Talk:Christopher Geidt, Baron Geidt

sacking

Geidt was sacked as Private Secretary in July, along with Samantha Cohen, his assistant. This should be reflected. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Currently rumour and supposition, officially. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not according to the BBC ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"Claimed by The Times…" & "The BBC understands…" is not really a good citation for an encyclopaedia entry. But that is just my opinion. I'm happy to be overuled if others are happy with it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You make a reasonable point: I don't think there's any harm in waiting a couple of days, to see if anything more concrete emerges in the media ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Are we supposed to "be bold" and bring up a discussion on the talk page (wow, such boldness!) or should I wait until the Queen releases a press release, which is how she apparently now reflects her will, ala "Lady" Louise Windsor and "Lord" Severn? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, I'm just suggesting we wait until there is formal confirmation of the story, however it is manifested.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Life peerages & infoboxes

Please do come along and discuss at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Life peerages & infoboxes DBD 18:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems mildly strange that two users (both of whom have edits mainly confined to the Geidt family) in rapid succession have altered information included on this page to downplay Geidt's parentage (sourced from Burke's Peerage 2003, a legitimate published source) and insist on his father's occupation, with the only citation being provided being one to which the average Wikipedia user will not have access, namely the Marylebone birth register (a reader could go to the trouble of ordering the birth certificate, but this seems ludicrous). No published source yet provided for this article states that Mervyn Geidt was a barrister. No Google books finding of a reference to his year of call to the bar, nor his inn of court- in fact, rather a dearth of information regarding M. Geidt, all things considered. Justices' clerks come from the ranks of both barristers and solicitors, so Mervyn Geidt no doubt WAS a barrister, but without providing a published source against which a check of the accuracy of the information can be made, it seems improper to state this here. He COULD have been a solicitor, simply based on what the previous published source indicated about him. After all, citing C. Geidt's birth certificate allows the editor to make whatever claim he might wish to; one might claim that Mervyn Geidt was a high court judge, and without any reasonable method of confirming this, the falsehood would stand unchallenged. A published source confirming Mervyn Geidt as a barrister ought to be provided to corroborate the claim made in the most recent edit of this article. Additionally, there appears no necessity, simply because Geidt senior is 'non-notable', to relegate him to the bottom of the article when, naturally, his existence is a somewhat important factor in C. Geidt's birth, be it at Marylebone or anywhere else. There further seems no necessity to excise mention of C. Geidt's mother Diana (née Mackenzie), seeing as, notwithstanding her 'non-notable' status in as much as she does not warrant her own Wikipedia article, she too was of integral importance in C. Geidt's birth and upbringing. Their inclusion in the 'Early years' section made perfect sense, and the subtle blurring of the facts (to whatever end?) as provided in a respected, published source can only validly be considered detrimental to an encyclopaedic coverage of the subject of the article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.200.16 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the above. I would point out that the convention in biographical articles is to refer in the heading summary to <Subject>, son of Y and his wife Z. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Military service

The article currently states "An Army Scholar, Geidt enlisted in the Scots Guards and attended the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. He was later commissioned in the Intelligence Corps."

His Who's Who 2020 (most recent) entry currently states: "RMA Sandhurst (invalided), 1982–83; small business, 1983–86; RUSI, 1987–90; Commnd Intelligence Corps, 1987–94". His Who's Who 2015 states: "RMA Sandhurst (invalided), 1982–83; small business, 1983–86; RUSI, 1987–90; Army (commnd Intelligence Corps), 1990–94".

No mention of the Scots Guards. The year officially being commissioned into the British Army changes: either 4 or 7 years after invaliding out of Sandhurst.

Geidt is a very unusual surname, so searching the London Gazette [1] only produces 54 notices. Between the entry on 30 September 1966 for an unrelated J. B. Geidt and the 16 June 2007 entry for Christopher Geidt receiving his CVO, there is an unrelated probate entry on 30 October 1992 and his OBE on 13 June 1997.

If he was on an Army university scholarship, he should have appeared in the London Gazette. And his commission in 1987 or 1990 should have also appeared.

Can anyone help with this? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I was at Sandhurst later in the 80's and was invalided out. I remember that potential officers for the Guards would go on something called Brigade Squad for maybe a couple of months before Sandhurst, to prepare them. I'm sure they were taken on strength as private soldiers, therefore he may have spent some time nominally in the Scots Guards before RMAS. If he were injured at Sandhurst, they may have suggested to leave the army for a while and return once the injury was recovered, as they did with me. He may then have changed sponsor regiments to the intelligence corps, and been commissioned into that. 2A00:23C4:D601:F201:D8DD:F59E:5452:67B3 (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Heritage

Based on his surname, is he of German heritage? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Daughters

This page from thepeerage.com says his daughters are: Olivia Rose MacKenzie Geidt2 b. 1999 and Iona Catherine MacKenzie Geidt6 b. 2003. But it isn't a WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The same source confirms his mother's name as Diana Cecil MacKenzie. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP, that website is deprecated. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It offers Burke's Peerage (2003) and The Daily Telegraph as sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC) p.s. I don't see FreeBMD listed at WP:RSP.

It also cites Wikipedia, which should raise a red flag (this one not this one)! We could use Burke's Peerage and the Daily Telegraph as sources, though, if we could find what we wanted to support in them. FreeBMD looks like it's self-published by volunteers, so would probably fail WP:UGC and WP:BLPSPS, and it certainly fails WP:BLPPRIMARY. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought the primary source for UK Births, Marriages and Deaths were the actual records held by the General Register Office? They may be volunteers at FreeBMD, I don't know. But surely there is some "editorial oversight"? It's not WP:SPS like just one guy working alone in his bedroom? I have noticed that the location of FreeBMD links sometimes changes, but that's more an inconvenience. In 16 years of editing here, I have never seen any evidence of FreeBMD being wrong. Perhaps you know otherwise. I often add FreeBMD links at article Talk pages as I think they can provide a good starting point in a search for better sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I always thought it failed WP:BLPPRIMARY, as it, in effect, mirrors public record content. I could be wrong though, and cannot remember any specific examples where it was ruled out, and CBA to look for any. And I won't claim that my 17+ years of editing here trumps your mere 16 years. ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear, "wikiseebs". I'm not going to mention any trumps if I can help it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikiseebs? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, seebs Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, no wonder I was struggling with Seebs. Shall we add yours to Seeb (disambiguation)? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not. Provided you can find a good source, of course. Did you know that "Lord Geidt" is Scottish rhyming slang for "shite"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Shame, I've "reached [my] article limit of free articles for this week" on The Scotsman website, so will have to wait until next week to enjoy that page. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Tip: they might have removed that entry by next week... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to take your word for it then, I'm not paying £11.99 to witness it for myself today! -- DeFacto (talk). 11:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I can do a very informal verification for £9.99 (offer expires midnight tonight). I just need to get Photoshop loaded up. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)