Talk:Restoration (Scotland)

Comments on a clean up edit (22 April 2015)
I have made a tidy up edit revision as of 11:46, 22 April 2015, and want to note some things for others so that they can trace the changes.

I have replaced dashs between numbers with ndahes. I have also given years in full. This is because it facilitates searches for years if they are in full. fore example if one wishes to search for the end of the Commonwealth or the start of the Restoration one would search on "1660" not on "60". When there is a range of page numbers I have made them consistent with full page rages eg 116–117 rather than 116–7, this is a style issue, and both were in the article. However as this is not paper were do not have to justify saving space by removing digits from page number ranges.

The other changes are to short and long citations. I believer these changes are correct and can be understood by reviewing the edits that created the anomalies this edit changed:
 * additions of short and long citations with different dates
 * removal of a short citation so long is no longer needed
 * addition (23:44, 17 April 2015) of MacDonald long and short footnote removal (19:03, 19 April 2015)

-- PBS (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those. I will check out the date anomalies just to be sure. On the date range, I feel I ought to point out that WP:DATEOTHER specifically says to use two figures for the end of a date range (with three exceptions).--  SabreBD  (talk ) 17:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look back into the history of that MOS page you will find that "The full closing year is acceptable" was removed on 24 September 2010 with minimal discussion and no obvious consensus (let alone an RfC). It used to be 4 digits because years always used to be linked like this 2015. I have had half a mind to change it back but there is so much arbitrary stuff in the MOS guideline which is officiously watched by a small group of editors who seem to do little else I have not bothered, specifically because it has the get out of jail free of "usually".  -- PBS (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, not an uncommon situation on some of these MOS matters. I have no strong feelings on the matter, although I prefer consistency within articles, obviously.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 21:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

General pardon and exceptions
I think that this edit by user:Sabrebd was a retrograde step so I have reverted it.

The major reason for this is because of the tone of the replacement text.

user:Sabrebd stated in the edit comment that went with this "Replaced problematic 'pardon' section with one based on reliable secondary sources". Yet the sources used are So both are based on reliable secondary sources, however the original text sported 10 reliable sources while the new one has one, so I fail to see how it can be argued that the former was not supported by reliable sources as the edit comment implies.
 * In the replacement:
 * In the original:   + seven more for the second paragraph.

The new text starts with "Unlike in England, where there was a generalised Indemnity and Oblivion Act" this is clearly false as "On 9 September 1662 the Scottish parliament passed the Act of indemnity and oblivion. It was a general pardon ..."

The new text continues "When an Act of Indemnity was eventually passed ..." this again is condemnatory as it implies that it ought to have been passed sooner. "and threatened with execution" is not as neutral (parliaments do not threaten people they pass laws) so the he older wording phrased more neutrally: "The exceptions act specified that if an excluded person did not pay the fines by the date specified he (they were all men) would lose the benefit of the general pardon".

My point is that the new text presents the outcome as vindictive. Whether it was or not is a matter of opinion. Opinions need in-line attribution from an expert source, but Wikipedia does not have an editorial opinion, instead it let the facts speak for themselves: the facts are that there was an general pardon, that 700 were excluded and a handful were executed.

On 9 September 1662 the Scottish parliament passed the Act of indemnity and oblivion. It was a general pardon for most types of crime that may have been committed by Scots, between 1 January 1637 and before 1 September 1660, during what the Act calls "the late troubles" (the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum). The act was structured in a similar way to the English Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660, it legislated for a general pardon with exceptions, but (like Cromwell's Act of Grace) it contained many more exceptions than the English act. The act did not reverse the provisions of any previous act passed by the same Scottish Parliament or the provisions of the Committee of Estates passed since August 1660. It explicitly mentions the forfeitures of "Archibald Campbell, late marquis of Argyll, Archibald Johnston, sometime called Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, John Swinton, sometime called of Swinton, James Guthrie, William Govan, John Home and William Dundas, James Campbell, sometime called of Ardkinglas and James Campbell, sometime called of Orinsay". An additional act called the Act containing some exceptions from the act of indemnity was passed that included heavy fines for about 700 former adherents to the Covenant. The exceptions act specified that if an excluded person did not pay the fines by the date specified he (they were all men) would lose the benefit of the general pardon, but on timely payment he would "enjoy the benefit of his majesty's pardon and indemnity to all intents and purposes".

A few members of the previous regime were tried and found guilty of treason. Some were executed: Archibald Campbell (8th Earl of Argyll), beheaded 27 May 1661, James Guthrie and Captain William Govan hanged 1 June 1661, and Archibald Johnston (Lord Warriston) hanged 22 July 1663. John Swinton (1621?–1679) was condemned to forfeiture and imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle, where he remained for some years before being released. In 1661 John Home of Kelloe had his estates sequestrated for being with the English army against the King's army at the battle of Worcester in 1651. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the estates were restored to his son George.

Unlike in England, where there was a generalised Indemnity and Oblivion Act, that excluded only 33 persons, including the 13 regicides, there was no general indemnity in Scotland. This was used vindictively and politically by Middleton and Glencairn. A number of Covenanter and Protester figures were pursued to death, including Archibald Campbell, 1st Marquess of Argyll, who was executed in 1661 for his alleged compliance with the Cromwellian regime. James Guthrie was executed for his publication of Causes of the King's Wrath. Samuel Rutherford died in prison awaiting trial for his publication of Lex Rex. Archibald Johnston, Lord Warriston, who had drafted the Solemn League and Covenant, was executed in July 1663. Captain William Govan was hanged in June 1661. When an Act of Indemnity was eventually passed by the Scottish parliament in 1662, some 700 persons were excluded, and threatened with execution if they did not pay fines that ranged from £200 to £1,800 Scots.

@user:Sabrebd how is the original text "problematic"? -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it is based on Original research. The version I put in followed the wording in the secondary sources. This was also a response to the GA review above, so if you want to provide a solution, it needs to meet that and a simple revert is insufficient.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 13:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean by "original research" as all of the sentences are based on sources that have been reputably published WP:PSTS and there is nothing in the sentences based on those sources that is an interpretation of the contents of those primary sources. As the section says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Which statement of fact does not meet that requirement? -- PBS (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * They are primary sources and more than just quoting them is happening here.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 17:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The use of primary sources is not restricted to quoting them. One can summarise them, what one can not do is draw inferences from them — ie it is the difference between "On 9 September 1662 the Scottish parliament passed the Act of indemnity and oblivion" and "When an Act of Indemnity was eventually passed" the former is a statement of fact (easily checked in the link to the primary source), latter has to come from a secondary source because "eventually" implies that the Act was late and that is not in the primary source.
 * I mentioned before that the text that was used as a replacement had problems with tone. Another example is "This was used vindictively and politically" -- The people executed were executed before the act was passed. "in 1661 for his alleged compliance", "alleged" in the editorial voice of Wikipedia makes a statement that the editors of Wikipedia are questioning the validity of a Scottish court. Also the crime he was found guilty of was more specific and not just compliance as many had complied with the "Commonwealth"—using the term "Cromwellian regime" will be read by many that Wikipedia sides with the Royalists rather than Roundheads over the legitimacy of the regimes (please note I write legitimacy not legality). -- PBS (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)