Talk:Belfast Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Northern Ireland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
High This article is on a subject of High-importance for Northern Ireland-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Northern Ireland tasks:
Crest of Belfast This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of Belfast, Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.If you are a member of the project, please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

WikiProject Belfast tasks:

  An event in this article is a April 10 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Just noticed, but it references December, 2005. Future-telling? I've edited Dec. 2005 to Dec. 2004.

Contents

[edit] Requested move

Belfast Agreement -> Good Friday Agreement. I think that this agreement is far better known as the Good Friday Agreement, it is certainly the name most often used by news outlets here in the UK. Links to the two are roughly equal, although a brief sample suggests that a fair few of the links to the former are actually rendered as the latter in the relevent articles. This might be a contentious move so I have listed it here. Rje 01:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. I've never heard it called anything other than the "Good Friday Agreement" by media in the United States, so it's the most commonly known name here. Jonathunder 15:47, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  • Support. I've never heard it called the Belfast agreement. BesigedB (talk) 16:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Its name is unambiguously the Belfast Agreement. FearÉIREANN 00:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) [See evidence below]]
  • Oppose. There is a working REDIRECT at Good Friday Agreement for anyone who uses the nickname. An encyclopaedia must use the formal, legal, title - but it must also facilitate common misnomers, possibly gently pointing out the error of ways. I think it also important to emphasise through the name that the agreement was reached by Northern Ireland's political representatives, in Northern Ireland. --Red King 13:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I'm by no means an expert--just an American who hears what reporters call it--and I never knew it was official (or otherwise) the "Belfast Agreement." I would never have thought to call it anything besides the "Good Friday Agreement" (or even the "Good Friday Accord"). I say that this is a "weak" support because I'm nearly (but not quite) pursuaded by the discussion below. Remes 03:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. FearÉIREANN arguments on POV persuaded me, (the UK/Irish parliaments' usage 66%/34% and 38%/61.7% points to that) so sticking with the official name is the least POV option. Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stick with the official name, as long as there is a redirect from Good Friday Agreement people will still be able to find it. -- Lochaber 12:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The capacity of Northern Ireland to give something two names strikes again. It does not matter much which is used in the title so long as the article uses both. But the proper title is "Belfast Agreement". --Henrygb 00:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the more well-known name is the name people look for in an encyclopaedia and the one we're supposed to use. After the move the first sentence can inform the reader that the "correct" name is Belfast agreement, but I have never heard it called that and most people who're only casually acquainted the matter therefore probably haven't either. --Marlow4 07:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Does it really matter what it is/was called , the greater number of the people in Northern Ireland now wish it had not been agreed to! http://franksartor.org/orangenet

Its name is unambiguously the Belfast Agreement. That was the name it was always intended to have. Good Friday Agreement is a nickname that developed because it was signed on Good Friday. If as orginally planned it had been signed the day before it might well have been nicknamed the Holy Thursday Agreement. A similar debate took place some years ago in The Irish Times. Some readers complained that the paper, Ireland's "newspaper of record", used Belfast Agreement rather than the Good Friday Agreement. The reply was blunt. Its correct name is the Belfast Agreement, nothing else. 'Good Friday Agreement' was an "unofficial nickname".

If the official name was never used, as for example with the official names for the various Home Rule Bills and Acts, then there would be a justification for using the nickname. But as the evidence below from academic books, political websites, legal papers, George Mitchell's own papers, republican publications, unionist publications and the actual Nothern Ireland Act shows, Belfast Agreement is widely known and used and is the technically correct term. Where the correct term is widely used, it would be wrong to move the page to the more widely known but unofficial name. Instead the unofficial name should redirect to the official name. FearÉIREANN 00:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We are not debating the correct name of the agreement, we are debating what it is better known as; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). It is my contention that it is by the nickname "The Good Friday Agreement" that this treaty is far better known as, and as such it should be the name of this article. This treaty has entered the general consciousness as the Good Friday Agreement, most major news outlets use it, many politicians (including most of the signatories) use it, and most of the public use it. There are several precedents for this on Wikipedia; see, for example, Boxer Protocol, Treaty of Rome, and Harris Treaty. Rje 01:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Again, not so.
  • It is not far better known as the Good Friday Agreement. The GFA is often used, but so is Belfast Agreement. If 99% of people used the nickname, then that would be justification for using the nickname. But it is not used that way. The technically correct name is widely used in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom (in all three parliaments, the media, etc).
For example: in usage as a percent
In the British Parliament - Belfast Agreement - 66% Good Friday Agreement - 34%
In the Irish Parliament - Belfast Agreement - 38% Good Friday Agreement - 61.7%
In the Northern Ireland Assembly - Belfast Agreement 58.9% Good Friday Agreement - 41%
BBC - Belfast Agreement 50% Good Friday Agreement 50%
So clearly Belfast Agreement is the predominant term in two of the three parliaments, and even in the Dáil and Seanad it is used nearly 4 in 10 times. The BBC uses it 50:50. That hardly supports the claim that GFA is the overwhelmingly predominant name used.
I would argue that the BBC statement is wrong, it is closer to 80%/20% in favour of GFA, see [1] and [2]. However, I am willing to concede the arguement if there are strong religious/political disputes involved (see below). I remain unconvinced by your arguement that the two terms are used equally (although I have never claimed that GFA is either correct or exclusively used). Rje 15:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • According to one academic, the name used tends to reflect the community speaking about it. Roman Catholics use the name Good Friday to describe the day Christ was executed. Many Protestants don't. So it is natural that that name is used primarily by nationalists, as the agreement was signed that day. Most (but not all) nationalists use GFA, but many use Belfast Agreement (One Sinn Féin website I came across used BF.) Most unionists use BF, but some use GFA. So using either one raises POV problems. Do you use the name used by most but not all nationalists, or the one used by most but not all unionists? It is a POV minefield. The simple solution is to use the official name. And that, as the relevant legislation shows, is the Belfast Agreement (which is why the likes of the Irish Times uses it, not GFA. FearÉIREANN 00:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I concede that Google has 142,000 references to "Good Friday Agreement" and just 38,000 references to "Belfast Agreement". I am reminded of Eamon de Valera's remark when he lost the debate in Dáil Eireann on the Anglo-Irish Treaty "The majority have no right to do wrong". The Irish Civil War ensued! --Red King 13:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EVIDENCE

Three of the major academic publications on the Agreement are called

    • The Belfast Agreement: a practical legal analysis by Austen Morgan, BSc MA in Law PhD, (Belfast Press, 2000) ISBN 0953928705 (Paperback)
    • Aspects of the Belfast Agreement Ed. Richard Wilford (Oxford University Press) ISBN 0199242623
    • * Irish Legal Information Initiative publication (University College Cork)- 'The Belfast Agreement and the Future Incorporation of the European Convention of Human rights in the Republic of Ireland' by Gerard Hogan in the Bar Review
Websites

Here are some websites, republican and unionist, academic and Congressional, including the summary from notes describing Senator George Mitchell's papers, which he has donated to an archive.

The Act implementing the Agreement

The Northern Ireland Act, 1998 also calls it the Belfast Agreement, as the quote below from Chapter 47 shows.

52. - (1) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make such nominations of Ministers and junior Ministers (including where appropriate alternative nominations) as they consider necessary to ensure- (a) such cross-community participation in the North-South Ministerial Council as is required by the Belfast Agreement;

I also could have quoted from parliamentary debates in Britain & Ireland, the Irish media, the British media, the European Parliament, the US Congress, the US media, the French media, Orders-in-Council, Irish ministerial statements, etc. FearÉIREANN 00:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Would someone please cite opinion polls which suggest a slim majority of unionists voted in favour of the agreement? My scant search throws up "Irish Indpendent," "Sunday Times" and "RTE" which, naturally, all conflict. die Baumfabrik 01:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Northern Ireland Office's official copy, the title is simply "The Agreement"! martianlostinspace 10:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 15:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Frankly, I don't care what it's called, the agreement which secured some level of democracy for my country, but at any rate, it is NOT as major a step forward as the author makes it out to be. In my opinion, this has been bulldozed through by the British Government, as an act of propaganda, so they could take the credit for ending a quarter-century long civil war. NI political parties - unionist or nationalist - definitely weren't ready. For example, the crazy new recruitment system for the police means we have far from adequate enforcement of law. It was definitely not a "major step forward for the political system in northern Ireland".

I'm not being pro-British, I'm being neutral, but this is being changed to something more representative.


[edit] Neutrality

I sometimes add the word "arguably" into this article, to be neutral to a highly sensitive political topic, but sometimes people change it. It depends on your perspective - what is progress? In my opinion, the Agreement let Sinn Fein, in my opinion terrorists, into government. That is not, for me, a step forward in peace. I would appreciate if people would leave this to be neutral, with the acknowledgement that it is only an opinion. I won't change it this time, I will invite someone to click on my name here, then email me about it. It's a sensitive topic, so please respect that it was not necessarily "progress". It was Demiurge, I think, changed it. From the articles that he has edited, it would appear that he/she is clearly an Irish person. I can't contact him, but I'm inviting him to contact me, and define "progress" and "moving forward". 87.247.132.233 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • "Arguably" is one of those "weasel words". If you can find a proper source claiming that the Belfast Agreement was not a significant event (whether for good or for bad), feel free to add it to the article. Demiurge 16:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My evidence is that it was a view held by many Unionists voting at the referendum, so much so that if this world is to be a democracy, then their view is worth acknowledging. Of 10 Unionist MPs, 9 (DUP) oppose it. I think that's enough, but I need your reassurance that you will agree to the change. I'm not going to waste time putting things in if other people don't like it. martianlostinspace 21:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that the Belfast Agreement was a good thing or a bad thing; just that it was a significant thing. I haven't heard of anyone denying its significance; do you have a source on this? Demiurge 21:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was significant - it brought devolution, good or bad. But "a major step forward" - I think this implies that it is good, not significant. If you're going to say "it was significant" then I don't think anyone can argue over that, go right ahead. And evidence? I don't have academic evidence if that's what you're asking, but I think the view of a few hundred thousand is worth acknowledging, and that of the biggest party at the last election (DUP). martianlostinspace 11:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to the agreement

This should be included.

[edit] loyalist decommissioning

Today, a paragraph mentioning loyalist decomissioning (or lack thereof) was added and then removed. The paragraph in question wasn't very well written, but I think there should be some mention of the topic in this article. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bug in Wikipedia or maybe Firefox

I was previewing two small changes last night, and then Wikipedia no longer accepted any edits due to database maintenance. I shutdown my computer and then this morning switched it on again. My edits were still there in the edit box. I previewed them again, and clicked Show Changes and everything seemed to be in order so I pressed Submit. But somehow it submitted only the section and deleted all the other sections.

So my advice is not to rely on Firefox keeping your edits, if you close Firefox and reopen it, copy and paste your edits into a new edit session.

I had been planning to mention that the Agreement was also to cover loyalist decommissioning and that as far as I know, only the LVF have done any to date. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 11:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/l/Talk%7EBelfast_Agreement_c5b3.html"