Talk:Keith O'Brien

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Opinions on gay marriage

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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.  Cardinal Keith O’Brien leaves Scotland under Vatican pressure “Any decision regarding future arrangements for His Eminence [Cardinal Keith O'Brien] shall be agreed with the Holy See.”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)
thread_title:  O'Brien's country 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What crime? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Absolutely concur! Brendandh (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I replaced it with a direct quote.  Is that better? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Op-eds 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Catherine Deveney 

message: 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 ParliamentScottish Catholic Media Office: Cardinal O'Brien & Bishop Tartaglia continue opposition to HFEA Bill, 10 April 2008. 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".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)
thread_title:  Video on embryo research sent to MPs - notability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Exile" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  should say "despite the scandal"? 

message: Officially shamed, but Keith O'Brien may attend historic meeting of Catholic clerics in Rome Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOAP, WP:POV, WP:BLP, WP:OR. Just saying..... Brendandh (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enclosed abbey 

message: 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)
thread_title:  England is in Europe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How do you arrive at this? 

message: 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)
replies: text: BBC reports "The clergyman will also be unable to hear public confessions" -- Aronzak (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  re: March 20 announcement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808214221/http://www.vatican.va:80/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_obrien_kmp_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_obrien_kmp_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130508143824/http://www.scmo.org/articles/statement-from-cardinal-obrien.html to http://www.scmo.org/articles/statement-from-cardinal-obrien.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150405173002/http://scmo.org/articles/cardinal-obrien--bishop-tartaglia-continue-opposition-to-hfea-bill.html to http://scmo.org/articles/cardinal-obrien--bishop-tartaglia-continue-opposition-to-hfea-bill.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_obrien_kmp_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130827063149/http://www.thetablet.co.uk/latest-news/5603 to http://www.thetablet.co.uk/latest-news/5603
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130616015957/http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/223844-sightings-of-cardinal-keith-obrien-in-dunbar-concern-catholic-church/ to http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/223844-sightings-of-cardinal-keith-obrien-in-dunbar-concern-catholic-church/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/vatican-cardinal-obrien-leaves-scotland-to-pray-atone-after-admitting-to-sexual-misconduct/2013/05/15/9d1590ba-bd5b-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150926213953/http://www.scmo.org/articles/church-welcomes-pope-francis%E2%80%99-decision-to-accept-cardinal-o%E2%80%99brien%E2%80%99s-resignation.html to http://www.scmo.org/articles/church-welcomes-pope-francis%E2%80%99-decision-to-accept-cardinal-o%E2%80%99brien%E2%80%99s-resignation.html
*Added  tag to http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1527572006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date of death