Talk:Bear Grylls/Archive 2

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)

As an Eton boy Grylls would likely have had far easier access to the ranks and special services than the rest of the population - but I too cannot find any evidence that he was in the SAS other than his own claims. Can these be taken on face value, given the contrast between his TV persona and the reality underneath the programming..? Danja (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• cut the crap,people can be dishonest and serve in elite army forces, it happens,it doesn't mean, during his course, he wasn't good at what he did.by seeing some of his episode, u seriously ask "where the hell this guy came from?" he's about 90% crazy! he does some very unexpected and truly difficult things, he's very determent, decisive, u barely can find any people that are as mentally robust and fearless as he,after seeing a swamp episode which some of it could be "programmed",yet, the first thing to do, was to come here and see whether this guy was at some special unit during his life, or otherwise?!? and guess what? from being in a special unit, being aware at the course demands both physically and mentally, strait forward, it is 100% that this guy has spend some of his years training at some special unit, u'r doubts seems to be coming either from stereotypes regarding these places or simply arrogance.

note, that it doesn't really matter whether he's been an officer or not,what really bothers, is the remorseless & unnecessary killing of animals. if they claim the show isn't documentary, then why should he be killing at all?
wouldn't it be enough for him just to show the catching of these animals and then letting them go!?
last episode here, he killed a ~25 kilo, few years old salmon fish, just for eating a little piece of it and then throwing it like it were a piece of garbage.
few minutes before that, he caught a small lobster-like crab, and ate it's tail just before throwing it back to the swamp crippled yet still alive, like it was an used chewing gum,
this was very brutal and barbaric, what makes one wonder,
how come no one has said anything about that?
or otherwise,
shouldn't it be added to the criticism article part!?
regards.

Hey, guys the reason you cannot find any futher infomation on him and the SAS is because the SAS Soliders infomation is ALMOST secret, you can only take his word for it, and i very much doubt that you can find any more info, but his fitness and his personality seem to back these claims up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.191.132 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) --93.173.119.205 (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2009 (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)

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.

Windywillows (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Military Service - TA, Indian Army, etc

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.

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

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

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bear Grylls/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Just a note to the editor: the article mentions "no mother," (a human first) however, Mr. Grylls speaks of his mother often in his book, "The Kid Who Climbed Everest," (American title).killed wife

Last edited at 02:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Why no section criticizing his dangerous "survival" advice?

Grylls does reckless and dangerous stunts---to amuse viewers---that no actual military survival instructor would recommend or even permit.

Free-climbing down waterfalls, drinking urine, taking shortcuts through caves with active and fast-flowing streams... These aren't the actions of a "survival expert," they're the attention-seeking behavior of an over-grown adolescent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.142.72 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Whole hardheartedly in agreement. This maniac show-off needs a criticism section desperately (I think his parachuting accident affected him more than physically). Just watched the fool tombstoning off a 70 foot drop without even checking how deep the water was - at least that was how it was presented on TV. Adults will realise the jump spot was carefully chosen and thoroughly researched, but kids wont. The jump was presented as necessary to escape a bear -the only evidence for which was a rather unconvincing footprint.1812ahill (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing such a section would do would provide a PoV forum for editors. It has no place here. Besides, the notion that kids would get inappropriate ideas is narrow-minded. Kids hardly need Wikipedia or Bear Grylls as a resource to come up with adventurous and fool hardy ideas. They do quite well on their own. (That's their nature -- or don't you remember?) In fact, kids will get into trouble with very conventional methods -- sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll. Bear won't make the problem any worse.--S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article is badly out of balance if it does not acknowledge any of the criticism being leveled at this controversial "survival expert." Controversies are as much a part of the story about a public figure (if not more so) than the publicity spin they wish only to be presented about themselves.Landroo (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are criticisms out there that meet WP:RS, then of course they should be included, but we need to be careful not to open the floodgates that would result in the kind of free-for-all that S. Rich mentions, above. Gabhala (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If Mr. Grylls didn't amuse viewers or do dangerous stunts he wouldn't have a TV show. Nobody wants to see a guy camping for 14 days in the middle of no where not doing anything and waiting for help. He maybe nuts be he is still a "survival expert". It's the nature of the beast. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, badly out of balance, and Dana, he is neither nuts nor a survival expert. My criticism isn't necessarily down to bad advice for kids, it's the barely concealed fakery behind some of his escapades. Whenever he is shown rock climbing for instance, anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the sport can instantly spot several inconsistencies. See http://climbing.about.com/od/climbingbooksandquotes/gr/Guide-Review-Bear-Grylls-Climbing-Video-Not-A-Master-Of-Movement.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny2vests (talk • contribs) 16:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing reads like an advert. I came to this page looking for a controversy relating to suing someone. I understand it might not be included for legal reasons (whatever the story may actually be - I have no idea), but a quick glance down the page suggests that it was never likely to appear anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.207.130.119 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

I have noticed a large persistent amount of vandalism by IP editors over a long period of time. This is a article on a living person and these edits could be damaging. I see that several editors are doing a valiant job in reverting the vandalism, but it may not be enough. Should this article be semi-protected? I am happy to do it if there is consensus. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected this page. The IP vandalism id excessive for a BLP article. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Topic

I find this whole conversation interesting 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 preparation 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 commissioned 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 could have led 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 qualifications 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)

I always thought he was a Royal Marine but I am probably wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.22.71 (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lithuanian page

Please add lt:Bear Grylls —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancing Raccoon (talk • contribs) 20:14, 12 December 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)

You seem to be the only one with the problem to let people decide how the article should go. I only edited it once and AlexanderM edited it once so how are you claiming this is an edit war? We're talking about changing 1 section, not changing the title or making massive modifications so you're demand for consensus is also improper. It's not "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit: as long as you get approval from 10 other people" By reverting it again you're just pushing your view under the guise of requiring consensus.

"Man vs. Wild / Born Survivor has been criticized" and "The issue of scenes being manipulated"....yeah these bits really sound relevant to his life. So what's the point of the section? To indirectly presume that Bear is a fraud because he doesn't do everything by the book for a television show? By this logic we should have 10 paragraphs of SAS criticism as well to imply that he was part of a weak military squad as well and therefore is a weak person right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.115.203 (talk • contribs)

To accuse me of acting improperly is a bit rich coming from someone who accused me of being a sockpuppet and has not yet apologized. Anyone can edit, but if another editor disagrees then it will be reverted and the matter should be discussed here. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Your example above is not valid. Criticism of the SAS would not be relevant, but criticism of Bear claiming to be injured on a SAS engagement when he most likely did not is relevant. The criticism of his survival skills is as much a criticism of the man as it is of the film. I have been rather busy recently but I will try to suggest a briefer rewrite here for discussion. That would would try, as I suggest above, to have a different slant than the material on the other article. I hope to do that in the next few hours. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Now the piece reads like an induction into a Hall of Fame despite there being significant criticism of the validity of Gryll's claims (especially the confirmed make-belief aspects of the TV series). Danja (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from PriestVallon, 27 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I want to add in a reference so the citation needed for clash of the titans can be removed

PriestVallon (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Whats the reference then? You need to make a specific request for an edit, or else request the page be unprotected at WP:RFUP--Jac16888^Talk 02:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Spitfire19 (Talk) 02:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.41.93.67, 1 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Born Ireland

86.41.93.67 (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the evidence that Grylls was born in Ireland? --John (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have disabled this help request whilst waiting for somebody to provide a reliable source. Feel free to renable it once a reliable source has been found. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.237.227.209, 21 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} remove 'one of' before the youngest Britons to climb Mount Everest. [citation: Guiness Book of World Records]

71.237.227.209 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Done I used a citation from BBC News for proof (couldn't find the Guinness Book info). Shearonink (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for section: Man vs wild...

{{editsemiprotected}} Under section titled "Born Survivor/Man vs. Wild", in 2nd paragraph, include his latest stunt, "self administering an enema of fettered water while adrift on a raft" [featured on Discovery Channel in Canada episode aired Aug 27 2010] Toro76 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: The meaning of 'fettered' might not be clear to all readers, also episode originally aired in January 2010. Shearonink (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Onepizoli, 6 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Onepizoli (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you want edited in this article. The "Edit Request" Template states:

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

Please try again with a specific request. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Great man. Greetings from Italy. --93.148.98.210 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

typo in reference 15

Since I can't edit the page I wanted to point out that note 15 says it links to "GearGrylls.com" when obviously it should be "BearGrylls.com." The text of the link is correct, it's just the description that needs to be changed.

This has now been fixed. Thanks. Barret (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Military Reserve Service

The comments by Chris Ryan should be deleted. All it says it that Ryan is not has no knowledge of the facts therefore it is probably not true. That is a very flimsy basis upon which to post derogatory remarks. WildGooseWest (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

'Chris Ryan' is an unreliable narrator himself, in any case for these purposes he's just another writer. Hakluyt bean (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

'Chris Ryan' basically said there were no British military operations in Africa from 1994 to 1997, where Grylls could have served twice -- wikipedia/google back up that claim (no results for british military or SAS OR 1994 OR 1995 OR 1996 OR 1997 )

Er...the Somali Civil War, and the UN forces' (including British troops) involvement ring any bells? There were no less than five other UN-led missions active in Africa (Rwanda, Liberia, Uganda, Chad, Libya) during the period 1994-97, and without checking each one, I'm fairly confident that at least some of them included British troops. Gabhala (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The "service" Grylls saw in North Africa were two, two week training exercises sponsored by 21 SAS in Morocco which also involved local forces. I remember him on one of these exercises acting as a French translator at which he was quite good. Other than that his service was limited and undistinquished.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.133.150.142 (talk • contribs)

Actually only Bear and the SAS know what his service was. You may have seen him one one exercise - or his lookalike - but you cannot presume to guess about the rest of his career.

1.2 billion viewers ???

The paragraph born survivor/man vs wild says the show has 1.2 billion viewers. Even the 2010 world cup only had 700 million viewers. This cannot be right. Anybody knows the right number?

--Jesse (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to put in a cite request, but it almost looks like total vandalism. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Was the youngest to climb Everest

'He is the youngest Briton to climb Mount Everest, doing so at age 23.'

should be changed to

'He was the youngest Briton to climb Mount Everest, doing so at age 23.'

See section 3 'Everest' of the article for details of younger climbers that have since climbed everest. Done--Nyswimmer (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No evidence to support Himalyas paramotoring claim -- the article implies he eventually reached an altitude of 29,000 feet, there is no evidence to support this statement whatsoever, no barometric or GPS evidence and a such the article needs to be edited. No formal record or dossier claim was approved by the FAI, the governing body for aviation records.

It is therefore blatantly untrue and potentially fraudulent to state that he beat previous FAI fully approved world record holder by 10,000 ft. The 'real' world record holder submitted both barometric and GPS evidence to the FAI who endorsed and approved the record claim.

What has recently emerged is Chinese radar data (which needs verification) which shows a trace of Mr Grylls at a 'very significantly lower' maximum altitude. (Wingeddaggers (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC))

I moved Wingeddaggers' post to the bottom of this page and added a "toppost" message to his/her talk page. I am not clear as to whether the post was intended as a new topic or a response to the "youngest" topic. I asked WD to clarify.--S. Rich (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)22:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ssabarinath, 19 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

bear gryllS AND SATHYAMOOTHY ARE FRIENDS Ssabarinath (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Units of measurement in this article

I propose we change the units to SI, since everything here is in feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.62.164 (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sensationalist/melodramatic language

Is it just me or does this article read like it was written by a publicist? I'm not even questioning the veracity of any of the claims (I have no clue), but the verbiage is anything but neutral. Look at (what I find questionable verbiage/inclusion is in bold): "...o the weeks of acclimatisation climbs involving climbing up and down the South Face, negotiating the Khumbu icefall (a frozen river), the Western Cwm glacier, and a 1,500-metre (5,000 ft) wall of ice called the Lhotse face, to the gruelling ascent with the ex-SAS soldier Neil Laughton, involving climbing for hours in the night, that took him past extreme weather, fatigue, dehydration, last-minute illness, sleep deprivation and almost running out of oxygen inside the death zone where air is three times thinner than at sea level."

For the first bold item: if I'm not terribly mistaken, this is a fairly common route for ascending Everest. There is nothing special about doing it this way that thousands have not already done before. Second: It's Everest. Of course climbing it is grueling. (and isn't that misspelled? or is that a US/UK thing?) Third: again, these seem to be fairly common issues that plague people attempting to climb Everest (Oh, and right before this, why single out Mr. Laughton, was there no one else on the expedition? Of what value is this information?). Fourth: Again, it's Everest.

The guy has done some pretty amazing things in his life, however, the superlative language used to describe it is not fitting for an encyclopedia entry. Yes, by all means, describe the unique challenges he faced in some of these events, but really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.21 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.242.50.160, 22 July 2011

Section about paraglyding the Himalayas: It cites 9000 meters is 300 meters higher than 6000 meters. This must be corrected to 3000 meters.

81.242.50.160 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for catching that. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

... fell into a 5,800 metres (19,000 ft) crevasse ...

That would be quite some crevasse, indeed! Apcbg (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. Edited to say "deep" IOT avoid implication that he fell for nearly 6 km into the crevasse.--S. Rich (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

...Queensland Core Skills Test Phenomenon...

There should be some mention of the fact that tens of thousands of Year 12 students in Queensland, Australia, mentioned Bear Grylls in their final Queensland Core Skills tests in 2010 through pre-organisation via this Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/beargryllsqcs2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.188.82 (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Bear's real name

The source claiming he has legally changed his name to "Bear" is really just a copy of the wikipedia article. This seems to be a completely false reference, and it should be made clear that Edward is actually his real name and his stage name is "Bear" unless someone can verify the legal claim. The thePeerage.com reference (#10) still mentions his original birth name seems to be the best source in that sentence, however it should be noted that even it cites wikipedia as a source. References #3 and #18 are broken and #5 doesn't mention anything about a house boat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzvibes (talk • contribs) 10:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Everest section - contradiction

The 'Everest',which lies in Nepal, section states in 1998 he became the youngest Briton to climb Everest, at 23, but then states that a 22 year-old with British nationality did it in 1995. Which is it?JaneGrey (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In 2006 Rob Gauntlett (10 May 1987 – 9 January 2009) became the youngest Briton to climb Everest, aged 19. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onwards9 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Bear Grylls reached the summit on the 26th May not the 16th May as quoted by Bear Grylls many times in his autobiography --Train667 (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

How Bear Grylls the Born Survivor roughed it - in hotels - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-470155/How-Bear-Grylls-Born-Survivor-roughed--hotels.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC) http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2007/11/28/so-what-if-bear-grylls-slept-in-a-hotel/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-470460/Bear-faced-cheek-adventurer-sneaked-hotels.html

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2116195.ece

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3722230.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1558242/Bear-Grylls-faked-Channel-4s-Born-Survivor.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This info should get into the article. Currently the article sounds like an aggrandizing commercial for Bear Grylls, the brand. 93.172.241.212 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CameronSproull, 19 September 2011

I believe a 'His' in the text under the Media section should be corrected to a 'He'. "His also wrote an extreme guide to outdoor pursuits...."

CameronSproull (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} There should be clearly mentioned that survival of Bear is in many cases show and is against rules for survival including SAS manuals.

One important rule is to avoid any injury and activities which could cause injury - in the movies Bear chose such ways which are definitely not recommendable, are dangerous even in company but especially when you are abandon without medicine. Normally in that suituation the most safe way should be picked up. Also drinking of water from elefant shit is very discutable if u dont have antibiotics in your pocket and u want to survive more that few hours... He is simply showman but not instructor!

89.176.202.68 (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Such content should probably be added at Man vs. Wild, no? Either way, it'll need to be sourced (ideally to an expert in the field, as quoted in a third-party source with editorial oversight, such as a news article). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Request has no reliable source, so I've cancelled it; please re-request if appropriate, thanks,  Chzz  ►  07:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

reference #17 broken

reference #17 "biography" beargrylls.com link broken.

new link: http://www.beargrylls.com/index.php/about/about-bear/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.181.81 (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.--S. Rich (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

excess of external links

I've removed these from the external links section, which should be for a very limited number of official sites, not anything about the subject. These may serve as sources or leads towards other sources:

• North West Passage Fundraising Page
• Video for North West Passage
• Journey Details for North West Passage
• Official Born Survivor website
• Video of Bear Grylls confirming that he will be the new Chief Scout for the UK
• Bear Grylls/Archive 2 at IMDb
• Video from the Gilwell 24 event showing the investiture of Bear Grylls as Chief Scout for the UK, by the previous incumbant Blue peter presenter Peter Duncan
• Adventurer Bear Grylls' battle with back pain and high cholesterol

BrainyBabe (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Passed out?

Could someone please clarify the phrase used in the military section, "where he claims he was one of four to have passed out of his group of 180"? I'm pretty sure it needs a comma between "passed" and "out". However, I suppose he could have been proud of pushing himself to unconsciousness, so I'm not inserting it myself. --J Clear (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pass_out - see #3. No comma needed, though the wording of the sentence could be constructed better... Gabhala (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Reserve Service

The entire section “Military Reserve Service” is incorrect and needs to be revised, researched and re-written. It is not neutral or balanced and has clearly not been verified.

He never considered joining the Indian Army. He is British, not Indian or Nepalese (Gurkha) so he would never have been eligible to do so under any circumstances.

He never joined or served in the British Regular Army or passed UK Special Forces Selection.There is no such process as all Special Forces units (SAS, SBS, SRR, 18 Sigs, etc, conduct their own special-to-arm selection and training dependent on their role. He joined the TA and passed TA SAS selection as a probationer.

He served in the TA for under two years, followed by 18 months medical treatment/re-habilitation at RAF Headley Court as an out-patient. His TA training/service consisted of a maximum of one evening a week plus a fortnight’s annual camp each year. He was never a survival instructor or an instructor in anything – he was a Grade 3 private soldier and a probationary member of 21 SAS (TA). He never served in North Africa; he attended two, two week annual training camps in Morocco.

His parachute accident was as a civilian when on R & R (holiday) in Zambia after the second annual camp in Morocco, not with the military. The subsequent Board of Inquiry established the case as human error as he panicked and failed to carry out the correct drills.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Col John Leech (talk • contribs)

Col John: This is all important information, but it is quite useless to us writing the article. We need a reliable source that says this, not just you telling us. That is how wikipedia works and has to work. Can you point us to reliable sources for this information? Also, please sign your contributions on talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Zambia? http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/unlucky.html (also?) lists him (I assume it's him - the name is unusual enough to convince me) as having fallen "thousands of feet" in South Africa. I have no idea to pick this apart regarding Zambia vs. South Africa, or how to get to a reliable source. Bernd Jendrissek (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, I think what we're talking about here is the difference between the bare naked truth and the 'dressing up' that goes on for book-jackets, TV series, etc. especially where a US release is concerned. We have to bear in mind that there is a process of 'Americanization' for US audiences - a translation, if you will, combined with dramatising - and the end result will be verifiable sources, that might not be strictly factual. Sometimes, on Wikipedia, the truth is replaced by what has been published. Gabhala (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article cited at footnote 19 as evidence of a controversy regarding Bear's service record, actually states unequivocally that he served with 21 SAS. It goes on to say that it is "questionable where he served with the regiment as there are too many duty rumours." 81.178.196.108 (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Military service section

This paragraph is uncited, but copied word-for-word from here. This is someone's personal website and is not a reliable source.

Also the dates from this paragraph and the above source do not match Grylls' own website or the paragraph itself: He joined in March 1997, then served from 1994-1997 until 1996 where he had a parachute accident.

I've revised the paragraph, drawing as many details as I could from his website and this one.
--Carbon Rodney 14:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that personal website didn't copy this article instead? BearGrylls.org is not his official website but a fansite (see the disclaimer "This is an unofficial website, we have no official affiliation with Bear Grylls") so it is unlikely that's a reliable source. His official website is linked in the article - [3]. What makes the source you've used (http://www.hmforces.co.uk) reliable? Barret (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence you added casting doubt on whether he served with 21 SAS because it is not supported by the source at all. You might have misread the sentence "It is questionable where he served with the regiment". Barret (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2012

He doesn't speak Spanish. He introduces himself in the Spanish series with the typical "hi I'm Bear, watch me tuesday at 10pm" and so on, and the way he talks is not like a Spanish speaker would, rather someone that had learnt it by heart. (I'm a native Spanish speaker, that's my source).

Awadulcecity (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, your own observations are not a reliable source--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Gat

Over 10,000 VCE students mentioned Bear Grylls on the 2010 GAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snibo23 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, if he grew up in Northern Ireland, then surely he should be a British adventurer, rather than specifically any English one. Jimjams101 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2012

Please change "contact" to "contract" in the "Born Survivor / Man vs. Wild" section in the liine starting "In March 2012...." This is an obvious error. Vlasska (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed the first part to 'terminated it's productions', and corrected 'contact dispute' → 'contract dispute'. The reference does not state they terminated the contract, but you were correct that it needed clarification. Dru of Id (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Natural childbirth

What is notable about his child being born "via natural childbirth". Is this regarded as unusual to an American reader?

I have removed the birthdate per BLP. Detailing the birth process is unencyclopedic and, unless I'm missing something, slightly weird. There's no reason why a casual reader would need such information. Lions of Inquiry (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 124.180.87.91, 3 October 2011

Please change the claim of Bear Grylls being the youngest Briton to scale Everest as its incorrect. James Allen was 22 when he completed the feat. He holds citizenship in both England and Australia.

Sources of this "

Undoubtedly it was a fine achievement. But was he the youngest person to do it, as he claims?

In fact a young man called James Allen reached the summit in 1995, aged 22. This is taken from the below article.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-470460/Bear-faced-cheek-adventurer-sneaked-hotels.html#ixzz1ZhcfODu8"

Thankyou

124.180.87.91 (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Update done. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Update clearly not done. The article continues to claim that Bear was, at one time, the youngest Briton to summit Everest without citing a single reliable source. That claim is then immediately refuted by the very next sentence which has two separate cites. Allow me to add a third, reliable source:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/bear-grylls-accused-of-telling-a-tall-tale-about-mt-everest-record/story-fn7x8me2-1226145378801

Not hard to find. Exactly the second Google result for [bear grylls everest record]. The first result being the inaccurate, disjointed information in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.226.150 (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding fan site suggestion by IP

An IP editor posted this link in an earlier edit: http://www.beargryllsbiography.com/ It is basically a fansite and not appropriate as an EL or RS. The edit was reverted by me as it disrupted the page; but the url is added here so as not to be a refactoring of the other editors comment.--S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Flagged for Advertising

I've added an advert flag to to the header, for reasons that are I think pretty clear to any objective reader. This article reads as though it were written by Bear Grylls himself or his PR agent. I've added inline fact/peacocktags to some of the more glaring examples of this in the body of the text, but really I think it needs to be reworked a bit by someone whose with more interest and knowledge than me who is also not Bear Grylls or a close personal friend of his.

A referenced Mail article that was already in the text does (it seems to me) a pretty good job of laying out most of the criticisms that are glossed over in this article. I've expanded that a little more so it's probably about adequate at this point. But I'd like someone to tone down the unwavering flattery that still pervades most of this article, most of which just comprises a list of awesome-sounding things Grylls has done, followed by the charities who benefited financially from him having done them. Grylls may be really awesome, charitable guy – in fact I'm pretty sure he is – but this article is literally more flattering than Mother Theresa's which seems a bit skewed to me.

So please, let's reduce the reliance on Bear Grylls' personal blog for this article and introduce some new third-party sources. --Xiaphias (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just read a newspaper report on the man and, not knowing who he is, I googled his name and came to this article. I've found it an informative article and am at a loss to understand your point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.173.68 (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 May 2013

Bear Grylls served in British SAS 21st Reserved Battallion, and not in INDIAN ARMY. Source is his book: Mud, Sweat and Tears: The Autobiography, Harshniwas (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: It doesn't say he joined the Indian Army. It says he considered it, then joined the one you mention. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Spelling fix request july 8, 2013

"and it's success led to a subsequent..."

should be "its"

thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgert (talk • contribs) 18:43, 8 July 2013‎

 Done. – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2013 (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

One of his grandfathers is a Unionist MP in Northern Ireland---a rabidly anti-Catholic organization. Pretty safe to say he's neither Catholic nor Eastern Rite/Orthodox. Most likely Church of Ireland or some fundamentalist offshoot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.142.72 (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some clarification of this in the article? He does it every show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.248.177 (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

People can have a different religion than their grandfather. 87.246.103.137 (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

incorect

Bear Grylls was the first,second,third,fourth,fifth,sixth,seventh,eighth,ninth, and tenth chief of scouting

72.239.224.116 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are kidding or what, but uhm - no. Baden-Powell was the 1st chief scout in 1920 - well before Gryls' birth... Ckruschke (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

British Army not Indian Army. Thank you 49.244.16.215 (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)  Not done The reference appears reliable, and clearly states Indian Army. Arjayay (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2014

Spelling error: please change "In 2008, Grylls lead a team of four to climb..." to "In 2008, Grylls led a team of four to climb..." Lead is a mineral, not a form of the verb "to lead". Thank you. 2.96.92.21 (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done @2.96.92.21: Thanks a lot for seeing that error! --JustBerry (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Military Service Update edit request

The article should be updated to show Grylls' recent appointment as Honorary Lieutenant Colonel in the Royal Marines Reserve: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2013/November/14/131114-Bear-Force

I believe this means that he has resigned his previous rank in the RNR: According to the Royal Navy website, he previously held an appointment as an honorary Lieutenant Commander in the Royal Navy Reserves.

Thanks. Perhaps you'd like to register as an editor with WP. Then you could do the edit yourself. :-) If you don't, I'll try to get to it in a few days. – S. Rich (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. – – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"I believe this means that he has resigned his previous rank" Can we be sure of this sans a link? It is perfectly possible to hold ranks in two services simultaneously (though unusual)Garlicplanting (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You've prompted me to think about this some more. It looks like these appointments are purely honorary and entail no duties. As a LtCdr in the RMR, his "role is to represent the Naval Service and the Reserves through his day-to-day life". So he doesn't have to do anything, but can show up for parades, dinners, public events, etc. These are not really appointments that one can resign from. If this is correct, what sort of editing do we need? – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming it is an official honorary commission (in which case you could resign - not just a social honour in which case you probably can't) in the RNR/RMR which should I think be checkable in the records. At the moment I'm having no luck in the Gazette for commissions. Someone with access to the Army List of Navy List may be able to advance things further. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Bear Grylls - McDonalds New Range ;)

Any chance one of you good people could take a look at this, http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/a-tv-survivalist-caught-cutting-corners/?_r=0 from a reliable source, The Times and The New York Times. And add something about how he is more a showman than an actual survival expert. I don't see much reference to anything to counter his 'achievements' and it still reads like a bloody fan page.

Cheers

86.147.128.33 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Typo

"wildnerness"

 Done.[4] Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why no mention he went to university of West of England

He went to UWE before Birkbeck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic Pickle (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reference. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read the letter by Clara Greed. I have added to personal life section. Magic Pickle (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

Almost in the beginning, it's said "In July 2009, Grylls was appointed the youngest-ever Chief Scout at the age of 35." The thing I'd liked being changed is his age, because at that point he was 34 years old, not 35. He was born 7 June 1974 and he was announced Chief Scout on 17 May 2009, which makes him 34 years old. 2009-1974= 35, but May is before June in the calender, so he's 34 years old at that point. I hope this is being fixed. 80.244.92.95 (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done "He was officially made Chief Scout .... on 11 July 2009 ..." so, although the announcement was when he was 34, his was 35 when he took on the role. - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2015

Delete: 'Lady Sarah Grylls' Insert: 'Lady Grylls (Sarah)' 2.122.140.63 (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Lady Grylls is not the daughter of an earl, marquess or duke, and should therefore be referred to as: Lady Grylls.

•  Not done reliable sources are using "Lady Sarah Grylls". --Human3015^TALK  15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Black belt claims

... Citation needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.3.204 (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Bear Grylls: Breaking Point

Why is there no mention about this TV-series called "Bear Grylls: Breaking Point "? Shouldn't it be here? 87.92.192.248 (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Residence

I just watched video by Grylls: [Bear Grylls Purchases New London Home at Battersea Power Station Development]

Battersea_Power_Station says:

Construction on Phase 1 was due to commence in 2013, with completion due in 2016/17

Does Bear Grylls still live on a barge, or has he moved into apartment?

Thank you, Mitch3000 18:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2016

Please change Edward Michael "Bear" Grylls (born 7 June 1974) is a British adventurer, writer and television presenter to Bear Grylls (removing Edward Michael)

Please change Grylls was born in Donaghadee, County Down, Northern Ireland.[6][7] He grew up in Donaghadee until the age of four, when his family moved to Bembridge on the Isle of Wight.[8][9] to Grylls was born in London, then his family moved to Bembridge on the Isle of Wight

Please change Lady Sarah Grylls (née Sarah Ford) to Lady Sally Grylls

Please remove any reference to Birbeck College, London

LizzieWebb (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

LizzieWebb (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bear Grylls Page

Remember when you view Bear Grylls Page remember that you use it properly and use it for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerCat2016 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

It is of course possible. If, instead of going through the Irish Sea, you go around the island of Ireland (as well as Great Britain), you will have circumnavigated the UK, the Republic of Ireland, and The British Isles. I have no idea which route Grylls took.--Mongreilf (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016

Please add under Bear Grylls's sub-heading "Charities" that he is an ambassador for Care for Children, an organisation that partners with governments in Asia to help create a positive alternative to institutional care through local family-based care for disadvantaged children. Binjonder (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Dane ^talk 00:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Under "Survival Games", add the celebrity names for season 1: Andy Zhang 张丹峰, Han Xue (actress) 韩雪, Janine Zhang 张钧甯, Wu Qian (actress) 吴倩, Wookie Zhang 大张伟, Liu Yuxi 刘语熙, Bai Jing Ting 白敬亭, and Michael Tse 谢天华.

ref: http://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%B7%9F%E7%9D%80%E8%B4%9D%E5%B0%94%E5%8E%BB%E5%86%92%E9%99%A9 125.254.28.134 (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done--Not WP:RS.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Deserted Son

Perhaps this claim is true, but the source given tells a different story. As written, the claim that he "deserted" his son is inflammatory, and not backed up by sources. I agree that such an action should probably be mentioned in a page like this, as well as the fallout and public perception of it, but without better sourcing, this language should be amended or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:807:8001:9E91:4105:714D:3881:6C64 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

The link to Lieutenant-Commander (where it talks about him being appointed an Honorary Lieutenant-Commander) should be replaced with the following link. The existing link is too broad and shows the US rank in the summary/hover: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_commander_(Royal_Navy) 128.141.170.15 (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Already done The wikilink is already pointing to Royal Navy Lt Commander. DBigXrayᗙ 12:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Origin of nickname 'Bear'

As looking through the archive of the talk page here suggests, Grylls has given contradictory statements about the origin of his famous nickname; although logic would dictate that 'Edward' gets mutated to 'Teddy' eventually, no further questions being necessary, the fact that he has given such contradictory statements in his autobiographical writings and on his own website interested me. On his homepage in the 'Ask Bear' section, as mentioned in a 2008 comment on the second archive of the talk page here, he claims that as a child his school friends shifted 'Eddie' to 'Teddy' to 'Bear'; other interview sources online indicate he was so called because of lugging a teddy bear around with him. His book 'Bear Grylls: Two All-Action Adventures', pg 95 has him state 'My sister had named me 'bear' as a baby, and I have no idea why. I certainly wasn't hairy and rarely growled, but for some strange reason the name had stuck.' A 2011 Guardian interview has him corroborate this, with 'I was christened Edward. My sister gave me the name Bear when I was a week old and it has stuck.' So clearly, between 2008 and 2011, Grylls has decided to change his story.

What with the whole 'I have absolutely, COMPLETELY no idea why I'm called, virtually ALL THE TIME, Bear' (what, he never thought to ASK her in the 40 years since he was a week old?), methinks he doth protest too much, giving credence to what a co-worker on one of his shows said (again in the talk page archive here)- that 'Bear' was 'a nickname to forward his quest for fame'. But where did the name come from? Granted, it's in the same line as 'Wolf' or 'Tiger'- a plausible 'tough guy' kind of a nickname, deflecting from his gentry background and public schooling, and emphasising raw masculinity (as the media ingests and presents it). A look at his family tree- not something one really ever sees mentioned, but corroborated beyond a shadow of a doubt in official published sources- gives a strong hint. The Burke's Landed Gentry pedigree of the family of 'Grylls of Winterbourne Zelston', where his father, Sir Michael Grylls, appears (see also his article here), states at the top 'The connection between this family and the Gryllses of Lanreath, Cornwall (see 1952 edn, GRYLLS formerly of St Neot) has not been established in spite of a strong tradition in both families that such a connection does exist.' Taking a look at that very volume and that pedigree reveals that the St Neot/ Lanreath Grylls family has both a marital connection to a family called 'Bere', and, consequently, numerous individuals with 'Bere' and 'Beare' as part of their names. The pedigree starts with a William Grylls of Tavistock, granted arms in 1577, whose grandson, Sir John, of Lanreath, married Grace, 'daughter and co-heir of William Bere'. Numerous other sources (including, for example, 'A Complete Parochial History of Cornwall', by Joseph Polsue, 1872, pg 14, and 'The History of Cornwall: From the earliest records and traditions to the present time', by Fortescue Hitchins and Samuel Drew, vol. 2, 1824, pg 512) detail this marriage and the subsequent quartering of arms. From this point on appear members of the family with 'Bere' and 'Beare' in their names (the pronunciation being emphasised by the canting in the coat of arms, which depicts a bear); Horace Bere Grylls, Kate Beare Grylls, John Bere Grylls, Charles Beare Grylls... is it likely that a family to which 'Bear' Grylls's own branch- clearly fully aware of their background and family history, based on their own appearance in Burke's (family members being the ones who give details to Burke's for publication)- claims close relationship just HAPPENS to have many members with variations of the name 'Bear', and that his sister, when he was a week old, no less, simply created entirely autonomously a nickname (that he seems to use in all aspects of his life all the time, no less) which connects exactly to it? I think it distinctly UNlikely. It seems far more likely that its use reflects the alleged relationship between these two Grylls families, of which the Grylls family of Winterbourne Zelston were sufficiently proud as to mention it in their family entry in Burke's.

Granted, it COULD be just a (rather unlikely) coincidence, but given his gentry background and the fact that people of such a background generally either hold a very comprehensive knowledge of their family tree or have to hand the resources to acquire same, I should think, on being asked 'Let's come up with a marketable nickname... any ideas?' Grylls managed to pull 'Bear'- a variant of the family name 'Bere' and 'Beare'- out of the hat. And it's certainly worked well for him! It's far more 'trendy' to relate the nickname to a tough, powerful beast than to say 'well, interestingly, it's an old family surname: my ancestor, Sir John Grylls, married the daughter of a William Beare, and...'. Being subjected to the reverse snobbery of those who reject anyone having ancestors beyond their grandparents is hardly conducive to being held to the populace's collective bosom, after all! Ashiyura (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I wish it could be edited-down for the article. Especially since “my sister said it” is not a 'why'. MBG02 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Chief Ambassador inclusion?

Should this be a separate section, or fall under Chief Scout? I can get the sources to write this section and post here. I Am Chaos (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

On 5.2.12 Bear's Mission, it states that "Englands ITV", ITV is a British Channel not English. Change "Englands" to "UK" Aircraft Engineer 1 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have instead removed the nationality altogether and left it as "ITV". —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Indian Army

Bear Grylls wanted to join the indian army. This has not been stated anywhere in the page. If possible please let me put it up in a section Uddhav9 (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? You can not add it without a source. --Bduke (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021

Add category [[Category:Fall survivors]] to the article, as per fall described in the Military Service section. 2804:431:C7CE:8F81:7174:990F:ED9D:7165 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done   melecie   t 02:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Chief Scout

It seems that Bear Grylls is still Chief Scout. Can anyone find a source that says when his term will end? That needs to be added. --Bduke (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Filmography or Telivision career section needed

A section needs in this article where in a table readers can read all his shows names with year and original broadcaster and a section about his literary work in wikitable.Holland Tok (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

As an ex serving member of 21 SAS in the rank of trooper I can confirm that bear grylls was never a serving member of either 21,22 or 23 SAS as confirmed to me by my CoC, also the procedures demonstrated on his TV shows are not regiment SOP's. There are a lot of people claiming to be ex regiment but the MoD will neither confirm or deny these claims. 209.93.66.41 (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 16:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Also provide reliable sources and citations beacuse Wikipedia doesn't buy WP: original research Holland Tok (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bear, you should make a couple expediton🤩

Hi Bear you should make a couple expedition 🤩 64.34.246.118 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Why no mention that bear Grylls inspired by Aussie the bush tucker man?

Bears Grylls himself says he grew up watching the Australian T.V show by Australian ex military & survivalist… the bush-tucker man.

& that his show is inspired by Les Hiddins & his show the bush Tucker man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Hiddins 49.178.89.213 (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Add contribution to Alpha film in Charity and Politics section

In 2016 Grylls contributed tot the alpha course film series which seeks to help people find answers to the big questions in life. https://alpha.org/preview/alpha-film-series/

Jjeroen (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2022

Under "Positions in Scouting": Update "He remains Chief Scout in 2021" to "He remains Chief Scout in 2022"

Update citation 88 (https://www.scouts.org.uk/about-us/our-people/chief-scout/) from being named "Bear Grylls still Chief Scout in 2021" to "Bear Grylls still Chief Scout in 2022" Aeioyoo (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Is bear Grylls alive

Nothing 117.102.61.215 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe so. He is 48 years old. Why do you ask? --Bduke (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: In 2018, Bear Grylls opened his first activity centre at The NEC in Birmingham. The Bear Grylls Adventure is part of the Merlin Entertainments group, and offers High Ropes, iFLY Indoor Skydiving, diving with Sharks, Archery, and more to visitors. www.beargryllsadventure.com Frogautumn (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This would need secondary sourcing to show it is noteworthy. It would also need to not read like an advertisement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2022

1. Move section Be Military Fit from stand-alone section 7 to be subsection 5.4 under heading Career as it is part of his career.

2. Move section Positions in Scouting from stand-alone section 6 to be subsection 8.1 under heading Charity and politics as it is part of his charity work and rename section Scouting.

3. In the introduction paragraph last statement insert “as The Scout Association’s” in place of “the” i.e.:

In July 2009, Grylls was appointed as The Scout Association’s youngest-ever Chief Scout of the United Kingdom and Overseas Territories at age 35, a post he has held for a second term since 2015.

as Grylls is The Scout Association’s Chief Scout, not the Chief Scout of the United Kingdom (government). 115.42.11.138 (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your suggestions! –CWenger (^ • @) 02:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

References