Talk:Brian Cowen

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)

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 [1] and the Huffington Post [2]. 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)

Unpopularity

Should the article mention the fact that according to the polls Cowen is by far the most unpopular prime minister southern Ireland has ever had? (92.11.105.176 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

Any factual and referenced data about Brian '11%' Cowen can go in the Public Image section. Btw, there is no such place as southern ireland and no such office as prime minister of southern Ireland. It's Taoiseach of Ireland to you! Snappy (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I prefer to think of it as southern Ireland rather than just a bankrupt slave of the EU. (92.11.105.176 (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

Bugger off back to whichever hamlet of england you live in.

Exiledone (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you know the IP is from England? Many people in Ireland believe this emergency bailout has cost their sovereignty. (HantersSpade (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC))

Sorry. :( As much as I'm annoyed with the government I take issue with people insulting the nation. Exiledone (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Meeting with Sean Fitzpatrick

Section I added could be expanded if anyone's got any time. Exiledone (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Motion of no confidence

Cowen is facing another vote of no confidence, although it may not be heard until the end of March. (HantersSpade (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC))

Mainstream media editorialise about Cowen January 2011

I have added links to Cowen's position from editorials in the Irish Independent and Irish Times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubenzenubi (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Zubenzenubi (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As edits of a sockpuppet I have removed them .Garda40 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem Garda40. Are edits that don't conform to your viewpoint to be branded as "edits of a sockpuppet" despite their accurate reflection of mainstream sources correctly attributed.

If you persist in vexatious editing you are surely behaving in an unacceptable manner.

Where is the editorial competence of deleting accurately cited mainstream references, using a pejorative label about another editor.

If reliable sources report relevant information, it is valid to be quoted in a Wikipedia article . If Garda40 can provide reasons why this validly sourced data is not suitable for the article, then let him say why. It is unacceptable to remove it as sockpuppetry/ Zubenzenubi (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to add the quote "that edits of a sockpuppet are to be removed "

As for the quote you did leave here If reliable sources report relevant information, it is valid to be quoted in a Wikipedia article . then can you explain why none of the other editors didn't reinsert it .

It's not as if they didn't reinsert some of your edits . Garda40 (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

New role as Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs

Do members agree that it should be noted in the opening paragraph of this article that Cowen is also the acting Minister for Foreign Affairs? This is currently disputed. I believe that it should and have edited the article to such a way however that was reversed by user:Snappy. Having tried in the first instance unsuccessfully to settle this dispute with the named user I decided to raise the matter here. In any case the matter will most probably cease to exist by such times as this may be resolved as Cowen is likely to choose a successor shortly.--Ciaran M (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already changed it. David Cameron's opening sentence reads very clunkily. I've re-worded the intro so it mentions he is acting MFFA, but mentions his assumption if this role later on in the opening para. I hope this compromise is acceptable. See also Hu Jintao for a different view. Snappy (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agreeded issue resolved. Thankyou user:Snappy. --Ciaran M (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Resignation!

Brian Cowen has just resinged, any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.165.25 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC) "Another one bites the dust" Tony0

One one hand its not great because if he stayed on as leader he'd have decimated FF at the next election. One the other hand the opposition will exploit the fact that he's Taoiseach but not leader of the party.

Exiledone (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No longer a TD

I propose that Mr. Cowen and all TD articles bar the Ceann Comhairle should no longer refer to that office until the election has been held. When the Dáil is dissolved they are no longer TDs until reelected and cease to hold office as TDs on 1st Feb when 30th Dail was dissolved. Ministers hold office as ministers until their successors are appointed so Mr. Cowen is still Taoiseach until 9th March or shortly after. Rigger30 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Really, is this your own opinion or can you cite some article of the constitution or some statute to support this? Even if you can, all media refers to them as TDs, albeit outgoing ones, so common usage would seem to prevail here. Snappy (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a basic principle that on dissolution of a parliamentary assembly (Dail), that the peoples' representatives cease to represent and they and others present for selection for a representative role. Ministers remain as an executive only but not as representatives of a constituency(TD) in the interregnum, to manage affairs until replacement ministers are appointed after an election, when elected all elected members assume office. Thus a TD ceases to be a TD when parliament is dissolved and an elected person becomes a TD only on first meeting of the new parliament. Basic stuff really. Read the constitution! The media refer to outgoing TD's not as TD's but as outgoing and accuracy stipulates that an encyclopedic entry should be correct at all timesTayana (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked for some statutes or other info, and all I got was patronising guff about it being "Basic stuff really. Read the constitution". I would have thought that TDs continued until their successors are sworn in. An interesting question is when do they stop being paid for being a TD? The media continues to refer to them as TDs and IMHO common usage prevails here. See this link here. Also, was this done for the British 2010 general election or any other parliamentary assembly election? I don't think it was. Snappy (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The constitution is clear, on dissolution of the Dail, the TD's cease to be representatives of the people. They can't logically be representatives if their representational forum (Dail) has been dissolved. This is basic, logical and rational to all.

Ministers remain as an executive for continuity in (mis)management, until a newly elected Taoiseach creates a new executive.

Art 28.11.1° of the Constitution

If the Taoiseach at any time resigns from office the other members of the Government shall be deemed also to have resigned from office, but the Taoiseach and the other members of the Government shall continue to carry on their duties until their successors shall have been appointed.

2° The members of the Government in office at the date of a dissolution of Dáil Éireann shall continue to hold office until their successors shall have been appointed

Snappy is lazily editing by reversion, in failing to address the substantive issue and making silly references including the incredible statement "I don't think it was" as fact. A politician's website is not NPOV especially so at election time. Tayana (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Spare the personal attacks, and kindly address the issue at hand. I read the constitution, and didn't find anything in it on when TDs stop being TDs. The article you quoted above refers to Ministers continuing in office, and this issue is not in dispute. The Dail has been dissolved so TDs can't attend it but when do they cease being TD? Logically it must be when their successors are elected or when their successors are sworn in, otherwise the constituency would be unrepresented. Do you have any real evidence like links, sources, references, statutes to back up your claim? All you've given so far is an irrelevant quote from the constitution and some bluster. Also please refrain from making changes until a consensus has been reached on this issue. Snappy (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I quoted the Constitution to verify my thesis. You asked for verification, I provided it. There are only two editors discussing this. You ask for no reversion during discussion, but this is ignoring the reality and the citation I provided. There can't be a Member of the Dail (TD) when there is no Dail in existence. Basic fact not opinion. Please indicate why I should not now remove your recent reversion. Tayana (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The constitution quote refers to ministers not TDs and is irrelevant. You have not provided any proof for you theory, and stating over and over again that it is fact, won't make it so. It basic good manners in Wikipedia not to make changes while an issue is under discussion. As you point out, there are only 2 of us discussing it at the moment, so I will leave a note at WikiProject Ireland talk page, to inform other editors of this discussion, and so hopefully to get wider and more varied input over the next few days. 00:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, a note has been left at WikiProject Ireland talk page. Snappy (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I never pondered the precise metaphysical or legal detail of when a TD ceases to be such, but two things emerge from the preceding discussion: 1. The section of the Constitution cited does not mention TDs, only government ministers, so we need a verifiable citation of a reliable source concerning TDs. We can argue ourselves into the ground, uselessly, without proper citations. It's the Wiki Way! 2. It is advisable to delay editing changes into every TD article until acceptable verification is provided. Such wholesale, mass changes need verification; even a change to one such article requires citation to avoid the appearance of original research. — O'Dea 08:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

They are no longer TDs: I am a civil servant and I and my colleagues have been instructed to remove the title "TD" from all ministerial correspondence for the duration of the election. Ministerial titles remain in effect until the new Government is formed - Joe King (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Need a bit more to go on than some random guy on the internet, claiming to have inside knowledge. Snappy (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to refer to another editor Joe King as "some random guy". It would seem that Snappy is not editing factually, but engaging in abusive editorial behavior. When there is no Dail in existence, after it is dissolved, then logically there are no members of the non-existent Dail as they have all been removed.

'TD means member of the Dail and no Dail exists after it is dissolved then no TD's exist either.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayana (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not one single source has been provided by anyone to date to backup their assertions, simply repeating them again, and btw highlighting your opinion in bold does not turn it into a fact. User:Tayana has again reverted while the issue is still under discussion. I fail to see how asking for reliable sources is "abusive editorial behavior", please address the issue and stop with the personal attacks per WP:PA. User:Joe King is a random anonymous guy, who provided an unproven fact. If this is really true then how hard can it be to come up with reliable and verifiable sources. Once again, please stop reverting until the issue has reached consensus. Snappy (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not offended by Snappy’s perfectly reasonable request to back up my assertion with a verifiable reference. That said, I feel I am more than just “a random anonymous guy”: I am a long-established editor with a strong track record of improving articles and backing them up with appropriate references. I hope that might carry some weight. The substantive issue, however, is Snappy’s request that we prove that BC and the rest of the 30th Dail are not TDs. It is of course impossible to prove a negative, so I suggest we try to recast the question a different way – can we prove that they are TDs? The obvious place to check is the Oireachtas website. According to the members database the 30th house covers the period 14 June 2007 to 1 February 2011. This would seem to suggest that the Oireachtas no longer considers them members. - Joe King (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad you were not offended Joe King, but I haven't come across your edits before so we obviously don't edit the same articles (til now), hence my comment. The Oireachtas website is valid and the date of dissolution of the 30th Dail was indeed 1 February 2011. However, from the Irish Independent of 9 February 2011, the headline reads: FF TD left bruised and bleeding after car crash. This appears to be the media position (or common usage) to refer to outgoing TDs as such. From Iris Oifigiúil, the Official State Gazette of the Irish Government, Issue dated 4 February 2011 - "The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Mary Hanafin, T.D., in exercise of the powers conferred on her...", section dated 3 February 2011.

From the Department of the Taoiseach website, dated 4 February 2011 press release - "The Taoiseach, Mr. Brian Cowen T.D., will travel to Brussels today to participate in a meeting of the European Council (EU Heads of State and Government)."

Both the Department of the Taoiseach website and Iris Oifigiúil continue to use the TD suffix for 30th Dail members after the date of dissolution, and given that these sources are just as official as the Oireachtas website, it seems the issue is not so clear cut.

In the interests of reaching consenus, I propose that for outgoing members like Brian Cowen who are not standing again, the TD suffix be removed now; and for those outgoing members who are standing again the suffix remain until the results of the general election are known in just over 2 weeks. Snappy (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In response: There are too many lazy journalists and newspaper editors to use a media article to support the erroneous position that they are TDs. Regarding the Iris Oifigiúil, there is usually a lag between the signing of an instrument and its posting in IO. The date in the notice is the date the official sent the notice to IO. To back this up, while I was unable to track down the Hanfin SI you refer to there is another notice further down, dated 2 February 2011, regarding Fishing Fleet Policy Directives that if you check the instrument on the Agriculture website you will see it was signed by Sean Connick on 26 January. Regarding the press release, this is incorrect and I have emailed the Government Information Service to ask them to change it - Joe King (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well for anyone believing that the TD title should be taken away then you need to remove this on the Cowen article TD in office 14 June 1984– 1 February 2011 and replace it with the appropriate dates 14 June to 20 Janurary 1987, 17 Feb 1987 to 25 May 1989 , 15 June 1989 to 5 November 1992 ,25 November 1992 to ?? May 1997 , 6 June 1997 to 25 April 2002 , 17 May 2002 to 29 April 2007 , 24 May 2007 to 1 Feb 2011 . Though maybe it should be the date of the count for when he became a TD again so Feb 18 1987 ,16 June 1989 and so on . Garda40 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Garda40, that would be the pedantic approach. Given that the infobox is a summary, I think the first and last dates of the office would be appropriate. Regarding Iris Oifigiúil, there was no lag, the section was dated differently than the document and both post dated the dissolution date, so its not exactly cut and dried. Does anyone object to my compromise proposal above? Snappy (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why should the summary box deliberately contain false information.Either he was a TD continuously between those dates or we are deliberately placing information we know to be false in the summary box for the sake of convenience of Wikipedia editors .It's not just the matter of a day or two either its a period that is at least 18 weeks long .So I propose we either amend the info box with the appropriate dates or remove the section . Leaving it unchanged is not an option anymore Garda40 (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

From WP:IBX: "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Cluttering the infobox with every start and end date of all the Dala, Cowen served in would contravene this principle. But there is nothing stopping any editor from putting this info in the main body of the article. Make sure to do all 1100+ TD articles as well, so they will all be accurate. Snappy (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well then if amending the infobox to list all dates is out then the only solutions are to remove that section or change the date at the end to 25 February. No where in WP:IBX does it say that we are to allow information we know to be false to stay in the infobox .So he's either a TD till 25 Feb or there is a period of approx 5 months over the last 27 years that he wasn't .I therefore propose to change the date to 25 Feb but if that is not acceptable we will need to remove that section .Garda40 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lo and behold, presumably on foot of my email (although I haven't received a reply), the press release Snappy referred to above has been amended and the TD title removed. The statement expressing condolences to the victims of today's tragic plane crash similarly does not refer to Mr Cowen as a TD. - Joe King (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the article accordingly. Any objection to my proposal above? Snappy (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A triumph of common sense over pedantry. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If I may dredge this up again.... Article 28.7.1° of the constitution states that "The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the member of the Government who is in charge of the Department of Finance must be members of Dáil Éireann." Taking that, in addition to the already quoted Art 28.11.1°, the Taoiseach must be a TD in order to discharge his duties until the date on which, and this is important, their successors have been appointed, by the President. Brian Cowan is in fact a "de facto" Taoiseach, still now, even after the 25th of Feb, as his replacement has not been appointed. Furthermore, this also means he is still a member of the Dáil until such time as a replacement is sworn in. Taking a hypothetical, if the country were (some might say fortunately! :P) invaded by a foreign power today, then the role of Taoiseach still falls to Brian Cowan...

Not Continuously

In coming back to edit the article since apparently my declaration to change the end date to 25 Feb wasn't opposed I found that the article was edited to remove the actual dates on the TD summary while I was still on the talk page discussing what should be there which is why my last comment doesn't make much sense if you look at the history of the various edits .

I'm not sure what that edit was supposed to achieve since it doesn't stop the infobox knowingly displaying false information namely that he was a TD continuously from June 1984 to February 2011 if we accept he is not currently as of this date , 13 February , a TD .

I therefore propose to add the words not continuously to the infobox . Garda40 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Golfgate

Should the golfgate section be moved to fall from power? It did percipitate the motion of confidence.

Exiledone (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

irish name

Could you add to article irish name of taoiseach - Brian Ó Comhain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.4.104 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)