a point. I countered by adding that it was collected many years earlier and published by MacBain. I retained your Black reference and even referred to it so that anyone interested could could go to the sources for comparison if they were so inclined.

Theirishslave (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're using a proverb that no one else has ever used to prove a point. You're dissecting Black's analysis with a combination of your own personal opinion ("begs further scrutiny. Firstly, Black does not include a single reference...", "Secondly, his reference to the above..."), and a totally irrelevant comment about a clan chief named Charles, and some more personal speculation about the age of certain books and proverbs ("It possibly dates from the 17th century..."). Not only are your points almost incoherent—(Lachlann and Lachann are variations of the same name, that's why Black lists historical examples of them together; and Lachlann, Eachann, and Teàrlach/Charles are first borne by MacLeans within a generation of each other in late Middle Ages)—the fact remains that they are your points. No one else in the entire world has ever raised them. No one else has quoted that proverb in an article about the name Lachann or Lachlann. No one in the entire world has picked apart Black's coverage of them. Just you. Wikipedia articles aren't platforms for editors to publish original ideas. You can't craft counter arguments and put them into the article. You just can't. You can only present arguments that have been reliably published.

Look at what you wrote above in the first comment you left on this talkpage "(The following Hebridean poem show it's proper Argyll context ...)" after which you quoted the proverb.[1] It's only your opinion that this proverb is in any way relevant. In the following sentences you speculate about how Lachann and Lachlann might be unrelated names. Again that's your own opinion. It doesn't matter what sources you've drawn your understanding from. It doesn't matter how Australians apparently mispronounce certain names. It's doesn't matter how old a particular proverb is. All that matters is that it's all your original research. It doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means it can't go into the article.-Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to write it any simpler than I already have, I have included the proverb to show how popular the name was with McLeans, as it was with the Macintoshes and Mackinnons. The proverb proves that point very well. If you can't understand it's context and have a problem with it's inclusion, then you obviously don't understand the culture too well. Scottish Gaelic was an unwritten language and much of it is only preserved to-day because of oral stories, poems and "silly random proverbs" like this one. (I suggest you check the definition of proverb.

Only the 1912 version quoted by Black has any mention of Tearlach. The late middle ages Charles your referring to would be the Chieftain of the McLeans of Dochgarroch. The proverb is obviously referring to the Chiefs (Duart) pedigree with a preponderance of Hectors and Lauchlans and the first Tearlach didn't appear in this line until 1846.

It is quite obvious it is not just the proverb that bothers you. An article on the name "Lachlan" that included no mention of it's historically most common version of "Lachann" is strange to say the least. Argyll is where the name was most commonly found and the vast majority of people with the name spoke no English, so therefore never used the Anglicised version. What I said in the "Talk" article almost 12 months ago is completely irrelevant to the current article.Theirishslave (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I have included the proverb to show how popular the name was with McLeans". This is exactly what original research is. Your interpretation about what the proverb proves is irrelevant. Why? Because it's your interpretation about a source that no one else has ever commented on or has ever used to prove the popularity of the name. It's that simple. Our own analysis, interpretations, and opinions can't go into the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"These names were frequently borne by the MacLeans.[17]". This quote and reference from your Note endorses and supports "my" interpretation. Exactly what do you believe? I am happy with my entry and will restore it. Theirishslave (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, my own interpretations and opinions are irrelevant, as are yours. Since this discussion has drawn to a close, I've asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I agree with Brianann MacAmhlaidh; those edits indeed appear to violate WP:SYN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the (short) opinion. Could you elaborate a little. You agree with Brianann MacAmhlaidh; which means every entry I make or have made should or will be deleted so that the article will have little information on the title subject, and instead be dedicated to the ancient name Lochlain and it's Irish history. Also regarding the proverb he objects to so much; could you tell me why my references are so irrelevant. You both agree that no-one in history has ever used it to say that many Macleans' used the names "Eachan/Hector" or "Lachan/Lauchlan", that is in spite of the objectors' Note 1, where citation 16,17 & 18 all from "Black" support my view.Theirishslave (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks commenting Erpert. Theirishslave, your edits are unacceptable. I've therefore removed them. It's up to you to reach a consensus that your edits are sound. You can't edit-war your point of view to victory. I've reached out or further opinions at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a comment on the request for a third opinion on the noticeboard too. Much of the edits by User talk:Theirishslave seem like WP:SYN. At this point, quotes should be provided help to see if the sources actually make those claims explicitly in connection to origins of these terms or in relation of other terms. If they do not, and the wikieditor is the one making the arguments and claims then it is WP:SYN. One cannot use a source and put words in its mouth.

For instance, is there a source that explicitly says something like the Hebridean poem has an Argyll context and that 'Mar mhadadh ag ol eanruich ainmean Chlann ‘ll ‘Eathain “Eachann, Lachann.' and 'Like a hound lapping broth are the names of the Clan Maclean “Eachan, Lachan “_”Hector, Lachlan.” Given the fact that "Eachann" is etymologically unrelated to it's Anglicised version "Hector", it would appear likely "Lachann" is also etymologically unrelated to it's Anglicised version Lauchlan/Lachlan.? I don't think there is a source that makes a claim like this. If there is,however, then it may be acceptable in the article. But I doubt it.

New editors should be careful with edit warring, too. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Huitzilopochtli1990 for your opinion. I accept what you say and have edited the proverb and make no claims at all regarding it's meaning or location. I still believe however that the wording is so self explanatory, that no source has ever thought necessary to explain it, ( viz. Paris is the capital of France) as the name Lachlan is written in the Argyll dialect (Lachan) and the subject tribe (Macleans) are a Hebridean clan which is in Argyll, what other context could it possibly be written in? Theirishslave (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear from you on this. I don't think that any words are self explanatory. Looking at the article, you and another editor were at odds in terms of the origins so the histories of the terms are not obviously not self evident like the capital of France would be. This is why we consult regular dictionaries and etymological dictionaries. These sources are from scholars who have looked at the history of the terms, but we wikipedia editors are not experts on histories of words. The sources have to guide what we write on any article, not our original research. Hope that helps. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians

I have just modified 2 external links on Lachlan (name). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]