Jump to content

Talk:Brian Cowen nude portraits controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Here is an internet link to audio footage of the radio discussion following Will Hanafin's meeting with that garda – The Ray D'Arcy Show --candle•wicke 22:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Title?

[edit]

As someone with no previous knowledge of this topic, I thought the link on the main page referred to an execution type of hanging. I was thoroughly confused after clicking on the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.52.218.45 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools'! Lockesdonkey (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I totally agree. Funny joke, but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.141.195 (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thoroughly amused by this joke, I had heard about the paintings on BBC but I completely forgot. Keep it up until tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.121.25 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got me! --86.174.11.212 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, this is no April Fool's joke. This is politics in Ireland. -- Evertype·✆ 06:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And everyone thought Brian Cowen was no oil painting! Well, at least the subject wasn't Mary Harney.... <shudder> Snappy (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was brought to my attention that The Sun are running an April Fool's joke in their Irish edition which tells of a planned guerilla assault on Mary Harney... apparently it looks very real until you see that it's written by a Joe King. --candle•wicke 18:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thilly

[edit]

Thith isth tho thilly.

Thilly thilly thilly!

CBHA (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By linking this page in In the News...

[edit]

This page appears to be the first introduction to Irish terms for some people, myself included. Who says you don't learn anything from April Fool's jokes? :D Kimchi.sg (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'm having a hard time realizing if this is real or not. It seems like it's plausible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.97.49 (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This incident happened a couple of weeks ago. It's real. And I should know given how I live in Ireland... TheChrisD Rants•Edits 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's very real. The links in the references section will bring you to examples of the media coverage which followed. This also happened before today so it isn't something that was just made up on the spot. Everything on the Main Page is true. --candle•wicke 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the apology?

[edit]

The article doesn't make it clear why the 23 March broadcast was controversial and merited an apology. Tempshill (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what most of Ireland is asking. Pressure was placed on RTÉ by the Government Press Secretary and then there was an apology. The Taoiseach denies any involvement. Hence we have a debate over freedom of expression and censorship. --candle•wicke 18:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Could you perhaps make this more explicit in the article? I didn't seem to be able to read between the lines. Thanks! Tempshill (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Candlewicke's response is pretty POV. The pictures are obviously not flattering. People felt the report was in bad taste, personally embarrassing to Cowen. The report was meant to be one of those amusing fluff stories that often end a news bulletin, but it could have been seen as taking the piss out of Cowen. Complainers felt that was inappropriate in a news program on a public TV channel (as opposed to a satirical show, say, or a partisan station like Fox News). The conspiracy theory is that Cowen (or one of his minions) took it personally and called for heads to roll. jnestorius(talk) 23:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's just as POV. Both sides are. Apologies for any offence, I was just trying to give quick answers to everything within a limited time. I am still to carry out some replies. --candle•wicke 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are separate questions:
  1. what were the grounds for the apology [offense, bad taste,...]
  2. and who was the initiator of the apology [RTE managers, irate viewers, Government Press Secretary, Cowen, ...]
jnestorius(talk) 22:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he was displayed "from the waist up"...

[edit]

... then how do we know that they're NUDE portraits? 99.175.74.70 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

while one can't be sure, the dangling underpants in one and the toilet-roll and seated posture in the other supply a persuasive context for the inference. jnestorius(talk) 23:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the art?

[edit]

Why aren't the images shown? They're notable. Just the photo of Cowen is not really. -- Evertype·✆ 10:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, they are both available here. Casby has indicated that he intends to sell the paintings for charity, so I suspect there won't be any complaints from him for breach of copyright. Pnelnik (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

The image looks like a cardboard cutout. Are there any other images out there that we could use? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brian Cowen by maxime.bernier.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Brian Cowen by maxime.bernier.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brian Cowen nude portraits controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Cowen nude portraits controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brian Cowen nude portraits controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Cowen nude portraits controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Cowen_nude_portraits_controversy&oldid=1253426940"