Talk:Brian Cowen/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

Twitter: Tweetminster: He has just resigned as P.M. (finally) 22/1/11

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)

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)

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)

I think the whole public image section should be removed, what's the point including that other random insult, and the bit about swearing in the Dail is out of place and irrelevant. AleXd (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Whitewash

Seriously, how is there no longer mention of Biffo of any shape in the entire article? As of May 2009 no mention beyond the citation titles, which only goes to show it merits mention in the article. The American news networks even hilariously tried to explain this common nickname, much to my amusement even if they did use the sanitised explanation. Biffo gets called by his nickname far more often than Bertie ever got called "Teflon Taoiseach" and that got a proper mention is his article. Biffo must be explained in some form or another, I urge editors to reverse the current whitewash. -- Horkana (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The explanation for Biffo is where it always has been and in the same form as it always was ( as far as I recall ) so what on earth are you talking about ? Garda40 (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Picture

I have read numerous comments about the image of Brian Cowen standing in front of an American Flag in the past while, so I had a go at editing them out to focus the attention of the image on 'the man himself'. What does anyone think of this? Stephen Shaw (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Grand but you couldn't really see his face etc. A better image for this article is Brian_Cowen_in_Philadelphia.jpg. I had this tweaked by a friend of mine to remove the distracting background. As a passport style photo I think this improves the article. Jaqian (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Smoker?

The Irish Times cartoons of Mr Cowen always show him with a cigarette sticking out of his ear. Is this because he is a chain smoker? Millbanks (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion

What is his faith or does he have one at all? We need to find out and put it in his infobox.--Tocino 23:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't! as per WP:BLP, religion is only added if the subject is noted for it. Snappy56 (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well a person's religious faith is a basic fact that should be easy to find out. Most politicans have it in their infoboxes, especially leaders like the Taoiseach. I assume he is a Roman Catholic, but I thought I read somewhere that he has Jewish roots. --Tocino 17:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 25% of Article by a user on 2009-01-28

An individual editor User: Ssolbergj has removed 25% of article, that has been present without disagreement by other editors. It is significant that editor Ssolbergj has removed mostly edits that have shown Cowen in a less than glowing light. All the statements about Cowen were referenced to press articles on Cowen and are accurately and validly sourced. Some statements have several citations. If the press report facts and the facts conform per WP:VERIFY, then they are part of a subject's persona and their inclusion is appropriate. To remove them is in violation of the neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not Hello! magazine and all opinions, even less favourable ones, are valid if they are accurate and correctly sourced. Octanis (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX.
If an editorial in a news paper bashes George W Bush; citing parts of the bashing would not be approperiate in an encyclopedia article. Nor is it in this case. It's just a distraction to say that the action of removing content, in itself, is POV. Let's discuss what encyclopedic content is, not how many biased references there are on the internet.

I'm not interested in creating an article that glorifies Cowen. I've just removed the crappy content that I think is unencyclopedic.- SSJ ☎ 00:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Using George W Bush as an example is fatuous. Bush had his critics and on exit was extremely unpopular in public perception of his effectiveness with multitudes of sources to confirm this. The editorial on Cowen's "effectiveness" is from a reliable source. If you can find other press material that counteracts this editorial, then cite it. To remove it, as a responsible source, is not in accord with WP:NPOV and is reverted accordingly. Octanis (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

An opinion piece from a newspaper would never be a "responsible" or "reliable" source. How "responsible" an opinion is, is irrelevant. "(...)met with unprecedented hostility" is anything but encyclopedic. The role of wikipedia is, as I've mentioned, not a soap box for biased (YES, newspaper opinion pieces are also biased) opinions. And WP:NPOV doesn't forbid the removal of content, so stop saying that! - SSJ ☎ 08:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removal of items critical of Cowen is in breach of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a hagiography.

Facts about Cowen and his actions are out there in the public domain. If these facts, which describe the performance of Cowen are accurately cited from reliable sources, they merit inclusion. National newspapers are reliable conduits of fact and are accepted as such in a democracy. For you to accuse a newspaper of having a biased in its reporting of facts serves only to illustrate your own viewpoint. Your edits fly in the face of quoted fact, attack the messengers and are in breach of WP:NOR, which prohibits original research. As I recall it was a leading article in the Sunday Times that very explicitly critisised Cowen. The intensity and severity of the criticism is remarkable. The phrase "unprecedented hostility" was a reflection on the extraordinary spectacle of thousands of older people, who turned up to protest outside the Dail. Thus to use the expression "unprecedented hostility" is appropriate as it is not every day or even every decade that such events happen. That event has 3 news source citations in the article. To assert otherwise is another example of WP:NOR, one of which used such a phrase. The entire tone of your edits is to attempt to make Wikipedia into a hagiography, rather than a repository of fact. Octanis (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like it's progressing into an edit war, maybe you all should consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am responding to a request for a third opinion on this article. Octanis, when you say that SSJ has removed 25% of the article, most of this was the complete removal of the Quotations section, right? I picked through a few pages for recent and current politicians, all of which were at least rated good and many were former featured articles, and didn't see an example of similar section in any of them. Do you have one? Since we have a separate Wikiquotes project whose format is very similar to the way you've written this up, maybe we should move this section over there and add a {wikiquote} in the external links section, since this does seem to be common practice in similar articles.

As far as the other changes go:

In the First Budget section, it doesn't look like "unprecedented hostility" is an actual quote from one of the sources. I read through the three articles you cited here, and while I think that SSJ is right that the Irish Times article seems like anecdotal, over-the-top bashing, the other two seem just fine. Why not say something like:

Cowen's first budget as Taoiseach in October 2008 was controversial, reflected in an "unprecedented" drop in support for Cowen's party in opinion polls following its announcement [footnote for the RTE article]. This response forced reversals of proposed changes in several areas, contributing to perceived weakness in his Government [footnote for the Independent article].

The RTE article does use the word unprecedented, and the Independent article says the Government seemed in "disarray", so I think this offers a more supportable picture that the response to the budget was roundly negative and caused the Government to change course. The words "complete reversals" don't seem appropriate, though, since even the Independent article notes that the Government didn't pull back from school cuts, at the very least.

Finally, I feel that the {recentism} template is fitting, but I don't see a problem per se with the "humiliating failure" quote since the article is clear that it's a columnist's opinion and it is sourced. I do agree, however, that this section is unduly negative, since it seems to cast the Lisbon vote mainly as a vote against Cowen, which doesn't square with the main page for the topic. I don't believe that WP:NPOV asks us to achieve a balance by removing correctly cited content from one side of the argument (assuming that the side isn't in WP:FRINGE territory, which isn't the case here), but pulling in a contrasting source from the main topic page showing that the explanation offered here for the failure isn't the only one would be in order. In fact, the polls appearing there seem to say that disapproval of Cowen wasn't even the largest "no" vote reason.

Does that course of action seem appropriate? AlekseyFy (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Editor WP:Paulito is removing most items critical of Cowen.

This is in breach of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not Hello! magazine. Accordingly reverted to reflect the reality of information about the subject, all accurately cited from reliable sourcesOctanis (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Octanis: your message to me claimed I was "ignoring the reality of Cowen's performance" - and yet you say I'm the one in breach of NPOV? I've already explained why colour quotes aren't appropriate here, and if you look properly you'll find I didn't remove the editorial quote you're referring to. Re the protests etc, I think it's sufficient to state that there was major opposition from certain sections of the public to the Budget. An additional one-line reference about the protests would be OK if you want to put that in - though I don't think it's necessary as the protests weren't directed against Cowen per se. What we certainly don't need are regurgitated quotes about the "grey army" massing in the "bitter cold". Elsewhere I deleted a bald POV statement about how the Budget u-turns "weakened Cowen's credibility" - and you reversed this. There's already plenty of emphasis in the article on Cowen's perceived underperformance to date; the bits I deleted - including the quotes from unnamed sources within FF and the Greens which supposedly confirmed discontent within FF and Govt ranks - are unnecessary and dubious embellishments. I also deleted inaccuracies - e.g. the statement that the unpopular measures in the Budget were proposed tax increases (they weren't, they were proposed cutbacks) - but you reverted these indiscriminately along with everything else. Trust me, I'm no fan of Cowen, but the article had become unfocused, repetitious and badly structured.

Paulito —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulito (talk • contribs) 01:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Status

Hello, again - I previously gave a third opinion on this article's content five days ago, and have been watching it since. This article had problems when I gave my opinion above, and it has gotten worse in the meantime. Even though the last attempt at dispute resolution here didn't fix the problem, we can try again if both of you (Octanis and Paulito) want to. I could serve as a third-party editor again, or if you would rather have someone new to the dispute, please relist this page at WP:3O and someone else will pick it up. Hopefully, this can lead to constructive editing and a better article. AlekseyFy (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Careful Now! This edit warring must stop. Both Paulito and Octanis are in breach of WP:3RR. Well done to AlekseyFy for offering to be a third opinion but it looks like the 2 warring editors prefer warring to dialog. Unless I see some constructive editing soon, I will request the article be locked from editing until all parties has sorted out their differences. Snappy (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

AlekseyFy, I'd be happy for you to mediate on this issue. However, given the aggressively territorial action he's taken against the attempts of various users to improve this article, I'm not too hopeful that Octanis will agree. Paulito (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This article seems pretty negative towards Cowen, particularly in the Taoiseach and Budget sections. --Tocino 07:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, is anyone going to step in here, or is a certain troll going to be allowed to keep this article at the level of agenda-driven sub-amateur hackery? Paulito (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent editing

It would appear that Octanis has decided that they will decide what appears in this article and if any editor (see previous discussions and edit history of this article) disagrees with them, Octanis reverts their edits, usually with the word fatuous in the edit comment. I am attempting to tidy up this article but once again Ocantis (self appointed owner this article) reverts without discussion. Octanis seems most interested in adding negative statements about Cowen and his government, with no attempt at balance. Of course, lots of people in Ireland think he is doing a bad job and he has low approval ratings but there are still lots of Fianna Fail supporters out there (and some non FF) which think Cowen is doing a reasonable job in difficult circumstances. This article should be balanced, not a hatchet job or a hagiography, right now its mostly hatchet job. It's a poor reflection on wikipedia when one single agenda (Octanis hardly edits any other articles, apart from Bertie Ahern where equally negative comments are added) editor can determine the quality (or lack therof) of a BLP article.

I find Octanis' behaviour quite disappointing. I hope all interested editors can come together and get this article into shape, with consensus and balance. Snappy (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One other point to add is that Octanis normally edits here and on the Bertie Ahern article under their wandering IP identity which is why Octanis has turned up so much since the article was semi protected . Garda40 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why has
"Cowen has been noted as being prepared to sing in public on noteable occasions.An Taoiseach Brian Cowen SingingBrian Cowen Sings at the Fleadh"
been removed? What is the reason for removal of publicly available accurately sourced fact. Zubenzenubi (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Snappy declares

"rv - breach of copyright - youtube violations".

Please explain where the copyright violation is in citing a youtube link. Zubenzenubi (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You are a suspected sockpuppet of User:Octanis. Until that matter is resolved, I will not discussion anything with you. Snappy (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your attitude is unacceptable and not in accord with the editing principles of Wikipedia.

No editor has proprietorial rights on any article.

You are in breach of the principle of WP:GOODFAITH in your declaration of 18:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC). Zubenzenubi (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lamest defense ever. --Deskana (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

assumed office

7 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostexpectation (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

looking again i see in office is for past periods(two dates), but again there still seems to be no distinction between dates and periods elected and time periods of positions/portfolios taken/appointed to once elected. Lostexpectation (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Prime Minister or Taoiseach?

As this is an English language Wikipedia rather than an Irish language one, shoudn't we be describing Brian Cowen as prime minister rather than as taoiseach? Elsewhere we don't tend to use non-English language descriptors when referring to other countries' heads of government. Headhitter (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an old chestnut but anyway. The word Taoiseach is used in the English language in Ireland to describe the head of government, it is always Taoiseach never Prime Minister. But this usage is not just confined to Ireland, at the BBC, we have this example, the Guardian here and here, the English Independent and the Spectator. As for your assertion that we don't use non English language descriptors, please read the intro for Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu. God forbid that someone should come to an enyclopedia, see an unfamiliar term, click on the link, read about it and actually learn something. Outrageous! ;-) Snappy (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in your first example, Brian Cowen is referred to initially as the Irish prime minister, and only as Taoiseach much further down in the piece. And in today's BBC article about the NI crisis talksthe only references to him are as the Irish premier or Irish prime minister. So while I can't quarrel with you about the practice in Ireland I'm not convinced that English language references elsewhere consistently support your view. And talking of consistency, the Wikipedia entry for Tánaiste describes the post as being the deputy prime minister of Ireland.Headhitter (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Raise it at WT:IECOLL. Snappy (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The word Taoiseach is used when speaking of the Prime Minister of Ireland in the Constitution of Ireland. The term Prime Minister is used more as a description, if it's used corrctly. This situation is similar to the whole Ireland v. Rep. of Ireland thing. The term Republic of Ireland is simply a description and isn't recognised as an official name of the state by the Constitution of Ireland of by any of the country's laws.--Paschal Lehany (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put 'prime minister' in brackets after Taoiseach, primarily for google searches, when you search on Brian Cowen, the wikipedia entry is one of the first results and it displays the first line, so rather than having to click into the article to see what a Taoiseach, the reader can see it on the search results page. Snappy (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's surprising that the article nowhere mentions that Brian Cowen can speak fluent Irish. It's important and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.28.241 (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Brian cowen rouand my live.

Bias

Dos anyone feel that the article is in any way biased against Brian Cowen?--Paschal Lehany (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, why? Snappy (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes , especially since much of the material added by a user ( using multiple identities ,something you yourself complained about just above Snappy ) is in this article in exactly the form they added it into the article . Garda40 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It could do with a see also section, but there is still no "Category:Sleepwalkers" on wiki.Red Hurley (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Alcoholism

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that he is an alcoholic and was drunk during a recent radio inteview? (92.13.58.20 (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC))

Fed up shit-stirring on Dev's article were you? Well, when you provide a detailed list of references proving definitely and beyond doubt that Cowen is an alcoholic, we'll add it to the article. We have standards here, you know. Snappy (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Though on the other hand, the media storm generated by his interview on Morning Ireland at the FF Drink in, oops I mean Think in, probably merits a mention. Its made headlines on BBC [4] and the Huffington Post [5]. Snappy (talk)

Lisbon

Surely it should be noted in the 'Lisbon' section that the government was successful with a second referendum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.32.139 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

line 559; is singular, but is it subjunctive, and do we care nowadays in English to use the subjunctive form?

Its been a while since I wrote English so it's been fun to dabble on Wikipedia. So at line 559 in this Cowen article it seems to me that the subjunctive form, which I vaguely remember as a verbal mood back when grammar was a thingy that people talked about, comes naturally, and thus "were" would be used rather than "was" but that's just how I myself natter, and maybe it's Gerry Attrick. If anybody gives a two second moan about all of this I append reference http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-subjunctive.htm .

However, Snappy has changed it to "was" on account of it being "singular." I do have an inner sense that the subjunctive in English is probably a dying offshoot, or at least very dessicated branch, so I am going to let it be, as if it were perfect, haha.

Strikes me that I should check whatever style guideline Wikipedia has on the matter, but also strikes me that Snappy's use of "was" doesn't grate my gears, and the change one way or t'other is not a holy show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeatherPluma (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC) --FeatherPluma (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I bow to your superior grammatical knowledge, change it back if you wish! Snappy (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Except on Irish matters, e.g. "The Dáil Éireann" on Oireachtas. It has already been corrected! Snappy (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for messing up with "Dáil." I had thought with cut and paste I transferred the word correctly but apparently not. Let's leave the grammar here the way it is since it's of no earthquaking importance either way. Thanks for keeping an eye on me!--FeatherPluma (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1