Talk:Malcolm Offord

Request for removal of inaccurate information

The article on Malcolm Offord contains the statement: "Offord and his wife Sarah were kidnapped at gunpoint in Tobago in 1998." This statement is untrue. Lord Offord was not involved in a gunpoint incident in Tobago and has never been married to a Sarah. He was married once only - in December 1997 to Elizabeth Rebecca Offord who is often known as Libet. Powerbase Please can this statement be removed from the article.

Gillian at Badenoch (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Removed that content. From the single source it's not clear it's the same Offord. And also the editor who added it was blocked for using sock puppets, so not the most reliable. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Declaration of Conflict of Interest

I do not know Malcolm Offord, the Lord of Garvel personally: I follow him as a philanthropist and politician (Peer in the House of Lords). However, I found out through a chain of acquaintances his preferred photograph for his Wikipedia page, the current photograph. DavidFinFro (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

COI? UPE?

So recently we've had editors from Badenoch take an interest in this article (at least following procedure and not editing the article directly) and someone who claims to know Offord through "a chain of acquaintance" editing this article. When the political landscape is rapidly changing and cabinet positions are up for grabs this is a really bad look. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Alistair - I do not know who "the editors from Badenoch" to whom you refer are. I do not have any connection with Badenoch or with any of the other organisations mentioned.

This article has not been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments - how one proves a negative I do not know, but I assure you that I have not received any renumeration.

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." Please define "close": I do not know Malcolm Offord personally and have never spoken with him about creating or editing this page. As I say, I follow him as a philanthropist and politician.

Given that he already had a position in the Scottish Office before the current situation developed, I cannot see how the rapidly changing political landscape affects this page.

I am transparent that I received information through a chain of acquaintances - honestly, if I had something to hide I would not have decalred this tenuous link.

Please could you explain why you removed the Philanthropy section (I don't understand why you removed it?).

I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so please forgive me if I sound a bit terse - i just want to resolve this. DavidFinFro (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed:

The title "The Right Honourable" should be removed

• Why it should be changed:

The House of Lords replied to an email enquiry:

Good morning

Thank you for your email,

We can confirm that Lord Offord of Garvel's full title does not included 'The Rt Hon'.

As indicated on his Parliamentary webpage:

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4931/career

The House of Lords is not responsible for and cannot update Wikipedia pages.

We hope you find this information useful.

You can find out more about the House of Lords ordering or downloading free publications.

Kind regards,

Enquiry Service

Communications

House of Lords

London SW1A 0PW

020 7219 3107 Freephone 0800 2230 855

www.parliament.uk/lords

Sign up for our weekly what’s on newsletter

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Private email- I am happy to forward a copy.

DavidFinFro (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

References

@AlistairMcMillan: do you have any objection to removing the infobox title "The Right Honourable"? It appears to be unsourced and while I do not feel competent to evaluate whether a person in Offord's position is eligible for the honorific, it seems to me that DavidFinFro and the House of Lords have no motivation to give inaccurate information, whatever conflict of interest they may or may not have. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bilorv, Hi @AlistairMcMillan - the user who was most involved in this edit was @AviationEnzo. Perhaps he should be asked if he has any objections? DavidFinFro (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing "The Right Honorable" from the article, but I do question whether we accept alleged private emails that people allege to have received as proof of anything.

AviationEnzo referred to this entry in Hansard from 1989 that says anyone with a title "below the rank of Marquess" (i.e. Baron) is entitled to the "Right Honorable" which is cited in the relevant article. Perhaps the rules have changed since then. Perhaps the Earl was just mistaken. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

For that matter "Enquiry Service" at the House of Lords could also be mistaken. That's why we depend on citable sources. If our article on The Right Honourable is incorrect with it's cited 1989 source, then someone should point us to a more accurate source on the rules for the use of the title so we can update that article, and likely remove the title not just from this article but potentially from a large number of articles where we may be misusing it. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@AlistairMcMillan: I've removed the statement. In the case where a piece of information is contained in an article without an adequate source, no source is required disproving the fact. It can just be removed. This is an edge case as honorifics in the infobox are not typically sourced, but nonetheless I think the burden of proof must lie on somebody to show that the honorific is accurate.

This is not accepting an unverifiable source as "proof", but rather as a common sense consideration in an editorial decision. Verifiability is not the same as accuracy, so that the House of Lords could be mistaken is nothing to do with whether their comments are public or private. — Bilorv (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Again I don't object to it being removed, but I'm confused by your reply as we do have a source that says he is entitled to the honorific. The one I cited above, the one AviationEnzo referred to, the one cited on the The Right Honorable article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for doing this. DavidFinFro (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DavidFinFro, @AlistairMcMillan, I apologise for my late response. I see that the honorific-prefix "The Right Honourable" has already been removed but I thought I'd still respond. As far as I'm aware peers below the rank of Marquess are still entitled to the honorific style. This would include Offord as a life peer. If you go to this page on the House of Lords website: [1], you will see that it says "The (Rt Hon.* the) Lord X" so he would be The Right Honourable the Lord Offord of Garvel. Though that might not be enough to add it back but I thought I'd put it here. AviationEnzo (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:AviationEnzo , https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:AlistairMcMillan. The page referenced states

"Address some members using their title only, for example, Lord Sugar or Baroness Boothroyd.

Other members have an additional part to their title which should also be used to address them, for example, Lord Collins of Highbury or Baroness Harris of Richmond."

I neither case is "Baroness" preceded by the title "Rt. Hon". I infer from this that although the title is used in correspondence it is not a part of the title as such. In the same way, I do not precede my name with "Mr" although it is used in correspondence.

Looking at the "additional part to their title" wording, this refers to the "...of Garvel".

The web page cited could be clearer but given that the honorific Rt. Hon is not used on the Career page https://members.parliament.uk/member/4931/career I am inclined to follow the Government website. DavidFinFro (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Please undo editing / removal of a section from this page;

• What I think should be changed:

Alistair Macmilan's edit 17:19, 22 October 2022‎ AlistairMcMillan talk contribs‎ 23,086 bytes −3,830‎ Rich guy gives pennies to charity. Shocking.

• Why it should be changed:

There was no reason to remove the section on Philanthropy. It was neutral and properly researched. I have reached out to the editor to ask why he removed it but he has not responded. The comment "Rich guy gives pennies to charity. Shocking." is a personal opinion, unsubstantiated and not neutral. I feel that the comment and editing fall outside the neutrality requirements of Wikipedia.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

DavidFinFro (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Please read WP:PST. In short, we shouldn't be quoting from a charity about what the charity claims to be doing. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't change the overall article by very much so removing it is not a major issue for me. DavidFinFro (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Please remove the This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments template

• What I think should be changed:

The template stating that "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". I have reached out to the editor about this but have not received a reply.

• Why it should be changed:

I have not received payment for any editing which I have done on this page. As the template was added after I had edited a section I feel that it was directed at my editing.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

DavidFinFro (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

References

I never said I tagged the article because of your editing. Why do you assume that? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I assumed it because I am a major editor for this page, because you added it after my last edit and because you appear to have (I feel - correct me if I am wrong) issues with my editing. If I am wrong then I apologise.

Is there any way in which I can ask a non-involved editor to check this page over and get it cleaned up? I wanted - and want - to see an accurate page on Wikipedia about someone who I admire. Nothing more, nothing less. DavidFinFro (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: You do have COI if you have a relationship with Malcolm Offord. Which according to this [2] you have a weak relationship as you have the same friends. Lightoil (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Please remove the A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject template

• What I think should be changed:

Please remove the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" template

• Why it should be changed:

I do not have a close connection with the subject. Although he was a non-exec director of Social justice Scotland and I was a Research Director, we were based in different cities (London and Glasgow) and did not have dealings with each other. I feel that the template is unnecessary as I have already declared my interest and this is posted with each edit as well as being noted on my page.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://powerbase.info/index.php/Social_Justice_Scotland#Non-exec_directors DavidFinFro (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This change has been made and the referenced maintenance banner at the top of the article has been removed. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

References