Talk:Taoiseach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Pronounciation

Out of interest why is tay whatever said like thta? We dont have other articles in foreign languages why is the irish one given? This is an english encyclopaedia so... why is my question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.130.77 (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)



Have added in a lot more information and pronounciation details. Hope this clarifies matters. User:JTD

Not in the slightest. t̪ˠiːʃʲəx, it just rolls off the tongue.

This is little more than a dictionary entry. If I remember correctly, they term has a history going back to the Celts. Does anyone want to expand on this? John Lynch

Also, I think Gaelic words deserve some pronunciation guides, e.g., I THINK that this is pronounced tee-sach(k). Also, is the Taoiseach the head of the Dail (needs an accent mark and pronounced Dial)? JHK

Good idea. As a start I added pronounciations for Taoiseach, Dáil, and Fine Gael. My Irish is a bit rusty so if there are any gaelgeori out there, please check my attempts at English spelling of the pronounciations. --Eob
I've a sneeking suspicion my Irish is even rustier than yours ... last class (Leaving Cert!) was in 1985 ... in any case, so far you're doing fine :) John Lynch

A bit of help for those of you who don't speak Irish, it's pronounced "Tee-shuck" and the plural is pronounced "Tee-shig". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.138.151 (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Before 1927 the title was "President of the Executive Council", since 1932 it has been "Taoiseach". What was it called from 1927 to 1932? -- Zoe

(Zoe, dates incorrect. 1922-37 President of the Ex. Council. 1937- Taoiseach. I've corrected that and added in some more info. JTD

What is this pronounciation gobbligook? In an international encyclopædia where people have different experiences in pronounciation and different reading skills based on their experience of english, this stuff is absolutely useless and should only be used in contents where there is a shared degree of comprehension and communication skills, ie, in academic sourcebooks or in national textbooks where a clear shared standard exists. By definition it cannot on something as big. complex and lingustically diverse as wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 19:11, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] President?

The article refers to the "president" of Ireland. I believe the proper term is "Uachtaran", not "president". Eamon de Valera himself used to refer to the office of taoiseach as "president" when he was in America, and "prime minister" in England... which goes to prove that the terms are not complete synonyms. --146.176.60.143

If nobody minds, I'm removeing the line about it being like Prime Minster because there are genuine differences between the two offices. --83.70.154.81

[edit] Constitution and President

Eamon DeValera referred to himself as President while on tour in America to raise funds for the Republic during the Anglo-Irish War (or whatever you want to label it), he effectively game himself the title President which was later ratified by the Dail, at the time the 'underground' government of Ireland.

The Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hEireann) clearly states that there are two offical languages of Ireland and it is quite acceptable to refer to Uachtaran na hEireann as 'the President' or 'President of Ireland'. A number of plaques etc commermorating the opening or unvieling of buildings etc etc state 'opened by Her Excellency Mary MacAleese, President of Ireland'. Yet the Constitution of Ireland does not refer that one should or should not address the President.

For Ireland, the president (Uachtarán) is much more of a head of state position for the country. For example, the president cannot visit other countries on official business without permission from the government. Other presidential duties are very limited.

I think de Valera was correct, he used country specific terms. In England the prime minister is the centre of power, while in America (to some extent) the president is. This is one of the reasons for the title of Brian Farrell's book, Chairman or Chief.

[edit] Use in Irish

Is Taoiseach treated as a title in Irish or just the term for "Prime Minister"? And if it is a title, what term is used when talking about prime ministers from other countries? (Similarly how is Tánaiste used?) Timrollpickering 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not too sure if this is the answer to your question. Taoiseach is used exclusively for the Prime Minister of Ireland and not other countries I suspect. Prime Minister would be Príomh Aire but I am not sure if this is used in Irish today as a generic title. Djegan 18:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a title, just a term. It's used only to refer to heads of government in the Republic of Ireland; "príomh aire" (príomh = prime, aire=minister) is used translate "prime minister" when talking about foreign heads of government e.g. [1] [2]. Demiurge 18:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I can find four usages of the term (príomh aire) in the Oireachtas since 1990. Djegan 18:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Am i correct in thinking that referring to the Taoiseach as the "Irish Prime Minister" is technically incorrect and that the appropriate English term is the "Head of the Government of Ireland?" (Leninbenjamin 18:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

Certainly within Ireland "An Taoiseach" would be the term used when formally addressing correctly, even in the English language. Outside Ireland "Taoiseach" or "Prime Minister" would be acceptable and I would think "Irish Prime Minister" would be frowned on just as much as "British Prime Minister" or "U.S. President" would be for the respective offices of those countries. Djegan 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Article 28-5-1 of the constitution states "The head of the Government, or Prime Minister, shall be called and is in this constitution referred to as, the Taoiseach". The term "An Taoiseach" is correct when speaking Irish.

Modern Irish "Taoiseach" comes from the Old Irish "toísech", also found in manuscripts as toísegu toísigiu taesca taísce túsga táoiseach tóiseach túiseach taíseach. It means chief noble or chieftain. As my friend points out above, a nod is given to the term prime minister, however, to use this as his title is erroneous. Ireland does not have a "Prime Minister", rather a Taoiseach, which is the ministerial position of most importance, ie. prime or first minister. Use in English should be broadly similar to Irish usage (as the word is an Irish word, not English). It's a Masculine 4th Declension Noun. sg. & gen pl "Taoiseach". In the nom. pl & gen sg "Taoisigh". M.sh. "An Taoiseach" -> The Taoiseach, "Ainm an Taoisigh" -> The name of the Taoiseach, "Na Taoisigh" -> The Taoisigh (pl), "Ainmneacha na Taoiseach" -> The names of the Taoisigh (pl). Jamesnp (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3 or 4

1. Eamon de Valera (1st term of 3) December 29, 1937 February 18, 1948 4 terms Fianna Fáil It says 4 terms and 3 which is correct (Gnevin 22:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Taoiseach's Salute

A more trivial difference between the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach regards a military salute. There appears to be a specific salute played to denote the arrival of the Taoiseach before certain events such as before a Toaiseach takes to the red carpet to great teams at a sports event (see the All-Ireland, Irish soccer internationals etc), as well as at the National Day of Commermoration event at the Royal Hospital. When the Taoiseach arrived before the 90th Anniversary parade for 1916 began in Dublin, last year, the salute was also played. Perhaps some information about this could be added since the general public do not seem aware of it's existence and while there is a 'wiki' entry on the Presidential Salute there is nothing on the Taosieach's. (Unitedirishman07)

[edit] Salary

There is still some serious debate over sources that claim that the Taoiseach earns more (as was stated in the actual article) than the President of the USA, then the President of the United States earns substantially more than is here stated. (Unitedirishman07 16/11/07)

Could someone add a sound file for the pronunciation for people who don't read phonetic??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.27.1.134 (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comma

I added a comma after the 11th word of the last sentence of the first paragraph. It seemed to make the sentence read easier. JPisano (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Daredevil!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.12.30 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

How is it pronounced? What on earth is t̪ˠiːʃʲəx supposed to be, Mayan? Doesn't look like English, Runes, Chinese or Ogham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Keep in mind when writing about Gaelic things that most people pronounce Cat Shee Kate Sith and wouldn't recongnize Bean Sidhe if it was wailing at them, Gaelic despite sounding beautiful and being the language of the two greatest groups of peoples on the Earth (the Irish and the Scotch) is horrific for the common English speaker who reads these pages and wants info on things they know nothing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I was just reading up on the Chattan and the Mackintosh clan name is supposed to mean son of the Taoiseach, does that mean taoiseach is pronounced in english as Tosh or Teosh or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Taoiseach is pronounced with a Broad T leading to a palatilised S. IE. It is not TEE-SHOCK but has a subtle difference that is not always apparent to an English Speaker. Jamesnp (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "English" Pronunciation

Can we get a consensus on removing the erroneous, so called "English" pronunciation. It is referenced to OED, true, but this is incorrect and should not be reflected here in any form. The pronunciation of Taoiseach is exactly the same in English as it is in Irish, just because many people do it incorrectly does not mean it's correct. Jamesnp (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

The British news (including the venerable BBC) say it thus -

Tee-shuck

IIRC.

Greenaum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.74 (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It may require two entries for the English pronunciations - depending on people's background both [tiːʃəx] and [tiːʃək] are common. Most Scots and Welsh (including BBC presenters have [x], others [k]. Incidentally, Irish does not have [ʃʲ], the palatal version of Irish [s] is simply [[ʃ]. Akerbeltz 12:21, 4 April 2008 (GMT)]

We can spell that out, of course, but it's already implied. The English IPA key lists /x/ as a marginal phoneme and states that many people pronounce it /k/. There's the same issue with /ʍ/: we don't normally bother to give /w/ as an alternate, because that's understood. kwami (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an English pronunciation, it's just an incorrect manifestation of the correct Irish one?! Jamesnp (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Think of Beijing which in Mandarin bas voiceless unaspirated /p/ and /tɕ/ but when English people pronounce it it comes out as voiced unaspirated /b/ and /ʒ/. I think in some cases it's appropriate to list the local English pronunciation and the over-regional English pronunciation. It may or may not be "right" to the local ear but it's difficult to argue that such pronunciations aren't common either. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Who was the first Taoiseach?

THIS DISCUSSION BEGAN ON Talk: Brian Cowen BUT HAS BEEN MOVED HERE BECAUSE IT CONCERNS TAOISIGH GENERALLY

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: [3]. 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)
Redking, have you looked at how US Presidents are numbered? See List of Presidents of the United States, where you will see that the number is incremented each time the office changes hands (so Grover Cleveland is both the 22nd and 24th president). If we applied that logic here, Cowen would be the 18th Taoiseach, while FitzGerald would be 11th and 13th, whilst Haughey would be the 10th, 12th and 14th Taoiseach (see Taoiseach#List_of_Taoisigh).
The comparison with the US produces such weird results because the office it is considering apples and oranges: the US Presidency a difft sort of office, a directly elected executive head-of-state, rather than a head-of-government elected by Parliament and (more or less) sackable by Parliament.
You're quite entitled to your view on the appropriate numbering system, but since there is no sign of any accepted way of numbering them, any numbers applied are either POV or original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the US numbering system either, not a good model to follow. The long view of history would be that W.T. Cosgrave was the first Taoiseach. Another (somewhat useful?) analogy is the Popes, the first popes were never known as such, it was only when the Bishop of Rome achieved supremacy in the 2nd century that all previous holders of the office became known as Pope. The fact that the Irish Times and RTÉ have referred to Brian Cowen as the 12th Taoiseach backs this up. A hundred years from now when Sineád Adebayo Grzybowski becomes the 26th Taoiseach, no-one will care that the 1st holder (and the 2nd holder for 5 years) of the office had a different title. ;-) Snappy56 (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


In response to User: BrownHairedGirl:

  • US Presidents have fixed terms. That's why they can be numbered like that. I entirely agree it would not be appropriate to list Brian Cowen as the 18th Taoiseach! I never suggested we should! He is the 11th Taoiseach;

—This is part of a comment by Redking7 (of 19:47, 13 May 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

Whether a term is fixed or not doesn't affect the numbering logic. Note that not American presidents have served a variety of term lengths, just as Taoisigh do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No one (not me any way!) has been comparing the offices of US President vis-a-vis Taoiseach. It doesn't arise here. We are talking about a very narrow point: who was the first Taoiseach.

—This is part of a comment by Redking7 (of 19:47, 13 May 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

Redking, you did indeed comnpare the offices, when you wrote above: <blocquote>The USA with its written constitution provides a much better analogy. In the USA they number their leaders.I'm glad that you now agree that the US, with its executive presidency is an inappropriate comparator, but please don't try to say that you didn't advocate the comparison. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to Snappy56:

  • You say "The long view of history would be that W.T. Cosgrave was the first Taoiseach". W.T. Cosgrave was the first President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State - effectively the first leader of an independent Irish government. No serious historian could call him the first Taoiseach because the office didn't exist until 1937. It is certainly not intended as any slight on President Cosgrave that I don't list him as a Taoiseach. It is simply an important accuracy point. Following your logic, the W.T. Cosgrave article will need to be revised to list him as the first Taoiseach rather thant the first President of the IFS. My view is that WP is an encyclopedia and accuracy is important.
  • Your analogy with Popes is, I'm afraid, even less on point (in my view) than with the UK PM (for the reasons I mention above - for brevity, I won't repeat them);
  • You say, "A hundred years from now... no-one will care that the 1st holder of the office had a different title": The Office didn't exist until 1937. W.T. Cosgrave never held it. Accuracy is important - People typically read encyclopedias hoping for accurate information. They do this today and will (if any one is around!) do it in 100 years.

User: BrownHairedGirl and User:Snappy56, could I ask you to set out your reasons why [despite the Office not existing until 1937], we should list President Cosgrave as the first Taoiseach? You might also discuss how we edit the President Cosgrave article. Shouuld it be revised to say he was the first Taoiseach!? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to user:Redking7, I've given my reasons repeatedly and it looks like I'm going to repeat myself again. Btw, don't use terms like "President Cosgrave", this is an Americanism to stick a persons job title in front of their name, no-one refers to "Taoiseach Cowen". I've said that W.T. Cosgrave should be regarded as the first Taoiseach, his article would not call him Taoiseach but would note he did a similar job, i.e Head of Government / Prime Ministerial role in a Westminister system. In a list of Taosigh, I recommend we include W.T Cosgrave as first on the list but again with a note explaining the change of title as per Official Government of Ireland policy. 1937 was not a year zero in Irish politics, there is 15 years of Irish Free State history before it.
And finally (dubious analogy or otherwise) if a person who never held the title of UK PM can be regarded as a century later as having held the office, then so W.T Cosgrave can be regarded in the same manner.
If we want to avoid pedantic arguments then instead of a List of Taoisigh, a more comprehensive and correct list would be: List of Heads of Government of Ireland since 1922. A bit more long winded but the list would contain 2 sub lists for President of EC and Taoiseach. Snappy56 (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I see one IP user here has now altered all the Taoiseach articles except Brian Cowen to exclude counting W.T. Cosgrave.
As for technically accurate against the common view ( as expressed by the likes of the The Irish Times ) we're just going to make wikipedia look stupid and inaccurate if we put 11th for Cowen and every other source the person sees says 12th .Best therefore not to display any number on individual Taoiseach articles .Garda40 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted them all, with a link to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both the Irish Free State and Ireland had/have a Head of Government. The title changed from President of the Executive Council to Taoiseach. And yes, the Taoiseach's powers changed from those of the President of the Executive Council - but so what? The Taoiseach has got other additional powers since, and had additional responsibilities imposed. Essentially all we had was a change in job description and title. Really don't see the problem in listing Cowen as #12, per the Irish Times and Irish Independent, and, if necessary, linking to a note as per the one on the Taoiseach's website. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that if we do that, there will always be someone ready to point out the box says says "nth Taoiseach" rather than "nth Head of Government of Ireland", and then change the number regardless of the footnote. I'm inclined to support your view of the numbering, but it's always going to be a contentious point, and those who say that Cowen is the 11th have quite reasonable grounds for arguing (as Redking7 does) that they are technically correct.
Infoboxes are very useful device for displaying summary information prominently, but they cannot accommodate subtle points of definition like this. To my mind, an infobox entry which needs to be footnoted with a qualification is general something which probably shouldn't be in the infobox; it belongs somewhere that can accommodate a clear explanation of the nuances. That way we avoid the inevitable edit wars on a point which can never be clearly settled because it is a matter of interpretation.
I'm think that WP:NPOV is relevant here. It says:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

There clearly are two POVs on this issue, and displaying one of those two views so prominently seems to me to be a clear breach of NPOV, because it does not fairly represent the other POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
All good points, BHG. Can I suggest a possible compromise, then? We change the infobox! List both Taoiseach # and Head of Government #? That way bot camps would be satisfied? Well - either that, or as you say, avoid it altogether and leave it out. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good NPOV solution: if there is more than one reasonable answer, list them both and let the reader decide. But isn't it rather overkill for an infobox to add that much detail? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A few Users have posted comments now and I appear to be in the minority. I have to accept that even if I don't agree with the arguments. My view that Taoisigh should be numbered from 1937 onwards is, it appears, a non-runner. On that basis, my view is that we should try to avoid numbering Taoisigh where this is possible. Therefore in the Brian Cowen article (for example) I would change the following: "Brian Cowen (Irish: Brian Ó Comhain, born 10 January 1960) is the 11th Taoiseach of Ireland." to read as Brian Cowen (Irish: Brian Ó Comhain, born 10 January 1960) is the Taoiseach of Ireland." Admittedly, a fudge. As for info-boxes: I agree with User:BrownHairedGirl that User: Bastun's suggestion that we list both Taoiseach and Head of Government would be an overkill. Too much detail for an infobox. The outcome isn't fully ideal but there you go... Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the intro sentence to read: "Brian Cowen (born 10 January 1960) is the current Taoiseach of Ireland." - 1) Current - standard wording for incumbents, 2) I have removed the Irish name as per WP:IMOS, as he is not known by this name. Snappy56 (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish names of Taoisigh

User:Snappy56 deleted the Irish translation of Brian Cowen's name in the Brian Cowen article. 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. I also believe that such a change requires consensus but User:Snappy56 has rejected this and put back his amendment. While this concerns the Brian Cowen's name in Irish (Brian Ó Comhain), presumably if this change is accepted there it must be accepted on all Taoiseach articles. Does any one else support keeping Irish names of the Taoisigh in the articles? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This debate has already happened and a consensus has been reached, you're late to the party. See my comments below. Snappy56 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets not add Irish versions of names just because someone is Irish. Irish versions of names are subject to reference on request, as is all material.Djegan (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. This is similar to the place name discussions that crop up now and then and the discussions on articles about, for example, Chinese politicians. If the country in question is bilingual and transliterations or different language versions exist for a person/place, then that is relevant information. Compare the (somewhat extreme) example of Tung Chee Hwa whose name is given in traditional and simplified characters, various Mandarin transliterarion systems, Cantonese and Wu. Admins have come down on the side of providing both before so I don't think we need to go over this again. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Is their an exception to WP:VERIFY for translations? How? Where? Djegan (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
For starters, I'm all for verification. However, how exactly is verification to work in this context: Examples - how do we verify that Brian Cowen's English name is in fact really Brian Cowen? Can any one provide a link to his birth certificate? Same goes for Brian Ó Comhain. I think these are matters of common knowledge or very well known...Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh??? Verification is a process whereby someone requests that a "fact" be verified, and someone else verifies it see WP:VERIFY. Now if you are proposing that someone verify that "Brian Cowen's" name is actually "Brian Cowen" by all means ask away...but don't be alarmed if you get accused of been a vandal or childish. Get back to reality, not fringe theories. Djegan (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
But if the translation of Brian Cowen's name into Irish is of such "common knowledge" prove it, through verification. This is no place for "back translations" or "voodoo translations" made with the use of a secondary school English-Irish dictionary. We are not in the "business" of inventing facts. If you want to fill wikipedia up with Irish translations go to http://ga.wikipedia.org where no doubt a different set of policies apply. Djegan (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum, for one thing, Brian Ó Comhain is used by the government in their Irish publications. That's verification, yesno? Try [4] for example (you need to scroll down a little to the list of names...). So Djegan, there's nothing inventend about Brian Ó Comhain and it's a little arrogant to allege (at least that's what it looks like) that the Irish wiki would have lower standards just because it's not in English. And it's not my fault if you only have a school dictionary either, there are more reliable sources for Irish surnames. Try de Bhulbh or MacLysaght... Akerbeltz (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. User:Djegan:"Now if you are proposing that someone verify that "Brian Cowen's" name is actually "Brian Cowen" by all means ask away...but don't be alarmed if you get accused of been a vandal or childish" to which I would reply "Now if you are proposing that someone verify that "Brian Ó Comhain's" name is actually "Brian Ó Comhain" by all means ask away...but don't be alarmed if you get accused of been a vandal or childish". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Redking7 - you just don't know when to stop. Djegan (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No one is disputing that Brian Cowen is Brian Ó Comhain as gaelige, the debate WAS whether it had any business on the English Language wikipedia, and every other Irish politician who is/was not known by an Irish translation of their name.
Not having Irish names is in keeping with WP:IMOS, consensus was already reached on this issue. 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. Why are we re-opening on old debate on which consensus has already been achieved? Is it because 1 user who was not active on wikipedia at the time has decided this? Snappy56 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
User: Snappy56: Even if it mattered, the link you refer to (link to the debate) does not show any consensus for names like "Brian Ó Comhain" being omitted. The WP:IMOS does not do so either. The Taoiseach articles have always included this Irish name of the Taoisigh. Your change requires consensus. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Redking7, your attitude leaves a lot to be desired. Anyway, it's up to you to prove why a back translation of Brian Cowen name into Irish should be included? Brian Cowen has never (outside of National School/Irish class in Secondary school) used this name. All the posters in Laois-Offaly last year said: "Vote Cowen" not "Vote Ó Comhain". His father was Bernard Cowen, no record of him using the name Ó Comhain either. Based on your reasoning then Éamon Ó Cuív should have Edmund O'Keeffe inserted into his article (because you can't do English to Irish and not Irish to English), to my knowledge Éamon Ó Cuív has never used the English form of his name, indeed his father was Brian Ó Cuív, so adding an English language translation would be false and misleading. Brian Ó Comhain is fine on Vicipeíd, indeed his article there make no mention of his English language name. Snappy56 (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree just that someone is an Irish citizen/national that does not mean that we must, by default, provide an Irish translation of their name. Sorry, but this is the English wiki, non-English translations should only be provided because they are commonly used by the person. Djegan (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, what IS the matter here? We're not talking about a printed encyclopedia where every letter costs €€€ to print. Short of becoming too long to be practical, there's no limit really to the amount of information we can add to an article. So we disagree about how relevant exactly the Irish version of his name is. But then we all have somewhat different ideas about how relevant a fact is to us personally but that doesn't mean it's not relevant to someone else out there. We're not talking about a 150 line section on trivia, we're talking about 13 letters.

As far as Ó Cuív goes, he is probably one of those people who have officially registered their name in Irish and the convention there is that only the Irish name is used in publications. But that's not exactly the same case with Ó Comhain, no one is suggesting using his Irish name throughout, we're only talking about adding the info once. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't include information just because we can, even if its "just" 13 letters. Many criteria come into play when including material. We don't add Irish translations just because someone is an Irish citizen/national. Simple. Djegan (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that it is "just" 13 letters and not a commonly used name in English (yes this is the English wiki after all) is as good reason as any for non-inclusion. Theirs no point in including it just because someone perceives its non-inclusion as an injustice. Djegan (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just trying to give this a little perspective. Many criteria come into play, really? Then can we consider the fact that Brian is one of the few Taoisigh who are Gaeilgeoir? Which makes me doubt, even as someone who isn't Irish that he never uses the Irish form of his name. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well if he is a "Gaeilgeoir" maybe you need to argue your case at http://ga.wikipedia.org because this is the English language wikipedia folks. Djegan (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I give up, if you want to be so narrow minded, I can't stop you and I have better things to do on my weekend than to reason with people like you. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to start deleting Irish names from Wiki articles, this requires a consensus. So far there is no such consensus. Redking7 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
For a start, before we start "deleting Irish names" remember that all material is subject to WP:VERIFY and therefore an "Irish name" maybe challenged at any time and doesn't need consensus before it is challenged - if it is not verified then in due course it can be removed and not returned without verification. You of course also reserve your right to challenge English names (re: your laughable above comments). Djegan (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, is it really that important? Redking7, have you seen an Irish news article calling him Ó Comhain? If so, then source it, if not then withdraw. I don't see what's so hard about it on either side. I think you're all pushing civility so just please try and calm down and just look. That being said, even though I don't read in Irish and haven't throughly looked, I haven't seen Ó Comhain used. I don't think it should be there unless it's been officially used by the Irish people and/or the media and government. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Cowen does actually use his Irish name, [5], in contrast to previous incumbents. I therefore don't see a problem with it being included in the Brian Cowen article, as opposed to the use of Ahern's Irish name at Bertie Ahern, as neither Ahern nor the Irish-language media used it. Handily for Cowen, as he normally goes by the English version, he doesn't have to drop an inconvenient "Ó" when it suits him, such as when he wants to get bumped up the ballot paper, like a certain other minister... ;-) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some Users are still discussing verification of Brian Cowen's name - a source (amongst many) is posted above by another user. No verification issue arises that I am aware of. Bertie Ahern's name in Irish has been used in official circles. Here is an example from the Toiseach website: [6].Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So what if its translated, he never actually uses the name Parthalán Ó hEachthairn, ask a group of Irish people who is Parthalán Ó hEachthairn and I bet you get a lot of blank faces. Anyway looks like this debate is going nowhere fast. Is mise le meas, Ó Snápaíd56, (Snappy56 (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC))
He did use that name. He was the Taoiseach. His own website includes his name in Irish! This is clear cut. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
He is/was a politician! It's lip service to the Irish language lobby, looking for a few votes/ transfers is all. He never uses his Irish name in a practical everyday sense. Unless, you don't think, some of the dodgy bank accounts could be in his Irish name and no one has twigged yet because it's so different! What's the phone number of the Mahon tribunal?! Snappy56 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)