Talk:Keith O'Brien

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

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on gay marriage[edit]

Oh dear, it helps if you engage your brain before you start throwing your weight around. My edits do not constitute slander, for the simple reason that slander refers to the spoken word. I think you meant to say libel.

But even if you did, you are still completely wrong to allege such behaviour, because written claims are only libelous if they are false - and in this case, we can safely say that the claims are true. The source provided clearly shows Cardinal O'Brien to be homophobic by definition, since he doesn't think that homosexuals deserve the same basic rights (ie, marriage) as other people; and furthermore he is obviously a bigot, since he is so blinded for his dislike for homosexuals that he likens gay marriage to slavery, calling the whole thing a grotesque subversion.

Ajax42 (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC) <comment edited to remove potential defamation.>[reply]

We might be able to quote a clearly reliable source with attribution using that phrase, but without that it's a BLP violation. Brendandh, have you read WP:BLP because that covers edits like Ajax. Be careful about using words like illegal and libel though, see WP:NLT - not that I think this was a legal threat. I've warned Ajax about these edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Step back please Ajax42. On whose authority is it that marriage, whatever your sexual preferences, is a "basic" right? Personally I would have thought that it was more of a privilege. The Cardinal has recently expressed the view of the Roman Catholic Church on homosexual marriage, you may disagree, but this is not the platform on which to air your opinions. Brendandh (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this doesn't apply to the UK, but perhaps you could take the time to read SCOTUS case Loving v. Virginia, which reached a unanimous verdict against racialist anti-marriage laws and in whose verdict it is written: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." The status of marriage as fundamental right (that is, fundamental, neither "basic" nor "privelige") under the 14th Amendment was re-affirmed again by SCOTUS in Zablocki v. Redhail. 86.24.147.142 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the fact that an official 9of a church supports the teachings of the curch is pretty much irrelevant to his biography. And the "joke" reference has naught to do with any BLP in any case. Meanwhile, the BLP-violating comments above ought well to be stricken. Collect (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations in tomorrow's (24 Feb 13) Observer[edit]

Apparently, tomorrow's edition of The Observer is reporting that there are complaints against Cardinal O'Brien of 'inappropriate behaviour' dating back to the 1980s:[1] I'm not going to add this to the article - such a contentious suggestion needs much broader and better sourcing than that. But someone else is likely to, so people should keep a close eye on this article over the next few days for BLP violations. Robofish (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to remind Wikipedians that The Observer is a newspaper of repute, and reports that four separate complaints have been submitted to nuncio Antonio Mennini. The four submitted statements containing their claims to the nuncio's office the week before Pope Benedict's resignation on 11 February. They fear that, if O'Brien travels to the forthcoming papal conclave to elect a new pope, the church will not fully address their complaints. The Observer reports that the Cardinal contests the complaints. The four priests asked a senior figure in the diocese to act as their representative to the nuncio's office. Through this representative the nuncio replied, in emails seen by the Observer, that he appreciated their courage. Yassi (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify also to Wikipedians, The Observer, whilst maybe a paper of "repute", is also the leading Sunday soapbox for the left in the UK. Certain sections of which have been angered by the Cardinal's views on certain matters, and are virulently opposed to him and all he stands for. Brendandh (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your point in regard to the editing of the article being? The Observer is either a WP:RS or it's not. Are you implying that it has fabricated that the claims have been submitted to the Vatican?
The flurry of activity, largely from IPs has, as predicted, started so I've posted at WikiProject Scotland that an eye on it would be welcome. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't deny that the Observer has falsely reported, but it is the spin it puts on it, and the cynical timing of the allegations just prior to the Conclave. In my opinion it all smacks of a smear campaign by the Cardinal's enemies. An eye on this page would be something I would welcome too. There seems to be flurries on this article whenever he opens his mouth, or some section of society has a gripe with the Catholic Church. The fact that the Cardinal faces allegations (ie not proven), or that a pressure group gave him a dubious award should not be in the lead of the article , but if need be in the body of it, whereas his position as the leader of the Scotttish Roman Catholic Church, and most senior Catholic clergyman in the UK should. Brendandh (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you don't actually mean "I don't deny that the Observer has falsely reported" but either that you do deny it or that you don't deny it has correctly reported the matter. I would agree that the additions of much of this material to the lede were of questionable appropriateness but that is down to the editing of users on Wikipedia, nothing to do with the sources which they were based, or supposedly based, upon. One of these sources, which supposedly supported a POV statement in the lede and which I removed earlier, was from a late article in yesterday's Daily Mail, the polar opposite of the Observer as far as mainstream newspapers is concerned. The content of both articles is very similar, as is the coverage on the BBC web site. It doesn't fit very well with your conspiracy theories, which your laying out of on an article talk page looks dangerously close to WP:NOTFORUM territory. Let's stick to aspects which pertain to the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, agreed, but let's attempt to keep the silly hate stuff away no?
Of course, as long it truly is silly hate stuff. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Sources[edit]

I have marked the article as being linked to a current event. There are some primary sources linked to from http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/02/25/cardinal_keith_o_brien_resigns_four_priests_accuse_archbishop_of_inappropriate.html which would be entirely appropiate to use. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cardinal-keith-obrien-departs-with-an-apology-but-no-admission-as-pope-forces-him-out-over-allegations-of--inappropriate-behaviour-8509612.html quotes the editor of The Tablet ( http://www.thetablet.co.uk ), which also seems like an excellent balancing source. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cats[edit]

Re this: read WP:BLPCAT, and don't try it again. Unless, of course, he actually goes public and comes out. But don't bet on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The actual rule is "Accordingly, for a living person categories regarding sexual orientation may be used only when the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely he has acknowledged now that he committed "inappropriate" sexual acts (ie acts relating to homosexuality). I doubt O'Brien will ever say publicly "I am gay", but I think the article needs to be clear now that he is attracted to the same sex; publicly reinforced through his actions if not his words. Anything else is pretty much a fudge. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He needs to self-identify as LGBT before we can add the category. The rule is fairly solid on this, so we do need him to say "I am gay". - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But hasn't he done that? He has admitted publicly that he has made "mistakes" relating to homosexual sexual misconduct. Surely that must be sufficient? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No -- the policy requires that he openly embraces the identity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is to "publicly self identify", not embrace. He has said publicly, "I ... admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal." The sexual conduct in question was of a homosexual character. Thus O'Brien can be described as homosexual (or at the very least bisexual). I'm concerned that misinterpretation of this category gives the impression that someone is homosexual or gay by choice - by deciding to live a certain "lifestyle" - when rather it is the case that sexuality is innate. I think we're taking an unnecessarily hard line on this. Perhaps it's being done to protect the public reputation of the Catholic Church. I hope it isn't. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not interested in protecting the reputation of the Catholic Church. I do however think that my interpretation of the requirements of BLPCAT is widely shared here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But your interpretation concludes that even though O'Brien has admitted publicy to having had sexual relations with individuals of the same sex, that this does not constitute public self-identification as being homosexual (or bisexual). This strikes me as rather tenuous I'm afraid. What, for example, are we to make of categorising Liberace I wonder - who categorically denied publicly that he was gay?! Are you honestly saying that you don't think O'Brien is homosexual/ bisexual?Contaldo80 (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rules for living people are a lot stricter than those for other biographies, and the self identification rule places a heavy requirement on what is needed for the category to be applied. While his actions might well suggest that he was homsexual, the policy requires self identification.
I think part of the difficulty with labels is that there is a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour - although sexual behaviour is often part of a person's sexual orientation, it is possible for the two not to be aligned. - Bilby (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but in O'Brien's case it does seems to be aligned. The behaviour was not a one-off. Oh well, I'll drop the issue then. I just think categories are helpful to point readers towards articles of interest, but I guess not essential. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is obviously homosexual Frimoussou (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy for Category:LGBT clergy is that the list is for "people who are ordained ministers or priests or other clergy or who have taken religious vows and who identify as (or are known to be) lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender." My italics. We know he has had sex with other men. Can we go ahead and include this category now? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you at all interested in understanding this issue? Did you look at WP:BLPCAT? I'm among the last people who would be interested in trying to make life easy for someone like O'Brien, but unless he has self-identified then this category stays out. (no pun intended) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCAT says "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." However, the description for Category:LGBT clergy covers "people who are ordained ministers or priests or other clergy or who have taken religious vows and who identify as (or are known to be) lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender." I think you have dismissed this far too quickly. If you think the latter policy can be reconciled with the former then fine - but I'd be interested in hearing that first. Also it's worth considering why the BLP rules are in place - "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". What harm will be caused to Keith O'Brien by categorising him as a LGBT clergyman? Do you think he might lose his job? (er, that's already happened). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "or are known to be" passage is incompatible with WP:BLPCAT and should be removed. Sexual orientation is a matter of self-identification; if O'Brien hasn't identified as gay, then Wikipedia is not going to identify him as gay. If you want further input on this one, I suggest posting at BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80, you seem to be confusing the notes on a category page with a policy; it is not a policy. It’s also worth noting that some of the articles in the category are biographies of living people, some are of people who are dead. WP:BLPCAT is a policy, please understand and adhere to it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nomoskedasticity, sexual orientation is not purely a matter of self-identification. This is used as a way to keep gay history "in the closet". If the argument is to focus on BLP then I think we need to be absolutely clear whether we think O'Brien did or did not acknowledge having sexual relations with other men. I think he did - as he has apologized publicly. I'm unclear as to why this is not sufficient? Then the policy states that the issue must be notable - well as he had to retire early as primate of Scotland following pressure from the pope then I think we've ticked that box. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested, the way forward for you at this point is BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O'Brien's country[edit]

O'Brien will make atonement in an unspecified place away from 'his country'. It was not stated whether 'his country' refers to Scotland where he has lived for most of his adult life, to Northern Ireland where he was born and grew up, to both, to the whole UK, to the British Isles as a whole or what. [1] “Any decision regarding future arrangements for His Eminence [Cardinal Keith O'Brien] shall be agreed with the Holy See.”[2]

  1. ^ Cardinal Keith O’Brien leaves Scotland under Vatican pressure
  2. ^ Cardinal Keith O’Brien leaves Scotland under Vatican pressurePress release regarding Cardinal O'Brien

This looks to me like deliberate obfuscation, still if anyone knows anything more specific about what the Vatican means by O'Brien's country that could improve the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What crime?[edit]

One issue that should belong in the article, but I can't find a reference: did O'Brien commit any crime against the secular criminal law, and if so, what? This will depend upon the ages of the complainants. It may be that he is no more culpable in secular law than, say, a boss who sexually harasses an employee who depends upon him, in the 1980s. The strong reaction of the Church indicates that they take interfering with a priest—one of their own—to be exceedingly serious, even if no laws are broken; but assaulting minors by those "caring" for them is minor, to be dealt with by moving the offender to a fresh supply of children; and covering up and even colluding with (by moving offenders) such secular crimes—being accomplices after the fact, a crime in itself—is a laudable act. (I'm not actually approving of O'Brien's actions, just trying to establish the legal status.) Pol098 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources that indicate crime(s) committed, that would of course be useful. The rest of the post above strays rather too close to WP:NOTFORUM territory though; please let's stick to improving the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't only depend on the ages of the complainants, it depends on whether they consented to what they now describe as unwanted and traumatic. Currently as far as I know the allegations are so vague we can't say if the criminal law was broken. Without a good source we can't put much into the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proxima Centauri: that's basically what I said, my comment was a suggestion for sources to be sought; if I'd found any I'd have used them. I don't know how the law stood on sexual harassment and related points in the 1980s, but a lot less strict than now. I find it very surprising that there's all this hooh-hah in the press as if this was comparable with (definitely illegal) child abuse, but nary a comment of whether a crime (against secular law) has actually been committed. Pol098 (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Op-eds[edit]

This article should not become a summary of op-ed pieces regarding the thoughts of journalists etc. about O'Brien and the issues of the scandal. We should deal with the facts of the matter. The reliability of the sources is not the issue but the relevance of the material to an encyclopedia entry. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely concur! Brendandh (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proxima Centauri, will you stop tinkering and remove the last two paragraphs of that section? If you think you are giving O'Brien a kicking, on the contrary you are undermining the credibility of the article. These sentences: "Three months after the complaints there has been no inquiry and the complainants would like more action. If the Church hierarchy had wanted O’Brien to undertake "prayer and penance" they could have required it much earlier and did not need to wait till the Cardinal tried to settle in Dunbar." are your own personal editorialising, pure and simple, and have no place here. I ought to strip them out immediately under WP:BLP but I will give you the chance to do so. This is a factual article, not a collection of thoughts on and opinions about the facts (particularly not yours or mine), however interesting or credible. Take the two paragraphs out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with a direct quote. Is that better? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not as what I've said above about op-eds pertains as much to the new quote. Both paragraphs in their entirety removed please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are at it again; please stop. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it'll help to put it in the following terms: if there is new factual material which comes to light about the subject, O'Brien, it is pertinent to the article and this can be reliably sourced, that's fine, it can be added in the form "factual material (ref supporting the material)"; if you come across a blog or a press article and it can only be framed in terms of "publication x/commentator y thinks z about the matter (quote of them saying this(ref to quote of them saying this))" and can't be put in terms of "factual material(ref supporting material)", it probably does not have a place in the wiki article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Deveney[edit]

Catherine Deveney is a reporter working for a responsible newspaper who has researched the issue extensively and contacted the complainants. this edit contains factual information and a brief statement of Deveney's opinion clearly stated as such. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well who Deveney is and she is a very good journalist in my opinion (not that that is relevant). Please read my post above again and remove the material. It is now framed in an even more POV manner. "there has been no proper inquiry", "they could have required it much earlier" - are these quotes or are you just putting your own POV in an encyclopedia article? You are clearly highly critical of O'Brien and his behaviour but your ham-fisted pushing of material, whether it has an appropriate place in an encyclopedia, are not helping your case. The facts are grim enough; let them speak for themselves. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Video on embryo research sent to MPs - notability[edit]

I made some changes to the topic of a 5' video recording made by O'Brien on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in 2008 and sent to MPs and put on YouTube, adding as source a press release by the Scottish Catholic Media office. I think the circumstances (video made by O'Brien, publicised by Scottish Catholic Media office, sent to MPs) make this notable and important enough to include in the article. It's been suggested to me that it isn't and shouldn't be included. Perhaps others would like to comment? The text in the article (updated to show text as of 6 June, somewhat different in detail from what was said to be non-notable, substance and sources unchanged):

O'Brien himself narrated a 5-minute video recording in which he stated the "many, many concerns" of the Catholic Church concerning the Bill which was to be voted on in Parliament. It was posted on YouTube, and sent as a DVD to every member of Parliament[1]. In the video O'Brien made clear he was not against medical research, and supported research with non-embryonic stem cells, but was opposed to using embryos which would later be destroyed. He expressed the Church's concerns over "human-animal hybrids".[2]

  1. ^ Scottish Catholic Media Office: Cardinal O'Brien & Bishop Tartaglia continue opposition to HFEA Bill, 10 April 2008
  2. ^ Link to 10 April 2008 YouTube video in which O'Brien himself talks about the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Article text quoted updated 6 June.[reply]

"Exile"[edit]

The article shouldn't describe O'Brien's departure from Scotland as exile, though it should of course report that it has been so described by some people. The Church has required him to leave Scotland, but cannot compel him; he has no more been exiled than an employee given the choice between the Tirana office or redundancy. Less so, in fact; he is retired. Nor is he at risk of imprisonment if he stays—I don't think he has been accused of any crime.

In some contexts "exile" is used informally for a departure which is not actually forced (e.g., tax exile), but such use is confusing here, where it may be seen to be accepting the spurious analogy with CIA "rendition". Pol098 (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

should say "despite the scandal"?[edit]

I find this:

After his resignation the Vatican continued to refer to "His Eminence Cardinal Keith Patrick O'Brien, Archbishop Emeritus of St Andrews and Edinburgh".

OK, but should it be SAID that this is despite the scandal involved in his stepping down? That is the normal title used for a prelate who is no longer bishop of a diocese: continuing to use the last residential title he had, with "Emeritus" inserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enclosed abbey[edit]

Officially shamed, but Keith O'Brien may attend historic meeting of Catholic clerics in Rome Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search for enclosed abbeys in the English Midlands and found only abbeys with nuns. Can O'Brien be trusted not to fiddle with nuns? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP, WP:POV, WP:BLP, WP:OR. Just saying..... Brendandh (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

England is in Europe[edit]

Really, what is the value of saying that he could be in a monastery in Europe following a sentence that says he could be in the Midlands. This is very abdly phrased. "Elsewhere in Europe" maybe? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you arrive at this?[edit]

I find:

"As of July 2013 O'Brien remained Britain's most senior Catholic."

How do you arrive at that remark? Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is a more senior cardinal, although he is over the age limit for participation in a conclave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody else has commented, i will (the text is still in the article). The statement is from the source cited (FWIW). I think it makes sense as, at the time, O'Brien was a working archbishop as well as a cardinal; Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor was a retired archbishop who had been appointed cardinal a couple of years before O'Brien. This makes sense if we consider a working archbishop to be senior to a retired one made a cardinal earlier. Whether it's right or not I leave to the experts. The general idea is that there was nobody in Britain who could hold O'B to account. Pol098 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: March 20 announcement[edit]

I am seeing in other sources that he retains the title and "red hat", but for all other purposes he has ceased as a cardinal. I don't think I quite understand going back to purple for the background of his name. How does this compare to Cardinal Groer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there are multiple sources confirming that he has retained the title of "cardinal" and he has only renounced duties that come with it (i.e. voting in any papal conclaves that may convene prior to him turning 80). Page has been corrected to reflect this status. The alliance (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Cardinal Groer, after having already retired as Archbishop of Vienna (Austria), was later asked by Pope John Paul II to give up all public function and to leave Austria, although he would be buried in Austria (died 2003). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBC reports "The clergyman will also be unable to hear public confessions" -- Aronzak (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is already implied in the article. Also, are there sources that say that he can remain a cardinal without being the cardinal-priest of the Church of Sts. Joachim and Anne? It seems like one cannot be a cardinal without a corresponding church in Rome. The alliance (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Notice, by the way, that that title was newly-created when it was assigned to Cardinal Groer. Both he and Keith O'Brien had to give up their posts because of scandal.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having Keith O'Brien keep the title of cardinal means the Vatican maintains control, as was presumably the case with Cardinal Groer. The last to give up the cardinalate, other than by death or by becoming pope, was Louis Billot in 1927; he was a Jesuit priest and not a bishop, and went back to being Father Louis Billot, SJ; he died in 1931. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there is a misunderstanding, but "Cardinal-Priest" is merely a designation of the grade of cardinal, not indicative of ordination status. Keith O'Brien remains unquestionably a bishop. Most cardinals are "Cardinal-Priests." The alliance (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No misunderstanding. When Keith O'Brien became a cardinal, he was Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, and as the bishop of diocese outside the Roman province, he is placed in the order of cardinal priests. Yes, a cardinal of the rank of cardinal priest or cardinal deacon could have the title of (arch)bishop elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith O'Brien. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Keith O'Brien. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Keith O'Brien. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death[edit]

The Scottish Sun gives today as the date of his death,(https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2383187/cardinal-keith-obrien-died/) but I'm not going to add it as a reference. However I can't seen anything better yet. William Avery (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_O%27Brien&oldid=1211943571"