Talk:Bear Grylls

Original name

Please be aware that a New York Times article was released today that used a vandalized version of this Wikipedia page as its source for Bear's original name. The vandalized version said that his name was "Mitchell Winston Grylls". There were only 3 pages on the internet that used that name: Wikipedia and 2 others quoting Wikipedia...and now a fourth in this NYT article. However, everywhere else on the internet you'll find that his name was originally Edward Michael Grylls. Furthermore, if you go to the "Ask Bear" section of Bear Grylls' official website, you'll find that he states that his nickname comes from being christened Eddie, then getting called Teddy, then getting called Bear because of the two transitions in name. Do not falsely use the NYT article as a source for his name and be aware if this vandalism becomes persistent. Thanks. ju66l3r (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have sent an email to the NYT, hopefull they will correct it, and/or advise their journo's of the perils of using wikipedia as a source. MickMacNee (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. I called their "reader comment/correction" phone answering machine and sent an e-mail directly to the author of the article. I know it's just the TV columnist, but they need better sense. ju66l3r (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Did he name himself after Edward Bear, aka Winnie the Pooh? Serendi^podous 20:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, according to his website, linked above, he was named Edward by his parents. In grade school, he was nicknamed Eddie. That later became Teddy. Friends started calling him "Bear" because of being nicknamed Teddy and he changed his name to Bear Grylls because it just stuck for so long. ju66l3r (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

According Bear on Bear Grylls and Will Ferrell: Born Survivors, he said that his sister gave him the nickname "Bear" when he was a week old? Danny (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sons' Names

There is no BLP violation by giving his sons' names. Bear specifically takes pride in both of his sons within his biography. Furthermore, one editor considers his sons' names to be BLP violations, yet leaves his wife's name? She is no more notable than her sons with regards to an article on Bear Grylls (nor are most other family of notable individuals), yet we don't just put "Spouse = Yes, Kids = Yes" because these people have names and barring a need to keep those names private, there's no harm in listing them. There's no need to keep the two sons' names private here and there's no shame in having them listed. Bear, himself, chooses to make their names public on his own website and that should satisfy any question of whether they are preferred private or not. Please leave the names in the article. Any other opinions for decision making? ju66l3r (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that their names were added as far back as at least July 2007 and an admin at the time even acknowledged their addition (see earlier talk page section on "Wife and children"). ju66l3r (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don;t agree that just because they are printed in his biography that they are notable, this article is not a reprint of his biography, or a vanity page for Bear to show pride in his kids. Additionaly, the presence of his sons names recently attracted some nonsense additions. The onus is on you to give a reason why they should be included in the article. The above discussion gives no admin endorsement of thi addition, not that one admins input is completely overriding, as being an admin is WP:nobigthing. MickMacNee (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they were notable. If they were, they'd have their own articles. I said listing their names is not a privacy issue because he chooses to make them well known to anyone interested. Vandalism is not a justification for removal of content, it's a justification for removal of vandalism. Also, you don't address why the spouse's name is somehow less inherently a BLP violation than the rest of his immediate family's names. The reason for inclusion is, as I said previously, the same reason the template doesn't just say "Spouse = Yes, Kids = Yes": it is valid public knowledge that Bear has a family and what their names are. Since there is no harm in listing their names and even Bear chooses to do so publicly, their names are within common public knowledge and that is part of what this project is about. BLP exists to prevent harm and there is no harm prevented by de-listing their names. Also, I did not claim admin endorsement, only that at the time someone who's "nobigthing" role here is to enforce the rules did not act to enforce BLP by removing or even suggesting the withdrawal of the names when they were requested to be added during an earlier protection of this article. ju66l3r (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any persuasive argument to list their names, and it doesn't look to be a standard practice in any other BLP article (I randomly looked through cat:tv presenters). Wwikipedia is not a mirror of all public information, self-published or not, and I see no purpose in having them here, nor do I see what harm it does to the article by not having them there, which is the ultimate information standard for any information added to any article. This is looking more and more like an assertion to keep based on some fancruft vanity based reason. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You are seriously off base to make that final comment. I neither added the names originally (I only sought to not have them lost amid a round of vandalism, so it's not vanity) nor am I a fan of Bear Grylls (in fact, I don't like his show preferring Stroud's Survivorman). I have nothing more to add until there is more discussion than only your opinion on this matter. ju66l3r (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both of you need to stop edit-warring over this, simply placing an argument here doesn't justify another revert Mick, you've already pretty much broken the WP:3RR revert rule. Reach a consensus between you before changing it again--Jac16888 (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

As long as the citations back up the information, I'd say include it. It's not really an irrelevant part of his bio. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Turn that comment on its head, what possible relevance are they? As far as I know they are school age, so they are unlikely to have achieved anything of note yet just for being 'sons of Bear'. Also, see above for an example of what can happen when things like this in an article are vandalised, and not picked up on. BLP comes into play there, because there is a serious risk of a BLP violation (i.e. having them vandalised and then mis-reported) by insisting on their inclusion and exposing this risk, when there is clearly no good reason to include them in the first place. Seriously, who actually comes to this article and would be dissappointed that his son's names are not here? (especially as pointed out above they are freely available on his own bio, which is under his control and not subject the risk of constant vandalism) - (check the history, this article gets a lot of vandalism). I am having a serious problem seeing why they need to be here (and 'they were here before' is no argument on wikipedia). MickMacNee (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is to find more input from the community regarding the disputed inclusion of Bear Grylls' sons' names in the article. Discussion had been limited to two people and a third opinion was sought, but more input would always be preferred.

• The first thing I would say is that the involved editors should take a break and allow the RFC comments to come in. I think we can all tell what each of you think without any further remarks. This is an extraordinarily small point to be having such a big argument over. I think this is relevant to this discussion. The sons are not notable on their own, but nobody is suggesting they have their own articles. It is normal in a bio article to mention if someone has children. However, WP:BLP1E seems to suggest that if no real encyclopedic value is added by the addition of the names, they should be left out: "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page." So I would say that policy suggests they be left out. I would add, however, that the suggestion that leaving them in exposes Wikipedia to undue legal risk is flimsy at best. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not legal risk, but per the above sections, would you want your son's names printed incorrectly in the New York Times? (I've recieved jack shit reply from them either btw). MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually it's the last topic here, I didn't notice someone archived the page. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I find it downright hilarious that such an ironic situation has developed. That is, that something Wikipedians use as a source has in turn used WP as a source and now there is a risk that bad information they used could be cited as a source for a WP article. I know it kind of makes the project look unreliable, but it makes NYT look to lazy to go beyond WP to do their research, so the joke is on them. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• RfC response: Including the name of the subject's child in an article has ample precedence here at Wikipedia. It is perfectly permissible. Escpecially considering that (based on what I've read above) the author has personally published the names of his children, he has no personal desire to hide them (which is one of the key motives behind BLP anyway.) Furthermore, names are common knowledge, and can be accessed at any local courthouse, phone directory, etc... Since this person is not hugely popular, since this is something to consider, the applicable policy is WP:NPF, which states:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source.)

Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.

Since he has published his children's names, he is not hiding this point. Nothing is said about his children that is damaging to their lives, nor is any information in this article tangential (like the name of the children's best friends, or embarrassing illnesses). It's admissible per policy.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see that the names are admissible per policy, but do they add anything to this article? I just don't see any value in having them included, so I say leave them out. Hippo43 (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my skepticism but was Bear Grylls really an SAS officer?

As I asked in the archived talk I was under the impression he was not an officer. I read his book The Kid Who Climbed Everest and on page nine it says, and I quote:

The majority of my Army-oriented school friends had joined the Guards or Cavalry, as Commissioned Officers. I felt strangely determined, though, to see military life from a different perspective--from the other end.

I had applied to join as a "squaddie," the lowest rank available, so to speak. From here, I was at ground level, the place where the real soldiers were. Nothing smart, nothing fancy, with no rank to seperate us; just good, honest and, at times, wild people. It was the best decision I ever took. I made as good a comrade there as I could have ever imagined. We shared something truly lasting--friendships, born out of being cold and scared together. It was these soldiers I would miss.

Out of the two citations that say he was an officer, one was a blog, and the both of them just say he was an officer. They never say for how long or how he became one. It is certainly plausible that one would assume, given who his father was and his schooling, that he was an officer but I believe he was probably enlisted the whole time (given his age and short term of service). I am not British and have no idea what a "squaddie" is :) but I would appreciate a quote from Bear Grylls himself that he was an SAS officer or something more substantial than a single statement.ChristianLAX (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)ChristianLAX

If you check his website^?, there's a bit about his SAS service.

1994-1997
Served with the British SAS (21 SAS). Passed UK Special Forces Selection, serving as a sabre soldier, trained in unarmed combat, desert and winter warfare, combat survival, medics, parachuting, signals, evasive driving, climbing and explosives. Served in North Africa twice. In late 1996 Bear broke his back in a free fall parachuting accident in southern Africa.

If the website is actually written by him or someone close, I would like to believe it's true to some extent. ¢rassic! (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• A 'squaddie' is the informal name for an enlisted soldier, so if the quote from the book is accurate with the blurb about low ranks, then it would appear he was not an officer, as even though it is possible to rise from squaddie to officer in the British Army, in this timfeframe I severely doubt it, although as per the previous talk, the timeline is feasible if joining as an officer cadet. The sources supporting either are very scarce, so in the case of conflicting sources, the pragmatic thing to do would just reduce it 'to served in the SAS'. Being enlisted is a misnomer anyway, as iirc 'enlisted' only applies to full time soldiers, I don't know what the correct term is for the TA, 'joined' probably. Length of service is also not particularly relevant, as short term postings are available to either enlisted men or officers. The second exerpt is not particularly relevant, as it gives no indication either way, as iirc a 'sabre soldier' can mean either enlisted man or officer. MickMacNee (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Faith

The wikipedia entry for this individual says that Bear is a Christian. While that may be true in a general definition, I believe he more appropriately considers himself a Catholic? He crosses himself every time he jumps out of an aircraft (which is basically every episode of Man vs. Wild.)

It is not uncommon for Americans to state Catholic or Protestant when identifying themselves as a Christian, although I'm unsure if this translates to Britain. Does this merit inclusion, and if so, is simply crossing oneself a declaration of Catholicism? Suitmonster (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that Bear Grylls has links with Holy Trinity Brompton and the Alpha course. Holy trinity is an anglican church, whereas Alpha is run by both protestant and catholic churches. I think Christian is more fitting term. Just because he crosses himself doesn't make him a Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.214.91 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, just because he crosses himself doesn't make him a Catholic. He is likely an Anglican.

"Officer" and reliable sources

Already been raised, but this really needs some urgent attention. I have very strong doubts that Bear was a Commissioned Officer - for a number of reasons. Firstly, there are the two quoted references (BBC America, and "Sport Magazine") - whilst I generally trust the BBC as a WP:RS (where the BBC have made mistakes in the past, they are generally quite good at correcting them), I have never heard of Sport Magazine, and so can't vouch for their journalistic, and editorial accuracy. Looking at their website, they are a "free" magazine, being distributed via limited London-centric outlets (all within the M25). They don't seem to have any "peer review" mechanisms either - so I'm struggling to accept they can be a RS. The real crux of my concern, though, regards the complete lack of any evidence of "rank" of Officer. In the UK, it is usually de-facto to state your grade of rank, and all new Commissions and promotions routinely published in the London Gazette - and there is NO notification recorded! When Officers leave the Armed Forces (for whatever reason) they are always referred to by their actual rank on leaving the forces (unless stripped of their rank by a Court Martial).

Discuss . . . -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 08:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but as it is the SAS, and not a regular unit, the official practice is to never say anything about the activites of SAS personnel. I find it highly doubtfull the names, let alone ranks, of leaving SAS personnel would be published. Note the lack of any official source in this recent story [1].

As for not having any reference to rank anywhere else, the timeline makes it impossible that he was anything other than a LT, he cannot have made the only other two ranks possible in the SAS, Major or Colonel. I don't see the absolute need for a confirmation of rank here, nor why he would explicitly say it in an interview or whatever, as it can't be realistically anything other than LT. I'm pretty sure you can't hold any instructor position as an enlisted man below the rank of Corporal (possibly even Sergeant), and its equally impossible that he could have made Sergeant, so again, it would seem that stating his rank if he was enlisted would be equally pointless (and I've never seen a source for a specific enlisted rank for Grylls either).

As said previously, the sources are scarce, so if you're looking at it from an RS POV, then all we really can say is that he served in the SAS, period. IIRC I introduced these sources and the medic bit, because even this basic fact was being disputed. It could actually be said there are no reliable sources for his service at all, as they all presumably come from self published sources. MickMacNee (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, you are wrong (see below also).

1. There is no secret about the names of anyone serving in or retiring from the Army, or their ranks. All officers' promotions and ranks, for example, are published in The London Gazette (hence the term "gazetted rank"). Those serving or who served in classified posts, which includes many branches and not only the SAS, are simply shown by their parent (original) unit.

2. Your view of the only ranks in the SAS being "Lt, Major and Colonel" is a singularly incorrect one. Captain, Major and Lt Colonel would be more accurate (Colonels and above are on the "Staff" so technically the most senior officers actually serving in the SAS are the COs of 21(TA) and 22 SAS; Lts within the SAS are ex-rankers).

3. It is possible, though unusual, for Private soldiers to be instructors in certain fields; none of these, however, include those such as Jungle Warfare and Combat Survival even for those in the Regular Army let alone the TA - the courses are too long (and too expensive!)

While I agree that you will not find any reliable sources to verify the various claims made for his service, you will find plenty of general sources (and virtually anyone with Regular Army experience) that make it very clear that these claims and inferences are incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windywillows (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"...whilst I generally trust the BBC as a WP:RS"
and it is not even an news article from BBC, which I am sure would be accurate. It is a BBC writer's personal blog on entertainment matters with the following disclaimer: http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/23/about.jsp

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in Anglophenia reflect the personal opinions of Mr. Wicks and do not reflect the views of BBC America.

ChristianLAX (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)ChristianLAX

The way I see it, some big "if" questions surround his rank, and Wikipedia doesn't like conjecture. The safest way to do this is to remove any reference to his rank other than a former SAS solider until it is confirmed. But... conjecture can be fun!

When an American with a university degree enters into the US Army, they automatically sent to OTS to be commissioned as an officer. The exceptions are persons with tenured civilian experience in technical jobs such as doctors, lawyers, etc. What I can find about the structure in Britain seems to say the same thing, but confirmation from a first-hand party would be appreciated. If the same rules apply to Britain's equivalent of Officer Candidacy School, then we need to determine when he received his degree in Hispanic Studies AND if the Territorial Army would have forced him into the British equivalent of OTS because he had it, if indeed he did when he joined.

Then there's the issue of the quoted segment of his book stating specifically that he entered as a "Squaddie", or what would be called an Enlisted man in the States. Again, had Bear enlisted in the US Army and specifically requested NOT to go to OTS (and I'm not entirely sure you can do that) he would have at least been given credit for his college hours and enlisted as E-3 or E-4 Specialist. This means that in 3 years of service, he very likely COULD have become a Sergeant E-5. Again, the example above assumes US Army standards and input from our friends in uniform across the pond would be appreciated. Suitmonster (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Entrants to HM forces can choose to enter as either officers or other ranks, one doesn't get forced either way based on educational qualifications. For example the Int Corps has a high proportion of graduate soldiers, as do the Royal Marines.

HM forces do not hand out rank like gold stars for doing well at school, for an OR one would have to serve the required time in each rank, and compete with others for promotion or advancement. The one exception, at the time, would have been graduates as Officers who would have gained a couple of years seniority. That doesn't happen any more.

From observation, and experience of working with US forces, there is a significant level of rank escalation which doesn't compare. US forces have mid seniority officers doing what I would give a first job baby, and similarly Sgts/ Petty Officers doing jobs that I would expect a private or sailor to do. The comparison isn't entirely valid.

ALR (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As LAX has gone and editted it to reflect one POV only, I've corrected it [2]per the suggestions above, we have no information either way that he was an officer or ranker, both are feasible, both have sources (a self published colloquialism for 'enlisted', versus some unreliable sources for 'officer'), so all we are doing now as descirbed above is speculating. So I believe the current verion is the only undisputed supportable statement, i.e. he served in the TA SAS. MickMacNee (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And to suitmonster, you can join as either in the TA, and it's not 'enlisting', it's more like signing up for the National Guard. Officers in the British Army are not exclusively degree level (there are allowable exceptions, and the TA process is different again to the regular route, as the TA is part time), and rankers can join with degrees (but you just probably wouldn't, just like you wouldn't go to MIT and then work at McDonalds. It's a personal choice. And again, the TA acceptance and training program is completely seperate from the OTC, the Officer Training Corps, which is associated with universities. MickMacNee (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a few more thoughts...

His book says he joined as a "squaddie" i.e. enlisted. Then, according to his website:

1994-1997
Served with the British SAS (21 SAS). Passed UK Special Forces Selection, serving as a sabre soldier, trained in unarmed combat, desert and winter warfare, combat survival, medics, parachuting, signals, evasive driving, climbing and explosives. Served in North Africa twice. In late 1996 Bear broke his back in a free fall parachuting accident in southern Africa.

So he served healthy for less than three years.
In a reserve unit.
While twice deploying to North Africa.
This page says that selection, by itself, is about six months.
And then there is specialist training which follows (In the US that is like a year long, how long is it in the UK?)...
So, my question is how much time did he have to become an officer? (Also, he said he was a sabre soldier--if he was an officer, wouldn't he have mentioned that? )

Finally, this guy also joined the SAS after Eton and it is widely known that he a) went through Sandhurst and b) was an officer. This page says that "All British Army officers ... are trained at Sandhurst" and the course takes 44 weeks + he would be completing three training modules of the TA Officer Commissioning Process. No one I am aware of has ever said Bear went through Sandhurst, and even if, where was the time necessary to become an officer given all his other training?ChristianLAX (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)ChristianLAX

TA selection takes a chunk more than six months. With three years in then Grylls is unlikely to have got much beyond core training. He wasn't an officer, you can't join SASR as an officer without already having commissioned through another unit.

ALR (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had been through this here Talk:Bear_Grylls/archive1#Three_years_as_an_Officer.3F. And "Sabre soldier" does not exclude officers as far as I know, officers are soldiers too (more so in the SAS), and 'sabre' simply means an operational role and not a support role. He hasn't said what rank he was as an enlisted man either - why not? And You cannot be an instructor as a mere private. Eton has nothing to do with it at all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia for a reference is a no-no? Suitmonster (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember Grylls from E Sqn 21 SAS where he served for three years in the mid 90's. He was not a commisioned officer, instead he left as a Trooper i.e. a private soldier. His qualification to instruct in combat survival resulted from having undertaken ACSI course and his medical qualifications from a two week medical course. His list of other military training is hardly exceptional. As to his statement on his website that he "actively deployed" in North Africa, he is elliptically referring to two separate two week Sqn exercises 21 ran in conjunction with local forces in Morroco. These were training exercises only. Furthermore his parachuting accident happened on a civilian free fall jump and not during military training as he seems to imply. Why he chooses to maintain these pretences or at least why he chooses not to dispel them I can only speculate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.54.84 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"When an American with a university degree enters into the US Army, they automatically sent to OTS to be commissioned as an officer." This is shear nonsense. The many enlisted soldiers with college degrees I knew in the US Army would be very surprised to hear this. In fact, when the draft was in effect, it was not uncommon for college/university graduates who had received college deferments to be drafted after completing college. While they could apply to attend Officer Training School, it was not required of them, and acceptance was not automatic.

Many enlisted soldiers obtain college/university degrees while in service -- they, too, can apply to attend the officer training program, but it is not mandatory nor is acceptance automatic.

Finally, the Army itself sends some enlisted soldiers to college, where they obtain a 4-year degree, and upon completion they become not commissioned officers but warrant officers. I am thinking specifically of Physician Assistants here, who have Bachelor of Science (BSci) degrees. On the other hand, Air Force Physician Assistants, with the same education as the Army Physician Assistants, are simply senior enlisted airmen.

"Again, had Bear enlisted in the US Army and specifically requested NOT to go to OTS (and I'm not entirely sure you can do that) he would have at least been given credit for his college hours and enlisted as E-3 or E-4 Specialist. This means that in 3 years of service, he very likely COULD have become a Sergeant E-5." More nonsense. Not only is officer training always voluntary, it is not true that enlisted soldiers with a college degree, much less "college hours," are enlisted as an E3 (Private First Class in the Army) or E4 (Specialist 4th Class or Corporal). They begin military service as basic privates (E1). Depending on their enlistment contract and on their educational, they MAY be accelerated in promotion to a higher rank upon successful completion of their basic training and advanced individual training (AIT). However, it is not uncommon for soldiers undergoing the same training but without the educational credentials to also receive accelerated promotion upon completion of basic and AIT, especially if they have above average performance. High scoring graduates of basic training are commonly advanced to E2, and high scoring graduates of AIT to E3 or E4. Specialty programs (Special Forces, for example, but also some highly technical programs) requiring extensive training may graduate soldiers as E4s or E5s.

It is true that enlisted US Army solders may advance to E5 within a three year period, but this is not dependent on non-military educational credentials -- in fact, it is quite common to be promoted to E5 within three years, and within three years it is even possible to advance to E6 (Staff Sergeant or, more rarely, Specialist 6th Class) and possibly higher (with an obligation to extend the enlistment in both cases). 71.237.194.205 (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over the U.S. Army. If you have a college degree, you can enlist with an OCS option. You will sign on the dotted line as an E-3 or E-4, go to BCT(where you won't wear your rank anyway, but you will get paid for it), then AIT (or just OSUT for both) then OCS. College credits and professional licenses can be used for a higher enlistment grade. I was part of the CPL Recruiter program and put plenty of people in as E-4's based on college degrees. As it stands TIG and and TIS (time in grade/service) are the only thing that would limit fast track advancement. E-6 has 84 months of TIS and 10 months of TIG. The fast track is 48 months TIs and 5 months TIG. However, the fast track guys fall in the secondary zone and would need at least a Associates degree to get picked up. (Specialist 5 and Specialist 6 have not been used since 1985 and specialist 7 since 1979). Here's all the advanced enlistment ranks and the qualifications you need. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyjoin/a/advancedrank.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.119.36 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Self commenting

There seems to be some unsolicited criticism from IP 151.203.109.141 on Sept 7, as there is no one named "Anders Michiampa" if you look up this person in Google, the only result self references to this wiki entry.

A self described "survivalist" has no business criticizing on wiki. That should be reserved for the Discovery Channel forum. You are a "survivalist" when others categorize you as such. You have validity when others give it to you, not when you give it to yourself.

I am removing the following section. I mean what the hell is a "survival tome"? Fake information could have attempted to use correct spelling. I mean MY GOD can you at least write something fake that isn't obviously fake?

I am not necessarily any fan of Bear. But this is wiki. Keep it clean, it annoys the rest of us otherwise.

And on a side note------>

URBAN SURVIVAL EXPERT? You are kidding right? You mean city people? I know it is so damn hard to survive in an urban setting. I mean I know... those restaurants all want some green paper they call moe-ney... its hard to survive in an urban setting. ;)

FYI, if you are referring to surviving during/after a disaster in an urban setting, that is something different altogether. However, the fact that this person is either fictitious/nonexistent or is of no consequence to wiki makes this entry highly dubious.

In his oft-quoted survival tome "There is That.", urban survival expert Anders Michiampa (39) was critical of Grylls presentation. Said Michiampa, "Traditional survival advice, such as seen on Les Stroud's "Survivorman", typically leans toward lowering risk and maximizing one's food supply and shelter. Grylls seems more interested in stripping off his shirt, taking foolhardy risks, and eating shocking things for the entertainment of what must be a female-heavy audience. In short...Grylls is entertaining, but a death sentence to those in a survival situation with nothing to rely on, save the lessons they learned from Grylls programs."

-- Targeter1542 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.23.157 (talk • contribs) 23:15-23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

TA / part-time

I'm aware that this has been discussed before, but as it stands this paragraph is misleading. It is not clear to those unfamiliar with the TA (which will include the many non-British people interested in Grylls) that this was inevitably a part-time role. IMO, simply linking to the TA article is not enough. As this paragraph does not mention Grylls' job at the time, or if he had one, it reads as if his TA was his full-time occupation.

I suggest 2 possible solutions - either clarify that his TA position was part-time, or add a sentence stating that it is unclear what he did with the rest of his time. Hippo43 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're aware it was discussed before then you are aware of the result. "Part time TA soldier" is a complete redundancy. Stating that we have no information for something is also a completely unencyclopoedic statement. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the point that this section is misleading - in the absence of any other biographical info on this part of his life, it reads like his TA role was a full-time occupation. Anyone who doesn't understand the TA well, and this will include many in the UK, will be misled.

As far as I can tell, the result of your edit war was that Swatjester intervened citing WP:Undue_weight. However, I don't see how this is a case of giving Undue Weight to a viewpoint or statement.

WP:Abundance_and_redundancy specifically supports including info even when it is redundant. ("It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war")

WP:Explain_jargon supports explaining unfamiliar terms as well as linking to their article.

WP:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#State_the_obvious and WP:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Provide_context_for_the_reader likewise support explanation, as Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, a particularly relevant point here.

In line with these policies, I'm going to re-insert it. Hippo43 (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Stating that he "in a part-time role as an XYZ" is not as you seem to intend it, giving more clarity. In actual fact, it makes it sound more like he also another role within the TA. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you haven't addressed the points already made, or suggested an alternative, but simply removed a point you don't like. I've re-edited the sentence. Hippo43 (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed it twice, read above. If your aim here was to be specific and give context, you would surely attempt to find a specific source for Grylls' own pattern/type of service, or what if any, his civilian job actually was, rather than inserting redundant information explaining already linked articles, which is not the meaning of the above links. Despite your stated intentions, you haven't given the reader any clarification at all with your edit warring here. MickMacNee (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As you contributed no further, I assume you have no sources for whether he actually served full or part time in the TA. Therefore, as instructors can be a full time post in a TA unit, I am removing the extra un-needed qualification of his service with the Territorial Army as being with a part time organisation, as being misleading to imply Grylls himself was part time, for which we have no source. If you want to assert otherwise, supply a source. TA is a sufficiently unique term to not assume anybody would read it and think he was in the regualar army, and both TA, and 21 SAS are linked. MickMacNee (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I came here to raise this very point - the article is misleading at the moment, it looks like served for a full three years rather than in a part-time capacity. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it reflects that nobody has provided a specific source stating he served part time or full time. If you have one, add it. That is a completely different issue to whether he was in the TA/regualar Army. MickMacNee (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not in question that the TA is the (mostly) part-time reserve force of the British Army, so I'm reinserting it per the numerous policies cited above. If anyone has a source which can shed more light on Grylls' specific role in the TA, it would be useful. I didn't mention the Regular Army in my comments above, and nor did Cameron Scott, so bringing that into this discussion just confuses matters.

MickMacnee, your previous argument was that "'Part time TA soldier' is a complete redundancy" - i.e., TA soldiers are all part-time. Now your argument is that not all TA soldiers are part-time. Using two completely opposite arguments to remove the same piece of information suggests very strongly that your edits are not from a neutral point of view. Hippo43 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You have stated you have no sources to state whether he was part time or full time, therefore your insistence in including a redundant qualification is more misleading than not including it, especially when you just stated yourself "it is not in question" what the TA is (it is only this general point you are trying to include here, you are not adding any information about the subject of this article). Do not make accusations about my editing motives, per AGF. MickMacNee (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Without a source detailing Grylls' service, an explanation of the TA's status obviously helps readers who are not familiar with it. The TA is overwhelmingly a part-time organisation - stating this is not misleading.

I am adding information to the subject of this article - as explained above, I am clarifying what the TA is. This is consistent with the numerous policies I cited - if you disagree, please explain why, with reference to policy. Again, WP:Abundance_and_redundancy specifically supports including info even when it is redundant.

I didn't make any accusations, or assume bad faith, just pointed out the inconsistencies in your argument. Nor did I make a personal attack, as you said in your edit summary. Your contributions to this debate simply do not seem neutral to me. Hippo43 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion

I've had enough of discussing this issue with the above user who, is continuing to edit war, and is now even denying they are making personal attacks on my motives with their comments. So, for the benefit of a 3O reviewer, the situation is as follows:

Grylls served with the British Territorial Army, a reserve force manned in the main by part time soldiers. Not happy with simply a link to the TA, the above user wishes to add qualification to the military section to reinforce the fact the TA is a part time force, to clarify the section, quoting various rights to do so, with among others the abundancy rule.

However, what the above user is ignoring, despite it being spelled out clearly to him in my last reply, is that there is no source to state whether Grylls himself actually served full or part time in the TA, which is perfectly possible. The clear implication by including it, is to imply that Grylls himself was a part time soldier, without a source. Clarifying jargon is totally secondary to the BLP policy, whereby we do not make unsupported insinuations about article subjects without a source.

A previous edit war over this issue ended with the conclusion by the admin Swatjester that including redundant descriptions around the part time nature of the TA when the link for TA already exists, is undue weight. See the bottom of this archived section. In that edit war, the now banned user Frederick Day, who claimed to have been a regular soldier, wanted to emphasise the fact that Gryls was a "STAB" (a Stupid TA Bastard in army parlance). MickMacNee (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion: Here's the third opinion you requested. First off, I'm quite astonished that you manage to have this micro-edit war over a somewhat insignificant half-sentence. I personally think that most people outside the UK will not be familiar with the TA. Without clicking the link, they'll probably assume that it's the regular forces. So a half-sentence explanation doesn't appear out of place.

This gives useful information for a reader who's never heard about the TA - regardless wether Grylls himself served full- or part-time.

And in all honesty, I haven't the slightest idea why it's even important; unless you somehow believe serving part-time is "worse" or "less". The guy is not famous for being a career soldier and while it's interesting what he did in the TA, it's less important how many hours he put in it.

So my reason for including some TA background information is not that the part-time thing is incredibly important, but to add some info for the readers that are unfamiliar with the term.

To me it looks a bit as if MickMacNee feels that this may be a continuation of the "original" discussion, the one with the banned user. But Hippo43, so far, has not tried to characterize Grylls as a "STAB" or attack him. So I'd ask you to assume good faith - which, in this case, means: Assume that Hippo43 is driven by the wish to improve the article (and not by the wish to belittle Grylls).

If you really, really can't agree on this topic, try to find a compromise or truce. In any case, please keep your conflict here, and don't fight it on the article page. Averell (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"I haven't the slightest idea why it's even important; unless you somehow believe serving part-time is "worse" or "less". ". That is the whole point of the above. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that was the point, and that was the point of my opinion. What I wanted to get across was that, from my "outsider" point of view (which is, kind of, the point of WP:3O ;-), it simply doesn't matter. And as someone not involved, I don't see part-time as "worse". So if I read the sentence as a neutral person who doesn't know the TA at all, it gives me helpful information. And I wouldn't not get it in a negative way. And those people who already know the TA, they probably have their opinion made up anyway. If one thinks that TA members are "STAB"s, it will probably make little difference to them if they're "full-time STABs". Averell (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that 21 SAS is only "part of" the TA from an administrative standpoint anyway, it has zero relation at all from a competence or skill level anyway, and I'm quite sure from a chain of command perspective as well, so if anything, the 'clarification' being insisted on here of the nature of the TA is more misleading, not less. It has as much relevance as saying that 22 SAS is part of the regular army, and then insisting on clarifying what the regular army is. Its totally irrelevant to the article in question. MickMacNee (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, it's not really relevant. My reasoning was that, unlike the regular army, the TA is a concept less know. In any case, you guys have my opinion. In any case, since it's not incredibly important - I don't feel that either including this info or leaving it out will really hurt the article. However I feel that if this mundane detail gets blown into a whole paragraph explaining every detail, it will hurt. In the end, the important point for this biography is that he did survival stuff there (and not the likelyhood with which he served full-time...). Nuff said... Averell (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course its relevant. What you don't seem to get is that, going by the selection pass rates, most of the elite full time regular parachute regiment are not suitable for the 'part time' 21 SAS which is 'only the TA'. You are clarifying something that is completely irrelevant to the article section, or his military service. You can see by this talk page how many people don't get these basic facts, or worse, want to include them to exert a POV, so by clarifying them as if they are relevant, you are hurting the article. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Avarell, thanks for your opinion. Obviously I, like Cameron Scott and others, feel that adding this information is helpful to the article and gives context to those unfamiliar with the TA. As above I think it is in line with numerous Wikipedia policies. I don't see how it is contrary to WP:BLP, given that the nature of the TA is not itself contentious, and I can't find any part of WP:Undue which would support removing it.

I don't believe I made a personal attack on MickMacNee, but justifiably questioned the netrality of his edits. If he has taken offence, that wasn't my intention. Hippo43 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Windywillows (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)As an ex British Army Lt.Colonel maybe I can shed some light on the subject.

1. Grylls served in 21 SAS as a Territorial Army private soldier from the age of 18, attending a maximum of one evening of training a week, one weekend a month and one fortnight's annual camp (such as those in Africa) or one two week training course each year. It is impossible for any Regular Army soldier to transfer/try-out for the regular SAS until they have served a minimum of three years adult service (ie are a minimum of 21 years old). His age alone makes any claims or suggestions of anything else, such as his having been an officer, etc, simply impossible. The only "full-time" soldiers serving in the TA (which MickMacNee refers to) are either serving regular Army or NRPS (Non Regular Permanent Staff)which, on the basis of age alone, Grylls could not have been. There are no exceptions to this.

2. The various claims made by/for Grylls, such as his having been a jungle warfare instructor and (on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno)in "not your Green Berets, but the equivalent of your Delta Force" are simply and verifiably untrue. TA private soldiers do not attend lengthy instructors courses; the only British Army Jungle Warfare School is in Brunei (TTB) and the instructors' course is open to Regular Army SNCOs and Officers only; the direct US equivalent of the TA is the National Guard.

3. Comparing Parachute Regiment selection and TA SAS selection, then inferring that one is "better" because the wastage rate is higher is invalid, both statistically and practically. They are totally different, held over different time-frames, under different circumstances, with totally different requirements and criteria. 21 SAS is a valuable part of the TA, with its own operational role, but it is not 22 SAS and those in 21 SAS called up for service with the regular Army (as nearly all members of all branches of the TA have been) in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere never serve with regular Army SAS units.

4. The terminology used in the Military service paragraph is, simply and verifiably, incorrect and misleading and I have corrected it. I have also deleted the references to his climbing in Sikkim, etc, from this section as it has no connection with his time in the TA.

5. By appearing to infer that he served in the regular Army / Special Forces / the equivalent of Delta Force, etc, Grylls may have become a more "saleable" commodity but it has done a grave dis-service to those who serve and have served proudly, honourably and with distinction in the TA and it should not be encouraged here.

Military Service - TA, Indian Army, etc

Windywillows (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC) I cannot understand why those who appear to have little or no knowledge of the military have been allowed to re-write this article as they have. It is now not only totally misleading (whereas it was only mildly misleading prior to my editing it) but it is almost laughably inaccurate and is totally unsupported by any verifiable sources.

As I have explained above, he did not and could not have served as a Specialist Combat Survival Instructor from 1994 to 1997. He was a Private soldier in the TA for two years before being treated, mainly as an out-patient, at Headley Court. His parachute accident in Kenya did not occur during a training exercise but when he was making a parachute jump as a civilian.

There is no such thing as 21 SAS regiment. It is either 21 SAS, or, formally, 21 Regiment SAS (Artists) (Reserve).

He could no more have considered joining the Indian Army than the Army of any other country - he is not Indian and the practice of British subjects joining the Indian Army ended when India was granted independence; while it is possible that he may have considered this as a very young child it is unlikely he would have been quite so naive as an adult.

Well, try not to blame me. That information comes directly from the quite verifiable source of his book The Kid Who Climbed Everest. In addition, in a previous post you said, "Grylls served in 21 SAS as a Territorial Army private soldier from the age of 18". Yet, according to Bear's website he joined the military in 1994, which would probably make him twenty. What was he doing before that? ChristianLAX (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)ChristianLAX

I have edited the article (again) in an attempt to give it some connection with reality.Windywillows (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)WindyWillows

Circumnavigation of the UK?

It is not possible to circumnavigate "the UK" on a jet ski, as part of it (Northern Ireland) has a land border. Perhaps the writer thought that "the UK" and "Britain" are coterminous, but that is not the case. The Telegraph article that the section's footnote refers to says Mr Grylls jet-skied "around the British isles", but it doesn't contain all the information in the section, so one is not sure if it is meant to be the source. Dadsnagem (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sign of the cross

There's a section above about what brand of Christianity he belongs to, noting that he makes the sign of the cross before he makes his jump, leading to speculation that he is a Catholic. I was wondering that too. I've noticed that he crosses himself the opposite way from Roman Catholics, touching the right shoulder before the left. That's in the manner of the Orthodox churches or of the Eastern Rite Catholics. 71.241.228.118 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Angel Falls--not world's largest

I changed the reference to Angel Falls as the world's largest waterfall to world's highest. It is nothing like the largest in terms of breadth or of the amount of water going over. That's a simple, unarguable fact, so I fixed it--but I don't know if such a thing needs a reference. If someone wants to make that all proper, please do. 71.241.228.118 (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Intresting Topic

I find this whole converstaion intresting to say the least.

I find the claims made by Grylls far fetched.

I joined the the TA just after my eighteenth birthday in 1996, an infantry unit. During this time I learned basic soldiering skills which I used as preperation for entry to the regular army, something which I achieved. I met men with skill's from previous regular and reserve service that put Mr Grylls firmly in the shade. Former Paratroopers, snipers, medics, mountain and arctic warfare instructors, veterans of the First Gulf war and Northern Ireland, even former SAS members.

It was hard work and due to the part time training progress was slow but sure. Mr Grylls claims that in the space of 3 years he went from being an 18 year old boy with no real military experience to being a commisioned officer with operational experience and a role as an instructor. Given the part time nature of the reserve SAS unit and the time commitment needed I fail to see any substance to his story. He may well have trained with them, he may have even have been invited to take part in selection at some point, that does not however make him an SF soldier.

In this short time he claims to have completed any basic training period, his SF selection process and his continuation training, at the same time he claims to have completed a reservist's training course at Sandhurst and then to have become not only a trained team medic but also a junior officer with a training role. He would also have had to complete an army paratroopers course as well(as Chris Ryan did), which is not just about jumping out of a plane.

All in 3 years part time?

It does not fit with the time frame, as a full time officer perhaps - maybe - at a push, but not in the part time role. If he is trying to put forward the concept that he was a man/boy who would could have lead men in combat then he is much mistaken. He would have been lucky to be scraping along as a potential trooper, he would certainly not be a staff instructor as he simply did not have the time and experience for any TA unit, not just the SAS.

Also - if his qulification's as an SAS trooper were so highly rated why was he not called up for service under the reserve forces act during the invasion of Iraq?

To say that his story contains a few holes is an understatement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.89.17 (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Where have these claims been made? This article doesn't claim he was an officer or say what he did before he joined 21 SAS (he would have been about 19/20 years old when he joined). Neither does his official website. BarretBonden (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Born Survivor/Man vs. Wild - Criticism

I think the criticism sub-section of the Born Survivor/Man vs. Wild section should be cut and moved to the Man vs. Wild article. The whole point of having a separate article for the show is to have info about the show in that article, and it's one of the Wikipedia's biggest problems that information is written twice or more, in many different articles. There should be only a few lines of information about the Man vs. Wild article in this article, plus of course a "Main Article: " link. AlexanderM (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it one of the Wikipedia's problems, let alone "one of the Wikipedia's biggest problems", to repeat information? Wikipedia is not paper. Space is not a problem. Not everyone is going to go to both articles. For example, I first came to this article after Bear was made Chief Scout. I really do not have anything like enough interest in UK TV programs, as I live in Australia, but it is nice to read some more details of his life here. Others will have other reasons to just just visit one of the two articles. The sections in the two articles could differ, but I strongly disagree that the material should only be mentioned on one article. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it since it's unnecessary repetition of the Man vs. Wild article, and is criticism of his show, not his life (which this article is supposed to be about). I left in the last bit of the criticism, however, that did give criticism of his life through his actions on the show. There's no doubt that repetitious information can be cross posted under certain circumstances, but in this case it's not dually relevant to the premise of each article. If someone is really that interested in an in-depth criticism of his show, which is what I removed, then they should read the main Man vs. Wild article. The argument you're trying to make Bduke is that linking is a bad thing and everything related to a subject should be right there in the article. It's not about "space" so much as it is about organization and conciseness, which is the premise of any encyclopedia entry. Either way, I vote with AlexanderM's changes. Unless another user besides Bduke/Vintagekits (who appear to be the same, EDIT: maybe not) wants to revert the changes, then they should be left alone150.135.115.203 (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not Vintagekits. That suggestion is offensive. Withdraw it. I keep getting an edit conflict with you. Now to the matter in hand. I am not of course saying that all links are bad. I am saying that readers of the article about the man need to see something of the criticisms of him. They are about him, not just the show. So you were bold and it was reverted with the suggestion that you discuss it here. So I am going to put it back and then let us wait to see what others say about it here. I suggest you leave it and wait for comments also. My view is that quite a bit should be said about it but in a different way in the two articles. One should stress how it affects our view of his character and the other about how it affects our view of the show. Note that we do not vote. We look for consensus. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)