Talk:Clans of Ireland#Lead claims / Failed verification / SYNTH

I have attempted to give a brief and objective summary of Irish Clans, James.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesnorman (talk • contribs) 2 February 2009

:I'm going to revert your re-write. I think this stuff belongs on the "Irish clans" article (which you re-wrote almost identical to this one). This article is supposed to be about the organisation "Clans of Ireland Ltd.", not "irish clans" in general.--Celtus (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If this article is just about Clans of Ireland the organisation then I have attempted to improve and extend it. I have removed the suffix "limited" from the title of the article and throughout the article as Clans of Ireland prefers to be known as just that "Clans of Ireland" or in Irish "Finte na hÉireann". While it is a limited company it is not solely defined by that identity. I hope this has been helpful (Jamesnorman (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)).

Shouldn't some mention be made of this?: One area which caused the writer particular concern was that of spurious 'Clans' and bogus 'Chiefs'. In the first place, as Edward MacLysaght and other authorities were at pains to point out, Ireland never had a clan system like that of Scotland, and MacLysaght advised that the term 'sept' is more appropriate in the Irish context. (1) In the second place, the thorough destruction by the English of Gaelic political structures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, allied with the loss of so many Irish records over the centuries, mean that only a handful of families can truly trace their lineages back to a duly inaugurated Chief. Nevertheless, Government and tourism interests required that Irish 'Clan' organisations should be brought into being, and that new 'Chiefs' should be found. Thus although it regularly pleaded lack of resources adequate to perform basic genealogical tasks, in 1989 the State's Genealogical Office/Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland found space in its new premises in Kildare Street, Dublin, for the organisation known as the 'Clans of Ireland'. It would be fair to say that most Irish genealogists acquiesced in the face of this tourism-driven 'clansterism', or indeed actively supported it. (2) For his pains in opposing the march of pseudo-genealogy and pseudo-heraldry and attempting to assert some kind of standards, the writer found himself isolated from most of his professional colleagues and effectively barred from contract work in the Genealogical Office from 1993. http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/maccarthy.htm An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

They are bent, electing pals to chiefships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.85.74 (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clans of Ireland. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=794565511 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201112735/http://cccdub.ie/ to http://www.cccdub.ie/

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

As noted in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_Clans_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=1058956446 this 2021 edit summary] (made prior to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Clans_of_Ireland&oldid=1057300438 a 2021 merge discussion] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clans_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=1059247328 subsequent merge]), there are several reasons why this article would ideally not become a mirror/republication of the "past recipients" section (and "current leadership" section) of the subject org's website. Those reasons including the WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTWEBHOST norms. Per WP:NLIST and WP:CSC, while it may be reasonable to list the otherwise notable people (to have been inducted as members), an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of pretty much EVERYONE connected to the subject org isn't in keeping with related guidelines. If there are editors who feel that this article should replicate and republish large sections of the subject org's website (including full lists of everyone on its board and all inducted members), then please do consider contributing here. With an explanation. So other editors can consider how such a list or lists would align with project scope and related guidelines. If doing so, connected editors should perhaps also consider WP:DCOI. Guliolopez (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clans_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=1289120590 recent series of edits], text was added to the lead that (to my read and based on the sources) seems questionable. Specifically, the text now states:

• {{tq|Clans of Ireland [..] is an independent Irish registered charity with indirect involvement of the Irish Government to authenticate and register Irish clans}}. What are we saying here? That the subject org has "indirect involvement of the Irish Government" (as a charity)? Or that the "the Irish Government [..has indirect involvement in the org's goal..] to authenticate and register Irish clans"? In either case, which source states as much? (If this text is based on the sources confirming the org's patronage and/or the mentions of "ministers of state" in some sources, and this claim is not explicitly stated in any of the sources, then this is classic WP:SYNTH.)
• {{tq|When the president is unavailable, he is represented on Clans of Ireland business by a Minister of State}}. As of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clans_of_Ireland&oldid=1289142232 most recent revision], the sources offered to support this include an editorial note (seemingly instructing the reader to "See below photo [..of..] Minister Leo Varadkar presenting the Order of Clans of Ireland to Dr. Nollaig Ó Muraíle"). In what sense does this photo support this text? Even if asking the reader to "interpret" this photo wasn't WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of the most extreme kind, Varadkar was Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in 2012. Which is NOT a (junior) Minister of State role. What is this "see photo" instruction doing here? It is not a valid reference (and, even with OR/SYNTH, seems to contradict the text). The other source referenced here is a seemingly [https://clanwalker.org/clan-walker/ random self-published website]. Which, while it does state that "When the President is unavailable, he is represented on Clans of Ireland business by a Minister of State", there is nothing to indicate where the webpage author got this information. Or whether it is reliable. Does clanwalker.org meet WP:RS? How?
• {{tq|Clans of Ireland is the de facto authority and successor and has the highest recognition possible within the legal framework of the Irish republican constitution}}. The [https://osullivanclan.com/clancorrespondence.html webpage linked alongside this claim] contains a number of copy/pasted emails. None of which mention anything about Clans of Ireland having "de facto" authority over anything. Or being the "successor" to the Chief Herald of Ireland. Or anything else like it. What is going on here?

Guliolopez (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I note that, since my note above, the first issue noted (the text about the "Irish Government having indirect involvement with the subject org") has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clans_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=1289142783 been removed]. (Although I remain intrigued as to what the adding editor felt supported such a claim in the first place, the issue seems resolved).

:However, in the same series of edits, we seem to be "doubling-down" on the third issue. The claim that "Clans of Ireland has become the de facto authority and successor [of the Chief Herald of Ireland]". Despite not a single reference seeming to support such a claim. And the adding editor seemingly adding a dead self-published webpage, a PDF that doesn't mention the subject org and an incomplete/dead "reference" (indiscriminately pasted from the Standing Council of Irish Chiefs and Chieftains article) to support this newly added text.

:@Kellycrak88 - Are there any references which state that the subject org is a successor to the Chief Herald of Ireland? Guliolopez (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @Guliolopez -- I removed the dead link but the [https://www.familyhistory.ie/docs/gazette/Gaz_8_10_2003.pdf other one] quite clearly explains the situation of the MacCarthy Mor scandal "bogus chiefs" and “Attorney Geneal’s Advice”. The relevance of the quote In 1989 the State's Genealogical Office/Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland found space in its new premises in Kildare Street, Dublin, for the organisation known as the 'Clans of Ireland' is to show that there was quasi state founding of the organisation. Minister Leo Varadkar and other ministers have represented the president for Clans of Ireland when he's unavailable on a number of occasions, the photo proves that. Not sure how junior minister comment is relative, anyone under President is junior, it's irrelevant but the fact Leo is so involved shows the important to the government in supporting the organisation and it's clans. Clan Walker is not a random self-published website it's the Clan official web site. My apologies that you interpreted that they're the "successor" to the Chief Herald of Ireland, that's not what I meant and I've refreshed the text, Clans of Ireland are the de factor successor in relation to authenticating historical clans or families and their chiefs. A role regulated by the Chief Herald in Scotland (Lord Lyon) and formerly the Chief Herald of Ireland. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi.

:::* RE: "{{tq|the [https://www.familyhistory.ie/docs/gazette/Gaz_8_10_2003.pdf other one] quite clearly explains the situation of the MacCarthy Mor scandal "bogus chiefs" and “Attorney Geneal’s Advice”}}. So what? It may "explain the situation of the MacCarthy Mor scandal and Attorney Geneal's Advice". But what does that have to do with the subject of THIS article? The subject of THIS article, Clans of Ireland, is not mentioned anywhere in that PDF. It is therefore OR and SYNTH, in the extreme, to use it as a reference to support statements about the subject org.

:::* RE: "{{tq|the photo proves that}}. The photo proves nothing of the sort. It establishes, at best, that Leo Varadkar presented an award in 2012. It does not establish that he was there in loco of the president (as patron) or anybody else. Or that he (or someone similar) would always/otherwise represent the org's patron at any/all other events.

:::* RE: "{{tq|Clans of Ireland are the de factor successor in relation to authenticating historical clans or families and their chiefs"}}. Please provide a reference for this statement. So far none are forthcoming.

:::If you have not already done so, please review WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. And, perhaps, stop copy/pasting random references from elsewhere in the project to support unrelated text. Guliolopez (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::So what? It supports as a citation the context explained. I didn't make up the statement it's from the [https://clanwalker.org/clan-walker/ Clan Walker website] and the photo backs it up, as the [https://osullivanclan.com/clancorrespondence.html O'Sullivan clan site] (also referenced) the clan correspondence shows that Dr. Leo Varadkar TD Minister for Tourism is a guest of honour at their annual conference and AGM (on behalf of the President of Ireland who couldn't attend but sent best wishes) Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi. I'm going to keep this simple. I have removed the:

:::::* "see the photo" instruction. As (a) it is not a valid reference (requiring OR and SYNTH) and (b) it is redundant to the clanwalker.org webpage. (If that webpage is a reliable source, then an instruction to reader to "look at the photo" is unnecessary.)

:::::* "Clans of Ireland are the de factor successor" text. As my multiple requests to share a reference that supports it have gone unanswered. (As above, the [https://www.familyhistory.ie/docs/gazette/Gaz_8_10_2003.pdf PDF] makes no mention of the subject org [at all] and the [https://osullivanclan.com/clancorrespondence.html webpage of copy/pasted emails] doesn't describe the org as the "successor" [to anything]. And so combing both, to support a claim not stated in either, is classic WP:SYNTH).

:::::I have also attempted to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clans_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=1289246443 tidy up the random/disruptive blockquote]. Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::ok agreed Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Hello both, and to note that I only saw this now, but I've already also acted to qualify recent edits, with respect to those parts which make, with limited-quality citation, claims which have no validity - neither jurisdiction on the island, nor the UN, gives this well-meant Irish heritage charity any authority over anything. Its work on a register, and any authentication it may do, are exactly as valid as those involved accept them as being, and no more. And no, it has no State role, quasi- or otherwise, and the office of President is patron of many bodies, with precisely zero legal implication. At this late stage in history, no one has any real authority over, or to speak for, any clan / purported clan / other familial group of Irish background. SeoR (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hi SeoR - independent is a better word than private and please read the clan correspondence for the announcements, the word authority is quoted in both instances:

::::::::Clans of Ireland is delighted to announce that we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. This historic event took place at a meeting of the board on 26 January 2013 at Christ Church Cathedral. The MOU was signed for Clans of Ireland by Dr. Michael J.S. Egan, Cathaoirleach and for the Standing Council by Sir Malcolm MacGregor of MacGregor. As part of the agreement both organisations agree to recognise each other's authority over clans and to

::::::::support each other's respective goals.

::::::::And this:

::::::::The board of Clans of Ireland is delighted to announce that the United Nations has granted recognition to Clans of Ireland as a civil society non governmental organisation with authority to represent Irish Clans at the UN. Along with our Patronage from the President of Ireland Clans of Ireland has now received the highest recognition possible which reflects on our registered clans. Kellycrak88 (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Hi @Kellycrak88. The sources you mention (and which you rely upon to restore the text about the org having "authority to represent Irish Clans at the UN" and changing the text from "role with regard to clans" to "authority over clans") both fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. Per that guideline, such sources are only OK when{{tq2|

:::::::::# The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

:::::::::# It does not involve claims about third parties;

:::::::::# It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

:::::::::# There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

:::::::::# The article is not based primarily on such sources.}}

:::::::::Just about everyone of these exceptions apply. Including:

:::::::::# "{{tq|exceptional claim}}": From my perspective (and seemingly also @SeoR's), the claim that the org has "authority to represent Irish clans at the UN" is an exceptional claim. Requiring much better sourcing than a copy/pasted email attributed to someone from the org.

:::::::::# "{{tq|third parties}}": Both claims involve third parties. Including the United Nations. And that Scottish clans org. And other unnamed clan associations.

:::::::::# "{{tq|events}}"(?): N/A

:::::::::# "{{tq|doubt as to its authenticity}}": Frankly, that these emails are copy/pasted/republished on a less-than-authoritative website is far-from-ideal. In establishing authenticity/veracity.

:::::::::# "{{tq|article is not based primarily on such sources}}": As per the tag at the top of the page, effectively ALL of the sources in the article are primary sources. Published by the org. Or copies of emails attributed to people associated with the org.

:::::::::Put simply: Almost all of the WP:ABOUTSELF caveats apply. And, unless there are more independent/reliable/verifiable sources available to support these "exceptional" claims (relative to having authority at/from the UN and over/across other clan orgs), then I don't see how they can be justified. Or, frankly other than as a form of boosterism, what these statements actually add regardless.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I didn't come up with the phrasing, this is what is stated in the citations sources which are official web sites for Walker and Sullivan clans. Also the Clans of Ireland website used the word clearly here: "Clans of Ireland ~ Finte na hÉireann is an independent permanent authority established in 1989 to register Irish clans and historical families." https://www.clansofireland.ie/ Also here's another source from Clan O'Dea official website for their internet policy: https://odeaclan.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Clans-of-Ireland-Website-Policy-2013.pdf Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::If you both feel the quote from Clans of Ireland that "they have authority to represent clans at the UN" is an overreach then I'm happy to agree consensus on removal. However, based on how they are officially described they should be referred to as an "independent permanent authority". Also the Standing Council of Scottish Clans agreed to recognised each other's authority over clans - not each other's roles, in Scotland it works quite differently and this is major point and needs to stay in as it's a fact. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::and why "As of 2024," @Guliolopez what is this in reference to? Doesn't make sense hence I deleted by you put back? Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::clearly says "Clans of Ireland is an independent authority operating under the Patronage of the President of Ireland established to authenticate, represent and co-ordinate the activities of clans" this is accurate and factual therefore should match the intro text here Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Hi. Responding to ping. RE:

::::::::::::* "{{tq|why 'As of 2024'}}". I restored that text, added by @SeoR, because it seemed consistent with WP:ASOF. (Michael D. Higgins, current President of Ireland, is the current patron of the subject org. No past presidents were patrons. And there is nothing to indicate that any future president will "inherit" the role. As the sources suggest that Higgins (rather than his office) is patron of the charity, the statement may become dated. Hence WP:ASOF applies).

::::::::::::* "{{tq|this [verbatim statement from the org's website] is accurate and factual therefore should match the intro text"}}. I do not understand what change or wording you are proposing. But, if you are proposing to copy/paste text verbatim from the org's website, then you should read WP:COPYVIO, WP:CLOP, WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTPROMO and WP:PRIMARY. Otherwise, to my mind, the lead text is broadly representative of the sources. Without unduly mirroring or promoting the subject.

::::::::::::(Note, for reference, that the official website of [https://www.coca-colacompany.com/about-us/the-coca-cola-foundation The Coca-Cola Foundation] states that that charitable foundation "fosters lasting social impact through meaningful support". And the website of the Donald J. Trump Foundation stated that its purpose was to give proceeds, from the book Trump: The Art of the Deal, to charitable causes. Just because an official website states something doesn't mean that it is appropriate for the project to reflect promotional or primary texts [verbatim or near verbatim] as absolute truth.)

::::::::::::Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The article already states later down that Higgins became patron in 2012 hence the 2024 date is confusing. This is crucial document it says President of Ireland as an office https://odeaclan.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Clans-of-Ireland-Website-Policy-2013.pdf and clearly describes themselve as I've just updated the page with. I understand WP:COPYVIO and the following sentences are not verbatim but they need those words. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I changed to "with authority to represent Irish clans at the UN > to represent Irish clans at the UN." I hope that's a fair compromise suggested overreach Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Hello. Please stop using primary sources to support exceptional claims which the subject org is making about their relationship to other entities. And editing against consensus. RE:

::::::::::::::* "{{tq|represent Irish clans at the UN}}". In your note above, you agreed that there was consensus that this was "overreach" (your words) and that you were "happy to agree consensus on removal" (your words). So, flatly, no it is not a "fair compromise" to reinstate that text (based entirely on primary sources in a manner which is at odds with effectively every tenet of WP:ABOUTSELF). Even if with a barely perceptible wording tweak.

::::::::::::::* "{{tq|crucial document it says President of Ireland as an office}}". Again, the linked document is a [https://odeaclan.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Clans-of-Ireland-Website-Policy-2013.pdf website policy PDF published by the subject org]. Not only does it not state "the office", but (even if it did) WP:ABOUTSELF would apply. (As it would be making claims over another entity. The office of the President of Ireland).

::::::::::::::To my mind we have reached a point where escalation is the next step. As you don't appear to be reading the related policies or listening to what other editors are saying. Put flatly: If there are no independent/reliable/verifiable sources which support the text that you are trying to add, then please don't add it. Guliolopez (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I thought the word you were upset about was "authority" to represent Irish clans at the UN. If you're also upset about the second part which I didn't realise was contentious to you, then fine we can remove it as agreed. But my other points are obviously important to portray the facts correctly. There is no need to escalate unless we can't reach consensus. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I didn't put "office" on the page I've put it the way they said it which is president of ireland in the lead, and Higgins in the body Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::This is certainly not funny anymore you've reverted my changes again! To a page that is factually incorrect. My edits are nothing to do with advertising. If we can't reach consensus then yes I agree we need to now escalate. I suggest you please kindly review my edits and I can review. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{deindent}}. To help gain some consensus, it'd help me to understand a few things:

1. "authority". Given that no independent sources describe the subject as an "authority" or as having "authority", why the insistence on including this term? According to its [https://www.charitiesregulator.ie/en/information-for-the-public/search-the-register-of-charities/sonra%C3%AD-carthanachta/?srchstr=20032111®id=20032111 charities registration] it is a "company limited by guarantee". And charity. Where are the independent sources which describe it as an authority? (Note that other clan associations, which are presumably associated with the org and some of which seem to host/republish its website policy, are clearly not independent sources.) (Also, for clarity, I already stated that the issue with the "authority to represent Irish Clans at the UN" wording was not simply the word "authority". WP:ABOUTSELF is also an issue. The exceptional claim (about having representation at/with the United Nations) cannot rely only/entirely on a source published by the org. As it involves a third party. The UN. Among other issues.)
2. "office". Given that none of the sources (independent or otherwise) use the term "office of the President of Ireland", why the insistence on seeking to imply that it is the office (and not its current holder) who is (current) patron? (FYI, as already noted, WP:ABOUTSELF would also apply to a claim or implication that it is the office (and not its current holder) who acts as the charity's patron.)
3. "primary sources". Having read WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NOTMIRROR, why do you think it is appropriate for the article to be made up effectively entirely of text (copy/pasted verbatim or just barely rephrased) taken from primary sources? (The org's website or the website of orgs with which it has an association.) What exempts this article or subject org from these norms?

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:# I feel very strongly that it needs to represent correctly and factually. I know I've used primary and secondary sources such as the clan web sites which you feel is not enough credibility. A quick search online there is [https://www.tcd.ie/history/assets/pdf/Chiefs_Clans.pdf Trinity College Dublin][https://www.tcd.ie/history/assets/pdf/Chiefs_Clans.pdf] [https://www.tcd.ie/history/irishclansandchiefsprize.php] that refers to them as: Clans of Ireland is an independent permanent authority established in 1989 to: - Authenticate and register Irish Clans and historical families - promote the interests of Irish Clans and historical families - provide authentic and scholarly information related to Irish Clans and historical families. The Patron of Clans of Ireland is the President of Ireland. Clans of Ireland is regularly consulted by government agencies, embassies, historical and cultural groups, the media and members of the general public. [https://dublin.anglican.org/news/2023/05/08/links-between-christ-church-cathedral Christ Church Cathedral] Clans of Ireland – Finte na hÉireann – is an independent permanent authority established in 1989 to register Irish clans and historical families. There are others but this is obviously how they are described with oversight of the President of Ireland.

:# To clarify I have not put "office" in the article, in the same vain as examples quoted above I put President of Ireland (not office) in lead and left Higgins in the body.

:# May I ask why there is push back to describe the organisation the correct way, "independent permanent authority".

:Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Hello! So, I can only endorse pretty much all the points made by our very experienced and policy-aware colleague, Guliolopez. I am assuming good faith, Kellycrak88, and I have seen useful edits elsewhere, but in turn I must ask that you do take the time to listen, and to read the policies. What is needed to elaborate this matter is input from authoritative third-party sources, and I suggest that on this, you may not find it - I have tried, and failed, and I have access to several archives. The fact is that the organisation makes some strong claims about its role, but these are not supported in the wider world of knowledge. And while I am not putting in my opinion to the article text, I can tell you with some authority from my own education and legal knowledge that this body is not an "authority" in either major relevant meaning of that word, and appears to have no formal authority over any of the topics noted, nor any statutory relationship with the governing authorities of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland or the UK, and no, there is no formal promise of a role for the Office of President, each President of Ireland decides for themselves which bodies to patronise (and they do not get generally get materially involved in such bodies, never mind appointing deputies).

:: This voluntary organisation wishes to "revive" the concept of the old clans - but we must understand that this is a private initiative, with no mandate from State or general population - the clans "died" as legal structures long ago (and if they had survived, its not even clear which corpus of law would apply - Brehon Law, as their original basis, or Lordship of Ireland / Kingdom of Ireland Law, or UK Law, or the legal system of the modern entities), same as with Gaelic titles (the situation is clearer re. peerages). Does anyone seriously suggest that people with names like O'Brien, Murphy, Doyle, etc., are in any way subject to the rules of this charity? So it can claim whatever it wishes, but such things remain claims (cf WP:ABOUTSELF).

:: I suggest we settle non-contentious wording, seek citations (even the current text is not fully covered) and move on... SeoR (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I appreciate your perspective @SeoR, thanks for your detailed reply. I hear your concerns and agree we need to stick to verifiable, third-party sources per WP policy. Let me address some points and a way forward.

:::As you're no doubt aware, up until the 1999 the Chief Herald of Ireland officially recognised clan chiefs in the name of the Government (courtesy recognition), approved by Mary Robinson President of Ireland (photo with the Gaelic chiefs[http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/arasmeeting91small.jpg] but the scandal that followed, the MacCarthy Mor Hoax "bogus chiefs" made the Attorney General advise the Chief Herald of Ireland that its recognition of clan chiefs lacked legal basis and was unconstitutional.

:::Since then, Clans of Ireland has emerged as the representative body for authenticating and regulating Irish clans. It's on Trinity College Dublin's website, describing Clans of Ireland in press release as an “independent permanent authority” which quite clearly defines them as independent i.e. not governmental controlled. Per WP:RS, this source is robust and supports using the phrase in the article, if you really want can be with attribution (e.g., “Trinity College Dublin describes Clans of Ireland as an independent permanent authority for Irish clans”). This counters the concern about unsupported claims and aligns with WP:V.

:::In Scotland, the Chief Herald (Lord Lyon) regulates clans, with the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs as the equivalent body. The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs agreeing to recognise each other's authority over clans is a private arrangement, (it's nothing to do with government etc) this is factually what their agreement said, I don't see how the the word authority within context of both cases is contentious. To reach a compromise what about something along the lines of: “Clans of Ireland and the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs mutually recognise each other’s authority over Irish and Scottish clans, respectively, under a private agreement."

:::"The authority to represent Irish clans at the UN" - I agree the citations for this is weak, hence agreed to remove.

:::Therefore, I suggest to resolve this and ensure non-contentious wording:

:::# Describe Clans of Ireland as an “independent permanent authority,” attributed to Trinity College Dublin’s press release.

:::# Notte the private agreement with the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, emphasising mutual recognition of authority over clans, not governmental endorsement.

:::This keeps the article verifiable, neutral, and policy-compliant per WP:NPOV and WP:V. Sound fair? Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: Thanks, Kellycrak88, and I am happy to discuss further. I am well aware of the history - and it is notable that even the limited recognition (mere courtesy, specifically without any formal weight) given to the idea of clan chiefs was deemed unconstitutional. I do not find a thread from there to any legal role for this private limited company with charitable status. I could register a similar body today, with similar stated objectives - and it would mean nothing. I agree that they are independent, but I see no grounds for "authority" and no meaning in "permanent" (they are as permanent, or not, as any other limited company). You make a major claim that TCD references this point - but what we actually have is something like an extract from their Memorandum, and the terms of an essay competition. This is merely the body in question writing, not Trinity. When we talk about a scholarly citation, we mean a paper or research summary, when we talk about a university citation, we would mean TCD / UD stating something in their own words. The agreement with the Scottish body is a private agreement, and merely claims something. And they can recognise each other as having some role, and/or having a resource of knowledge, but this does not come close to making Clans of Ireland an authority in the governing sense, or having any regulatory function. It's not even clear that they want this - the referenced document mentions "anyone may join an Irish clan" which rather questions the basis of the whole concept.

:::: More broadly, this whole initiative is meant well but weakly based - if you look up this page, you'll see reminders that scholars do not even necessarily agree that Ireland had a true "clan" system (rather there was a structure of broadly-defined kin-groups), and some pretty harsh claims about the point of all this.

:::: So, the material quoted on the TCD website (one of hundreds of thousands of items) is not an official statement of the university. Which leaves us with the body's actual nature - an Irish-registered limited company with charitable status, independent, but not an authority (neither academic nor with formal control over something).

:::: Re. the agreement with the Scottish body, I still see no basis for "authority over clans" and in fact Clans of Ireland does not even claim this itself, only claiming the power to include a body in its Register of Clans, and to potentially delist a body from that list. Which has no more meaning than any other NGO or company adding / deleting someone to / from a mailing list, for example. The body in question is not a recognised trade association, has no statutory role, advisory or authoritative, etc. The agreement can say whatever it says, but this does not make it a fact.

:::: To claim more than this would require at least one, but preferably more than one, citation from a fully-independent, editorially-/academically-governed source. SeoR (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks @SeoR. While I appreciate your perspective, we’re not in consensus, and I’d like to clarify a few points to move this forward.

:::::On the phrase “independent permanent authority,” you note that Clans of Ireland uses this self-description, but two reputable third-party sources also describe them this way. Trinity College Dublin has published on their website a document explicitly calling them an “independent permanent authority". This isn’t just Clans of Ireland’s memorandum—it’s a published statement prepared by TCD on their official site, which qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS. Similarly, Christ Church Cathedral has described Clans of Ireland as an “independent permanent authority” in its news article. With two independent, editorially credible institutions using this phrase, it’s not reasonable to dismiss it outright. Per WP:V, we can include this description with proper attribution (e.g., “Trinity College Dublin and Christ Church Cathedral describe Clans of Ireland as an independent permanent authority for Irish clans”).

:::::Regarding the agreement with the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, you’ve misrepresented it as recognising “each other’s roles.” Their agreement was “each other’s authority over their respective clans” this is crucial to their agreement and its private agreement, misrepresenting is wrong and not factual. We can reflect this accurately in the article, e.g., “Clans of Ireland and the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs mutually recognise each other’s authority over Irish and Scottish clans, respectively, under a private agreement.”

:::::You mention that “anyone may join an Irish clan” undermines Clans of Ireland’s role but this is how clans work. This is similar to Scotland, where anyone can join a clan, but establishing or reinstating a clan with a chief requires rigorous process. In Scotland, the Lord Lyon acting as monarch is the sole arbitrator, who then issues a coat of arms with letters patent recognising the new chief (important as in Scotland this is ennoblement the chief joins the nobility, this is the the reason why in Ireland the Attorney Journal proclaimed it's unlawful/unconstitutional for our chief herald "the government" to recognise chiefs i.e. their nobility), while the equivalent membership body their Standing Council requires the chief to have supporters in their coat of arms.

:::::In the absence of our own Chief Herald of Ireland, Clans of Ireland takes on both theses roles and their committee requires evidence to recognise a clan, including proof of a clan’s existence before 1691 the end of the Gaelic Order, they reviews claims (e.g., links to medieval chiefdoms) using tools like DNA genealogy for royal lineage, historical documents and physical place name evidence etc. Also once a clan is approved they attend their events (clan rallies) and regulate all their material (all literature has to be sent to them before publishing) to ensure it's accurate and non-political etc. This due process supports their role in authenticating clans, even if it’s not legally binding.

:::::Furthermore your recent edit implies they're a private company which means profit-making agenda to most readers. All of the people working at Clans of Ireland are volunteers, their committee are volunteers, the clans pay 75 euro a year to stay on the register which barely covers their website hosting and admin costs etc.

:::::On the existence of Irish clans, your claim that scholars question their existence oversimplifies the issue. While some debate the precise nature of Irish kin-groups versus a “clan” system, extensive evidence supports the historical reality of Irish chiefdoms. Studies by anthropologists and archaeologists, such as excavations in The Burren, backed by Irish Annals, confirm chiefdoms led by Rí (kings), not mere lords, ruling small territories as monarchs. Ireland’s 30,000 castles reflect this decentralized monarchical structure. In contrast, Scotland’s clan system was partly romanticised in the Victorian era with clan lineages and highland kilts becoming fashionable, but no serious scholar denies the existence of Irish chiefdoms. We can address this in the article with citations to peer-reviewed studies, ensuring WP:NPOV.

:::::To progress, I propose:

:::::1. Including “independent permanent authority” with attribution to Trinity College Dublin and Christ Church Cathedral.

:::::2. Accurately describing it as a private agreement with the Standing Council "each other's authority" removing "each other's roles" which was not the agreement and is not factual.

:::::3. Clarifying Clans of Ireland’s clan authentication process to reflect its rigor, without implying legal authority.

:::::4. Adding citations from scholarly sources on Irish chiefdoms to counter the clan existence debate.

:::::5. Removing uncited claims, as we've agreed having authority to represent Irish clans at the UN.

:::::This aligns with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Can we agree on this framework, or do you have alternative suggestions? Kellycrak88 (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hi. I will keep this simple. As too many words have already been applied to this. In short:

::::::* "{{tq|Including “independent permanent authority” with attribution to Trinity College Dublin and Christ Church Cathedral}}". I do not support this change. Nor, seemingly, does @SeoR. For the reasons already noted. Not least that the TCD webpage is not independent (as it relates to an essay prize sponsored by the subject org).

::::::* "{{tq|"private agreement with the Standing Council / [add] "authority" [and removing] "roles" }}. Again, I don't see consensus for this change. The current wording is "recognise each other's work with clans". This, to my mind, is a perfectly reasonable representation of the "private agreement". I do not agree with the suggestion that this wording is not a factual or accurate representation of the source.

::::::* "{{tq|Clarifying Clans of Ireland’s clan authentication process}}". What sources are you going to use for this WP:NOTHOW content? Yet more copy/paste from org's website? Or clan associations who have registered with the org? Yet more WP:NOTWEBHOST WP:NOTMIRROR content from non-independent sources? How is that an improvement?

::::::* "{{tq|Adding citations from scholarly sources on Irish chiefdoms to counter the clan existence debate}}". As before, unless the "scholarly sources" you are proposing to add actually mention the subject org, then any such content would be WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK content. (Multiple articles cover Irish clans and the MacCarthy Mór scandal and related topics. Replicating the same content here, and relying on SYNTH/OR to do so, is not in keeping with WP:SS or WP:CFORK guidelines).

::::::* "{{tq|Removing uncited claims}}". Great. Please do remove uncited text.

::::::Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree with your points 3-5 @Guliolopez are not needed but was happy to add to help with context.

:::::::However, points 1-2 remain in dispute and we do not have consensus. Independent authority, or one organisation recognising another organisation's authority, does not mean government or legal authority.

:::::::I will however propose a compromise.

:::::::I see recent unnecessary edits to the page "from 2024" has been put back again a random year without explanation. The Scottish Council MOU mutual recognition of authority is a major credibility headnote for the organisation, not a footnote later down the page.

:::::::So I've just edited the page but removed the contentious word, for your consideration, if it's reverted back then we're in deadlock and we'll have to escalate for other opinions.

:::::::You can't get more factually accurate backed by sources that the current edit. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hi. I have removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clans_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=1289721504 the proposed "authority" text]. As:

::::::::* There is no consensus for its inclusion. (And apparent consensus against).

::::::::* It relies (again) on primary/non-independent sources (the subject org's website and two press/news releases associated with them)

::::::::* It requires extensive OR and editorial to "qualify" the statement. And,

::::::::* The use of an inline link in that editorial (to the org's website) is not consistent with the policy on inline links.

::::::::If we have to rely on all this (frankly) "carry on" to include this term, then frankly, I don't see why we would. (We already have a major issue with this article. In that it is almost entirely based on non-independent sources. So continuing to double-down on this is not an improvement. I refer you again to the Coca-Cola or Trump Foundation or British Petroleum or Anglo-American Tobacco articles. Just because the website of these orgs describes them using specific terms, does not mean that we must or should mirror them.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Ok no more edits from me - I'm happy to agree to the current version edit you made and willing to put a line in the sand from here. One organisation recognising in private agreement another organisation's authority shouldn't be contentious, especially considering the unique legal situation of the Irish republican constitution, the article clearly states it's non-governmental. Regarding the Talk comment you made, the photo later down the page of Minister Leo Varadkar presenting the Order of Clans of Ireland to Dr. Nollaig Ó Muraíle RIA at the Mansion House, Dublin I believe is evidence, but I'm happy to leave it as failed verification and move on from here. Clans of Ireland should do more work on their PR so other sources can pick up on their activities, would make our wikipedia lives a lot easier! Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::OK. RE:

::::::::::* "willing to put a line in the sand from here". OK. Great. Because, frankly, this was getting tedious.

::::::::::* "photo later down the page of Minister Leo Varadkar presenting the Order of Clans of Ireland [..] is evidence". Evidence of what? It is evidence that Varadkar presented an award. Nothing more. Leaving aside the fact that Vardakar never held a Minister of State role (and the author of that clan website's clear error in conflating a Minister of the Government role with a Minister of State role), that photo does not evidence that Vardakar was acting as a representative of the patron. For all we know he was representing himself, or his own office, or the government or any number of other possibilities. It does not evidence that he was representing the office of the president, or Higgins as the subject org's patron, or however else you feel it should be interpreted. Read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH again. Please.

::::::::::Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::: Good to move on, and good we kept this a civilised debate. Kellycrak88, I'd like to acknowledge your answering of my points, and to clarify my position on a few. i) I do not dispute that the body does rigorous and useful work - but some of the good things you mention would need some coverage, at least, in truly independent sources, and there is a disappointing lack of such coverage. ii) On the Scottish clans matter, my point is simply that there is no "authority over clans" to recognise - so in effect, what is recognised is simply work (Clans of Ireland did not gain any formal authority, and has the same standing in Irish affairs as any charity, company, etc.). iii) Many charities / NGOs are registered companies, there is perfectly normal and has no negative connotation. iv) on TCD and CC, I do not accept that the documents presented are the formal output of either body (and we're not investigators, but I believe a call would confirm this) but merely hosted content from a third party. v) This is not the place to debate the clan vs kin-group issue in detail - and I am familiar with rithe tuaithe, the layers of Gaelic governance, etc. - but it is a live scholarly area of difference of opinion, and that is something about which Wikipedians must be aware, as we must also keep in mind some controversy about claimed revivals of clans, chieftainships, etc. (you refer to "Chiefs of the Name" but then you may be aware that most current claims are based on simple descent in the male line, an idea alien to Gaelic law, and so not accepted by all as valid or meaningful).

::::::::::: The important thing is that we are now at a better-studied and referenced version of the article, with some consensus. Thanks, SeoR (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Hi @SeoR, thank you for keeping this discussion civil and constructive. I appreciate your clarifications, but I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on some points. I’d like to briefly respond before closing this. On tanistry and Gaelic succession, I disagree that descent in the male line was alien to Gaelic law. Tanistry typically selected the most capable candidate from within the royal kin-group—often a son, cousin, or other blood relative of the chiefdom’s royal lineage. While not strictly primogeniture, succession frequently followed the eldest son or close male kin, ensuring continuity within the ruling family. The idea that “anyone in the clan” could become king doesn’t align with historical practice. Additionally, Ireland’s influence on Scotland and Wales during the early medieval period helped shape shared Celtic traditions, including aristocratic titles that could pass to a nominated heir within the lineage. These practices underpin many modern clan chief claims, though I acknowledge scholarly debates on their contemporary validity On the Clans of Ireland–Standing Council agreement, I maintain that recognising “authority over clans” reflects their private arrangement, though not a legal mandate. Most importantly, we’ve reached a better-referenced article with broader consensus, which is the goal. Thanks for your engagement and rigor—it’s improved the page. I’m happy to consider this discussion closed unless new sources or issues arise. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)