Talk:Bear Grylls/Archive 1

Picture of Bear

I havent been able to find any picture of Bear suitable for use in this biographical article. If anyone can get a picture of him, perhaps from tv.com on a temporary license like in Les Stroud's article, it would improve the page a lot.

Out of place

"His brand of TV includes sheer cliff climbs, wading massive rapids, and even wrapping his boxers around his head to help stave off the desert heat". The lay of this sentence seems positively backwards to me. Anyone? Disco john 06:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please fix

versus is misspelled on the photo caption (verzus)

insert a space in theSahara

done thank you.

I am confused as to Bear's year of birth, this page has it listed as 1974, whereas it is listed as 1973 on the 7 June page. For accuracy's sake, which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew.Renton (talk • contribs) 06:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Legion?

The preview for the show stated he had served in the Foreign Legion, but his official biography states he was just demonstrating what going through their training was like. So, outside of heading Brit. Army anti-drug commercials and holding the honorary rank, he has no military experience. And I really don't count those last two as true military experience, and in the case of going through the Foreign Legion BCT, that was just for a TV show. So, did this guy just come onto the stage via climbing Everest at such a young age? Not knocking British television industry, but it must be easier to break into entertainment via reality tv than in the States. Shadowrun 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I believe he gained some level of 'fame' from Everest, yes... that's what got him his appearances on Jay Leno, Oprah, BBC, GMTV, and I imagine it's which led to everything else, or at the very least brought him to the attention of survivalist show producers. NeilSenna 05:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he was in the SAS for three years. Additionally, where is the source for saying that the material in Man vs. Wild is staged and deemed dangerous. Per the living persons policy, I am removing it, as it seems the most POV and potentially libelous. WarriorPoet 21:09, 08 December 2006 (EDT)

In the SAS for 3 years?? He was in the Territorial Army, part-time.

Yeah, 21 SAS, an SAS reserve regiment in the TA. Tarff 20:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• And served actively twice in North Africa, so says his biography, so I'd say he has military experience. NeilSenna 05:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's misleading for the introduction to just state he was in the TA. He spent 3 years in 21 SAS who like all SAS are involved in offensive operations and have a similarly hardcore selection process to their regular SAS colleagues and are expected to achieve the same level of skill in fieldcraft and survival. But they are frequently deployed in a more typical reserve-type role specializing in deep battlespace intelligence, target acquisition, surveillance and reconnaissance. Which is somewhat different to other TA regiments who specialize in getting in the way. :P 81.151.124.255 19:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC) ELMO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.124.255 (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

No, they don't have a "similarly hardcore selection process". 22 SAS is the elite. If someone from 21 SAS wants to end up in 22 SAS, they have to go through the same arduous 6-month selection process as a person from any other regiment does, and few make it. 21 SAS has very limited training (by comparison), and a far less stringent selection process. -- Rei 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To suggest as his web site does that "he served actively in North Africa" during his time in 21 is laughable, no doubt intended to establish his military credentials. His "active service" consisited of two, two week OTXs in Morocco working with the Moroccan armed forces! These OTXs were common place throughout the British Army at the time, providing opportunities for British troops to train in varying climates and conditions whilst offering reciprocal training for local forces. He might as well of said he actively served in a "formerly disputed northern european territory" ie Wales. It makes as much sense. His parachute accident occurred during a civilain jump and not as he implies on operations. In fact his military career was limited and by no means exceptional. He was notably immature for his age and left 21 after three years. Undoubtedly since that time he has worked assiduously at establishing his tv career aand good luck to him but he is certainly guilty of exagerating his military background.

"His parachute accident occurred during a civilain jump and not as he implies on operations. In fact his military career was limited and by no means exceptional. He was notably immature for his age and left 21 after three years" Intresting stuff, do you have sources for any of that? Elmo 11:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Why is this bio presented as a timeline? it reads like an advert for the moment. --Fredrick day 08:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have slain the evil timeline. It shall trouble us no more. Elmo 22:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Reorganisation

Well in its current form this article hurts like a hangover. I suggest we keep the introduction much as it is and split the information from the timeline into three sections titled as follows.

Personal life With information on family, his passion for climbing, personal information & trivia etc. Incorporate the current Life section into this one.

Career Split into two subsections on Military and Television appearances.

World Record Attempts all his famous climbing firsts and world records of which there are quite a few.

Add a See Also section containing links to field craft related articles, other famous survivalists and famous former SAS personnel.

And then leave references and external links where they are. I know it's not ideal and won't get featured article anytime soon but it'd be a starting point from which further edits and improvements can be made. As it is currently it's almost impossible for people to edit or contribute as everything is bundled up in that awkward timeline. Does anyone have any other ideas or objections concerning a change in layout of this article?81.151.124.255 20:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo

I'll take that as a no then? OK I'll write something up and post it later this afternoon. Elmo 10:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Only had time to do the World Records, see also and some other stuff. Will do more at a later point. (BTW sorry if I sound pushy about this reorginization, I don't want to seem like I'm trying to take ownership of the article or anything, it's just that people aren't talking much..) Elmo 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

couldnt agree more, defo needs sorting.--80.47.209.242 11:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added a section on Charity btw, as there is so much information on charities in the world records section which is a bit out of place(yes, i know i put it there :P ) and the information on his role in JoLT and the prince's trust would be somewhat out of place in either current life or a career section. Elmo 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I put the rest of the stuff I said I would in and killed the timeline, can we remove the cleanup tag now? Elmo 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Man VS wild-britsh name

since his shown on discovery it called man Vs wild and discovery is a U.S based company shouldnt the mention of hsi show be referd to as man VS wild. sry if thi eems offensive to u britishy peeps, just wodnering what u guys thik

I get your reasoning and sort of agree, not because Discovery is a mostly US company but because that is the name it was broadcasted with first. But as far as I can see everytime the show is mentioned in the article it already gives both names. Where exactly is the part you think the name needs to be changed on? Elmo 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

if i get what ur asking me right i want it to be change as naming 2 names of ther same show seems a little exssive (Esskater11 23:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Maybe you're right, but there is a precedent set in wikipedia on other articles broadcast under two names to use both. The first time it's mentioned or anytime the show is talked about in detail it should IMO definately use both. But other than that Man vs. wild is probably preferable. Elmo 12:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

veracity of record claims

Um could we have some sources on the various "oh no he didn't"s about Grylls's various world records? I'm just slightly sceptical of some of the more negative claims about BG seeing as wikipedia has a fairly strong anti-Grylls population who seem set on potraying him as a fake, this page alone has seen POV accusations of him being a coward, a fake and at one point ..a fictional character o_O

I've searched for quite a while for anything that claims Allen was the youngest Briton to reach everest's summit although many places list him as the youngest Austrailian, in fact Allen himself claims to be the youngest Austrailian to summit everest..

As for the failed Altimeter thing, yet again I've searched but haven't found a single source for it. I found one local who claimed he probably didn't reach that height because he was annoyed that Grylls's parachute landed on him(presumably this man was somehow incapable of walking out of the way). The altimeter failing has more credibility than the Allen claim though as the team involved have described how their equipment was failing bit by bit... It would be good to have some sources on this though. Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must cite a reliable source.Elmo 12:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan Mazur is not a "local", unless Grylls is paragliding over Bristol. He is a rather well regarded mountaineer. With your comment, you seem to imply that some ignorant hick who isn't smart or fast enough to get out of the way or a paraglider should not be trusted. Placing the onus on pedestrians (or in this case, mountain climbers) to avoid landing aircraft is not particularly practical. I'm not sure that the incident is all that worthy of a mention in the main article, but you sure do go to great lengths to exonerate Grylls of any wrongdoing when he lands on people. Wikitlo 22:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also the fact that the user who posted these accusations has a history of vandalism and "purposefully introducing incorrect information" to articles makes me for one a bit suspicious.. Elmo 21:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

after recent edits, it's a bit better. But bizzarely the site used as a reference lists Allen as an austrailian thus countering the claim that he's the youngest Briton. Elmo 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Add this video for evidence of the show slanting the truth: http://www.wwtdd.com/index.phtml?t=BEAR+GRYLLS

What exactly do you think that video has to do with Allen's nationality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.241.12 (talk) 23:28, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

A Few Questions

After reading the article, I have a couple questions that can hopefully be answered through updates.

1.) He apparently joined the SAS right out of highschool (I'm American, so bear with me) - when did he attend London college? The article alludes to the fact that he didn't graduate, but between jumping out of planes until he was 21, recovering from a back injury until 23, climbing Everest right before turning 24, writing a bestseller book from 24-25, when did he go to college and for how long? I'm thinking he did it part-time while in the SAS, but that's just a guess. I don't know of many "part-time" special forces units...is the TA like America's Army National Guard ("One weekened a month, two months a year")?

2.) How did he fund an everest trip after being incapacitated for ~2 years. Obviously he couldn't have worked. Just a permit to climb costs in excess of $10,000 US as far as I know, not to mention transportation, porters, equipment, 100+ days of provisions. I guess his days at Eton hint at a financially wealthy family (enough to pay $50,000 annual tuition fees). Anyone have an idea on this? 69.234.57.176 15:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

yes the TA is a bit like the national guard - as for your other questions - no idea. --Fredrick day 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The reserve regiments of the SAS are a bit of an anomaly they're only special forces in the same sense that the US army Rangers are special forces(actually the way the Rangers regiment operates is very similar to that of the SAS reserve, except 21SAS recruits would have a far more gruelling selection and training process)- they're supposed to be deployed working in a special forces support group type role, but only part time, like the US's National Guard. And traditionally, 21 SAS has recruited mainly university students, So it's certainly conceivable that he could've done a course at the same time as serving with them, and the time frame does seem to support it. Elmo 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the awnser to your second question either (sorry I'm not being very useful today), but there's also the option of corporate sponsorship for the expedition. In his role as an MP Michael Gryll's would have had the contacts in the business world to help seek sponsorship, as an already experienced climber Bear had a very good chance of success(which is something normally factored into Business giving sponsorship to an expedition), and Bear's young age and recent history of back injury and being in the SAS would certainly be quirky enough to attract attention for sponsors... Elmo 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Elmo, turns out you are right. Grylls was sponsored by Juice Plus, a vitamin supplement company. According to a website someone unearthed on www.survival.com:

"Grylls had previously admitted that Juice Plus (i.e. National Safety Associates) was a financier of his 1998 climbing expedition to Mt. Everest. Grylls also runs his own Juice Plus franchise, profits from sales of the product, and has been a speaker at Juice Plus distributor training events. He is featured on a Juice Plus promotional CD entitled Achieving Optimal Health..." Source LostCause 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

His own website has a list of all his various sponsors for things too. http://www.beargrylls.com/sponsors.html not sure if that's actually of any use with the article though. Most other articles on similar people don't normally mention sponsors. Elmo 03:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Officer

How did he get his commission? In the United States, you need a degree - I know the British armed forces are different, but the article just states he was an "officer" with no references to rank or how he attained it.

I believe it was honorary... maybe because of his accident then subsequent Everest expedition?

In the United Kingdom, officers are commissioned both from the ranks and directly into the officer corps as 'Direct Entry' officers, and commissioned from the ranks as 'Late Entry' officers. LE officers work in different roles to the DE officers, normally closer to the field of their previous experience, DE Officers require Secondary Education to A-Level standard and generally speaking 80% of officers have a degree - commissioning for DE officers occurs after training at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst(for tactical & combat training, and leadership, management and international affairs training) so because they have to operate at that standard the LE officers are usually very experienced and are fairly exceptional amongst their peers.

however I didn't see where the article says he was a commisioned officer, although the artist's rifles(21 SAS) has a historical reputation as being an alternative form of officer's training so that muddys the waters somewhat.

The rank of 'Honorary Lieutenant-Commander'(not the honorary rank of 'Lieutenant-Commander' as I've just noticed the article currently says.. will fix in a second) in the Royal Naval Reserve is one that's given out, by royal appointment, to a very small amount of people who do service to the sea in general or Britain 's maritime heritage. Bear Grylls received it for the expedition he led across the North Atlantic Arctic Ocean in a small open rigid inflatable boat(although his previous work raising funds for the RNLI and the SSAFA Forces were probably taken into account) in 2004 at the same time Ellen MacArthur also recieved the same rank. Elmo 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Bear all he is cracked up to be?

Questions raised over the integrity of Man vs Wild

As reported by the BBC on Mon 23rd Jul http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6911748.stm

I think this should be included as a comment. Given that the show is aired as a survival show, I think it's incredibly important to mention that the show does not depict actual survival. The current claims of fraud include sleeping in hotels, having his crew construct equipment for him, and generally misleading users. It's definitely worth including in the Wikipedia page.

I believe his wife's name is Shara and he has two sons, Jesse and Marmaduke, no daughter.68.193.58.210 13:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the article should say that it depicts him displaying survival techniques in various situations and it shouldn't say anything that implies he is truely 'stranded' anywhere. But I disagree with this getting a seperate mention as it's misleading. Channel 4 has made it clear that the show doesn't depict reality and that Bear Grylls isn't in any real danger and has backup in these situations as is shown in these statements from the link you posted.

Channel 4 said in a statement that Born Survivor was "not an observational documentary series, but a 'how-to' guide to basic survival techniques in extreme environments".

"The programme explicitly does not claim that presenter Bear Grylls' experience is one of unaided solo survival.

"For example, he often directly addresses the production team, including the cameraman, making it clear he is receiving an element of back-up."

The broadcaster said Grylls carried out his own stunts and did place himself in perilous situations, "though he does so within clearly-observed health and safety guidelines required on productions of this kind".

C4 investigate pretty much all posibilities of shows misleading the viewer, especially considering how recently British broadcasters have had a string of controversies over misleading the public on televised phone-in competitions. No one, let alone C4, is taking it as a serious implication that MvW has done anything wrong. Elmo 17:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST TO EDIT ARTICLE - UNDER THE SECTION "CONTROVERSY"

Based on what Bear Grylls posted in his own forum of the Discovery channel website, as noted below, Mr. Grylls added to the controversy by admitting that the show is for entertainment only, and not intended to be trusted as reality.

Bear admits show is purely for entertainment

Based on what I've read here, what has been posted on the Discovery forum (And later deleted by the moderator), I've gathered that Mr. Grylls's show is as real as professional wrestling. Please click on the following link before it is deleted by Mr. Bear or the forum - which confirms that the show is for entertainment only.

I am new at this, but looking through the Discovery channel, under discussion forum, Mr. Grylls posted in his own words, and username, the following:

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2161971848/m/1421936019/p/2

quote]Do parents really want their kids growing up thinking water from elephant poop is perfectly fine to drink? I know I don't want my kids believing that because some old ranger told Mr.Grylls it was true. This is the real issue with the program as far as I'm concerned. Isn't Discovery liable for the accuracy of survival information presented in it's programming? [/quote]

Aren't YOU responsible for what your kids watch? Why are you relying on a tv show to provide you and your kids with survival information? Whether you think the advice given is good or bad, shouldn't you do a LOT more research on it b/4 venturing out? I don't know if DC is liable for the accuracy of it's program information. But MvW isn't billed as a documentary, 'survival handbook' type show. It's entertainment -- and it's good at it. At least that's what the ratings indicate.

[quote]Aren't we all responsible to uphold the truth for countless people watching and wanting to learn real expert survival techniques that are safe and proven effective.[/quote]

Newsflash -- everything you see on tv isn't real. [quote]How irresponsible to put so many people in harms way with such dangerous advice. How can this be justified for the sake of entertainment? [/quote]

Don't really know how many people are 'in harms way'. I haven't heard of anyone getting hurt from watching this show.

[quote]People turn to Discovery Channel as a valuable resource for educating themselves and their families.[/quote]

I turn to DC to watch some entertaining shows. If I want valuable sources of information, tv is not where I look to find it. {quote]I can't justify defending anything that puts my family and fellow citizens of the world in harm's way.[/quote]

If you find the show so offensive, write to DC expressing your opinions. Or you could just turn the channel.

Did anyone ever claim it was a reality tv show or a gameshow? in all the interviews etc. Grylls talked about it being a programme which showcased survival techniques in dangerous enviroments, which it does. The whole "Bear admits show is purely for entertainment" thing is about as controversial as someone saying "The Rolling Stones admit their band played music.".. 86.145.240.152 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

also your source is an anomynous forum post in a long running argument between survivorman fanboys(who are upset because his reality tv show is regularly faked) and defensive Grylls fanboys(who apparently have the moral highground because MvW was never claimed by anyone to be reality tv in the first place.). Secondly this sort of critism of the programme would be better placed on the article on the series itself. Although I see that you've posted this there already, but just because people shoot most of the unfounded critisism down in that article doesn't mean you should try it here as well. Elmo 16:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ed Grylls is a fake, read it from the guy who worked with him on the pilot (Rockies) episode. Ron Hood was the survival expert and has been candid with his feelings towards the show:

"Sorry Dude, Not true. I know the guy... It's about MONEY and FAME. He makes his dollars on the lecture circuit, lives on a houseboat on the themes. His name is Edward (Ed) and I was told was given the name "Bear" as a nickname to forward his quest for fame. His "adventures" are conducted from a motel room and his stunts are BS. He expressed an interest in getting into politics, least wise that is what I understood from him as he and I drove into town to get a pizza. You are right about one thing, it is not about survival, it is "fear factor" with one contestant and some producers who can lie to the viewer.

Finally, I like him as a person, very personable and intelligent. His ethics with the show are bulimic. I've made that clear to him directly. He said it is Discovery's call. I told him I didn't believe him."'' Source 1 Source 2

If you read the links you'll understand the show and Grylls meant to deceive from the beginning. Discovery knew it, the producers knew it, Grylls knew it... LostCause 21:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet again a forum rant from someone who worked on the pilot(after which the shows format changed) before being fired isn't an acceptable source for anything, let alone a biography of a living person(which requires higher standards of reliability). I haven't seen the programme when it was shown on discovery, but on C4 there was nothing there to imply that it was meant to be reality television, or a gameshow, or any sort of sitution in which his life was in serious danger - the short 'making of' programme they produced even showed them talking to locals while he was 'stranded' in the mountains, no attempt at deception there. 81.155.104.110 10:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well no matter what, this sort of thing would be better placed in the main man vs. wild article, not here. In my opinion we should limit discussion of MvW to stating it's name and content, and Grylls's involvement hosting the show - the article is meant to be about Grylls himself, not about the reactions to MvW. Elmo 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: The entire dialog above extracted from the Discovery Channel Man vs. Wild discussion forum does NOT INVOLVE Bear Grylls. All the bolded quotes attributed to Mr. Grylls were in fact made by a fan using the screen name grills_bare. This fan never claimed to be Mr. Grylls. I know this for a fact, because I have had many discussions with grills_bare myself and was indeed involved in this discussion also. Whoever interpreted this discussion as involving Mr. Grylls made a serious blunder.

Wife and Children

On the Bear Grylls website it says his wife's name is Shara and he has 2 sons Marmaduke and Jesse. Edit: Sorry to repeat I didn't catch the last part of previous post.

Latria3 20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}I tried to change this but the page is protected. Can we get this fixed?Thebmcc 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)thebmcc

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

right, I changed it back to Shara, Marmaduke and Jesse. Looks like the same guy who's been introducing fake information into the article before. Sorry if I just deleted correct information on the daughter, but if you can't find a reference for it and his own website contradicts it then it's probably not correct.

Sorry about the semi-protect getting in your way guys, it was me who requested a temporary semi-protect because of all the vandalism from IP users it was getting at the time(probably just the recent trailers for the new man vs.wild series spurred the survivorman fanboys into action). Elmo 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

more faked danger in the show

IT was billed as one of Bear Grylls’s most audacious challenges yet. The Eton-educated television adventurer had to escape an active volcano in the Pacific by leaping across molten lava and avoiding clouds of “killer” gas. However, the episode of Born Survivor set on the Mount Kilauea volcano in Hawaii has emerged as faked in a scandal that has embroiled the television industry - and now threatens Grylls’s future TV career. The white clouds of poisonous “sulphur dioxide” that billowed around the former SAS explorer were, in fact, harmless vapour created by smoke machines. And according to insiders, the red glow of the molten magma which he warned could incinerate him “in seconds” was supplemented by burning hot coals brought in by members of the production team.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2241720.ece

Also, check out this youtube video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UpSlpvb1is GravityExNihilo 09:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly lethal advice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acYExF4RRqE
Bear says he is going to float down the river using only his back pack and a Plastic bag. If you look closely you can see he has a life jacket/buoyancy aid on under his shirt.
To offer the advice that a plastic bag would give sufficient flotation on its own in such a scenario is highly dubious. 89.100.251.72 05:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(I dont know if I should add this but ...) Speaking as a qualified S.R.T. (swift water rescue technician, S.W.A.T.) and certified Canadian raft guide, I can say that no one would last more than a few minutes fully clothed without a buoyancy aid in the water shown in that clip, buoyancy would become a huge issue....hence the need for the hidden life jacket.89.100.251.72 05:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI I've been trained to use a similar technique in much rougher water than that and it worked just fine. There does seem to be something under his shirt(although it certainly doesn't float like a bouyancy vest, prehaps it's an impact vest or an air trap?), but this is original research, not controversial(as right from the earliest interviews Grylls has recorded complaints about the safety measures the production team put upon him) and is irrelevant to this article (man vs wild might be a better fit.). The comments on that video were well worth it though, one of the people calling him a fake has claimed elsewhere to be a member of the SAS and a Navy Seal (impossible to be both) and now he says he was in the army - I really hope he gets the irony Elmo 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cancel that, it is possible to have been both a navy seal and in SAS - would require a long change of citizenship and a very long time in military though.

The long part would be the "Seal" part. 21 SAS isn't that hard to get into. Now, 22 SAS...

The lifejacket isn't original research. Bear admitted to it personally in a Discovery interview. You can grab the link from the Man vs Wild page if you want. -- Rei 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's well-documented in the Man Vs. Wild article... at least the life-vest part. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One Thing I Would Like to Mention

1.) Has anyone else noticed a remarkable similarity between Edward Grylls and Ranulph Fiennes?

Ranulph Fiennes - Son of a knighted man, Eton educated, Served in the SAS, Crossed the frozen Arctic & Antarctic, (almost) climbed Everest, abassador for several charities as an adventurer, strove to be a politician

Edward Grylls - Son of a knighted man, Eton educated, served in the SAS, crossed the frozen atlantic, climbed everest, ambassador for several charities as an adventurer, has(?) shown interest in joining politics.

Bear grylls i hot when he's naked.He should do it more often I don't think this will add major value to the article, but I think it does two things. It helps define what might have had motivited Bear Grylls in his youth (Fiennes was a famous British adventurer during Gryll's youth). Also, Fiennes seems like a good candidate for the "see also" section (which has been omitted for some reason?). LostCause 11:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn I'm perceptive...:) According to this;

"Sir Ranulph has been an inspiration to Bear all his life...As a boy, Bear climbed the bell tower at Eton, where the baronet had also once been a pupil. 'In the lead lining, I found the initials RF. I put BG next to his,' he recalls." LostCause 13:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes me want to puke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.138.215 (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) Lifeboats"

i dont know if this is correct, just wanted to point it out in the world firsts sections

" Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) Lifeboats" seems redundant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.161.87 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Article tone

The tone of this article is completely incongruous with the Man vs. Wild page. There is not a single mention of his well-documented and self-admitted staging of scenes, and this bio is therefore misleading. ~Eliz81^(C) 22:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey hey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.162.209 (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Grylls spent the next 12 months in rehabilitation and, with his military career over

It is a rare thing to be put out of the military because of an injury - even as a STAB - so this statement is very woolly - did he get a medical discharge or did he leave the TA (that's leaving asides the numerous other problems with the "official" version of his service)? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Military career wording

Look, first of all, this is WP:LAME. Second of all, all I am doing is improving a section for brevity and conciseness. There are no other part-time roles in the British Army other than the TA, there is no reason to over over clarify with unnecessary wording. Piped links are a core tool for where WP readers might not understand what TA means, "part time in the territorial army" is a superfluous statement. MickMacNee (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

complete crap - this is a global encyclopedia - so many of our readers will be unaware *what* the TA is - you seem to what to hide the fact that his service was with the TA 21st - which is *not* considered the same as proper service with the SAS - you are making this article mislead by trying to hide the facts. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not ture, the reference to the TA is in the same section as anyway. And who are you citing as a source for the TA 21st - which is *not* considered the same as proper service with the SAS? Have you done both? MickMacNee (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was in the services *not* the SAS so I'm aware of the differences in the two - do a google and see what the entry requirements are for a member of 21st to join the proper SAS. He was a STAB, no shame in that but let's not make it out to be something it's not. And I don't need a source to say that the fact that he was in the TA should be flagged up at the start. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making it anything, it's you has an issue with the use of what is standard linking practice in WP and making assumptions and accusations about my intent. MickMacNee (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He was in the TA - your version makes it sound like he was doing special forces stuff with the real SAS - 21st do support activities for the british army, to *allow* the proper SAS to get on with their jobs - do you really think that british special forces training consists of 10 weekend jaunts and a week playing soldiers ? --Fredrick day (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making any assumptions either way, if you have sources for exactly what his role was, feel free to add them, it would improve the section. Adding superflous wording does do not. MickMacNee (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't require any additional sources - we are not getting into the differences between the two in this article - simply the fact that his service was in the TA, which is already sourced within the article. If I wanted to get into *within* the article why it's not considered proper SAS service then I'd need sources. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you talking about what he actually did as a justification for the edits as above? This is superflous wording and follows standard wikipedia formatting. It really is as simple as that, despite your numerous accusations. MickMacNee (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And hold on a minute with his military career over - what career? he was part-time - do we not have any information about his *actual* job of the time? --Fredrick day (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, your version Grylls served, part-time, with the Territorial Army for three years, is just as misleading, as it implies there are other part time roles in the army, and that you can serve full time in the Territorial Army, which you can't. MickMacNee (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

wrong - you can get pulled for a full-time mobilisation due to the Reserve Forces Act and serve full-time (as quite a few have done in Iraq). I've seen no suggestions that Bear did anything like that? --Fredrick day (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My original version does not imply he served full time for any reason. Plus the Act was not introduced until after his discharge. MickMacNee (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with fred - this article shouldn't make him out to be something he wasn't (i'm in the AGC fred). Is mick in the fan club or sumthing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.134.150 (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Terms like fan club are not considered good ettiquette on WP. If you read the discussion I have stated exactly what my reasoning is many times. Using terms like STAB (Stupid Army TA Bastard) adequately illustrates the motives of Fred. I repeat, if anyone has accurate sources for his exact role, i.e. a support for the regular SAS, then I am more than happy for them to be added. MickMacNee (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

While STAB did have that meaning, most service people just use it as shorthand those days - so I wouldn't assume that fredrick means any offense. --88.105.60.177 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally see no difference in the word career or service, or how it feeds into his 'line of bullshit' as you so eloquently put it. FYI the TA SAS regiments are considered a stepping stone into full SAS service, so it can legitimately be termed the start of a 'career'. Had he not had the accident, who knows?. P.S. take a look at WP:NPOV before making further controversial edit summaries. MickMacNee (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI the TA SAS regiments are considered a stepping stone into full SAS service, so it can legitimately be termed the start of a 'career'. Stepping stone? you have to do the full S&T course if you try and get into the proper SAS off the back of your time with the TA - So how it could be seen as a stepping stone is beyond me... because it provides no step at all... --88.105.60.177 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Chris Ryan MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And see what? a really really bad unsourced article that needs to be reduced to a stub? What's that suppose to be evidence of? that wikipedia has some really bad articles that should not be relied upon? and what does that really bad unsourced article say "and shortly afterwards began selection for the 22nd, regular SAS." - that he had to do S&T - which em.. is what I said.88.105.60.177 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know what you want from me, you have paced a COI warning on my page, yet you are claiming things that are inherently POV, so unless you have sources, it's a non-starter. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What? you were the one making the claims - that TA SAS regiments are considered a stepping stone into full SAS service which is just not true - you have to undergo the full selection process along with anyone else trying to join - so it provides no special benefits or a "quick" route to entry. As for the COI - look at your edit history, you have edit-warred with Fredrick day (who looking at his page is a full time editor with no issues) and various others about flagging up that he was in the TA at the start of the bio - what can someone like me who rocks up here conclude? --88.105.60.177 (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And what would someone conclude when an IP address appears and edits straight away using lots of wiki specific knowledge and tags? Do you honestly think I was born yesterday? Besides, if you realy want a discussion, you are merging two issues here, the use of career/service, which I don't really care about, and the duplication of part time and TA, which I have stated my reasons for my proposed version above. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are suggesting - the reason I have "just appeared" is because I have a dynamic IP so it changes every couple of hours - I edit wikipedia quite a lot but on a sprodic basis so don't bother with an account. I'd invite any uninvolved editor to take a look at my contributions - all are good faith edits and should be treated as such. --88.105.60.177 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's a dynamic IP then no-one can look at your edit history apart from todays actions, which have an obvious purpose. MickMacNee (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Enough. Stop the edit warring. Part Time and TA are redundant terms, just like in the US part-time and Reserve or National Guard are redundant terms. Yes there are exceptions. We can note the exceptions as being full time. That's why they're called exceptions. Bear, however, is not one of those exceptions. Continuing to emphasize his part-time status is becoming undue weight, which we avoid on biographies of living people. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

broken reference

there is a broken reference - needs fixing - number 13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed. Or rather removed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

There's obviously a dynamic IP address editor who is hell-bent on adding in "part-time" to the military section, even at the expense of using a bad-faith edit summary to hide his edits. As such, I've semi-protected the article until the IP goes away. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancies with height of his parachute accident

Two of the sources listed here contradict each other. Wikipedia states "His canopy ripped at 16,000 feet (4500 m), partially opening, causing him to fall and land on his parachute pack on his back, which broke three vertebrae"

One of the sources claims "His canopy ripped in two and he fell 500 metres" while the other claims, "Twelve years ago, aged 21, he broke his back when training with the SAS after his parachute failed to inflate at 16,000 feet."

The two sources are http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/E/escape_to_the_legion/to_bear.html and http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=450338&in_page_id=1774&ICO=HEALTH&ICL=TOPART respectively.

Should this information be on Wikipedia if there is no conclusive detail on what exactly happened? It seems to me that even Bear might not be sure of what exactly happened, and given the circumstances that might be very plausible.71.166.95.123 (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with both of those sources is that they are based on his PR, so it's impossible to know how truthful they are - I looked for a better source for a while and was unable to find one. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think the statement about him thinking he had enough time to fix the problem would discount the 500m reference, which could also easily be a typo of 5000m. MickMacNee (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Article criticism

After reading the article, I think the article is leaning on the treshold of 'vanity' , with this I mean a lot of summing up his achievements. It's wonderful he has made record X and donated to charity Y, but an article should be to the point and compact. There are numerous people who do this. The sections could be made into one short section, for example. The fact his shows on Discovery are largely faked (see youtube) , is not actually making him more credible. Marminnetje (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh. No. Largely faked? Wrong, and youtube is not a reliable source. Spend some time with our real vanity articles, and learn what the difference is please. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A video is reliable source. It is used in court. And obviously you haven't watched these :D But , to the point, the article is poorly setup, and largely uncited.

And , even if they were cited, a section should be relevant. Not just a summing up of record X, etc. As I said, the article is full of sentences and sections, which describe how great this individual is, and the 'evidence' all around the net shows he is largely a fake. Should be corrected asap . Marminnetje (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrific mental imagery, but possibly unfounded?

I just noticed in the "Man vs. Wild / Born Survivor" section a statement declaring that Mr. Grylls has "ripped raw chunks of meat off a dead zebra with his teeth, eaten a live bear, and engaged in urophagia - drinking his own urine." Sadly, I have been unable to find any sources to back up the bear-eating claim, which seems like a pretty remarkable feat! I'm reluctant to remove the claim without consultation, in case I've missed something somewhere in my searches and also because there's a part of me that wishes it were true, if only for the mental imagery. However, if this can't be backed up, it probably doesn't belong in a biographical article. Any thoughts on this? IgorsBrain (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no way he's eaten a live bear, it's patently incorrect, it can be re-added if someone can find a source Silent52 (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I thought that might be the case. Thanks for looking into it! :) IgorsBrain (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Three years as an Officer?

The link which supposedly supports the statement that Grylls served for three years as an officer is, of course, broken. However, I found the article on the web and it never said he served for three years as an officer. It just said he was an officer. I have read in numerous sources that Bear enlisted at age 19. I am not so familiar with the British military but I am wondering if it is possible in the British armed forces to:

1. Become an officer at age 19?
2. Become an officer without a college degree (Although, I assume he went to U of London during this time too, which might be sufficient)
3. Become an officer, given the above, and only serving part-time?

Any guidance would be helpful.
Thanks.
ChristianLAX (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)ChristianLAX

Although the norm, no degree is actually required for British Army officer selection, and the TA is a separate organisation to the university based officer training corps, OTC. The minimum joining up age as a TA officer cadet is 17, and reading Territorial_Army#Basic_training and Royal_Military_Academy_Sandhurst#Courses, officer training for the TA could be completed by age 19. It depends on the use of the phrase 'enlisted at 19' that you refer to above, which could be being used incorrectly as meaning 'commissioned' (i.e. made a full officer, at 19). MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)