Talk:Highland Clearances/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Let's respawn...

Doing my humble best to achieve a spirit of loving-kindness, more relevantly to improve this article with scepticism towards my current ideas on the subject, and with thanks for advice on how to proceed, I'm collecting in my sandbox comments from various sources relevant to religion, especially RC, and the Clearances. With page numbers and sufficiently long quotations to establish exactly what they do say. I hope that this jumble will enable us to make clear exactly what the sources say, and may be a useful stepping stone to a universally-agreed version of this article. Feel free to add more material there - in no particular order and not necessarily in any final form - or to collect it anywhere else. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I was far from disapproving of the idea. I was wishing to start from where we are, but considering the tone of your comments I will accept it. Do you wish to discuss the sandbox here, or there? As far as Wikipedia guidelines go, it merely says that we should inform other users in a prominent way that discussions are happening elsewhere, and not on the article talk page. FelisRead(talk) 18:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Any discussion of changes to the mainspace article should happen here, of course, and any discussion of the sandbox material may well be better here, it's difficult to discuss a page on that page itself. But feel free to try - it's only a sandbox after all. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course... I was referring to the discussion page on the sandbox though. FelisRead(talk) 09:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional references

Having just re-read John Prebble's The Highland Clearances I felt it useful to add further material and references. This generally very partisan book nevertheless (and perhaps unwillingly) identifies (i) that the Clearances were typically carried out according to the law of the time (which afforded the tenants virtually no protection); (ii) that force was usually used only against those who stayed after their notices of eviction expired; (iii) that while Highland witnesses blamed the immemorial enemy the English, the driving spirits were at least initially the hereditary Highland chiefs. These points address common misconceptions and are well worth making IMO. Chrismorey (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a complex and sad history. There will be exceptions but I think you are probably correct that the majority of evictions had the law behind them. That is not to say that they were right or just. It simply reflects that the laws imposed after Culloden did not recognise the traditional rights of clan members to their communal family lands. As the article states "Clan land had become the private property of individual landlords". It reminds me of the similar plight of Aboriginals here in Australia. Nevertheless I think your point is well made - thank you for contributing it. Camerojo (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A Small Point - 1822 Visit

This is a very good article. Far better than many Wiki pages about Scottish history.

Just one minor observation re the following para:

"It was only in the early 19th century that the second, more brutal phase of the Clearances began; this was well before the visit by George IV in 1822, when Lowlanders set aside their previous distrust and hatred of the Highlanders and identified with them as national symbols."

This seems inconsistent with later paragraphs about ideas of racial superiority of Anglo-Saxon over Celt published later in the 19th century.

Clearly Lowlanders hadn't 'set aside their previous distrust and hatred of the Highlanders' in 1822' - they had simply adopted Highland 'iconography' e.g. tartan, kilts etc as their own national symbols during the 1822 Royal visit.

Perhaps it should read something like: "...Lowlanders set aside their distrust and hatred of the Highlanders to identify themselves too with Highland, Celtic, cultural symbols".

Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.229.231 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a good pick up. Why don't you have a go at changing the text as you suggest. Camerojo (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Quality/Neutrality

This article seems to present a partisan point of view, founded perhaps in one of the cited sources (Prebble) whose work on this subject is generally discredited by serious historians. I think an extensive audit of neutrality is needed, together with an injection of some new sources. Am I alone in thinking this? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No argument here. Please see the extensive arguments in Archives 2.--SabreBD (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes another informed pair of eyes on this article would be welcomed. Camerojo (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Highland and Island Emigration Society

Finally finished Highland and Island Emigration Society page which may be of interest to those following this page. Camerojo (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Good job. We could do with a bit more about it here. Maybe a subsection?--SabreBD (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback. I just added a link to HIES from the section on the potato famine. I am not sure that HIES merits a whole section to itself. However, there were a number of emigration society's that grew up in response to conditions at that time. For example St Andrews Emigration Society (which I mention in my family history site at http://youbelong.info/public/Three_Clearances_and_a_Wedding#The_Second_Clearance because they brought out some of my ancestors). Possibly a section describing a number of those societies? Camerojo (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Reformation vs any other Reformation

To User:Mutt Lunker who reverted my reinstatement of User:Maurice Carbonaro's clarifying change of "Reformation" to "Scottish Reformation" - It is a minor point but this was a time of great upheaval in the church as elsewhere. Clearly this page relates to Scotland but it is quite conceivable that another reformation in the church outside Scotland could have had an impact on the the church in Scotland - for example a hypothetical reformation in the Catholic Church originating in Rome. I liked the edit made by User:Maurice Carbonaro making it explicit that this was a specifically Scottish Reformation of the church - which is why I reinstated it. Camerojo (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I liked the refinement of the link to the specific article about the Reformation in Scotland but in context in an article about Scotland, the word "Scottish" is redundant, superfluous, over-explanatory and makes the sentence clumsy, hence my edit. Your hypothesis is not reasonably conceivable as the term the "Reformation" overwhelmingly means one thing (the Protestant Reformation) and the link is there for anyone who does happen to be unfamiliar with the term. If someone doesn't know what the Reformation is and should they decide not to click on the link to find out, they would no more know what it was with the term "Scottish" before it than without it. The Reformation in Scotland was part of the Reformation in general, not an entirely distinct matter as you possibly imply above; it had its specific characteristics and events but it was a part of the whole. No other reformation is commonly referred to without the qualification of another word. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Scottish reformation had unique characteristics which merit a separate article in WP and are relevant to the topic of this page - the Highland Clearances. A casual reader might conclude that a link from Reformation just refers to a page on the Protestant Reformation in general. It does not just link to the Protestant Reformation page for good reason. Any reader interested in this page would benefit from looking at the particular characteristics of the Scottish Reformation. Prefixing the word Scottish is a clear signal that there is special information available for the reader to follow particularly relevant to the topic of this page. Camerojo (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Camerojo and User:Mutt Lunker for showing so much interest in the Protestant Reformation and, specifically, to the Scottish Reformation. Please let's try our best to avoid WP:PA (i.e. "(...) Your hypothesis is not reasonably conceivable (...)" and let's try to concentrate on the content. According to Tristram Hunt "(...) the meanings and legacy [ of the Protestant Reformation ] seem more vital than ever. (...)", so I wouldn't be surprised about the fact that this topic could still be considered a wp:controversy. Maybe we will need a wp:third opinion for this edit. Anyway I guess we should edit for the wp:readers and not for the casual ones: trying to avoid wp:EGGs should help us for wp:readers first. Personally I consider myself more a reader than an editor as I do not put the numbers of edits first, and, honestly, every single edit is made after careful consideration on my behalf. What else? Let's wait others to voluntarily join the conversation. Cheers.   M aurice   Carbonaro  07:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As a compromise, how about something like "The Reformation in Scotland made practicing Roman Catholicism illegal as well as prohibiting the ownership of any property by a Roman Catholic, which was identified with Jacobitism, and unacceptable in higher society." I think that does read better and it makes it clear that this sentence is talking specifically about the way the reformation was carried out in Scotland, not anywhere else - ie with the full weight of the law behind it (unlike, for example, the reformation in France where the law stayed on the side of the Catholic church). Or, maybe better still, we could start the sentence with "The Reformation Parliament of 1560 made practicing...". I think I prefer that because it focuses on the legal rather than the religious side which is what this sentence is all about. Also, because it relates to a specific (Scottish) event, I don't think it needs the "Scottish" prefix which Mutt felt was redundant. Camerojo (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Maurice, I'm sure your accusation of personal attack was made in good faith but talking about whether the concept in a hypothesis is supported by reason directly addresses the content and in no way the person. Please be careful about making such remarks. I'm not sure where there is any particular controversy on this matter either. I'm at a loss to know what edit counts have to do with the matter.

As mentioned, I do support the link to the article which deals specifically with the Reformation in Scotland, i.e. Scottish Reformation rather than the general article, Protestant Reformation; it is the phrasing of the sentence in the context of this article I am concerned with. My preference of the suggested rewordings is "The Reformation Parliament of 1560 made practising (with an "s" though (It's taken me years to remember the difference))...". I'd support that the concentration on the legal aspect, which is the part here which is specific to Scotland, rather than the religious changes which were part of a wider whole, is the way to go. Other wordings, in my view, may give the impression to some readers that "the Scottish Reformation" may be an entirely distinct matter to "the Reformation". I think we have a solution - shall I make the change? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to help a developing consensus, I'd support the phrasing suggested by Camerojo and Mutt. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent - happy for you to make the change Mutt. Camerojo (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad section: Second phase of the Clearances

(1) I think there are some serious problems with:
"Most notorious are the examples of landlords trying to exploit changing economic circumstances to their financial advantage by clearing uneconomical tenants from their land, making room for more profitable uses such as sheep, deer forests or tourism. Two of the best documented such clearances are those from the land of the Duchess of Sutherland ...."

(a) "Most notorious" is POV. The Sutherland clearances are widely written about, and therefore notable, but more recent study makes reasonably clear that
(i) there were plenty of much worse examples of the treatment of the cleared population
(ii) the Sutherlands were motivated by their liberal politics - so however misguided they might (or might not) have been, they were not driven solely (or perhaps even partly) by financial advantage (the Duchess of Sutherland had, after all, married someone who was probably the richest man in England).
The words "most notorious" condemns the Duchess of Sutherland in very strong terms with no full explanation and goes against recent assessments of what actually happened to her tenants.

(b) "exploit changing economic circumstances.....". This over-summarises a very complex and varying range of circumstances. The drivers of the clearances were (in no particular order)
(i) debt / bankruptcy / unwise lending by banks that did not understand the low productivity of highland estates
(ii) an ambition to "improve" an estate - sometimes involving a hereditary landowner, sometimes a purchaser from an indebted landowner - sometimes motivated by the wish or need to increase the rental income, sometimes motivated by liberal / altruistic aspiration
(iii) famine / overpopulation - the former was notably (but not solely) caused by potato blight ,
(iv) failure of industries previously promoted by the landowner - most notably the failure of the kelp processing industry, making the workforce redundant.

(2) There is a long quotation from a source that turns out to be a history/genealogy site whose quality I question. The contributor to the source is listed by the University of Aberdeen as an "Information Adviser" - I take that to mean "librarian". (I have no wish to belittle the role of librarian, but I think we need to differentiate from work by published academics.) This source is actually quoting Alexander MacKenzie - whose reporting of events has been demonstrated as lacking evidence or any attempt at impartiality. I do not see how this quotation adds to the factual content of this article - unless it were used to illustrate the wide range of opinions and interpretations that form part of the historiography and "view in popular culture" of the subject.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Canadian Boat Song

I am not sure of the relevance of the Canadian Boat Song to this subject. Devine talks about "...its entirely bogus origins as the invention by a non-Gael who was not even an emigrant."

My inclination would be to delete this paragraph.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

References

It's a reflection in popular culture and Devine's comment does tend to establish notability if not total authenticity... my very mild inclination would be to keep it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a tough call to decide how much of this article should have the hard facts (in as much as anyone can determine them) versus the view of the clearances in popular culture. On consideration, I think it needs a section on "Historiography and View in Popular Culture". This could take in the first notice taken of the subject (i.e. contemporary newspapers - some of whom took a particularly partisan stance), then the popularisation through Prebble, then the later more academically rigorous historical work. Then moving on to the popular culture. In the midst of this, I am sure there is room to quote Eric Richards stating that the total volume of work written about the clearances by historians and popular writers exceeds the volume of the historical source material that is available to historians. (I'd have to dig up the precise quote, as he puts it better than that.)

Anyway, I note your (mild) argument for its retention - I just feel that if retained, it should be in a section that explains the development of ideas, the range of controversy and the popular view. I don't feel I've done enough research yet to draft such a section. I note that Richards has written a book about the way the opinions have developed (Debating the Highland Clearances) which I think would be essential research reading. Given a lot more material on this, the Canadian Boat Song may appear less important.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No disagreement from me. Thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sellar

I question the phrase: "Sellar threw people out in person if they showed any reluctance to go, and burned down their crofts to make sure they never came back."

(1) Sellar did not actually throw people out of their houses "in person". I do not believe that this is suggested in the source cited at the end of this sentence - Richard's latest book on the Highland Clearances certainly makes clear that Sellar acted only in a supervisory manner.

(2) It may be pedantic to say so, but a "croft" is a small enclosure of land used for arable or pasture. It is certainly not the house. I appreciate that many people call the house which is part of a Scottish smallholding a "croft", but that is a shorthand usage of the word. (It's like saying "I live on a farm", when you mean "in a house on a farm".) So to say that the evicted persons had their crofts burned down is nonsense.

(3) Most of the evicted people were farmers, not crofters. I.e. they farmed a holding of a reasonable size. So usage of the word croft is misleading. The evictions often involved moving people to smallholdings that are correctly called crofts. The intent of these small patches of land was to provide some food but make it essential for the inhabitants to find work elsewhere in order to survive.

I question: "Evictions of 2,000 families in one day were not uncommon. Many starved and froze to death where their homes had once been." This certainly needs a citation from an authoritative source. My understanding of Eric Richards' book is that 430 families, estimated at about 2000 people, was a year's work for the 1814 clearance on the Sutherland estate. So "2,000 families a day" would appear to be nonsense.
"Many starved or froze ..." - where is the evidence for this? The evictions took place in late spring (Whitsun) or summer. So even in Scotland, I think it unlikely that anyone froze - certainly someone who was elderly and/or unwell may have succumbed to an underlying health condition, but this is not freezing to death. Furthermore, the evicted farmers were expected to have gathered up their possessions, including their food stores, livestock, etc. So how does that equate with starving? I also question "many" in this context. I suspect that a better choice of words would be "a few" - together with a better description of what happened to them.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Were the evicted farmers able to remove there possessions? Did the people have the means to convey there possessions, food stores, livestock to a safe place and/or storage? Was enough time given? How much food was there in the spring after the winter? Your positive spin needs also citation and numbers.Jochum (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Pressure of work has kept me away from this subject for some time - so the following is probably an incomplete answer.
The majority of those evicted in the Sutherland evictions did not resist the event and therefore had ample time to remove their possessions. Many evictees even moved before the date assigned. Those evicted benefited from conventions that they, for example, could harvest crops that they had planted (and were still growing after their departure). New places had been set aside for the removed tenants, and there was temporary accommodation available. They had received notice in January 1814 for a move that was meant to happen in the early spring, but was delayed until June. This is made clear in Richards. If they did not have sufficient food stores in the spring to take them through to harvest, they would have suffered hunger regardless of whether they were evicted.
The whole mystery of Sellar is that he was actually much less worthy of demonisation than many whose names have slipped from common view in history. Your suggestion that I am putting a "positive spin" on Sellar demonstrates that the starting point for any assessment of him is that he was a very bad person, amongst the worst of the Highland factors. I agree that he was misguided and inept, and that he oversaw an event which got out of hand (for which he was tried and acquitted of murder). (Richards addresses his character.) But his vilification is so strong that it allows those who made no attempt to assist evicted tenants to be completely forgotten.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Slavery

Does anyone know if anyone called the Clearances "slavery"? If so, please mention it. Pepper9798 (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why they would as it doesn't obviously fit the description. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"forced displacement of Scottish Gaels"

The continual insertion that this was a "forced displacement of Scottish Gaels" implies that their being Scottish in Scotland was significant and that their being Gaels was a defining reason for their displacement, which is contentious and if you boldy edit to say so you must support this. It may well be true that the overwhelming majority of those cleared were Gaelic speakers, if that is how you would define "Gael", but it was because they held tenancies under a system which many landowners (largely themselves Scottish and either Gaelic speakers or descendants thereof) wished to terminate that they were displaced, not directly because of their ethnicity. Significant areas of the Highlands that were cleared were not, or not entirely, Gaelic-speaking; largely Scots-speaking Caithness for example. That people under discussion in the article living in Scotland were "Scottish" is superfluous and their nationality would only be worthy of note if they were not of the native one. You are POV-pushing and edit warring: please read WP:3RR as you plainly either do not understand it or are trying to play it (I would note that you have now reverted me three times in 24 hours), self-rv and discsuss it here, if you feel you can justify your undue POV. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to create a foundation upon some simple agreement instead of accusing you anything: Gaels are an ethnolinguistic group. What are commonly given the name 'ethnic groups' are all ethnolinguistic groups, purity of ethnicity is a fiction, though ethnicity itself is a fact. The Scottish are more than one ethnolinguistic group. Scottish Gaels are one of the ethnolinguistic groups that make up the Scottish people. Are we in agreement thus far? Baglessingazump (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not in agreement that this is of any relevance to my contention of your edits. See my points above and as requested, please self-rv. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your revert is built upon, as you accept, a minority of Scots speakers in an area that the Scottish Highlands article rightly, with sourcing to back it up, has said: "Historically, the "Highland line" distinguished the two Scottish cultures. While the Highland line broadly followed the geography of the Grampians in the south, it continued in the north, cutting off the north-eastern areas, that is Caithness, Orkney and Shetland, from the more Gaelic Highlands and Hebrides.[7][8]"

This is the Highland Clearances. The Highlands itself was Gaelic speaking, the area you accept as being in the minority is historically seen as outside the Highlands.Baglessingazump (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You have still not self-reverted yet. I view this as bad faith and will not engage in further discussion until you do. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Assume good faith. We each have 3 reverts. Now is your opportunity to talk about the facts. As of yet, the facts are against my reverting it again.Baglessingazump (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you insist on playing the 3RR as if it is an "allowance" of the number of times you can war, that does not support your assertion of GF and if you are playing the system, it is you that have reverted me 3 times in this 24 hours with your disputed assertion, I have reverted twice in this 24 hours. That said, those warring do not need to exceed 3 rvs in 24 hours to face sanction. You made an edit which has been disputed so you must set it aside and work to gain consensus. Revert. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR: "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring."

We each have 3 reverts.Baglessingazump (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll restrain myself from beating my wife as well. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking me to marry you?82.41.251.168 (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

To return to the facts: where outside Caithness are non-Gaels subject to the Highland Clearances?Baglessingazump (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed."

How possibly you could revert all changes to my "bold edit" plus think you have been specific is the question.

I have been specific on this talk page, I am going to be specific in adding each element back into the article.

By reverting all my changes bar none, you are refusing to be specific as WP:BRD specifies. Pardon the pun.Baglessingazump (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to praise Richard Keatinge's revert, plus invite him to amend the Scottish Highlands article, including my quote above from it, though also the section with the title "Historical geography" with his source to the contrary that Caithness or Scots speakers were absent in the Highlands. That's a "bold edit" if I have seen one in my life. I love it! Proof of things like this makes the Wikipedia community worth it's weight in gold.Baglessingazump (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We also might need to change the name of the Highland Clearances article. I suggest, North Scotland Clearances. Just to be inclusive of the Scots speaking people in A' Ghàidhealtachd.Baglessingazump (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Seldom have I had such a sophisticated and courteous response to a rather curt revert, admittedly one of unusual subtlety. Thank you.

I feel that North Scotland Clearances may not be sufficiently descriptive. But the art of the Victorian title may not be altogether lost. What about An account of the late and lamentable Clearances lately undertaken in certain northern parts of the Iland of Gret Brittayne, by sundry clueless overspenders and their heartless lackeys from elsewhere in those misty and debatable lands, complete with discussion of why and how this whole miserable business happened, plus some reference to the religion and language of those worst affected, by A Variety of Ladies And Gentlemen? Reference to the languages of Caithness through recorded history may be de trop, but what do you think?

More seriously, taking your suggested edits one at a time strikes me as a very good idea. Please put them forward. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I see now that Caithness at one time talking Gaelic proves the idea that Scottish Gaels have any intrinsic link to the Highland Clearances false, plus that Caithness has somehow always been seen as in the Highlands. I appreciate your diagnosis Doctor. Have a lovely weekend free from the Scottish Gaels who make your life hell.82.41.251.168 (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, most of the victims of the Clearances were Scottish, Scottish Highlanders, and Gaelic-speaking. Some were people from Caithness. (Just for the record, my personal stereotypes of these groups tend to be rather positive. Happy childhood memories.) I don't think anyone's denying that. There is an issue about how exactly we should express these points, but we should definitely make them. I rather think that we do, and I'm quite sure that there is a variety of ways in which a good encyclopedia can make them. Please, continue to explore this variety. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it best Mutt Lunker writes about it Doc? Your gravity because of your expertise, plus experience of & with Wikipedia would surely aid him before I could only hope to add anything to the article again!

I hope my very rough addition captures the essence of what each of you are hoping to build upon.82.41.251.168 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Just saying "people" avoids misrepresenting a situation where Gaels cleared out Gaels. . . dave souza, talk 12:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is misrepresenting it?

The lead states by hereditary aristocratic landowners.

May I bring to your attention that my original additions, all of them subject to revert that was lacking specificity as to what was the problem with each element (instead very broad challenges on POV or lacking relevance) with the Diff of all my changes as of 21:47, 15 October 2015 was:

"This was largely carried out by financially racked hereditary aristocratic landowners, with an ancient socio-cultural history (though dwindling legal status) as Highland chieftains, hiring emigrant Lowland, and sometimes English, labour & agricultural practices".Baglessingazump (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic OR

If I could understand what this "very rough addition" was trying to say, it may well be a synthesis of individually true or arguable points but put together appears to be an attempt to promote a novel theory not expressed by a reliable source and of obscure pertinence to the subject.

If by your own admission you can only express yourself poorly, please do not place such "very rough addition"s such as this for others to sort out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I too find the "very rough addition" excessive. The article already makes the point that most of those cleared were Gaels and that Gaelic culture suffered a huge crisis as a direct result of the Clearances. While we possibly could make more of it, I don't think that the article needs much more, nor can I see that it needs anything further about non-Gaelic expellees. I have reverted the last addition. Baglessingazump, you are of course free to continue trying to improve the article, but personally, I really don't think it needs more on ethnicity. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree entirely and I would also note that if, as they imply above, Baglessingazump or their IP sock has further changes to the article in mind, going about it the way they have so far will not be helpful or productive. They repeated the imposition of an edit which by their own admission had been called into question by “users' (plural)” and called for talk to be used when there was copious discussion already, which by their own admission had not reached a consensus to accept their proposed change of wording to the status quo ante. Whether or not the socking or repeated forcing of an edit without consensus is down to competence issues of a new user, it has become disruptive and continuance will not be acceptable. Bagless, for this reason and to potentially assist you in expressing yourself clearly in the article, if you do have any further edits in mind, particularly the ones that I have already disputed and reverted on the 17th of October, please discuss them on this talk page first and be patient about this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you agree that the introdution needs to make salient points precisely as to the elements in the article?Baglessingazump (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I raise a worry Richard with you too? At 19:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC) you accept my addition, at 15:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC), you em... change your view? Am I at the whim of these changes? Can I ask for more clarity in future as to if you are going to change your view without any change in substance at all, by anyone, in the period between?Baglessingazump (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mutt Lunker: I humbly put myself forth to serve those needs from now on.Baglessingazump (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Richard's two posts seem entirely consistent to me. Bagless, I nearly elaborated earlier on how I feared that you may be misinterpreting my edits and comments and it now seems you are having similar difficulties with comprehending Richard's posts. I'm not sure I can express my thoughts any more clearly and it would be impertinent to do so regarding Richard's, although I find them perfectly clear already. Maybe just read the full thread again slowly and deliberately? Regarding what the intro (or lede) should do, your edit made it (no doubt unintentionally) less well-expressed, somewhat inaccurate and misleading. Other parts of the lede and the rest of the article address the aspect of Gaelic culture in the subject well without introducing these flaws. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

1) Revision as of 13:41, 31 October 201.

2) Richard Keatinge talk as of 19:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Well, most of the victims of the Clearances were Scottish, Scottish Highlanders, and Gaelic-speaking. Some were people from Caithness. (Just for the record, my personal stereotypes of these groups tend to be rather positive. Happy childhood memories.) I don't think anyone's denying that. There is an issue about how exactly we should express these points, but we should definitely make them. I rather think that we do, and I'm quite sure that there is a variety of ways in which a good encyclopedia can make them. Please, continue to explore this variety.

3) Richard Keatinge talk as of 15:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC) I too find the "very rough addition" excessive. The article already makes the point that most of those cleared were Gaels and that Gaelic culture suffered a huge crisis as a direct result of the Clearances. While we possibly could make more of it, I don't think that the article needs much more, nor can I see that it needs anything further about non-Gaelic expellees. I have reverted the last addition. Baglessingazump, you are of course free to continue trying to improve the article, but personally, I really don't think it needs more on ethnicity.

Is this what you think is consistent?Baglessingazump (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. As I've suggested, read the thread in its entirety. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

1) Make a "rough addition" summarising the consensus. 2) Told to continue to explore this variety. 3) Revert.

Can you point me to A) the element that is consistent? B) what exploration I was given a chance to do before the revert?Baglessingazump (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

An unhealthy desire for consistency is a sign of an unquiet mind. I'm trying to express two related ideas - I apologize if I'm not doing the trick well. One, that the article presently treats relevant matters of ethnicity quite well; I don't, I'm sorry to say, think that your contributions so far have offered any benefit. And two, that you may well be able to improve the article anyway; don't just take my opinion if you want to keep on trying. Alternatively, of course, you might want to apply your valuable time to something else. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

On the introduction that is, I quote from WP:LEAD, "not a news-style lede", it is a "a summary of [the articles] most important aspects."

Richard Keatinge seems to agree that the Highland Clearances (the article topic) has an intrinsic link with the ethnolinguistic Scottish Gaels, plus that this is an important aspect within the article, though seems to think the lead ought to summarise this as "people".

Mutt Lunker challenges my summary of this important aspect of the article by reverting Scottish Gaels (my summary) back to "people" because of a minority of Scots speakers in an area of Scotland: Caithness.

Nothing in the article is about the Caithness.

Caithness is only debatably in the Scottish Highlands, please see each of the Wikipedia articles on Caithness plus the Scottish Highlands on this.

To challenge my summary of the important aspect of the link between the Highland Clearances (the article topic) with Scottish Gaels needs to have some kind of basis within the article.

Where is it?Baglessingazump (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've tried hard, returning to the same points but I now don't think I can express things in a way that will help you understand better. It's all above, all of these points. We are going round in circles and your impression of the debate is not what I would regard as supportable. I'm not sure that there is more than I can do. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That's alright. If Richard Keatinge can relate why he agrees with you then we have consensus.Baglessingazump (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The lede already mentions Gaels / Gaeldom twice, and the body of the article does so at greater length. This seems plenty to me, and I guess to Matt also. You may wish to convince us otherwise, but persistently analyzing the failures of my rhetorical style probably isn't a good way to do it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Brief summary of talk on consensus for or against my addition:

At of talk 22:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Richard Keatinge's opposition to the summary (1) of the important aspect of the relation between the Scottish Gaels (2) with the Highland Clearances (3)(the article topic) was on the basis of Scots language minority in Caithness.

That is not the basis of his opposition now.

At talk 19:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Richard Keatinge's opposition... was on the basis of Scots language minority in Caithness.

That is not the basis of his opposition now.

At talk 23:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Mutt Lunker opposition... was on the basis of Scots language minority in Caithness.

At talk 21:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Mutt Lunker's opposition was on the basis of ""above, all of these points."

That must be said to include his original opposition that was on the basis of Scots language minority in Caithness

Richard Keatinge was at first accepting this basis before rejecting it to form his opposition on the basis that the lead mentions Gaels in a translation of the article topic in Gaelic, that is a feature of the lede that is in most Wikipedia articles of the type (though Richard seems to think that the translation equates to a summary) plus that the lede goes on to mention Gaelic culture, though mention of Scottish Gaels beyond a translation of the Gaelic name for the Highland Clearances is absent, with only mention of the generalisation 'people' instead .

Mutt Lunker could be said to include Richard's points before the clarification of the basis of his opposition because Mutt Lunker talks of "all of these points" being the basis for his opposition.

With WP:LEAD stating that the lede is "not a news-style lede", it is a "a summary of [the articles] most important aspects", on what basis is the word people a summary of the articles most important aspects as the only people given mention are Scottish Gaels.Baglessingazump (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

With all those on the talk page building consensus now absent for beyond 24 hours, it appears that Richard Keatinge plus Mutt Lunker are happy with the Richard Keatinge's reply to the question put to them on what the consensus reasoning for reverting my addition is, to quote again:

"The lede already mentions Gaels / Gaeldom twice, and the body of the article does so at greater length. This seems plenty to me, and I guess to Matt also. You may wish to convince us otherwise, but persistently analyzing the failures of my rhetorical style probably isn't a good way to do it."

I would, I think we all would, much more readily appreciate building consensus within the talk page, though consensus seeking processes are available beyond this.

First question is, if I take this to one of those consensus processes to clarify the Wikipedia policy is inline with the consensus on the talk page, would Dave Souza like to be taken on in by the lengthy process that would take many hours perhaps of time that could be spent elsewhere?

Second question is, I suppose it can be seen as emphasis or a question too: I hope we can all agree that such consensus processes are less an attempt to bully my way into reverting my page to the original addition, though to deny I am for it's addition that would be stupid, though to clarify Wikipedia policy because to me this is question about summarising in the lead lacking an sufficient reply to assuage my reasoning for the addition. Anyone can reply to this question affirming this if they like. A reply would smooth the way, though thinking it a necessity would be wrong.

Third question is, if those already within the consensus building process on the talk page would like take a look at my reply to Dave Souza relating to changing expulsion to eviction in the translation of the Gaelic name for the Highland Clearances, to give a affirmation or negation.82.41.251.168 (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We can all see my IP. I am baglessingazump. Multiple computers. It would be wrong to think I was duping anyone. Some computers have the login as standard, some without.82.41.251.168 (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The addition duplicated a link already in the parentheses translating the Gaelic name, hence overlinking. Since those doing the displacing were also generally Gaels, we shouldn't hint that it's expulsion by others. . . dave souza, talk 12:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The link was in the translation of the Gaelic name for the Highland Clearances. It would be as if I put a link to Highlands or Clearances in the topic heading Highland Clearances.

The translation is a translation.

Where is the summary of the important aspect that the only people given mention in the article are Scottish Gaels.

Where in the article are Clearances said to be "expulsions"?Baglessingazump (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If expulsion is the cause of some duress, please see: http://www.faclair.com/ViewEntry.aspx?ID=02D93AD0348CC8C095586F179796C1E4.

A more specific translation is eviction or clearance.

A literal translation is always impossible.

Though expulsion is also an acceptable way of translating it. I can change it to any of those?Baglessingazump (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend eviction though, because like expulsion may seem to suggest something else to you, fuadach is less suggestive of clearance, that is actually a word that the English language employs almost specifically to talk about the Highland Clearances, than eviction, a word of origin that predates the usage of clearance in English in that way. Translations are always about less or more.Baglessingazump (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just put links into the article topic for each word of Highland Clearances. Highland takes you to the wikipedia article Highland, though Clearances takes you to Highland Clearances, instead of Expulsion.Baglessingazump (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Now taken it out as my summary suggests "Removing links from article title plus it's quotations inline with WP:LINKSTYLE."Baglessingazump (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:BOLDTITLE.Baglessingazump (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

See also MOS:FORLANGBaglessingazump (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Expulsion, eviction, or clearance

The word "clearance" is almost the only word used in any variety of English to label the Highland Clearances. We should follow reliable sources on this point. As for further descriptions / definitions within the article, and for the sake of avoiding repetition, it seems to me reasonable to use the words "eviction" or "expulsion" instead. The thesaurus also suggests "removal", "ejection", "displacement", "banishment", "expatriation", "extrusion", all perhaps usable. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Gaelic thesauri go with those three to a large degree: eviction, expulsion, clearance.

I'm on record on this talk page recommending eviction because Clearance is an English language word relating specifically to the Highland Clearances, absent in Gaelic, plus fuadach is word of origin from way before the Clearances.

If expulsion is the cause of some undue duress, the Gaelic translation that would be best is eviction.

It may also negate any perception that the translation is suggesting non-Scottish Gaels had been expelling Scottish Gaels.

Eviction relates to property. The lead goes on to relate the Clearances had been the result of "landowners".

Expulsion is more violent, without relating to property.

The article talks about "forced displacement", that is why the perception that non-Gaels did the expelling, because of the use of the word expulsion, was a surprise to my reading of it, though linking the forced displacement to property rights would be less suggestive of the complete absence of legal authority, such that instead it was some kind of ethnic cleansing.82.41.251.168 (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I can also see now that the point that Mutt Lunker raises about the term Scottish Gael is relevant in relating to ethnolinguistics. Non-Scottish Gaels might suggest Irish Gaels. Perhaps the best way of writing it is Scottish-Gaels?82.41.251.168 (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the same challenge with the ethnolinguistic Ulster Scots. Non-Ulster Scots might be Scots, or Irish. Ulster-Scots seems to negate any confusion. 82.41.251.168 (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"Clearance" works best for me because it gives a sense of multiple evictions/expulsions - clearing the land so that it could be used for other purposes. The definition given in the lead makes that multiplicity explicit : "an enforced simultaneous eviction of ALL families living in a given area such as an entire glen". Camerojo (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Though the point that Dave Souza raises above preceding this topic is about use of the word expulsion in the translation of the Gaelic name for the Highland Clearances.

"Eviction of the Gael" in Gaelic raises this idea of multiplicity too. What's more "Eviction of the Gael" instead of "Eviction of Gaels" suggests a level of multiplicity beyond Clearances, to suggest the devastating impact the Highland Clearances had on Scottish Gaeldom.

Highland Clearances is beyond doubt the English language title of the phenomena, as Richard Keatinge is right to relate to the article's already huge list of reliable sources.82.41.251.168 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Highland Clearances (long form) Clearances (short form)

In relation to MOS:LEADALT ("...may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms"), any contrary views that it would be best for the article to document the fact that the word Clearances, is a word the English language relates solely to the Highland Clearances.

The word "clearance", itself, in all dictionaries I have been looking at, lacks any definition, of any count of definitons, specifying a connection with land; with enclosures being nearest in form to something relating to a similar action.

Seeing too that Clearances already links to Highland Clearances, the phenomena of the Clearances seems to already have acceptance upon Wikipedia as relating solely to the Scottish Highlands.

Highland Clearances is without doubt the chosen long form of those documenting the phenomena, though for some reason the article has thus far been reluctant to document the fact that the short form "Clearances" is an English language word that has a special relationship to the phenomena in the Scottish Highlands.Baglessingazump

If anyone can guess why my timestamp is gone from the original posting, though my username present, it's a guess that teach me more than my own. Baglessingazump (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"slum clearance" gets 341,000 results on Google, the connection to the Highlands (124,000 results) may be strong but is not unique. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Clearances" though, as a short form in itself, does relate specifically to the Highland Clearances; with slum clearances needing to relate to slums to create that count of results.

Putting Clearances into Google itself brings up only pages relating to the Highland Clearances.

In fact second result (from a Scottish government, not Highland council, site on Google only uses the short form Clearances, as do many of the subsequent results relate Clearances to The Highland Clearances.Baglessingazump (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Beyond this, the Collins English Dictionary, relates Clearances to Highland Clearances [1]Baglessingazump (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Whilst in the definiton of Clearance [2] "8. the act of clearing an area of land of its inhabitants by mass eviction . See Highland Clearances."Baglessingazump (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Slum clearance would be the clearance of slums, clearances the clearing of people.Baglessingazump (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

On Google I find "security clearances", "auction clearances", "centre clearances" (football), etc. Camerojo (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The noun Clearances, relates specifically to the Highland Clearances in the majority, perhaps all results, the results that show security clearances, auction clearances, centre clearances, use the word clearances as an adjective.

This is because Clearances is the short form of the Highland Clearances, whereas security clearances, auction clearances, centre clearances all use the ordinary long acceptable definitions of clearance that lacks any relation to land.

The noun clearances (plural) relates specifically to land, it only has use from descriptions of the Highland Clearances.

Though in a very few dictionaries, such as the Collins dictionary, a defintion of clearance relating to land is present (though it dates to descriptions of the Highland Clearances). Even in this instance the Collins dictionary actually relates that definition of clearance specifically to the Highland Clearances.82.41.251.168 (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As Camerojo's examples make clear, "clearance" means that act of clearing an area of something. People, buildings, goods, footballs, whatever. Everything Must Go. In the context of the history of the Scottish Highlands, I would imagine that it is specifically associated with the subject of this article. Even if you can provide RS to say so, I can't see that point, or indeed this whole discussion, as being helpful to the development of this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely the point is that if it has RS it is true, that this is a Wikipedia article about the truth. I am sure the truth has a point, that the truth is, at the very least, as you have said, "helpful" especially upon Wikipedia.

I have RS from a (1) Scottish government internet source, (2) Collins dictionary, (3) Google search results, (4) that all definitions of clearance lacks relation to land beyond one definition that ties itself uniquely to the Highland Clearances.

Can you give a RS for the definition of clearance as "everything must go"?82.41.251.168 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I really ought to point out that the definition in Collins dictionary of the Clearances as the short form of the Highland Clearances is RS that relates to the Clearances specifically as a plural noun.

The word clearance is a noun. I agree. The point is that a specific definition of the Clearances is an additional noun beyond the noun clearance.

Beyond that I can give RS that the noun itself has one specific definition in a list of definitions that relates it to the clearance of land of people, specifically relating to the Highland Clearances, plus that the word clearance can also suggest (1) removing waste, (2) selling things cheaply. None of those things is "everything must go", thus clearance must have a definition beyond the definition you give.82.41.251.168 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

To give an image of what might be "helpful" about it, as you have said, is that the clearances as phenomena are seen as such, as a specific nominal phenomena. If it was to happen again, or if anyone was relating a similar phenomena, it would be of use to compare those phenomena with phenomena that have been given specific nominals such that any confusion between them is null.82.41.251.168 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that the very broad defintion of clearance that Richard Keatinge's is looking for in relation to the noun clearance is "the movement of something somewhere", I think we can agree that is less useful than a plural noun, plus a definition of a noun, that relates what the movement was, what the something was, what the somewhere was.82.41.251.168 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Here in Australia, the word Clearances is not immediately associated with the Highland Clearances. It may be in Scotland, and possibly in some other parts of the UK, but I strongly doubt that it is in other parts of the English speaking world. Like Richard, I am not clear on the purpose of this discussion. What change are you proposing to make to the article? Camerojo (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

To bold font the plural noun, 'Clearances', in line with the Reliable Sources I have given, in line with Wikipedia policy of removing the [article] from titles such as The Highland Clearances, or The Clearances, because it is, in relation to MOS:LEADALT, the "shorter form" of the Highland Clearances.

Collins dictionary definition above [3] uses the definite article in it's definition of the Clearances as a plural noun itself beyond the noun clearance, or a plural of the noun clearance (clearances).

To be sure, the word clearance as a noun has world wide lay use as a noun, it's the use within academic or popular history worldwide (that being the basis of most reliable sources) as a short form for the Highland Clearances that I can give reliable sources for.

The reason why is simple, the use of the word clearance in relation to clearing land dates specifically to descriptions of the Highland Clearances, before then clearance has a broad definition that it does now, though that had nothing to do with land (including clearances of cheques, selling things) such that the Clearances are the foundation of the concept of the mass eviction of all people from land, with a dictionary definition as a plural noun to boot.

It would be like finding an original species, calling it the Australian Kangaroo, always calling it the Australian Kangaroo, though forgetting it is the only Kangaroo in the world.Baglessingazump (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Must show too, that the Wikipedia disambiguation article for the noun Clearance already has the Highland Clearances as a disambiguation link.Baglessingazump (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that the article Highland Clearances should be renamed "Clearances"?

Are you unaware of Lowland Clearances?

All the books I have on the subject talk about initially about "Highland Clearances" - though, once the context is established, the word "Highland" is often dropped. Is this the sort of usage that you are advocating: using just "clearance" or "clearances" once the context of Highland clearances is clear?

For clarity, there are many uses of the word "clearance" (and in the plural: "clearances") that have nothing to do with the evictions of tenants of Scottish Highland landlords. A lot of antiques are sourced from "house clearances", many government jobs require "security clearances", etc., etc.

And I am not sure why you are debating singular and plural use of the word "clearance" - it depends on the context. Hence one would talk about the clearance of Knoydart in 1853 (if you considered that to be a singular, coherent event), whilst the Sutherland clearances (in the plural) were carried out largely over the period of 1807-20 (yes, one could debate the exact finishing date).

Given the deficiencies of this article, it seems daft to carry on a lengthy debate like this when there is clearly much more productive work to be done (sorry to sound pompous about this, but sometimes one's first emotional reaction to something is actually appropriate.)

And finally, Google searches, I believe, are tailored to your browsing history - so do not give any sort of independent view of a usage.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

" Donald McLeod, a Sutherland crofter, wrote about the events he witnessed:...."

Donald Macleod was actually a stonemason, and is listed among the witnesses for the defence in the trial of Patrick Sellar. (I would guess he was there to help demolish houses to prevent their re-occupation after eviction - but I have no evidence to support this.) His account of the events of June 1814 was written in 1841, some 27 years later. There is no contemporaneous evidence to support Macleod's allegations. Therefore, inclusion of this quote, whilst relevant to the historiography of the subject, does not necessarily add a great deal to an understanding of what actually happened.

Options would appear to include:
deletion of Macleod's comments entirely;
move Macleod's remarks to a section about the development of attitudes to the clearances;
point out the deficiencies of relying on Macleod alongside the quotes;
a complete rewrite of the whole article.

Any thoughts?
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Are these your doubts or ones expressed in the reference you give? It's unclear as to your reasons to doubt the testimony, or its pertinence, as being that of an eye-witness. 27 years doesn't seem very long, particularly in regard to memories of such events if as extreme as noted. If his occupation is listed incorrectly that should be addressed but it has no bearing on his reliability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Matt. Donald Macleod is an important source for us to these events. It is true that he had a tendency to "hyperbole for passionate emphasis" - quoting from Eric Richards "The Highland Clearances". Nevertheless, he was an important eye witness to many of these events and even Richards, whom you quote, does not suggest that he was untruthful. In fact in his "The Highland Clearances", Richards notes a number of instances where accounts by Macleod, although sometimes "histrionic", have been corroborated by other sources. Camerojo (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll try and answer the points raised by you both. Firstly Richard's book about Sellar simply states Sellar's response to the 1841 allegations raised by Macleod about the Sutherland evictions, with the apparent emphasis on the 1814 eviction at Badinloskin. If you look at Richard's 2013 book on the Highland Clearances he gives an account (pages 183 onwards) of this eviction that gives broad support to Sellar's version of the facts. Richards does not use Macleod's account of that eviction. I presume that this is a considered omission.

Using my own interpretation (and remember that it is the Wikipedia editor's responsibility to judge the quality of a source), it is difficult to see what there is about Macleod's account that suggests high quality - for instance the bit about the smoke from the fires causing a boat not being able to navigate to shore. Badinloskin is 15 miles from the sea. I live just under 4 miles from the sea - I would need to burn an enormous amount of material for the smoke to reach the coast. Even in June, one would expect there to be a significant Westerly or Southwesterly wind at sea that would rapidly disperse smoke. Then consider what is being burnt. To prevent re-occupation, the evictors were trying to destroy the roof trees that were essential to support a roof structure. This is not a massive fire. So the story seems to have a large injection of poetic licence or is muddled with another event.

Richard's comments on corroboration of Macleod refer to instances of coerced emigration from the Cluny estates on Barra and South Uist (p 281 of the Highland Clearances) and have nothing to do with the Sutherland evictions. These happened in 1851, so Macleod was writing about them as current events and could be challenged at the time.

Given the paucity of accounts from the "non-landlord" side of the Sutherland clearances, some mention of Macleod's account may be appropriate, but, to my mind, would have to be accompanied by some caveats about the reliability of the source. And it is important to understand the development of the cultural beliefs about the Highland Clearances - where there is a substantial separation between facts and these beliefs.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a little concerned at some of the interpretation and synthesis in your posts. However reasonable or credible your own interpretations may or may not be, we require reliable sources to be drawing them if we are to add them or act on them here. Do they draw such conclusions? I am not party to much of the information you lay out above but some is evidently not correct and whether directly material to your arguments, casts doubt on the accuracy of the rest of your posts. For what it's worth, McLeod was not yet a stone mason by 1814 and your speculation that he was participating in the clearance itself in a professional capacity - as if the skills to carve stone were any more pertinent to demolition work than any other profession - would appear to be baseless invention; in an attempt to discredit him? Perhaps he fabricated his accounts or muddled different aspects but does a source actually say this? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you might be a little confused between the Wikipedia rules for articles, versus what is acceptable in a talk page. All I am trying to do is explain why I think some element of caution should be employed in the usage of Macleod's account. I reiterate that there is an obligation on the editor to make decisions over which sources to use - the problem with this particular topic is that there is a huge volume of material. (I think it was Richards who stated that the volume of written material on the Highland Clearances exceeds the total amount of original source material on the subject - and that is from someone who has worked on the Sutherland estate archive.) So there seems to be an even greater need for judgement on appropriate and authoritative sources.
Just looking at another source that might assist developing an opinion on the veracity of Macleod's account, take a look at page 199 of "Debating the Highland Clearances" (yes, it is another book by Richards - but he is rather prolific on the subject). This says "Donald Macleod, the most damaging critic of the Sutherland Clearances, was a stonemason who claimed to have been an eyewitness to Sellar's evictions in 1814." This phraseology suggests some hesitance over his account. It is certainly not a "given" that he was there.

You say that you are "not party to much of the information....". Does this mean that you do not have access to the relevant books on the subject? If you do not have Richards' book "The Highland Clearances", I recommend that you obtain a copy. It is not the most readable of books, but I get the sense that this is the "defining work" by this particular expert on the subject. His biography of Sellar is an extensive work and gives an interesting view of someone who was (and is) vilified, who was aware of his major failings (an over-zealous adherence to the letter of the law and a habit of getting into disputes), and yet respected by some as a successful sheep farmer who actually generated wealth from such poor quality land.
I am not sure what may be "evidently not correct" - you might want to state what is not correct and lay out the evidence. Similarly, I am not sure what you rely upon to refute Richards' description of Macleod as a stone mason. Since he has had access, in writing Sellar's biography, to the list of witnesses for Sellar's trial, I think it highly likely that the occupation is taken from that list. I would add the the article Stonemasonry (redirected from Stonemason) unfortunately concentrates on the sort of work needed to build a cathedral, rather than the sort needed to build a gentleman's house in the north of Scotland. So you might have an incorrect view of exactly what sort of stonemason Macleod was. I perhaps presume (wrongly, I agree) that everyone would have my understanding on this point - since I occasionally need to employ just such a person for maintenance of old stone-built farm buildings.
.If you wish to verify the distance that Badinloskin is from the sea, there is a very good map in "Set Adrift Upon the World - the Sutherland Clearances" by James Hunter. (It also includes a cutaway illustration of the structure of the sort of house that clearance evictors were trying to demolish, which you might find helpful.) You can estimate this position on an Ordnance Survey map - I think the grid reference is approximately NC 7357 4007. If you do not have a paper map, you should try www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/osmaps/ (though I believe there is only a "detuned" facility without a subscription.) Oh, and I should add that I suspect that you would enjoy James Hunter's book on the Sutherland Clearances.
If you wish to verify the likely weather in June offshore of Bettyhill, there are various climate resources - the Met Office have some information of value ( www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/gfmhxnqxx ), but I believe there are better climatological sources.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not the least bit confused. This is not a forum so proposing baseless and speculative theories is hardly going to improve the article, the talk page's purpose. MacLeod later became a stonemason but he was not one in 1814, so whether or not part of the job spec of that occupation is demolition, he would not have been engaging in it then. This is what I was referring to as "evidently not correct". I have not read the wikipedia article on stonemasonry. Stonemasonry is a creative craft and a common factor between building a cathedral, a gentleman's house or a peasants is that it involves creation. Demolition is neither a craft nor a creative occupation. One would be as well and certainly cheaper to get a labourer or crofter to engage in it. But there is no evidence that MacLeod was engaged in this, so why are we filling up the talk page debating it?

If you are using maps for further speculation, be aware that there are blue bits other than the sea on them and boats can and do make their way thereon. There's a lot of blue on maps of Sutherland, not least around Strathnaver. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My sole interest in this matter is to produce a high quality encyclopedia article. The judgement, on which I have sought opinions on this talk page, is the value of including Macleod's supposed account of the eviction that is high on the list of notoriety. If you wish to see further evidence that calls into question the value of the account, do please look at James Hunter's book ("Set Adrift Upon the World - the Sutherland Clearances"). This author, as you may be aware, is another academic who is a particular authority on the clearances. On page 196 onwards, you will find an account of the burning of the Chisholm house. The references that Hunter lists for his very detailed account include the Sellar precognitions. (This is the legal process that Sellar and others felt was conducted against him in a very prejudicial manner - so if there is going to be anything bad about the event, you could expect to find it there.) If you go to the source which the article uses for the Macleod account, it has the phrase "...let the witch burn...". If you look at Hunter's version, based on evidence gathered by Sellar's sworn opponent, it actually says that when Sellar realised that Chisholm's mother-in-law was still in the burning house, he instructed some of his evicting party to get her out. (They refused - you had better read the book for the full explanation.) So, balance this up. You have an author who is a great supporter of the crofter community, who has a notable academic record, and who has written a detailed account based on extensive research that relies on witness statements taken a year or so after the event by someone who is out to get Sellar. Then you have an account written by someone some 27 years after the event that, if you look at it as a piece of evidence, does make you wonder if it is true. (Incidentally, your remarks about "blue bits" on maps - the account specifically says "sea".) I am not saying that it has no part in the article, but I think it is more part of the folklore of the clearances than the recognised history. Given that there are clearly some editors to this article who have passionate views about the subject, I extended the courtesy of putting my thoughts on the talk page. With a less contentious article, I feel it would have been appropriate to tidy up my thinking on the matter and make some edits. Given that I have now turned up James Hunter's views on the matter, I think that is really sufficient. But, again as a courtesy to those with a "stake" in the content of the article, I will see if there is any further comment.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A simple search for the quoted passage shows that it refers to the "setting fire to the houses of the small tenants in extensive districts - part of the parishes of Farr, Rogart and Golspie and the whole parish of Kildonan", my emphasis, so a vast area stretching from the north coast to the south east coast of Sutherland. He later states "a dense cloud of smoke enveloped the whole countryside by day, and even extended far out to sea." He does not claim all the smoke emanated from a single point miles inland where he was; much of the area he refers to is right by the coast. There is no implication that the boat referred to in a later paragraph was witnessed by him personally and upon which body of water it was, though if this was the sea, per above, he claims that burnings were carried out coast to coast. I have no stake in this article; my concern is that you appear to have a conclusion in mind, citing your own speculation, or evidence which, on examination, does not support it. This does not lend credibility to the rest of your claims and on that basis I am not prepared to expend time examining them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to reassess the component parts of this discussion. I have questioned the importance of a passage written by Donald Macleod. Unless I misunderstand your arguments, the only reason for including this precise passage (or components of it) is that you can find numerous examples of it on-line. Looking at the search results, as far as I can tell, these consist of the original writings of Donald Macleod (which would appear to be a close fit for the definition of a primary source) or various history blogs that quote that text verbatim. I have searched for this passage in a good number of secondary sources. It does not appear in Prebble, "On the Crofter's Trail", Richards' works "The Highland Clearances" "Debating the Highland Clearances" and "Patrick Sellar and the Highland Clearances" nor, to complete the list, James Hunter's "Set Adrift Upon the World - the Sutherland Clearances". The absence of what you claim to be an important description in so many well recognised secondary sources is a significant factor in the editors decision on whether or not to include this quotation (or to qualify or use in a different section).

Then we should look at more active reasons to be dubious about the suitability of this passage. Firstly, Richards goes so far to describe Macleod's account as the origin of much of the "...historical and fictional case against Sellar..." (italics added) (In Sellar's biography, p 168).
Next we look at the detail of the content and compare with what we know from recognised sources. You explain the "smoke on the water" discussion (above) by asserting (if I understand you correctly) that Farr, Rogart and Golspie and the whole parish of Kildonan contained burning properties all at the same time. On the 14th of June 1814, Sellar and his teams were working on removing tenants in Strathnaver. He was at Chisholm's house at noon (according to James Hunter). Unless he was provided with a helicopter, it would be impossible to be working in the other places at the same time. (And please do not challenge me for a reference on this point - there is an element of common senses allowed to any Wikipedia editor.) In fact, most of the Kildonan clearance at about this time had happened in 1813, not even in the same year.
And finally, we move on to other accusations made by Macleod that are very much brought into question by other evidence. Macleod used the "let the old witch burn" against Sellar more than once - but, as discussed above, this does not fit at all with the detailed research in James Hunter's book. If this is demonstrably wrong, it calls into question everything he says.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you do misunderstand me, as you appear to "misunderstand" the material you are using to draw unwarranted conclusions about it. I am criticising your variously and clearly incorrect conlusions and unfounded arguments, which happen to regard Macleod's account. Crtitcism of poor and false arguments against something does not equate to advocacy of it. Your baseless and impertinent contrivance and attribution of supposed views and claims I have not expressed is at least consistent with your slapdash treatment of source material.

To note, a glaring error in your latest line of argument: the quoted passage under discussion refers to events in 1819, not 1814 as you appear to believe and no mention of the name of any party involved is stated. Sellar ceased to be a factor after his 1816 trial I believe so your inclusion of him in the scenario would seem baseless. The passage refers to events in a wide area, attributed to "strong parties" plural and refers to "the conflagration", at least, lasting six days.

Macleod may well have been talking unmitigated pish but if so, evidently not for the reasons you have personally synthesised. If he is untrustworthy, reference the reliable source which actively says this and lets be done with it, rather than distilling snippets as to what you reckon sources probably imply. I have no reason to believe any further lines of argument from you will not conform to the same deficient standard. I don't have the time for any more of this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

.

Right, we're finally getting somewhere.
Yes, I was mistaken in the date of the events described by the passage (which validates my suspicions that something didn't seem right - even though it was my read on the date). The "consternation and confusion" passage is about the "year of the burnings" (1819). Sorry to tax everyone on that point.
What is interesting is that this demonstrates the value of going to a secondary source for that event, such as James Hunter, wherein there is an explanation of the large amount of smoke, over and above the number of houses burned. Due to a dry spell of weather, the turf in the walls of the houses ignited. It is relevant that Hunter uses Donald Sage as a source of descriptions of this event and ignores Macleod.
The full work by Macleod, as found by Camerojo, confirms his status as a stone mason (being apprenticed to his father).
To answer your question: The reference for Richards' description of Macleod's account as the origin of much of the "...historical and fictional case against Sellar..." (italics added) is:
The comment by Richards that Macleod ... had a tendency to "hyperbole for passionate emphasis" was identified by Camerojo - who would presumably provide the reference if required.
So - what to do about all this.
(1) I feel that something based on Hunters coverage of the events described ("the year of the burnings") would be more useful to the article than the quotation of Macleod (obviously taking in other sources as required). Macleod seems to be so widely shunned by modern sources that this should be a guide for the article.
(2) Given that the Sutherland clearances were the largest, even if spread over a number of years, this might warrant a separate section within the article. This could usefully cover the motives of the Countess of Sutherland/Lady Stafford and her advisors - the employment of and advice offered by Young and Sellar (and later, Loch) - the trial of Sellar (and the events that lead up to it) - later clearances (including the "year of the burnings") - then perhaps the retrospective views of people like Loch (who appeared to regret the scale of the clearance), contrasting with the unbending opinions of Sellar.
(3) Removing the Sutherland clearances to a separate section would solve another problem with the article: the Sutherland clearances are currently discussed under the heading "Second phase of the Clearances". I am not sure where the article gets this "Second phase" concept from - but if it originates from Michael Lynch, then the Sutherland clearances are not really in the second phase. Lynch feels that the second phase is typified by famine, particularly as a result of potato blight..
This would alter the balance of the article - but I think the solution would be to include more material on:
some example cases of clearances in the Western Isles;
the impact of the Poor Law changes;
the effect of the split in the protestant church during the time of the clearances and the interplay between the two events;
impact of the works of Malthus and Adam Smith (probably someone else to add to that list);
then a brief summary of the view in popular culture of the clearances, perhaps contrasting some of the myths with the mainstream historical view.
All the above subject to what it actually looks like once fully researched, drafted and referenced.
All a lot of work, but I would hope, worthwhile.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I continue to believe that Donald Macleod is an important source and belongs in the article. However I also think that it would be appropriate to include a note from a reputable source representing the views of a number of "post Prebble" historians that Macleod's accounts may need to be taken with grain of salt. The Richards "hyperbole for passionate emphasis" quote that I give above is from Chapter 13, Section VI, page 281 of my 2010 edition of Richards "The Highland Clearances". Similarly, I think it would be appropriate to add a sentence referring to Richards book on Patrick Sellar which provides a more nuanced view of this controversial character. Then a reader of this article will have what they need to form their own opinion on the issues we have discussed here. Camerojo (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the more general suggestion that the "Second Phase of the Clearances" section should be renamed to be what it in fact is, namely a section on the Sutherland Clearances. I will create a new Talk heading for that suggestion. Camerojo (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The only extra thing I would throw at the Macleod quotation is WP:PRIMARY, which, though mentioned above, certainly needed a good re-read by me. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Second phase of the Clearances

The comment has been made by ThoughtIdRetired that the section "Second phase of the Clearances" is really about the Sutherland Clearances and also that the whole concept of a "second phase" is questionable and un-sourced. I agree that a better section heading would be simply "The Sutherland Clearances". I also think that section could use a rewrite. If ThoughtIdRetired was willing to have a go, perhaps it would be worthwhile to use their Sandbox for a first draft. I think that there would be a number of people that would be interested in such a rewrite. Camerojo (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be only too keen to take this on - though don't expect an instantaneous result as I still have a bit more reading to do. Presuming no other thoughts, I'll post something on this page once there is some element of a "work in progress".
Such a change would leave a gap in the article in that clearances in the Hebrides would not really be addressed. This series of events was, in very broad general terms, of a different character - including much more emigration, some of it by dubious coercion, and (diametrically opposed to the Sutherland events), often motivated by serious debts of the landowner.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That is good news. I agree that the article is already unbalanced but addressing that problem is a longer term task. Perhaps a section briefly listing some of the more well known clearances together with relevant sources might be the way to go. For now, I suggest that the Sutherland Clearances section could be shorter overall and could spend a little less space on the Sellar clearances and a little more on the equally notorious later Glen Calvie clearances that are currently only mentioned in passing. I have spent some time researching the Glen Calvie clearances for my own family history. Although it is focussed on my ancestors, you may find the references useful. See http://youbelong.info/public/Three_Clearances_and_a_Wedding#The_Second_Clearance Camerojo (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Taken a quick look at your material, particularly the newspaper articles (they sound familiar, so they must appear in some books on the subject). I think the significance of Sellar is that he was (a) a theorist who proposed improvement that (at least in the eyes of his employer), was well intentioned (b) an instrument in the implementation of this plan and (c) a beneficiary of the clearances in his position as a sheep farmer. Sellar is also pivotal because of his acquittal at his trial - if it had gone the other way, landlords may have held back from later clearances (Richards suggests this, I believe - hopefully I can find the reference). It may be better, in due course, to improve the article on Patrick Sellar, which is relatively concise at present - thereby taking some of the burden off this article - but he is always part of the wider story. This thought emphasises that the challenge here is to cover the subject in a reasonably concise manner. Nevertheless, Highland Clearances will have to end up a much bigger article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)