Talk:St Andrews Agreement

message: For the first time in modern history an agreement has the backing of all sides in Northern Ireland which looks likely to settle the Northern Ireland question permanently. Nobody on Wikipedia has noticed. Why is this? Perhaps peace is less interesting than war.--File  Éireann 22:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a bit unfair, Wikipedia is not a news service and this article was created within hours of the talks in St. Andrews ending. -- IslaySolomon 07:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good news, even when important, is relatively boring to many. This news story, which points to permanent peace in Northern Ireland, seems no less important than the Jyland Mohammed Cartoons controversy, yet few of our Irish contributors seem interested. This is more than a news story, it represents the first time that the DUP have bought into a permanent settlement. It is worthy of much greater attention.--File  Éireann 11:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it is, and I'm observing it with a lot of interest from Austria.  —Nightstallion (?) 17:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia asleep on Northern Ireland revolution 

message: Does this sentence really deserve inclusion?
*"Ian Paisley left St Andrews quickly after attending the Press Conference in order to be with his family for his fiftieth wedding anniversary."
How sweet... but relevant?--Mais oui! 09:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I have relegated that sentence to a footnote. Scolaire 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia? 

message: I have added a brief summary of the event which took place 24 November 2006 (today), there is more information such as the speculation that Stone will be sent back to prison to serve his life sentence but this has yet to be verified. Angryafghan 20:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made this a footnote as well. Strictly speaking, it is not relevant to the agreement itself, though it probably should be dealt with in History of Northern Ireland.  Scolaire 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruption of talks at Stormont by Michael Stone 24/11

message: I have updated the article to reflect the progress of the agreement through the various deadlines.
I have left the "Reaction" section alone, but it is in need of a major re-write.  Firstly, only the first three (short) paragraphs are actually "reaction". The remainder is a newspaper-type account of a parliamentary debate.  Secondly, it is entirely one-sided — there is no reference to either of the nationalist parties, to the Irish Government or to reaction from abroad (The United States, Europe etc.).  I'm not sure the section even needs to be there.
Scolaire 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the re-write to "Reaction." Not great but I think an improvement. Feel free to edit it / remove it as you see fit. Scolaire 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit of 28 November

message: I have written a line or two in the aricle "[Irish Language]]" about the Irish Language Act discussed these days following the St Andrews Agreement but maybe there is more to be written in this article or in aticles specialised in North Ireland. Because I follow the news considering language policy, but I do not have the time to write something more myself about something I don't know enough, I am listing some links for the issue to be used by someone interested:
*a BBC news article 
*a comprehensive report from the Irish Times 
*the views of POBAL,  the umbrella organisation for the Irish language community in Belfast: 8 principles (they are circulating also a www.petitiononline.com/acht online petition supporting it). Also a lengthy Proposed Legislation - The Irish Language Act NI, published before the agreement.
*Sinn Fein's view   
*SDLP's view 
*DUP's view 
--Michkalas 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for the status of Irish in NI after St Andrews Agreement  

message: There has been great talk over this 'Plan B', is it something similar to 'Joint Sovereignty' or something like that - the article doesn't make it at all clear. 86.148.34.13 19:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither the British nor the Irish Government has made it clear what 'Plan B' is. It seems to be on the lines of Direct Rule, but with increased involvement by the Republic, rather than joint sovereignty. Scolaire 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan B?  

message: It would be nice if the article had a little bit on Terry Wogan's take on the subject. I don't know anything about it but I'm curious. Kinser 20:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon? Scolaire 20:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And where does Wogan stand? 

message: What is the reason for these agreements to be translated into the local languages? This an english language encyclopedia and the agreement is never referred to in either of the local languages. - 86.42.248.19 (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. You've listened to every conversation in Irish or Ulster Scots since 2006 and you've never heard the agreement referred to?  Scolaire (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish and Ulster Scots

message: Am I correct in understanding that this agreement is still in place? If so, shouldn't it be in present tense rather than past? Hairy Dude (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: Greetings,
The Daily Record link is now a Questia members-only link.
Kind Regards,
M.H.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PfPorlock (talk • contribs) 07:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  dodgy Daily Record link