Talk:Crofting

Heavy rework
Created lead-in. 1st section.

Cutting to the talk page: "Much of the landscape that this area is renowned for its High Nature Value and is managed by crofters who work in empathy with nature using time-tested methods that are kind to the environment, to the produce and to the consumer." That is all buzzwords. It certainly should be in the article, but in clear prose... methods are kind to to consumer?

", but this is breaking down in many areas" I don't really doubt it, but perhaps its own section? Perhaps another expanding on what crofters are doing to work to the future?

"The crofting system is centered on “townships”, with individual crofts on the better, reclaimed land and the communal use of a large common grazing of poor quality ground – the hill ground." This seems to be duplicated with different wording.

"Agriculture is the life blood of crofting and it is this small-scale and extensive agriculture which has delivered some of the most stunning High Nature Value habitats within the U.K. Crofting agriculture, although constrained by peripherality, soil quality and climate difficulties continues to have an important role in the production of healthy, local food and in maintaining and enhancing the environment." Seems to say what the definition of crofting just did, but with much puffery... what does that even mean?

"It is this resourcefulness and attachment to the land which maintains crofting populations in some of the most remote and geographically challenging areas of western Europe and provides a strong basis for rural development in the future." Certainly true, but as written it is wp:OR... maybe find somewhere the press quoted it, or printed it?sinneed (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I found a source, from 1901, has some useful stuff in it
I added it to the article so there would be at least 1 source, but I don't have the knowledge (or for that matter depth of interest) to plow through and see if it says what the article does, nor to determine which is more appropriate.- sinneed (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic language suppression?
The article has gone off-topic by discussing the Gaelic language. The source provided presents a partisan view that is contradicted by, for instance, T. M. Devine in Clanship to Crofters' War: The social transformation of the Scottish Highlands (2013 ed.). Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-9076-9, particularly pages 116-117. Here you will find evidence for Gaelic speakers wanting their children taught English, because knowledge of that language would enable them to find work away from the croft. Since work away from the croft has been such an integral part of crofting, this was important. This was the moment when Gaelic started its decline, because it was seen of limited value to its speakers.

Where discrimination against Gaelic occurred, this was done at the local school board level. The Scottish government had left Gaelic in education to local decision-making – so there was no central policy of discrimination.

I think the article should stay away from this subject, which is covered by Scottish Gaelic. At the very least, the reference given is of questionable authority on this aspect. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not involved in the underlying debate and simply moved an existing footnote that carried a dead link. I am reluctant to remove other editors' contributions and so gave the content its own section. I did this because the crofting legislation offers special protection to the Gaelic language and its legal use. It seemed reasonable to insert this sub-para as a way of making sense of this fact. The Scottish Land Court must have a Gaelic speaking member: no other judicial body carries this requirement. The link to the Scottish Gaelic site was intended to allow those interested in pursuing the separate debate to find it.
 * If one simply removes the subsection, that detracts from necessary coverage. If one deletes reference to the article and its footnote as was, that might be seen as suppressing a part of the crofting language connection.
 * Ultimately, I am simply looking for a coherent place to feature the special protection offered to Gaelic in the crofting context.
 * I am more than content to honour the intervention made by putting rather cautious language around the article rather than suppressing it altogether. I hope that such an idea id acceptable and I will put it in that way to see if it is.
 * Thank you for your intervention anyway. PineappleDolly (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ruins
I have reworded the caption to the photo of ruins in Boreraig. Pictures of ruins in the Highlands are frequently misidentified. Without a proper an expert opinion (archaeologist, landscape historian) it is wrong for Wikipedia to infer that the ruin photographed is of a building abandoned at a specific date. It is not clear which of the ruins is in the photograph, but, from aerial photographs, the layout of some of them is suggestive of, at the very least, walls being built for the management of sheep. Presumably this clearance fitted the common model of clearances, with sheep replacing people. Shepherds who needed pens for managing sheep and some sort of accommodation for themselves would have found the old settlement houses a useful source of stone to build both. Therefore it is possible that any ruin photographed here could be a later construction. This certainly happens in instances of other cleared settlements and is a frequent source of misidentification.

Of course, it is likely that the photo is of a house abandoned on the date stated, but as editors we simply do not know that with sufficient certainty to say so in the article. Unfortunately commons has substantially less requirement for authoritative captions than Wikipedia, but that does not alter the need for captions here to be supported by sources. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Horse ploughing
The section Origins and history before 1886 mentions the use of horses for ploughing. This seems highly questionable in most cases. Before the establishment of crofting communities, the open fields were not uniformly worked with ploughs, as the caschrom (or foot plough) was used in many places. As that displaced society moved to crofts, it is hard to see how there could be a uniform adoption of plough teams (i.e. horses). On the contrary, the reduced circumstances of the former farmers transitioning to being crofters is hardly going to allow the expense of keeping a horse – the economics just does not work.

The detailed economics of agriculture in the Highlands is covered quite well in Dodgshon, Robert A. (1998). From Chiefs to Landlords: Social and Economic Change in the Western Highlands and Islands, c.1493–1820. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0-7486-1034-0.

I question the quality of the reference titled "The Crofting Calendar". It is clearly a blog, and as such is not an RS (WP:RS). The subject matter of this section is historical, so one should perhaps consider WP:HISTRS in deciding what sources should be used for the article, with academic historians in peer reviewed articles or books published by a quality publisher being the most favoured. Furthermore, the Crofting Calendar block seems to be a little muddled between modern croft practices and the historic ones. The blog authors have a much larger land holding than most crofters "before 1886" and seem unaware of differences. For instance, in the historic period, wool would have been used on the croft for making clothing. The description of shearing that the blog gives seems directed towards the bagging up of fleeces prepared to the Wool Marketing Board specification, so clearly not of this period. A pre-1886 crofter would have had so few sheep that shearing would not have needed to be a communal activity at all. It is relatively easy to shear up to a dozen sheep in a day on your own. The hard work is then washing, carding and spinning the wool ready for use. I very much doubt that the typical number of sheep owned by a pre-1886 crofter was more than a dozen and was probably a lot less. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will remove sentence re horses. Clearly some horses were used on the identified crofts but this is hardly central to the crofting narrative. I agree the source could usefully be supplemented by others of a more scholarly character that introduce the reader to the type of farming this was. But I don't have one yet. PineappleDolly (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have managed to find an explanation for the economics of how crofters got to use horses: they were hired from other estates in around the period 1880-5 but were not owned by the crofters being referred to.
 * "Napier Commission: Minutes of Evidence Vol 1 Page 44-5. Evidence of M'Lure.
 * 772. But what I want to ask you is why you use the crooked spade and the woman's labour. Why don't you work your crofts in the usual way with horses and plough ?—We have no horses. 773. And that is why you so use the crooked spade ?—Yes, and in some cases we have to wait. We are prevented by climate and weather from getting our seed in. We have to get a day and two days of a plough from other estates, and we pay at the rate of £1 a day for a pair of horses, and you might call it additional rent, though we do not pay it to the landlord. 774. But could not two neighbouring crofters join together as they do in other parts of the country, and then each would have what they call the "side of a horse," and work the land in that way?—But we have no keep-ing for the horses. 775. In fact, you are too poor to have horses ?—All too poor to have horses. If I cannot winter two cows and two stirks, how would I keep a horse? " PineappleDolly (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I note the Napier Commission source that you have found. A few points: this is a primary source (WP:PRIMARY). Hence one should not draw the conclusion that hiring of horse teams was at all common at the time, as we just have the evidence of one person. Such a conclusion is for a secondary source to make, which should be an RS in its own right.
 * It is interesting, though, that the source does confirm the very marginal existence of crofters at that time: no means of keeping a horse. Also the £1 per day charge is not cheap (annual income for a coal miner at the time was around £50) and illustrates the need for crofters to work away from the croft for much of the year, to earn enough to live there for the rest of the time.
 * Not sure if you understand the point about blogs – generally no blog should be used as a source in Wikipedia.
 * Sorry to drone on about sources so much, but it is integral to the way Wikipedia works. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)