Talk:Highland Clearances/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Return under another name

I'm not fully across the copious dialogue above involving User:WyndingHeadland so am not here to address the specifics of the debate but thought it worthwhile to note that their style of expression, apparent disregard for reliable sourcing and uncooperative manner of engagement would indicate the return to this article under another guise of User:Baglessingazump. The archives contain details. Similar traits are being exhibited at a newly created and somewhat problematic article, Scots Gaels. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems the user is happy with being disruptive on one page at a time. WyndingHeadland (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

User:WyndingHeadland can you confirm whether you are the same user as User:Baglessingazump? At the very least it would mean that we don't have to go over the same issues again. Camerojo (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a sockpuppetry accusation. If so, and you have sufficient evidence, why not make a checkuser report? Catrìona (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a sockpuppet account. It's as simple as that. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

My eye: WP:QUACK. A cursory look at the highly distinctive, idiosyncratic and often barely comprehensible modes of expression and engagement and the matching interests and POVs stretch the notion of the two identities being distinct well past credibility. As an example of highly unlikely coincidence, User:Baglessingazump's early edits at this article promoted OR notions about the Clearances being the "forced displacement of Scottish Gaels", discussed in the archives here; that a new account, User:WyndingHeadland, is campaigning at length at this article and has also created an OR essay article, Scots Gaels, is telling to say the least. What's more, when I first made mention that the user identities were clearly linked, WH made no remark let alone refutation in intervening posts. Not until I spelled out the seriousness of the matter with a sock tag on their user page did they react, and by demanding proof rather than denying the matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've only just clocked this recent belter above. We're being asked to believe that this is from a different author from that of the tour de force post here beginning "That would be ideal"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Again: it isn't a sockpuppet account. It is as simple as that. WyndingHeadland (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's not play with words: are you responsible for both accounts, yes or no? Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the account that my responsibility is for.WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This certainly seems like the same user. Thanks for the suggestion Catrìona. Here are some guidelines Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Mutt Lunker probably is in the best position to take this further. Camerojo (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:QUACK it's absolutely plain as day. As User:WyndingHeadland's latest answer is as transparently evasive as ever, I'll give them another chance to give a straight answer and come clean. Obviously the person editing as User:WyndingHeadland is responsible for the edits made under that account (this is neither news to us WH, nor the question being posed, as you well know); WH, are you also responsible for the edits made by User:Baglessingazump, yes or no? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not replying yes or no to your questions. What is the overlap between the accounts? WyndingHeadland (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You, evidently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Bring it to an administrator if there has been an offence. WyndingHeadland (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As requested. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the offence?WyndingHeadland (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia policy: "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (or simply socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, to make the form of my question better, because the definition of sockpuppetry isn't what my question was looking for, what is the specific offence? WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your question, for once, was perfectly clear; as was the answer. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What is improper? WyndingHeadland (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What is improper is anything not described here: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. So it wasn't improper. WyndingHeadland (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Really? In which case you'd better stipulate what on the list of legitmate uses does apply to you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obvious that you can't. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Witch is it? WyndingHeadland (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Religion

I have reinstated the paragraph on religious discrimination to the one previously agreed on the talk page. This might be a point to consider if there is adequate coverage (without the section being over-long and so altering the balance of the article).

Also I am concerned about the possible need to cover discrimination against non-juring Episcopalians - and now cannot track down the reference that I had on this. Of course, this could be classed as prejudice against Jacobite supporters.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That's the end of facts?

That's the question for both users pursuing me with POV problems on Scots Gaels and Highland Clearances. Shall be referring both editors to the guide on templates, sources, and deletion on a topic by topic platform. Would ask that the users cease their malicious intent, whilst correctly seeking outside opinion on cases where they are deleting directly quoted reliable sources that contradict their non-neutral POV problems. They won't harass this account. WyndingHeadland (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edit 816815946

I have reverted edit 816815946[[1]] because:

(1) The cited reference for this sentence does not say anything about migration to England.

(2) I cannot readily find any other reliable source that discusses the migration of (specifically) Highlanders to England as a result of clearance. The closest I can find is Devine in To the Ends of the Earth, where he says:

.....the migration from Scotland to England before 1900. For the period 1841 to 1911, according to one estimate, about 600,000 Scots-born persons moved to England and Wales. This was around half of the total net emigration from Scotland in the nineteenth century and was not paralleled by any similar significant movement from the south to the north. .... from the 1870s, many Scots who moved to England were skilled and increasingly settled in the mining and heavy industrial areas of England and Wales.

It is of note that this applies to all Scots, not just Highlanders. The comment about skilled persons suggests that the largely agricultural nature of cleared highlanders excludes them from this group. I suggest that this ref is not sufficient to include the word "England" in this part of the article - so I believe we need an additional ref for its inclusion.

(3) The whole sentence:

The Clearances resulted in significant emigration of Highlanders to the coast, the Scottish Lowlands, and further afield to North America and Australasia

has concerning aspects:
(a) resettlement to the coast is surely "migration" not "emigration"
(b) many historians do not see a direct link between clearance and emigration. This will seem counter-intuitive to many people (and this sort of dispute is discussed in the preface to the 2000 edition of James Hunter's "The Making of the Crofting Community", particularly page 25). In short, whilst those historians (particularly Richards) would no doubt accept that some who were cleared immediately emigrated, they see the bulk of emigrants being richer tenants who see better opportunities in the New World. Here you see examples of chain migration and, as Hunter discusses on page 25 of The Making of the Crofting Community" (2000 edn.), emigration can be viewed as a rejection of the social changes underway in the Highlands.
(c) More Highland emigration occurred after the end of the period in which most of the clearances happened.
(d) The problem sentence does not mention those who moved to neighbouring estates, such as those cleared from the Sutherland estate, particularly in 1818 and 1819 under the factorship of Frances Suther, who went to, for example, Caithness.

As it stands, this sentence has a risk of misleading the reader - emigration is a complex part of the whole story and ranges from those who simply wanted to make their fortunes in the New World, through those fed up with the constraints and social changes in the Highlands to those who were destitute and had an "assisted passage" provided by a clearing landlord.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Forfeited Estates & Acts of Attainder

There isn't any mention of the financial situation of the many clan chiefs who had their estates forfeited during the Jacobite Risings by Acts of Attainder.

The national archives have documents pertaining to both 1715 and 1745 [[2]] and there are multiple references in the literature including complete books themselves devoted to it. Shall be adding information in the near future. WyndingHeadland (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Not just due to the uprisings of the 1700s but beginning in the 1600s with the efforts to crush the power of the Lord of the Isles. The consolidation of the crowns gave the king the needed powers to consolidate the authority of the Monarchy in the 1600s and began the first of the clashes that would see large numbers of persons displaced. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of Swing Riots, Enclosures and the British Agricultural Revolution

@Mutt Lunker: I note with confusion that you have removed the links I have made to the Enclosure, Swing Riots and British Agricultural Revolution wiki pages; why have you done so? Alssa1 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The Swing Riots appear to have little, if any, pertinence, hence my removal. The enclosures in England are arguably more pertinent, if in a tangential way but as they are prominently linked in the first paragraph of the lede, again in the first sentence of the next section and a third time, per MOS:ALSO one "should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". On that same basis, I should have removed, but did not, the link to British Agricultural Revolution, already in the body of the article (I'll address that). Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sutherland Clearances and other potential changes

I have deleted and replaced the text covering the Sutherland clearances. In doing this, I am prompted by the latest book by T M Devine: The Scottish Clearances: a History of the Dispossessed. (ISBN 978 0 241 30410 5, publ. Penguin 2018). This is yet another book that confirms the modern scholarly views on the clearances. In it he clearly questions the "Prebble driven" view of the clearances and points out the large amount of research that has been done to produce a proper analysis by professional historians. Based on the portfolio of modern historical work that there is to go on, it is, I feel, time to bring this article up to date. I have not chosen the worst part of the existing article to begin this process, but it does involve the removal of 2 prominent quotes from primary sources. For those who have any particular attachment to the account by Donald Mcleod, there might be a place for this in a section on the historiography of the subject.

The substitute text is probably over-long and could do with a precis. However, it seems appropriate to put it in the article and see what response there is.

Another particular target for change are the sections on Changes in clan leadership and Repression of Jacobitism. The first needs proper, referenced mention of the Statutes of Iona. The second should really not be there, as it is an outdated idea. It is interesting to see that Devine's view of Jacobitism (and also the English Civil War) is that these external political considerations slowed the ongoing process of change from chief to landlord by re-establishing a need for the war-making capabilities of clans. So, when all was lost in the '45, what appeared to be an acceleration of the collapse of clanship was simply catch-up for the long-term process.(p 46 of Devine's new book mentioned above) So some mention is needed of Jacobitism, but not its own section.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)