Talk:George Bell (bishop)

message: Can we get a source for Niemoller's planned execution?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.104.181 (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for planned exection

message: 'His role there was the Christian mission to industrial workers, a third of whom were Indians and Africans from the British Empire...'
The above statement (in section 1.1) has implications for the historiography of colonial migration to Britain. Please supply a source citation for this statement.
Thanks
Jazzlord1 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have a source for this statement please? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on George Bell (bishop). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121208142029/http://canterbury-cathedral.org/assets/images/friends/deanbell.jpg to http://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/assets/images/friends/deanbell.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010122710/http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org:80/2000 to http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2000
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117184655/http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org:80/1999 to http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1999
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117184606/http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org:80/1998 to http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1998
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151107030557/http://new.spectator.co.uk:80/2015/11/the-church-of-englands-shameful-betrayal-of-bishop-george-bell/ to http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/the-church-of-englands-shameful-betrayal-of-bishop-george-bell/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on George Bell (bishop). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017131342/http://assets4.parliament.uk/iv/main-large//ImageVault/Images/id_821/scope_0/ImageVaultHandler.aspx.jpg to http://assets4.parliament.uk/iv/main-large//ImageVault/Images/id_821/scope_0/ImageVaultHandler.aspx.jpg
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2000
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1999
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1998
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/the-church-of-englands-shameful-betrayal-of-bishop-george-bell/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In case some interested in this article haven't seen it, Peter Hitchens wrote a Mail on Sunday blog post criticizing Wikipedia. He did not accept any fault, nor did he note his conflict of interest given his long term advocacy on this topic.
The fact that he was unable to understand what he did wrong – which is painfully obvious to any experienced editor reading the various threads – seems to suggest we would do well to simplify the policies and guidelines even further. 
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitchens was indeffed and can't reply, so probably it's not polite to discuss him here. Anyway, this doesn't have anything to do with this article. It should probably be on WP:VPP (good luck with that). If it is to be mentioned here, the "press" template might be the best place (though people fight over whether these things should be mentioned in the press template either, given that it's only a blog post). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I have added the  tag above. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And here  in The Spectator. Perhaps someone with knowledge of this article could comment on the editing incidents which displeased Hitchens.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly an issue about how we treat users who don't quickly grasp how wikipedia works but not here. We have tagged this page; we can't do any more as eyes are already on the article. Agree with Kingsindian that we shouldn't discuss Hitchens except as he appears in articles as he has no right of reply and is covered by BLP. You can't try to control people's behaviour when they are indef blocked, there is neither carrot nor stick available. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchens 

message: Notes for article development in response to 
"Fact One: The police, in England, have precisely no statutory role in the investigation of crimes allegedly committed by the dead."  
:Well, that is actually a legal opinion and while it may be right (the opinion would be based on a search of statute books and case law), as far as I can tell no-one every claimed the opposite.  The fact remains, here, the police did investigate and report -- that's fact.
"Fact Two: it is a legal absurdity for any English tribunal to say it has found no reason to doubt an allegation" 
:That's not even masquerading as fact, it's all opinion (except perhaps, there is ambiguity about what is meant by "tribunal", is it intended as "court of law"? But no one ever claimed a court of law was involved.) And even if someone's opinion is 'there is no reason to doubt', it's not required that they apply a criminal court standard.  It's just, they saw no reason to doubt. 
"Now, Lord Carlile was specifically debarred from giving any opinion on the charges against George Bell in his conclusions. Archbishop Welby put that in the terms of reference. [¶] But that did not stop him giving an opinion elsewhere in the document. [¶]And lo: [¶]Paragraph 171: 'Had the evidence my review has obtained without any particular difficulty (see section[H] below) been available to the Church and the CPS [police], I doubt that the test for a prosecution would have been passed. Had a prosecution been brought on the basis of that evidence, founded upon my experience and observations I judge the prospect of a successful prosecution as low. I would have expected experienced criminal counsel to have advised accordingly.’" 
:Fine at least that is an opinion, but no-one ever claimed they were involved in a prosecution.  And no one, including Lord Carlile, thinks the prosecution standard should actually apply in church-investigation matters. 
So, all in all, let's keep 'fact' and 'opinion' delineated appropriately, especially in matters of controversy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked away for a few days and the matter has blown up a bit -- what with hatting and ANI threads and so on. My suggestion would be to let sleeping dogs lie. The (closed) thread is simply talking about the view of one person (Alanscottwalker). There's no real need to argue about who is right and who is wrong -- because no change in the article is being proposed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it shouldn't be here. Why is it one rule for this user and another for the rest of us? His views aren't okay and need challenging or removing. There is no policy or guideline stating one user is entitled to their views and others arent allowed to respond. It goes against everything wikipedia stands for. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody needs to do anything. It's a closed section on the talkpage, nothing more. Such things happen all the time. The action was taken by an uninvolved admin after a discussion at ANI. If you want to waste your time, go ahead. But here's a sad truth for you: nobody reads the talkpages. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact and Opinion

message: If you are going to restore the above comments let people respond. It isn't acceptable to post these controversial opinions while denying others the right to respond. By closing the thread immediately you are making it clear the thread has nothing to do with improving the article. If it is to do with improving the article other editors need the right of response. This is the worst possible solution ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked away for a few days and the matter has blown up a bit -- what with hatting and ANI threads and so on. My suggestion would be to let sleeping dogs lie. The (closed) thread is simply talking about the view of one person (Alanscottwalker). There's no real need to argue about who is right and who is wrong -- because no change in the article is being proposed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it shouldn't be here. Why is it one rule for this user and another for the rest of us? His views aren't okay and need challenging or removing. There is no policy or guideline stating one user is entitled to their views and others arent allowed to respond. It goes against everything wikipedia stands for. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody needs to do anything. It's a closed section on the talkpage, nothing more. Such things happen all the time. The action was taken by an uninvolved admin after a discussion at ANI. If you want to waste your time, go ahead. But here's a sad truth for you: nobody reads the talkpages. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact and Opinion revisited

message: I found a disquieting amount of bad English in this section so wound up making a few edits to it, and I noticed that we are attributing disturbing opinions/failures of judgement to him based entirely on one book. Since that was concealed by sfn-style references, I only checked what it was after completing my edits, and I am all the more disturbed that it is a general book on the C of E and the Holocaust, rather than on Bell himself, while we list works entirely about Bell in the Bibliography. I have no idea whether the statements are accurate, but their sourcing is inadequate. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section regarding his views and actions during the Third Reich and after the war 

message: I'm not editing directly in the article as I came across this in the course of my own family history research (Bell turns out to be a second cousin, three times removed), so potentially have a WP:COI.  However, it seems potentially noteworthy that his sympathy with ordinary Germans was unaffected by the fact that the First World War saw his cousin and two brothers killed on the Western Front, and a third brother taken POW. March and April 1918 must have been a terrible time for the family with James Donald Allen Bell being killed in the confusion of the German Spring Offensive on 21 March, Benedict Godfrey Allen Bell missing while flying on 6 April (and subsequently confirmed KIA) and Evelyn Victor Allen Bell also missing while flying just two days later, but subsequently reported POW.  The fraternal relationships are confirmed by Lambeth Palace Library:   , deaths by   and POW by Red Cross info ,  and  and also Evelyn's service record  (subscription required).  The cousin was William Cecil Kennedy Megaw, the relationship takes a little more showing - though the fact he and Bell have Kennedy as a middle name is no coincidence as it was their grandmother's maiden name - his CWGC record.  David Underdown (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bell's family and First World War