Talk:Highland Clearances/Archive 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

"Under the pressure of increased rents or unrenewed leases, Macdonell tacksmen began to take their sub-tenants to British North America soon after Culloden. Like the Chisholms, they were Catholics, and a stubborn adherence to their faith was a contributory cause of their exile."
 * Nevertheless, I don't believe this supports the broad assertion being made by the IP editor. Camerojo (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


 * For what it's worth, I've had a poke through Tom Devine's recent To The Ends Of The Earth. (Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Prebble's clearances book here to check those references.) In discussing the clearances, Devine's fairly explicit that some of the prominent proponents behind the major mid-c19th wave of clearance were motivated by what to modern eyes are unambiguously racist motives - there's a rather startling quote from Charles Trevelyan, who saw (in 1850) the depopulation to be welcomed for "the prospects of flights of Germans settling here in increasing numbers - an orderly, moral, frugal and industrious people, less foreign to us than the Irish or Scotch Celt...". Strong (and disturbing) stuff, but what's notable by its absence in these attacks is any mention of Catholicism as something that was being targeted per se.
 * If there is indeed debate among historians, I'd really like to see some post-1961 evidence of that debate. It also seems a bit of a red herring to bring in Jacobitism - by the 1820s, when emigration became a major factor in clearance, Jacobitism had basically ceased to exist as a political movement. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To build on this a little - there are certainly definite individual cases of unambiguous groups emigrating after religious persecution (see eg/ p. 111 of, 1772) but I'm finding a lack of modern historians drawing an explicit connection between those and the large-scale clearances of the mid-century, which is what the current lead implies. If we can find something explicit in Prebble that would be helpful, but I think we probably need a bit more to build on if we're going to state there's debate and it's a significant position among historians. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have done a fair bit of reading on the clearances. My ancestors ended up in Australia as the result of three separate clearances and I researched each of them quite extensively. One of the questions that I was seeking to resolve was why they were cleared. Escaping religious persecution was an early theory, but I found no evidence at all to support that theory. I summarised my researches at http://youbelong.info/public/Three_Clearances_and_a_Wedding. That web page focuses on my family (it was a gift to my father), but it may be of general interest to others for the source references. Camerojo (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would only like to point out that I made a further subsequent change because this has been taken to Dispute Resolution. The thread is "Highland Clearances". I will also add this http://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/feb/09/guardianobituaries to further prove that such debate was available publically, mentioning as it does the debate with a previous Historiographer Royal, Professor Gordon Donaldson. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This confirms that Prebble's books are contentious (which is certainly something I think we could all agree on), and that his interpretations of the clearances are something over which there is dispute. However, critically, it doesn't say anything about Catholicism. There's nothing in that article to indicate any significant debate over the role of sectarianism in the clearances. The same is true for the Noble article - yes, there is certainly debate, but it's not about this. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


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

Cultural decline

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

The people of the townships were conservative with a small 'c'. They lived a lifestyle which would have been recognisable in the 12th or 15th or 18th century. Even those involved in the tumultuous events of the Jacobite risings were, to a large extent, fighting to preserve a traditional version of national political power.
 * If Noble doesn't use the words Roman Catholic, he suggests it in everything he says. Would you disagree with that? The 'traditional version of national political power' was a Roman Catholic monarch. What other tradition can he be referring to? If he was referring to Stuart dynasty he would be talking about filial relationships, not relationships of 'tradition.'94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I already understand the point that others will try to make, that it was absolute monarchy they were wanting, and not anything to do with Roman Catholicism. However, the Highland clans were never under the patronage of absolute monarchy. In fact, they are famous for their 'anarchic' nature, although it's not really the case, merely that they were not strictly feudal either.94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


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


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


 * I'm afraid I wouldn't agree with that interpretation. To me, Noble is talking about the traditional political structure - individuals as members of a clan, and the way that clan-based land ownership and power was a part of the country's power structure. The paragraph following the bit you quote makes that fairly clear. The reason contemporary historians aren't discussing Catholicism isn't because they're being coy, or suggestive, or failing to state the obvious - it's simply not what they're trying to discuss. Why wouldn't they bring it up directly if it was a fundamental issue, or a major ongoing debate?
 * Yes, Prebble, as quoted above, discusses a case where Catholicism was "contributory cause" of a group leaving. I don't think anyone would deny such situations existed. But that doesn't seem to match with what you're saying he says about the Clearances being motivated by systematic, high-level, anti-Catholicism. (I will try and find my copy of this book tonight - could you confirm which edition you're quoting page numbers from?) Andrew Gray (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


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

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


 * Found it! (My edition is the 1969 small Penguin, 1982 reprint). Where does Prebble quote this, and who does he quote?
 * There are two index entries for Religion > Catholic; 137 has the "contributory cause" section quoted above, and 175 is a discussion of the last wave of emigration from Knoydart, where "They were Catholics, for the most parcot". However, it and the subsequent pages don't seem to draw an obvious link between that and the motive for eviction, which is presented as economic.
 * I simply can't agree with your thesis, which is that there was systematic anti-Catholicism not recorded at the time (despite anti-Catholicism being common and widely seen as acceptable in the nineteenth century) and not discussed by historians now, but secretly hinted at instead, for reasons that are clear to you and not to me. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The penultimate chapter: 'The Sharp Rock: "No man or boy shall put on the philebeg"' Andrew, I am not making a thesis. Prebble quotes it directly. The thesis is not his either. The thesis is from General Bland and the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland. I am merely emphasizing Prebble's discovery in the article that it was a factor that was potentially taken up by those who were in the same mileau. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't any secret hinting. We don't talk about it. If you don't understand why we don't talk about it, then you don't understand social and cultural norms.94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Sharp Rock" is a chapter of Culloden, not of the Highland Clearances, which explains why I was having trouble finding it! I don't have a copy to hand, but helpfully Google does. I think it's worth emphasising the end of that paragraph - "...but it was not accepted, at least not in detail.". This is a proposal in the 1740s to forcibly transfer the Highlanders elsewhere. It did not happen; as discussed above, forced foreign emigration didn't really begin until 1820. Eighty years later, the Highlanders were moved elsewhere - but this does not mean that the motives or the justifications were the same as when it had been suggested generations earlier, in an entirely different political context. Concluding otherwise, especially given the complete silence from other historians on the issue, is a real stretch.
 * On your last point, I honestly don't believe there is a conspiracy of silence among professional historians on sectarian issues. Yes, contemporary anti-Catholicism (and indeed many other forms of prejudice), in certain contexts, is a delicate issue and it is often ignored or glossed over. But even that doesn't mean it's not discussed historically, and there are certainly no end of historians engaging with the complex history of Scottish sectarianism. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your emphasis is it was not accepted, my emphasis is at least not in detail. It is a startling piece of anti-Catholicism from high-level members of the then Edinburgh establishment. The substance of the proposal, and not the direct targeting of Catholics, was carried out immediately, and then drawn out over several centuries, I suggest you read more about the waves of immigration from the Highlands. And why? Because the clans had a tendency to change sides, and to send sons to fight for both sides so that they did not lose their inheritance. I am standing by everything I wrote. The points and quotations that Noble and Prebble debate upon, and others indirectly but implicitly, holds the vital importance of removing Roman Catholics from the Highlands because of the perception widely held that they were responsible for the Jacobite rebellion. These were the prime social and cultural underpinnings for any discussion of the dramatic change in The Highlands beyond economics. Absolute economic determinism is a fallacy in any context. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Right now, all we have to support your interpretation seems to be this passage - and it's not clear that anyone else but you supports this interpretation. (Indeed, if this was clear to Prebble, why didn't he mention it anywhere in his own book on the subject?) Let's grant that it's ambiguous and rephrase the question:
 * Please show me any modern historian, other than this ambiguous passage, who explicitly argues that there was a sectarian motive underpinning the Clearances and forced emigration, or that this was undertaken as the result of a specifically anti-Catholic government policy. Please show any articles that indicate this is an ongoing historiographic debate. We simply can't make these sort of assertions based on loosely-supported inferences from contested interpretations of sources. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


 * See Andrew Gray's comment on this discussion page under this topic timestamp: 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC). Some evictions? In one specifically it does. In another source, a military General (by the name of Bland) and the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland (by the name of Fletcher) ask for Protestants to colonise the Highlands after clearing it of the native population. In yet another, an academic states that to a large extent the Clearances were implicitly anti-Catholic in nature. If someone would care to verify Andrew Gray's source, it brings my total to 4 sources from my original 3 to suggest that this is anything but emotional. It is set in the dispassionate academic record for all to see. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bland talking about something does not mean that someone else followed his suggestion. You need to prove that a landlord carried out evictions on the basis of religion, and you are unable do that.Shipsview (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't need to prove anything of the sort. You seem to believe I am arguing that anti-Catholicism is the sole motivation behind the Clearances. I am not. I am stating what the sources say, where there is debate about how much anti-Catholicism was a factor in the Clearances. Some argue for a certain proportion, others argue purely for economics. I am not a professional academic. I am merely including academic sources in a Wikipedia article as per the guidelines.


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


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


 * This indicates that it was a part of one case - indeed, it's not clear from Prebble whether the "contributory" involvement was a landlord shouting "get out, you papists", or whether it was a local saying "right, lads, we're not really welcome here", which are very different things. Anti-Catholicism has been sadly endemic in Scotland for centuries - as a nation, we're not great on religious tolerance - and it would be surprising if those underlying tensions did not surface in some of these conflicts. People settle all the vendettas they can, given the chance.
 * But occasional incidents are very different from systematic anti-Catholicism, and we can't say "aha, we've found one, therefore it was a major underlying issue". That's a clear case of over-interpreting scarce primary sources.
 * It also does not show there is a debate. For there to be a debate among historians, we need to be able to see historians actually discussing the issue. The sources are remarkably silent on this. Again, if it's a major issue, someone would have actually said so, explicitly and prominently, in the past fifty years. We just don't have that to work from. Even Prebble, who you're quoting, never concludes anywhere that sectarianism was a major issue - he mentions religion as a factor, in passing, a couple of times, and that's about it. Given he was writing an entire book on the issue, you'd think that if it was something he felt relevant, he'd have brought it up. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that there was systematic anti-Catholicism. What I am stating is that their is first-hand primary material on the written record (Prebble, Culloden pp 325-6) by high-ranking members of the Edinburgh establishment of the time (the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland AND a General in the army)asking for systematic anti-Catholic actions that not only resemble in scope actions that were subsequently put in place in The Highlands, but they are identical to them. I emphasise the important point: the actions were identical, the motivation may not be. I repeat that: MAY not be i.e. potentially it is not. You are asking me to prove it beyond all doubt. I cannot, and for some reason you see that as closing the case. I do not need to prove it. The reason I cannot is that the written record need not exist for those actions to be anti-Catholic because the actions were by the landlords, who did not need to write primary source material in order to carry out their actions, only the government need do so. On the other hand, you cannot prove that those actions that are undoubtedly identical to what actually did occur, were NOT put in place with the same motivation as the high-ranking members of official government positions within Scotland were asking for. For some reason that suggests an impasse to you. I, on the other hand, in line with Wikipedia guidelines, am stating that because there ARE individual cases (more than one, or two) where Clearances were anti-Catholic, and because of the importance of the position of the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland and a General in the army, plus there being subsequent academic opinion that the Clearances were to a large extent in connection with the Jacobite rebellion (starting, as they did, immediately after the rebellion) with the important point being that the academic also makes implicit the connection with anti-Catholicism. All the while I am conceding that there are some academics who are merely stating the improbable position that the Clearances were simply, and absolutely, the result of economic determinism. That is not a position that is tenable, but I am including it anyway. This isn't new research. This isn't my own determination. It is clearly, and in some cases spectacularly, present in the sources I provide. That these things are spectacular are not my problem. Neither does it make it absolutely true that they did inform ALL of the clearances. AGAIN, there is debate (and debate need not be of diametrically opposing views, it can also be a question of proportionality), where some of these academics DO offer proportional positions. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It may be clearly present in the sources to you, but it's certainly not present to us, I'm afraid. As noted above, one of the historians you cite (Noble) never mentions religion, and the other (Prebble) wrote an entire book on the Clearances without any significant mention of sectarianism.
 * There are passing mentions of Catholicism in some sources, and there is evidence from primary figures that some prominent figures were anti-Catholic (which isn't much of a surprise, sadly), but there is no evidence that historians have concluded anti-Catholicism was a significant factor. We simply can't draw our own conclusions from primary sources to say it was, and we can't say that "there remains debate amongst historians" when we cannot find any historians meaningfully discussing the issue! As such, I've removed the material from the article, and I plan to disengage from this discussion - it's clearly not going anywhere productive for either of us. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is incredible that you cannot say it is present in the sources. Noble makes religion implicit by the construction of his words. Prebble makes not one, but many mentions. Passing references they may be, but they are still references, and they support the content of my addition, and the references themselves say it is a significant factor, they just apportion different levels of significance. Primary sources are in the secondary sources I quote, Prebble has a lengthy list of primary sources for example. It is a constant reference in all the sources. I will quote Prebble from both books AGAIN, Firstly: Bland and Fletcher also suggested that the Government should buy or sequestrate the lands of the chiefs, and send to the Barbadoes any who objected. Such lands should also be cleared of clansmen who grumbled, and the country settled with decent, law-abiding, God-fearing Protestants from the South. The Highlands should, in fact, be colonized. It was a proposal that created considerable interest, but it was not accepted, at least not in detail. (Culloden, 325-6) Prebble, importantly, uses the words, 'at least not in detail'. That is the first significant mentioning of sectarianism. The source does not need to primary because of the significance, and standing of the people writing the secondary source Secondly, Under the pressure of increased rents or unrenewed leases, Macdonell tacksmen began to take their sub-tenants to British North America soon after Culloden. Like the Chisholms, they were Catholics, and a stubborn adherence to their faith was a contributory cause of their exile. Importantly, that is two cases, not one, and it is again a significant mention of sectarianism. Thirdly, you yourself admit that p. 111 of, 1772 is another case. Fourthly, Ross Noble Noble: The Clearances undoubtedly stemmed in part from the attempt by the British establishment to destroy, once and for all, the archaic, militaristic Clan System, which had facilitated the Jacobite risings of the early part of the 18th century. ...[T]hose involved in the tumultuous events of the Jacobite risings were, to a large extent, fighting to preserve a traditional version of national political power. Again, the tradition that he is talking about is a Roman Catholic monarch. It is the ONLY national tradition that the Jacobites were in favour of. There is NOT any other national tradition that you will read of in ANY source that binds the Jacobites. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please await the outcome of the dispute resolution, where the thread is "Highland Clearances". You yourself cannot undertake to involve yourself in that dispute resolution as a volunteer because you took it upon yourself to argue with me here. You are not following Wikipedia guidelines.94.173.7.13 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


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


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

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

Continuing to follow up on the sources the IP editor (I wish you would share a name with us!) quotes to support his position, I don't have access to p. 111 of "Toiling in the Vale of Tears: Everyday life and Resistance in South Uist, Outer Hebrides, 1760-1860". International Journal of Historical Archaeology. June 1999. JSTOR 20852924. Would it be possible to quote the relevant section? I can, however, see the abstract of the article which reads: Following the 1745 rebellion, agrarian capitalism rapidly transformed subsistence practices in the Outer Hebrides. Landowners increased rents, enclosed common lands, and replaced crofters and cattle with sheep-ranges. Population growth, the demise of the kelp industry, and crop failures compounded the problems of the peasantry. Widespread emigration commenced in the 1770s and peaked in the 1850s, when entire communities were exiled to British North America—the so-called Highland Clearances. This article traces the development of agrarian capitalism on the Isle of South Uist, explores the agricultural "improvements" undertaken by successive landlords, and considers modes of resistance adopted by the island's population. I think that this abstract includes a nice summary of the key factors behind the Clearances. It is notable that, again, there is no mention of religion as a factor. Whatever individual incidents may be quoted in the article, I can only conclude that the author of this article himself does not consider religion to be a significant factor - certainly not significant enough to mention in his abstract.Camerojo (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


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


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

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

I have been looking at some of the IP editor's previous edits on this page and I note that the following contribution was deleted by him without comment: However almost all of the very large movement of Highland settlers to the Cape Fear region of North Carolina were Presbyterian. (This is evidenced even today in the presence and extent of Presbyterian congregations and adherents in the region.) Clearly there is a problem with the contribution in that it does not cite a source supporting the claim. However, rather than deleting it outright the IP editor should have requested a source for the claim - as I did with the IP editor's own contribution. Why did you delete this contribution?

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


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


 * I accept I made the removal. I will now revert the section 'Year of the Sheep' to it's original form. It was a cosmetic change from a long-term source in need of verification, but since the accusation is that my sources to do not say what they in fact say, I will revert the section to it's original form, asking for verification. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus I owe you an apology for saying I did not. Sorry. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Impact of the Clearances: Religion
I am reverting a section that was both an overwrite that has not given proper sourcing and in the process, overwrote the previous addition that had proper sourcing. I would like to remind any prospective editors that the section has a consensus behind it's inclusion and that additions that contradict previous entries must find the appropriate language to convey differences in POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not true that that particular wording had consensus, only that having a section on religion has consensus. It is clearly much better sourced than what was there before since its only source was a Wikipedia article and Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. It is very hard to improve this article with this disruptive editing. The fact is that the vast majority of reliable sources indicate the the major of the Highlands were not Catholic, but Presbyterian and no sources have been forthcoming that indicate anything else. The POV pushing here is that, despite the overwhelming evidence, an implication to the contrary is being implied here.--  SabreBD  (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * The last version I posted was:


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


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


 * [==Impact of the Clearances: Religion==

I am reverting a section that was both an overwrite that has not given proper sourcing and in the process, overwrote the previous addition that had proper sourcing. I would like to remind any prospective editors that the section has a consensus behind it's inclusion and that additions that contradict previous entries must find the appropriate language to convey differences in POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not true that that particular wording had consensus, only that having a section on religion has consensus. It is clearly much better sourced than what was there before since its only source was a Wikipedia article and Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. It is very hard to improve this article with this disruptive editing. The fact is that the vast majority of reliable sources indicate the the major of the Highlands were not Catholic, but Presbyterian and no sources have been forthcoming that indicate anything else. The POV pushing here is that, despite the overwhelming evidence, an implication to the contrary is being implied here.--  SabreBD  (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * The last version I posted was:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * 1) The number of Catholics in Scotland reduced significantly over time
 * 2) There were instances of clearances which were anti Catholic in nature
 * We have have reputable, unambiguous sources for both the above. Given that we accept the second point, it is clear that the Clearances made some contribution toward the reduction in the number of Catholics in Scotland.
 * Where we probably disagree is in the significance of that contribution, compared to larger factors at play - including the Scottish Reformation and the military loss of the Jacobites at Culloden.
 * My view of the way forward is:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

(The red link to Highland and Island Emigration Society is to a page that I have offered to write about that organization.) --Camerojo (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks fine at first glance. My only thought is that we probably need to say something about the devastating impact on Gaelic culture and language. I did have a quote on this and will see if I can find it.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

Could we not leave both sets of wording in the article, as long as User: 94.173.7.13 provides references for his version?
 * OK, first of all, the sources above lists page 365, in my edition is is 366, but nevertheless, the book says this (I will highlight important sections) 'The size of the Highland Mission was modest: it was staffed by a dozen priests or less until the 1760s; by the 1770s there an average of fifteen and, by the 1790s, twenty. No fewer than six attempts were made between 7132 and 1828 to found a separate Highland seminary to train local boys; each limped from one financial crisis to another.' Aligning this source by itself leads, reasonably, to the conclusion that by using the word attempt, Lynch is indicating failure. Upon aligning it with other sources you will find that Scalan was the centre where the staff from Highland Mission were working, but there were other centres that did fail, you can see a list of them at Lismore Seminary.94.173.7.13 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Brilliant. 2 against 1. This is what you call consensus? There does not need to be a unanimous agreement to the precise wording, but you are ignoring what I am saying completely. That is not consensus. You are demonstrating precisely why the citation templates are necessary. Otherwise you simply ignore the fact that non-neutral POVs are there. You are simply creating further tension that will lead to problems with progress in the article in the future. It is a bad decision. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3 to 1 so far.The section on Roman Catholicism can now offer one or two citations for a slight relevance of Catholicism to the perception of otherness that made the Clearances possible. But it is still overblown and uses un-encyclopedically dramatic language. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * OK, 94.173.7.13, trying to extract some useful commentary from the above, I have softened "did not target" to "do not seem to have targeted people" for ethnic or religious reasons. I also note that the widely-varying estimates of numbers, a threefold variation for a single year, do tend to support your earlier point that it's very difficult to count members of an illegal religion.
 * We give a reference, including the authors' names; Dawson and Farber are not a subject of this article and they don't need to be mentioned in the text. If they were leading academic proponents of a seriously-controversial view, they could appropriately be mentioned, but they are merely stating an academic consensus. You clearly disagree with Dawson and Farber, and you seem to suggest that anti Catholic feeling was a major and widespread element in the Clearances, but you still have not produced sufficient sources to substantiate your point of view. Or even any source that seriously contradicts Dawson and Farber. On your showing, Catholics were a minority of those Cleared, of all Catholics in Scotland at the time only a minority were Cleared, and anti-Catholic feeling was a very minor (though demonstrably real) element of the whole process. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Did you remove prolixities, irrelevancies, and original research? That is the question. You did so without talking about it here on the talk page. Therefore, how can we be said to reach consensus on whether or not prolixities, irrelevances, and original research were the subject of this removal? In looking at what was subject of removal in your personal user page sandbox, I disagree with your characterization of it as such. Therefore it cannot be said that there is consensus for you replace the content of this section of the article with the content of your personal user page sandbox.

The only majority that matters is the consensus. The consensus is what is in the article. Do you accept that I disagree with your characterisation of your removals as prolixities, irrelevances, and original research? 94.173.7.13 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


 * And the revert on the basis that there is not consensus for it's deletion. You are deleting material without any given reason, merely assertion. And by not identifying specifically what the problems are you will not achieve consensus. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The IP editor is alone in his views. It is the clear majority view of all other editors that the version that I have just reinstated should be used. After much discussion and numerous attempts at compromise, I can't understand why the IP editor still feels that his view should supersede every one else's. --Camerojo (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that my contributions are also guilty of being too "essay-like". I have looked at the section on Encyclopedic style but I am still not clear how to best modify what I have written. I would welcome any attempts to edit what I have contributed into a more acceptable form. Perhaps we can continue to work that out in a sandbox prior to posting an improved consensus version. --Camerojo (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not essay-like as defined at NOTESSAY. It is not giving personal opinions, but dealing with what reliable secondary sources say.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I will add anyone to the official dispute resolution that was initially open between myself and Richard Keatinge if they ask me. SabreBD has already been subject of a notice asking him to try and reach consensus through this official channel after making a revert of the content. I will say this, again, for clarity. Wikipedia, like most modern democracies, doesn't operate purely upon the principle of the majority view. It operates on a policy of consensus. Where consensus is not unanimous then the minority view must be taken into consideration via a neutral POV that itself is found via consensus with that in mind. There are two aspects to consensus. First, seeking unanimity. Second, upon that failing, seeking neutrality. Clearly the first kind of consensus is not open to the users in the dispute resolution at this stage. Yet the official dispute resolution is open because there is a failure to seek the second-level consensus of neutrality. Through repeat attempts to enter into discussion about specific ways of doing so, mere broad assertions are being made instead of relating any of these assertions to the content of the section.94.173.7.13 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that an administrator has seen fit to remove Ehrenkater's templates regarding encyclopedic style.94.173.7.13 (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I will now add Camerojo to the dispute resolution as he has been given mention there. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Rearrangement
At this diff I have made a rough first-cut attempt at rearranging the article for, I hope, a more encyclopedic presentation. (It still needs work.) I have also, perhaps prematurely, removed the Essay tag. I hope that this will be a useful stage in the ongoing process of improving this article and I look forward to help from other editors. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am the former IP Editor, although I will continue to use that name for the dispute resolution process only, it will end after that point. You can see that I will do so on my history page. I am noting your insistence on changing the article whilst the dispute resolution process is underway. You are showing your continual inability for consensus-building. Therefore I will simply restate that you lack consensus for these changes, and nevertheless that your additions suffer from numerous problems with neutrality and verification. But because your deletion has taken place without consensus I will not give you any examples of this, just as you were refusing to do with me. You look forward to help from other editors who agree with you. That is plain to see. I hope you enjoy your enforcement of a false consensus whilst it lasts.FelisRead (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome FelisRead. I should perhaps remark that the problems with neutrality and verification are longstanding and do not arise from my recent rearrangement. I have deliberately done the rearrangement as a unit, without major additions or subtractions, and before attempting to address other issues including those in dispute. I look forward to any constructive comments that you and other editors may see fit to make. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Playacting 'the good guy' after widespread deletions will not aid you. The problems are yours, you made the deletions. I don't see anyone else on the history page who did so. Can you point me to an example, other than here of anyone else deleting material? There wasn't any questions about neutrality or verification before then. FelisRead (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The rearrangement looks fine to me.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Another false consensus! Go team! Would anyone like to talk about neutrality yet? My guess is, you do not. Felis Read   (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I also like what has been done. --Camerojo (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTDEMOCRACY & WP:PNSD.  Felis Read   (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been distracted by all the noise surrounding this page and have only just now had the chance to look closely at the rearrangement. It is not just a simple moving around of text as I originally thought. It has been done very thoughtfully and includes some valuable additional text. I think that it is a huge improvement to the whole page. I hope that we are moving towards finally addressing the concerns expressed by the template at the head of the page regarding issues with the article. That has been there since 2009 which is unfortunate given the importance of the topic. --Camerojo (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have done some further work in response to Keithbob's comments; I have tried to work for flow and have removed some infelicities and remaining slight repetition. I hope this is found to be useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ...yet still ignoring any of my questions, and therefore not settling the dispute. Ignoring me won't work. It's as childish as the WP:POLL of 'I like what he has done', that has been happening. Until you give reasons for deleting material, then the obvious assumption is there isn't any reason. I am accepting of deleting material for the sake of brevity and encyclopedic style, yet you are not demonstrating where the deletions are for brevity or encyclopedic style. This notion that I am vetoing anything is nonsense, just demonstrate where the content is not necessary and I will accept it.  Felis Read   (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In the context of the current rearrangement, and in particular with reference to the section on Religion and your special interest in Catholicism, what exactly do you feel needs to be added or modified, and can you suggest some new text which fits into the new structure that we can try to reach a consensus on? --Camerojo (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a special interest. The topic was missing from the article. I put the topic in the article. There was an attempt to delete it. I subsequently brought enough sources to justify it in the minds of those who were attempting to delete it. When there was a removal of it from the lead, as it was admittedly a first draft, it was necessary to change the wording and add some context. When I did so there were additions by others as counterpoints to what I was adding. Suddenly all the additions, points and counterpoints were the subject of deletion. It is not for me to justify a deletion I did not make, it is for those who delete to justify it. There seems to be an idea that somehow I will oppose all deletions. I will not. If there is justification for it, then there is justification for it. As of yet, not one person has said: 'that sentence, xxxxx, does not need to be here, for xxxxx reason.' You cannot point to any belligerence by myself, beyond the fact that I was adding content in good faith that should be in the article, and that there should not be deletions in relation to that content if there are not reasons given for those deletions. Ignoring my requests for reasoning is daft. I cannot 'veto' things unreasonably, I can bring unreasonable deletions to the attentions of administrators.  Felis Read   (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead is a lot better. And generally I continue to like what you have done (not sure how else I should phrase that!). One small point, I notice that in reference to Richards "central dilemma" you have contextualized that in relation to the Potato blight. Although it is associated with a quote from 1851, I think that Richards believes that this "dilemma of the crofter economy" - what is effectively population pressure - is more general than that and predates the potato blight. I guess I need to go back to the Richards source and see if my understanding of what he was saying is correct. --Camerojo (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You phrase it better by reflecting on the fact that there was a deletion that I was showing opposition to, that you gave support for the deletion through polling, instead of discussion. My annoyance isn't unreasonable, your support for the deletion was, in a very literal sense, unreasonable.   Felis Read   (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Documentation for population numbers and movements
I note the following comment in the source for Highland_Clearances: "We really need some well-referenced information on the numbers moved and those living the the Highlands before and after the Clearance period, by area and possibly by religious confession. More information on strong feelings still current now might also be useful." There is some good discussion, with supporting references, on population of Scotland in general (ie not just the Highlands unfortunately) at Historical_demography_of_Scotland. By the time of the first decadal census in 1801, the population was 1,608,420. It grew steadily in the nineteenth century, to 2,889,000 in 1851 and 4,472,000 in 1901.

Also, on a parish by parish basis, the Statistical Accounts of Scotland are a very useful source of contemporary info including population records - see http://stat-acc-scot.edina.ac.uk/sas/sas.asp?action=public. I found this an invaluable source for my own researches into the conditions in place in particular areas. I think it would be useful to refer to it somewhere in the article. Here is a transcription I made for one of the areas I investigated in detail - http://youbelong.info/docs/SecondStatisticalAccountKincardine.html. As you see it contains a section on Population - including the following interesting observation: "The decrease in the population in 1811 was accounted for by the system which had been adopted some time before by proprietors of turning several small farms into one, and depopulating whole straths for the purpose of raising sheep." --Camerojo (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that mention needs to be made on population somewhere. Richards devotes a whole section to population. I have suggested some text in my sandbox User:Camerojo/sandbox - it is just a quote from Richards. He gives more detailed even more dramatic figures for the Western Isles --Camerojo (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can probably dig out some more sources on Highland population if that would be helpful.--  SabreBD  (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be great. The encyclopedic reader might reasonably want some figures to illustrate themes such as the numbers cleared, numbers of emigrants, population of the Highlands at different times, and so on. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I will see what I can do.--  SabreBD  (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have a copy but Devine refers to this as the source of some of his quoted figures: M. Flinn, ed., Scottish Population History from the Seventeenth Century to the 1930s (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 441– 2. --Camerojo (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is going to take a bit longer than I planned.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Religion: Given proper sourcing, neutrality, and verification this time.
Asking for a citation because the source does not support the wording.

The wording says: 'The landlords responsible for the Highland Clearances do not seem to have targeted people for ethnic or religious reasons.'

The source says, 'although the landlords did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons, the effect of the Clearances was to destroy much of the Gaelic culture, which was dispersed along with the people that fled.' Thus, the wording fails verification of it's source.

Can you please provide a source that suggests they did not seem to target people for ethnic or religious reasons.

Elsewhere in the same section, a source says that religion was 'a contributory factor'. This suggests that they were targets. If you do find a source that says they did not seem to target people for religious reasons, there will need to be a neutral wording, because one source says one thing, and another source says another thing. Felis Read  (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I have restored the text to use the exact words of the source. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted FelisRead's substantial changes to the current consensus text in the Religion section pending discussion here on the changes that he proposes. I suggest that we work together on a version that addresses the issues he raises in someone's sandbox. Then when we have reached consensus we can move the content to the live article. --Camerojo (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * [1] What was substantial about it?


 * [2]WP:EDITCONSENSUS necessitates you give a reason for deleting material by referencing what it is about the content that you disagree with, not merely assert that it is substantial and that you disagree with it. Something being substantial is not a good reason for deleting material.


 * [3] If you suggest working together then why choose Richard Keatinge's new version over my previous version? My editing of Richard Keatinge's new version is an obvious declaration of my opposition to it. Therefore the consensus version is the previous version where there acceptance of a good faith addition. By responding to my, Richard Keatinge gave consensus to my addition.


 * [4] I had to adapt the article because of Richard Keatinge's version did not include 1) neutral language 2) verifiable material 3) there were contradicting sources in the content of the section that were giving contradicting views, but this fact was not given the prominence it deserves. If you wish for me to specific about all three of those claims I will relate each to the content, the wording, and the source. I will ask you outline your reasons for deleting material (as I did at point [2]), and then be open to being specific about your reasons for deleting it, as I am being.   Felis Read   (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The version that is there now should no longer be considered Richard's version, or anyone else's. It is the version that represents the closest we have come to consensus - supported by myself, Richard and SabreBD - and including elements that you introduced to this discussion, even though you are still not happy with the current text. That is why it is the best base version to work from. I suggest we continue working in the way that you started above. You pointed out a problem with the current text - backing up your criticism with references to the source. Richard reacted to your criticism by modifying the text. I think that is a good way forward. My only suggestion is that it might be useful to use a sandbox to trial more substantial changes. --Camerojo (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It was Richard Keatinge's version. The dispute resolution consensus version (...and not the talk page consensus version, because there wasn't one, and I still maintain that...) is now what is in front of us, with the minor addition of a citation template that Richard Keatinge has explicitly given his consensus to. I am accepting the dispute resolution consensus version.


 * Again, the conditions I gave the last time to my involvement in moving edit consensus away from the article and on to a sandbox (something I was not actually in opposition to) was that (a) we use the recent edit consensus, and (b) gaining edit consensus using the same method as the Wikipedia guidelines on building consensus. All 3 of you said we couldn't do (a), and by doing that it meant we couldn't do (b). Though all of you did not relate a single specific reason to why we couldn't do (a)... but let's not go there again.


 * If you want to use a sandbox, I am restating the same conditions. So all it seems you need to do is start from where we are and agree to Wikipedia guidelines on consensus building. Felis Read   (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

At this diff you have reverted away from the words used by the source (i.e. reverted a change suggested by yourself), and you have removed a referenced comment from the lede. Can you give any reason for substantively objecting to either of these changes? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment above at 13:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC). Specifically [4]. If you are asking for specific reasons here I will give them to you. At the moment, the priority, as set by Camerojo, is the question of building consensus in the sandbox, or in the article. If you are against Camerojo's proposal I will elaborate on point [4]. Felis Read   (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Specific reasons would be good. Do you have any substantive comment on either of the changes concerned? If not, I would like to suggest, with the greatest tact possible in the unfortunate medium of writing, the essay Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What point would that be? I can sense you are unhappy, so I will proceed with care. Point by point.


 * Point [1] As I said at 20:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC), one source says one thing, one sources says another. You say, 'the landlords responsible for the Highland Clearances did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons', then in the third paragraph, 'There is evidence that anti Catholic sentiment (along with famine, poverty and rising rents) was a contributory factor in that period'


 * Those are contradictory viewpoints. The wording I prefer was given in a subsequent edit, that was subject of a revert by Camerojo. Althought the only reason he gave was he wants discussion. This wording reflects the contradictory sources in a neutral way in line with WP:SYNTH:


 * 'Dawson and Farber claim that 'landlords did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons'[13]. However, Eric Richards states that there is evidence that anti Catholic sentiment (along with famine, poverty and rising rents) was a contributory factor in that period.'


 * Do you agree or disagree with that? Felis Read   (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no contradiction. A landlord specifically targeting people on the basis of faith is not the same thing as sectarian ill-will from other people. By including both we are giving a more nuanced and accurate account. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Back to the useful and, as far as I am aware, uncontroversial words deleted from the lede. Also the rewording requested by FelisRead which I believe we are all OK with. As far as I am aware there is no dispute on either of these so I don't know why they were deleted, so I have reinstated them. --Camerojo (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Richard Keatinge's questioning of my revert {timestamp 10:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)}, my response at {10:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)}, his response, {12:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)}, my response {13:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)}, and then his response {14:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC}, is proof that Richard Keatinge's rewording of the content (because of the addition of my citation template) is a matter of dispute. Do you accept this?   Felis Read   (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

FelisRead, could you quote the exact section of Richards you are referring too. I only see one reference to anti Catholic sentiment and that is in "some of the West Highland emigrations" in just the period around 1775. As far as I can see, he never mentions it again and there is no evidence in his book that he would be comfortable putting anti Catholic sentiment alongside "famine, poverty and rising rents" as significant contributing factors. --Camerojo (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One person at a time, team. [Richard Keatinge] There isn't any contradiction? Logically, that doesn't make sense to me. Let us think about it graphically.


 * There is a group of the population, group A. Within group A, there are 3 other groups, groups B, C, D. Group A is the target of reduction. When Group A is the target of reduction, on some occasions, group B is the target and not groups C, or group D. This happens on multiple occasions. The cause of why group B is the target is because they are group B. Groups C and D, when they targets, are not chosen because they are groups C and group D. They are targets because they are group A.


 * You are accepting that authors are saying that a contributory factor of group B's reduction in size is because they are group B. Yet somehow that contribution is not that the landlords targeting them. How does that contributory factor emerge then?  Felis Read   (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lost me there I am afraid. Maybe Richard will follow your logic. In the meantime can we clarify what part of Richards you are quoting to support your anti Catholic sentiment argument? --Camerojo (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's unfortunate for you. I would like to deal with one person at a time. Please accept that? One step at a time, then we don't proceed into the mess that was happening before. That way we gain edit consensus for a portion of the section, then moving onto the next.


 * All I will do at the minute is refer you to my original words, not the words that were the addition of someone else. Words I had good reason to believe were the edit consensus, and that I was including in good faith.


 * My original words: 'One of the results of the Clearances was the near extinction of Roman Catholicism in Scotland, and there remains debate amongst historians as to how much this was a factor in thoughts of those who were responsible for the clearances.


 * You accept that Richards says that, and you also accept that Dawson and Farber say landlords did not target people because of their religion. That is a contradiction in views. According to the policies relating to WP:SYNTH, by rights I can say: Dawson and Farber say this '...', Richards says this, '...' You don't like the word debate. OK. But according to the policies relating toWP:SYNTH I can include opposite views beside one another. Felis Read   (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "You accept that Richards says that" - no I don't. Please show me which part of Richards you are referring to. --Camerojo (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I refer you to your comment above 15:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC) 'I only see one reference to anti Catholic sentiment and that is in "some of the West Highland emigrations" in just the period around 1775.' How can you say you don't accept it?  Felis Read   (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So it seems that is the reference in Richards on which you are basing your "debate amongst historians as to how much this was a factor in thoughts of those who were responsible for the clearances."? There is nothing else in Richards on anti Catholic sentiment, and significantly in his final chapter where he spends a lot of time summarizing the various aspects of the Clearances, there is no mention at all. Richards is certainly not contributing to the debate you claim exists. I do not dispute that there were instances of anti Catholic sentiment. I do dispute that there is any debate amongst historians. You have yet to produce a convincing source illustrating that debate. --Camerojo (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That was a lengthy response considering at timestamp 17:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC) I said, in the interests of an edit consensus, you could remove the word debate. Debate is not necessarily when two opponents engage one another formally. It can be when two opposite views are informally put to the public. Yet, again, I am accepting your POV for the sake of edit consensus.

You were questioning me on the wording that I did not write, and now you are questioning me on wording I said could change.

At timestamp 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC) you said it was 'the closest we've come to consensus.' Considering they were not my words, before then they were OK, but after I rearrange the words, they are not. You may understand my frustration. Felis Read   (talk)
 * Joe Bloggs says to the public: A = B, John Hancock says to the public A=C. Joe Bloggs doesn't step in the same room as John Hancock. Neither Joe Bloggs nor John Hancock mention each other in their books. Yet both are publically stating different things about A. Whether B or C = A isn't clear. Both Joe Bloggs and John Hancock continue to state their views on A. That is a debate! The debate is on the subject itself. The debate isn't between those writing on the subject. I said this before, a month ago, timestamp 20:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC). I won't change my opinion on it. I will change the wording. That's how neutrality works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelisRead (talk • contribs)

Like Camerojo I am having trouble trying to work out exactly what your arguments are and, in fact, quite what debate you are discussing. Would it help to get some figures on how many people of what confessions emigrated, were evicted, or stayed? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I put a question to you at timestamp 16:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC). Answering it would greatly progress the basic points of contention. Figures would be great too, but the lines of formal argument seem to be what is stalling development of the section.


 * Such is the importance I will restate the question now: Why do you think there isn't any contradiction between someone saying 'landlords did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons' and someone saying anti-Catholicism was a contributory factor? Logically, that doesn't make sense to me. Let us think about it graphically.


 * There is a group of the population, group A. Within group A, there are 3 other groups, groups B, C, D. Group A is the target of reduction. When Group A is the target of reduction, on some occasions, group B is the target and not groups C, or group D. This happens on multiple occasions. The cause of why group B is the target is because they are group B. Groups C and D, when they targets, are not chosen because they are groups C and group D. They are targets because they are group A.


 * You are accepting that authors are saying that a contributory factor of group B's reduction in size is because they are group B. Yet somehow that contribution is not that the landlords targeting them. How does that contributory factor emerge then?  Felis Read   (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a large difference between sectarian feeling among elements of what would now be called the chattering classes, and effective action by landlords against specific groups of people (Catholic communities would after all be much more likely to have Catholic or at least tolerant lairds). They may have some relation to each other but they can certainly exist, or not, independently of each other, and they should be reported and referenced independently. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That is a valuable point of view. Taking the route you are inviting me to take, I need you to clarify the latter part, who are the "They's" in each "They" of, 'They may have some relation to each other but they can certainly exist, or not, independently of each other, and they should be reported and referenced independently. Felis Read   (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "They" are the two social phenomena described in the previous sentence. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you not to add a comment midway through one of my comments in the future please? Only for the sake of clarifying who has said what, at what time, that is all.
 * Thank you. I will create a new section discussing the lead later. At the very least I think we may be able to clarify a few things for readers of the article and how they relate to the subject through any previous reading. Felis Read   (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It presupposes another question: what were the causes of the chattering classes anti-Catholicism?


 * This is not, in anyway, original research, this is just formalizing the broad argumentation so that we can all relate the sources we are bringing to the article with that argumentation. Felis Read   (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And just to say, I will probably be suggesting a change in the lead of the article on the basis of what you just said because I think it may just clarify why there are so many arguments about some really basic things. Felis Read   (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * " It can be when two opposite views are informally put to the public." I see no evidence of an opposite view apart from your own, and neither your point of view nor mine has any weight in Wikipedia. Until you provide evidence of such a view clearly and unambiguously expressed in a reputable source, I don't think that this discussion can go any further. --Camerojo (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My comment above was a logical demonstration involving two opposite views and not two opponents, in an informal debate. In reality, most informal debates on a subject do not involve two opposite views, but (as per my comment 20:26, 6 February 2014) involve 3, or more, proportional positions. As it does in this case.


 * I am moving step by step so that we can reach an edit consensus. The first step is a clear polarity of positions. This is it:


 * Dawson and Farber claim that 'landlords did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons.' Eric Richards states there was anti-Catholic sentiment in 'some of the West Highland emigrations'.


 * Are you now going down Richard Keatinge's route of saying that it was the local population and not the landlords? Felis Read   (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So far we have mention of Chisholm and Macdonell tacksmen evicting with some degree of sectarian motivation, and that's about it. (More may be available, and if so we need it to progress the discussion.) This fits perfectly well with Grant and Farber's remark, and there is no "polarity of positions". As for the background of religious sectarianism in Scotland, we already have at least as much as could be justified in this article. To make any progress with this, I suggest that we need numbers of populations and evictees by sect, and any other available expressions of sectarian sentiment specifically related to Clearances. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that.
 * I will draw your attention to Chapter 3 'The Gentry with No Pity', in John Prebble's 'The Highland Clearances.' In my 1969 print, the section under the title 'They want fine fields, what care they for men?' starts on page 129. The narrative starting 129 to page 137 focuses on the Chisholms.
 * This is the narrative that ends with the quote: 'Under the pressure of increased rents or unrenewed leases, Macdonnell tacksmen began to take their sub-tenants to British North America soon after Culloden. Like the Chisholms, they were Catholics, and a stubborn adherence to their faith was a contributory cause of their exile. Year by year the small ships that sailed down Loch Linnhe from Fort William took a dozen, a score, and sometimes a hundred Macdonnells in their poisonous holds.'
 * Both the narrative relating to the Chisholms from 129 to 137, and the narrative relating to the Macdonnells, pages 137 to 145 relate to the action of the clan chiefs, who were then acting as landlords, and not the tacksmen.  Felis Read   (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally I think that the text we have "There is evidence that anti Catholic sentiment (along with famine, poverty and rising rents) was a contributory factor in that period." is already overstating the significance of this. I would prefer to replace the final "in that period" with "in some clearances". However, I am happy to leave as it is if that is the consensus. But unless significant new evidence arises - maybe the population data that Richard mentions - I certainly don't believe that this issue that has consumed us for well over a month now justifies any more prominence in the article. --Camerojo (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree with replacing "in that period" with "in some clearances", and the sentence should then have specific references to the clearances concerned. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So as per Camerojo's comment 15:40, 12 March 2014 about the removal of (famine, poverty, and rising rents). The edit consensus should read either:
 * Dawson and Farber claim that 'landlords did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons.' Eric Richards states there was anti-Catholic sentiment in 'some of the West Highland emigrations'.
 * OR
 * Dawson and Farber claim that 'landlords did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons.' Eric Richards states there was anti-Catholic sentiment in some clearances.
 * Is that accurate? Felis Read   (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This directly relates to my statement at timestamp 10:10, 13 March 2014.
 * The present text reads "The landlords responsible for the Highland Clearances did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons, and Protestants were the majority both of the Highland population generally and of those Cleared. Nevertheless, anti-Catholic feeling may have supported some Clearances, which may have affected the Catholic population selectively... There is evidence that anti Catholic sentiment (along with famine, poverty and rising rents) was a contributory factor in that period. ", followed by an excessive number of other references. The present text is thus somewhat repetitive. As previously discussed we don't need to take up space by naming all the authors in our text. I'd suggest that we remove the repetition and prune the references, perhaps:
 * "The landlords responsible for the Highland Clearances did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons, and Protestants were the majority both of the Highland population generally and of those Cleared. Nevertheless, anti-Catholic sentiment (along with famine, poverty and rising rents) was a contributory factor in some Clearances. " This would then lead on to the section on the Macdonell migration to Ontario, and I have taken the minor liberty of moving the other reference specifically about that migration (Rea) to that sentence. The present paragraph on the background sentiment would then follow. Any comments before I try a bold edit? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You said at 22:34, 12 March 2014 that there was not a polarity because it was not the landlords.

Both Eric Richards and John Prebble state facts regarding landlords that are at a polarity with Dawson and Farber. Therefore I cannot see how as 'previously discussed we don't need to take up space by naming all the authors in our text', when the authors state facts that are incongruous.

If Joe Bloggs said A=B, and John Hancock said A=C. How can we determine what A actually is unless we refer to those authors. Felis Read   (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have Dawson and Farber - can we see the context of the relevant quote? "landlords did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons." I presume that they are making a broad statement about the vast majority of clearances - not claiming that there was not a single instance anywhere in the Highlands of a landlord clearing for religious reasons. --Camerojo (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but I cannot provide you with the context, nor can I provide you the narrative in Prebble, nor in Richards... or the journal article on South Uist. I can provide you with sentences, brief descriptions. Put really simply, the time taken to do so, not to mention the copyright, make it impossible.
 * Dawson and Farber are not the only authors of that position. I am assuming good faith. Just like I assume good faith when (from a source I was quoting previously):
 * A) 'in responding to Prebble in the 1980s, the Historiographer Royal, Professor Gordon Donaldson of Edinburgh University 'described Prebble's work as "utter rubbish" and complained: "I am 68 now and until recently had hardly heard of the Highland Clearances. The thing has been blown out of proportion."'
 * B) 'a book written in the 1950s by a respected Scottish historian under the title The Highland Economy 1750-1850 which did not mention the clearances at all.'
 * Please see this link for the quotes
 * These are good faith positions. Prebble, and Richards, also take a good faith position.  Felis Read   (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The context in Dawson and Farber is indeed a general comment on the clearances, under the subheading "The Highland Clearances: displacement in the name of economic progress." There still appears to be no serious scholarly suggestion that sectarianism was a significant element in the clearances (the statements you quote immediately above are on the significance of the Clearances in general), there is no polarity in the debate nor even any notable incongruity, and we have only occasional mentions (for which we still await your references) to any relevance of sectarianism at all. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree.
 * Eric Richards states there was anti-Catholic sentiment in 'some of the West Highland emigrations.'
 * John Prebble gives examples, where, not tens, not hundreds, but thousands of people emigrate and a contributory factor was anti-Catholicism.
 * This is just going step by step.
 * Because the South Uist journal article also mentions another example, and a similar level of growth in emigration as Prebble states in relation to the Chisholms and the Macdonnells.
 * Questions:
 * A) At what point does emigration because of sectarianism reach significance for you in relation to The Clearances? Is it 100? 1000? 2000? What number?
 * B) How can you say that there isn't a significant difference between Dawson and Farber saying that the landlords did not target Catholics, and three other sources that say they did. Felis Read   (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The statements that I quote state that the enclosures were simply economic in nature, as do Dawson and Farber.
 * Dawson and Farber say they did not target the population because of ethnicity or religion. Therefore the only other reason that they were targets was because the land was worth more than those who were on it were providing.
 * That was the position of the Historiographer Royal, Professor Gordon Donaldson, and Malcolm Gray in The Highland Economy 1750-1850. Felis Read   (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nobody is disputing that there were some instances of anti Catholic clearances. Richards and Prebble refer to some of those instances. I thank you for bringing them to our attention. I want to see them acknowledged in the article - which they are in both the current article text, and the modified text that Richard suggests (which I am also happier with). However, there is not a single source that I am aware of, including Richards and Prebble who claim that anti Catholic sentiment was a factor anything like the significance of famine, poverty, population, rising rents. Richards does not even mention it in his summing up. Neither does Prebble. Until you provide a source that does, I see no argument for adding any more weight to the anti Catholic factor than we already have in the existing text. --Camerojo (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Prebble mentions anti-Catholicism many times in his summing up. Do you want a list? Including mentioning Gordon of Cluny and Catholic Barra, and the isle of Mingulay, with his Protestant minister Beatson who it is said of by Donald McLeod 'made himself very officious as he always does... when he has an opportunity of oppressing the poor Barra men.' Importantly this is in the 1850s. Then mention is of 2000, then 1500 people on Gordon of Clunys wider estates emigrating, including from Catholic South Uist too. pgs 264-267 It also mentions that most of the Catholics of Knoydart were part of the anti-Catholic Macdonnell emigration before the famine. p. 275, ...and again, relating how 'the people of Knoydart, with uneasy memories of what Glengarry widows had done to their clan in the past..'p, 276 (i.e. anti-Catholic contributory factor quote I was referencing earlier).

Kathleen Toomey, again mentions Moidart, Arisaig too in relation 'religious intolerance' and 'bullying whether religious in nature or not.' pg 260 And also Strathglass pg 259. (I wasn't going to mention Toomey until I had read it thoroughly,, as it stands I am a good portion through it, but this undue weight business is now looking increasingly thin reasoning for not writing more about anti-Catholicism.)

This undue weight business seems to be on the other side. Where are the sources that say anti-Catholicism wasn't a significant factor in the Clearances? Felis Read   (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So let's look at all the logical connections of what both of you are saying.


 * Richard Keatinge:
 * 1) ...is accepting that Dawson and Farber say 'the landlords responsible for the Highland Clearances did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons.'
 * 2) ...is accepting that Eric Richards is referencing both the Chisholms and the Macdonnells
 * 3) ...is not accepting that Eric Richards says the landlords were responsible for the anti-Catholic sentiment that was a contributory factor in their emigration.
 * 4) ...is not accepting that saying there wasn't any targeting of people for ethnic and religious reasons, is the same as saying these were merely economic enclosures, and that in this view the highland clearances are merely enclosures of 'high lands', that were merely late in timing for some indeterminate reason.


 * Camerojo:
 * 1) ... is accepting that Dawson and Farber say 'the landlords responsible for the Highland Clearances did not target people for ethnic or religious reason.'
 * 2)... is accepting that Eric Richards is referencing both the Chisholms and the Macdonnells.
 * 3)... is not stating what POV Eric Richards has on the landlords, and if they were responsible for the anti-Catholic sentiment that was a contributory factor in their emigration.
 * 4) ...is not stating if there is acceptance of saying there wasn't any targeting of people for ethnic and religious reasons, is the same as saying these were merely economic enclosures, and that in this view the highland clearances are merely enclosures of 'high lands', that were merely late in timing for some indeterminate reason.


 * Both of you:
 * 1) ...do not say if you accept that John Prebble's POV is that it was landlords anti-Catholic sentiment that was a contributory factor in the emigration of the Chisholms and the Macdonnells.
 * 2) ...that undue weight is because of the prominence of the viewpoints in the literature, and not acceptance of the facts.


 * I won't comment on anything at the minute, I just want to see where we are.  Felis Read   (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd rather write my own summary of the sources so far, which is:

the motivations of the Clearances were primarily economic, with religious hatred occasionally mentioned and possibly relevant (not as a dominant factor in most cases even of the minority of evictees who were Catholic); racial ideas also gave some "intellectual" support to the clearances.

the scholars quoted are debating the significance of compulsory clearance but none of them suggests that anti-Catholic feeling was relevant to more than a few cases, such as the South Uist one in 1772. I note the paper merely mentions in passing the emigration (note, not eviction) of over a hundred Roman Catholics from the Clanranald estate after persecution from the Protestant laird. It's another example, to add to the Chisholms and the Macdonnells, of religious hatred as part of the stimulus to emigration though not as a specific targeting of Clearances. I don't have a copy of Richards, but Google finds exactly one, rather trivial, match for the phrase "Roman Catholic" within it, and I think I'd like a rather longer (fair use) quotation to believe that Richards says anything that would materially change my view of this subject.

As I mentioned above, are there any other relevant comments before I try a bold edit: "The landlords responsible for the Highland Clearances did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons, and Protestants were the majority both of the Highland population generally and of those Cleared. Nevertheless, anti-Catholic sentiment (along with famine, poverty and rising rents) was a contributory factor in some Clearances. " Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. A very brief first comment, before more later. At 09:20, 13 March 2014 you mention Macdonnell and Chisholm tacksmen as those who were responsible for the anti-Catholic evictions. Where did you read this? Felis Read   (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Per Camerojo, above, Prebble "The Highland Clearances": "Under the pressure of increased rents or unrenewed leases, Macdonell tacksmen began to take their sub-tenants to British North America soon after Culloden. Like the Chisholms, they were Catholics, and a stubborn adherence to their faith was a contributory cause of their exile." Come to think of it, Prebble doesn't actually specify Chisholm tacksmen. He doesn't actually specify a formal Clearance either. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, see my comment 10:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC). Read through pages I quote. Identify where it says the evictions were by the tacksmen. You won't find any references to evictions by the tacksmen. You will find references to the landlords. The tacksmen did take their sub-tenants to British North America. They did so because of the evictions by the landlords. They were finding the conditions the landlords were placing on the population intolerable. The Toomey reference backs this up. Yet again though, you will ignore my question. You will claim something wildly inaccurate and receive the backing of Camerojo who will just happen to say he agrees without specifying why he agrees. Felis Read   (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And he also specifies formal clearances. Both easily identifiable in the page numbers I give above. And Toomey also identifies those clearances. Felis Read   (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And Bernard William Kelly states in relation to the early Macdonnell emigrations before both legislative, and landlord activity to stop it, that 'whether Macdonald of Clanranald began to display "some hostile feelings against Catholics" as one account avers, or merely wished to be rid of the bulk of his now useless tenantry, is a moot question, but it is certain that in this period hundreds of clansmen quitted Scotland for ever... The example of the Clanranald Macdonalds was quickly followed by large numbers of their kinsmen from Glengarry (i.e. the Macdonnells) and Knoydart.' pg. 7-9 of the book given in the section. This is the same Macdonald that other sources confirm was guilty of anti-Catholic actions.


 * There seems to be this belief, on this talk page, that the clans were so separate from one another that the actions of one landlord would effect only the people on his land. References can also be brought to bear on this point.


 * Less than 20 years previous, the Duke of Cumberland and Majors within his army, was harrying their lands, burning, looting and taking property, of both the Macdonnells and the Chisholms. Both legally and illegally. The place was left in desolation. The chiefs, their tacksmen, their tenants in large debts. This is why Prebble book on Culloden is important.


 * There was three things going on: legislative anti-Catholicism since the Reformation in the lowlands; executive actions of the Duke of Cumberland and others where there is at the very least a perception that they were anti-Catholic, including attacking illegal Roman Catholic church property, and more than usual activity on Catholic lands. There were members of the local Scottish government and their executive members, asking for actions that were anti-Catholic; and their were landlords (chiefs, and not merely factors, although there are instances where factors were guilty of anti-Catholic actions too) that were anti-Catholic. And these actions, whether taking their motivation from the Scottish executive or not, were similar to what they were asking for.


 * The point of Robert Burn's poem, and the emotional and reasonable conclusions of the Catholics of all these areas is: where were they to go? They were not merely Gaels. They were also Catholics. There wasn't employment for them in the Highlands. If the threat of clearances were over them, and there was, where were they to go? The Lowlands? They would lose not only their language, but their religion. Not long after these early emigrations there were the Gordon Riots (and these were in lowland Scotland and England, despite what the Wikipedia article says). Do you think that suggests they were welcome? And after these riots there were still warnings to Highlanders and their clergy that the laws meant they couldn't find employment for them.


 * All of this can be given account of by relating them to the sources, Prebble refers to it, Kelly does, Toomey does. There would not be WP:SYNTH or original research. As of yet, there hasn't been one instance where you give me an example of where I am synthesising material through original research. The main reason is, I didn't add much material to the article. When I did, it was in a descriptive encyclopedic style that grew to the enormous size it did because others were challenging my facts. And much of this seems to be on the basis that Prebble isn't a reliable source, yet other sources back-up what he says.


 * Again, where is the undue weight? You reference Richards. Richards has 2 other books on the subject. I would like to clarify what Richards says in those 2 other books before we make in conclusions on undue weight. As of yet, Prebble is essentially a major reference text, the guardian obituary gives credence to this. You are balancing Richards against Prebble. The argument for undue weight would need more than that.


 * My original words, 'One of the results of the Clearances was the near extinction of Roman Catholicism in Scotland, and there remains debate amongst historians as to how much this was a factor in thoughts of those who were responsible for the clearances.' Read clearly the word results, it does not say that the Clearances were anti-Catholic. It relates to one of the results of the clearances. An effect. Indirect though it may be. Though there are direct examples of anti-Catholic actions by landlords who were clearing land too.


 * I am writing all of this, you are responding to it, because you are deleting material, and then saying that the sources say other than what they say. You are confining me to the talk page by a process of filibuster, and deletion.  Felis Read   (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do have a full copy of Richards on Kindle so I can search it very easily. I can confirm that there is nothing in it supporting the view that anti Catholic feeling was a major factor. In fact, I believe that Richards clearly supports the exact opposite by completely omitting any mention of it from the final, summary chapter of his book. I used Richards extensively in my own family research so I know its contents and views well. I have even corresponded with Richards himself - he was kind enough to review my family research. I support the bold edit that Richard suggests and unless new evidence is forthcoming, I see no justification for any further changes to our coverage of the Catholic clearances. Our time would be better spent on improvements to other parts of the article. --Camerojo (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's very useful. I have made the edit as described and I support Camerojo's call to spend time on improving other aspects of the article. As I've mentioned before, I would personally recommend a few key population figures. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not answering my question Richard Keatinge?


 * Do you support removing the fact the Bishop Alexander Mcdonnell was the first Roman Catholic army chaplain from a Catholic clearance that was at the instigation of what both Toomey and Prebble describe as removals where anti-Catholicism was a contributory factor?


 * I will quote the Wikipedia guidelines: 'If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts' You point to only one. Nevertheless, in that one, anti-Catholicism is given mention. This doesn't support your claim that writing more about anti-Catholicism is undue weight. Felis Read   (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have now replaced Alexander Macdonell as part of the Glengarry story, including the fact of his chaplaincy. As for your last paragraph, I'm having trouble working out what your argument is. I hope it doesn't mean a return to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that so many editors have already wasted so much time on. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you think you are wasting your time. What don't you understand? There were two questions (and actually a third to camerojo):
 * 1) Where you read Macdonnell and Chisholm tacksmen were responsible for the evictions where anti-Catholicism was a contributory factor?
 * 2) Where there are 'commonly accepted reference texts'? Vitally. The last word is plural text(s). You give only one.
 * 3) Please see 21:34, 13 March 2014. If you like, I will restate the question again in clear view. Felis Read   (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Two more then spring to mind.
 * 4) Why did you move the reference to Bishop Alexander Macdonnell from the religion section where it belongs?
 * 5) Why are you not referencing the fact that the Macdonnells evictions that Bishop Alexander Macdonnell was a significant person within had a contributory factor that was anti-Catholic in nature. Toomey confirms that the Macdonnells thought they were the victims of religious oppression in her Appendix. Felis Read   (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would welcome clear draft edits addressing one point at a time, supported with unequivocal references which should include sufficient text to determine that the references actually do support the suggested change. Since 2nd February, this page has accumulated over 30,000 words of discussion with very little improvement of the article to show for it. I, and I suspect other editors, will not welcome further rambling only peripherally attached to either appropriate sources, to Wikipedia policies, or to the subject of the article. The appropriate place for such material is on your own blog. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Great. Don't answer any questions. That's how not to show anti-Catholicism wasn't a significant factor in The Clearances.

30,000 words of dissonance and lack of engagement with facts.

Saying things that are untrue. Removing context. Moving references to a central point, then removing them to other points, all unilaterally, on a whim, and the reasons for each are purely because you want it that way. Belligerence. That's all you offer. Felis Read  (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, there was merely 'anti-Catholic sentiment', was there? Where did it emerge? Ah, could it be government legislation? Could it be landlords? Could it be from government employees asking that landlords buy land from people whom the government has given crippling debts because of Culloden? Could there really be government legislation that was anti-Catholic after Culloden. Nah, it can't. DELETE.  Felis Read   (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)