This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stephen Robson is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
The correct term is as above; "ordination" is used for priesthood and diaconate, but bishops are "consecrated" in the Catholic Church, and on Wikipedia this is reflected in the template for infoboxes. Anglicanus may use different terminology on account of his (presumed) denomination, but this is incorrect. Mark.hamid (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your own comments are only partially correct. The following is the relevant section in the Roman Catholic section of the Consecration article:
Ordination of bishops
The ordination of a new bishop is also called a consecration. While the term "episcopal ordination" is now more common, "consecration" was the preferred term in the centuries immediately preceding the Second Vatican Council (11 October 1962—8 December 1965).
The Vatican II document Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy n. 76 states,
"Both the ceremonies and texts of the ordination rites are to be revised. The address given by the bishop at the beginning of each ordination or consecration may be in the mother tongue.
"When a bishop is consecrated, the laying of hands may be done by all the bishops present."
The English text of Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, 1997, under the heading "Episcopal ordination—fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders", uses "episcopal consecration" as a synonymous term, using "episcopal ordination" and "episcopal consecration" interchangeably. (CCC nn. 1556–1558)
The Code of Canon Law Latin-English Edition, (1983), under "Title VI—Orders" uses the term sacrae ordinationis minister "minister of sacred ordination" and the term consecratione episcopali "episcopal consecration". (CCL cc. 1012, 1014)
In my experience the terminology used in official Roman Catholic publications in English is nearly always "episcopal ordination". It seems, however, that "episcopal consecration" is still often preferred in Britain. Before you start falsely accusing other editors of being "incorrect" you should get the facts right yourself. Anglicanus (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, before you start editing existing text which is not incorrect, you should be certain that your edit is justified please. If it ain't broke... Mark.hamid (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What bullshit. You falsely accused my edits of being "incorrect" when, in fact, "episcopal ordination" is not incorrect and is actually now the usual terminology. Articles should normally be written using the prevailing contemporary terminology. So in future you might try commenting in a less condescending manner. Anglicanus (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you made no similar assertion by tweaking the (acceptable) original and then escalating the matter by reverting? I think not... Mark.hamid (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the clearly established custom among the Catholics of Scotland to refer to Cardinals Gray and O'Brien with two Christian names (pace the press in recent years); there is no cause to remove them. In prayer, reference was invariably made to "Keith Patrick, our archbishop" and Cardinal Gray is similarly commemorated. The original text is therefore not liable to be tinkered with arbitrarily; please state the relevant MoS reference here if you insist on doing so. Mark.hamid (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was the case some years ago that "Cardinal" was not meant to be used in article's within the person's name but it appears that the MOS has been revised on this matter in more recent times. Therefore I am happy to respect whatever is the prevailing local custom. Anglicanus (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
