Talk:Chris Bell (British Army officer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Subsequent career

I've tagged that section for giving undue weight to the scandal that led to him stepping down. It seems to me that he is notable for his military work, not this, and it feels gossipy for a WP:BLP. I realize that some editors may disagree with me about this, but I think that it is worth discussing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

One could argue all that needs to be said is the official line put out by the Army spokesman in the Telegraph report — “Major General Chris Bell has retired from the Army" together with a month and year. The Telegraph report would still be referenced for those seeking more detail. Not particularly recommending, just a thought to add to the discussion. Rupples (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

In the wake of the British Army's performance in Iraq and Afghanistan there has been criticism of the British Army's generalship along the lines of a private facing greater consequences for losing a rifle than a general faces for losing a war. This can be seen as part of a crackdown. The brief paragraph is a reasonable summary, and will not leave the reader wondering why. Our job is to tell them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, while Hawkeye7 makes an excellent point on the necessity for context as the article stands (naturally, since I provided it), I wouldn't be averse to a redux-version in which the statement is simply that he retired from the army, went into consultancy etc, per Rupples. If he'd "retired" for an operational reason do to soldiery, it might be different—after all, that would link his retirement with his reason for notability. But this is only really peripheral. For clarity, the reason I added the extra material was, ironically, in the spirit of UNDUE also: as it stood, the material was completely one-sided, and since legitimate RS were countering the claims, I felt they needed to be added. Which they did. But if a lá Rupples, the material that required the additional material is no longer there, then the additional material itself is also, by that nature, unnecessary. This edit indicates what the section would look like. It's a shame that this suggestion hadn't been thought of sooner... Serial 17:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

With thanks to Rupples, and especially to Serial Number 54129, I think the redux version is excellent, and better than the version that I had attempted. As for the issue of criticism of the Army, that really requires context, and a BLP about one single general isn't the place for it. Although I don't mean to imply that discussion is over – it isn't – I restored the test version that SN 54129 created. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait... so why is there now absolutely no mention at all of the circumstances leading to his "retirement". Despite the fact we have two sources still attached that cover those circumstances? Isn't the purpose of this project to document what is found is reliable sources? Since when do we hide such... inglorious content, gloss it over with more worthy terminology, and then leave it to the reader "seek more detail" in the refs? This is not only disingenuous, but borders on farcical. What about all the other bios and blps we have have that cover all sourced aspects of the subjects career? Why are we censoring this content on this specific article? - wolf 00:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, it has never been the case that Wikipedia includes all material that is verifiable. And WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy is a very important policy here. It says in part: including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. In this BLP, the subject is somewhere near the border between being a public and a private individual, and editors can reasonably differ on which side of the border. But this is very much about someone who has been a military officer. A messy personal affair is not relevant, except as inappropriate titillation. However, there has also been a controversy over how various British military leaders have been treated. For that, I would argue that we should cover it only where we can provide the necessary context and nuance. There's sourcing that Bell has been caught up in the controversy, but not that he has been a central figure in it. So it seems to me that, for us to cover this aspect of Bell's life, we would have to expend enough space that it would become undue weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The section you quoted is from the first part: "Avoid victimization". I would think the second part, "Public figures" would be more applicable, as it states:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

So, why is this BLP being treated differently that the (dozens? thousands?) numerous other BLPs we have that include sourced content that the subject (or subject's family, friends, agents, or wp editors who are fans) dislikes all mention of?

Also, you concluded with "There's sourcing that Bell has been caught up in the controversy, but not that he has been a central figure in it." - Um... wut? Then, who is the "central figure" then? The female subordinate Bell is alleged to have had an affair with? The Chief of the General Staff who told Bell he had to step down for lying about the alleged affair with the subordinate? Or any of the several journalists that reported the news that Bell, who was the most senior officer forced to resign in more than a decade, was directed to do so due to lying about an alleged affair with a subordinate? Could you please clarify that? Thanks - wolf 00:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

As for whether Bell is a WP:public figure, or a private figure who is nonetheless notable, I already said, just above, that "In this BLP, the subject is somewhere near the border between being a public and a private individual, and editors can reasonably differ on which side of the border." A military person who has been promoted up through the ranks has not necessarily sought the public spotlight in the way that a celebrity or political candidate has. As for who were the central figures in "the controversy", I'm not talking about the controversy over Bell's apparent relationship. I'm talking about the much broader controversy in Britain, over how a large number of senior military figures, of whom Bell is just one, have allegedly been treated inconsistently when accused of bad conduct. He may have been the most senior one forced to resign, but there were apparently others just as senior who were not sanctioned. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

C'mon Trypto... you know you we can't use this "larger controversy" of senioir officers supposedly being forced to resign on an inconsistent basis. AFAB(ell)IC, we're past the 'is he notable/is not notable' debate; he is notable and we have a blp for him. We have no legitimate reason to censor the very televant reason behind his sudden and early departure from the army, reasons that are documented in multiple RS. Simply stating he "retired" is beyond disingenuous, we're giving the misleading impression that he left of his own accord, at the end of a full career, as opposed to the truth; which is that career was cut short and he was forced to resign due to a scandal. Whether it be the affair or lying about the affair, he was all but fired and left under a cloud, and by omitting all this, we are lying and we are censoring. And as Serial Number 54129 Hawkeye pointed out at the DRV, how this any different, than say Patraeus? (Or any the many other officers - or CEOs, or celebrities, etc., with the same info included in their blps and bios?) - wolf 05:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(Edit: sorry, it was Hawkeye7 that made the comment I was referring to, not Serial. Sorry for the mix-up and any needless pings. - wolf 05:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC))

• Coming late to this discussion, but it is starkly obvious even from the titles of the sources that there is more to it than "retired": one of the Times articles is clear that he did so under orders. A brief, factual statement to the effect of "was ordered to resign over an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate". Even if saving the subject's blushes were a concern (which it shouldn't be), that ship has sailed, since a cursory look over the bibliography reveals at least the outlines of the truth. Indeed, since the resignation is a large part of the reason for the subject's appearance in reliable sources, our rules on "due weight" require us to mention it in due proportion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  On reflection, I agree with the point that "retired" is an inadequate word to be used, and I agree that we should change it in some way. But please, there is no need to "c'mon" me, as I am not an unreasonable person and I have been polite to other editors here. I agree that Bell is notable, and was in favor of keeping the page in the now-closed AfD. What I'm talking about is not notability. It's the distinction between public and private personhood, and I have said above that I think this is something where editors can reasonably disagree. So one can disagree with me, but please don't pretend that I didn't say what I said. So I guess I'll repeat: "As for whether Bell is a WP:public figure, or a private figure who is nonetheless notable, I already said, just above, that 'In this BLP, the subject is somewhere near the border between being a public and a private individual, and editors can reasonably differ on which side of the border.' A military person who has been promoted up through the ranks has not necessarily sought the public spotlight in the way that a celebrity or political candidate has." Didn't that already address the many celebrities with that info in their BLPs?

  I've gone back and looked at the sources that were used in this version of the page: [1]. Two sources ([2], [3]) are behind paywalls, so I didn't read them. The title of the second one is: British generals seem to be unsackable. Since Bell was sacked, I think I can infer that it is not focused on Bell, but rather, on apparently multiple other generals who were not sacked. Since it was cited for this page, I assume it mentions Bell, but presumably as an exception to the rule. The page content indicates that the unsacked generals were criticized for "operational performance" failures, and the source seems to assess Bell's scandal as being a minor and petty matter. I did read this source: [4]. It includes the following information: that Bell claims that he only engaged in text messages with the female subordinate, and that there are numerous rumors that are apparently untrue about Bell being the father of a child with that person. It also refers to a Major General Rupert Jones who supposedly had an affair and has stepped down, but was not forced to leave, and a Major General Nick Welch, who faces court martial for allegedly claiming money illegally to send one of his children to an expensive school. (There's nothing suggesting that Bell broke any laws.) So, yes, there is a larger controversy, of which Bell does not appear to be the central figure.

  So I think we have to be very careful about what we say about Bell's relationship. And, unless we want to have a very lengthy, and WP:UNDUE, section of the page that goes into all the complexities and nuances, the less we say, the better. But as I said, I agree that "retired" is contrary to the sourcing. I think it's adequately sourced that he, instead, resigned, and that this was because he was found by the Army Board to have lied about a personal matter. So, for now, I've made this edit: [5]. I also said above that "I don't mean to imply that discussion is over – it isn't", and I still feel that way, but I personally oppose going into more detail about the "personal relationship". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: Both sources are archived, [6] and [7]. Serial 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. The second one seems to be the same article as the one that I was able to read: [8], and is a better url. The first one, about generals who are unsackable, only mentions Bell in passing, and covers a great deal of history over many decades, which confirms my point that it's about a much broader controversy. If any source urls on the page need to be updated, they should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  I was not drawing an opinion, merely providing information. Serial 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Understood. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

I wish you wouldn't just unilaterally make edits to disputed content, while that content is being actively discussed. Also, your edit is too vague and subject to interpretation. (eg: did he lie about a personal relationship with a defense-contractor CEO that as it turns out is also a long-time golf-buddy, and said CEO made millions off of a contract with the military due to said undisclosed relationship? Did he help an college buddy get an undeserved promotion in rank? Etc., etc.)

Of the sources that are readily visible, the headline for The Daily Telegraph (currently #7) states: "Decorated general forced out of Army after lying about relationship with female subordinate. And it goes into more detail in the article. Of the sources that aren't readily visible, The Times (currently #4), has a visible headline that states: "Army forces Major General Christopher Bell out for lying over relationship." After the paywall, the first paragraph states: "A decorated general is considering appealing against an order to resign as head of army recruitment after being found to have lied about an “emotional” relationship with a woman captain." Based on those two refs alone, I don't think it's unreasonable, or undue, to state that: "Bell was asked to resign from army service in January 2021, because he was found to have lied to the Army Board about a personal relationship with a female subordinate under his command." (suggested additons to your latest edit in bold). I think this keeps it to the point, it isn't so vague that it invites interpretation, but it doesn't go into any needless titillation either. (imo) - wolf 21:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to be responsive to what you and other editors have been saying, but given your comment, I've self-reverted it back to "retired". I strongly dislike your alternative version. I'm interested in what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not "my version", it's essentially your edit in toto, that I basically supported, but with some facts added, (that are found in the sources attached to the page). This isn't personal. That said, I'm interested in what others think as well. Have a nice day - wolf 22:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Just noting it's been over a week since any comment further comments on this. - wolf 18:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)