Talk:Highland Clearances/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Edit 794246181

I have reverted edit 794246181 by 70.64.100.245 as I feel the concept of voluntary emigration is an important one. The complete sentence in the article therefore reads "The cumulative effect of the Clearances, and the large-scale voluntary emigrations over the same period, devastated the cultural landscape of Scotland; the effect of the Clearances was to destroy much of the Gaelic culture." There are a number of deficiencies in this text as it stands, but the mention of the voluntary aspect is an important part of explaining the empty landscapes of many of the cleared regions.

Population numbers, in many/most instances, continued to climb whilst clearance was ongoing. Therefore if you are looking for a reason for the destruction of the Gaelic culture, it is difficult to directly blame clearance for this. The best causative link between the two might be the change to crofting communities (which were largely the creation of the first phase of the clearances), thereby generating the need for migrant work to provide cash to subsidise the otherwise insufficient living to be obtained on a croft. This work was generally obtained in the English/Scots speaking Lowlands (both rural and urban). This process was further assisted by the various church-based educational societies (such as the Society in Scotland for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge); some of these groups initially tried to teach only in English, but rapidly moved to teaching reading (of the Bible) in Gaelic, but, in time, they were (surprisingly) put under pressure by the Gaelic community also to teach English. The explanation being that English was the "language of work". (Statistics on Gaelic and English literacy show a strong relationship between being able to speak English with being able to read both Gaelic and English.) The large seasonal migrant population of crofting communities - typically young men and women - therefore could acquire a broader range of employment opportunities.

A problem with the sentence quoted in the first paragraph is that it says that the large-scale voluntary emigrations were concurrent with the clearances. It would be better to make clear that these continued and accelerated as clearance ceased. I also am less than happy with " the effect of the clearances was to destroy much of the Gaelic culture". It appears much more likely that these were two events that were going on at the same time, with some inter-relation between them, but neither being overwhelmingly the result of the other.

In looking at other events which destroyed Gaelic culture, one could assert that that clearance was somehow linked to breakdown of the clan system. However, cause and effect are the other way round - the clan system was already in demise as clearances started in any quantity.

I've not cited any references to support the above. All the opinions I have expressed can be found collected together in Clanship to Crofters War by T M Devine. Specifically, this deals with:
Chapter 1 - Clanship (the rise and fall thereof)
Chapter 3 - The Transformation of Gaeldom (this chapter starts with "Gaelic Society and clanship were in decay long before the later eighteenth century.....")
Chapter 7 - The Social Impact of Protestant Evangelicalism
Chapter 8 - The Language of the Gael
Chapter10 - The Migrant Tradition
Many writers on the subject cover the population numbers at the time of clearance (Richards is a good source in his several works).

I have not been able to engage directly with the IP editor that I have reverted. I would hope that if the editor feels that I am wrong to revert, that we can have some discussion here. I appreciate that there are some complex points involved - especially since there were some emigrants who would undoubtedly have questioned their voluntary status, even if not technically evicted as part of a clearance. However, there are many more who did decide to emigrate of their own volition. Why, otherwise, would the Passenger Vessels Act of 1803 have been enacted?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

My ancestors, among many others, clearly decided to emigrate of their own volition. So I accept that it is technically correct to use the word "voluntary". However, I think it is nevertheless misleading. There were many factors at play here that effectively forced that "voluntary" decision. I see no value in using the word. I would support the IP editors deletion of the word. Camerojo (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the deficiency, if there is one, is with the word. What is important is to be clear that the majority of those who left the Highlands over the whole range of its history were not compelled to by their landlord; this importance is because some were compelled to emigrate in an "eviction/ assisted passage emigration" package. To lose the distinction would do a serious dis-service to this latter group. I would hope that the deficiency could be dealt with by further rewriting of the article.

I have come into this subject with an understanding that, in part, turns out not to be right (see earlier items on the talk page). I think it is particularly difficult to come to a quick understanding of voluntary emigration - and the range of circumstances that come under that heading. As an example, look at the situation in Sweden. Richards makes clear that this Nordic country changed their system of land ownership to give peasant farmers a much more advantageous situation (the sort of thing that we, with the benefit of hindsight, would applaud in the Highlands). Yet a very large proportion of the rural population of Sweden emigrated to the USA in the second half of the 19th century. In the context of the Highlands, we would probably feel that was inexplicable.

We must remember the simple fact that the empty landscapes of the Highlands are almost entirely due to the voluntary emigration of its residents in the post-clearance period. We must also be clear that there were voluntary emigrations that occurred at the same time as the clearances and some of these were genuinely voluntary. In trying to rationalise the "shades of grey" area, I think of people who have left a job when it is clear that redundancies are going to happen. Would they say that they decided to leave, rather than having the decision imposed? It is not possible to ask the similar question of emigrating Highlanders - so a lot of care is needed on this point.

And, looking at family histories, my own includes a Borders Scot who emigrated to New Zealand. There is no thought that he was forced by circumstances or otherwise to do so (and there is reason to believe the story is accurately conveyed, due in part to a a few generations of long-lived family members). Would we assume otherwise if he had been a Highlander? Would this assumption have been wrong?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Arguably many, possibly the majority, of current Syrian refugees (with whom I currently work) are also "voluntary" emigrants in the sense that they left their country under their own volition. Of course, the situation had become intolerable for them. Nevertheless, they made the decision to leave, so their leaving was "voluntary". I do take your point, but, as you say, the problem is with the word. I would simply remove it, and make your point more explicitly in other parts of the article. Camerojo (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As a point of reference, take a look at Swedish emigration to the United States. The period of highest Swedish emigration has a lot of overlap with Scottish emigration - and it is this period in history that depopulated the Highlands and finally finished off Gaelic culture. (Don't take this remark as criticism - I just thought the Swedish article is useful to achieve an understanding. This is where the concept of "push and pull" emigration is often discussed - which does not seem at all common in Scottish/Highland emigration analyses.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Agricultural Revolution

Farming to sheep-raising isn't a revolution. The article should identify enclosures as the primary agricultural change, comparing it's lateness in comparison with the Lowlands, England, the rest of the UK, and Europe.

In itself this wasn't a revolution, because it was a late development of a widespread phenomenon.

The reasons for it's late change is more pertinent than the narrowing of farming into sheep raising. WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"improvement" versus improvement

I have been thinking long and hard about the edit putting the word improvement in inverted commas. I have come to the conclusion that this is POV and, even if it is not, the absence of inverted commas does not cause the same problem, if incorrect, as their presence if that is incorrect. Hence I have amended the section heading Economic improvement by removing the inverted commas.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Could ThoughtIdRetired explain why he thinks it's P.O.V.? WP:MNA is my point. Relating it with the comparison that it is "not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page." The value of Enclosure is debated in that article. WyndingHeadland (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It is largely a case of following the usage of authoritative sources. Adding the inverted commas suggests that any improvements are imagined or illusory. If this is not the normal usage of established writers in the field, then I think that we can conclude that the editor is putting forward a point of view that is not supported by the sources.

Looking at the various major sources, we have
Tom Devine, who is a prolific author on Scottish History and a major authority on the agricultural revolution in Scotland (he is the person who coined the term Lowland Clearances). If you look at his usage of the word improvement in To the Ends of the Earth, you will find that he does not use inverted commas (with one exception, where the context makes it appropriate). You can find this, for example, on page 114 where he discusses the improvements made by Sir James Matheson on the Isle of Lewis. The same usage applies in his other works (see references on this talk page).
Eric Richards is also a university professor with a substantial number of publications on the Highland Clearances ([2] and also see refs on this talk page). He does not put inverted commas around the word improvement.
Michael Lynch's work, Scotland, A New History falls into line with other historians - look for instance at page 298.
The work by Ian Adams and Meredyth Somerville, Cargoes of Despair and Hope also avoids the inverted commas (look, for instance at page 27, which, incidentally, gives a very good description of why improvement was needed and how it worked, with an explanation of the failings of the older system).
Nor will you find the usage of inverted commas around improvement in academic journals such as The Scottish Historical Review, or Northern Scotland.
We can even look at the older source, John Prebble, whose ideas have now been largely supplanted (if they were ever accepted) in the academic world, who does not use inverted commas for the word improvement in his book on the Clearances.
I would, however, point to what I feel is the exception that proves the rule: James Hunter (but his Wikipedia page seems to demote him: I understand him to be an emeritus professor of history at the University of the Highlands) and you certainly find him using inverted commas in his book on the Sutherland Clearances "Set Adrift Upon the World".

I think this puts a significant weight of historical opinion behind the usage that I have suggested. I could, no doubt, find more support and there is, no doubt, some other historian who is an exception to the rule. However, I think there is a clear case that the Wikipedia article should follow the usage in the sources that I have discussed.

I was going to add all the appropriate in-line references to the above, but the references appear immediately below (until someone adds another section) and it is simply a matter of looking at each authors' work.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Very sure that authors quoted relate instances where improvement happened, without enclosure, before enclosure too.

Enclosure itself is a debated concept. It happens in Brazil at the present moment, it's a hot environmental topic. In the Highlands enclosure involved people, not the environment itself.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of all the facts, not merely the academic literature on it. The crofter movement, and the Government legislation on crofting itself, goes beyond the literature in placing enclosure as a debated concept.

Yet happy delving for literature if necessary.

What seems preferable is perhaps highlighting what improvement entails; because improvement is specifically linked with enclosure, enclosure primarily meant sheep raising, and for sheep raising to be a success it meant merely a profit. That isn't necessarily everyones idea of improvement because profit can come in various forms, and mere profit isn't the profit that sustained the farming economy and Highland society before enclosure.

Beyond that enclosure meant other things, and there are well documented cases of it failing. That makes improvement a debated concept.

The question that is vital in all this is "for whom" because improvement in itself if documented doesn't necessarily equate to improvement for everyone or for someone or some group. WyndingHeadland (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The economics of debt is an interesting topic for another article. Yet most nations for instance incur national debts, and mere profit is excluded from an idea of improvement in the overwhelming majority of nation states, as long as the debt creates profit elsewhere. WyndingHeadland (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems and a solution

I was recently reading WP:DUE, and I became concerned about the balance of the amount of text on various parts of the subject covered by this article. I thought this needed some hard numbers to help assess the matter. In order to measure the weight given, I used word counts in the article and also in Eric Richards' book The Highland Clearances (since this is a work to which, I imagine, most active editors hereon will have access). Looking at the article, there are approximately 6,326 words in it as it stands. The section on Discrimination is 757 words long, or 12% of the overall article, and this is split into 330 words on religious discrimination and 426 on pseudo-scientific racism.

Going now to Richards, using Kindle location numbers and the rule of thumb of 23 words to one Kindle location unit, this estimates the book at 211,508 words. Using the Kindle search function, I have found 90 words about religious discrimination (page 81, in the section about voluntary emigration). This is 0.04% of the entire book.

I have searched for discussion of pseudo-scientific racism or anything similar but not found anything in this work. (Please let me know if I have missed anything.)

So, from this, we see that the article has more words on religious discrimination than an entire book on the Highland Clearances. I do not expect the percentage of the article to be the same as the book, but the large difference, and the absolute number, tells us something. Nor do I suggest that absence of comment by Richards on the racial discrimination against the Gael to suggest that it should not be included. And I do appreciate that the issue is more than just a simple word count. However, I believe that what is needed is to reduce the prominence given in the article to this part of the overall subject, particularly the length of the relevant section. I think the same conclusion would be reached from a wider study of suitable sources.

We also have the following difficulties:
Within the Discrimination section, there is one 'citation needed' and 5 primary sources, 2 of which are used to give direct quotes. This follows on from mentioning a quote used by James Hunter (that at least has the advantage that it is derived from a secondary source written by a respected historian working in the subject). Both primary sources and quotes are meant to be avoided, limited or used with care (WP:Primary, WP:LONGQUOTE, WP:quotefarm).

The solution to all the above would appear to be to reduce the size of the Discrimination section. A return to the version of this section that existed on 30 August might be the easiest way to achieve this. That would give a Discrimination section of about 295 words, which would be slightly less than 5% of the entire article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of "Economic change" to "Economic improvement"

I take the view that dodging usage of the word "improvement" is POV. The word is widely used by writers on this subject (see the discussion above about putting it in quotes). With the word "Economic" in front of it, it demonstrably is improvement in that context. It is also clear that the change from the old-style of agriculture introduced money into the economy - something which, by the time the Highland Potato Famine arrived, undoubtedly saved many lives in the Highlands. I don't think there is any doubt that there is a social downside to improvement of the type discussed in the article (where-ever it occurs). But ignoring the other aspects of the subject is an incomplete story.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with reversion

I disagree. ' With the word "Economic" in front of it, it demonstrably is improvement in that context. ' It demonstrably is deterioration: the Highland economy was ravaged, virtually destroyed, to the detriment of thousands of people. The change benefited a few landowners and their farmers, so the balance was not an improvement but a deterioration in the living and economic conditions of the majority. I think the reversion is using too narrow a conceptions of 'Economic', which should refer to the overall benefit or harm to the people of the district. The fact that many people refer to it as 'improvement' does not make that term NPOV. TonyClarke (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of other points that I should have raised to support the reversion, and I should expand on the reason given.
(1) The text immediately before the section header in question says "Different landowners decided to introduce the improvements that required clearance at different times and for different reasons. The common drivers of clearance are as follows:". That means we are talking about motivation. In economic terms, the landowners in this category were looking for improvement. That is a simple fact. Whether or not they achieved it is another matter (interestingly some landowners bankrupted themselves introducing improvements that did not produce the returns that they expected).
(2) I do not think that the majority view of modern historians working in the subject feel that the Highland economy was destroyed by the Highland Clearances. Richards poses the interesting question on what the Highlands would look like now without the Clearances - suggesting that they would look pretty much the same.(In the closing chapter of this book - the questions are posed at the beginning of the book). I think both Richards and Devine make clear in their numerous works on the subject that the Highland economy was destroyed by the end of the Napoleonic wars. This meant that the temporary price increases that had supported various industries ceased - this is most obvious with the failure of the kelp industry, but a similar decline also affected the cattle trade. Even the price of wool took a modest turn for the worse. You could also add changes in the taxation of whisky which removed the huge advantage for the unlicensed stills that were a major part of the Highland economy for some while. Then the potato famine struck, emphasising the fact that some areas were overpopulated with no prospect of being able to support themselves. (Hence the second phase of the Clearances).
(3) To understand the exact nature of the agricultural improvements, I suggest you look at , page 27. This, and also the work by TM Devine, particularly Clanship to Crofters War make clear the nature of the improvements and how, without them, the Highland Economy would be much poorer. Please do not confuse simple introduction of sheep farming with improvement. This involved better agricultural systems that produced better yields. This included drainage, new crops and crop varieties (including, perhaps unfortunately, the potato) and the ability to breed better livestock. It also meant that a transition to a cash economy was gradually achieved. When the Highland Potato Famine struck, this was a genuine lifesaver. Without cash to buy meal, many would have starved. This cash was in the hands of landowners, who provided relief to their tenants, and in the hands of tenants themselves, so that they could buy food, travel to work out of the area, or emigrate if they so chose. There is, of course, much focus on the poorest victims of the potato famine, but without a cash economy, there would have been many more in that situation. You will note, of course, that the government run relief effort was headed by Sir Charles Trevelyan, who is vilified by many for being in charge of relief efforts in Ireland the year before - he was driven by moral and religious beliefs that made him most reluctant to help in both Ireland and the Scottish Highlands. Fortunately for Scotland, their at-risk population were saved by the wealth in that region already, and by the philanthropy of the Scottish industrial cities. Without the Highlands as part of the growing 19th century economy, the fate of Ireland could easily have been bestowed on the Highlands. Devine deals with this quite well in The Scottish Nation, as well as in Clanship to Crofters War.
I don't know if you have any references that you can cite to support your views? It might be helpful if you provide some.ThoughtIdRetired

(talk) 20:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you for all of the research, citations and comments on this. My original intention was just to point out the POV use of 'improvement'. To me , that term is evaluative, while 'change' is not. I think that NPOV should be aimed at here, particularly about this still very sensitive subject. We could debate it endlessly, but I was just expressing a semantic opinion in my original edit. TonyClarke (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The term 'improvement' is certainly PoV; but the bias is not in the editors, who are using a term common in contemporary sources, it is in the landlords responsible. The landlords left written records, and it's natural to use the language of those records. I imagine that the tenants' terms for the changes might be unprintable. Maproom (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom. I think people who use value laden terms have to accept the consequences of their use, even if they didn't originate the terms. For example, if I use a racially abusive term, it surely does not justify my use to say that I didn't originate it? Also I think that leaving out the unprintable still calls for a recognition that more than one view is involved in these changes.TonyClarke (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The usage of the word improvement is found prominently in the writings of the historians currently working on the subject. I view the article Highland Clearances as a historical subject and, as such, should follow the content and usage of the works of those historians. I note, also, that neither of the 2 users who have commented on this have addressed the simple factual argument that the changes to the Highland economy provided a substantial protection for the population of that area when the potato famine struck. When you compare with the same famine in Ireland, it is very hard to do anything other to consider changes from a subsistence agriculture to one connected to the rapidly modernising Britain that existed in the latter part of the 18th century through to the 19th century as improvement.

I appreciate that this is an emotional subject for many - and if you read the older talk pages you will find me describing how I have seen people in my community lose their jobs and homes due to agricultural change (yes, this sort of thing does happen today - this was a large rural estate moving out of dairy and into beef production - so they needed less staff, and could sell or let the tied cottage occupied by the person made redundant). So I do understand the personal aspect.

There is a lot of work to do in this article, and one of the important things to address is to comment on the social impact. The difficulty is that there is a huge amount of "folklore" out there, which tends to obscure hard facts. (Otherwise the job would be done by now!!) I do encourage you to read the modern works on the subject. If you look, for instance, at James Hunter's "Set Adrift Upon the World" (about the Sutherland Clearances), you will find a professional historian with views very sympathetic to your own (see his twitter page), but who applies rigourous historical accuracy to his work. So, his account of the burning of Badinloskin is much less sensational than the folklore - the folklore includes Sellar saying "let the old witch burn", whilst Hunter gives a much more benign account of the event.

I could ramble on about this at much greater length, but instead I implore you to read some of the modern historical work on the subject.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you are partly arguing that it was improvement, and that historians are justified in using that term. It's not a question of whether or not it was an improvement, but one of neutrality of writing. I accept that some saw, and see it as improvement, but inevitably because of the nature of the beast, some saw it as a deterioration. So we need to choose a neutral term, in keeping with this encyclopedia's policy. Using a historic, loaded term risks distortion and bias in our account of that time. If you wish, we can go to arbitration on this. TonyClarke (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I am slightly puzzled that you wish to go to arbitration at this early stage. I think we need to establish a few things first.

(a) have you actually read any of the references that provide the material on which this article is (and will be) based? By that, I mean the post-Prebble historians who have senior university posts based on their scholarship on this subject? (And I do not wish to imply that Prebble was a historian.) If you have not, may I respectfully ask that you do.

(b) on the presumption that you have studied the sources mentioned in (a), are you arguing that this encyclopedia should deem the language used by those experts as inappropriate? To my mind, that is like saying an article on Narrow-gauge railway should be retitled because "Narrow" is POV. Well, it might be, but it is the point of view of the experts in the subject.

(c) have you read WP.NPOV recently? Right at the start of the guidance, it says:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

(I have added the bold text.) I take the view that if all the historians currently working in the field talk repeatedly about "improvement", and that the only arguable point is (as per the previous closed discussion on this talk page) whether or not to put the word in quotes (only James Hunter does this, there are many more that don't), then the only action that complies with this guidance is to use "improvement" as the same way as all these quoted sources. This is the core reason why I reverted your edit - because avoiding the customary usage of experts in the field is a POV processing of their work.

(d) You have not answered my earlier point about the words immediately preceding the text under discussion. These words make clear that the article is giving the reasons in the minds of the landowners for taking the actions that they did. I had toyed with the idea of using the phrase "proximal cause" in the text, but that seemed a little pedantic. Are you suggesting that the ambitions of the landowners was change rather than improvement? That hardly seems to fit the factual situation that applied: that they wanted more productive estates.

(e) I am not sure that I understand what you mean by a "historic loaded term". I could guess that you believe the usage of "improvement" in this sense is obsolete. This is simply not true. Not only does it feature in modern authoritative writing about the Highland Clearances, but also in similar works on the Agricultural Revolution in England. In all the cases I have encountered, I do not perceive this to be a "loaded" usage. Perhaps that is my failing, but I challenge you to show a significant number of examples where "improvement" is used in any sort of loaded way in the output of any serious historian (accepting that any treatment of the historiography of the subject is bound to have quotes of such sort).

(f) You note that my arguments include the point that there really was a genuine improvement in the economic conditions. Yet you say that it does not matter whether or not it was an improvement. I do not follow your logic here - why would one not say that it was in improvement if that was true? Do you dispute my argument, and the points made by Devine and Richards about the economic situation - about how cash enabled the Highland population to buy meal in time of famine (Richards is quite specific about this in the context of famines that occurred prior to the potato famine)? For simplicity, I have simply stuck to the simple measure of: did any Highlanders starve to death in the potato famine? One could look at this in much more detail. I accept that there is a social change, largely concurrent with the Clearances and the period up to the first half of the 20th Century, when Highland society changed enormously. However the roots of this change go back before then, as is made clear by Devine in Clanship to Crofters War. (Other authors concur.) The collapse of the Highland culture is mostly due to the demise of the clan system (and that started before Culloden - as is clear in many modern histories), right through to the wave of emigration that followed the Clearances. One could argue that Highland society deteriorated over this period - that would be a point of view, but the economic change was inevitable and was a change from a subsistence economy prone to famine to, ultimately a more sustainable modern system that was, economically, much more part of the rest of Scotland. At the same time, many emigrated - and if you read On the Crofters Trail, you will see that the folklore of those who emigrated is (to the surprise of the author) generally highly positive. So, looking for improvement, we have avoidance of starving, an economy that was at least part of the vibrant larger Scottish economy, and a broadly happy emigrant section of that society. That is, I suggest, why modern historians employ the usage which I seek to follow in the article. But, to get back to the point - if there was an element of improvement, why should the article not use the word?

In short, I am totally guided in usage by the current experts who write in this field. I do not understand why you think Wikipedia should not follow their lead.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You are confirming my previous point, i.e. you are arguing that it really was improvement. But that ignores the negative views of those forced out of their homes by the circumstances and policies. The improvement was in the profits of the landowners, at the expense of the deterioration of life for many. So to call it improvement per se is to ignore their point of view, and is therefore in breach of POV guidance. You are also getting into the endless debate which we have both mentioned, and it is futile. This is a question of neutral semantics, not of fact. Neutral language is needed. WyndingHeadland's previous talk entries have gone over this point with you, but you persist in POV calling it unqualified improvement.

TonyClarke (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please would you answer points (a) to (e) shown above. Point (f) is only there to try and explain why the overwhelming (and as far as I an tell, unanimous) consensus of current historians is to use exactly the form of words that I have followed. Without an answer to (a) to (e), I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

(a) Yes I have read academic authors on the subject

(b) No, I am not suggesting we apply our POV policies to academic historians. That would be absurd, which is why i have not done it.

(c) Published sources include the feelings of the displaced who certainly did not see it as an improvement. Their point of view needs to be implicitly acknowledged by avoiding using the term 'improvement ' tout court. For me, that is what your quote from the POV policy says about this situation. We need neutral language which I am beginning to tire of repeating here.

(d) What was said in the previous section from the one under discussion does not materially affect my expressed views.

(e) By loaded term I mean that the term 'improvement' is used to express the point of view of the landowners only and is therefore biased and POV. We need neutral language here which does not dismiss one important point of view i.e. that of the displaced.

I have now answered your points without you anywhere answering mine, about the basic semantic implications of 'improvement'. I agree the discussion is going nowhere, and feel that academic sparring is diversionary. I thank the several editors who have commented on this and would ask any others to please give their comments before I consider restoring my original change. TonyClarke (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. From (a) and (b) I take it that you agree that the historians working in this field make the same usage of the word “improvement” as I have tried to do in the article. Your answer to (c) suggests to me that you believe that we should look beyond published historians for guidance on this. I do not think this is supported by WP:SOURCE. Here you will find:

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. 

There is more detail in WP:HSC, including as follows:

Historical scholarship is generally not:
Journalism
Opinion pieces by non-scholars
Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs—these may be useful to supplement an article that relies upon scholarly sources
Any primary source; however primary sources may be used in accord with the WP:Primary rules. This includes primary source collections, or the primary source sections or appendixes of otherwise scholarly texts
Annotated editions of primary sources, with the exception of the explicit annotations
Online editions of primary sources produced by libraries and archives.

So we have both a Wikipedia policy (WP:SOURCE) and a Wikipedia essay (WP:HSC) pointing us firmly in the direction of using the output of good quality historians to decide what goes into the article.

That means we have your opinion that the word “improvement” should not be used, whilst it is regularly found in the sources that Wikipedia states we should use, both as a matter (i) of policy and (ii) of vetted advice. I think that seriously calls into question the conclusion that you reach in answering (c).

To move on to your other answers, I am puzzled by your response to (d). We are talking about a sub-section – yet you choose to ignore the text immediately before the start of that sub-section. I would argue that context is always important, and more so when the organisation (section/sub-section) gives a clear connection.

My read on your answer to (e) is that you feel that the views of the landlords should not be included in the article. I am not sure how that provides a neutral point of view, if one part of the whole story is removed. Using the word “changed” rather than “improved” gives a different meaning – or at the very least is just a euphemism for “improved”, which surely does not solve the problem and simply reduces clarity.

I think we also need to consider that WP:NPOV applies to more than one word – it really looks to the whole article, or at least sections of that article. In following WP:NPOV, it would be impossible to give an even-handed account of something where the experts had differing opinions if editors were banned from using a form of words adopted by one side of the argument. This article needs a substantial amount of revision to bring it up to standard – so that means what we have is a work-in-progress. You will note that I have suggested on a now-archived talk page that we have a “historiography and view in popular culture” section (yes, the title does need a bit more thought) that would tackle the way historians have developed their views and what the position is in the non-academic world. The last section would have easy material (I suspect – I have yet to fully research this aspect) in the various blogs on the internet – and there are probably future arguments over how far one can go with them.

Re-reading (again) WP:NPOV, I think there are some other useful things in there. For instance, following the link WP:NPOVFAQ , we find:

It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

I would hope this would deal with your apparent objection that all historians in the subject are biased.

I note that you say I have not answered your questions. It may be my failing, but on re-reading the above, I cannot see any questions that you have asked that I have not answered. If there is any point remaining for me to address, I am sorry, you will have to restate it.

We come back now to the original reason for reverting your edit. All reputable sources for the article use the word "improvement" in the same way that I have tried to in the article. There is no reputable source, as far as I am aware, that suggests that we should consider not using it (or you would have cited it). To substitute "change" for "improvement" is therefore a POV piece of editing, as it is based on the opinions of the editor and not the reputable sources on which the article is based. It also alters the meaning of the text in the article in a way that will reduce the understanding of the reader.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

References

User:ThoughtIdRetired WP:NOTESSAY

Could the user ThoughtIdRetired please read WP:NOTESSAY. They have changed and deleted vast amounts of this article, including deleting sources that disagree with their personal opinion. WyndingHeadland (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that, and it confirms to me that my editing philosophy is correct. The focus of Wikipedia is to put material into the encyclopedia that is derived from reliable sources WP:RS. I also suggest that you look at the Wikipedia policy and guidance links in the text in the previous talk section. These explain what I am trying to do totally clearly. If you have any sources that meet the criteria for a reliable source, please share them so that we can understand your line of thinking.

Material has been deleted with extensive reasons given on the talk page, with a decent time delay in which interested editors can respond to those reasons. May I suggest that you look back through the old talk page subjects and try and engage with those reasons. You will understand that you are not the only person who is watching this page. So the absence of protest from others might tell you something.

You might also consider to what extent that you have studied the reliable sources to which this article should look for its content. If you dispute what constitutes a reliable source for this article, it may be helpful if you could explain to everyone what sources you are suggesting should be used and why you think they fit Wikipedia's policy and formal guidance.

I would also point out that there are a number of defects in the article as it currently stands (including some stuff that is obviously wrong). Much of this originates, as far as I can tell, from either unsourced material or sources that do not meet the standards set for an article of this type (i.e. history). I think this is a good demonstration of the need for care in source selection.

I note, also that you have gone piling in making edits on the matter discussed in the previous talk section. It would have been courteous to have waited for the discussion to move on to a conclusion.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Courteous isn't a description that could be used in describing Thoughtld Retired's editing process. Citing WP: DUE whilst deleting WP:RS and suggesting because article, book names or chapter or sub-paragraph headings don't mention religion that it is not WP:DUE, is an error in fact. It is a superficial reading of WP:DUE, that deletes a small section creating a smaller section with less WP:RS.

The editing process for the section on religion was long and is documented in the talk page archive, it is a genuine attempt at WP:CONS. ThoughtIdRetired has already been told this by another user in a previous disagreement about editing that section.

Ignoring other users is now a habit, because in another section on economics, the user is dismissing several users again.

WP:CONS is really the answer to WP:NOTESSAY. My hope is ThoughtldRetired can reach consensus with multiple users who disagree with the deletion of old sections on the one hand and the editing and enforcement of personal edits on the other. WyndingHeadland (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you would look at the timing of the events on the matter that you are concerned about.

At 19:06 on 10 September 2017 I posted an explanation of what I perceived as a problem with the balance of the article, with a disproportionate amount of the article being on one part of the overall subject. I highlighted that some of this material had other problems and therefore suggested a simple solution.

At 23:15 on 20 September 2017‎, that is to say, 10 days later, without any comments on the talk page, I went ahead and made the changes that I had proposed.

I note that you were editing on Wikipedia in the early hours of 10th September, and also on the 12th and 13th. Therefore, at the time, and now, I think it is reasonable to presume that you had every opportunity to spot the post on the talk page (which you presumably have on your watch list) and make whatever comments that you wished.

I think, also, that your summary of interactions on the talk page is incomplete – in that you are looking for disputes and ignoring agreements reached. (For instance, look at the now-archived comment posted at 16:16 on 2 July 2017 by another editor.) I do not claim to be perfect, and I have certainly learnt from interactions with other editors on the talk page. But in each case, I believe we have made helpful progress with the article.

I reiterate that my intention is to deal with the deficiencies of this article, bringing it into line with the current thinking of mainstream historians. It is difficult to do that without having to defend myself from allegations. To illustrate this point, I am most of the way through Scottish Gaeldom: The First Phase of the Clearance, by Allan I Macinnes, in People and Society in Scotland, vol 1. If I were not writing this post, I would no doubt have finished it by now and probably included some of the important facts therein in the article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Voluntary emigration

Sorry to flag this up again.

(a) I am happy with Camerojo's recent deletion and reasons - it reads fine to me and with further material in the article this should work out OK. (I am still concerned about the cause and effect issue relative to clearance and the demise of Gaelic culture - it is much more complex than the quote from Dawson and Farber.)

(b) A quote from Devine to throw into the melting pot [discussion of removal to crofts or villages on coast] "...before the 1830s some clearances resulted in the substantial voluntary emigration of local communities.....Inevitably, therefore, emigration in reaction to eviction varied significantly from area to area."

I think we need to be careful not to paint ourselves into a corner over how "voluntary" is used. I don't think the quote in (b) can be misunderstood. I think the term "emigration in reaction to eviction" may be useful. Will need to find some more references on those who emigrate pre-emptively - i.e. before any actual eviction.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

References

A deletion, with reasons

I have deleted the following (at the end of this explanation). The reasons are:
(1) There is a general consensus among historians that the destruction of Gaelic culture, or more precisely of the clan as a social, cultural and economic entity was a long-term process which started before the Clearances. There appears to be some dispute over the detail, which needs further analysis. However, looking at this general consensus, the statement that "...in the end they destroyed much of Gaelic culture" is, at best a dangerous over-simplification and at worst, simply untrue.
(2) There has been discussion about the word "voluntary" and a feeling that something needs to be done about its use. I have just located a reference that might assist here (People and Society in Scotland, vol 1, page 86). In the meantime, removing the problem passage is a stop-gap solution. I think a solution for the whole article would be to briefly discuss "non-enforced" emigration (we are going to have to find a way of talking about it) as part of the overall context in which the Clearances existed. I note that it is possible, in some instances, to view emigration as a form of resistance to the changes of which Clearance was part. By this I am referring to the various emigrations, often led by now-redundant tacksmen, and I also have in mind the departure of the richer farmers who got fed up with lack of security of tenure. (And there is the tale of one third of the residents of St Kilda departing to Tasmania with their laird following them, begging them to come home. Richards is the ref for this, but cannot lay my hands on the detail right now.) There is some work to do to pull this all together into a functioning part of the article.
(3) As an article in the category history, we should strive to use sources as per WP:SOURCE AND WP:HSC - the major part of the guidance is to prefer sources that are "historical scholarship". It appears that the authors of this reference are both lawyers and not historians. I cannot track any positive assessments of this work by historians that would validate its use. I don't know if any other users can identify anything that would help meet the demands of WP:HSC?

That clearly leaves a need for some replacement text, but there is some work to do to identify and represent the slightly different views of different writers on the decline of the clan and the associated destruction of Gaelic culture. And, as mentioned above, work to do on emigration.

I have copied the deleted passage below, largely so that the reference is preserved if it is appropriate to use it again in the future. Deleted text follows:

The cumulative effect of the Clearances and the large-scale voluntary emigrations over the same period devastated the cultural landscape of Scotland; in the end they destroyed much of Gaelic culture.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I note that the deletion in the article has been speedily reverted. Rather than get involved in an edit war, I ask you to consider whether or not a section of the article that is demonstrably wrong or misleading and is inappropriately sourced should be immediately deleted?

In terms of references, editors may want to look at Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788 by Allan I Macinnes; People and Society in Scotland, Vol 1 1760-1830, ed TM Devine and Rosalind Mitchison, chap 4, Scottish Gaeldom and the first phase of the Clearances; The Highland Clearances, Eric Richards, section 3 V "paving the way" (and elsewhere therein), The Scottish Nation, TM Devine, chap 9 "the disintegration of clanship" - and just about any other book on the subject by a recognised historian.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please desist from telling us what we 'might want to read'. I feel patronised when I read that. Also, I might add, historians, even respected and honoured ones, are just as prone to error as the rest of us, so we should include secondary sources who may not be historians, but who might cite other reputable sources.

TonyClarke (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you feel patronised. I am trying to deal with the great gap between what numerous historians say and what you want to have in the article. This is especially in the light of the Wikipedia policy and guidance notes on sources for history articles. If you have sources that are not historians, but who qualify as reputable sources that you think should be considered, please let us know what they are and what they say, with an explanation of why they qualify as a Wikipedia "reputable source".

I would like to make the point that we are discussing content that derives from a book written by two human rights lawyers (and I mean no disrespect to people of that profession) who are canvassing international lawmakers for an international convention that will provide them with more work. I really fail to see how that comes close to a reputable source for a history article. This is in the context of a whole raft of history professors at major universities, specialists in this particular field, who take a different view.

Not only are you suggesting that the historians are wrong, but also those who fund their work. Just to give you a brief and very incomplete list, this includes the British Academy (major research grants), Economics and Social Science Research Council (major research grants), the John Robertson Bequest (University of Glasgow), the Ross Fund, the University of Prince Edward Island (guest lectureship), Faculty of Arts & Divinity (Aberdeen) - these are all credited for funding the work that produced just one of the books that I have suggested you read - and it is mostly public money, derived from taxation, that is funding the work whose findings you dispute.

Your only argument appears to be that "anyone can make a mistake, including historians". Given the consensus among historians on this subject, I think you must be claiming that they are all wrong. Do you have any further justification for not deleting the problem text? My original post on this subject on this talk page asks editors if they have any reason why the text should remain. The precise words, copied and pasted from above are:

I cannot track any positive assessments of this work by historians that would validate its use. I don't know if any other users can identify anything that would help meet the demands of WP:HSC?

If you or any other editors can help with this, that would be add something to the discussion, but otherwise I do not think you have a case to retain the text that I originally deleted.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• 3O. This sentence which has been removed is overly ambiguous. However the general point made is valid, should it be expanded upon to include a wider view of the role the clearances played in the decline of gaelic culture it could be quite useful information. Dysklyver 18:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the general point being made by the lead sentence in question is valid. It should not be deleted but should be expanded on elsewhere in the article. I made that same point earlier with reference to the removal of the word "voluntary". I still believe that the addition of the word "voluntary" is unnecessary and misleading. Camerojo (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

On the matter of the word "voluntary", the reference I referred to above says:

"Thus the 'rage for emigration' in the later eighteenth century can be deemed voluntary only to the extent that relatively affluent tacksmen and tenantry were not prepared to accept downward social mobility and depression of their living standards when freehold land was on offer in America."

Obviously this couples with the much more depressing story of the "assisted passages" of the Second Phase of the Clearances.

Do you have a word to replace "voluntary" that makes clear that the person emigrating took the decision to emigrate, even though circumstances left them with limited choices? This would differentiate from the (fortunately rarer) situation where assisted passages were little more than an amalgamation of trickery and kidnapping. The problem, though, are all the shades of grey inbetween these 2 extremes.

I also think the article should use the thought of Devine in Clanship to Crofters' War (pg 50):

"The emigration of tacksmen and middle rank farmers can be seen in part as a flight of capital from Gaeldom and still further diminished the entrepreneurial pool."

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No I don't have a word to replace voluntary. That is why I agree with the original IP editor who chose to delete the word. It is not needed. The complex reasons, voluntary or not, for emigration should be discussed in the body of the article. In the lead, we just refer the fact of the high levels of emigration - leaving the reasons for later. So I am reinstating the deletion of that word. Camerojo (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The voluntary nature of non-clearance migration or emigration was questioned before in the talk page archives.

It is a matter for serious discussion because the lead should mention either indisputable facts or be a summary of topics in the article.

The latter point, that the Highland Clearances didn't have a devastating impact on Gaelic culture should not be deleted because it satisfies both these necessities.

Both points are interconnected, the comparative questionable nature of voluntary emigration links with the anti-Gael cultural legislation, that arises with Jacobite rebellion, mentioned in the vast majority of RS on the Highland Clearances.

Any attempt at severing those links would negate the social circumstances that those Cleared faced when they migrated or emigrated, be it legislative discrimination or social discrimination. For instance, racism didn't end with the Civil War in the USA. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, non-enforced (or whatever we decide to call it) (e)migration is an essential part of the context of clearance. But it is complex. It is clear that for some it was their way of rebelling against the strictures of monopolistic Highland land ownership.

The decision-making problem for the article is that the modern, researched academic view states that changes to the social structure of Gaeldom (and these were changes that came largely from within) was a cause of the clearances. But then the clearances caused further impact on Gaelic society. So we have a circle of cause and effect, which is not easy to explain concisely.

For instance, - one of the biggest impacts of clearance on Gaelic culture is probably not the most obvious: because crofting communities relied on work away from the croft to make a living, those who could speak English had an advantage in gaining employment in the Lowlands. Hence the Gaelic Schools Society were canvassed by the populations they served to teach English - when the original purpose of the schools had been to get the population reading the bible (but in Gaelic). Of course, there are stories of schools where children got the tawse for speaking Gaelic at school (I used to have a work colleague who had experience this - he had only spoken Gaelic before attending school and now can only speak English: he has forgotten his mother tongue, something which I find enormously sad. Obviously 100yrs or so after the period in consideration.) (Canada has a bad track-record for punishing Gaelic in schools.)

So, to recap, the academic view is that societal change fed clearance which then fed further change. I am still working on fully understanding this, but it is a fascinating and diligently researched piece of historical scholarship, and well accepted in the academic community.

What has puzzled me is that I could find no Clearance scholar discussing the "push-pull" analysis of sequences of emigration (it is a major part of any study of Swedish emigration to the USA). It seems that they have different terminology for a very similar (?) thing - they refer to it as "chain migration". Nevertheless, we have Richards stating that there is no causative link between clearance and non-enforced emigration - this contrasts with Devine saying that the uncertain nature of land tenure in the Highlands caused tenants to decide to emigrate if clearance appeared a possibility, but before the landlord had actually put together plans for eviction, let alone started them.

I am not sure about problems of racism in the USA or other destinations affecting Scots who emigrated. I think that applies infinitely more to the Irish - a group that the Scots, especially Highlanders, were careful to distinguish themselves from. Do you have any sources on this? My understanding is that Scottish emigrants generally had a higher standard of education, and often went to destinations with either a good Scots community or where there were so many opportunities that there was no need for discrimination. An example of this would be the locations in the Caribbean that Scots emigrated to - they avoided islands with well established English populations. I appreciate that some of the very poor "assisted passage" emigrants from the Hebrides arrived in Canada in such poor condition that they were somewhat unwelcome (and even compared to the Irish!!), but I think that is part of the semi-enforced "assisted passage" story - firmly in the Second Phase of the Clearances (which certainly needs some work - the section of the article with that title goes on to describe a classic First Phase clearance).

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

As an extra thought, current thinking by historians seems to demote the Jacobite rebellion(s) from a pivotal event in dismantling clanship and Gaelic culture to simply being a component in the process, perhaps simply serving to confirm the trends that already existed. I cannot find a current mainstream historian who disagrees with this, though the emphasis they put on it varies a little. Do you have any recent source with a contrary view?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It simply isn't the case. Legislation was passed that ended the clan system, and enforcement was thorough. It's cited in the article. WyndingHeadland (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I presume that you are relying on the book by Mairead McKerracher. This is an author, if I've identified here correctly, whose undergraduate degree was in the early 1950s, over 60 years ago. She certainly worked as a librarian in the University of Glasgow (publisher information). Not only has the subject has moved on since then, but you are putting her opinions up against those of a whole raft of senior historians, most of them currently or recently with posts at prestigious universities. And just to be totally clear, this group of notable historians all disagree with the views in the article. The opinions of these historians are based on extensive research, which has been funded by many public bodies. I presume that you have had a small part in paying for this research through taxation. When published, that work is seriously peer-reviewed. You or I could go out and write a book about the Clearances, but whatever it said, it would not supplant the consensus academic view. This is what the whole subject of sources is all about.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking further at the section on Jacobitism, the reference "The Jacobite Dictionary" appears only to support 2 facts in the section: the workings of the Clan Act, and the fact that the majority of the prisoners (following Culloden) were transported. The rest of it is unsupported, even by a source that does not match the definition of a reliable source for a history articles. Hence the citation needed tag. Other editors may be more familiar with the Jabobite Dictionary than me, and therefore able to refute its limited support of the section - but this does not alter the deficient credentials of the source.

I would add that, by its very nature, the Jacobite Dictionary would struggle to deal with the collapse of clanship and Gaelic culture in any comprehensive way. For those not familiar with the book, it is simply laid out as a dictionary. There is limited opportunity to discuss the context of Jacobitism within the changing social and economic situation of the Highlands.

I see no alternative to a complete rewrite of this section, based on the work of recognised historians.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Year of the sheep - deleted reference

I have deleted the reference as it appears, by some distance, not to meet any criteria for being a reliable source. The Gaelic name for the event discussed can easily be referenced from other sources, such as Richards (Confusingly, on the same page of this ref, Richards uses a different definition of "the Second Phase of the Clearances" than used by Devine, Lynch, Allan Macinnes and others.)

This section will need some revision, as it seems to miss most of the salient facts about the Ross-shire Insurrection/Year of the Sheep. This is an important part of the whole story as it is one of the relatively rare mass disorder events of the Clearances. (Lynch suggests that there were more than 50 individual acts of protest at plans for clearance, but if you look at those where the military were called out or put on notice, these were much rarer. Hence the importance of this section.)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

References

NPOV template on "Causes"

I note that an IP editor has added the NPOV template on the section titled "Causes". Whilst there is much discussion on the talk page, none of it seems to address the tagging, which seems to apply to the whole section. There is no specific entry on the talk page by the IP editor that I can find. Has anyone any suggestions for a course of action?

The guidance for the template says (bold added):

".... strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed;..."

I am inclined to delete and then revert the tagging to try and flush out the thinking behind the tag, ideally with references. Has anyone got a better plan?

Or does the IP editor wish to explain their arguments now? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I would support removing the tag unless the IP editor in question posts here to support the reason for adding the NPOV tag Camerojo (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted NPOV. Camerojo (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

I have reverted the 21:01, 19 October 2017‎ edit by User: WyndingHeadland (and the 2 associated minor edits) for the following reasons.
1) The edit summary misrepresents the position over consensus on the content that has been edited. This subject breaks down into 2 parts:
a) The edit by User: WyndingHeadland has deleted text that was specifically agreed in a talk page discussion. This can be found in the talk page archive 4, that User: WyndingHeadland directs us to in the edit summary. The sequence of events can be summarised as follows:
(i) The discussion was started by User:ThoughtIdRetired on 22:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC) with a proposal to delete the section on Religion.
(ii) There was some conceptual agreement from User: Catrìona on 00:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC), with a suggestion of an alternative approach.
(iii) The point raised in (ii) was agreed by User:ThoughtIdRetired on 00:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC) and expanded into a plan for some additions to the article (which have since been incorporated).
(iv) User: Camerojo then joined the discussion on 05:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC), pointing out the previous talk page correspondence. There were further rounds of discussion on this, with User: ThoughtIdRetired changing their opinion and suggesting a new piece about religious discrimination for the article, to be included as part of a section that discusses the other proximal causes of clearance. A draft of the actual text on religious discrimination was included in the talk page discussion.
(v) There was no further comment from User:Camerojo and User: Catrìona stated “Looks like a nuanced, relevant, concise, and NPOV treatment of the topic. Great work! “on 16:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
(vi) The above was taken as a consensus to go ahead with the changes discussed. These were carried out on 23:04, 9 July 2017, a full week after the endorsement by User: Catrìona mentioned in (v). This delay allowed anyone else who so wished to contribute.
(vii) To sum up: there was a proposal which was modified by discussion, a piece of text was proposed and supported, there was no active opposition to this text, it was inserted into the article, together with the other text that was discussed at the same time. The edit by User: WyndingHeadland on 21:01, 19 October 2017‎ has therefore deleted text that was agreed by a consensus reached after discussion.
b) User:ThoughtIdRetired raised (on the talk page) what was perceived as a problem of balance (WP:DUE) in the article on 19:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC).
(i) The suggested solution was to delete some of the older text on discrimination and religion, leaving the newly written material to handle the subject. This dealt with a number of problems with the older text. There were no comments on this proposal, so, 10 days later (23:15 on 20 September 2017), the proposals were put into place.
(ii) On 19:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC), User: WyndingHeadland made some accusations about inappropriate editing. Among other discussion, the sequence of events (as summarised immediately above) was explained to User: WyndingHeadland – in short, the plans had been posted on the talk page, and there had been 10 days in which comments could have been made.
(iii) There was no answer to this from User: WyndingHeadland, until, on 21:01, 19 October 2017, when the user made the edits under discussion: deleting agreed text and adding previously deleted material whose deletion had been carefully justified. User: WyndingHeadland made no justification for this edit, beyond an edit summary that, as demonstrated above, is, in the most favourable interpretation, misleading.
(iv) So, in summary, User: WyndingHeadland has ignored the logical reasons given for deleting the old text on religion and has gone ahead and made an edit without contributing to any discussion on the point.

2) The replacement text in the 21:01, 19 October 2017 edit by User: WyndingHeadland has numerous deficiencies, both on its own and in comparison to the text deleted in the same edit.
a) The deficiencies of the replacement text, from a stand-alone view point are substantial – but a summary of the more obvious points is as follows:
(i) In the version of this text that existed on 21:18, 18 December 2016, the first sentence of the section headed “Religion” had a “citation needed” tag. This has been deleted by the 03:47, 16 September 2017 version, but without the issue being resolved, either on the talk page or with an appropriate reference.
(ii) In the 03:47, 16 September 2017 version, there is a further “citation needed” tag in the penultimate paragraph of the section. This does not appear in the version inserted on 21:01, 19 October 2017, though the issue remains unresolved.
(iii) The statement (para 3 of section) “…religious discrimination is not considered, by some historians, to be a reason for evicting tenants as part of any clearance” is not supported by the reference, since the reference is written by two human rights lawyers in a book canvassing for a change in international law (that would give them more work). The key point is that the book is not written by historians, so does not support “…considered by some historians…”.
(iv) Para 3’s last sentence is widely disagreed with by modern historians (and the cited reference is the book by the human rights lawyers, who as non-historians, are a questionable reference according to WP:HSC).
(v) Para 4 (“Nevertheless, anti-Catholic sentiment…..”) is not supported by the first two references given.
The first is referring to emigration rather than clearance (and note the definition used in the article – in fact. if you read further in the source that provides that definition – Watson and Allan – it specifically states “Areas could also become empty by net, non-enforced emigration, with or without pressure from landowners to leave, but it would be confusing to refer to this as clearance.”)
The second reference (“Toiling in the vale of tears”) actually is a misquote of the third!! It talks about voluntary emigration, citing our third reference as its source, but does not correctly convey the content therein.
(vi) The last paragraph quotes Richards, but does not make totally clear that he is referring to those who choose to emigrate, not those who are evicted (or “cleared” in the terminology of the subject). I accept that we have the pending task of discussing “voluntary” emigration within the article – it is a problem to convey all the shades of grey between someone thinking there is a better life overseas and a person for whom emigration is the last resort as no realistic option is left for them in their home country. That does not take away from the fact that this last paragraph is misleading.
b) The comparative points between the two bodies of text that were swapped in the edit of 21:01, 19 October 2017 are shown below. For clarity, the “deleted text” is the version that existed before this edit and which was agreed on the talk page on 16:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC). The “replacement text” is that which was added in this edit.
The deleted text provides much more information on the events discussed in the reference “Cargoes of Hope and Despair”: it mentions that the landlord was a recent convert to Presbyterianism; it explains how a potential loss of rent stalled the process; it gives the numbers of families evicted out of the total tenant population and says how many emigrated and where they got the money to do so. None of these points are made clear in the replacement text. The source “Cargoes of Hope and Despair” is used as a reference, but the content is largely ignored.

(3) To come back to the point about consensus, archive 3 of the talk page includes the following:
"Quality/Neutrality
This article seems to present a partisan point of view, founded perhaps in one of the cited sources (Prebble) whose work on this subject is generally discredited by serious historians. I think an extensive audit of neutrality is needed, together with an injection of some new sources. Am I alone in thinking this? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
No argument here. Please see the extensive arguments in Archives 2.--SabreBD (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes another informed pair of eyes on this article would be welcomed. Camerojo (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)"
I think this is a good demonstration of a consensus that the article had/has deficiencies, which are currently being addressed by successive rounds of editing. User:WyndingHeadland appears to ignore talk page content such as this, taking what appears to be a completely contrary understanding.

Throughout all the interactions with User: WyndingHeadland, it is hard to point to any situation where the user has employed specific references to support their position. It is actually quite hard to find anything that supports the idea that the user has even read any of the references concerned.
There has also been an unpleasant thread of accusation of bad editing practices; and it is hard to discern any logical argument to support these accusations. It is very difficult to avoid the slow adoption of the idea that User: WyndingHeadland is engaged in disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPT). Answering the various allegations takes a lot of time that would be much better spent on dealing with the many problems with this article.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This article isn't on The Highland Emigrations, it's on The Highland Clearances and how they relate with emigrations. An important element in the Clearances is social changes. The user has a personal NPOV problem that has been raised by, including myself, 3 users. He is attempting a reduction of the Clearances to simply an economic issue.

The above is a simple Occam's Razor description of the problem. The user has shown himself unable to engage in consensus creation without indulging in vast changes.

Filibuster talk page comments won't win support for the project that users other than himself have saught to impose upon a complex topic. WyndingHeadland (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I note that User: WyndingHeadland has addressed none of the points raised in a detailed analysis of why their editing went against talk page consensus, nor commented on the defects with the text that they reinstated.

Instead, we have yet another set of "editing behaviour" allegations that are not supported by the facts. Close examination of the POV allegations reveal:
(i) one IP editor tag that was unsupported by any talk page comment (so nobody knows in which direction that editor felt the section was biased) and was eventually deleted by another user;
(ii) a discussion on a POV issue that was initiated by User:ThoughtIdRetired and
(iii) an extensive discussion with 2 other users (one of whom is User: WyndingHeadland) where neither of them cite any sources to support their position - and it is essentially a discussion about which sources should determine the style of the article.
As far as the "reduction....to an economic issue" is concerned, the balance aimed at is intended to match that used by the major historians who have been published on the subject. There is little point in getting upset with an editor about the current thinking of mainstream historians. It also seems that User: WyndingHeadland chooses to disregard text added by User:ThoughtIdRetired which addresses social aspects. An example is "The loss of status from tenant farmer to crofter was one of the reasons for the resentment of the clearances." You will find this in the section "Social Engineering", and the whole section is an example of User:ThoughtIdRetired addressing the social aspects of the Clearances. There would be more without repeatedly having to deal with unfounded accusations. If User: WyndingHeadland would cite some sources, explaining what those sources say and why they are relevant to the article, then it might be possible to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. Without that, we have here further material to support the thinking that this is disruptive editing.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Because engaging with the user creates talk page responses on multifarious issues, instead of specific issues, that is much much longer than the consensus agreement he wishes to delete.

Until any user can respond without the filibuster POV rants that demand complete response or nothing at all the user is unlikely to reach consensus.

As was correctly said, the only social issue the user determined is valuable is reduced to an economic social issue. The POV ranting and personal essay needs to stop. WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I have taken User: WyndingHeadland's behaviour to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as disruptive editing.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

An unsurprising turn of events. The user would prefer the topic to be about Highland emigration and a POV justification for the conceptually debatable topic of enclosure, if not all enclosures, then certainly in this specific instance.

He is treating the topic one dimensionally as purely economic. Social circumstances are ignored and where there is any conception of any social circumstances they are only related in reference to economics.

His POV on economics is a deterministic financial view that disregards non-deterministic social economics.

There were social reasons over and above financial reasons for the current topic of the Highland Clearances.

The user has taken to radically overhauling the article as a personal essay and is engaging in rants and multifarious points on the talk page due to the significant amount of deletion they are engaged in.

Quantity does not equate with quality. Editing a personal essay into the topic and writing rants on the talk page that can be adequately surmarised as supporting an 18th and 19th century-conception of the Highland Clearances as "improvement" isn't anything new. The amount the user has written, and the timescale the user has written it in, shouldn't be confused as being a sign of reaching NPOV standards. WyndingHeadland (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I would encourage ThoughtIdRetired to attempt to make his points more focussed and succinct. Camerojo (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fully protected

Due to an edit war that was reported at WP:AN3 and seems to be continuing I have fully protected this article for one week. Please use the talk page to get agreement on further changes. See WP:Dispute resolution for what to do if editors don't agree. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The Highland Bounds

The topic of migration should make reference to the Highland Bounds such that the terms migration, emigration, and immigration have proper reference to the Highlands and Gaelic culture.

This relates with the previous raised contested conception of enclosure because enclosure elsewhere isn't so directly relatable with a cultural shift as it is in the Highlands.

As it happens many histories of the Clearances happen within the context of Scotland overall, and not the Highlands.

The topic is the Highland Clearances, not enclosure, or Scotland. WyndingHeadland (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Work going forward

Thanks, User:Camerojo - conciseness is clearly the key.

Looking now at possibility of an "Emigration" section for "Economic and Social Background" based on Richards among other references, particularly picking up early (including pre-clearance) emigration and then mentioning the coerced emigrations of the second phase, which are best fully dealt with in actual examples of individual clearances (in later sections: "Individual Clearance Events" - but not sure on this title). I think this is where the article could bite the bullet of explaining the whole range of possible circumstances in which people emigrated. Your ideas would be welcome. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that a section on Emigration is merited. Camerojo (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding examples of individual clearances, I have often thought that each different clearance could, and probably should, have its own separate WP page. Camerojo (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

A very interesting paper on the subject gives insight into the place of emigration in the later part of the clearances. It contains a lot of information, including the Sutherland Estate wanting tenants to emigrate, but not actively encouraging them, merely trying to offer financial help when requested. (They believed that if they promoted emigration, their tenants would become opposed to it as a matter of principle.) Also mentions that some who emigrated to Canada found that the same famine they were trying to escape in Scotland was raging in their new destination, with preceding Highland emigrants to Canada now leaving for Australia to escape that.

Ultimately, this suggests that a separate article may need to do the subject justice - however this article still will need to cover the subject, as it is integral to the wishes of (for example) the Sutherland Estate trying to rid themselves (their words) of excess population.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

To pick up on Camerojo's point - yes, the major clearances do deserve individual articles. The only caveat is that of Richards reminding us that most clearances were unopposed (however unpleasant the event must have been for those affected) and so received little recognition. Hence the ones that became sensational have an unfair proportion of the coverage and can therefore distort the reader's opinion of what happened.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

References

"Change" from farming to sheep raising.

In the talk page archives there has been an incomplete answer for the question of the wording of the phrase "change" from farming to sheep raising.

Enclosure is a "change". Yet it doesn't adequately address the NPOV necessary.

Perhaps the sentence needs reference to the contested nature of enclosure rather than the positive "change."

Because this was a question that has arisen from the talk page, personally don't want credit for resolving it. Would prefer the talk page answers the question. WyndingHeadland (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems with the excessive length of some postings on this talk page is that it is difficult to locate issues and competing arguments. Can you help by reminding us of the issue with the word "change"? I don't see a problem with it (I think "change" is neutral - not implying positive or negative), but would be interested in arguments against it. Camerojo (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

My complete agreement. Talk page discussion should be on point. That discussion had a previous weighing of language describing farming and sheep raising. Where precisely it is would need more time locating it. Please excuse me for the moment, can update later.

"Change" is synonymous with being positive. It isn't necessarily positive. It has that as an aspect of it's use in current language.

Anything that suggests movement is seen as positive. Movement down or beneath is negative. It's a bias natural in language.

Movement can be neutralised by talking about force for instance. A forced change takes away the natural positive bias, and includes the equal and opposite force that is synonymous with being negative. Neither is necessarily positive or negative, because force is simply movement that is unnatural and against something, and for instance a skyscraper isn't natural.

Planned change is two positive biases for instance, that should be avoided, equally forced departure.

NPOV is best placed with "forced change" in my view. Or something else other than change. WyndingHeadland (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Enforced change" could be an alternative. WyndingHeadland (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Enforced is more neutral than change however. WyndingHeadland (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Enforced alteration" another. WyndingHeadland (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

As enforced can be seen as a positive bias. WyndingHeadland (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Forced change to me is best at the moment, however. WyndingHeadland (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

When read in context enforced alteration is best, however.

As my previous comment said, the NPOV question was raised on the talk page by someone else, so should be resolved here. WyndingHeadland (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see change as being "synonymous with being positive" - neither in a dictionary sense nor in a common usage sense. Not in my experience anyway. It can be a "change for good" or a "change for bad". We may have to agree to disagree on that, based on our own personal experiences. However, it is true the change was imposed - so "enforced change" is accurate. The reader can decide for themselves whether the change was for the better or not. Camerojo (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Enforced change has my support. Isn't my ideal choice, however if it resolves the outstanding question better than previously it is for the best. WyndingHeadland (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Change" seems to me to be the most neutral word. If the events are satisfactorily explained, then the reader can quite easily make up their own mind on the subject. We should not presume that the reader needs to be force-fed with an interpretation. This approach would generally follow that of the cited sources used by the article.

There are some substantial "use of English" problems with the lead, not least the fact that "sheep raising" is a form of "farming".ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The user hasn't the inclination for a NPOV so shall dismiss my comments, farming is variated agriculture, such as runrigs had been previously, sheep raising or farming is the rejection of variation. "Sheep raising" was chosen specifically for the purposes of enlightening this. The outstanding NPOV problem is the word "change."WyndingHeadland (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

My current view is that there is there is nothing wrong with the current wording. I agree that "Change" is a neutral word. The change to sheep farming was certainly imposed on the majority of tenants - it was not their decision. However, I think that is best described in the body of the article. Camerojo (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's my form of questioning. Would Camerojo respond if my question is more precise, please? Don't want to waste anyone's time on it, hence the question before doing so. WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I can't support the idea that "change" might not be neutral. It is easy to find common phrases and aphorisms like "resist change", "people hate change but love progress." Catrìona (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2017 (UT

As before, the point isn't that it is by definition positive or negative. It's that it's both depending upon POVs. Change is largely seen as a positive thing. It's a movement bias in language. Conservatives are those who have a negative bias, so they see positivity as negative. Neutrality isn't either or, it's something other than those two things. That's why it's important that mixed biases are used with use of any solitary bias. It provides neutrality. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Another phrase Catrìona, that demonstrates both change and progess have positive biases, is "people don't hate change they hate being changed." Both rhetorical tricks that don't take anything away from change having a positive bias whilst conservatives who have an inherent negative bias see positivity as a negative. WyndingHeadland (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This reply makes absolutely no sense. Catrìona (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Catrìona's reply isn't constructive enough for a reply for it's concerns.WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)