Talk:Highland Clearances

Early mix of topics

"legislation was introduced which was apparently designed to destroy the way of life of the Highlanders." The legislation may have been utterly insensitive, but this sentence is not history. Wetman 08:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I thought the Highland clearences brought settlers to Ulster but there is no reference to this in the article.GordyB 22:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I think most of the Scots "Planters" that were sent to Ulster were the urban poor from the Lowlands. The Crown would've been nervous about sending Highlanders over because they were much more likely to be Catholic. Ken Burch 02:18, 14 September 2006(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.5 (talk)
  • Feel free to put it in then, if you know something about it. : )
    TonyClarke 20:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    A note of caution, this sounds like the early 17th century policy expanded under King James VI & 1 of the Scots Presbyterian "Plantation of Ulster". While Highland regiments served in putting down the Irish rebellion of 1798, by the time of the clearances both Scots and Irish (including Ulstermen) were being forced by famine and potato blight etc. to emigrate to the colonies and the US: I've not heard of migration to Ulster then, but if you can find a source then add it in - dave souza 00:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

In trying to find some dates for 1st Countess Southerland, i came across Clearance Chronology which might help to counteract the lack of any thread of time in the article. --Jerzy~t 05:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Hey there, this section "it is probable that the Clearances should be considered as genocide, but from McLeod's accounts they would certainly appear to be an early instance of ethnic cleansing" should that be "... should notbe considered as genocide, but from McLeod's accounts ..." or "... should be considered as genocide, from McLeod's accounts ..." it reads a bit wierd and not sure which would be correct—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.113.154 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2006

Intro

I can't understand the intro section very well; it think it needs a rewrite. ike9898 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope that helps. ..dave souza, talk 10:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep! That is MUCH clearer. Thanks. ike9898 16:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is very clear that no number of people moved during the clearances is given and what proportion of the population that was? All that is said is "substantial". This information must be out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.221.254 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Verbal Clearances

I've edited this piece to remove some of the worst solecisms; but overall it still remains akward and badly worded. One sentence read

From 1725 clansmen had been emigrating to the Americas with clan gentry looking to re-establish their lifestyle, or as victims of raids on the Hebrides looking for cheap labour. (sic)

Make of that what you will!

I've also removed the nonsensical and unhistorical reference to genocide. This debate is emotive enough without this kind of terminology. The point here is that the cleared and the clearers were largely of the same blood and race, and some of the worst outrages were perpetrated by Scots against Scots. By the mid ninteenth century the chiefs of the western Highlands may have lost all sense of identity with their tenants and clansmen, but they were of the same ethnic and cultural background nontheless.

Aside from the akward prose and misplaced terminology the author-or authors-display a very poor understanding of the process at work in the Highland Clearances. All of the chief elements are there, but in a muddle-headed way. To clarify the issues there were two stages at work:

DISPLACEMENT. The clan system remained viable for several years after the collapse of the Jacobite Rebellion, despite the efforts of the government; but the 1760s saw the beginnings of a serious decline. What had been for many decades a self-contained economy was subject more and more to external pressures. From the 1760s onwards the Great Cheviot and the Linton, new and hardier breeds of sheep, began their steady advance into the Highlands, undermining a traditional farming economy based on black cattle. Lowland sheep farmers could afford to pay higher rents than the local people. Many of the richer inland pastures were let to sheep men, but the local people tended to be displaced rather than removed altogether. The old farming communities were based on a shared use of land known as runrig. By the early ninteenth century this was giving way to crofting, small landholdings usually located in less fertile coastal areas. Those who refused to accept this set out for the New Worlds-of their own volition, it has to be stressed, and not by the will of the landlord. For the chiefs this had become a serious concern, for if they cared little for clan they had a healthy interest in profit, which was to be found in the harvesting of kelp. This demanded labour and lots of it, hence of the introduction of the Passenger Vessel Act in 1803, intended to stop the Peoples Migration.

CLEARANCE. After the introduction of this Act the Highland population increased even faster than before, helped by the cultivation of the potatoe crop in ever more marginal lands. The collapse in the price of kelp after the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars and the later spread of the potatoe blight from Ireland created a crisis in the Highland economy. It was only from this point that wholesale clearance became the favoured option.

Rcpaterson 02:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"and some of the worst outrages were perpetrated by Scots against Scots. By the mid nineteenth century the chiefs of the western Highlands may have lost all sense of identity with their tenants and clansmen, but they were of the same ethnic and cultural background nonetheless." That sounds like a breathtaking oversimplification. To call a Gael and a Lowlander the same thing is pretty absurd and misleading- those were two distinct ethnicities, languages and cultures.

The argument of clansmen vs clansmen is further complicated by the fact that many of these chiefs had been educated away from their ancestral culture, had come to the title through marriage or had even bought the title. Their behaviour and attitudes were not compatible with traditional clan society. So, it's not really so simple to make the equation: surname + surname= clansman. To extend that position would to state that there was no race issue in the Holocaust because of the fact that Jews were involved in carrying out the oppression and murder.

The fact of the matter is that if the Clan chiefs had not been assimilated into or replaced by an Anglicised system, the Clearances would likely not have occurred. And if the resurgence of population was so great, why is the area still so thinly populated? Have you even been to the Highlands? The problems of Gaelic population loss are still ongoing- arguably because there isn't enough population to sustain local economies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.20.81 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent genealogical studies have shown that the Chiefs of Clan Donald were of the Viking race." and not Gaelic and their DNA signatures are R1a1a which is Viking. What happened was that the Highlanders were systematically raped by the Anglo Saxons who favored their own offspring. The Clan Chiefs were recognized by the English not by the clans as a whole. Recently DNA evidence has come to light which uncovers this grizzly past and unfortunately there has been an attempt to cover up this fact by censoring information relating to the genetic diversity of the Clans. The Vikings and the Picts are a completely different race and other genetic studies have indicated that systematic apartheid, and rape impacted greatly on the population causing the Anglo Saxons to increase in numbers disproportionately to the influx of immigrants. This study cites Woolf whose presentation relates to genocide and apartheid inflicted by the Anglo Saxons upon the indigenous Britains. Your claim that this is 'nonsensical and unhistorical' is completely ridiculous and not in keeping with the Wikipedia terms of use which encourages bold statements and freedom of speech. I suggest if you are not a Highlander you do not edit our pages as you obviously are not aware of our history. It is painfully obvious to any of us who have suffered personally as a result of the Highland clearances. Many of us lost all of our land, our culture, relatives and titles not to mention status. Our ancestors were persecuted and driven overseas where they lived in exile as foreigners. Persecution and censorship continue today as people like yourself are so keen to cover up the wrongdoings of the Anglo Saxon race and present a just world ideology in which everything is moderate and fair. Unfortunately this is not the case for those people who have lost their land and have been driven into poverty and exile. I find it offensive that you are censoring our speech as this is not the way for us to move forward.

Genocide?

Once again I have to take issue with the use of the word 'genocide'in relation to the Highland Clearances. The form of words some might feel it should be considered as genocide merely reintroduces this whole question through the back door, hidden in a cloak of pseudo-neutrality. As a matter of urgency we need to know who these mysterious 'some' are. I my view it would not be good enough simply to make reference to the opinions of those on the outer fringes of contemporary political debate.

On a more philosophical plain there is a wider issue to be considered concerning the use-and misuse-of language. If we start throwing around words like 'genocide' without a real understanding of what this entails, they loose all power and meaning. Not even the worst of the clearers set out to kill the Highlanders, or to obliterate them as a race. Either this should be removed in the very near future, or some credible reference supplied. Rcpaterson 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. The request for a citation has been up for a few days now without response, and the point can be discussed here if someone wants to bring it up again. As well as removing the unsourced allegation I've changed the heading to the more neutral Modern condemnation of the Clearances which states what the section's about rather than introducing one particular allegation...dave souza, talk 08:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is most insae for this being called Genocide, if it was genocide ot intended genocide they would not make flame haired man move country, but would actually take big gun and kill all falme haired man, easily done and this would be genocide, not just putting on ships for new place. YESYESandmanygoals 09:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Genocide" is too strong of a word. There were no actual genocide per say, and I'm not discounting or down-playing the enormous plight on the people who had to go through these ordeals. There were, in actuality, a few deaths as a direct cause of the clearances. What you had was greedy proprietors and a lack of legislation, at that time, to protect the tenants and the sub-tenants.--Aalzaid (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that "ethnic cleansing" despite being a modern word certainly applies retrospectively to the Clearances. Much of the dispossession of the Gaels were a direct result of Lowland & English culture driving out Gaelic Clan culture. One ethnicity picking on the other. To argue that "they were all Scots" is incredibly naive given that they were in effect two different ethnicities (cultures and languages).

Genocide is a tough one. I don't quite know how someone can say "few" deaths. The figure will likely remain inestimable and certainly way above any recorded deaths- plus more modern attitudes of accounting for population loss need also to be considered.

I think however there is much to be pondered in the semantics of 'genocide'. To my ear, genocide implies a concerted effort to wipe out a "race". Perhaps, I'm wrong about that? We could perhaps argue some racially-motivated murder, more racially-motivated manslaughter and most prolifically also racially-motivated criminal negligence. Race was an issue for sure, the question seems more about how much of one when weighed up against the unbridled dehuamanised greed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.157.11 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the ethnic cleansing and genocide were more a feature of the Pacification of the Highlands than the Highland clearances. Not many of the general public seem to even know about the Pacification? Does it have its own wiki page? Lianachan (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This passage seems to discount a retrospective labeling of an event simply on the basis that certain terms developed after the event. Certainly we now speak of the Armenian Genocide in the early 20th century, though this was not how it was described at the time. I don't really look at the Clearances in isolation from Culloden and other attempts to stamp out Gaelic language and culture. They are all part of one long process where one way of living and speaking is privileged over another. That ending of a tradition is in my mind a form of 'genocide' whether or not there are rivers of blood to show for it.

How do you account for the systematic rape of our women, the murder of our children and the hunting and killing of Jacobite supporters after the battle of Culloden? How could it possibly be seen as anything other than genocide? My family lost a child aged 5 (My great x3 uncle) and his mother not to mention all the people killed at the battle of Culloden. The lost of our language, culture, traditional costumes, land and status was enforced upon us violently. It was not a Pampers advertisement. People were stopped at roadblocks and killed if they were carrying bagpipes or spoke Gaelic. A no quarter order was sent out by the 'Butcher' and they were to be given no assistance or medical care but brutally murdered if they were found to be Jacobite supporters. Why do you think he got that nickname? Why do you think Bloody Mary got her name? Not because they were gentile and civil as you seem to think. Do you think we all look the same and are Anglo Saxons too? We are Celtic people and a different race to the clan Cheiftains and I am sick of people who are not related to the Highlanders affected from censoring our material. You are contributing to the attempted pacification of my people which is the same incidently to the clearances and it is not going to be forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moidart (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs checking for neutrality and accuracy

The anon who keeps adding a link to his website and/or blatantly biased statements may have a point. "The landowners were generally kind to those evicted" is as much of a sweeping, over-simplified and possibly untrue statement as are claims of ethnic cleansing, and in general this article is embarrassingly sparse for one of the most important episodes in Scottish history. I don't know if the {{POV-check}} and {{expert}} tags will achieve anything, but if nothing else they'll alert readers to take the article critically. --Blisco 19:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Too true, it is a terribly biased. and ps, to say you are unbiased and I am unbiased is a view, that you ha ve no right to claim what so ever, and it is simply wrong to say so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.131.96.31 (talk • contribs) .

No, its more than that. There are of course strongly differing views about the Highland Clearances, and the article should reflect that. But it is possible to represent different viewpoints without descending into highly biased language as your edits have done. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia and should always be written in a neutral tone even when presenting opposing points of view. Thanks, Gwernol 20:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Gaelic diaspora

I've just changed the bit about Highlanders arriving in Cape Breton "in such numbers that it is now one of the few areas outside Scotland where Scottish Gaelic is spoken." The estimate I found was for 25,000 immigrants over 75 years (including my own ancestors). Also, while Gaelic is still spoken on Cape Breton Island, there are only a few hundred native speakers, most of them quite elderly. I included a reference, though this may be more about Cape Breton than the current article needs. I couldn't yet figure out how to make sense out of the "Appalachian" sentence that follows; many people in that part of the U.S. acknowledge "Scotch-Irish" roots; many others don't have a clue. These things happen in a nation of immigrants. — OtherDave 20:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Modern condemnation

The reference to Ross Noble; is it the stand-up comic of that name we're talking about? And what did he actually say? And is 'coruscating' really the right word? ('Excoriating' would make sense, but there's no source or quote or anything) Swanny18 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What he wrote is linked: it's here. And not Ross the comedian, it is "Ross Noble, curator of the Highland Folk Museum at Kingussie" I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Awww. For just a few seconds there I was admiring just how many strings Ross Noble had in his bow! Not just a successful stand-up comedian, but also an expert in 18th century Scottish history ... --Plumbago 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This section just exemplifies the ideologically tainted taste of much of the article. The last paragraph is all supposition and makes no attempt at objectivity. Where is the evidence that the Scottish landlords were all London born and bred? Where are the references? How many were based in Edinburgh and how many on their estates in Scotland? This is a typical xenophobic attempt to "blame the English" even when "The English" were in fact mostly Scottish. "No REAL Scotsman would treat his fellow countrymen that badly" is the implication. Utter drivel: money was (and is) everything; landlords would not care if you were the lowest Scottish peasant or the highest English Lord: if they could make more money out of the land, you were out of there. By stooping to these kinds of Nationalistic bias the article as a whole is further devalued. I came to the page to get some information, not political ideology and revisionism.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.234.129 (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is the information presented titled "modern condemnation". Noble's opinion does not sound very condemning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MairiMac (talk • contribs) 10:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Many more sheep than people??

From the article - "To this day, the population in the Scottish Highlands is sparse and the culture is diluted, and there are many more sheep than people."

Although of course the population density of the Scottish Highlands is low in comparison to the rest of the UK and Europe, I am quite surprised that there would be many more sheep than people with the rapid increase in urbanisation of Inverness and surrounding areas. Does somebody have a source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.153.132 (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

The entirety of Scotland has more sheep than people. Current sheep population is around 7 million. See e.g. here: [1] -- 192.223.158.45 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Glens, trees - relationship to forestry & to pasture land

Travelling through the Highlands last year, I learned that less than 1% of the natural Scottish forests (glens) have continued to exist as such. There are obviously large stretches of commercially planted forests, mostly with non-native tree species. There is much land devoted to fields for agriculture, and even much more in the way of pasture areas for sheep and cattle.

How does all this land use relate to the Clearances? I'm pretty certain there would be a relationship, and not only having to do with the conversion of fields for use as sheep pastures.

What happened to the glens? Who got control of the forests? Who cut them, and who decided to use them as pasture or fields, or to replant them (but with particular fast-growing commercial species)?

I suspect these questions relate very much to the story this article attempts to tell. Joel Russ 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the forestry was cleared in the neolithic and bronze ages, well before the clearances. Lianachan (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Clearances

The clan system was of course a tribal one, with the chief being the focal point. As in all tribal systems, clans were self-contained and, erm, clannish. The clanfolk supported the chief, who collected and redistributed wealth as needed, and they followed him when called out in defence of their traditional lands. This is one of the standard cultural patterns, well-documented by, e.g., Marvin Harris.

This system of personal loyalties and family-feeling gradually decayed as England, a nation-state, moved in and took over between the 1707 Act of Union and the vicious repression that followed the failure of The '45.

Now there was no longer any need for a chief to maintain ties with the members of the clan, because England could supply elements of its standing army to (e.g.) drive any invading Campbells out of MacDonald lands. The men of Clan Donald as men of Clan Donald were surplus to the chief's military requirements. (This same dynamic played out in Massachusetts during Shays's Rebellion -- there was no standing army, so the ruling class had to come up with money from their own pockets to fee mercenaries to crush the rebellion. But after the Constitution was put in place, the ruling class could tax their victims to pay for the army victimising them, as they did during the Whisky Rebellion.)

In 1776, with this loosening of clan loyalties well underway, Adam Smith (a Scot) wrote bitterly in The Wealth of Nations that when kings, chiefs, and similar had felt ties of kinship and responsibility they had used wealth to support other people. But now they ignored those traditional relationships and used their wealth, increasingly obtained through commerce with foreigners rather than the traditional redistributive system, to buy "a pair of diamond buckles, perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless".

Chiefs were given sassenach titles, and the clan lands became, in sassenach law, their lands rather than the common wealth of the clan. Very few chiefs were able to resist that lure, and eventually came to see their role as one of regional landowner and ruler rather than the "representor" and war-leader of an extended family. From there it was hardly even a small step to seeing their 'tenants' as low-value nuisances to be evicted and replaced by more profitable sheep.

Genocide? No. "Ethnic cleansing"? Not technically, but a good argument could be made that that's what it was in essence, since by then the erstwhile chiefs' perception of class was so anglicised that their people seemed virtually a different species (rather like the situation in Tsarist Russia and in The Lebanon before the civil war, where the privileged spoke French better than they spoke Russian/Arabic, and regarded the common people as hardly better than non-human animals.).

Bean fidhleir 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to wikipedia, but it seems quite inaccurate to say that the majority of highlanders were Roman Catholic. Aside from the populations of the tiny islands of Barra and South Uist, and a few small areas on the mainland the majority of them would have been Presbyterians or Nonjurant Episcopalians. Even amongst the clans on the Jacobite side of the 1745 rebellion only the Chisholms, Gordons, Macneils from Barra and some MacDonalds from Glengarry and Glencoe are listed as Roman Cathloic according to John Prebble in Culloden. I'm not going to change that part of this article, but it would be good for someone to have a look at it since its not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smacl (talk • contribs) 12:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about the rest but Glencoe certainly paid lipservice to catholicism- though it is debatable how truly Christian many clans really were at those times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.157.11 (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism

There's a point made here about how religion might have had a role to play in the clearances. I've always wondered this, being from Nova Scotia, since almost all of the Scottish-descendant families that I've known are Catholic. Are there any figures to back this up? --vckeating (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the most obvious religious factor was that the protestant church ministers who were kept by the land "owners" were manipulating the Highlanders with lectures against uprising and resistance and for resettlement and emigration. They Highlanders got wise to this (far too late) and established the Free Church, which survives to this day. I am unclear what role the Catholic church may have played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.20.81 (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

comment: My family is descended from eastern Kentucky in the Appalachian Mountains, that area was very heavily settled by the Scottish, and there was no such thing as a Catholic in the Appalachian culture, they were all Protestant of some variety or Presbyterian. Historically, outside of Louisiana due to the French influence and maybe Florida due to the Spaniards, you'd hardly find any Catholics in the South. Catholicism at least in the U.S. was only Louisiana and wherever the Irish settled, but that only came later and they were only strong on the eastern seaboard. The section references the Cape Fear region of North Carolina being heavy with Scots and Presbyterians. While I can't confirm the Presbyterian aspect, I live in North Carolina and the Cape Fear region does have a higher than normal percentage of people with surnames beginning with Mc and Mac.

Highland Clearances !

The Highland Clearances seem to be very bad and to the Crofters they must have been hurt and worried about where they were going to live after they were forced out of thier houses by the factors ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.63.79 (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sort it out!

Just one glimpse of this shows some people have been fiddling with it. for example, did the Clearances all take place in the 18th century? Or start when WWI was over? This is a dog's dinner!--MacRusgail (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Second phase..." tags

I double-tagged a sentence that has several related problems.

1. A reference is needed for the sentence as a whole, hence the fact tag; such a reference will presumably enable someone to clean up the several forms of vagueness.
2. What constitutes a "huge percentage" varies with what's being compared:

   %50 fatalities is huge in an epidemic (but amazingly low in a plane crash);

   %50 male is ordinary in most circumstances, but amazingly high or low for adult victims of rape, depending on whether the population in question was in prison or not.

   Give us either the percentage or a range of estimated percentages.

   Make clear what body of events is being compared to this event and/or what is significant abt the number.

3. We can't even tell what they are a "huge" percentage of:
   1. the total British fatalities,
   2. the Highlanders in combat, or
   3. the pre-war Highland population.

--Jerzy•t 01:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Poor grammar

The bit about Ross Noble & 'coruscating'. Coruscating means flashing or sparkling. It should probably be 'excoriating'. Common mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.103.194 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

North Carolina

Cape Fear was settled well before the American Revolution; it seems quite dubious to attribute this to the clearances of 1792. Flora MacDonald (whom we call a Presbyterian, of South Uist) settled in 1774, and she was already well upriver, in what Americans call the Piedmont. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing a paragraph

The following paragraph is written like an essay or blog post, and is full of detail not substantiated by references. Its inclusion in the intro violates WP:LEAD, which is why I am about to remove it:

It has been claimed that the Clearances represent an act of genocide; however, these claims are regarded as debatable at best. By contemporary definitions the Clearances do not rise to the level of genocide. A phrase such as "cultural aggression," or even the somewhat more evocative phrase "ethnic cleansing," while still controversial, seems more appropriate, particularly in light of Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur, etc. Of the deaths that can be attributed wholly or in part to the Clearances, the vast majority occurred in transit to North America as a result of illness and unsanitary conditions aboard ship. Only two substantiated deaths occurred as a direct result of Clearance, namely Margaret Mackay and Donald MacBeath, who died of exposure after being turned out by Patrick Sellar. Nor was there a substantial involvement in the Clearances by a centralized governmental body or power bloc such as we see in other cases of genocide. Rather, individual landlords acted more or less on their own as the pressure of the industrial revolution stoked the fires of their greed. So if "genocide" is taken to mean the organized and extensive killing of members of one ethnic group by an organized external force, then Clearances do not rise to that level. (see The Highland Clearances by Eric Richards and The Trial of Patrick Sellar by Ian Grimble)

I copy it here to help editors interested in using it as a summary for details that do belong in the article. I have no background in the subject at hand, and the topic requires expertise that I do not possess. 67.101.7.184 (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

British Govt did not plan or organise clearances

The clearances had little or nothing to do with the policy of the British government. It was the action of former clan chiefs, landlords and their mainly lowland scots employees. To say different is wilful ignorance, and the link back to the aftermath of the 45 is tenuous. I have altered the intro paragraph accordingly. Anyone who seeks to prove British govt planning or involvement needs to give evidence for it (there is none). To include the material on the aftermath of the 45 as background is fair enough, but there is no causal link to the clearances (most of which took place around a hundred years later), other than in the changing cultural aspirations of the lairds, as others have said already.86.131.230.82 (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 86.131.230.82 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)86.131.230.82 (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

81.152.55.233 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Mythologising Scots History

General readers should be reminded that Scots history, like all history, is complex; yet Scots history is also particularly subject to 'myth-making' by Scotish Nationalists (and nationalists - lowest case) as well as by romantics in general. It is sometimes called 'Walter Scottishness' after the famous 19th century author, whose popular fiction was itself a spin-off from an earlier fashion known as 'Celtomania'. Queen Victoria was a keen promoter of this 'Disneyfication' of Scotland, its history and all things Scots. As with all history Scots history should always be checked carefully against as many sources as practical if the truth is to be established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.9.83 (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more. 86.131.231.87 (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Two deficiencies of the article

1. It's rather remarkable that an article about depopulation contains no population numbers. It should give readers quantitative information: what was the population of the Highlands prior to the Clearances, and what was the population at the end of the Clearances?
2. What was the environmental impact of the Clearances? I imagine that the human population put pressure on certain species of flora and fauna, and the Clearances allowed those species to make recoveries. 75.163.218.209 (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism: Reading

Recently I have been reviewing some edits made by 94.173.7.13 related to the significance of Roman Catholicism in the clearances. I have posted the following to his/her talk page but I am not sure how well that works for anon users. Also I would be interested in other views, so I thought I would duplicate my post to him here.

I am interested in your assertion regarding the significance of Roman Catholicism in the Highland clearances.

My ancestors were cleared during that period (to Australia) and I originally thought that there might have been some element of religious persecution involved. However, despite quite a lot of research I could not find any evidence for that, so I abandoned that theory.

I would be very interested in your sources, which I may have missed. The only reference in the text you have posted is Prebble who I did review, but I didn't find anything there. In fact he only mentions Catholicism in his book just 5 times, and then it is really just in passing.

I have Prebble on Kindle, so I am not sure of the page references that you quote, but I imagine it is the section talking about the Chisholm family and then a bit later, the departure of the ship Macdonald for Canada in 1785.

Certainly there were Catholics who were cleared, but also many Protestants. Do you have access to any numbers of Catholics vs Protestants evicted? I don't, but here in Australia almost all of the arrivals that I have come across claimed to be Protestant (in the shipping records) - and continued Protestant in their new adopted land.

Camerojo (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a 1996 reprint of Prebble's Culloden. I double-checked pages 49-51, and they have nothing to do with Roman Catholicism or the clearances. So there seems to be a problem. Anyway, the lead section is supposed to be a quick summary of the article, not a place to concentrate on particular points (WP:LEAD).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are looking at the wrong Prebble book - the IP editor refers to Prebble's book "The Highland Clearances". I think have found the pages that he refers to - here is a quote:

"Under the pressure of increased rents or unrenewed leases, Macdonell tacksmen began to take their sub-tenants to British North America soon after Culloden. Like the Chisholms, they were Catholics, and a stubborn adherence to their faith was a contributory cause of their exile."

Nevertheless, I don't believe this supports the broad assertion being made by the IP editor. Camerojo (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a fair point. Unless there is a explicit reference to religious persecution in a reliable source this should go. We are pretty unlikely to find one as there were far more Episcopalians in the Highlands than Catholics at this point.--SabreBD (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

We would need positive evidence to include this point about sectarian influences on the Clearances, and we would need consensus to include it in the lede. I have again removed, User:94.173.7.13 reinstated it, and I have just removed it for the second time. I suggest strongly that it should stay out until User:94.173.7.13 can establish on this page a consensus backed by reliable sources. I'm not arguing about whether it's true or not, it's just that verifiability is definitely required. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:94.173.7.13 has reverted again. I do need to point out that including unverified information anywhere, but especially in the lede, is not what we are supposed to do on Wikipedia. What do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The second source is also from John Prebble. That was not an addition I made. That is acceptable, yet the addition I made is not? If you wish, I will provide a link to a further Wikipedia article. I am not doing your reading for you.94.173.7.13 (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You all need to do some reading then. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've had a poke through Tom Devine's recent To The Ends Of The Earth. (Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Prebble's clearances book here to check those references.) In discussing the clearances, Devine's fairly explicit that some of the prominent proponents behind the major mid-c19th wave of clearance were motivated by what to modern eyes are unambiguously racist motives - there's a rather startling quote from Charles Trevelyan, who saw (in 1850) the depopulation to be welcomed for "the prospects of flights of Germans settling here in increasing numbers - an orderly, moral, frugal and industrious people, less foreign to us than the Irish or Scotch Celt...". Strong (and disturbing) stuff, but what's notable by its absence in these attacks is any mention of Catholicism as something that was being targeted per se.

If there is indeed debate among historians, I'd really like to see some post-1961 evidence of that debate. It also seems a bit of a red herring to bring in Jacobitism - by the 1820s, when emigration became a major factor in clearance, Jacobitism had basically ceased to exist as a political movement. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To build on this a little - there are certainly definite individual cases of unambiguous groups emigrating after religious persecution (see eg/ p. 111 of JSTOR 20852924, 1772) but I'm finding a lack of modern historians drawing an explicit connection between those and the large-scale clearances of the mid-century, which is what the current lead implies. If we can find something explicit in Prebble that would be helpful, but I think we probably need a bit more to build on if we're going to state there's debate and it's a significant position among historians. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done a fair bit of reading on the clearances. My ancestors ended up in Australia as the result of three separate clearances and I researched each of them quite extensively. One of the questions that I was seeking to resolve was why they were cleared. Escaping religious persecution was an early theory, but I found no evidence at all to support that theory. I summarised my researches at http://youbelong.info/public/Three_Clearances_and_a_Wedding. That web page focuses on my family (it was a gift to my father), but it may be of general interest to others for the source references. Camerojo (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would only like to point out that I made a further subsequent change because this has been taken to Dispute Resolution. The thread is "Highland Clearances". I will also add this http://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/feb/09/guardianobituaries to further prove that such debate was available publically, mentioning as it does the debate with a previous Historiographer Royal, Professor Gordon Donaldson. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This confirms that Prebble's books are contentious (which is certainly something I think we could all agree on), and that his interpretations of the clearances are something over which there is dispute. However, critically, it doesn't say anything about Catholicism. There's nothing in that article to indicate any significant debate over the role of sectarianism in the clearances. The same is true for the Noble article - yes, there is certainly debate, but it's not about this. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Professor Donaldson was attacking Prebble for suggesting the Clearances were anything but a economic improvement. Prebble's point is that it was social and cultural reasons, and directly relates the statements of very senior members of the establishment in Edinburgh calling for Protestant occupation of land previously held by Catholics. I will quote Noble too:

Cultural decline

The cultural changes in the landscape are easy to spot if you know where to look and what to look for. It is perhaps more difficult to identify today with the tremendous change in the political culture. Politics in the early 21st century seems to comprise events, issues and policies which are immediate and often short term. For many highlanders who experienced the Clearances, or the aftermath, the change was long-lasting, profound, and, one can argue, far-reaching

The people of the townships were conservative with a small 'c'. They lived a lifestyle which would have been recognisable in the 12th or 15th or 18th century. Even those involved in the tumultuous events of the Jacobite risings were, to a large extent, fighting to preserve a traditional version of national political power.

If Noble doesn't use the words Roman Catholic, he suggests it in everything he says. Would you disagree with that? The 'traditional version of national political power' was a Roman Catholic monarch. What other tradition can he be referring to? If he was referring to Stuart dynasty he would be talking about filial relationships, not relationships of 'tradition.'94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I already understand the point that others will try to make, that it was absolute monarchy they were wanting, and not anything to do with Roman Catholicism. However, the Highland clans were never under the patronage of absolute monarchy. In fact, they are famous for their 'anarchic' nature, although it's not really the case, merely that they were not strictly feudal either.94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Noble doesn't use the words Roman Catholic, nor does he imply what you infer. Neither he nor any of your other references actually support your edits, which appear to be based, in Wikipedia terms, on original research. I realize that you may not be familiar with Wikipedia's arcane terms and definitions, but this one is fundamental. Please, check the relevant policy and rethink. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I refer you to page 325-326 of the source above. That is Prebble. He states clearly one of the cultural and social reasons for clearing the highlands as given before the clearances actually did occur as given by senior members of the establishment in Edinburgh were anti-Catholic in nature, and that their acceptance of this is implicit and not explicit. I also suggest you drop your obstructive manner. That is indeed what Noble is suggesting. There is not any other interpretation of those words available.94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wouldn't agree with that interpretation. To me, Noble is talking about the traditional political structure - individuals as members of a clan, and the way that clan-based land ownership and power was a part of the country's power structure. The paragraph following the bit you quote makes that fairly clear. The reason contemporary historians aren't discussing Catholicism isn't because they're being coy, or suggestive, or failing to state the obvious - it's simply not what they're trying to discuss. Why wouldn't they bring it up directly if it was a fundamental issue, or a major ongoing debate?

Yes, Prebble, as quoted above, discusses a case where Catholicism was "contributory cause" of a group leaving. I don't think anyone would deny such situations existed. But that doesn't seem to match with what you're saying he says about the Clearances being motivated by systematic, high-level, anti-Catholicism. (I will try and find my copy of this book tonight - could you confirm which edition you're quoting page numbers from?) Andrew Gray (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Noble is talking about a national political structure. The Jacobites did not stop at the border. The nation he is referring to is Britain. It also CANNOT be referencing the clan structure because the clan structure was not national. The reason contemporary historians aren't discussing Catholicism is obvious to all of us.

I don't make any assertions of the Clearances being systematic, high-level, anti-Catholicism. Prebble quotes a high-level member of the establishment asking for systematic anti-Catholic action, precisely in the terms that were carried out subsequently by the landlords who did not need to commit their misdeeds to the contemporary first-hand record. The 2001 edition.94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Found it! (My edition is the 1969 small Penguin, 1982 reprint). Where does Prebble quote this, and who does he quote?

There are two index entries for Religion > Catholic; 137 has the "contributory cause" section quoted above, and 175 is a discussion of the last wave of emigration from Knoydart, where "They were Catholics, for the most parcot". However, it and the subsequent pages don't seem to draw an obvious link between that and the motive for eviction, which is presented as economic.

I simply can't agree with your thesis, which is that there was systematic anti-Catholicism not recorded at the time (despite anti-Catholicism being common and widely seen as acceptable in the nineteenth century) and not discussed by historians now, but secretly hinted at instead, for reasons that are clear to you and not to me. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The penultimate chapter: 'The Sharp Rock: "No man or boy shall put on the philebeg"' Andrew, I am not making a thesis. Prebble quotes it directly. The thesis is not his either. The thesis is from General Bland and the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland. I am merely emphasizing Prebble's discovery in the article that it was a factor that was potentially taken up by those who were in the same mileau. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any secret hinting. We don't talk about it. If you don't understand why we don't talk about it, then you don't understand social and cultural norms.94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"The Sharp Rock" is a chapter of Culloden, not of the Highland Clearances, which explains why I was having trouble finding it! I don't have a copy to hand, but helpfully Google does. I think it's worth emphasising the end of that paragraph - "...but it was not accepted, at least not in detail.". This is a proposal in the 1740s to forcibly transfer the Highlanders elsewhere. It did not happen; as discussed above, forced foreign emigration didn't really begin until 1820. Eighty years later, the Highlanders were moved elsewhere - but this does not mean that the motives or the justifications were the same as when it had been suggested generations earlier, in an entirely different political context. Concluding otherwise, especially given the complete silence from other historians on the issue, is a real stretch.

On your last point, I honestly don't believe there is a conspiracy of silence among professional historians on sectarian issues. Yes, contemporary anti-Catholicism (and indeed many other forms of prejudice), in certain contexts, is a delicate issue and it is often ignored or glossed over. But even that doesn't mean it's not discussed historically, and there are certainly no end of historians engaging with the complex history of Scottish sectarianism. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your emphasis is it was not accepted, my emphasis is at least not in detail. It is a startling piece of anti-Catholicism from high-level members of the then Edinburgh establishment. The substance of the proposal, and not the direct targeting of Catholics, was carried out immediately, and then drawn out over several centuries, I suggest you read more about the waves of immigration from the Highlands. And why? Because the clans had a tendency to change sides, and to send sons to fight for both sides so that they did not lose their inheritance. I am standing by everything I wrote. The points and quotations that Noble and Prebble debate upon, and others indirectly but implicitly, holds the vital importance of removing Roman Catholics from the Highlands because of the perception widely held that they were responsible for the Jacobite rebellion. These were the prime social and cultural underpinnings for any discussion of the dramatic change in The Highlands beyond economics. Absolute economic determinism is a fallacy in any context. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Right now, all we have to support your interpretation seems to be this passage - and it's not clear that anyone else but you supports this interpretation. (Indeed, if this was clear to Prebble, why didn't he mention it anywhere in his own book on the subject?) Let's grant that it's ambiguous and rephrase the question:

Please show me any modern historian, other than this ambiguous passage, who explicitly argues that there was a sectarian motive underpinning the Clearances and forced emigration, or that this was undertaken as the result of a specifically anti-Catholic government policy. Please show any articles that indicate this is an ongoing historiographic debate. We simply can't make these sort of assertions based on loosely-supported inferences from contested interpretations of sources. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The second source in the article, I quote Brian Wilson in the Guardian: This conflict spilled over into a splendid public spat in the early 1980s when the Historiographer Royal, the late Professor Gordon Donaldson of Edinburgh University, hit back at the renaissance of interest in Highland history which Prebble had done so much to generate. He described Prebble's work as "utter rubbish" and complained: "I am 68 now and until recently had hardly heard of the Highland Clearances. The thing has been blown out of proportion." That was indeed the Establishment view. The third source in the article, The Highland Clearances is still a very emotive subject to many people, in many parts of the world, today. It consistently provokes people to take sides and has led to deep, and sometimes acrimonious academic debate. And I refer you to the fact that Noble when talking about the cultural impact of the Highland clearances can ONLY be talking about Roman Catholics returning a Roman Catholic monarch to the throne. That point is beyond dispute. As he states elsewhere: The Clearances undoubtedly stemmed in part from the attempt by the British establishment to destroy, once and for all, the archaic, militaristic Clan System, which had facilitated the Jacobite risings of the early part of the 18th century. Two historians who actively state that anti-Catholicism was a factor. One directly with a quote from a member of the Edinburgh establishment. Both argue that they are factors, and that is ALL that I say in the article. Both highlight it to different degrees. Both suggest that it was at root vitally important to the establishment. Anything more necessary?94.173.7.13 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

These sources do not state anti-Catholicism. Wilson is talking about the ongoing debates about the Clearances and the way in which Prebble instigated the debate - but does not say anything about these debates touching on religion. Noble is talking about political power, and again does not mention religion. You're insisting on reading these interpretations in - you seem to be assuming that they're fundamentally about Catholicism and Jacobitism, and therefore any discussion of the Clearances is implicitly discussing those topics even when they're not mentioned by name. I simply can't agree, and I don't think anyone else in this discussion so far would agree either. I've flagged up this argument for some others to take a look, though, since I feel we're arguing past each other by this stage! Andrew Gray (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Noble states anti-Catholicism implicitly. I will quote again, the two sources, that you previously state are necessary, that back-up what I am saying. First, Noble: The Clearances undoubtedly stemmed in part from the attempt by the British establishment to destroy, once and for all, the archaic, militaristic Clan System, which had facilitated the Jacobite risings of the early part of the 18th century. ...[T]hose involved in the tumultuous events of the Jacobite risings were, to a large extent, fighting to preserve a traditional version of national political power. The tradition that he is talking about is a Roman Catholic monarch. It cannot be otherwise. The clan system was not national, it was in The Highlands. Second, Prebble, 'Bland and Fletcher also suggested that the Government should buy or sequestrate the lands of the chiefs, and send to the Barbadoes any who objected. Such lands should also be cleared of clansmen who grumbled, and the country settled with decent, law-abiding, God-fearing Protestants from the South. The Highlands should, in fact, be colonized. It was a proposal that created considerable interest, but it was not accepted, at least not in detail. My emphasis is on, 'at least not in detail', because the Clearances were at the instigation of the Edinburgh establishment, the same milieu as Bland and Fletcher, who did not need to pass government legislation that is explicitly anti-Catholic. AGAIN, I say it is a factor that both historians argue for in terms of proportionality: Noble uses the words 'to a large extent' when describing the clans as wishing to restore a Roman Catholic monarch; Prebble 'at least not in detail.' I am not arguing that the Highland Clearances were completely, and totally, anti-Catholic in nature. I am stating that there is debate about how much anti-Catholicism was a factor in the non-economic reasons for the vast cultural and social changes that were in effect in the Highlands, because economic determinism is a fallacy. As much as social and cultural determinism is a fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew's above post. It's clear to me that 94.173.7.13 is cherry picking an unfortunately flowery passage by Prebble and inappropriately drawing conclusions from two others. Unless someone comes up with some actual weighty sources for us to follow, the paragraph should be removed.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, read what it says, '...at least not in detail.' And then I give specific incidents of clearances where anti-Catholicism was a factor. These ARE weighty sources. These are not insignificant numbers of the population. They are members of clans. We are talking about hundreds, or thousands, of people.94.173.7.13 (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the clearances that I investigated in detail was particularly interesting to me for two reasons: firstly because my ancestors were cleared from this area but, secondly, it was one of the most high profile and best documented of all the clearances. One eye witness to the events was a journalist from the London Times. Here are the two articles he wrote that appeared in the London Times in 1845: http://youbelong.info/docs/LondonTimesArticle1OnCroickClearance.html and http://youbelong.info/docs/LondonTimesArticle2OnCroickClearance.html. They are quite well known so perhaps you have already read them. Clearly the journalist is very supportive of those being cleared off their land and very critical of the whole process of the clearances. Yet not once does he mention Catholics vs Protestants. It is inconceivable to me that a journalist, taking the trouble to write a major piece on the clearances, would completely ignore the issue of religious intolerance if that was one of the key contributing factors in this or other clearances of the time. Camerojo (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not arguing that Roman Catholicism was the only reason for the Clearances. Secondly, the Clearances need not be explicitly anti-Catholic to retain an anti-Catholic motivation. I am merely stating what is clear from the sources, that there is debate about how much anti-Catholicism was a factor in the Clearances. Both authors, however, acknowledge it's importance. Whilst a third, dismisses social and cultural reasons completely. That is a broad and diverse group of academic writing on the subject highlighting to different degrees anti-Catholicism.94.173.7.13 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought that I might find a reference to sectarianism in Alexander Mackenzie's 'The history of the Highland clearances; containing a reprint of Donald Macleod's Gloomy memoiries of the Highlands; Isle of Skye in 1882; and a verbatim report of the trial of the Braes crofters"', but no. Presumably because he did not think it a factor. Those that think that this is a major issue need to show that a Catholic village/glen/extended family were willfully evicted by a Protestant landlord who can be shown to be sectarian in his motives. I can find no such references. Scotland today is rife with sectarianism; and so would it have been 200 years ago. It is possible that in some evictions sectarianism may have played a part, but that does not make it the root cause. Without evidence, this element of this already emotive article should be removed. Shipsview (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

See Andrew Gray's comment on this discussion page under this topic timestamp: 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC). Some evictions? In one specifically it does. In another source, a military General (by the name of Bland) and the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland (by the name of Fletcher) ask for Protestants to colonise the Highlands after clearing it of the native population. In yet another, an academic states that to a large extent the Clearances were implicitly anti-Catholic in nature. If someone would care to verify Andrew Gray's source, it brings my total to 4 sources from my original 3 to suggest that this is anything but emotional. It is set in the dispassionate academic record for all to see. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Bland talking about something does not mean that someone else followed his suggestion. You need to prove that a landlord carried out evictions on the basis of religion, and you are unable do that.Shipsview (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to prove anything of the sort. You seem to believe I am arguing that anti-Catholicism is the sole motivation behind the Clearances. I am not. I am stating what the sources say, where there is debate about how much anti-Catholicism was a factor in the Clearances. Some argue for a certain proportion, others argue purely for economics. I am not a professional academic. I am merely including academic sources in a Wikipedia article as per the guidelines.

And I say it again, if someone would care to verify the source Andrew Gray quotes above, I could add another source to the article to show along with the three other sources that at least one specific landlord did carry out an eviction on the basis of religion. Again, this would prove that it was a factor in the clearances. I am not arguing how much of a factor it is, merely that there is debate, and clear written academic sources that prove that it was a factor. I am asking for verification because respondents such as yourself repeatedly claim that my sources do not say the things that they in fact say.94.173.7.13 (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I will now include this in the article, as there was verification above in this discussion page by the user camerojo at timestamp 23:52, 4 February 2014, under the topic "Highland Clearances: Reading". That John Prebble in his work 'The Highland Clearances' states that: Under the pressure of increased rents or unrenewed leases, Macdonell tacksmen began to take their sub-tenants to British North America soon after Culloden. Like the Chisholms, they were Catholics, and a stubborn adherence to their faith was a contributory cause of their exile. Another academic source that states that anti-Catholicism was a factor in The Highland Clearances.94.173.7.13 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This indicates that it was a part of one case - indeed, it's not clear from Prebble whether the "contributory" involvement was a landlord shouting "get out, you papists", or whether it was a local saying "right, lads, we're not really welcome here", which are very different things. Anti-Catholicism has been sadly endemic in Scotland for centuries - as a nation, we're not great on religious tolerance - and it would be surprising if those underlying tensions did not surface in some of these conflicts. People settle all the vendettas they can, given the chance.

But occasional incidents are very different from systematic anti-Catholicism, and we can't say "aha, we've found one, therefore it was a major underlying issue". That's a clear case of over-interpreting scarce primary sources.

It also does not show there is a debate. For there to be a debate among historians, we need to be able to see historians actually discussing the issue. The sources are remarkably silent on this. Again, if it's a major issue, someone would have actually said so, explicitly and prominently, in the past fifty years. We just don't have that to work from. Even Prebble, who you're quoting, never concludes anywhere that sectarianism was a major issue - he mentions religion as a factor, in passing, a couple of times, and that's about it. Given he was writing an entire book on the issue, you'd think that if it was something he felt relevant, he'd have brought it up. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing that there was systematic anti-Catholicism. What I am stating is that their is first-hand primary material on the written record (Prebble, Culloden pp 325-6) by high-ranking members of the Edinburgh establishment of the time (the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland AND a General in the army)asking for systematic anti-Catholic actions that not only resemble in scope actions that were subsequently put in place in The Highlands, but they are identical to them. I emphasise the important point: the actions were identical, the motivation may not be. I repeat that: MAY not be i.e. potentially it is not. You are asking me to prove it beyond all doubt. I cannot, and for some reason you see that as closing the case. I do not need to prove it. The reason I cannot is that the written record need not exist for those actions to be anti-Catholic because the actions were by the landlords, who did not need to write primary source material in order to carry out their actions, only the government need do so. On the other hand, you cannot prove that those actions that are undoubtedly identical to what actually did occur, were NOT put in place with the same motivation as the high-ranking members of official government positions within Scotland were asking for. For some reason that suggests an impasse to you. I, on the other hand, in line with Wikipedia guidelines, am stating that because there ARE individual cases (more than one, or two) where Clearances were anti-Catholic, and because of the importance of the position of the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland and a General in the army, plus there being subsequent academic opinion that the Clearances were to a large extent in connection with the Jacobite rebellion (starting, as they did, immediately after the rebellion) with the important point being that the academic also makes implicit the connection with anti-Catholicism. All the while I am conceding that there are some academics who are merely stating the improbable position that the Clearances were simply, and absolutely, the result of economic determinism. That is not a position that is tenable, but I am including it anyway. This isn't new research. This isn't my own determination. It is clearly, and in some cases spectacularly, present in the sources I provide. That these things are spectacular are not my problem. Neither does it make it absolutely true that they did inform ALL of the clearances. AGAIN, there is debate (and debate need not be of diametrically opposing views, it can also be a question of proportionality), where some of these academics DO offer proportional positions. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be clearly present in the sources to you, but it's certainly not present to us, I'm afraid. As noted above, one of the historians you cite (Noble) never mentions religion, and the other (Prebble) wrote an entire book on the Clearances without any significant mention of sectarianism.

There are passing mentions of Catholicism in some sources, and there is evidence from primary figures that some prominent figures were anti-Catholic (which isn't much of a surprise, sadly), but there is no evidence that historians have concluded anti-Catholicism was a significant factor. We simply can't draw our own conclusions from primary sources to say it was, and we can't say that "there remains debate amongst historians" when we cannot find any historians meaningfully discussing the issue! As such, I've removed the material from the article, and I plan to disengage from this discussion - it's clearly not going anywhere productive for either of us. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is incredible that you cannot say it is present in the sources. Noble makes religion implicit by the construction of his words. Prebble makes not one, but many mentions. Passing references they may be, but they are still references, and they support the content of my addition, and the references themselves say it is a significant factor, they just apportion different levels of significance. Primary sources are in the secondary sources I quote, Prebble has a lengthy list of primary sources for example. It is a constant reference in all the sources. I will quote Prebble from both books AGAIN, Firstly: Bland and Fletcher also suggested that the Government should buy or sequestrate the lands of the chiefs, and send to the Barbadoes any who objected. Such lands should also be cleared of clansmen who grumbled, and the country settled with decent, law-abiding, God-fearing Protestants from the South. The Highlands should, in fact, be colonized. It was a proposal that created considerable interest, but it was not accepted, at least not in detail. (Culloden, 325-6) Prebble, importantly, uses the words, 'at least not in detail'. That is the first significant mentioning of sectarianism. The source does not need to primary because of the significance, and standing of the people writing the secondary source Secondly, Under the pressure of increased rents or unrenewed leases, Macdonell tacksmen began to take their sub-tenants to British North America soon after Culloden. Like the Chisholms, they were Catholics, and a stubborn adherence to their faith was a contributory cause of their exile. Importantly, that is two cases, not one, and it is again a significant mention of sectarianism. Thirdly, you yourself admit that p. 111 of JSTOR 20852924, 1772 is another case. Fourthly, Ross Noble Noble: The Clearances undoubtedly stemmed in part from the attempt by the British establishment to destroy, once and for all, the archaic, militaristic Clan System, which had facilitated the Jacobite risings of the early part of the 18th century. ...[T]hose involved in the tumultuous events of the Jacobite risings were, to a large extent, fighting to preserve a traditional version of national political power. Again, the tradition that he is talking about is a Roman Catholic monarch. It is the ONLY national tradition that the Jacobites were in favour of. There is NOT any other national tradition that you will read of in ANY source that binds the Jacobites. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please await the outcome of the dispute resolution, where the thread is "Highland Clearances". You yourself cannot undertake to involve yourself in that dispute resolution as a volunteer because you took it upon yourself to argue with me here. You are not following Wikipedia guidelines.94.173.7.13 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I had not realised there was a DR thread (though I note now you mentioned it above & I missed it, apologies). It seems to predate my comments here, but if it'll keep you happy, I'll leave some remarks there to formalise things. And that said, I'm stepping back again. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate we each take a different reading of the sources, but I do hope you will accept I am trying to be as fair as I can be with your reading of the sources. I simply do not accept that the sources say that economics was the only significant factor in the Clearances. Aligning that with the fact that a significant conclusion to the Clearances is a dramatic fall in the Catholic population in Scotland, I stand by the addition I made to the article.94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added a link to the Roman Catholicism in Scotland article which might be considered to give a balanced view on 'the near extinction of Roman Catholicism in Scotland'. Shipsview (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Continuing to follow up on the sources the IP editor (I wish you would share a name with us!) quotes to support his position, I don't have access to p. 111 of "Toiling in the Vale of Tears: Everyday life and Resistance in South Uist, Outer Hebrides, 1760-1860". International Journal of Historical Archaeology. June 1999. JSTOR 20852924. Would it be possible to quote the relevant section? I can, however, see the abstract of the article which reads:

Following the 1745 rebellion, agrarian capitalism rapidly transformed subsistence practices in the Outer Hebrides. Landowners increased rents, enclosed common lands, and replaced crofters and cattle with sheep-ranges. Population growth, the demise of the kelp industry, and crop failures compounded the problems of the peasantry. Widespread emigration commenced in the 1770s and peaked in the 1850s, when entire communities were exiled to British North America—the so-called Highland Clearances. This article traces the development of agrarian capitalism on the Isle of South Uist, explores the agricultural "improvements" undertaken by successive landlords, and considers modes of resistance adopted by the island's population.

I think that this abstract includes a nice summary of the key factors behind the Clearances. It is notable that, again, there is no mention of religion as a factor. Whatever individual incidents may be quoted in the article, I can only conclude that the author of this article himself does not consider religion to be a significant factor - certainly not significant enough to mention in his abstract.Camerojo (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not my problem that you can't see it. Repeatedly I am sourcing material for those who either are not reading the material in their possession, or refusing to pay for it. By their constant obstructive manner they are deleting material that has sources to back it up. The abstract does not list any factors that are not economic in nature. It is written from the perspective of economics. Nevertheless, it also goes on to list social and cultural reasons for The Clearances. That is the point where religion is a factor. That the abstract does intend to look at it from the perspective of economics doesn't preclude it listing social and cultural factors. My addition has made it clear that anti-Catholicism was not the only factor in The Highland Clearances. It states that it was a factor, and there is debate about how much it was a factor. Some argue that it was a factor to a greater degree than others. That is all my addition says. Nevertheless you still want me to prove that it was the only factor? I refer you to the comments written above, specifically the sections in bold font.94.173.7.13 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Another reader of this discussion, Therizinosaurian, supplied the "Toiling in the Vale..." reference to me on my talk page. Many thanks. Here it is. As expected it simply describes an individual early incident of religious persecution leading to emigration. Camerojo (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"In 1846 there was a catastrophic failure of the potato crop, upon which the mass of the islanders depended. The ensuing five-year famine has been widely documented (Devine, 1988). All I wish to draw out here is the relationship between the famine and large scale emigration, as the lowlander Colonel Gordon of Cluny,who had bought the island from the impoverished Clanranald in 1838, looked to rid himself of the burden of a starving population. The result was a massive exodus from South Uist in the 1850s, mostly to Nova Scotia. The population of the island fell from more than c. 7,500 in 1851 to c. 5,000 in 1860. Emigration had been a feature of life on South Uist from at least the second half of the eighteenth century. In 1772, over a hundred Roman Catholics left the Clanranald estate for Prince Edward Island led by their factor, John MacDonald of Glenaladale, after persecution from their Protestant laird Colin MacDonald of Boisdale (Adams and Somerville, 1993, p. 64). This phase of emigration, and the trickle of willing departures that followed, was dwarfed by the famine clearances of the 1850s, however."

I have been looking at some of the IP editor's previous edits on this page and I note that the following contribution was deleted by him without comment:

However almost all of the very large movement of Highland settlers to the Cape Fear region of North Carolina were Presbyterian. (This is evidenced even today in the presence and extent of Presbyterian congregations and adherents in the region.)

Clearly there is a problem with the contribution in that it does not cite a source supporting the claim. However, rather than deleting it outright the IP editor should have requested a source for the claim - as I did with the IP editor's own contribution. Why did you delete this contribution?

Although no source was provided for the above contribution, I suspect that the the assertion may be correct. That raises another general question about the IP editor's claim that a significant motive behind the clearances was to clear Catholics from the land. What Catholics? The IP editor makes the point that Catholicism was outlawed and presumably assumes that many were Catholics but could not admit to it. However, in Australia, quoting from the article Scottish Australian, "the majority of Scottish settlers were Presbyterian, some were Roman Catholic or Episcopalian". That is certainly my experience here in Australia. By contrast, Irish immigrants to Australia in the same period tended to be Catholic. New settlers were free to follow their religious convictions and in Australia a clear majority of Scottish settlers continued in some kind of Protestant faith. The contribution deleted by the IP editor indicates that this situation may apply elsewhere. If that is the case, it is hard to maintain that clearing the land of Catholics was a major motive if the majority cleared were not Catholic but Protestant.Camerojo (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's nonsense. I did not remove any such thing, at least not intentionally, please put a timestamp to my change. And if I did so by mistake, put it back in if you want. I did make changes to the article, but it does not relate to my point, it would be cosmetic and not anything to do with the substance of my addition. It doesn't change the fact that anti-Catholicism was a factor in the Clearances. Of course Presbyterians were also part of The Clearances. That is not what I am saying. How, precisely, can I not maintain that clearing land of Catholics was a major motive? Again, just because all of the clearances within The Highland Clearances were not explicitly anti-Catholic does not make anti-Catholicism NOT a major factor. Again, I am saying that there is debate about how much anti-Catholicism was a factor in The Clearances. I am not saying it was the only motive. Yet there are more than a few specific incidents, and these are large numbers of people in clans. Hundreds or thousands. If it was a factor in these incidents, then it is noteworthy.94.173.7.13 (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I accept I made the removal. I will now revert the section 'Year of the Sheep' to it's original form. It was a cosmetic change from a long-term source in need of verification, but since the accusation is that my sources to do not say what they in fact say, I will revert the section to it's original form, asking for verification. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Plus I owe you an apology for saying I did not. Sorry. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Looking over your edits on other pages, I see a number of occasions where you have deleted without comment passages that you presumably disagreed with. You might like to consider also reverting those edits and trying to engage others in a discussion on the matters in contention.Camerojo (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I also notice that those edits on other pages were generally the removal of un-referenced material. Quite a good thing to do. Anyway, we here do seem to have developed a strong consensus that the material on possible sectarian motives for the Clearances does not have enough support to justify inclusion anywhere in this article and certainly not in the lede. I propose to wait a few more days, in case a volunteer turns up to help resolve our differences, but then, unless someone else gets to it first, I'll remove the un-encyclopedic material. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am not an experienced Wikipedian so I don't know what the form is about making deletes. I have found quite a good reference, I think, for the Cape Fear comment, which I have added to the page. The reference seems quite reputable and itself contains other useful sources. Camerojo (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I am interested in all those who were cleared - Catholic and Protestant. The IP editor's latest addition regarding Bishop Macdonnell is interesting, for example, and maybe worth inclusion in the article somewhere - perhaps in a section listing notable emigrants. However, I certainly don't think that it belongs in the lead of the whole article. Camerojo (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not accept that deletion is appropriate in this instance. I am providing sources, and I will continue to provide sources if you wish. Think of it in terms of a scientific paper: method, observations, results. Method: enclosures. Observations: immigration (by force or not) of certain social groups: Gaels, Roman Catholics . Results: vast proportion of Roman Catholics in Scotland gone. Significant proportion of Gaels gone. This is true. I provide sources to prove this is true. You think that because I do not mention Prebyterians that somehow they did not migrate either. I do not say that. Merely that Presbyterianism, unlike Roman Catholicism, did remain in Scotland subsequently to a greater proportion of a considerably lower population. That is the introduction to a scientific paper. That is what wikipedia aspires too. How can it not be in the lead of the article? Only if you can challenge my sources. My sources support what I wrote. Just because the sources do not stem from a book with the title: 'Roman Catholic Clearances of The Highlands', 'Anti-Roman Catholic Scottish Clearances', or 'The Sectarian Clearance of The Highlands', doesn't make it not true. Again(!), I am not saying that the Clearances were absolutely anti-Catholic. I am saying that during The Clearances, an economic motive may (...and that is said in terms of potentiality) be the primary motive; yet there was observation of other motives, and a significant result is the disappearance of a certain segment of the population. Please, again, show me where the content of my addition is not given support by the sources. You will find that they are. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that you do not seem to be able to accept the way in which Wikipedia works. What you are describing is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Second, you need to understand how a WP:LEAD functions, it is a summary of what is in the article and not the place to stick assertions. The final point is that there is clearly no consensus for what you are doing on this talkpage. In the end you need to convince editors of the validity of your points or find some compromise with them, which has been suggested to you several times. Just reverting in the article and restating your case will not in the end work. Please read the links above and try to understand what is going on here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It is patently false to call it original research. I am sourcing words from the books of other historians.Not original primary sources, not figures from library documents, not my own words. I am summarisingthe sources. As I said in the comment above, the lead is like the introduction to a scientific paper. I provide all the key aspects. It is a summary. I am not quoting anyone, nor do actively state a thesis or a position. I state that there are different proportional attributions of anti-Catholicismin the motives of the landlords and their enclosers and I am actively pointing out the key words for you on the talk page that support my addition. Not one of you has put forward anything that discredits the sources. They are all verifiable.The arguments against my addition are constantly changing from the original arguments against them to other arguments, and each time I discredit them. If someone would care to provide a list, in numerals, or whatever, I will provide you with an answer to each accusation.You are insulting yourselves.Not me.94.173.7.13 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Your sources do not support your assertions and your actions look like POV pushing. If you cannot see why this applies, then you need to understand that they do not belong in the lead and even if you do not accept this, then consider that under WP:BRD it is not incumbent on editors to convince you, but for you to obtain consensus here. There may be some validity for something about Catholicism to be included in the article main body and that might be reflected in the lead, but it must be properly sourced. Please take this opportunity to develop a consensus with other editors. Frankly editors have been very patient, but enough time and effort has been wasted on this.--SabreBD (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor includes "Gaels" in his latest argument above. I do not accept broadening this debate to include "Gaels". I believe that there IS significant debate and clear evidence supporting the claim that there was some racial motive behind the Clearances - Saxon versus Celt. However that is not the subject of this debate - and the fact that a significant number of Gaels may have also been Catholic does not lend any weight to IP editor's argument. I intend to withdraw from the argument now. I have followed and considered the IP editor's position and do not agree with it. I hope that he will respect the rules of Wikipedia and the clear consensus of opinion and agree to remove the postings in contention. Perhaps he can publish his theory elsewhere - but Wikipedia is not the place for it in my opinion, and the opinion of everyone else who has contributed to this debate. Camerojo (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we create a properly sourced subsection that talks about the impact of the clearances on issues such as ethnicity and religion and then summarise that in the lead as per WP:LEAD.--SabreBD (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Since my initial revision started off this marathon debate, I have taken the liberty of starting the ball rolling on this idea by moving some of the IP editor's comments and sources down into a new section as suggested. I am also happy to have a go at adding some brief comments with sources related to ethnicity, unless someone else would prefer to contribute that part. Camerojo (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and get things going. I dug up some references during this debate and I will add them later.--SabreBD (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I discovered a good reputable source describing substantial Catholic emigration from the Western Highlands in the period 1770-1810. I have posted it in the new section on religion. Camerojo (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Impact of the Clearances: Religion

I am reverting a section that was both an overwrite that has not given proper sourcing and in the process, overwrote the previous addition that had proper sourcing. I would like to remind any prospective editors that the section has a consensus behind it's inclusion and that additions that contradict previous entries must find the appropriate language to convey differences in wikipedia:POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not true that that particular wording had consensus, only that having a section on religion has consensus. It is clearly much better sourced than what was there before since its only source was a Wikipedia article and Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. It is very hard to improve this article with this disruptive editing. The fact is that the vast majority of reliable sources indicate the the major of the Highlands were not Catholic, but Presbyterian and no sources have been forthcoming that indicate anything else. The POV pushing here is that, despite the overwhelming evidence, an implication to the contrary is being implied here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wording does need to be from a neutral point of view though: please read: wikipedia:POV. In my previous section before it was given placement in the article itself, and not the lead, I was aiming to do so. There wasn't any complaint about my POV in the previous section, only questioning of my sources. I did provide further such information as to satisfy the needs of those who were challenging it's inclusion. I will continue to endeavour to do so for any source that you believe is POV pushing, and if it does not satisfy you then we should strive to agree a wording of a neutral point of view, as wikipedia:POV asks. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see in Version history of the section that was reverted by the IP editor, it seemed to be well written, neutral, relevant and well sourced. I do not believe that the IP editor had grounds for deleting it. During this debate most contributors concentrated on criticising the IP editor's sources, however I, and I suspect others, have been very uncomfortable with the POV pushing of his postings - and I continue to be. This new section on Religion is welcomed and definitely of interest. However it does not belong to the IP editor or anyone else. I would like to request that Sabrebd's contribution is reinstated. Camerojo (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are free to add anything so long as you do not delete an addition with a verifiable source. Where the content of a verifiable source conflicts with the content of another verifiable source then a neutral point of view must be given. See wikipedia:POV. Not all additions need a source though. Only additions where there is dispute about the content. 93.186.23.112 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that the content that was previously overwritten onto verifiable material in this article was from another wikipedia article, I am including a link to that article as prominently as I can at the beginning of the subsection. I do not agree with the POV of that article, but I am not concerning myself with it's content at the moment. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That choice is not yours to make and the section added was based on clearly reliable sources. As for the section you added the quote is verifiable. The way you are using it, to state that "Roman Catholicism was the religion of a major proportion of the population" is not. You are also relying on a popular history book from the 1960s. A phenomenal amount of work has been done on religion and society in the Highland since then which has revolutionised our understanding of these issues. Which raises the issue of undue weight. You have also mininsterpreted WP:VERIFY, which states that sources are needed for everything "challenged or likely to be challenged". Fairly obviously after this long discussion this section needs cast iron sources. I do not object to the inclusion of the Preble quote, but it needs to be contextualised if we are going to have it, probably pointing out the status of the author and date.--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular or not, if it has it's basis in fact then it is a verifiable source. The same goes for content from the 1960s. If you wish to contradict Prebble with a source that says other than what he says, you are free to do so. Noting your problem with the specific wording of that sentence earlier, I made context available from another source (a 'non-popular' scholar, if that pleases you) in subsequent sentences. I will add further content in the near future... as was my intention. Your persistance in asking for a citation need not take place on the talk page though, there is mark-up available to you to do so. Such mark-up, and a considerate approach to the time it takes to add content properly would reduce the amount of time spent here, when more time could be spent improving the article 94.173.7.13 (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether it is popular does matter under WP:UNDUE and as inconvenient as you might find it for your speed of editing, since these edits are clearly contentious you do really need to supply reliable sources as good quality articles on Wikipedia do. As for contradicting Preble, he is not the problem, your unsourced interpretations and additions are the issue. Citing a source from 1905 and Lynch out of context does not exactly strengthen your case as much as you think. I did supply sources that contradict those statements and you reverted them. It is clear that you have no grounds for doing so and there is clearly a consensus for restoring these edits so I will restore them.--SabreBD (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what world you are in if you believe 2 against 1 is consensus, but it is not. I am drawing your attention to the fact you are overwriting verifiable material with a source that has it's basis in fact. You cannot do so on a whim. If you believe the content of the source needs context, asks for it here. If you believe that a source contradicts another, include that source in the article and note the contradiction. If you believe that there is an issue with wikipedia:POV then state so here, if we cannot agree a neutral point of view here, then you must allow the sources to contradict one another in the article. I am stating again, there is a problem with the POV of the material you are adding in place of material that has sources. There is only a problem with undue weight if there is not a basis in fact, and you are not contradictingsources with factual information, you are merely deleting sources that contradict your POV. There is not consensus for the material you are adding. There is not consensus for deleting material with verifiable sources. There IS the groundwork for consensus in the previous talk section for asking for a citation. See Camerojo's comment at 23:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC) and subsequent comments, where material was put back in the article with a request for a citation. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You do not have a citation for the assertion that "Roman Catholicism was the religion of a major proportion of the population" as it cannot be inferred from what Preble says, especially when there is clearly sourced information that put the picture much more clearly based on modern research. As for the contextualisation - which bit are you objecting to: that it was written in the 1960s or that it was popular history? You have accepted both on this talkpage. Please stop reverting properly sourced text. I would also appreciate it if you would stop reverting my attempts to fix the formats of the existing text.--SabreBD (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In case you are not concious of it, I am taking all of your comments seriously. I would ask that you do the same with me. You are overwriting material that either has a verifiable source, or deleting material without placing the proper mark-up in the article asking for a citation. You are also deleting material that contextualises the numbers of Roman Catholics, and replacing it with material that I am stating has a problem with POV. If you delete anything again that is given a proper source, or does not need a source (because you did not ask for one, or bring my attention to faults with it here), I will revert the section. I will continue to add information too. Please agree to seek proper consensus and a neutral point of view as per the wikipedia guidelines. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports the statement "Roman Catholicism was the religion of a major proportion of the population"?--SabreBD (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

By the time of asking this question I had already given a clearer estimate of the proportion. However, if you did not agree with the word 'major', a simple replacement with 'significant' would suffice. I was careful not to call it the majority religion, but 10%, to me, especially given the legal framework in favour of Presbyterianism, and military actions against Roman Catholic Church property, is 'major'. Again, I do not regard it as my right to put the word 'major' in the article, but hopefully you understand that, hypothetically, replacing that with the word 'siginificant' would reach consensus on a neutral point of view. Your overwrites were not necessary, please add after the word 'major' and I will look to change it. If we still cannot agree a neutral point of view then we must allow sources to contradict each other. That will happen only in a minority of cases. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The neutral thing would not to have a descriptor at all, since there does not appear to be one in the source. Why don't we try that?--SabreBD (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not wikisource. You will find that descriptors are necessary in an encyclopaedia. It is a question of finding the best descriptors for situations that arise. Where there is disagreement,and subsequent agreement cannot be made on finding a neutral point of view, either in the sources themselves, or the description of the sources, then we must let both sources, in that specific situation, disagree with another.Thankfully, the gift of language has given us the opportunity to find neutral points of view. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So you do not have a source and you are going to put it in anyway. Also I have nearly 50,000 edits on Wikipedia and you do not have an account, could you please stop telling me what I will find on Wikipedia. You can find words to express things, but when they are controversial, as in this case, it is better to stick to what is in reliable sources. If you cannot even compromise on that I am not sure how we can work out a consensus. Despite what you say about taking me serious you do not seem to have budged at all.--SabreBD (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the approved way of doing things in Wikipedia, but please can we see both contributions - without one repeatedly reverting the other. Regarding the relative number of Catholics, there are some interesting figures at Jacobitism#Religion but I am not clear how well sourced they are. In addition Chapter 1 of the Kathleen Toomey source that I added has a discussion on numbers of Catholics at the time based on various contemporary sources. If you look at the reference I provided you will see that it is available online at http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6795. Camerojo (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The last version I posted was:

• After the Reformation Catholicism had been reduced to the fringes of the country, particularly the Gaelic-speaking areas of the Highlands and Islands. Numbers probably reduced in the seventeenth century and organisation had deteriorated. In the 1960s popular historian John Prebble's stated that Roman Catholicism flourished "[w]here there were deep glens, protected by the broadsword or the earth itself". The Pope appointed Thomas Nicolson as the first Vicar Apostolic over the mission in 1694. The country was organised into districts and by 1703 there were thirty-three Catholic clergy. Conditions also grew worse for Catholics after the Jacobite rebellions and Catholicism was reduced to little more than a poorly-run mission. In 1733 it was divided into two vicariates, one for the Highland and one for the Lowland, each under a bishop. There were six attempts to found a seminary in the Highlands between 1732 and 1838, all of which floundered on financial issues. Clergy entered the country secretly and although services were illegal they were maintained. In 1755 it was estimated that there were only 16,500 communicants, mainly in the north and west, although the number is probably an underestimate.

• There is evidence of anti-Catholicism in the thoughts of some who were responsible for the clearances. However, Grant Dawson and Sonia Farber note that "although the landlords did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons, the effect of the Clearances was to destroy much of the Gaelic culture, which was dispersed along with the people that fled.--SabreBD (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

[==Impact of the Clearances: Religion==

I am reverting a section that was both an overwrite that has not given proper sourcing and in the process, overwrote the previous addition that had proper sourcing. I would like to remind any prospective editors that the section has a consensus behind it's inclusion and that additions that contradict previous entries must find the appropriate language to convey differences in wikipedia:POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not true that that particular wording had consensus, only that having a section on religion has consensus. It is clearly much better sourced than what was there before since its only source was a Wikipedia article and Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. It is very hard to improve this article with this disruptive editing. The fact is that the vast majority of reliable sources indicate the the major of the Highlands were not Catholic, but Presbyterian and no sources have been forthcoming that indicate anything else. The POV pushing here is that, despite the overwhelming evidence, an implication to the contrary is being implied here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wording does need to be from a neutral point of view though: please read: wikipedia:POV. In my previous section before it was given placement in the article itself, and not the lead, I was aiming to do so. There wasn't any complaint about my POV in the previous section, only questioning of my sources. I did provide further such information as to satisfy the needs of those who were challenging it's inclusion. I will continue to endeavour to do so for any source that you believe is POV pushing, and if it does not satisfy you then we should strive to agree a wording of a neutral point of view, as wikipedia:POV asks. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see in Version history of the section that was reverted by the IP editor, it seemed to be well written, neutral, relevant and well sourced. I do not believe that the IP editor had grounds for deleting it. During this debate most contributors concentrated on criticising the IP editor's sources, however I, and I suspect others, have been very uncomfortable with the POV pushing of his postings - and I continue to be. This new section on Religion is welcomed and definitely of interest. However it does not belong to the IP editor or anyone else. I would like to request that Sabrebd's contribution is reinstated. Camerojo (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are free to add anything so long as you do not delete an addition with a verifiable source. Where the content of a verifiable source conflicts with the content of another verifiable source then a neutral point of view must be given. See wikipedia:POV. Not all additions need a source though. Only additions where there is dispute about the content. 93.186.23.112 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that the content that was previously overwritten onto verifiable material in this article was from another wikipedia article, I am including a link to that article as prominently as I can at the beginning of the subsection. I do not agree with the POV of that article, but I am not concerning myself with it's content at the moment. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That choice is not yours to make and the section added was based on clearly reliable sources. As for the section you added the quote is verifiable. The way you are using it, to state that "Roman Catholicism was the religion of a major proportion of the population" is not. You are also relying on a popular history book from the 1960s. A phenomenal amount of work has been done on religion and society in the Highland since then which has revolutionised our understanding of these issues. Which raises the issue of undue weight. You have also mininsterpreted WP:VERIFY, which states that sources are needed for everything "challenged or likely to be challenged". Fairly obviously after this long discussion this section needs cast iron sources. I do not object to the inclusion of the Preble quote, but it needs to be contextualised if we are going to have it, probably pointing out the status of the author and date.--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular or not, if it has it's basis in fact then it is a verifiable source. The same goes for content from the 1960s. If you wish to contradict Prebble with a source that says other than what he says, you are free to do so. Noting your problem with the specific wording of that sentence earlier, I made context available from another source (a 'non-popular' scholar, if that pleases you) in subsequent sentences. I will add further content in the near future... as was my intention. Your persistance in asking for a citation need not take place on the talk page though, there is mark-up available to you to do so. Such mark-up, and a considerate approach to the time it takes to add content properly would reduce the amount of time spent here, when more time could be spent improving the article 94.173.7.13 (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether it is popular does matter under WP:UNDUE and as inconvenient as you might find it for your speed of editing, since these edits are clearly contentious you do really need to supply reliable sources as good quality articles on Wikipedia do. As for contradicting Preble, he is not the problem, your unsourced interpretations and additions are the issue. Citing a source from 1905 and Lynch out of context does not exactly strengthen your case as much as you think. I did supply sources that contradict those statements and you reverted them. It is clear that you have no grounds for doing so and there is clearly a consensus for restoring these edits so I will restore them.--SabreBD (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what world you are in if you believe 2 against 1 is consensus, but it is not. I am drawing your attention to the fact you are overwriting verifiable material with a source that has it's basis in fact. You cannot do so on a whim. If you believe the content of the source needs context, asks for it here. If you believe that a source contradicts another, include that source in the article and note the contradiction. If you believe that there is an issue with wikipedia:POV then state so here, if we cannot agree a neutral point of view here, then you must allow the sources to contradict one another in the article. I am stating again, there is a problem with the POV of the material you are adding in place of material that has sources. There is only a problem with undue weight if there is not a basis in fact, and you are not contradictingsources with factual information, you are merely deleting sources that contradict your POV. There is not consensus for the material you are adding. There is not consensus for deleting material with verifiable sources. There IS the groundwork for consensus in the previous talk section for asking for a citation. See Camerojo's comment at 23:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC) and subsequent comments, where material was put back in the article with a request for a citation. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You do not have a citation for the assertion that "Roman Catholicism was the religion of a major proportion of the population" as it cannot be inferred from what Preble says, especially when there is clearly sourced information that put the picture much more clearly based on modern research. As for the contextualisation - which bit are you objecting to: that it was written in the 1960s or that it was popular history? You have accepted both on this talkpage. Please stop reverting properly sourced text. I would also appreciate it if you would stop reverting my attempts to fix the formats of the existing text.--SabreBD (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In case you are not concious of it, I am taking all of your comments seriously. I would ask that you do the same with me. You are overwriting material that either has a verifiable source, or deleting material without placing the proper mark-up in the article asking for a citation. You are also deleting material that contextualises the numbers of Roman Catholics, and replacing it with material that I am stating has a problem with POV. If you delete anything again that is given a proper source, or does not need a source (because you did not ask for one, or bring my attention to faults with it here), I will revert the section. I will continue to add information too. Please agree to seek proper consensus and a neutral point of view as per the wikipedia guidelines. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports the statement "Roman Catholicism was the religion of a major proportion of the population"?--SabreBD (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

By the time of asking this question I had already given a clearer estimate of the proportion. However, if you did not agree with the word 'major', a simple replacement with 'significant' would suffice. I was careful not to call it the majority religion, but 10%, to me, especially given the legal framework in favour of Presbyterianism, and military actions against Roman Catholic Church property, is 'major'. Again, I do not regard it as my right to put the word 'major' in the article, but hopefully you understand that, hypothetically, replacing that with the word 'siginificant' would reach consensus on a neutral point of view. Your overwrites were not necessary, please add after the word 'major' and I will look to change it. If we still cannot agree a neutral point of view then we must allow sources to contradict each other. That will happen only in a minority of cases. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The neutral thing would not to have a descriptor at all, since there does not appear to be one in the source. Why don't we try that?--SabreBD (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not wikisource. You will find that descriptors are necessary in an encyclopaedia. It is a question of finding the best descriptors for situations that arise. Where there is disagreement,and subsequent agreement cannot be made on finding a neutral point of view, either in the sources themselves, or the description of the sources, then we must let both sources, in that specific situation, disagree with another.Thankfully, the gift of language has given us the opportunity to find neutral points of view. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the approved way of doing things in Wikipedia, but please can we see both contributions - without one repeatedly reverting the other. Regarding the relative number of Catholics, there are some interesting figures at Jacobitism#Religion but I am not clear how well sourced they are. In addition Chapter 1 of the Kathleen Toomey source that I added has a discussion on numbers of Catholics at the time based on various contemporary sources. If you look at the reference I provided you will see that it is available online at http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6795. Camerojo (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The last version I posted was:

• After the Reformation Catholicism had been reduced to the fringes of the country, particularly the Gaelic-speaking areas of the Highlands and Islands. Numbers probably reduced in the seventeenth century and organisation had deteriorated. In the 1960s popular historian John Prebble's stated that Roman Catholicism flourished "[w]here there were deep glens, protected by the broadsword or the earth itself". The Pope appointed Thomas Nicolson as the first Vicar Apostolic over the mission in 1694. The country was organised into districts and by 1703 there were thirty-three Catholic clergy. Conditions also grew worse for Catholics after the Jacobite rebellions and Catholicism was reduced to little more than a poorly-run mission. In 1733 it was divided into two vicariates, one for the Highland and one for the Lowland, each under a bishop. There were six attempts to found a seminary in the Highlands between 1732 and 1838, all of which floundered on financial issues. Clergy entered the country secretly and although services were illegal they were maintained. In 1755 it was estimated that there were only 16,500 communicants, mainly in the north and west, although the number is probably an underestimate.

• There is evidence of anti-Catholicism in the thoughts of some who were responsible for the clearances. However, Grant Dawson and Sonia Farber note that "although the landlords did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons, the effect of the Clearances was to destroy much of the Gaelic culture, which was dispersed along with the people that fled.--SabreBD (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Diff between revisions 5c6000789 and 59602355 As you can see via that permalink, some of the information with the problematic POV has been given a place in the article now with a neutral point of view. I will add the further information from a neutral point of view in future additions. What concerns me most though is the deletion of material with a verifiable source. That is the basis of specifically 'my' reverts. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As has now been explained many times, your efforts to insert unverifiable material and OR into this article are not appropriate for Wikipedia. I don't see any sign in your recent edits that you have comprehended the relevant concepts. Other editors have been remarkably patient with you, to the extent of inserting / accepting material of very peripheral relevance to the actual subject of this article. But you have failed to substantiate your central points. Valid options include Wikipedia:How to lose and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Back again? Instead of referencing non-applicable rules, how about you enter into the content of the article. There is consensus for the section being in the place that it is, in spite of your previous attempts to remove it completely from the article, so it would suggest that I comprehend far more than you would like to admit. There is now a debate about the content of specific items in this section, you are not reading them, nor are you raising what sources are unverifiable,nor are you doing anything else apart from applying non-applicable guidelines with aggressive language. Either enter into debate about specific content or remove yourself from the conversation completely. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again there is no evidence of consensus for the peripheral material you have added and only that there is a section. There is also clearly a consensus that well sourced material should be restored to the article, but your statement that you will just keep reverting until you get your way is essentially a declaration that you edit war. Does the fact that you have convinced no one on this page that you are right at least give you pause for thought?--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to purposely forget that you were deleting material that had a verifiable source, replacing it with material that may or may not of been verifiable but certainly was written with a description from a non-neutral point of view. You are the instigator of what you term an 'edit-war.' Again, as I said on numerous occasions now, add any material you want. Do not delete material unless you fufill the necessaru steps of asking for a citation, like so: . Again, another dreary accusation of unverifiability that does not make any specific mention of content from the section. It's obviously merely an obstructive tactic that you hope will dissuade me from adding more verifiable sources to the article, and seeking to find a neutral point of view for the contentious material that you were overwriting verifiable sources with. Let's be serious, and stop accusing me without any substance. You are not any further along in reaching a consensus. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You have already admitted that you do not have a reliable source for the only statement I deleted and no I did not instigate an edit war. But getting you to answer a straightforward question and follow a logical path seems to be impossible.--SabreBD (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, another baseless accusation. Please put a timestamp on the comment I made on this talk page making such an admission, and then quote the section you say there is not a source for. Your tactics are see-through and you are losing the support you need for any further consensus you would like to acheive. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be using a different definition of accusation to the one with which I am familiar. Let's try a different approach. What exactly do you object to in the text I added in my first edit?--SabreBD (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am publically noting that: firstly, the user is refusing to put a timestamp to a comment that he falsely attributes to me; secondly; that the user is refusing to quote a section from the material in question that he falsely states is not given a verifiable source; thirdly, that there is proof that he was responsible for the deletion of material that either had a verifiable source and other material that he did not ask for a citation for before removing (this is a necessary step that must be taken before removing material that any user wishes to challenge on the grounds that it is not commonly understood to be true); fourthly that he then made an addition from another article that has many problems with it's provision of a neutral point of view: diff between revisions 595863894 and 595c11292. If the user accepts this, I will not point to these facts any further. If he does not I suggest that any further contribution from the user be the subject of serious doubt. I will reply to the comment immediately preceding this after the user's response to this comment. 93.186.23.99 (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point of inactivity I am moving on to make further contributionsto the recent subsection as it continues to grow. I see this also as a good point to invite comments below in a new section of the talk page. There isn't any need to dwell upon this unless something similar happens again.93.186.23.100 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My "inactivity" is because I occasionally leave my house. You may need to wait more than an house for a reply sometimes, but I see you have decided to cite me for editor waring, so I do not think it is possible to carry this discussion on until that is resolved.--SabreBD (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Impact of the Clearances: Relgion#Roman Catholicism

I am making some minor changes to the formatting of the subsection to prevent misunderstandings that lead to overwrites of valuable material. A reasonably understandable event considering the subsection is of recent provenance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It is time to end this but I don't know how. This is not a new debate it is the same old debate. The anonymous IP editor has an obvious agenda and seems determined to push a certain POV for reasons best known to himself. He cannot be trusted with his sources. When they have been followed up, many of them simply do not support his position (despite his often immoderate, furious defences). I consider his postings to be bordering on vandalism and see them as a real threat to the integrity of this article. Defending the article is not a waste of our time, it is an important defence of Wikipedia. Unlike myself, many who have contributed to this debate are highly experienced and eminent Wikipedians. I have learned a lot from them about the rules and principles behind Wikipedia. I would encourage them strongly not to abandon the debate now. Camerojo (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any agenda. You yourself state that there is proof that some of the Clearances had at least something of an anti-Catholic motivation. You made additions to this subsection that state precisely this. I am providing a background and sources to introduce these findings to Wikipedia. If I merely state that there was some proof of anti-Catholic motivations it does not provide the context of what anti-Catholicism meant in reality. I will be adding a section regarding anti-Catholicism during the period of Catholic Emancipation, that roughly corresponds to the penultimate stage of The Clearances. I do wish you would state what agenda you think there is. I am providing sources, and I am not suggesting that all of The Clearances were anti-Catholic. There doesn't seem to be much of an agenda to speak of. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes - we agree in some areas. But before I post, I make sure that I have a solid, reputable source that backs up the text I provide - and I try to make that text as neutral and factual as possible. And I do not try to expand on the source with my own personal theories or opinions. You undermine your own (possibly valid) arguments with your combative attitude and liberal interpretation of your source material. I have a personal interest in this subject. My own ancestor, Duncan Cameron, may well have been Catholic. He was born in an area, Kilmonivaig, which Kathleen Toomey quotes as an area in 1755 containing one of the heaviest concentrations of Catholics. I have investigated clearances in that area at http://youbelong.info/public/Three_Clearances_and_a_Wedding#The_First_Clearance. It is not clear to me why he left the area - so obviously I am interested in the religious aspect. Duncan headed further North and raised a family in the Dornoch area where he died, but his family were then cleared again and ended up in Tasmania. According to the records, although my great grandfather and his parents were recorded as Presbyterian on the shipping records, they were buried in a Scottish Catholic cemetery in Launceston, Tasmania which always puzzled me. Maybe they were staunch Catholics after all. So I am very interested in this topic but I want well sourced facts, not opinions and broad theories. You are also obviously interested in this area too. It would be great to work together but you have lost my confidence - and the confidence of others in this debate. In order to rebuild that confidence you need to post less and research more. Camerojo (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My own researches on my ancestry show something similar. Yet I cannot source that material here, and quite rightly, because it would be original research and not suitable for wikipedia. That is why I am making certain that I source material properly. You are accusing me of going beyond the sources, when I am being meticulous about staying within them. 93.186.23.113 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If you look back over the comments of all those who have disputed with you, you will see that I am not alone in having a problem with your use and interpretation of sources. I think you need to reflect seriously on that criticism - perhaps least of all from me. As I mentioned earlier we have been fortunate to have some very experienced and eminent Wikipedians engage with this debate Camerojo (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to reflect seriously on where my sources do not back up what I am saying. As of yet, there has not been a single occasion where there has been material contradiction of any additions I made. There has merely been assertions that my sources do not say what they in fact say, or systematic deletions. Each time I reinstate the deletions and ask for contradictions from sources they are not forthcoming. I am very concious that there has been criticism and questioning of my use and interpretation of sources. I am, however, more concious of the fact that there has not been any conflict between sources, only between peoples momentary opinions of what my sources say. 93.186.31.96 (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As a little time has passed, my suggestion is that we draw a line under previous conversations of who did what and try to work with the text we have, sorting out what we are going to do here first before we do any more major editing.--SabreBD (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we have all agreed on a couple of things:

1. The number of Catholics in Scotland reduced significantly over time
2. There were instances of clearances which were anti Catholic in nature

We have have reputable, unambiguous sources for both the above. Given that we accept the second point, it is clear that the Clearances made some contribution toward the reduction in the number of Catholics in Scotland.

Where we probably disagree is in the significance of that contribution, compared to larger factors at play - including the Scottish Reformation and the military loss of the Jacobites at Culloden.

My view of the way forward is:

• We should simply present the facts and let the reader of the article decide how significant a role the Clearances played.
• A detailed description of the progress of Catholicism in Scotland belongs in Roman Catholicism in Scotland. That article may well refer to this article on the Clearances.
• It is important to document the specifically Catholic clearances (point 2 above). This is a valuable addition to the article.

If we can agree on all the above, I think we probably have all we need to together craft a final version of this part of the article. --Camerojo (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with all of that. My main worry is that the section is getting pretty long. We will have to consider the ethnic and cultural issues which are probably more significant and are a bit overshadowed here.--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree we need to keep it short. I am hoping to do something on the ethnic side in the next day or two. What I have in mind will just be a short paragraph with some useful references providing the interested reader with a useful start point for further research. --Camerojo (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Camerojo's and Sabrebd's suggestions. I'm working my way through the interesting thesis, (Toomey, Kathleen (1991) Emigration from the Scottish Catholic bounds 1770-1810 and the role of the clergy, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6795) and will hope to contribute slightly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Great. If Camerojo creates a section then we can feed appropriate material in if necessary.--SabreBD (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have just posted a section on Race. It is pretty strong stuff in a very sensitive area but I think it needs to be present somewhere in the article. The Tom Devine reference contains numerous examples and plenty of sources which readers can follow themselves. The intent behind my selected examples was to start by outlining the racial theories that were current at the time, then illustrate that these ideas were adopted by the popular press, and also by influential representatives of the establishment involved in the clearances. I won't be at all offended if you feel that it needs changing. I found it difficult to write but at least it gives us a starting point.

(The red link to Highland and Island Emigration Society is to a page that I have offered to write about that organization.) --Camerojo (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine at first glance. My only thought is that we probably need to say something about the devastating impact on Gaelic culture and language. I did have a quote on this and will see if I can find it.--SabreBD (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there are other aspects to cover. The religion section needs to be edited down and extended to cover the role and effect on the Church as a whole. In particular I think that we need to mention the complicity of the established church in some clearances, the Disruption of 1843 and the Free Church. Also Gaelic Culture and Language as you suggest. I was also thinking of brief sections on (not sure of these titles) Famine, Economy and "Adventure" (there is evidence that a significant number of people emigrated lured by temptations such as the Gold Rushes in California and Australia. Although these were not strictly Clearances as defined, I think it is probably worth mentioning as a factor). As you suggest, these should all be brief subsections including little more than some key references plus links to other related Wikipedia articles. Or do you think that I pushing all this too far? I have also taken the liberty of including a brief introduction to the whole Impact section. Happy to remove it. --Camerojo (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it a good idea as long as we can keep it concise.--SabreBD (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Asking for citations for many problematic POV wordings that do not appear to hold-up upon reading the provision of sources. I will be happy to enter into discussion about finding a neutral point of view upon comparison of the wording, and facts given, in those sources. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding all these citation templates is clearly WP:POINT editing as the citations do support what is written. You have been offered another opportunity to edit productively, why do no you not take it and then we can move this article on?--SabreBD (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with the first citation, actual content, instead of looking to represent a genuine query as some juvenile vandalism. I am questioning the wording, and the sources, therefore there is not consensus for removing those citation templates. You cannot remove me from making such queries because you disagree with me. Any new consensus must take into account my legitimate queries. I am happy to enter into ways of finding consensus instead of continuing to portray this as one person against another. So... first, where in the sources are The Highlands and Islands given representation as 'the fringes' of Scotland. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "fringes" is too strong a word. What word would you suggest? Also, for the benefit of the article, can I suggest that we have the discussion on wording here on the talk page - but remove all the citation requests from the public area while we are having the discussion. --Camerojo (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of the article I strongly suggest this as the best way of raising matters in relation to both questionable wording (raising questions of whether or not it is written from a specific POV or at the very least a non-neutral POV), and content where there is not a provision of a source. It stops deletions, it makes edits less confrontational, and it purposefully allows for all of this to be seen by anyone who wishes to add their opinion on what we could to to attain a consensus. I would oppose anything that would limit other users from making a contribution, and asking for citations is a very public way of doing this in relation to P('s)OV. It would also seem less time consuming to list the queries there, because how long we discuss wording here isn't set in stone: trailing through the talk page is a chore that the article hyperlinks themselves make redundant. Disagreement needs raising somehow. But I think we all agree that disagreement for the sake of disagreement is tiresome. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Picking on one passage that you are challenging: SabreBD posted "There were six attempts to found a seminary in the Highlands between 1732 and 1838, all of which floundered on financial issues." There was a clear source quoted for that posting: "M. Lynch, Scotland: A New History (London: Pimlico, 1992), ISBN 0712698930, p. 365". You request citations for (1) the fact that there were six attempts and (2) for the fact that they failed on financial issues. Are you saying that neither of those facts are present in the quoted source? --Camerojo (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, first of all, the sources above lists page 365, in my edition is is 366, but nevertheless, the book says this (I will highlight important sections) 'The size of the Highland Mission was modest: it was staffed by a dozen priests or less until the 1760s; by the 1770s there an average of fifteen and, by the 1790s, twenty. No fewer than six attempts were made between 7132 and 1828 to found a separate Highland seminary to train local boys; each limped from one financial crisis to another.' Aligning this source by itself leads, reasonably, to the conclusion that by using the word attempt, Lynch is indicating failure. Upon aligning it with other sources you will find that Scalan was the centre where the staff from Highland Mission were working, but there were other centres that did fail, you can see a list of them at Lismore Seminary#Preceding seminaries.94.173.7.13 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Then I don't understand your request for citations. Both facts are clearly present in the source. --Camerojo (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. Scalan was where the central Highland Mission seminary was from 1716-1799. Please see the wikipedia article: Scalan and http://www.scalan.co.uk/storyofscalan.htm. The 'attempts' that Lynch speaks of where seperate attempts to found another seminary in the Highlands. The wording suggests it was the only attempt. Please note that the person who made the addition also originally made a deletion of the fact that Scalan was there at all. Also, the wording 'floundered' is simply wrong. The source says 'limped'. Floundered indicates failure. Limped indicates nothing of the sort. Some of them were in existence for a very short period, then the Highland Mission went elsewhere, and one of the reasons was finances, but there were other constraints too. Again, please see Lismore Seminary#Preceding seminaries. The facts are not clearly in the source at all, although I can see why someone may think they are. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The wording can be discussed but the source says essentially what SabreBD claimed it says. If your other requests for citation are based on similar flimsy grounds, then I am afraid that your recent edit does look like "juvenile vandalism". I am therefore going to revert it. Instead of just reinstating it, I suggest that you discuss on this page the parts you have a problem with. You obviously have a lot of knowledge and interest in a subject which I am also particularly interested in. I wish you could find a way of collaborating with the rest of us more constructively. --Camerojo (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant. 2 against 1. This is what you call consensus? There does not need to be a unanimous agreement to the precise wording, but you are ignoring what I am saying completely. That is not consensus. You are demonstrating precisely why the citation templates are necessary. Otherwise you simply ignore the fact that non-neutral POVs are there. You are simply creating further tension that will lead to problems with progress in the article in the future. It is a bad decision. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

3 to 1 so far.The section on Roman Catholicism can now offer one or two citations for a slight relevance of Catholicism to the perception of otherness that made the Clearances possible. But it is still overblown and uses un-encyclopedically dramatic language. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Back again, and again, with little to say. You are talking about citations when we are talking about the citation templates: . There are 22 citations in this section. Will you stop acting like a child and talk about the content yet? 3 against 1 doesn't solve your problem. Trying to, again, remove someone from consensus building like your previous attempt through the official channels, totally failing as it did, will not aid you in building consensus. Your pettiness, is again, a source of tension and I note that thus far of the four contributions you made to the articles' content, only one of them has been positive. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge's comments are apposite. He is confining his comments to the subject, whereas every time he posts you seem to feel need to abuse him. For what it is worth, I ask that you please read WP:No personal attacks and let's try to stick to the issues. On the substantive points, I agree we have too much text and some of it is confusing or irrelevant to the main issues, which in this case are the motivations and impact of the clearances. I think that on reflection that we should be aiming for one or two paragraphs at most, and drop the sub-headings. The first paragraph (or first half) should deal with the numbers and motivations and the second (or second half) with the impact on Catholicism in Scotland and abroad. If we can get agreement on something like that then we might be able to resolve this.--SabreBD (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

From your point of view, from the beginning, there wasn't any need for anything on the subject at all. It has only been through my persistence that anything has been kept. Forgive me if, on a good basis of fact, I do not believe your interests are encyclopedic clarity. Currently I progressing through the section as best as I can: as slowly and methodically, as I can, because any new addition has been the target of deletion and pure assertion on the talk page. You now wish to delete content... again? I don't wish to go over old ground, but I was in the process of adding and consolidating the content, and it was you who made the addition of a separate section. I won't agree to precise numbers of paragraphs or words. It is the content, and discussion about the content on the talk page that has led to the article being like this. Only further discussion, agreement on both the verifiability of content, and neutral POV wording will suffice. That is how consensus works. How long it takes, and how long the section is, is not for you alone to decide. This sidetracking is nonsensical and timewasting. Playing a numbers game of 2 against 1, or 3 against 1, won't lead anywhere. Targeting the content through pure assertion as the previous user did just because it is fresh, and admittedly incomplete, won't lead anywhere either. I really do hope all of you would just enter into discussion and leave your ego and private opinions aside. There are other areas of this article I don't agree with, yet neutrality takes priority over my personal opinion. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You have a unique and interesting view of what has happened on this page, but I think it best to try to get back to the content, which is clearly controversial and so should be determined by discussion here on the talkpage. So, once again. What do editors consider essential to the section under discussion?--SabreBD (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Reuniting content about precise numbers of population who were Roman Catholic from where they are at the moment after the occurrence of the previous misunderstanding would be helpful.

I understand now that you made the current addition in an effort not to overwrite material that I was prompt to revert because it originally was put in place alongside a deletion of content. Unfortunately I was angry when you did so, and upon seeing the same material again, thought you had made another deletion.

However, it's absurd that two parallel sections on the precisely the same subject matter are there. Where it goes? That's what we need to discuss.

You wish to remove subject headings. I think they are vital. What anti-Catholicism meant in practice was subject to change during The Clearances. Before 1791, the government was 100% anti-Catholic, after then the process of Catholic Emancipation began. Any talk about anti-Catholicism that doesn't raise these changes allows for wildly different readings of the article. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK something we can work with here, but there is no desperate hurry so I would like to see what other editors think so that we can take everyone with us.--SabreBD (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am for keeping the article as concise as possible. I see its value as a useful (and neutral) jumping off point for readers to follow up their own research. For example, a lot could be written, and has been written by others, on the anti Celt views of some involved in the Clearances. The challenge I found in writing the brief section on Race was deciding what quotes to use to illustrate the issue and which sources to provide. Similarly the anti Catholic aspect should be present in the article but a simple statement of its existence together with sources and a bit of context is all that is needed in my opinion. I think we have some good content and sources there now but it needs editing down. --Camerojo (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am all for concision. Responsibility for the section at the moment is not the fault of any one person. It looks like this through discussion of the material, queries for verification, and talks about neutrality. That has made the addition of material necessary. Given the nature of the way things are unfolding, would it not be better to let that process finish? Deleting before the section nears anything like it's final structure would pull the rug out from anyone who is attempting to make a positive addition to the article. After that, I am all for rounding the section down once it is clear what facts are agreed, or, remain in dispute. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that seems reasonable. What do the other editors think? --Camerojo (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That seems acceptable, though it would strike me as better practice to delete the lot and reach consensus here before we add anything back. I agree with Camerojo on what is appropriate for an encyclopedic article - a sentence, possibly two at most, would be appropriate weight for the anti-Catholic issue here, as it is for the section on Race. For the article Roman Catholicism in Scotland, of course, far more detail is appropriate and we correctly have a suitable hatnote on our section. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have had a first attempt at a brief section on a very large topic Economics. By the way I discovered my user sandbox which is an ideal way to keep the number of edits on the main page down to a minimum. --Camerojo (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Except from making an addition to the Economics section with some material I read whilst researching another topic, I made numerous minor changes to the format of the section on Roman Catholicism, including changing a few descriptive elements to improve the sections fluency. If there are any problems with this preliminary section, I will be happy to discuss them. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The addition you made to the economic section is interesting but I would be inclined to leave it out. Obviously there is much that could be added of general interest, but the real challenge is keeping it brief while at the same time touching on all the key important factors. I am not certain what important new factor the edit adds. What do the other editors think? --Camerojo (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, well, taking into consideration that there are scholars such as Ross Noble (and also the author who I cite) who accept that The Clearances were at least something to do clearing those who were in support of the Jacobites from the land... and considering that economics is often given as, if not the only motivation, certainly a major motivation by others... I thought that noting that clan chiefs before Culloden were engaging with new economics methods was important. A raft of government measures came against clan chiefs and their 'tenants' after Culloden, and many like Cameron of Lochiel actually had their land taken from them. It seems that the one-size-fits-all approach of sheep farming was then taken as the only method of improving the land, yet the source states that previously there were other approaches. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to say that I can live with editing the religion section and then editing it down. Not ideal, but if it will get consensus I am in favour. Much as I want to keep this brief the religion section remains a bit unbalanced as it does not mention that episcopalians were more numerous than Catholics and the clearances probably more impact on them. I would definitely want to do that as briefly as possible.--SabreBD (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think it would be useful to split the Religion broadly into "Catholics" and "Protestants". We already have the "Catholics" section - which we hope to edit down a bit - currently entitled "Roman Catholicism". I suggest adding a "Protestants" section. I was hoping to contribute some brief notes and references to the Protestants section on the complicity of the established church in some clearances and the creation of the Free Church of Scotland. Is everyone fine with that? --Camerojo (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems acceptable, if not quite my personal first choice. The economic point - well described above as a "one-size-fits-all" solution that didn't work - strikes me as central, the loss of contact between chiefs and their clans of similar importance, and the religious etc elements of the construction of "otherness" as of (relatively) little weight. Quite a lot of the introductory elements of the religion section are entirely out of place here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea for a section on both Presbyterianism and the Scottish Episcopal Church. My only concern would be that some of the new sections are still incomplete, and though this is obviously because it is fresh content that is in need of discussion on verification and neutrality, that more content in these sections will be inevitable before any reduction in size. I am willing to take time to do so (I much prefer this calmer state of affairs), yet I think that we should all be conscious that it will take a length of time reaching consensus.

Unfortunately Richard, we disagree on the latter point. And we will need to reach consensus on it somehow. I think that in discussing religion you will find that introductory elements will be necessary for both Presbyterianism and The Scottish Episcopal Church. In fact, the sections on race and economics will probably lengthen slightly too. I can think of historical elements on race at the moment that are pertinent.

As for economics, talk of the clan system as an economic system in itself is conspicuous in it's absence. And also, comparisons with enclosures in Lowland Scotland and England where one-size-fits-all approaches were absent. It's only given a brief mention, whilst in the literature it's a huge portion.

All of this is not to say that in the end it will not be a shorter article that is the final product. Just that consensus takes time to develop. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"It's only given a brief mention, whilst in the literature it's a huge portion.". In my opinion, the fact there is a whole lot written in the literature on a topic, is an argument that we should probably write LESS. The more complex the topic, the more difficult it will be for us to provide a useful, balanced overview, and the stronger the argument for just referring the reader to reputable sources where the topic is properly explored. --Camerojo (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Religion section, draft in user sandbox

Richard, what would be "your personal first choice" for structuring the section on Religion? --Camerojo (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I've put a draft version in my sandbox. It omits the long introduction, referring instead to Roman Catholicism in Scotland where the material is more appropriately placed (and more briefly and clearly expressed). And it sticks to the relevance of religion to the Clearances, which are after all the purpose of this article. I've kept the hatnotes, very useful for anyone who wants to explore a specific subject further. If anyone wants to edit it, feel free; discussion should continue here. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There are aspects of how that is written that should certainly be taken into account. But I think that that limits itself to formatting and some minor descriptive elements: such as removing scholars names where consensus has become apparent through editing and on the talk page.

However, again, in achieving consensus I would argue that the first sentence is factually incorrect, and the second sentence that links to it simply argues that anti-Catholicism was somewhere in the back of peoples mind. A) it was in government legislation B) there is proof of actual anti-Catholic sentiment by some landlords. Also, your saying that it was a majority in the Western Highlands and reducing to that area alone is, again, factually incorrect. The content of the current set-up, actually demonstrates other than what you are saying. It also demonstrates that there was a trend of institutional growth before Catholic Emancipation began, and this is important because it is another way of estimating the Catholic population.

And therefore I would oppose it on the grounds that your deletion of content looks like a non-neutral POV that replaces content with a source reference only, and sometimes deletes content that negates the POV as so written whilst also deleting sources that negate that POV.

Quite simply, it is not short for the sake of brevity, it is short for the sake of specific POV that has verifiable sources that demonstrate otherwise. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It actually looks fine to me and I am not sure quite which bits are being object to. Which bit of the first sentence is factually incorrect - do you mean the bit on Jacobitism?--SabreBD (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I would reinstate very many elements, if not the majority. If they were the subject of deletion I would begin an official process much like Richard did initially. 'While the landlords responsible for the Highland Clearances did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons' is factually incorrect. Amongst other sentences. If you are starting to be deliberately obstructive again, I will remind you that consensus is not about those who agree with you, it is about providing a neutral POV when others disagree with you. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how you construe me asking you a question as obstructive. That statement is also reliably sourced so I am not sure how you can say it is inaccurate.--SabreBD (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see that you are going down this route again. It saddens me, but don't think for a minute it will dissuade me. That statement is from a source, other sources say different. Therefore a neutral POV must be put across, it is not written as such. Do you really want to be this petty again? These are basic elements of Wikipedia article construction. The article as is provides this wording beforehand: 'However, Grant Dawson and Sonia Farber note that...' to introduce it. This goes something to allowing a neutral POV being read, although actually it allows the sources to say differently from each other. That's because consensus could not develop as to allow a specifically neutral wording. And that's life. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, 94.173.7.13, trying to extract some useful commentary from the above, I have softened "did not target" to "do not seem to have targeted people" for ethnic or religious reasons. I also note that the widely-varying estimates of numbers, a threefold variation for a single year, do tend to support your earlier point that it's very difficult to count members of an illegal religion.

We give a reference, including the authors' names; Dawson and Farber are not a subject of this article and they don't need to be mentioned in the text. If they were leading academic proponents of a seriously-controversial view, they could appropriately be mentioned, but they are merely stating an academic consensus. You clearly disagree with Dawson and Farber, and you seem to suggest that anti Catholic feeling was a major and widespread element in the Clearances, but you still have not produced sufficient sources to substantiate your point of view. Or even any source that seriously contradicts Dawson and Farber. On your showing, Catholics were a minority of those Cleared, of all Catholics in Scotland at the time only a minority were Cleared, and anti-Catholic feeling was a very minor (though demonstrably real) element of the whole process. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I simply do not agree. I cannot agree that the content you are proposing to delete, or change the words of, offers anything materially better. In fact, if you were to add all the elements in again, from where my current points of disagreement with your version are, the section would look remarkably, if not completely, the same.

There is a contradiction in the content you are asking to replace it with too. It said that they were not the targets (and now, 'do not seem to be the targets'), then it says that it was a contributory factor. That is an either or statement. There isn't any in-between in that statement. If it was contributory factor then there was a calculation in the minds of the landlords that meant that Catholics were the subject of Clearances when Presbyterians or Scottish Episcopalians were not.

This is precisely why Dawson and Faber need mentioning. Because they are suggesting something that others materially disagree with. I do not wish to discount Dawson and Faber's opinion. I am sure they truly believe it to be so. Yet others do not. Therefore, instead of challenging it's inclusion in the article, I previously made the addition of their names so that I was not deleting content that was both A) written in good faith, and B) an addition to the article in good faith. As per Wikipedia guidelines.

The Catholic population, before 1790 alone, fell by 25% due to immigration with a direct relation to The Clearanes. 1 in 4. A quarter. That's a statistical figure that is noteworthy. Nothing similar can be said for Presbyterians or Episcopalians. That is clear from the content that is currently there, and I am still adding more.

The fact is, we disagree. Again, without any ill-feeling, that's life. You hold a specific POV, I hold another POV. I am seeking a neutral POV. It seems that you are not. Whether you think you are or not, that is what it seems to me. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that preparing something in a sandbox is a very good way forward. I have edited Richard's sandbox so that the references appear. If we are focusing on Catholic clearances in this section, I think that the notorious clearances from Barra by Gordon of Cluny around 1850 should be mentioned. It is interesting because it is one of the most notorious and brutal clearances and also, in the context of this section, the majority were Catholics, and lastly because it was a late clearance of Catholics - 1851. However, I don't think there is evidence that it was "anti Catholic" in nature. In fact I believe that the local Catholic priest was among those supporting the clearance. I will look for a good reference. --Camerojo (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to prepare something in a sandbox, that is your prerogative. If it does not include the content as it is in the article before making additions, then all I am saying is that I will look to reinsert content that is currently there into the content you are creating in the sandbox. That would not in any way be a revert, but an addition of any content written out of it for the sake of what I stating, as a contributor to the current consensus, to be a non-neutral point of view. For that reason, I would like to suggest that the sandbox start from the where the current article's content is. Then we can all make additions from an consensual starting point. The current article is a consensus of all the contributors and not just some of them. I would also prefer it if the same general Wikipedia guidelines on consensus building of an article also be applicable in the sandbox. Otherwise there is little point. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer Richard's starting point. I would also prefer that you do not add controversial posts without reaching a consensus with the rest of us. If that is not possible, then I am afraid you may not be able to add what you wish. I think that Barra should be mentioned. However, if other editors are against it and I cannot convince them otherwise, then Barra will not be added. I accept that. --Camerojo (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Then we will be starting a dispute resolution again because you are removing content without good cause. I will start drawing up the necessary documents and pursue it by the end of the day. Sorry, but you are removing me from the consensus. That's obviously unfair, and regardless of what is fair or not, is against Wikipedia guidelines. I was sincere in my hope that it wouldn't reach this stage again, but what you are doing, in it's final implementation, amounts to an edit war. I am pursuing all avenues to avoid it. You are refusing to avoid it. Wikipedia doesn't operate on a policy of 2 against 1, or 3 against 1. It operates on a policy of consensus. That consensus doesn't need to be unanimous but it does need to take into account neutrality where unanimity cannot be met. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Plus, there isn't anything stopping you adding the content about Barra. If it's pertinent it's pertinent. If other users were to be against it, all you need to do is to demonstrate it's relevance. Bullying contributors out of adding content is an unfortunate aspect of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia has policies in place that stop it from occurring.94.173.7.13 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd support the idea of adding something about Barra, though it might be better placed by chronology than as part of the Religion section. (Unless we can produce references that say that anti-Catholicism was a significant part of the specific motivation for its clearance.) It may be worth mentioning that the starting point for my sandbox draft was, in fact, the then-current version of the article. I simply removed the prolixities, irrelevancies, and original research, then edited for clarity and comprehensibility. Unless I hear any relevant opposition, I propose soon to replace the current version with the sandbox version. I would of course welcome any dispute resolution procedure you may care to try. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What would stop me adding something about Barra would be respect for the majority view following reasonable debate, even if I disagreed. I support replacing the current version with the sandbox version. --Camerojo (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you remove prolixities, irrelevancies, and original research? That is the question.

You did so without talking about it here on the talk page. Therefore, how can we be said to reach consensus on whether or not prolixities, irrelevances, and original research were the subject of this removal?

In looking at what was subject of removal in your personal user page sandbox, I disagree with your characterization of it as such.

Therefore it cannot be said that there is consensus for you replace the content of this section of the article with the content of your personal user page sandbox.

The only majority that matters is the consensus. The consensus is what is in the article.

Do you accept that I disagree with your characterisation of your removals as prolixities, irrelevances, and original research? 94.173.7.13 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I had anticipated and now note your disagreement, thanks. Let us wait for Sabrebd at least to comment, though I note that User:Ehrenkater has added templates which rather suggests a tendency to agree with me. I have also had another go at improving the sandbox version. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A tendency to agree with you? I agree that it is written in a non-encyclopedic style. See my comment above in this section of the talk page at timestamp 11:16, 4 March 2014. I agree with one specific aspect of what you said.

I think the majority of this section should be deleted as being either (a) POV, (b) beyond the scope of the article, or (c) duplicating material in other sections of the article. What is left could be rewritten and merged into the other sections. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you didn't add your comments mid-way through one of my comments, thank you. I will ask you, as, I did Richard to enter into discussion of specific content so that we can determine on what grounds material is (a) POV, (b) beyond the scope of the article, or (c) duplicating material in other sections of the article. Otherwise you are simply stating rules, and not relating those rule in relation to content. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that removing all the content you wish to remove is the best way of remedying this though.

And why? Because I disagree with the wording and content of what you consider should replace it. So, I would add content and change the wording to something similar to what is in place.

If you note that I disagree then we must try to reach consensus. As I am, yet again, asking for as per the Wikipedia guidelines.

Unfortunately, you are displaying a determination to ignore my POV completely. That is what you were attempting to do from the very start of my contribution to this article, whilst others were attempting to reach consensus. Playing contributors off against another by whatever means does not reach consensus. It creates tension and further dispute.

Very briefly you were showing 'a tendency' to discuss things properly, but I suspect because you were wanting your POV instead of a neutral POV, that you simply wish to enforce it.

Again, consensus is not about those who agree with you, it is about reaching a neutral point of view with those who disagree with you. This last 'tendency' you are lacking completely.94.173.7.13 (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I also support the replacement of the existing text with what is in the sandbox. It is concise, well sourced and balanced.--SabreBD (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say that the current content is not 'concise, well sourced and balanced'? 94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it's long winded, most of it is of peripheral relevance to the article and best placed elsewhere, and the rest goes well beyond its sources to exude strong hints of POV and original research. Per Sabrebd and Camerojo above, I have replaced the Religion section with the sandbox version. I hope that Ehrenkater will also feel that this is an improvement, allowing us to move on to, I hope, a consensus version. (Though I realize that this edit addresses only one part of the essay-like section and that other parts have similar though perhaps less grave problems). Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)