Talk:Clan Crawford

I suppose I should be grateful that someone finally started this topic (again). I started this topic a few years ago and it was promptly deleted. I refused to participate in Wiki battles, so I didn't bother to return. I'll find my unofficial clan crest image and upload it, not that it means much without a chief, but it does give a sense of indentification and equal footing with other clans. BTW, this article is going to need a lot of work to bring it closer to real history. Chief 13:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article was previously deleted because of a copyright violation. If you upload a badge make sure the image is not under copyright, and is licensed as a "free" image.--Celtus (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If I had time to upload a badge it would have been my own artwork since I created it about 1998 in a much larger version from public domain heraldic clip art. However, since my work is professionally done it could not be distinguished from commercial artwork. BTW, the tartan example in the article is incorrect. The single white pinstripe is actually a double white pinstripe. A scan of the original Vestiarium design is maintained by the Clan Crawford Association and it has the double pinstripe just like the commercial tartan available today. Chief 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry "Chief", the crest image which you uploaded was a clear copyright violation. I think you are mistaken about the tartan too. The Crawford tartan (Image:Crawford tartan (Vestiarium Scoticum - plate).png) is the tartan which appears illustrated in the Vestiarium. The "double white pinstripe" tartan which i think you are referring to (Image:Crawford tartan (Vestiarium Scoticum - text).png) is not illustrated in the Vestiarium. It is actually derived from the text of the Vestiarium. If the Clan Crawford Association actually has a "scan of the original Vestiarium design" it can't be the "double white pinstripe" tartan you are thinking of.--Celtus (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, and just to make things as clear as possible. There are two Crawford tartans derived from the Vestiarium: the tartan which is the standard tartan today is derived from the text, the other is from the illustration. The (standard) tartan derived from the text calls for crimson, but the illustration shows scarlet. There are more than a few cases in the Vestiarium where the illustrations don't match up with their descriptions. But now, the part i'm not so sure about is the white stripes. I think i better try and double-check the thread counts and see if i've made a mistake with the white on Image:Crawford tartan (Vestiarium Scoticum - plate).png. Until now i didn't realise the crimson tartan was the current standard, so it should go in the article before the scarlet one. Especially if the scarlet one might have an error in it.--Celtus (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can see that you changed the single white pin stripe to double white pin stripes. That is one back paddle. Now I really don't think you mean scarlet or crimson on the tartan as it is obviously neither pursuant to both your interpretation or the actual plaid of which I have yards and yards. Neither the ancient or the modern have scarlet or crimson. Regardless of the Vestiarium description, the best description of the modern is burgundy, not scarlet or crimson. The ancient is entirely different from burgundy and I couldn't describe that class of red tint at the moment. In addition, the dance tartan doesn't resemble any of that, but of course, the dance tartan wasn't in the Vestiarium. And yes, the Association web site has the original Vetsiarium scan in the Members Area. I know, I did it, and the world's leading experts on the Crawford tartan are involved in the Association web site. Now, I assume that you know who the copyright holder is of my artwork. Please provide that information as I now want to pursue copyright infringement in the courts. I will be standing by for your reply here. Chief 5:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr fission (talk • contribs)

Well what i wrote on the colours is not an interpretation on my part. Wikipedia isn't really the place to push your personal interpretations. We are only supposed to cite reliable, third-party, published sources. Not our opinions. Maybe the world's leading experts on all things Crawford have access to Stewart, Donald C.; Thompson, J Charles; Scarlett, James. Scotland's Forged Tartans, An analytical study of the Vestiarium Scoticum, that's where the descriptions of the tartan come from.

Man, don't keep harping on the crest badge. Ever additional comment you make about it appears to be untrue, which could make it harder for other editors to assume good faith on your part. Your image was proven to be a copyright violation, that is why it was deleted. Not only that, in April you claimed the original was created it in 2002, then in May you claimed it was 1998. And now you are pretending to "pursue copyright infringement in the courts" for it? Just so its perfectly clear to anyone who reads this page here are a few possible sources for the image you are pretending to have created: Gaelic Themes website ("We have the exclusive rights to the artwork depicted in the latest clan encyclopaedia by Way and Squire and approved by the clan chiefs and the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs")image; the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs ("All text and images are © the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs and may not be reproduced without our express permission")image; and the following books by George Way of Plean and Romilly Squire: Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia and Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia and Clans & Tartans. Maybe you should just let it rest about the image, eh "Chief"?--Celtus (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fact: Articles are not deleted because of a copyright infringe in a graphic in order to protect the copyright of multiple contributors. Only the graphic MAY be deleted. Therefore, the article definitely was not deleted because of copyright infringement. Directly from the Vestiarium Scoticum, "Crawfourd: heth fovr stryppis greine vpon ane fyeld cram-masye, and vpon ye myddest of ye cramasye twa sprangis quhite." So there definitely is 2 white pin stripes as described in the Vestiarium. Fact: There is a graphic of the tartan in the Vestiarium. Fact: The tint of red can change as the ink oxidizes. Conclusion: Tints in the graphics are not reliable. I have no idea where Celtus is getting his information, but it certainly isn't the Vestiarium. Apparently Celtus is offering his opinion here without reference to original factual works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.118.15 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add the the Baronet of Kilbirnie is not as straight forward as one may think. The original baronetcy was created over 400 years ago for the Kilbirnie Cadet. In the 1700's the heiress married a Pollock and they adopted the name Crawford-Pollock. When the family refused to meet the terms of the Baronetcy by changing their name to Crawford simply because they wanted to inherit the Pollock estates with a similar inheritance clause, then a new Kilbirnie Baronetcy was created from descendants of the Auchenames line of the House of Crawford in 1781. This line came from the Previck and Thirdpart estates that separated from Auchenames about 600 years ago. The Baronetcy is currently held by Robert Crawford, 9th Baronet in this line. Chief 15:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Crawfordjohn

Is there room, conceptually, to flesh-out the link between Crawfordjohn and Baldwin of Biggar ? The Kelso charters record this on the POMS database, the town of John, stepson of Baldwin of Biggar - [1]. I know some of this through my research in to the Roberton family but didn't want to step on toes. Cheers, Comes.amanuensis (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)