Talk:Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association

northern ireland conflicts

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).

Civil rights movement section on NI a vandalised mess

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)

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. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Civil war"?

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. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 23:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a document here that is worth reading on the NICRA [1].--padraig3uk 00:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Scotland Yard

The Scotland Yard quote should be included. Readers need to know this Association's link with terrorist groups in Northern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.68.67 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see users are still deleting this information. Why are you so against including Scotland Yard's assessment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.89.34 (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the quote properly, NICRA had no links. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As an organisation yes, but individual members were terrorists as Scotland Yard says. That is the text added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.64.195 (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the text you added misquoted the source you incorrectly placed in the text. What the quote from Scotland Yard said was that "individual members" of the IRA were encouraged to join the NICRA---not that members of the NICRA were encouraged to join the IRA. The full quote clearly exonerates the NICRA of involvement in terrorism. Try reading your source before you add misleading information. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote makes it clear that terrorists were part of this Association. Many people actually blame the Association for Bloody Sunday by allowing terrorists into their midst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.197.167 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then by that rational i'll have to spend all day running around all the articals concerning the RUC, PSNI, Orange Order, Aprentace Boys etc. etc. and note the terrorist within their midst's. For that matter, there were some plumbers and electricians who had dual membership as well!?!?!? This could take a while....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.55.226 (talk • contribs)

IRA involvement in NICRA is significant enough to the history of the organization in that it was one of the reasons why it was met with such hostility by Protestant/Unionists - that and pure sectarianism. Frankly, there was significant enough IRA involvement in NICRA to warrant a section on it in this article.

The University of Ulster research archive has research by Bob Purdie detailing as much: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/purdie.htm, who also mentions how the Cameron Report (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/cameron.htm) found significant republican involvement. Purdie's own writing contains bits like:

"Another document, Ireland Today, published by the Republican Education Department in 1969 when the civil rights movement was already an established fact, gives further evidence on republican strategy:

The achievement of democracy and civil rights will make the way open for linking of the economic demands to the national question. Those who see the former as an end in itself . . . insofar as they comprise the present leadership of the NICRA . . . may be expected to lose interest as rights are gained. They must then be replaced by more consistent people."

The Cameron report contains passages such as:

The movement also attracted the attention and support of certain left-wing extremists, some of whom by infiltration gained positions of influence within the movement, and their readiness to provoke and profit by violence was crucial at various stages in the disturbances, although their activities and influence were condemned and opposed by many of the movement's leaders and supporters.

Likewise Martin Dillon discusses IRA involvement in NICRA in the very first chapter of "The Dirty War". These are only things I've read recently and can still remmeber to find and reference, but there are other sources too.

The reason why the Protestant/Unionist community were so opposed to NICRA was partly the obvious sectarianism, since NICRA pretty much emanated from the Catholic community, but also because, with varying levels of justification, they regarded NICRA as an IRA front group, as a Republican wedge strategy or Trojan Horse. For reasons unknown, but I'm willing to bet a combination of ignorance and political prejudice, there is not a single mention of this dimension to NICRA in the entirety of the NICRA article.

However, Republicans reading this can wind their blood pressure down, because I'm not going to try to edit this article. Clicking on the talkpage tab on wikipedia has given me insight into how this place actually works - I had no idea the amount of BS that happens behind the scenes on wikipedia. IRA invovlement in NICRA is a touchy enough subject to prompt a BS explosion and I can't be bothered debating the case for inclusion or the form inclusion of this information should take.

If anybody wants to there's plenty of decent enough sources for it. But really, I think wikipedia should restrict editing of ethnic confict articles to academics or recognized authorities or somehow revise its approach to these things.

Anyway, bye.Cranec (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"there is not a single mention of this dimension to NICRA in the entirety of the NICRA article. " My mistake, there's one sentence. Cranec (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

public housing

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)

Bias

Recent edits to this article appear to have created some bias:

1. 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.
2. No reference to the impact of the civil rights abuses on working-class Protestants: the impression given is that only Roman Catholics suffered.
3. Untrue claim that the British government "chose to ban civil rights marches".
4. Section on Burntollet, which had nothing to do with NICRA, but was an attack on a People's Democracy event.
5. Simplistic assessment of the breakdown of law and order and emergence of Provisional IRA.
6. 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)

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)

Like I have said here, stop crying, making claims, accusations and start to provide sources. When you get some references, we may have something to talk about but untill then stop using talkpages as a soap box to air your opinions. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Domer - the reference quoted makes no mention of the British government being involved so why revert the removal of the British government part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.137.11 (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

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)

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)

Yeah what edit war? BigDunc 19:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'm really looking forward to Diff's being provided. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to do so, may review the contribs of O Fenian (talk · contribs) and Mooretwin (talk · contribs) 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)

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)

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)

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)

Book references

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)

Understatement of Irish Republican nature of NICRA

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)

That is not a reliable source. O Fenian (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

New edits

All the edits I made recently were sourced, apart from one sentence, "This march marked the beginning of a shift in the purpose of NICRA, from that of civil rights towards a militant revolutionary organisation with a united Ireland as its goal.", which is pretty obvious and in part led to the demise of the organisation.

Some of the edits I made have been removed. Possibly most of them, actually. I would like to explain here why I'm adding them back, as the edit comment isn't large enough.

Firstly, in the first paragraph, the information about discrimination: how many times do we need to suggest that there was discrimination against Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland? Of course, the article doesn't balance out by mentioning the discrimination against non-Roman Catholics. In my original statement in this paragraph, the problem regarding Roman Catholics had been inferred by saying, "At first, the organisation hadn't been solely concerned with the plight of Roman Catholics specifically". I shall reword this in the hopes of finding a compromise with the editor who removed it.

I would like to add back the subsection heading on Militancy, because it is specifically mentioned in Bardon's book (the index, for example, states "NICRA: militants gain control"), and was clearly an issue mentioned by others throughout the years. I had balanced the text by including the attitudes of moderates within the organisation. Betty Sinclair may have been a member of the Communist Party, but that didn't make her a non-moderate. The organisation she later co-founded, the Peace People, was also regarded as pretty moderate.

The statement "This wasn't without justification" leads on from the previous sentence. When that text is removed, the next sentence doesn't appear to relate to the first one particularly well. The inference that criticism of NICRA wasn't without justification is specifically sourced by Bardon.

The fact that moderates, including John Hume, were reluctant that the march should go ahead, or reluctant to take part in it, is sourced in Bardon, but was removed. The following sentence about the attitude of some attached militants was sourced in Bardon's book by a man (McCann) who was present at the march. This was also removed for reasons unknown.

The statement that Sinclair made about moderation and peaceful protest was removed (because she was previous a member of the Communist Party?), and the sentiment of politician Eddie McAteer following that was removed for no known reason.

Finally, unrelated to the edits I made, I have a problem with the assertion that the Northern Irish government was "wholly Protestant". This suggests that there were never any Roman Catholics in government, which is untrue. There were a number of people attached to the government throughout the years who had been Roman Catholic. It also simplifies the issue as being Protestant versus Roman Catholic, when the issue was a constitutional one: Unionism versus Nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.187.26 (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence which you concede was unsourced was also entirely incorrect, which is why you won't find a reliable source for it. NICRA was never a "revolutionary organisation" and never campaigned for reunification of Ireland.

The lede paragraph looked distinctly odd with your sentence stating a view about what NICRA was not, before there is any reference to what it actually was. I've therefore undone your edit, but retained the essence of what you said.

Re the first sentence of your "Militancy" section, you describe NICRA as a socialist organisation. It had plenty of socialists in it, but never defined itself as a socialist organisation. If you find a reliable source that shows it did, feel free to reinstate. I am a bit dubious about the suggestion that the IRA infiltrated the NILP; one or two moved from A to B in the mid-1960s, but not necessarily on behalf of A; but I haven't got Bardon's book to hand so leaving that in for now.

Your para beginning with the attitude of Hume to "the October 5th march" is out of place since it appears before any explanation of what the march was or even in what year. Your reference to McCann is misplaced because he was in People's Democracy rather than NICRA. Both sentences deleted but you might find an appropriate place to work relevant information in later in the article.

Betty Sinclair, I can assure you, would be mortified to be called a moderate (a fairly meaningless term anyway). Eddie McAteer was virtually irrelevant to the story of NICRA and mentioning him here gives him undue weight. Removed both references but if you can work them in sensibly in relation to the October march, do so.

Kept your para re Cameron report; however Scarman report doesn't relate to the theme of your section, "Militancy", as it's about a specific tactic in August 1969 rather than the politics of NICRA or its members. I worked it in below. As "militancy" is a bit of a point-of-view word (some might say the B Specials were pretty militant), I thought it better to rename your section with the neutral "Allegations against NICRA". Brocach (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem with sentence

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)

It is sourced to Tonge, Jonathan (2006). Northern Ireland. Polity. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-0-7456-3141-7, Minahan, James B. (2000). One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups. Greenwood Press. p. 335. ISBN 978-0-313-30984-7 and Lydon, James (1998). The Making of Ireland: A History. Routledge. pp. 393–394. ISBN 978-0-415-01347-5. Are you saying that these sources are not reputable? Mo ainm~Talk 07:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

To be honest there was discrimination as we all know, however to what extent is questioned. A look at here and here does spell out a damning verdict of anti-Catholic rhetoric from government ministers urging to discriminate in terms of hiring Protestants first, even though some hired Catholics as the second source points out. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

In fact the first source gives a great quote which shows that discrimination couldn't be enshrined:

"Northern Ireland is the one part of the United Kingdom which has a written constitution - the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. This Act specifically prohibits the Northern Ireland Parliament from making any laws which endow one religion or discriminate against another. Any such Act could be challenged in the courts and ruled to be inoperative. A similar prohibition applies to executive acts.

In effect, the Government is not entitled to do what Parliament is not authorised to permit it to do. If there were such illegal actions by the Government, any person has the right and the opportunity to challenge them before the Courts."

Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). (1968) Northern Ireland Fact and Falsehood: A frank look at the present and the past, (n.d.,1968?). Belfast: Ulster Unionist Party (UUP).

The last in the article backs SoS's statements:

"The unionist government must bear its share of responsibility. It put through the original gerrymander which underpinned so many of the subsequent malpractices, and then, despite repeated protests, did nothing to stop those malpractices continuing. The most serious charge against the Northern Ireland government is not that it was directly responsible for widespread discrimination, but that it allowed discrimination on such a scale over a substantial segment of Northern Ireland." Whyte, John. (1983) 'How Much Discrimination was there Under the Unionist Regime, 1921-1968?', in, Gallagher, T., and J. O'Connell (eds.) Contemporary Irish Studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

So my proposed change I think is wholly merited and right. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Requires a lot of sources lol. I think what is presently there in the first sentence suffices as it lets us know there were varying degrees of it. Further detailing of the discrimination being campaigned against can be detailed in the section, which it does when the articl lists its aims. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

No problem good edit Mabuska. Mo ainm~Talk 16:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Electoral Representation - Inconsistency

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)

@GobLofa edits re NICRA

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)

What's my bias? The lede currently violates POV and UNDUE. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Dungannon March

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)

Balance in word choices

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)

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)

Thanks for the comment. You go a little farther than I might suggest, personally. I do think that many people (many in England, Germany and the USA) are perhaps slightly naive, or perhaps too quick to adopt the republican narrative because they are ignorant. I use the word ignorant not as a mere sleight, but as genuine and real-life observation. I am not apportioning any malice when I use that word.

I certainly hope you are wrong with regard to any kind of conspiracy with regard to Wikipedia, though it does seem as if certain themes which are more pro-nationalist prevail: have you noticed, for example, the absence of the flag icon for Northern Ireland in any articles that are not about football (soccer)? Or that categories about Northern Irish people, places and things do not use the common format of -ish and -an? For example, it is Scottish actors, German actors, English actors, American actors, but with regard to Northern Ireland for some reason it is the more cumbersome actors from Northern Ireland. I have absolutely no idea why Northern Irish people and things are singled out in this way.

I hope you are wrong about a conspiracy because, if there is one, the systemic bias would fall heavily against the few hundred thousand non-nationalist Northern Irish people who grew up with different (actual) experiences and viewpoints. That horrifies me because there would simply be no way of presenting more balanced articles given the sheer mathematics involved. I'm thinking of all those people in places like Boston and the north-east in general, people from various majorly Roman Catholic countries who might tend to be more sympathetic because of the religious element, various Americans who may hold on to the illustrious past when the Colonies beat the Evil Brits, etc etc.

As I've already suggested, the dearth of information about the Troubles written from various grades of nationalism through republicanism far outweighs the amount of literature produced from any other viewpoint. One only needs to take a look at the movies produced by Hollywood and in the UK. Even Jackie Chan got involved recently! Have you seen that one? It's not a bad movie, to be fair. I can't help but wonder though, what on Earth went through the minds of the writers that they chose to rename the IRA as the "UDI". No pro-republican organisation, from what I recall, uses the first letter 'U', and only one or two minor players have even referenced Ulster. It's the loyalist organisations that use the. I couldn't help thinking that this was, somehow, malicious mis-direction.

Anyway, I digress. The point is that there are so many movies about either the IRA, or about repressed and downtrodden Roman Catholics. When was the last Hollywood movie you heard about that was specifically about the UVF or UDA, or that had the interests of moderate (or even militant) unionism shown in a favourable or sympathetic light? Or a Northern Irish Protestant hero or anti-hero?

Loyalism and unionism simply aren't Hollywood-sexy. I think that's primarily because it's felt that the complexity of the political situation would be too hard for audiences to grasp, versus the rather simplistic message of "Ireland = Irish = Ireland" nationalism that is much more easy to digest.

It is also a hard task because, on top of the many regions of the world who may have historical reasons for having more sympathy for nationalism, there is also the fact that the political left have been trained to view the unionist side as representative of fascism. It doesn't help, of course, when so many Unionist politicians do sway heavily over to the right wing.

I have digressed again, somewhat, though I believe discussing this in as much detail does provide context for my request for comments. I should point out that, with regard to this article specifically, I think we should endeavour to make it clear that the ideas of discrimination come from a specific political POV. It is clear that, no matter the extent of actual discrimination, Roman Catholics did feel repressed during the height of the Troubles. It is not my intention to ignore that or belittle it.

But evidence of anything other than a few isolated examples, of institutionalised discrimination is few and far between. I believe it is hard to prove either side, to be honest, as record-keeping and statistics were so lacking back before the Troubles began.

I think there is a solid argument for rewording the article so that it makes clear that claims had been made by NICRA and other interested parties that were either untrue, ambiguous or exaggerated.

The article does make attempts, I have noticed, to point this out. However, reading the article objectively, any average person who is ignorant of the Troubles would probably come to a swift and erroneous conclusion or image of the situation as it was at the time.

It's funny that the lede appears to make bold assertions about discrimination in housing, elections and employment and yet only "alleges" improper use of the Special Powers Act. I consider the opposite to be true: it was alleged but not proven that there was discrimination in some or all of the areas, but that abuse of the Special Powers Act most likely took place.

Again, it also depends on your definitions of things like "discrimination" and "abuse" etc.

As for the suggestions I have made regarding the other problems, that I see, that Wikipedia has, I'm sure this is probably not the right place to discuss them. I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know where that place is, but I felt I should start somewhere.

Thanks for your input, QS. Please add more and advise me, if you can, as to where I should discuss the wider problems Wikipedia has. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Post Script: I see from reading above that it might take some work to balance this article, and that we would need to get very specific about changes to each sentence if progress is to be made. Fair enough: Rome wasn't built in a day.

I hope to come up with some alternative wording soon, which can be discussed here. I don't have faith in the Bold -- Revert -- Discuss cycle tbh, as it doesn't seem to work and has apparently got me into some hot water in the past! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.79.101 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

First edit proposal.

Note that these proposals should, if no objection is made, be applied to other articles as relevant. Discussion about the changes to other articles should be directed here, I think, so as to keep everything in one place. (Or perhaps in another location if it gets a little too much for this specific article?)

In place of:

• Policing. Of the institutions of state, the police in particular were perceived by Catholics and nationalists as being in support of the Protestant and Unionist majority. Representation of Catholics in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, formed in 1922, never exceeded 20% and by the 1960s had sunk to 12%. The reserve police force (the Ulster Special Constabulary) was comprised on its formation largely of the paramilitary Ulster Volunteers and led by the Ulster Volunteers' former commander, Wilfrid Spender and remained almost exclusively Protestant until its disbandment.

I propose that some context should be given:

• Policing. Of the institutions of state, the police in particular were perceived by Catholics and nationalists as being in support of the Protestant and Unionist majority. Initially, when forming the police force in 1922, the government of Northern Ireland decreed that it hold open around a third of the allocated workforce specifically for Roman Catholics, which roughly reflected the population statistics at the time. Many Roman Catholics were either intimidated by the IRA to not join, or didn't want to join the force for political reasons. Eventually the vacant positions were filled by applicants regardless of their religion, when a disappointing number of Catholic applicants came forth. Therefore, representation of Catholics in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, never exceeded 20% and by the 1960s had sunk to 12%. The reserve police force (the Ulster Special Constabulary) was comprised on its formation largely of the paramilitary Ulster Volunteers and led by the Ulster Volunteers' former commander, Wilfrid Spender and remained almost exclusively Protestant until its disbandment.

I believe the added info helps balance out the perception by showing that the government had attempted to be fair and follow the effective constitution of Northern Ireland.

Second edit proposal.

Other potential articles affected:

• Caledon, County Tyrone
• Austin Currie
• The Troubles (section on late 1960s)
• Northern Ireland Housing Executive

• Housing. Housing was inter-related with electoral representation, and therefore political power at local and Stormont levels. The general vote was confined to the occupier of a house and his wife. Occupiers' children over 21 and any servants or subtenants in a house were excluded from voting. So the allocation of a public authority house was not just the allocation of a scarce resource: it was the allocation of two votes. Therefore, whoever controlled the allocation of public authority housing effectively controlled the voting in that area.

Discussion:

I'm not sure what this paragraph is implying. It seems to be suggesting that housing allocation was controlled by electoral votes. It wasn't. I think whoever came up with this paragraph was trying to say that the election of politicians had an influence on the way in which housing allocation was determined: more Unionist politicians = more Unionists to pick and choose who was housed and where.

However, how much influence this had is certainly up for debate. Certainly the more recent Housing Executive was staffed by civil servants, rather than by politicians. Of course, the previous system had allocation decided by combination of local councils (people who worked for elected politicians) and the Northern Ireland Housing Trust. The Cameron Report suggested that no conspiracy of discrimination had taken place in housing allocation and that, where some imbalance was perceived it seemed to be more in favour of Roman Catholics in those councils which had a majority of Nationalist politicians elected.

The situation at the time was complex, and made all the more so by the fact that Roman Catholics tended to have larger families (this also may have had quite an impact on employment). On top of that, few-to-no statistics were kept with regard specifically to housing allocation and religion.

Another problem with housing in general, that had taken place in Northern Ireland, was that the number of new homes built there was vastly sub-par when compared to England & Wales. The condition of many homes were particularly bad: while England & Wales were afforded grants by the government to make clearances of slums, no such grants were awarded (or sought?) by the Northern Irish government.

After the war, however, the construction of prefabs and of new houses took off at a rate which was much higher than that in England & Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.

Third edit proposal.

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)

NICRA formed on 1 February 1967?

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)