Talk:Highland Clearances/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Roman Catholicism: Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Under the pressure of increased rents or unrenewed leases, Macdonell tacksmen began to take their sub-tenants to British North America soon after Culloden. Like the Chisholms, they were Catholics, and a stubborn adherence to their faith was a contributory cause of their exile."

Nevertheless, I don't believe this supports the broad assertion being made by the IP editor. Camerojo (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

For what it's worth, I've had a poke through Tom Devine's recent To The Ends Of The Earth. (Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Prebble's clearances book here to check those references.) In discussing the clearances, Devine's fairly explicit that some of the prominent proponents behind the major mid-c19th wave of clearance were motivated by what to modern eyes are unambiguously racist motives - there's a rather startling quote from Charles Trevelyan, who saw (in 1850) the depopulation to be welcomed for "the prospects of flights of Germans settling here in increasing numbers - an orderly, moral, frugal and industrious people, less foreign to us than the Irish or Scotch Celt...". Strong (and disturbing) stuff, but what's notable by its absence in these attacks is any mention of Catholicism as something that was being targeted per se.

If there is indeed debate among historians, I'd really like to see some post-1961 evidence of that debate. It also seems a bit of a red herring to bring in Jacobitism - by the 1820s, when emigration became a major factor in clearance, Jacobitism had basically ceased to exist as a political movement. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To build on this a little - there are certainly definite individual cases of unambiguous groups emigrating after religious persecution (see eg/ p. 111 of JSTOR 20852924, 1772) but I'm finding a lack of modern historians drawing an explicit connection between those and the large-scale clearances of the mid-century, which is what the current lead implies. If we can find something explicit in Prebble that would be helpful, but I think we probably need a bit more to build on if we're going to state there's debate and it's a significant position among historians. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done a fair bit of reading on the clearances. My ancestors ended up in Australia as the result of three separate clearances and I researched each of them quite extensively. One of the questions that I was seeking to resolve was why they were cleared. Escaping religious persecution was an early theory, but I found no evidence at all to support that theory. I summarised my researches at http://youbelong.info/public/Three_Clearances_and_a_Wedding. That web page focuses on my family (it was a gift to my father), but it may be of general interest to others for the source references. Camerojo (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would only like to point out that I made a further subsequent change because this has been taken to Dispute Resolution. The thread is "Highland Clearances". I will also add this http://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/feb/09/guardianobituaries to further prove that such debate was available publically, mentioning as it does the debate with a previous Historiographer Royal, Professor Gordon Donaldson. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This confirms that Prebble's books are contentious (which is certainly something I think we could all agree on), and that his interpretations of the clearances are something over which there is dispute. However, critically, it doesn't say anything about Catholicism. There's nothing in that article to indicate any significant debate over the role of sectarianism in the clearances. The same is true for the Noble article - yes, there is certainly debate, but it's not about this. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Cultural decline

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

The people of the townships were conservative with a small 'c'. They lived a lifestyle which would have been recognisable in the 12th or 15th or 18th century. Even those involved in the tumultuous events of the Jacobite risings were, to a large extent, fighting to preserve a traditional version of national political power.

If Noble doesn't use the words Roman Catholic, he suggests it in everything he says. Would you disagree with that? The 'traditional version of national political power' was a Roman Catholic monarch. What other tradition can he be referring to? If he was referring to Stuart dynasty he would be talking about filial relationships, not relationships of 'tradition.'94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I already understand the point that others will try to make, that it was absolute monarchy they were wanting, and not anything to do with Roman Catholicism. However, the Highland clans were never under the patronage of absolute monarchy. In fact, they are famous for their 'anarchic' nature, although it's not really the case, merely that they were not strictly feudal either.94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I'm afraid I wouldn't agree with that interpretation. To me, Noble is talking about the traditional political structure - individuals as members of a clan, and the way that clan-based land ownership and power was a part of the country's power structure. The paragraph following the bit you quote makes that fairly clear. The reason contemporary historians aren't discussing Catholicism isn't because they're being coy, or suggestive, or failing to state the obvious - it's simply not what they're trying to discuss. Why wouldn't they bring it up directly if it was a fundamental issue, or a major ongoing debate?

Yes, Prebble, as quoted above, discusses a case where Catholicism was "contributory cause" of a group leaving. I don't think anyone would deny such situations existed. But that doesn't seem to match with what you're saying he says about the Clearances being motivated by systematic, high-level, anti-Catholicism. (I will try and find my copy of this book tonight - could you confirm which edition you're quoting page numbers from?) Andrew Gray (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Found it! (My edition is the 1969 small Penguin, 1982 reprint). Where does Prebble quote this, and who does he quote?

There are two index entries for Religion > Catholic; 137 has the "contributory cause" section quoted above, and 175 is a discussion of the last wave of emigration from Knoydart, where "They were Catholics, for the most parcot". However, it and the subsequent pages don't seem to draw an obvious link between that and the motive for eviction, which is presented as economic.

I simply can't agree with your thesis, which is that there was systematic anti-Catholicism not recorded at the time (despite anti-Catholicism being common and widely seen as acceptable in the nineteenth century) and not discussed by historians now, but secretly hinted at instead, for reasons that are clear to you and not to me. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The penultimate chapter: 'The Sharp Rock: "No man or boy shall put on the philebeg"' Andrew, I am not making a thesis. Prebble quotes it directly. The thesis is not his either. The thesis is from General Bland and the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland. I am merely emphasizing Prebble's discovery in the article that it was a factor that was potentially taken up by those who were in the same mileau. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any secret hinting. We don't talk about it. If you don't understand why we don't talk about it, then you don't understand social and cultural norms.94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"The Sharp Rock" is a chapter of Culloden, not of the Highland Clearances, which explains why I was having trouble finding it! I don't have a copy to hand, but helpfully Google does. I think it's worth emphasising the end of that paragraph - "...but it was not accepted, at least not in detail.". This is a proposal in the 1740s to forcibly transfer the Highlanders elsewhere. It did not happen; as discussed above, forced foreign emigration didn't really begin until 1820. Eighty years later, the Highlanders were moved elsewhere - but this does not mean that the motives or the justifications were the same as when it had been suggested generations earlier, in an entirely different political context. Concluding otherwise, especially given the complete silence from other historians on the issue, is a real stretch.

On your last point, I honestly don't believe there is a conspiracy of silence among professional historians on sectarian issues. Yes, contemporary anti-Catholicism (and indeed many other forms of prejudice), in certain contexts, is a delicate issue and it is often ignored or glossed over. But even that doesn't mean it's not discussed historically, and there are certainly no end of historians engaging with the complex history of Scottish sectarianism. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your emphasis is it was not accepted, my emphasis is at least not in detail. It is a startling piece of anti-Catholicism from high-level members of the then Edinburgh establishment. The substance of the proposal, and not the direct targeting of Catholics, was carried out immediately, and then drawn out over several centuries, I suggest you read more about the waves of immigration from the Highlands. And why? Because the clans had a tendency to change sides, and to send sons to fight for both sides so that they did not lose their inheritance. I am standing by everything I wrote. The points and quotations that Noble and Prebble debate upon, and others indirectly but implicitly, holds the vital importance of removing Roman Catholics from the Highlands because of the perception widely held that they were responsible for the Jacobite rebellion. These were the prime social and cultural underpinnings for any discussion of the dramatic change in The Highlands beyond economics. Absolute economic determinism is a fallacy in any context. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Right now, all we have to support your interpretation seems to be this passage - and it's not clear that anyone else but you supports this interpretation. (Indeed, if this was clear to Prebble, why didn't he mention it anywhere in his own book on the subject?) Let's grant that it's ambiguous and rephrase the question:

Please show me any modern historian, other than this ambiguous passage, who explicitly argues that there was a sectarian motive underpinning the Clearances and forced emigration, or that this was undertaken as the result of a specifically anti-Catholic government policy. Please show any articles that indicate this is an ongoing historiographic debate. We simply can't make these sort of assertions based on loosely-supported inferences from contested interpretations of sources. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Andrew Gray's comment on this discussion page under this topic timestamp: 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC). Some evictions? In one specifically it does. In another source, a military General (by the name of Bland) and the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland (by the name of Fletcher) ask for Protestants to colonise the Highlands after clearing it of the native population. In yet another, an academic states that to a large extent the Clearances were implicitly anti-Catholic in nature. If someone would care to verify Andrew Gray's source, it brings my total to 4 sources from my original 3 to suggest that this is anything but emotional. It is set in the dispassionate academic record for all to see. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Bland talking about something does not mean that someone else followed his suggestion. You need to prove that a landlord carried out evictions on the basis of religion, and you are unable do that.Shipsview (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to prove anything of the sort. You seem to believe I am arguing that anti-Catholicism is the sole motivation behind the Clearances. I am not. I am stating what the sources say, where there is debate about how much anti-Catholicism was a factor in the Clearances. Some argue for a certain proportion, others argue purely for economics. I am not a professional academic. I am merely including academic sources in a Wikipedia article as per the guidelines.

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

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

This indicates that it was a part of one case - indeed, it's not clear from Prebble whether the "contributory" involvement was a landlord shouting "get out, you papists", or whether it was a local saying "right, lads, we're not really welcome here", which are very different things. Anti-Catholicism has been sadly endemic in Scotland for centuries - as a nation, we're not great on religious tolerance - and it would be surprising if those underlying tensions did not surface in some of these conflicts. People settle all the vendettas they can, given the chance.

But occasional incidents are very different from systematic anti-Catholicism, and we can't say "aha, we've found one, therefore it was a major underlying issue". That's a clear case of over-interpreting scarce primary sources.

It also does not show there is a debate. For there to be a debate among historians, we need to be able to see historians actually discussing the issue. The sources are remarkably silent on this. Again, if it's a major issue, someone would have actually said so, explicitly and prominently, in the past fifty years. We just don't have that to work from. Even Prebble, who you're quoting, never concludes anywhere that sectarianism was a major issue - he mentions religion as a factor, in passing, a couple of times, and that's about it. Given he was writing an entire book on the issue, you'd think that if it was something he felt relevant, he'd have brought it up. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing that there was systematic anti-Catholicism. What I am stating is that their is first-hand primary material on the written record (Prebble, Culloden pp 325-6) by high-ranking members of the Edinburgh establishment of the time (the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland AND a General in the army)asking for systematic anti-Catholic actions that not only resemble in scope actions that were subsequently put in place in The Highlands, but they are identical to them. I emphasise the important point: the actions were identical, the motivation may not be. I repeat that: MAY not be i.e. potentially it is not. You are asking me to prove it beyond all doubt. I cannot, and for some reason you see that as closing the case. I do not need to prove it. The reason I cannot is that the written record need not exist for those actions to be anti-Catholic because the actions were by the landlords, who did not need to write primary source material in order to carry out their actions, only the government need do so. On the other hand, you cannot prove that those actions that are undoubtedly identical to what actually did occur, were NOT put in place with the same motivation as the high-ranking members of official government positions within Scotland were asking for. For some reason that suggests an impasse to you. I, on the other hand, in line with Wikipedia guidelines, am stating that because there ARE individual cases (more than one, or two) where Clearances were anti-Catholic, and because of the importance of the position of the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland and a General in the army, plus there being subsequent academic opinion that the Clearances were to a large extent in connection with the Jacobite rebellion (starting, as they did, immediately after the rebellion) with the important point being that the academic also makes implicit the connection with anti-Catholicism. All the while I am conceding that there are some academics who are merely stating the improbable position that the Clearances were simply, and absolutely, the result of economic determinism. That is not a position that is tenable, but I am including it anyway. This isn't new research. This isn't my own determination. It is clearly, and in some cases spectacularly, present in the sources I provide. That these things are spectacular are not my problem. Neither does it make it absolutely true that they did inform ALL of the clearances. AGAIN, there is debate (and debate need not be of diametrically opposing views, it can also be a question of proportionality), where some of these academics DO offer proportional positions. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be clearly present in the sources to you, but it's certainly not present to us, I'm afraid. As noted above, one of the historians you cite (Noble) never mentions religion, and the other (Prebble) wrote an entire book on the Clearances without any significant mention of sectarianism.

There are passing mentions of Catholicism in some sources, and there is evidence from primary figures that some prominent figures were anti-Catholic (which isn't much of a surprise, sadly), but there is no evidence that historians have concluded anti-Catholicism was a significant factor. We simply can't draw our own conclusions from primary sources to say it was, and we can't say that "there remains debate amongst historians" when we cannot find any historians meaningfully discussing the issue! As such, I've removed the material from the article, and I plan to disengage from this discussion - it's clearly not going anywhere productive for either of us. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is incredible that you cannot say it is present in the sources. Noble makes religion implicit by the construction of his words. Prebble makes not one, but many mentions. Passing references they may be, but they are still references, and they support the content of my addition, and the references themselves say it is a significant factor, they just apportion different levels of significance. Primary sources are in the secondary sources I quote, Prebble has a lengthy list of primary sources for example. It is a constant reference in all the sources. I will quote Prebble from both books AGAIN, Firstly: Bland and Fletcher also suggested that the Government should buy or sequestrate the lands of the chiefs, and send to the Barbadoes any who objected. Such lands should also be cleared of clansmen who grumbled, and the country settled with decent, law-abiding, God-fearing Protestants from the South. The Highlands should, in fact, be colonized. It was a proposal that created considerable interest, but it was not accepted, at least not in detail. (Culloden, 325-6) Prebble, importantly, uses the words, 'at least not in detail'. That is the first significant mentioning of sectarianism. The source does not need to primary because of the significance, and standing of the people writing the secondary source Secondly, Under the pressure of increased rents or unrenewed leases, Macdonell tacksmen began to take their sub-tenants to British North America soon after Culloden. Like the Chisholms, they were Catholics, and a stubborn adherence to their faith was a contributory cause of their exile. Importantly, that is two cases, not one, and it is again a significant mention of sectarianism. Thirdly, you yourself admit that p. 111 of JSTOR 20852924, 1772 is another case. Fourthly, Ross Noble Noble: The Clearances undoubtedly stemmed in part from the attempt by the British establishment to destroy, once and for all, the archaic, militaristic Clan System, which had facilitated the Jacobite risings of the early part of the 18th century. ...[T]hose involved in the tumultuous events of the Jacobite risings were, to a large extent, fighting to preserve a traditional version of national political power. Again, the tradition that he is talking about is a Roman Catholic monarch. It is the ONLY national tradition that the Jacobites were in favour of. There is NOT any other national tradition that you will read of in ANY source that binds the Jacobites. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please await the outcome of the dispute resolution, where the thread is "Highland Clearances". You yourself cannot undertake to involve yourself in that dispute resolution as a volunteer because you took it upon yourself to argue with me here. You are not following Wikipedia guidelines.94.173.7.13 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Continuing to follow up on the sources the IP editor (I wish you would share a name with us!) quotes to support his position, I don't have access to p. 111 of "Toiling in the Vale of Tears: Everyday life and Resistance in South Uist, Outer Hebrides, 1760-1860". International Journal of Historical Archaeology. June 1999. JSTOR 20852924. Would it be possible to quote the relevant section? I can, however, see the abstract of the article which reads:

Following the 1745 rebellion, agrarian capitalism rapidly transformed subsistence practices in the Outer Hebrides. Landowners increased rents, enclosed common lands, and replaced crofters and cattle with sheep-ranges. Population growth, the demise of the kelp industry, and crop failures compounded the problems of the peasantry. Widespread emigration commenced in the 1770s and peaked in the 1850s, when entire communities were exiled to British North America—the so-called Highland Clearances. This article traces the development of agrarian capitalism on the Isle of South Uist, explores the agricultural "improvements" undertaken by successive landlords, and considers modes of resistance adopted by the island's population.

I think that this abstract includes a nice summary of the key factors behind the Clearances. It is notable that, again, there is no mention of religion as a factor. Whatever individual incidents may be quoted in the article, I can only conclude that the author of this article himself does not consider religion to be a significant factor - certainly not significant enough to mention in his abstract.Camerojo (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have been looking at some of the IP editor's previous edits on this page and I note that the following contribution was deleted by him without comment:

However almost all of the very large movement of Highland settlers to the Cape Fear region of North Carolina were Presbyterian. (This is evidenced even today in the presence and extent of Presbyterian congregations and adherents in the region.)

Clearly there is a problem with the contribution in that it does not cite a source supporting the claim. However, rather than deleting it outright the IP editor should have requested a source for the claim - as I did with the IP editor's own contribution. Why did you delete this contribution?

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

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

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

Plus I owe you an apology for saying I did not. Sorry. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact of the Clearances: Religion

I am reverting a section that was both an overwrite that has not given proper sourcing and in the process, overwrote the previous addition that had proper sourcing. I would like to remind any prospective editors that the section has a consensus behind it's inclusion and that additions that contradict previous entries must find the appropriate language to convey differences in wikipedia:POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not true that that particular wording had consensus, only that having a section on religion has consensus. It is clearly much better sourced than what was there before since its only source was a Wikipedia article and Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. It is very hard to improve this article with this disruptive editing. The fact is that the vast majority of reliable sources indicate the the major of the Highlands were not Catholic, but Presbyterian and no sources have been forthcoming that indicate anything else. The POV pushing here is that, despite the overwhelming evidence, an implication to the contrary is being implied here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The last version I posted was:

After the Reformation Catholicism had been reduced to the fringes of the country, particularly the Gaelic-speaking areas of the Highlands and Islands. Numbers probably reduced in the seventeenth century and organisation had deteriorated.^[1] In the 1960s popular historian John Prebble's stated that Roman Catholicism flourished "[w]here there were deep glens, protected by the broadsword or the earth itself".^[2] The Pope appointed Thomas Nicolson as the first Vicar Apostolic over the mission in 1694.^[3] The country was organised into districts and by 1703 there were thirty-three Catholic clergy. Conditions also grew worse for Catholics after the Jacobite rebellions and Catholicism was reduced to little more than a poorly-run mission.^[1] In 1733 it was divided into two vicariates, one for the Highland and one for the Lowland, each under a bishop. There were six attempts to found a seminary in the Highlands between 1732 and 1838, all of which floundered on financial issues.^[3] Clergy entered the country secretly and although services were illegal they were maintained. In 1755 it was estimated that there were only 16,500 communicants, mainly in the north and west, although the number is probably an underestimate.^[4]

There is evidence of anti-Catholicism in the thoughts of some who were responsible for the clearances.^[5] ^[6] ^[7]^[8]^[9] ^[10]^[11] However, Grant Dawson and Sonia Farber note that "although the landlords did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons, the effect of the Clearances was to destroy much of the Gaelic culture, which was dispersed along with the people that fled.^[12]--SabreBD (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

[==Impact of the Clearances: Religion==