Talk:Brian Cowen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brian Cowen article.
Article policies
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality 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.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Discussion

Any chance of getting a better photo of BIFFO? CorkMan 11:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Or one that doesn't make it look as if he's been elected to office in the USA? Thecrystalcicero (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FF leader & Taoiseach - Future

Brian Cowen is due to be confirmed as FF leader on Wednesday morning, 9 April 2008, until then do not add FF leader template or category. He is the presumptive next Taoiseach, and will only become so when Ahern resigns on 6 May and the Dáil votes probably on the 7 May AND when he goes to the Áras to be officially appointed by President Mary McAleese. Until then, do not add the Taoiseach template & category or sections detailing he time as Taoiseach. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, anything could happen between now and 7 May, an asteroid could wipe out Offaly, Cowen could have a heart attack (he is an overweight middle aged man), so until then patience, please! Snappy56 (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is He Actually Leader now ?

I'm not trying to be funny in asking this question but RTE radio was describing him in opening remarks as "leader-designate" and on their in the opening paragraph on their website as "leader-designate" .This seems to suggest he is technically not leader yet and therefore articles and infoboxes shouldn't be changed now .Garda40 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As the wiki article and the source confirm, he is now leader of FF and therefore it is entirely appropriate (as of 9th April 2008) --Luke w (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tautology

There is no need for excessive repetition in references to titles of offices currently or previously held by Brian Cowen in this article. If users want further details, the hyperlink to a article regarding the position is provided. -- Condix (talk) 17.09, 07 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BCL above picture

User: Therequiembellishere has insisted on putting "BCL" (Bachelor of Civil Law) before TD above the Taoiseach's picture. Since when do we put academic qualifications at the top of politicians pictures? It is inconsistent and inappropriate. His academic qualifications can be stated elsewhere in the article. I am reverting this change. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, academic qualifications are never used before TD in Ireland. If a person is elected to the Dáil, it is "Patrick Murphy, TD". No other qualifications are used. Snappy56 (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biffo

Okay, the Mirror says it stands for "big ignorant fellow.." but everybody knows the Guardian has it right, so why mention it at all if you're not going to say what it actually stands for? And what's with the uppercase? 83.71.70.113 (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the anon IP. The Grauniad has it right, and Wikipedia is not censored. I will now reinstate the referenced expansion of the acronym as "Big Ignorant Fucker[1]/Felllow from Offaly". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I am against censorship but what about content filters that block profanity? Any school child trying to look up this article would be blocked if accessing from a school/home PC that has an active filtering program? Snappy56 (talk)
boo hoo. the petty minds of school board officials will not bind the great and free Wikipedia. Thecrystalcicero (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't thought if the school filters, but I don't think it's a problem. If this page is blocked by the filters in a school, we can pretty much guarantee that the page will become compulsory reading for every kid who hears about it ... just like a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover was de rigeur in the days when it was banned. A lot of teenagers who otherwise have never read a literary novel outside the classroom had their education broadened by the censorship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point, but what happens when little Johnny or Mary goes into school and says: "Miss, I read on the internet that the Taoiseach is a Big Ignorant Fucker From Offaly". They'll be wigs on the green! ;-) Snappy56 (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If and when little Johnny/Mary says such a thing, they'll be prosicuted under the official secrets act... Bogger (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening sentence

I propose this (something similar was reverted):

Brian Cowen (Irish: Brian Ó Comhain, born 10 January 1960) is the Taoiseach of Ireland. He took office on 7 May 2008.

It has been reverted to this:

Brian Cowen (Irish: Brian Ó Comhain, born 10 January 1960) is an Irish politician who has been the Taoiseach of Ireland since 7 May 2008.

There is an insistence that the opening sentence must state that Brian Cowen is "an Irish politician". I do not understand what that adds and think it is inappropriate. The very same sentence recalls that he is Taoiseach of Ireland so it does not need to be said that he is an Irish politician! Some one suggested many would not know what a Taoiseach was. Yes, but adding the words "Irish politician" does not make that any clearer. I think the "Irish politician" tag is inappropriate. Notably, it also seems inconsistent: The George W. Bush or Gordon Brown articles for example do not cite that they are American or British politicians in the opening sentence. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"politician" is his career, "Taoiseach" is his current job. I'm surprised that the GB and GWB articles don't use the same formulation, because the "Sean Citizen is a [insert occupation here]" is a very widely used formulation which allows for a simple structure for the opening sentence, which summarises a career by using increasing specificity; first describe the person's career path, then the most notable point(s) in it.
For example "W. B. Yeats was an Irish poet and dramatist, and one of the foremost figures of 20th-century literature".
WP:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph recommends this usage, "4. What the person did; 5. Why the person is significant". That what this article currently achieves: what Cowen does is politics; he is significant because he is Taoiseach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 11th or 12th Taoiseach?

THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MOVED TO Talk:Taoiseach

The opening sentence now says: "Brian Cowen (Irish: Brian Ó Comhain, born 10 January 1960) is the 12th Taoiseach of Ireland."

I think that is a suitable opening sentence but it raises an issue. Is BC the 11th or 12th Taoiseach? The answer depends on whether one counts WT Cosgrave. Cosgrave never held the title of Taoiseach - He was President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State. The WP Taoiseach article says it is "convention" to also include Cosgrave but no source is given for that and I haven't found one. In the list of former Taoisigh on the Government website, a prominent note indicates the old "President" title. See: [2]. I think BC should be listed as the 11th Taoiseach as this is accurate. Does any one have any considered views? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether either number is accurate depends on whether one views the 1937 change from President of the Executive Council to Taoiseach as a relabelling or as a new office. Personally, I think that it is a bit of both and that the use of either number raises irresolveable POV issues and is likely to be contentious; there have already been edit wars about these numbers, and there seems to be little chances of a stable consensus on them. It would be much better to simply remove these order numbers from the infoboxes of all Taoisigh. If a reader wants to see the numbers, they can go to the Taoiseach article and see a full explanation of the issues around the numbers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Two reputable newspapers , The Irish Times and The Sunday Tribune ,list him in headlines as the 12th Taoiseach even though it is not technically accruate . If we insist on putting 11th in the article we will get a tehnically correct article but one that the real world and even the Irish Times doesn't agree with .For that reason I think it is best to therefore remove the number from the article as well .Garda40 (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Good to hear these views. Lets give it a few days and see if there are other opinions. I will go with the consensus. I would add that from just googling, I found reputable newspapers that used 11th and used 12th.... It wasn't really just a technical labelling change though....The Taoiseach has considerably more powers than Cosgrave did....Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any number, it seems a bit American, see George W. Bush, 43rd and current President whereas Gordon Brown is the PM of the UK (no numbering). The change from President of the Executive Council (PEC) to Taoiseach was mostly a title change, no real no powers were added, though one significant change was the ability of a Taoiseach to sack a minister, where a PEC could not, the entire Executive Council had to resign en masse. I think that is correct to say Cowen is the 12th Taoiseach, I know he is the eleventh person to hold that office but he is the 12th head of government of Ireland and so from a historically point of view this is accurate.
A somewhat analogous situation is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom which lists the British PMs from Robert Walpole (1721) to Gordon Brown (2008). However, if you ask the question, who was the first Prime Minister of the UK, the technically correct answer is Henry Campbell-Bannerman who took office in 1906. This is because the title of Prime Minister only entered into official use in his term and previous Heads of the British government held the office of First Lord of the Treasury. So Walpole never held the title of PM or was known by that title, yet today he is considered the first PM and is referred to as such, by virtue of the fact that he was head of government. Although the title and the powers of the office changed over the centuries, all British heads of government before 1906 are referred as Prime Ministers not First Lords of the Treasury (or by any other title that they held).
Rather than deciding on our own policy in Wikpedia, I think we should follow the official convention. From the Department of the Taoiseach website - Former Taoisigh, this is a list of all former Taosigh and it start with William T. Cosgrave. There is also a note at the top of the page which reads: "During the existence of the Irish Free State (6th December 1922 - 29th December 1937) the Head of Government was known as the President of the Executive.". The list is not numbered. So if the Government of Ireland officially lists W.T. Cosgrave as a former Taoisigh (with note explaining title change), then I feel this is the best approach to follow. The opening sentence of this article should read 'Brian Cowen is the current Taoiseach of Ireland', but if a number is to be used than it should be 12 with a footnote explaining why. Snappy56 (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Snappy, for that very helpful research. It seems to me that if the Taoiseach's office doesn't use numbering, then that is a reasonable principle for wikipedia to follow in articles on individual Taoisigh ... but that the issue should be explained in the Taoiseach article.
However, since there are 12 articles on individual Taoisigh, we should aim for consistency, and to achieve that we really ought to have this discussion at Talk:Taoiseach, in order to centralise discussion. Would it be acceptable to others to move this discussion to Talk:Taoiseach? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the emerging consensus is to fudge the point and not give a number, 11th or 12th. At least that would not be inaccurate so I am happier to go with that than with "12th Taoiseach" which would not be accurate. In reply to User:Snappy56:

  • I already pointed to the Taoiseach's website (linked in my post). The Taoiseach's website list doesn't help because it gives that prominent note at the very beginning of the list and doesn't number the Taoisigh either.
  • I don't agree that being able to sack ministers is just a technical change! A very important change I would say.
  • I don't think the UK provides a useful analogy. It is a much older state which has never had a written constitution so the titles of its leaders were often not clearly established. In contrast, the two Irish states (the IFS and Ireland) have had a short history and both have had crystal clear written constitutions - at least on this point. The USA with its written constitution provides a much better analogy. In the USA they number their leaders. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MOVED TO Talk:Taoiseach (as suggested by User:BrownHairedGirl. If you wish to contribute, please do so there - not here - Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1 January or 10 January ?

[3] says that he born 1 January 1960... So is 10 January 1960 a mistake? --89.48.17.121 (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Irish Times says 10 January. In my experience, the oireachtas often puts 1 January (01/01) when they do not know that exact date and month of birth. Either that or a very high proportion of former TDs were New Year babies! Snappy56 (talk)
I agree with Snappy. The Oireachtas database is generally pretty reliable (though they have changed about 5 entries after my research alone; they are quite open that the database is a work-in-progress), but I agree that they do tend to use 1 January as a d.o.b. when they really mean "exact date unknown". Snappy, do you want to email the Oireachtas webmaster asking them to check this? (I'd be happy to do it, but since you uncovered the glitch, I don't want to appear to be trying to take credit for your research). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you can do it, I don't mind. Snappy56 (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish name: Brian Ó Comhain

User:Snappy56 deleted the Irish translation of Brian Cowen's name. User: Snappy56 has stated that this is in accordance with this guide: WP:IMOS. I think this is an innaccurate interpretation of the guide and in any event is not appropriate. Such a change requires consensus. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not controversial, it is in keeping with WP:IMOS, consensus was already reached on this issue, it was before you were active on Wikipedia so removal of the Irish name stays. Since you are re-opening an old debate, its up to you to prove why the English language wikipedia needs an Irish translation of Cowen's name which he is not known by or does not use.
Here is the link to the debate, again consensus has already being achieved on this issue. Snappy56 (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of this topic moved to Talk: Taoiseach. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acronym GRUFFALO and accusations of bad faith editing

An anon. editor correctly cited a source in "Irish Independent" augmenting BIFFO to another acronym GRUFFALO. A reference to Cowan using the f***ers word in the Dail and his subsequent apology, both cited was removed by editor Garda40 , refering to FG (Fine Gael), who were not mentioned, citing POV? and saying that the references are not NPOV.
"(Reverting very POV editing by single isue IP editor on BLP grounds .Irrelevant what FG accuse him of in this article mention comment but mention must be made for NPOV he said it was nothing to do)"" Garda40 is not reading what was written and is incorrect to accuse another editor of being in breach of guidelines on neutrality. The remarks were notable, made in the Dail, and correctly cited.


I also note that Cowan's admission of trying drugs as referenced in "Hot Press" correctly cited article was also removed.

Editing by Garda40 appears to be selective and one sided.

Reversion is warranted. 02:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)