Talk:Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association

message: there is a really nice book called across the barricades that is about this...it's fantastic. it's about a catholic boy, kevin, and a protestant girl, sadie, they fall in love but they have to fight for it....it's really nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.53.58.78 (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  northern ireland conflicts 

message: Could someone who knows the subject take a look at Civil rights movement#Civil rights movement in Northern Ireland as it is a vandalised mess. Which in a way is good because what's left if you just delete the vandalisms is a bunch of non-sequiturs. --88.97.11.54 11:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to whip this article into shape, and then information from here can be copied and pasted over to the appropriate section of the Civil rights movement article.  At this point, copying and pasting flawed content from this article into that one will only make matters worse. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Civil rights movement ]] section on NI a vandalised mess 

message: The assertion in the opening that the conflict in Northern Ireland was "akin to a civil war" reads as very POV.  Certainly, comparisons can be made, but an assertion of that sort, inserted by an editor without providing a source or a rationale, does nothing to aid understanding of the issue.  It should be supported with verifiable sources or removed. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 23:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Civil war"? 

message: Catholics being treated more favourably than Protestants with regard to public housing is laughable and contradicted by virtually every other source, and that the source being cited is incredibly dubious. Please provide some additional details to support this text, thanks --Domer48'fenian' 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  public housing  

message: Recent edits to this article appear to have created some bias:
# In the Origins section, it would appear that the harshest possible critical assessment has been cited, with no alternative opinion cited. This appears to be in contravention of WP:NPOV.
# No reference to the impact of the civil rights abuses on working-class Protestants: the impression given is that only Roman Catholics suffered.
# Untrue claim that the British government "chose to ban civil rights marches".
# Section on Burntollet, which had nothing to do with NICRA, but was an attack on a People's Democracy event.
# Simplistic assessment of the breakdown of law and order and emergence of Provisional IRA.
# No mention that most of the NICRA demands were granted by the Unionist government.
Furthermore, there is little in this article about the Association itself: its formation, members, strategy, demise. It reads more like a classic Irish-nationalist interpretation of the slide into the Troubles than an article about the NI Civil Rights Association.
Mooretwin (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you look closely at many of the so-called sources, they are nothing more than fictionalised writings by individuals with a cause to promote. These are not facts or sourced material and do no credit to Wikipedia. These false sources must be removed permanently. --87.115.167.228 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: As a reminder, when there is a dispute about the best way to handle an article, please ensure that controversial edits are explained at the talkpage.  Don't just engage in revert wars.  Thanks, --Elonka 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide diff's for this supposed edit war or are you just making it up again? --Domer48'fenian' 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah what edit war? BigDunc 19:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hiya, not referring to either of you, but a couple other editors have been showing a pattern of reverting each other on multiple Troubles-related articles. This was one of them, and since there was no related discussion on the talkpage, I chose this one to point out that drive-by reverts are not a good idea. Better is to ensure that as soon as established editors start reverting each other, it's important to discuss the conflict on the talkpage. --Elonka 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to you providing a diff for this article that could be in any way considered a revert. O Fenian (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really looking forward to Diff's being provided. --Domer48'fenian' 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone who wishes to do so, may review the contribs of  and  and see them reverting each other, and dovetailing on multiple articles.  It's still WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, even if technically they're not reverting any one article more than once a week. --Elonka 22:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You said this was one of the articles. Was it or not? Did you even look properly before making a false claim? O Fenian (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, even if technically its not WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Again another example of making a false claim. How much more of this type of BS do we need? --Domer48'fenian' 23:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I made one edit, O Fenian edited further, and then I made a completely unrelated minor edit in line with WP:MOS. Edit-warring? I should expect Elonka to retract her accusation. Mooretwin (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: The reference section lacks accurate book title information for Ruane & Todd book. It could be either of these two books: 
The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and Emancipation  (1996)
After the Good Friday Agreement: Analysing Political Change in Northern Ireland (2000)
I am inclined to think it is the former. -- maxrspct ping me  15:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Book references

message: This article strongly understates Republican involvement in the NICRA. To merely say that "The Northern Ireland government accused NICRA of being a political front for Republican and Communist ideologies" is inadequate.
There is strong evidence from those involved as to its Republican purpose.
Republicans clearly state that it was formed in the first place primarily as part of a Republican strategy to undermine the Irish political states:
"Graves was a member of the Connolly Association in Britain and editor of its newspaper, The Irish
Democrat. In the pamphlet he argued that the best way forward for the anti-partitionist movement
was through a civil rights campaign."
"In August 1966 representatives of an Irish version of the Connolly Association, namely the Wolfe Tone Society (a republican think- tank) met in Maghera, Co. Derry . The subject of the conference which included invited guests was whether a civil rights movement should be established in the six counties of British occupied Ireland (as distinct from the 26 county neo-colonial statelet)."
Republicans also state categorically that from their perspective the NICRA was not "merely seeking the democratisation of the northern state":
"Which raises the question of whether those who supported the venture were seeking the mere democratisation of the northern state. There were those who apparently inclined in that direction[,] but to state categorically[:] that was not the objective of republican participation in the civil rights movement."
The article clearly needs cleaning up in this regard.
IrishBriton (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a reliable source. O Fenian (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is bull; more than reliable. And no one using your username/signature has any credibility on anything related to this topic. Quis separabit? 16:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understatement of Irish Republican nature of NICRA 

message: This sentence is POV: "Since Northern Ireland's creation, the Roman Catholic minority community had suffered from discrimination under the unionist and wholly Protestant government."  What the editor here is claiming effectively is that there was institutionalised discrimination against Catholics.  Modern (non-republican) historians like Richard English dispute this.  I suggest a more moderate statement be used and a reputable source used.  If no alternative is provided within 24 hours then I will find a suitable quote.  We must wipe out POV. SonofSetanta (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourced to Tonge, Jonathan (2006). Northern Ireland. Polity. pp. 20–21. , Minahan, James B. (2000). One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups. Greenwood Press. p. 335.  and Lydon, James (1998). The Making of Ireland: A History. Routledge. pp. 393–394. . Are you saying that these sources are not reputable? Mo ainm~Talk 07:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying the sources are wrong.  Printed in good faith mayhap but still wrong.  There was no institutionalised discrimination against Catholics in the old Stormont administration.  It's an essential part of republican myth to say there was but it doesn't make it true.  There were Catholics in the police (including the USC), some with high rank, in the civil service and in all parts of the state infrastructure.  For this article to properly reflect history you've got to tell the truth.  You can certainly put in information about where discrimination did exist but you can't "blanket statement" against the successive governments since 1922.  The perceived discrimination was partly due to official fears about Catholic loyalty but it was also greatly enhanced by republican and nationalist politicians (on both sides of the border), the church and nationalist/republican groups of the time who saw Catholic participation as a barrier against bringing down the unionist state.  Can you not find any sources which reflect the truth?  I certainly have one or two here I can provide if you wish? SonofSetanta (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't matter what you think of the sources they are verifiable and your original research has no place here. I'm sure I can find a lot more along with these that deal with the discrimination faced on a daily basis by catholics in the north of Ireland. Mo ainm~Talk 10:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does matter what I think about the sources.  If they are wrong they cannot be used.  It's as simple as that.  That you can find more is of no consequence as there are manifold recent sources which dismiss this myth as being of republican manufacture.  For example: in  The Northern Ireland Question: Myth and Reality by Patrick J. Roche and Brian Barton (4 Mar 2013) without equivocation it is stated that: "the existence of discrimination in the six counties is an ideological imperative of Irish nationalism".  It goes on to say that "the problem with the nationalist image of Northern Ireland is that research over the past decade would suggest that it is a caricature because it is substantially devoid of evidential support".  Now I appreciate your passion on the subject matter but it is clear, as demonstrated, that the entire concept of institutionalised discrimination at the hand of the old Stormont administration is largely a fantasy created by republicans.  There are exceptions of course: gerrymandering was electoral discrimination; segregated schooling, which was the Catholic church's own idea, the business vote, which discriminated against protestants as well as Catholics and of course in local councils where I would suggest (without referring to sources) that discrimination did exist.  It was undoubtedly Stormont's failure to crack down on that sooner which led to many complaints of discrimination, but it wasn't institutionalised in the state and you have to get this right.  There's far too much POV like this on articles which is just myth and fantasy. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Let me also draw your attention to WP:TRUTH a part that you perhaps missed, regarding outdated sources?  Your contention, if we really must Wikilawyer, also doesn't meet with WP:NPOV which overrides your assertion. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

text: However the second source also clearly spells out that the discrimination varied and that there were attempts made to shed the anti-Catholic attitudes of the past just prior to the Troubles, i.e. O'Neillism. So I think a more accurate wording would be: "Since Northern Ireland's creation, the Roman Catholic minority had suffered from varying degrees of discrimination from the Protestant majority.". I'm sure Mo ainm couldn't argue that this is not accurate? The rest of the paragraph seems largely alright, but a bit slanted. Mabuska (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Making the change seeing as Mo ainm has failed to respond to the arguments set out for the change. Mabuska (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a bit of bias in the article, and added to that of several of the sources used, especially CAIN, selective things taken from them whilst ignoring many things that would balance the article. I'd say it is a hell of lot more balanced now. Mabuska (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Selective sourcing of comments is the bane of these articles.  It reads a lot better now but we obviously still need to agree a sentence for the opening of the "Origins" section so we can remove the POV tag.  I suggest, "Since Northern Ireland's creation, nationalist and republican politicians and commentators continually alleged there was institutionalised discrimination against the Roman Catholic minority.  It was an imperative of any 32 county movement that this was seen to be true - it wasn't.  Discrimination did happen in varying degrees at local level, encouraged by the policy of gerrymandering from a unionist administration frightened that a Catholic majority in any area would weaken the state."  And continue with the existing sentence "While some historians regard the ethos of the Northern state as unashamedly and unambiguously sectarian.........."  What do you think? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

text: OK if that's what you think then we'll leave it as it is.  We can always change it later if a nice sentence manifests itself.  SonofSetanta (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem good edit Mabuska. Mo ainm~Talk 16:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with sentence 

message: Origins/Electoral representation states that votes were granted in local elections only to those who owned property; however Origins/Housing states that the allocation of a public authority house represented the allocation of two votes. Clivemacd (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral Representation - Inconsistency 

message: This is unacceptable. While the biases of both Gob Lofa and myself are hardly a secret, this unexplained removal of sourced text to sanitize the NICRA page is unacceptable. I recommend discussion here before seeking WP:3O and WP:DR. Quis separabit? 19:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What's my bias? The lede currently violates POV and UNDUE. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Gob Lofa|@GobLofa]] edits re NICRA

message: I have extensively modified the section of the Dungannon march.
I have included reference to all major sources I have read.
I have attempted to be as even handed as possible, and record as accurately as possible the events of that day.
Where there is disagreement between the sources I have noted that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carefulact (talk • contribs) 02:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dungannon March 

message: I think it is undeniable that the wealth of sources, whether correct or biased or not, that suggest a heavy amount of discrimination in Northern Ireland against Roman Catholics specifically, is huge.
However, these sources often ignore the very real discrimination that went the other way, and also perhaps "play up" the amount of discrimination or the nature of discrimination that took place in Northern Ireland.
I don't think anyone would suggest that discrimination didn't exist in the country, but many authors and historians have suggested that, rather than being institutionalised, discrimination came about in a more 'natural' manner and was more about employing (for example) those people you knew (family members, fellow congregationalists, friends and locals etc) and that this happened on both 'sides'.
In particular in this article (and I think in some others, also), a bold statement is made about discrimination in housing allocation. Some authors have suggested that discrimination in housing was simply non-existent.
· With regard to voting, it is not mentioned that some Protestants had joined or supported NICRA because they also felt disenfranchised by the property-owner or business-owner vote. Also not discussed is the very real possibility that the business vote did not overly affect the end result in elections when the local and national elections are compared. Instead, the article suggests that the business vote weighed "heavily in favour of the Protestant community". This does not take account of the fact that both the publican and construction fields of business ownership were, at the time certainly, Roman Catholic-dominated.
The article points out that the elections to Westminster resulted in 11 of the 12 seats were won by the Ulster Unionist Party, though NICRA campaigned specifically for "one man, one vote" in local elections. When mentioning the Westminster elections, the article fails to also mention two salient possibilities that have been suggested by authors: that, at the time, strategic voting amongst Protestants was more advanced; and that the election results after the electoral reforms were barely any different.
The article also suggests that electoral boundaries were "carefully engineered" yet at least one author has suggested that electoral boundaries had been barely changed at all since around the 1920s, with the exception of the university wards.
In fact, as more than one author has suggested, the worst the Northern Irish government could have been accused of in that regard was not updating the electoral boundaries, with one author suggesting that if the Ulster Unionists had been hell bent on gerrymandering, they could have made effort to ensure much better election results. Again, after the electoral commission, I believe the results of elections painted a similar picture and changed only very slowly as the populations shifted over the decades.
The article doesn't mention contrasting discrimination, such as the disproportionate number of Roman Catholic council workers in Newry at the time.
· With regard to the police force, it is suggested, quite correctly, that the RUC underrepresented the Roman Catholic community. However it is perhaps not enough to suggest this as it excludes the fact that so many Roman Catholics either didn't want to join the police force, or were intimidated (directly and indirectly) by the IRA. It also excludes the intent of the government, which held open, for a time, one third of the positions within the police for specifically for Roman Catholics.
· With regard to employment, the article correctly points out the differences in the unemployment rate, but fails to entertain reasons why this was the case. Reasons, that is, that were not connected to any form of discrimination. Some authors and historians have suggested that the imbalance was mostly due to various social factors, including family size and perceived importance of education which generally contrasted between the communities.
· With regard to housing, the article makes this bold statement about unfair allocation, but does not consider the words of Austin Currie, who suggested, "if we had waited a thousand years we would not have got a better example", hence indicating that it was unusual. The source I provided goes on to inform that, while the Protestant Miss Beattie was single, she was engaged to be married to a man from the Republic of Ireland, and came from an overcrowded home. At the same time, the source points out Cameron's suggestion that "by no stretch of the imagination could Miss Beattie be regarded as a priority tenant".
But this article does not provide context. With the context included, perhaps some sympathy for Beattie would be considered by a reader. Without it, it merely sounds like the establishment doing the wrong thing based solely on inherent discrimination practices.
Continuing with housing, it is of note surely that no other instances of discrimination were found. To my knowledge, anyhow. The most that I've ever seen suggested by serious consideration is the condition of housing for some publicly-housed Roman Catholics, rather than a lack of housing. I believe there is a report on the situation of housing in 1968, which clearly presented the fact that a greater percentage of Roman Catholics lived in public housing than did Protestants.
The article suggests that the name of NICRA was rendered in "English only", as if this was some form of compromise to attract secular support. NICRA certainly attracted some secular support for a time, and had striven to do so to an extent. However, I'm not sure writing the name solely in English was a consideration, at a time before Gaelic had started to become revived in Northern Ireland (I believe the language enjoyed a revival thanks in large part to Republicans learning it in prison during the 1970s).
The article presents, in the aftermath section, the suggestion that unarmed protesters included "British MPs", as if these specific MPs were in any way different from locally elected British MPs. I appreciate a need for sensitivity surrounding nomenclature for MPs who may not want to be described as British, but legally speaking (and this includes the guidelines set up by the Good Belfast Agreement[sic]) the local politicians were British MPs. To describe MPs from the mainland as "British" sets up a POV which emphasises and even endorses a republican or separatist narrative.
I think the balance is skewed, in part due to systemic bias, on this and other articles on the subject here. I offer this as a base from which to work, as I do not have the time to rediscover sources and compile so much information about such an in-depth and comprehensive subject.
I certainly think that the lede and the rest of this article need to reflect that many of these ideas had been postulated by NICRA and by various nationalist and republican organisations, and presented here as facts, rather than as perceptions.
Hopefully someone may take the time to redress the balance in this article, and in others. I may take a stab at it and point to this discussion at least to get the ball rolling. I appreciate that words should be chosen carefully (which is why I'm writing this) and that any edit I might make could be considered "contentious". --75.177.79.101 (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  We all know only one side has a voice in the US, now the world's sole remaining superpower, and that side is better at propaganda, and apologetics, period. There has been internecine warfare over republican propagandists -- dissatisfied with the number of Irish nationalist/republican websites, blogsites, etc -- who have tried to turn Wikipedia into an organ of their own twisted An Poblacht (mouthpiece of the PIRA)/Slugger O'Toole/Tim Pat Coogan-esque one-sided venom under the ostensible aegis of redressing nationalist/republican grievances but have gone far past that to an endless stream of bilious, triumphalistic, and yes, sectarian hatemongering. I think this article has done reasonably well in pointing out the republican roots of NICRA and (valid) perceptions of it as an Irish republican Trojan Horse, but there is more work to do. There are some fair-minded authors and historians, not even Unionists per se (J. Bowyer Bell, Peter Taylor, Robert and Ruth Dudley Edwards, Eilis O'Hanlon, etc.) who have first hand information that should be explored and, as appropriate, added and reliably sourced to expand contentious articles. Quis separabit? 04:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

text: In an effort to highlight the issue of public housing being allocated preferentially to Protestants in County Tyrone, Austin Currie, at a meeting of NICRA in Maghera on 27 July 1968, proposed holding a protest march from Coalisland to Dungannon Market Square. There was opposition to the idea from some in NICRA's executive, in particular from the NICRA chair and veteran communist Betty Sinclair who felt that unionists would see the march simply as a nationalist demonstration. After extended discussion the proposal was agreed and a march organised for 24 August.
The paragraph makes the suggestion that "public housing [was] being allocated preferentially to Protestants" in County Tyrone. It makes the assumption that this was the case. I'm not sure that it was, specifically. Certainly, I would grant that the perception was such. But the article shouldn't say "highlight the issue", as if the following statement was actual fact.
Instead, we should perhaps place the word "perceived" before the word "issue" or something like that. To quote, again, the words of Austin Currie: "if we had waited a thousand years we would not have got a better example". On top of that, the young Protestant woman in question (with regard to that one, apparently isolated, unfair allocation example) had actually come from an over-crowded house herself and her brother had planned to move in with her and her soon-to-be husband. Many sources leave out the fact that the woman was engaged to be married and, instead, simply state that her status was "unmarried" or "single".
As the Cameron Report suggested though, "by no stretch of the imagination" could the young woman have been regarded as a "priority tenant" over others.
That is plenty to be getting on with for now, I guess! --75.177.79.101 (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance in word choices 

message: In place of: 
: In an effort to highlight the issue of public housing being allocated preferentially to Protestants in County Tyrone, Austin Currie, at a meeting of NICRA in Maghera on 27 July 1968, proposed holding a protest march from Coalisland to Dungannon Market Square. There was opposition to the idea from some in NICRA's executive, in particular from the NICRA chair and veteran communist Betty Sinclair who felt that unionists would see the march simply as a nationalist demonstration. After extended discussion the proposal was agreed and a march organised for 24 August.
The paragraph makes the suggestion that "public housing [was] being allocated preferentially to Protestants" in County Tyrone. It makes the assumption that this was the case. I'm not sure that it was, specifically. Certainly, I would grant that the perception was such. But the article shouldn't say "highlight the issue", as if the following statement was actual fact.
Instead, we should perhaps place the word "perceived" before the word "issue" or something like that. To quote, again, the words of Austin Currie: "if we had waited a thousand years we would not have got a better example". On top of that, the young Protestant woman in question (with regard to that one, apparently isolated, unfair allocation example) had actually come from an over-crowded house herself and her brother had planned to move in with her and her soon-to-be husband. Many sources leave out the fact that the woman was engaged to be married and, instead, simply state that her status was "unmarried" or "single".
As the Cameron Report suggested though, "by no stretch of the imagination" could the young woman have been regarded as a "priority tenant" over others.
That is plenty to be getting on with for now, I guess! --75.177.79.101 (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Third edit proposal.

message: Martin Melaugh says here - https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/crights/chron.htm -that NICRA was formed on 1 February 1967. This article says it was formed on 9 April 1967. Which is correct? 2A02:8084:6A22:4980:80A8:8C9:261A:5FD3 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: NICRA formed on 1 February 1967?