Talk:Byrne

'During the late eighteenth century, Charles Byrne (or O'Brien) toured Europe as "The Irish Giant", advertising his height at eight feet four inches tall. (He was in fact about a foot shorter). His skeleton remained on exhibit for many years in the London Medical Museum.' This is a section of the article, does this refer to Byrne or O'Brien, they are completely different surnames that are unrelated. Frainc 01:04 28 June 2006.

Recent edits removing coat-of-arms image and motto info

With this edit an anonymous editor recently removed the COA image and a sentence containing the clan motto, with the edit summary "rm Bucket shop (heraldry) misinformation". I reverted and added a reference for the motto. Today the same IP repeated the removal, despite provision of a citation, with the edit summary "Edit was explained". I have now restored and added a reference for the COA with the following summary: "add commented-out citation for coat of arms (if uncommented its display conflicts with the template). Please do not remove without taking to Talk". If anyone knows how to add the reference for the image so that it displays properly, please make the necessary edit. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The citations you added were not to reliable sources. Regardless, there's is no such thing as a fmaily coat of arms in Irish heraldry. A place that sells such purported arms is known as a Bucket shop (heraldry). 89.100.207.51 (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The edits you made were to long-standing content, and without any attempt to garner consensus. Kindly provide WP:RS for your assertions above, or revert your own edit. As to your edit summary "Edit was explained. Do not call me a vandal just because I just know more about Irish heraldry than you do, dickhead. Family arms do not exist in Irish heraldry", you should be aware that it's not about what you or I know, but by what can be reliably supported. "rm Bucket shop (heraldry) misinformation" is not an explanation. And nobody called you anything, so kindly refrain from personal attacks. I don't need to repeat what has already been posted by several editors on your user talk page. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

How long standing the content was is entirely irrelevant. Reliable sources need to be provided for content. Not for the removal of content that is unsopported by RS's. rm Bucket shop (heraldry) misinformation is an explanation. here you called me a vandal. Vandal is a much more serious attack than dickhead, so if you're going to issue personal attacks you need to be prepared to get as good as you give. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now reinserted the content you have repeatedly removed without consensus, despite your edits being reverted by another editor too. I have also added a RS reference for both the arms image and the motto. Note the final warning posted to your talk page: "This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Byrne, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. It is entirely inappropriate to call another editor a "dickhead", as you did in an edit summary at Byrne. Don't do that again. Personal attacks of that degree are taken very seriously." --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As the reference referred to individual's arms, not to family's, I have removed the content again. You will not be able to find a reliable source for your assertion, as that is not how Irish heraldry works. Arms are granted to individuals, not to everyone who happens to have the same name. If I were granted a coat of arms, they would be born by me and my descendants. Not by my brothers and their descendants, regardless of our shared surname. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you are continuing to edit against wp:consensus. In the summary to your latest edit here you state, "Rm OR. Not in source given." which indicates that you do not understand the concept of wp:or in a WP context. The content you removed is indeed in the source given. If you contend that it should not be applied here, then please provide wp:rs to support your contention here, so that this can be discussed with a view to finding consensus. This is how Wikipedia operates, and if you wish to contribute you need to abide by the project guidelines. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not override broader policy such as WP:NOR. Please see WP:CONLIMITED. The content is not in the source given. The source refers to those arms specifically belonging to a man by the name of Fiagh Mac Hugh O'Byrne. Not to everyone named O'Byrne. In Irish heraldry, arms are granted to individuals, not to names.89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The source you provided is "Fairbairn's book of crests". "Crest (heraldry)" refers to the top part of a coat of arms. It is commonly misused to refer to the entire coat of arms. Any source that uses the term is obviously not an RS. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You are attempting to remove sourced content based on original research. On wikipedia we always defer to what reliable sources report on an issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• On a related note, the coat of arms is incorrect, the mermaid is not meant to be there at all. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am removing OR. None of it is meant to be there at all. There is no such thing as a family coat of arms in Irish heraldry. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus favors that the Byrne coat of arms not be included onto the article. As it currently wasn't on the article, no action was needed. Regards, — Moe ε 16:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Should the article contain the "byrne coat of arms"? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, as, per the chief herald of Ireland, there is no such thing as a family coat of arms in Irish heraldry. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Per The Chief Herald "There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as a ‘family coat of arms’." But: "A grant of arms made to an individual extends to his or her descendants of the name, not to a family as such." So yes, a section "Byrne coat of arms" is valid when it refers to the arms of people by the name of Byrne who inherited the name and thus the arms from one person who was once granted a right to bear arms. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all people named Byrne are descended from the person who was granted those arms. They can not be borne by someone simply because they are named byrne. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's much the same as with German coat of arms, nevertheless is it legit to refer to the arms as "Byrne coat of arms". Only there may be totally different versions for different Byrne families. So to distinguish this specific version we may just add a proper caption to the image like: "Coat of arms of O'Byrne of Wicklow". De728631 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes Per De728631. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all people named byrne are descended from the person to whom those arms were granted. There is no byrne family/ clan coat of arms. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A simple google search turns up loads of sources referring to it as a "family coat of arms", "family crest", etc. Here are the first few hits: [1], [2], [3], [4]. It's possible that some people call it something different, but there's nothing wrong with our use of the phrase when its common in the literature.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is, when it's obviously incorrect. The chief herald of Ireland is the ultimate authority on matters relating to Irish heraldry. He has stated that there are no family coats of arms, so there are not. None of those sources are "the literature". The first and third are Bucket shop (heraldry)s. The second is self published. The fourth copied their example image from wikipedia, so probably used us to source the rest of their material as well.89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Google results just display how massively ignorant most people are about heraldry. The fact is that Irish heraldry has never recognized such a thing as a "clan coat of arms"; and we should not perpetuate such nonsense. I won't even comment on anybody who can't tell the difference between a coat of arms and a crest, other than to state the obvious point that they should not be participating in this discussion - just as a person who can't tell the difference between a derringer and a demi-culverin should keep out of discussions of weaponry. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with you about the general quality of google hits for heraldic research. And for what's it worth, the shield for this alleged "clan coat of arms" seemed to have been modelled after the arms of William O'Byrne (See [5]) but the tincture was changed to argent. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I was only intending to show that the ips claim that this content is entirely unsourced was silly. It is silly because we have at least 4 sources in the article, and a large number that can be turned up with a basic search. The ones I listed were the first results, not the best. What of the quality sources present in the article, which Orangemike has now removed? For instance, The O'Byrne mill: digging for facts and fantasies, which says clearly that the "bearing is ascribed to the O'Byrne family", or "The general armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and wales: comprising a registry of armorial bearings from the earliest to the present time" which also lists it, or "The Irish Book of Arms: Genealogy and Heraldry from the Earliest Times to the 20th Century"? I'm happy to discuss this further, but everyone needs to stop edit warring. Editors are removing sourced content without discussion, repeatedly. That's a problem.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The O'Byrne Mill looks like something self-published (by C.C. O'Byrne). The Irish Book of Arms has however a lot of blazons for "Arms of Irish Septs" (see p. 131 for O'Byrne and p. 31 for the hint that "several completely unrelated families now use the name in Ireland and the USA"). I have no idea where they collected these blazons. The general armory has two different entries for "Byrne" [6] and four different arms of O'Byrne. The one that we're discussing is "O'Byrne (Glenmalure, co. Wicklow)" which is referred to as the arms of the chief of a sept – not the general arms of the sept itself. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, Jess: The chief herald of Ireland is the ultimate authority on heraldic matters in Ireland. And he says there is no such thing as a family coat of arms in Irish heraldry. Any source that says otherwise is by definition incorrect. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, 89.100, that's not what the chief herald of Ireland said. People here and at ANI have pointed that out. We can't throw out every other source based on your interpretation of one comment.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what he said. Read the source. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with 89. That is what the chief herald said. There is no possible alternate meaning of his words. The entire coat of arms/family crest mega-scam is a bald-faced lie perpetrated by slimy, cynical bucket shops and clung to by those desperate to glorify their ancestry. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

He said "A grant of arms made to an individual extends to his or her descendants of the name". The distinction he is drawing is that a coat of arms doesn't extend to the family outside of their name. That is irrelevant here, since we're talking only of people with the name Byrne. We have multiple sources which list this coat of arms and associate it with the Byrne name, calling it a coat of arms, crest, or similar. We have nothing which indicates this "image" is not associated with the Byrne name, and we have nothing but one narrow interpretation of one source to even indicate the word we're using to describe it might be inaccurate. I understand there may be strong feelings on this issue, but we have to follow the sources. Using a narrow interpretation of an FAQ page to invalidate a pile of other sources (indeed, any other source that could ever exist) simply doesn't cut it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, this image is one of several Byrne coats of arms and may be used as an example. It is however not THE Byrne coat of arms as it was claimed in the previous caption (Byrne clan). The General Armory confirms this and attributes it to the clan chief O'Byrne only. With a proper caption we could use the image to illustrate the article but we have to avoid the "clan" or "family" wording. De728631 (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"A grant of arms made to an individual extends to his or her descendants of the name". If my surname were Byrne, and I was granted a coat of arms, my descendants would be allowed to bear it. My brother's descendants would not, depite sharing a surname with my descendants. A name does not give you the right to bear arms. Descent from the person to whom they were granted does. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's one way we could interpret the word "descendents". He did not say "direct descendent", so we don't know. Perhaps he meant that, but it would be OR to conclude as much without a more direct source. His words are certainly not grounds to throw out every other source we could ever find, as you're proposing. We have sources which very explicitly back up this content. We can't remove it due to OR.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I misread you. Yes, his words indicate your brother would not be able to bear the arms. How does that in any way invalidate our numerous sources which indicate this is one grant of arms associated with the Byrne name?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

One grant of arms, which happens to have been granted at some point to one person whose surname was Byrne. That does not make it a "Byrne coat of arms" any more than one person being made, say, a baron would make every Byrne a baron. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

These arms: [7] are the female form of the arms granted to Kate Middleton's father, Michael Middleton. They were granted to a Middleton. Do you believe that they now count as a "Middleton family coat of arms" and may be born by anyone named Middleton? Do you think they belong in the article Middleton? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

All OR. This is an image which multiple sources indicate is associated with the Byrne name. It is perfectly acceptable to use as an image for this article. If you disagree with the sources, you need to find alternate sources which support your suggestion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all OR. It's an image which stems from unreliable sources. It is not acceptable to use as an image for this article. Alternate sources? Such as the chief herald of Ireland, for example? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology for input. It wouldn't hurt to get more participants in this discussion. De728631 (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea 89.100.207.51 (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as an editor from WP:HV, it is inappropriate to suggest that 'any Irish surname has a Coat of Arms. The legal principle is "one man, one arms", as explained by the Reliable Source, above. Achowat (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you however support showing one specific arms with an appropriate caption that explains even that, e.g.: This the personal coat of arms for Foo and his descendants bearing his surname. There is no common coat of arms for "Byrne" or other Irish surnames.<ref>Chief Herald</ref><ref>General Armory</ref>?

How are arms that belong to an individual who happens to be named Byrne relevant to to the article?89.100.207.51 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's an image which a large array of sources say is associated with the Byrne name, and there's no reason not to have an image in the article if we have one available.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It becomes relevant to the article when we describe the conflict of "name vs arms" in the caption. Wikipedia strives to be educational and here we have the opportunity to show that a specific coat of arms is not valid for all people called Byrne. The previous caption claimed this arms to be the clan arms of Byrne but we can now show the opposite using the same image. De728631 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Also brought here by the alert on WP:HV. I strongly oppose including the coat of arms. The misconception that there is (in the English, Scottish and Irish traditions) such a thing as a "family" coat of arms is one that should be firmly rejected. The compromise of including the arms with a factually accurate caption won't do either: images speak louder than words, and in an article on the Byrne name many readers will still come away with the impression that these are the "Byrne family arms". The myth of "family arms" is akin to a belief that Elvis Presley is still alive: sure, I can find dozens of websites out there saying that he is, but the authoritative sources agree that he's dead, and delusions, however widespread and popular, should not be perpetuated on Wikipedia. GrindtXX (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that is a valid point. I can see how such an image could be misleading even with a correct caption. So to draw a conclusion, as of now it seems there is no consensus for inclusion of any Byrne coat of arms. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about we research better and find at least two coats of arms to display so it will be clear to any reader that there isn't just one coat for every Bryne. And then better specify to whom the arms belong, such as the "Byrnes of Here" and the "Byrnes of There". Bellae artes (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I am not at all familiar with this family and haven't read the article yet, but f there is a clan chief with arms, that should be one of the arms displayed, with a caption explaining how those arms don't belong to every Byrne. Bellae artes (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There aren't arms belonging to the "Byrnes of Here" and the "Byrnes of There" either. Arms are granted to an individual. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

One argument made by Jess above is that "there's no reason not to have an image in the article if we have one available". OK, so why not illustrate the article with photos of (say) Gay Byrne and Gabriel Byrne as members of the extended Byrne family? That would be precisely the same as illustrating it with two randomly chosen Byrne coats of arms, and there'd be much less likelihood of readers walking away under the impression that they somehow represented all Byrnes. GrindtXX (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. And since we only seem to have a few freely licensed portraits of notable Byrnes available, there's no immediate risk of turning the page into a gallery. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would we do that, though? In what way does that improve the article? Is there any precedent for illustrating surname articles with pictures of people who happen to have that name? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason for doing that is given in WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature: Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. E.g. there are multiple illustrated lists of bands in a genre, and articles on "<Ethnicity> people" usually show a collection of portraits of notable people in the infobox. So I don't see any reason not to illustrate the list of notable persons in an article about a name. If we can't have a general image for the Byrne name as such we can easily depict several individual Byrnes. De728631 (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

But why? What does it illustrate? How does having images of people who happen to share a surname add anything to the article? Is there any precedent for it? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

People like to have visual aids they can connect to other information like individual names, adding images is an editorial practice to make a text more-accessible. As to precedences of illustrating name lists with protraits, it has been done before, see e.g. Yuan (surname) with an image of Yuan Shikai, List of people with surname Wood depicting Sir Henry Wood, List of people with surname Spencer (lots of images), List of people with surname Davis.

On a related issue, there apparently other articles on Irish surnames that display individual coats of arms, e.g. Lynch (surname) which shows the arms of one Lynch of Galway. The file description calls it a "self authored coat of arms" so I'm going to look that up in the armorial. De728631 (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Brought here by the RfC bot. I can't even see why there's a dissussion here: Common misconceptions do not make it into Wikipedia by virtue of being common. -- Cooper ⁴²_{(Talk)(Contr)} 15:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.