Talk:Expulsion of the Acadians/Archives/2015

Population numbers

The article states that "an estimated 6,000" Acadians were deported, but then the table further below gives a total of 12,617. What accounts for the difference? Funnyhat 23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I looked into it at the Society of Grand Pre's website and they claim 'over 10,000 by 1763'. I'm not sure why there's a conflict. I've aded a line about the final numbers of Acadians deported in the opening section. Twinchester 18:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "6000" reference claims that that represents three quarters of the population, but the rest of that section would seem to imply it was more like half. Binabik80 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a guy and I have tits that produce milk. Is that bad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.231.63 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Acadian Deaths

There is a statement in the intro about the Deportation leading to thousands of deaths, but no discussion of this in the main body of the article, or any reference cited. Can this be followed up with references and a further discussion? I'm not disputing that there would have been deaths as a result of pushing all those people from their homes. The Loyalists suffered significant mortality 30 years later just going from New York to Nova Scotia, so there must have been a significant death toll among the Acadian deportees. But I think that the article needs to do a better job of delineating how the deaths occurred (deaths at the hands of the British authorities; travel conditions leading to illness; marginal existence leading to hunger/illness/death; or whatever). Corlyon (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a good book to source and expand this article with, and will put it on my to-do list. You are welcome to do so in the mean time! :) Charles Edward (Talk) 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found reference for deaths among Acadians after expulsion and have added this to the article. Charles Edward, if your book provides additional details or can be used as another reference, please include. My reference doesn't give actual numbers, other than in connection with the sinking of the Violet and the Prince William. Corlyon (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Role of M'iqmaqs

The section on the First Nations is confusing here, as it begins prior to the tensions between French and English, and seems to have little to do with the topic, except to say some First Nations sheltered Acadians, and there were some intermarriages. Most of it would seem to belong in an article on the tribe themselves, not in relation to the Deportation of the Acadians.--Parkwells (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The section does need developed more, but the mikmaq were heavily intermarried with the French, and did play a role in protecting a large number of them from the English during the deportation. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

heavily intermarried is correct. Unlike the British colonists who were in large parts entire families and communities leaving the mainland due to religious persecution, the French settlers first arrived as an all male settlement. The colony propogated only through intermarriage with natives. I will source this and incorporate it when I'm off workJstanierm (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing

I don't see the relevance of the Carib "ethnic cleansing". What does it have to do with Acadians?

The Acadians living in that region which was Nova Scotia were British subjects and did not have to swear any oath whatsoever ... plus war between England and France was officially declared in 1756. The Acadian were deported in a time of peace .. not on the whim of Lawrence but with the blessing and with political direction from the Crown.

It was not a time of peace. There were intermittent clashes since the end of the North American phase of the War of the Austrian Succession. Real war broke out in the colonies in 1754. 24.222.64.85 06:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "citation needed" in the lede about ethnic cleansing, the book The Acadians - A People's Story of Exile and Triumph by Dean Jobb (already used as a source elsewhere, I think) has on page 2 this sentence: "It was, to modern eyes, clearly an act of genocide and ethnic cleansing." Will that work? Quietmarc (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that clearly is what is needed. Feel free to quote more from that book to improve the overall article. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, I would hope that no historical revisionism would find its way into this article. My ancestors suffered enough during this part of the past, a part of my past, and by trying to define it as 'ethnic cleansing' really does sicken me to my stomach. France and England had been at war for hundreds of years, long before this event. You must not and CANNOT use modern standards to define past events- it must solely be judged from a position of the events of the day, and both sides were engaged. I strongly object to the use of ethnic cleansing or anything that strong to define this tragedy- it severely warps our idea of history and it offends me both professionally and personally. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 13:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. It was certainly not ethinic cleansing in its modern form. If anything, it was more religously motivated by the protestants in the english colonies fearing the catholic french. That was the stated reason in a whole host of colonial newspapers at the time of the happenings. And just conisder the facts, where did they send all the french? They split them up among the rest of the english colonies originally - so how is that cleansing? It is more like integration in that sense. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the division of those deported amongst the various colonies. The whole tragedy stems from those innocents caught up in the middle of a war, and the many deaths of those who were on the ships that left. There was a climate of fear of the Acadian French and their involvement in the war in the region, hence the reasoning behind the deportation- I hardly think it was primarily because of their ethnicity. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 14:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are credible scholarly works that can be cited where the dispersion of the Acadians has been termed ethnic cleansing, then that is all there is to it. A quick search reveals this to be the case:

- English: Google Books: "ethnic cleansing acadians"

- Français: Google Books: "nettoyage ethnique acadiens"

Nothing less than The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World (Volume 3, 2008) can be cited as a reference to support the claim that the event has been widely considered a case of what we call "ethnic cleansing" today. While the term is recent, the idea is not and what was done to the Acadians was denounced by educated and moral people in England as soon as they learned about it. Notoriously, it was denounced by Edmund Burke in these words:

" We did, in my opinion most inhumanly, and upon pretences that in the eye of an honest man are not worth a farthing, root out this poor, innocent, deserving people, whom our utter inability to govern or to reconcile gave us no sort of right to extirpate[1] ".

It does not have to be in the first line of the article. It does not have to be repeated every other paragraph, but it is certainly worthy of mention. Your or my personal feelings are absolutely irrelevant in writing this or any other scientific article on that historical event.

I do not see how the fact that they were dispersed AFTER being forcibly expulsed make it less a case of ethnic cleansing, defined as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This definition was made over 2 centuries AFTER the event took place, and so I challenge the use of it to describe an event that well preceeded it. If we are to take this path to its full natural conclusion, then modern definitions could be used to completely relabel the entire history of our planet, completely unfairly. Without taking historical events and putting them in their proper context, within their proper time, we have warped our history as I mentioned. Wars do the exact same thing that Burke mentioned, coldly and unfairly, and history judges this to be so... innocents are harmed by the tens of thousands in every instance. All I am saying is that you CANNOT apply this definition to something that happened WELL AFTER the events- it is patently unfair. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 15:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by unfair (to who? what does fairness have to do with this?). The British government of the time committed an act that we term today ethnic cleasing. That precise term may not have existed the 18th century, but the concept to which the term refers (to forcibly extirpate a population from its native land) surely did. It just happens to be 18th century philosophy that gave us today's sophisticated human rights morals and ethics. It was not the first time something like that had been done. It was only the first time in modern history something like that was done, leaving so many traces that we can reconstruct it in a lot of details, with statistics and all. I do not see that writing about the event being later qualified as ethnic cleansing (as many historians of course did) prevents placing everything in its proper context and time. It is obvious that qualification and explanation are needed. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are definitely sources that refer to it as ethnic cleansing, I would not dispute that. NPOV here is that there are also sources which attribute religion as being the driving factor, like A Great and Noble Scheme. To ethnicly cleanse, in the modern sense, would be mean for one nation or power to completely remove, by extermination or expulsion, a people from their nation because of their ethnicity. The acadians were not deported because they were french, they were deported because they were A. catholic, B. thought to be behind indian raids, and C. refusing to take oaths of alliegiance to the Engish crown on multiple occasions (thus refusing to be enlish subject). To ethinically cleans would infer the purpose of the thing was to cleanse an enthnicity from ones' midst - but the english did just the opposite, they took them back prisoner to their own homelands. My point is not to aruge that some sources do not say it is ethinic cleasning, my point is to show other equally scholarly sources offer a different point of view that is worth including to add balance. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

At least in the book I read (that started this section) there was certainly evidence that there were concerns about the Acadians' "french-ness", and I think to ignore that is quite narrow-minded. But regardless, we have reliable sources that DO use the phrase. If people want to track down other sources that DON'T, that's fine. But to not include a sourced phrase because we don't like it is NPOV.

Further, to the families that were split apart, the individuals that were taken from their homes and sequestered in over-crowded ships for weeks so that in some cases only half their passengers survived, and the rest were too hungry, sick, and weak to make a living on the scraps of unsuitable land they eventually received, they may not be very worried about us over-stating their tragedy. Quietmarc (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Of I was not suggesting to select only sources that categorize the event as ethnic cleansing. In my opinion, what Charles Edward wrote only makes sense if we completely exclude religion as part of what defines the ethnic character of a population. At the time, religion was considered (and to many people still is even today) a defining character of a people's nationality. France was a Catholic nation that created catholic colonies such as Acadia and Canada. Religion was in the State and in the laws, and it is laws that shape a nationality. It is obvious that it was as Catholic and French speakers that they were collectively targeted under the pretext that some men among them had not remained neutral. The dispersion among the British colonies, shipping separated families across the Atlantic, was the means of destroying the bonds uniting them. That is just one of several possible ways to destroy a collectivity. It was expected that a small group of people like the Acadians would never survive this. Many individuals indeed did not survive, but those who regrouped recreated the Acadian milieu, rebuilt their old institutions, built new ones and passed on the heritage of their language, religion and manners to the next generations. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

... and it's a good thing they did, or else I wouldn't be here. :P Quietmarc (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

...and I wouldn't be here either- my ancestry survived in an escape back to Quebec City. Acadians were not destroyed in this action, only forced to start anew somewhere else. My part lost their identity as Acadians, but thousands still retained it in Louisiana and other places, and we do remember. However, to call it 'ethnic cleansing' in the sense that modern historians use it would mean something far more dastardly and far more far-reaching. This is why sources can't be judged at face value... Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 01:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that if the sources say something, we ought to include it, right or wrong. Editors at Wikipedia can't do original research, we can only report what others have said. Rightly or wrongly, there are sources that use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" in relation to this event, and so, in my opinion, it's entirely appropriate to include it in the article. Yes, I agree that this term was not in use at the time, but scholars and historians who are writing about this right now are using it, and that has to be our guide. A hundred years from now, the best sources could (hypothetically) describe it as "The Great Acadian House Party", and wikipedia would be obliged to respect that.

I acknowlege that the source I provided isn't the only one, but it is a source. We have sources supporting the use of the term. I think that the best resolution to this discussion would be if you could provide other reliable sources that could help shape this article. Quietmarc (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am just posting this note of a little concern regarding the recent expansions. I appreciate the work, its long overdue for this topic. It has been on my to do list for a long time. My concern is somewhat minor - I think that the article is misusing the term genocide in a few places, and some of the sources which the term is being attributed to does not use the term - I own the books. I can get some examples here later if needed. Ethnic cleansing is certainly an appropriate term, and ethnic cleansing is the term more commonly used in the sources. There is a difference ethnic cleansing and genocide, one being to expel a particular ethnicity, not necessarily through extermination. The British didn't purposefully intend for all the deaths to occur, as is stated in many source, it was a side effect (albeit avoidable) of their goal of deportation. In that context, genocide (the purposeful extermination) is not really accurate. Likewise, if it were genocide, as pointed out in some sources, instead of attempting to remove the peoples they would have instead outright killed them as that is more fitting with the definition of the term. In short, my sole suggestion is that wherever the term genocide is used, it be attributed to the historian who is saying it. Short of this, it should be pointed out to the reader sources differ on the use of the term. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Charles on how it's great to see this article expand and become more detailed. My only concern comes with the flow of the article. If you were to read it the way it runs now, you might come to the conclusion that the expulsion order was given after the Acadians refused to pledge allegiance. Obviously, there were many contributing factors and, further down in the article, we find them, described in the subsection on the long-standing hostility between Acadians and British. I believe the 'last straw' was the battle of Fort Beausejour. The article mentions that the expulsion began after this battle. Could one of the recent contributors make this clarification in the article? I think it would lend itself well to understanding the British mindset. Twinchester 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinchester (talk • contribs)

"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

if this accusation has genuinely been made against the British state then could someone please add a properly referenced section describing the progress under international law as i would be fascinated to read more.86.133.254.13 (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Crown Apology

I suggest that the comment in the article that states that the period has come to an end is incorrect and should be striken from the article. While it is true that a "representative" of some person called the "crown" has done an act called "acknowlege" for the insident far more steps will need to be taken in the future for the deep hostile feelings between the two to truely come to an end. I would even go so far as to state that until an APOLOGY is rendered by the personage responsible in the first place, the so called "crown", directly; and that reparations be made in the form of monetary damages as well as commercial privilages; then one can never truely conclude that the hostile feelings have come to an end and those who are the decendants of the expelled should consider the "crown" currently still as acting in as state of war against them. Even the Idea of having a commemoratin day for this most terrible act is sort of like having a day for the British to celebrate that they got away with doing it and no one could stop them. --Billiot 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As a descendant of victims of this great tragedy, I will not stand for people expressing their views on the subject alone when this page is for the article passages itself. You all are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by getting on your soap boxes. Our main goal is to find a WP:NPOV, not to open up old wounds. Enough! Monsieurdl 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Coordination - 'Acadia' and 'History of the Acadians' wiki pages

Acadia#The Deportation has about half a page on this. I added a "main" to that section to point here. It looks like there is information there that should be here as well, and probably vice versa. Anyone care to reconcile? Facts707 (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

History of the Acadians#Grand Dérangement has over 2 pages on this. That section does point here as "main". There is lots of info there that should probably be included or moved here. Facts707 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is lots of expansion that could be done here. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Title of Article

The title of the article uses a term that I have not been familiar with. "Great Upheaval" doesn't ring any bells with me.

I did a little bit of searching on the internet in relation to this issue and my research would indicate that "Great Upheaval" is a relatively less used expression to refer to what anglophones would I think more commonly know as the "Expulsion of the Acadians" or the "Deportation of the Acadians". In French the common expression (or at least one that I've seen used repeatedly) is le grand dérangement.

Unscientific Google hits for "Great Upheaval" + Acadians yields 4000 hits. (Not bad, but a lot of these may flow from the Wikipedia article itself with the clones that pick up and regurgitate material from Wikipedia). Without the quotes I get 7200 hits.

In contrast "Expulsion of the Acadians" gets 16,700 hits, while Expulsion + Acadians (no quotes) gets 83,100. "Deportation of the Acadians" gets 5340 hits, with Deportation + Acadians (again no quotes) gets around 70,000. On the CBC website I found 12 hits for Great Upheaval; 256 for Explusion, and 202 for Deportation. The Canadian Encyclopedia refers to the event as the 'Deportation'. Yes, I know that the Government of Canada has referred to the event as the Great Upheaval, so obviously it is a term that needs to be mentioned. But the Government of Noval Scotia website returns 1170 hits for Acadians + Deportation and 29 for Acadians + Great Upheaval. Am I off base, or do English speaking people in Canada (or elsewhere?) now indeed 'commonly' refer to this as the Great Upheaval?? Corlyon (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Upheaval is the term used in the several books about the article that I have, and is what is most commonly used in historical works, as I am familiar with this topic. In Britannica it is listed up Great Upheaval also.Charles Edward (Talk) 21:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, then, if it has legitimately gained currency among historians. It just strikes me as a bit of a contrived and somewhat opaque label that is less useful than the terms it replaces. 'Great Upheaval' could be applied to events that afflicted many groups throughout history, the Irish, the Huguenots, the Poles of the Kresy or the Palestinians, to name just a few, while "Deportation of the Acadians" is unambiguous. Corlyon (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here in Cajun La it's always "the deportation" or most commonly "le grande derangement". Which is also a local colliqualism for "the runs", lol.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Le Grand Derangement translates to The Great Disarrangement. Charles Edward (Talk) 12:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I just spent a few weeks in Nova Scotia and came across the phrases "Acadian Expulsion" or "Expulsion of the Acadians" and the like frequently. I do not remember hearing about the "Great Upheaval." Gruntler (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read this discussion and I think it is clear that title of this article should be changed to "The Expulsion of the Acadians" or the "Deportation of the Acadians" with a passing reference to "The Great Upheaval" as an alternate title . "Expulsion" and "Deportation" are the phrases used by the two key English scholars John Faragher's (A Great and Noble Scheme: The Tragic Story of the Expulsion of the French Acadians) and Niaomi Griffiths, (The Acadian deportation: deliberate perfidy or cruel necessity?) as well as by pretty much every general history of the region. "Le grande derangement" is quite properly the French term for the event but "The Great Upheaval" is merely a vague literal English translation of this term.Letterofmarque (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

While I empathize with the historical plight of the Acadians and their descendants, I suggest "Expulsion" and even "Deportation" are words that are too strong, since the Acadians were moved to other British colonies, not exiled or deported completely from British controlled colonies. Also the original order specifies only "French" inhabitants, not natives or others, i.e. "transportation of the Inhabitants of the District of Annapolis River and other French Inhabitants out of the Province of Nova Scotia...dispersed among his Majesty's Colonies upon the Continent of America... [to Philadelphia, New York, Connecticut, etc.]" Thus I would respectfully suggest Relocation of the French Acadians, Forced relocation of the French Acadians, or Dispersal of the French Acadians. Relocation of the French Acadians may be the least "point of view", since from the historical British perspective the French Acadians did not want to take an oath of allegiance to Britain and fighting had broken out between the English and French in the Ohio River valley, prompting British nervousness about the large French colony. BTW "Le Grand Dérangement" translates as "The Big Disturbance" according to freetranslation.com, but I am not too fluent in French.Facts707 (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should consider changing the article title back to The Great Upheavel, and redirecting this title to it. Le Grand Derengment is the most common french term, and its english translation is the most common english term. It is also the title, or in the title, of a numbe of the major books on the topic, and is the title frequently used in many other works. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm not very fond of "Relocation" as a title. I think it raises som NPOV issues by lessening the impact of what actually happened. Reliable sources would describe it at the very least as a forced relocation. I'd prefer "The Great Expulsion", since that's how it was described when I was in junior high, but if the sources stick to Great Upheaval, I'm happy with that. "Relocation" makes it sound like they moved into a new apartment and shared beer and pizza with the English when it was all over. Quietmarc (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of days have passed, and I haven't seen any discussion here on the name of the article. Is the discussion happening elsewhere? Is there a way to open up the discussion? The current article name (Relocation of the French Acadians) does not sit well with me at all, bugt I'm hesitant to rename an entire article without some community discussion.Quietmarc (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where its going on, but I'll put my 2 cents here. It never should have been moved to this location in the first place. It should either be moved back to the previous title, or to "Le Grand derangement". I live in South La, and that's what its known as, by English and French speaking alike. If an english title absolutely has to be used, it should have been the one already in place, which seems to be one one most used in the literature. From what I've read, there was no consensus to move it here, and someone should be WP:Bold and just move it back. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I think we ought to go for an English name. "Relocation of the French Acadians" is unprecedented as far as I know. "Relocation" is the most extreme euphemism imaginable and borders censorship as far as I am concerned. "French Acadians" is a combination of words I had never seen before. "Acadians" ought to suffice. As an indication of usage:

"Expulsion of the Acadians" -wiki returns 504,000 hits in Google.ca

"Deportation of the Acadians" -wiki returns 248,000 hits

"Great Upheaval" -wiki returns 125,000 hits

"Grand derangement" -wiki returns 51,800 hits

Expulsion of the Acadians - sounds good to me and seems supported by usage.--Parkwells (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Expulsion of the Acadians" seems like a good candidate to me. -- Mathieugp (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully support Expulsion of the Acadians- the perfect description. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been more than a week now. I think people had time to express their opinions on the change. Who wants the honour to do it? :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is done! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 17:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefered the original title, but this is a good compromise, I will support the move. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully support the renamed title. "Expulsion of the Acadians" is what it should be.Letterofmarque (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks for making the change. I did try to rename the article (and learned how to do it for previously-un-renamed ones), but stumbled at the first roadblock. I just don't have a knack for learning these internet thingies :) Quietmarc (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

British Colonies: Deportation Destinations

I once wrote a research paper on the subject of the Acadian deportation from Canada at Tulane University in a course called History of the Cajuns. It was taught by Dr. William Arcenaux. The paper is well cited. On my lunch break, I incorporated large parts of the paper wholesale (with some editting to avoid blatantly violating some wikipedia policies with regards to NPOV -- the paper had a thesis and a point it was trying to make). There will need to be edits to maintain the wikipedia format for citations, and hopefully it conforms to wikipedia's NPOV without much need for tweaking etc. Hope this helps the article.

I have also noticed that the numbers of refugees conflict within the article and the text I have added also conflicts. Unfortunately, I think this is unavoidable. There are going to be plenty of references that cite different numbers. This is a historical event from a few hundred years ago after all; and we're having problems getting sources to agree on casualties in modern conflicts and catastrophes.Jstanierm (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

John Winslow

John Winslow (British Army officer) was the British commander in charge of the operation. Some info from his article should probably be here too. His journal said he did not like being in charge of it at all. Facts707 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Winslow was in charge of operations at Grand Pré not the entire 1755 operation in Acadia/Nova Scotia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffTsquared (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Biased authorship against British

Hi - ive just got here by a circuitous route and this is an unfamiliar area of British history to me , as it will be for many modern Britons - however it reads to me as if there is an implicit bias against the British - who are indeterminately described as sometimes British, sometimes English - never Scottish (or Welsh or Irish) and always heavy handed, close minded and vicious, without the delicate sensitivity ascribed to the victimised party i.e. the Acadians - who by contrast appear modern, open minded and liberal in an entirely anachronistic way.

Were this written by an opposing POV, the Acadians could be equivalently made out to be scheming, duplicitious and untrustworthy from the contemporay British POV. Also the deaths in transportation of prisoners of war ought to be put in the context of the standards of the time and the accuracy of the figures properly acknowledged - the 'Deportation' section is entirely unreferenced. What i know from my own research is that life (and death) on board ship in the eighteenth century for the British military themselves was hardly a transatlantic leisure cruise... 86.133.254.13 (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your referencing concerns, and the slight bias of the article. The deaths on board the ships though were high because the acadians were kept aboard the ships for several weeks as prison ships with poor access to food or facilities - many died before their voyage even began. They were not put there with the intention to kill them, but the conditions were such that a large proportion died. It is important to note, the the whole deportation was not authorized by the British government and was largely the schemes of the governments of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts Bay colonies, and their distrust against the acadians was much more a product of the Puritan and Presbyterian distrust of Catholicism, rather than anything else. I think the article though does make clear the acadians refusal to swear loyalty to the british crown on multiple occasions, which gave the government a degree of justification for the deportation. The manner in which the deportation occurred was rather savage though by most accounts. And in regards to the different terms used, Great Britian was not an entity when they first took acadian, but was the Kingdom of England; however the union was developing during the 50 year period during the events leading up to the deportation. So the term was evolving in that time. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Acadians cannot be characterized as duplicitous or scheming, since the Royal Proclamation of 2003 made it abundantly clear that England regretted the brutal treatment inflicted upon the ancestors of the Acadians and Louisiana Cajuns. The Day of Commemoration of The Great Upheaval, as the Canadian and British government named itSlowmeaux (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the original comment. This is by far the most biased and poorly written article on this site (and I have been reading these since the begining). It reads like it was written by a French Canadian with an anti-British hard on. Suggest shortening it by at least half and having it thoroughly reviewed. 18 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.168.83 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"This is by far the most biased and poorly written article on this site". That's your point of view, there are worst articles than this one on Wiki. "It reads like it was written by a French Canadian with an anti-British hard on" Still your point of view, but knowing that there was nothing glorious in this event, it would be interesting to see an English Canadian or better a British taking care of this article. Finally, where is the anti-British bias ? Because this event suggests that some British did something wrong ? 86.206.239.81 (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but I am a English Canadian native to the region. The article is not overly biased, but I grant it is somewhat so. But that is because the article is poorly developed, not because of a bias of the writers, IMO. You are welcome to edit it an fix it up! In fact, we encourage it! And to suggest this is the worst article on wikipedia is funny, trust me there is far worse garbage than this sitting around in corners of this website. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Legality of the expulsion

So here is what Michel Bastarache, Supreme Court judge from 1997 to 2008, said concerning the legality of the Acadian expulsion in a 2004 conference before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal[2] (my translation):

First, I wish to thank chief justice Drapeau for inviting me to participate to this event. It is a great pleasure for me to come back to Fredericton and renew contacts with old colleagues and friends.

...

As you know, Acadia was definitely ceded to England in 1713. Normally, at the judicial level, this event was a conquest, which means that the then-existing private law should have been preserved until modified in a regular manner by the new institutions possessing legislative power. But that did not happen. England considered Acadia as some uninhabited territory and introduced the whole of English law into it as soon as 1719. The governor's legislative power by virtue of the royal prerogative was then suspended and a local Assembly was convened to make laws. This had the effect of excluding the Acadians at the social and political levels, them who then formed the great majority of the population, because the English law that was introduced in the colony included a whole series of anti-Catholic laws which created judicial incapacities for them. Among those laws, one can count the Parliamentary Test Act of 1678 as well as Conventicle Act of 1664. That is to say that the French private law was discarded and that the Catholic population was without judicial status and unacquainted with the new law in force.

The Treaty of Utrecht did not protect the Acadians. The French seigniorial regime relative to landed property was tolerated for a while but the inhabitants were invited to leave for Cape Breton Island. A letter by Queen Anne preserved the ownership of lands and allowed the practice of the Catholic religion. But governor Cornwallis soon added that the right to leave was limited to a year and that the right to property was going to be from then on subject to taking the oath of allegiance. The properties of those who left were in fact confiscated. Many modern authors have written that the decisions of Cornwallis and Murray were unconstitutional.

In practice, the refusal to take the oath of allegiance was first tolerated to preserve social peace. However, in 1730, governor Phillips obtained allegiance by guaranteeing a neutrality status to Acadians. In 1749, everything was overturned. From then on, English law was strictly applied. The Acadians could not be civil servants. A mobilization order cancelled the neutrality status. State religion was enforced. Ecclesiastics could not hold public offices, even in schools. All this was illegal because contrary to the promises of Queen Anne, but no tribunal was available to ensure the rule of law. Acadian boats were confiscated, same for their weapons. The order to swear an oath of allegiance was reimposed in 1755. That also was illegal. The order of deportation was also illegal notably because it was given without the assent of the Assembly.

After the deportation and during the return which started in 1758 and continued until 1784, the legislation was very repressive. Cornwallis' royal commission extended the application of English anti-popery laws to the colony itself. This meant that the deportees had no right to return to or reclaim their lands and properties, that those who had sought refuge in New Brunswick were there illegally. New laws creating judicial incapacities for the Catholics were adopted; They could not own lands and their properties were confiscated. Residence was subject to taking the oath of allegiance. The Papist clergy was explused. A law of 1759 extinguished all the Acadians property titles which might have subsisted until then.

That regime started to fade beginning in 1783. And in 1784, New Brunswick was created, and beginning in 1786 passed its own laws. In 1791, New Brunswick extinguished the laws of Nova Scotia then in application on its territory, but continued to apply the laws it received directly from England, including the anti-Popery laws. In 1769 Prince Edward Island was created. Its government was only operative beginning in 1773. The province continued to apply the laws passed by Nova Scotia until they were modified.

Catholics still had to take the oath to hold lands, be elected, etc. More than that, they could not marry because only the Anglican religion was recognized. In 1791, these deprivations started to be relaxed for marriage, then in 1810 for voting, then in 1829 for the right to hold public offices. In 1834, Catholic priests were again able to perform marriage.

... (the rest of the speech concerns the language and education rights of the Acadians and other topics)

-- Mathieugp (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

On the "degree of justification for the deportation", the fundamental question is: "was the deportation legal?" On this, while I did not do extensive research, I have found at least two sources who say that it was not legal. One source is by historian Fidèle Thériault[3] who says that the question of allegiance was a pretext, the other source is some Canadian judge who says the British government broke international law in the way it introduced English law on the conquered territory without first abolishing or modifying French law. Unfortunately, the link to this judge's very interesting article is broken at the moment:[4]. I'll try to find it published online somewhere else but it will not be easy because I really cannot recall either the judge's name or the title of the article... These sources are in French. I can translated them here upon request. This other source[5], in English this time, mentions that the movers of the petition for an apology from the British Crown sought "an acknowledgment that the expulsion was wrong under English law". -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I found it :

* Steve Hachey, "La Déportation des Acadiens était illégale, estime le juge Michel Bastarache", in L'Acadie nouvelle, September 15, 2004 [reporting on a speech given by Bastarache for the 400th anniversary of foundation of Acadia]

* Mots de L'honorable Michel Bastarache, juge à la Cour suprême du Canada, Ouverture des tribunaux, Fredericton, le 14 septembre 2004 [the speech]

So the judge whose name I could not remember is Michel Bastarache[6]. Given the context, it is very possible that the speech was given by him only in French, so I will work on a translation of his speech. If we find other such sources (in accord or in contradiction with Bastarache) we could add to Expulsion of the Acadians a section on the legality of the deportation. -- Mathieugp (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well what do you know - a user who was not taught anything about this in school, and who therefore doubts that any of this could be factual, because then it would imply that the British government actually did something inhumane in the 1700s (and we all know that cannot be, so clearly a whitewash is needed.)

As for the legality, yes it was all perfectly legal - IF you acknowledge the principle that the British government are the legal custodians of all real estate on the entire planet, because they are the most clever and evolved, and the rest of world is in sore need of their guidance and wisdom. 71.253.146.104 (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted from the main article: Judge Belcher's judgement Judge Jonathan Belcher was born in Boston in 1711, the son of the ex-Governor of Massachusetts. He studied law in England, and was named Chief Justice of Nova Scotia on June 21, 1754. Later, he would succeed Charles Lawrence as Governor of the province. Belcher made a judgement on the deportation of the Acadians without applying the most fundamental basics of English law of this time period. For example, the Acadians were not asked to defend their position before him in a court of law. Their land and possessions were confiscated in violation to the British laws of the time. No British law gave Belcher the authority to confiscate the ownership of land from a father and his family, or the punishment of his wife and children, for an act committed by the father of the family. If it was a political crime or an act of treason, sanctions were to be applied, but the law did not stipulate the confiscation of land and goods, or the exil of a group of persons for whatever motive brought forth.

Deleted from main article - unqualified/ unreliable reference - Arsenault is not a legal scholar of british colonial history.--Hantsheroes (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For another POV on the legality of this event, you should read Mi'kmaq scholar Daniel Paul's books. He demonstrates that unlike nearly all other North American tribes, the sovereign Mi'kmaq lands were occupied by the British without permission or payment, based on an illegitimate premise: a law by James I of England that non-Christian monarchs anywhere in the world could not legally hold land, making their lands "up for grabs" according to this "law". Ironically, the Mi'kmaq Grnad Chief was baptised a Christian around this same time, but that did not stop the British from using this very law to justify the seizure of Acadia. The Acadians on the other hand had sought and received Mi'kmaq permission to settle and intermarry with them, and they had always respected Mi'kmaq sovereignty of the Maritimes. Paul argues that to recognize the legality of British authority in the region is therefore to recognize the validity of James' law forbidding non-Christians from holding land - a law that would find little support from anyone today. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The legality of the British to be in Nova Scotia/ Acadia at all is an important question. The British violation of treaties is what sparked Father Le Loutre's War. At the same time, this issue does not address the legalities of the Expulsion within context of British colonial law.--Hantsheroes (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and organization than would be expected of a Stub, and of low importance, as it is a highly specific topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was listed on WikiProject France under articles needing assessment. This article is rated start because it does contain a fairly informative biography background and a useful image. Citations would help this article a lot. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I was considering GA reviewing this article, as I have worked on a series of other articles set in similar times and places. However I should warn you that on a quick read over the article it seems likely that the article would be failed for NPOV and copyediting reasons. It may be that the expulsion of the Acadians enjoys the complete consensus of historians as a terrible event in which the Acadians were completely and undeservedly oppressed, and the expellors indisputable villains. However I would doubt that is the case - every Holocaust has its apologist - and notable dissenting views, however crazy, need to be mentioned (although not necessarily given equal weight). Plus even if the sources are in total agreement, you use a fair amount of POV non-encyclopaedic language, and the entirety of the "France and England" section appears to be an inter-wiki copyvio as the inline citations are all broken. Entire lines appear to be direct unattributed quotes from sources ("is that area of Louisiana now known as Acadiana where we find one of the largest collections of Acadians ") and it does not appear that a copyedit has taken place prior to nomination. Were I to review it today, the article would be quickfailed for the above reasons. Would you care to withdraw the nomination and take the time to address these problems before re-nominating? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the nomination was done by someone with not all that much experience here on Wikipedia. I would normally not say a word but judging by the nominator's edit contributions I dont think we will hear from him/her soon. I second the quick fail and will work on the cut and past section soon.Moxy (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the concerns make sense to me. I need clarification re: the idea that the text infers the Acadians were totally victims and the british were wrong. The historical context outlines the resistance/ trouble many acadians gave the british. Because of this, the british removed them. I do not see how the text indicates that the british were right or wrong. It just indicates why they did what they did. Could you give examples of bias so I can work to change them. Thanks.--Hantsheroes (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• The article is mostly okay (from a bias perspective) until it gets about halfway through the "deportation destinations" section, where the unencyclopaedic language starts creeping in. An early example is "the same harsh treatment" (editorialising), and then in "Carolinas and Georgia" the text starts using frequent emotive quotes whose sources and importance aren't clearly attributed ("guilty of rebellion", "special prisoners", "subsidized"). The phrasing "we learn" begins appearing (unencyclopaedic), and the language turns florid ("l'Acadie", "little desire", "so removed", "most likely", "shouldering the burden of Lawrence's problem", "hardly seaworthy"). Then we hit the France and England section; here you have the plight of the Acadians portrayed as exacerbated by unremitting British incompetence, and alleviated by "France’s minister to England, Louis Jules Mancini Mazarini, Duke of Nivernais, Grandee of Spain, Knight of the King, and Peer of France". Listing all the man's titles is not encyclopaedic style and appears to be for the purpose of elevating his role and character. I'm willing to accept it as historical truth that Britain made a series of mistakes and France stepped up to help fix them, but I'm also betting there's at least one historian willing to portray the problems as not of Britain's making, and France's assistance as self-serving and politically motivated. The sentence "So, despite their staunch patriotism, the Acadians fell victim to propaganda and at first feared to return to France" continues the problem - "staunch patriotism", "fell victim" and "propaganda" are all inherently POV turns of phrase and if they were to be used would need to be substantiated by direct quotes from a reliable source, attributed in the text. It also has the problem of attributing a subjective characteristic ("patriotism") to all members of a group; I'm sure that not every Acadian was a staunch patriot, and if I'm wrong there would need to be a source clearly saying so. The article goes on in a similar vein. It's probably not necessary that every potentially POV word in the article be addressed, but there does need to be a substantial raising of the standard across the article to pass even the B-class bar, let alone GA. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's helpful. Thanks. My focus has been on the first half of the article - I will work on the rest.--Hantsheroes (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• No problem. And of course I should just say that just because an article doesn't meet GA, it doesn't mean that it's not an extensive, well researched and fascinating read, as this one is.  :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Acadian Resistance

The article reflects that some Acadians resisted the British while others did not. Because some Acadians resisted the British and stood up for themselves through military action and other means does not negate (or justify) that the British treated Acadians in a brutal manner.--Hantsheroes (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree and believe the extensive amount of verbage dedicated to describing in great detail the various examples of Acadian resistance, and complete absence of British atrocities such as the St. Anne's Massacre, to be evidence that any bias in the original article has swung wildly to the other side, such that the British now look like paragons of civilization who were doing the best they could with a gang of violent rowdies who "had it comin'". NPOV, indeed! Werebat 05:24, 30 July 2011 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.44.179 (talk)

I think the inclusion of the Acadian Resistance in any account of the Expulsion is important. Including the actions of those Acadians who fought the British – for good reason – illustrates that they were extremely courageous in the face of the British Empire and stood by their convictions rather than were simply passive, helpless victims. If France, the Mi'kmaq and the Acadians who resisted had won in Acadia, their stories would be well known. Even in their defeat, these Acadians still deserve to have their valor remembered. I do not think including Acadian Resistance in the article makes these Acadians seem like “a gang of violent rowdies who ‘had it comin’”.

Again, the fact that Acadian Resistance happened does not justify the British aggression or atrocities. It would be great to have more detail in the article on the British actions. At the same time, I think there already is lots of emphasis on the British actions, so much so that five of the British campaigns during the expulsion have separate articles. (The Ste Anne's Massacre is included under the St. John River Campaign, however, not with that description - do you have a reference for that description so that it could be included.)--Hantsheroes (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oaths

Capt Thor - the point you are making re: the treaty of 1713 does not negate the fact that the British, prior to Lawrence, repeatedly demanded the Acadians take an unconditional oath which they refused. (For example, see Cornwallis in 1749.) This history about the oaths seems like a significant part of the historical context of the deportation to be missing from this article. Hantsheroes (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Until the arrival of Charles Lawrence, it was never enforced: The problem was temporarily solved by procrastination on all sides. The British did not force the issue since the province would have had little value had the Acadian settlers been driven out, and the New Englanders showed no inclination to emigrate to the conquered territory in any numbers.--Captain Thor (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Dates for the Expulsion

As a new reader of the article, I mus tsay it was enjoyable and informative, and I sow no NPOV problems with it. Someone would have to be overly sensitive to regard this violent event compeltely neutrally.

However, the opening would o with a sense of he time frame. Wat I can gather from the content si that this took plce over 5 to 7 years, from about 1755 to 1762. It would be good to include that in the opening paragraph. So, for oeners that's what I put in. Cheers! Imersion (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased Article Against Acadians

This article is biased because it portraits the Acadians as the troublemakers and aggressors when in reality, it was the racist hatred of William Shirley and Charles Lawrence that caused their deportation. It is like approving Hitler's deportation and elimination of the Jews because they did not take an oath of allegiance to the Nazi party. Shirley and Lawrence coveted the Acadian farmland, and that is the main reason they were deported. The article also fails to provide all the hardships, miseries, and deaths which occurred because of this ethnic cleansing. The article is therefore NOT NEUTRAL.--Captain Thor (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the additions - why was it repeated 3 times in this one article?? anyways the "many" reasons (not just one) and proper numbers can be seen at --> Francoise Paradis (July 2004). Evangeline. Media Creations. pp. 25–28. ISBN 978-1-59526-262-2.Moxy (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It was two times and not three times, and I removed one; but you cannot change historical facts written by well known historians and remove the other one.--Captain Thor (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We need this written much more neutrally and with better grammar and pls stop referring to Jews in comparison for ethnic cleansing.Moxy (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Have removed the copy and past of the old lead - please read over lead no need to say things 2 times.Moxy (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Genocide

Rwanda was attempted genocide, and no one claiming that 1755 was anywhere near the level of *savagery* of that event. However, there has been numerous "lesser" events of ethnic cleansing in history. The British were a bit more "gentle" in their efforts, but it was clearly ethnic cleansing - they just didn't go about it by killing, although a substantial number of Acadians died as a result of this. I would say that all those "forced migrations" were ethnic cleansing. Observer31 00:36, 24 August 2011

Gentle my foot. They deported 12,000 people on half the boats necessary to deport them. It meant standing room only, and the women and children were separated from the men. Half died aboard those ships. I consider that pretty harsh, cruel, and brutal.--Captain Thor (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The deportation of the Acadians was done in 1755. The two nations involved declared war only in 1756. Lawrence had to deport them without too much bloodshed or France, with a population 3 times that of Great Britain, would have delivered harsh reprisals on the British.--Mont-Joli (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Did the Expulsion happen during war time?

Yes. The French and Indian War – the name of the North American theatre of the Seven Years war – began a year prior to the Expulsion (1754). Within Nova Scotia, war had been continuous from 1744 through 1763 (see King Georges War and Father Le Loutre’s War). The Expulsion was an integral part of the New England military campaign against New France. The Seven Years War was not declared in Europe until 1756, which may be the cause for confusion.--Hantsheroes (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Brianlloydefrench - Your point is well taken that the naming of wars is generally a problem. At the same time, the term "Anglo French Rivalry of 1749-63" is rarely used by anyone and there is no wiki article to support it. I would like the Seven Years War page to identify that that war started in 1754 in North America but it does not, therefore, I settle for writing French and Indian War (North American theatre of the Seven Years War). The French and Indian War article is currently the only wiki article that situates the expulsion in historic context. Perhaps this discussion about naming could be added to a footnote the first time the term is used in the document. --Hantsheroes (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What is a neutral account of the Expulsion?

The literature on the Expulsion prior to the 1990s can be divided into two categories: the authors who are pro-Acadian or the authors who are pro-British. Both positions are unhelpful in establishing a neutral account of the Expulsion. The literature that supports the Acadians is often nationalistic and defines the Acadians as a monolithic group, who were powerless, hapless victims. At the same time, these accounts demonize particular British individuals like Charles Lawrence, Charles Morris, etc. (e.g. Arsenault).

In contrast, much of the older literature has a British imperialist sensibility which ignores the trauma inflicted on the Acadians and blames them (or Le Loutre) for their fate, while exonerating the British (e.g., Parkman). These historical works are still helpful for the facts they bring forward but are less helpful when trying to establish a contemporary neutral account of the Expulsion.

The scholarship on the Acadians has improved dramatically starting with Buckner and Reid’s “The Atlantic Region to Confederation: A History” (1994). Since that time numerous academics have published with university publishers some solid historical accounts of this time period. With an increase in scholarship has also come the most balanced and neutral perspectives written on the Expulsion. Some of these historians include Patterson (1994), Plank (2001), Griffith (2005), Grenier (2008) as well as John Reid et al (2004). (Regretfully, while clearly the best writer of the lot, Faragher (2005) continues in the tradition of adopting a pro-Acadian position and demonizing individual British military figures.) These contemporary historians situate both the Acadian experience and the New England experience within the context of their times.

In terms of the Acadians, these historians articulate the difficult position that many of the Acadians found themselves in trying to navigate through the larger conflict between empires. These historians also detail the trauma that many of the Acadians experienced during the Expulsion. These historians, however, do not suggest that the Acadians were a monolithic group. They emphasize that there was evidence to support Lawrence’s conclusions that some Acadians were engaged in military action against the British, while other Acadians continued illegal trade in support of Louisbourg – not Halifax. (Some historians also identify, in retrospect, that Lawrence probably was wrong in how much of a threat both of these factors actually were to the New England take over of New France.) While the Acadians would have had a low opinion of Charles Lawrence and Charles Morris, this is not a lens from which a neutral account of these men can be made.

In terms of the New Englanders and British, these historians also situate their decisions within the context of the times. The Acadian Expulsion was part of the military campaign that the New Englanders used to defeat New France. According to these contemporary scholars, Lawrence’s decision to deport the Acadians was primarily military – to stop the military hostility of the Acadians and their native allies. The deportation was also a way of stopping the illegal acadian trade which was supporting Louisbourg. The expulsions continued after the fall of Louisbourg to ensure the French did not regain a foothold in the region. Again, only in retrospect can we see that Lawrence’s assessment was probably wrong and the Expulsion an over-reaction to the situation he faced. Finally, these scholars recognize that "the British" were not a homogenous group - there were relevant distinctions between the practices of British regulars and the New England Rangers (See Grenier).

Unfortunately, by being unaware of the evidence Lawrence had to support the decision to deport the Acadians, people strip the Expulsion of its historical context and simply demonize Governor Charles Lawrence, Monckton, Jonathan Belcher or Charles Morris as “mad men” (“tyrants”, “Nazis”). When seen in their historical context, these men were military men with a clear objective that they achieved. The historical evidence suggests that many of the men involved with the Expulsion were subsequently promoted by the British Empire. There are many examples of successful military actions, that were, at the same time, disastrous and tragic for civilians. Both these lens need to be represented in a neutral account of the Expulsion.

The Queen’s declaration was successful in acknowledging the trauma of the Expulsion, which she desires to heal, while at the same time not condemning the British military figures of this time period that were working on the Empire’s behalf.--Hantsheroes (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"What is a neutral account of the Expulsion?" On Wikipedia, a neutral article is one that carefully describes all sides of the story with sourced POVs, but without endorsing any of them. A partisan of either POV should be able to read the article without feeling that the other POV is discernible in the writing.Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Williamsburg, Virginia?

The Pennsylvania and Virginia section mentions Williamsburg. I'd like a reference to research this further.

Has Historical Williamsburg done commemoration of this? Knowing how people were treated in this one place would be interesting. Were they imprisoned, etc? --Accordion Noir (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Accordion Noir, je suis en train de trouver des sources pour cette information. Merci. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre sentence?

“Even before removal the English were incredibly hostile to Catholics in Nova Scotia.”

What on earth does this odd statement mean? Does it mean that some people of English ancestry and not of Catholic religion were opposed to some people of Catholic religion? Does it mean that the British authorities, who were not necessarily English but could as well be Welsh, Scottish or Irish, were opposed to Catholics? If the latter, it was government policy which it was their duty to implement.

And what is the difference between being hostile and being “incredibly hostile”? For someone to be “incredibly hostile”, their hostility is beyond belief. Beyond whose belief: everybody’s, or just the writer’s?

Stupid remarks like this do no credit to Wikipedia and, worse than that, in their ignorance distort history. When applied to matters of race or religion, we know where such distortion leads. --Clifford Mill (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What about Quebec?

Can this article please be clearer about any Expulsion from Quebec or why there was NOT an Explusion from Quebec? The Quebec Act was not until much later.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:C800:56A6:1C6B:126D (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson