Talk:George Bell (bishop)

Source for planned exection

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)

Can we have a source for this statement please?

'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)Jazzlord1

POV flag in Child abuse section

My reason for affixing the POV tag: None would be more pleased than I if it were to transpire that this allegation was completely groundless. Sadly though I consider this to be unlikely. And anyhow, this is Wikipedia, where everything has to be backed up by reliable sources: and right now those sources seem to suggest quite strongly that the alleged abuse did indeed happen. Given that, it seems just about acceptable to talk of allegations in the section title, and later to talk about the alleged victim; but if we additionally stress the (factually accurate) amount of time that elapsed between perpetration and complaint, then we are implicitly casting more doubt on the allegations than the sources will allow.GroupCohomologist (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, edit it then... I'm not sure the words carry the implications you suggest, but there's no harm in removing them. If anything they look bad for the church, not for the victim. Relentlessly (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Part of the point is that it is hard to prove or disprove accusations made long after the subject is dead, and these accusations have never been tested in a court of law. The statement that the Church paid compensation pretty clearly indicates that its officials thought there was or might be some merit in the claims. I don't see the current wording as overly POV. It seems to be supported by the sources. I don't think we can fail to mention the time gap. How else would you have the section changed? DES ^(talk) 00:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording gives more emphasis to the time gap than The Guardian and the BBC do. So, I do not see a POV problem, and will remove the tag. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the judgement being exercised here. Allegations are allegations, and must be taken seriously. Indeed, the C of E has taken them seriously and was probably right to express sympathy to the claimant and pay him or her compensation, since if the allegations are true this is the least that could be done, and if they are false then nothing significant would be lost by doing so. The issue here is the public demolition of George Bell's (previously considerable) reputation. Do we have enough evidence, let alone proof, to accept that this is justified?

Allegations are not facts. Sources are not named people who have to stand by their testimony forever. IN any case, what sources are these which 'suggest quite strongly' that the alleged abuse did happen? The C of E has not published any of its inquiries, and incontestable evidence of allegations concerning events nearly 70 years ago, and not alleged until 37 years after bell's death and almost 50 years after they supposedly happened, would be very hard to find. Under the English system , which presumes innocence, such allegations should be tested in open court before an impartial jury. Short of that having take place - and nothing remotely resembling such a trial has taken place or can take place, allegations remain allegations and sources remain sources, and are not(for example)equivalent to sworn witnesses subjected to cross-examination in open court. If credible and disinterested corroboration now appears, then the position will change. As it is, I think the stress should be placed upon the word 'alleged', and the world left free to make its own judgment on the standing of claims not tested in court. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I agree that we can't present the statements unequivocally. I wrote most of the content that is currently in the Child abuse allegations section, being as careful as I could to be as precise as possible. Certainly I wanted to avoid the most provocative language. There's a column in the Spectator (you may just possibly be aware of it) that is relevant here, and I will try to work some of the sentiment in. We can, of course, only go by the sources that are available, and there hasn't been much in Bell's defence. Relentlessly (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly described the allegations in a very even handed way. As they say, we have to go on the available sources. But then an IP address changed the article to highlight the fact that the two complaints were made 37 and 55 years after Bell's death. I felt that the total effect was now to cast more doubt on the story than the sources we had at the time warranted, so I set the POV flag (I'm timid and don't like reverting). It then turned out that I was in a minority of one, and so I let the matter rest.

N.B. As I'm still an inexperienced user, I simultaneously raised the issue at the Teahouse. Two of the comments above are by Teahouse hosts, including Cullen328 who removed the POV flag. GroupCohomologist (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

More evidence concerning this anonymous allegation is needed (despite the authority inherent in Bishop Warner's statement) Clive Sweeting5Nov2015— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive sweeting (talk • contribs) 18:01, 5 November 2015

Clockback and Clive sweeting, please note that this section uses variations of the word "alleged" three times. Please also note that the sources in this section of the article are rock solid. Of course, we cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that the allegations are true. But when the police say that he would be arrested if still alive, and when the Church of England makes a payment to an alleged victim, then these are very significant and well substantiated allegations which must be reported in this biography. It would be contrary to Wikipedia policy to ignore them or minimize them in any way, unless a published reliable source calls the story into question substantively. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, in that case I don't know what 'substantiated' means any more. We don't even know what the allegations are, or who has made them. I am aware of no corroboration. The police are so willing to arrest on such charges nowadays that I don't think we can regard that as significant either way. They would, in fact, be nervous of *not* arresting such a person so charged in today's climate. But in this country the police (though they often act otherwise) do not decide guilt, or even decide on whom to charge. It's about as persuasive as 'no smoke without fire'. As for 'significance', anonymous, unproven and untested allegations of a sexual nature first made many decades after the death of the alleged culprit and never made during his lifetime seem to me to fall short of that definition. The Church might well think it politic and wise to pay compensation on grounds other than that it thinks the charges proven. Might I at least suggest that a link be made to my article in 'The Spectator' or a comparable one in last week's 'Church of England Newspaper' (I think by Andrew Carey), or, if it can be arranged, to the letter in The Times of Friday 6th November from a number of former Chichester choirboys who knew Bell and express their incredulity at the charge. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Reluctant to do these links myself, because a) I fear that if I do they'll be reverted without pre-agreement and b) my computer skills are limited and I'll probably mess them up. But my view is that if the allegations are described, the rebuttals of them should be mentioned too. I'm absolutely not suggesting that the allegations should not be included in the entry, only that they should be balanced by the expressions of doubt that are also on the record. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any response, I have added these links. PH signed in as ClockbackClockback (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Clockback. I've had a busy few days, but I have now expanded this section. I have added the three sources you mention and I think the section is more neutral for it, especially as these are the only three opinion pieces I have seen on the subject. Relentlessly (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I agree that presenting both sides allows the reader to make a proper encyclopaedic judgment.PHClockback (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This section seems to give undue weight to the unverifiable opinions of various right wing and establishment commentators. It takes up more space than the actual story. It looks like a whitewash job, which demeans Wikipedia. Should this be pruned?Charles (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Well in my view it gives too much weight to evidentially worthless claims by the Sussex Police, and indeed treats as normal and unexceptionable a self-proclaimed failure to apply reasonable doubt to the case by unnamed and questionably independent 'experts', as well as reproducing inaccurate stories from various newspapers which stated George Bell's guilt without having any on-the-record basis for this. It also accepts (via the same inaccurate media reports) the spurious claim that this was a civil case against George Bell, which it wasn't. Deceased persons cannot be sued. The defendant was the Church, and GB's interests and good name were not represented. Who cares what 'wing' commentators are on? In fact the four most prominent media critics of the treatment of George Bell are myself and Charles Moore on the 'right' and Michael White and Giles Fraser on the 'Left'. Of these, only Charles Moore could possibly be described as having any connection with any known 'establishment'. It is a non-partisan alliance for natural justice. The defenders of George Bell rely entirely on uncontested historical and biographical fact and have made no claims requiring verification (it is the prosecution, not the defence, which is required to prove its case in English law, as some tend to forget). Let us recall that we have here the deliberate publicising by the Church of a solitary uncorroborated claim, first made decades after the alleged crime and decades after the death of the alleged malefactor. It has been followed, so far, by no further claims of the same kind. To use the word 'whitewash' to characterise scepticism about this claim verges on the personally insulting. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have just rewritten and updated the treatment on German Wikipedia in the light of the sources now available. I omitted several of the sources mentioned here, which may please Charlesdrakew, although I did add the letter from Franz Hildebrandt's daughter. Clockback may feel that I have left too much out: Charles Moore's article, for example. GroupCohomologist (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I am just pleased that the insertions have been done. It is vital for the cause of truth that those coming across these allegations for the first time are aware that they *are* allegations and not proven facts, and that prominent well-informed and fair-minded persons have disputed them. It was most distressing to know that German readers might not be aware of this, and to be unable to do anything about it. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I like White's piece; thank you for drawing my attention to it. Now that so many sources are available I think it might improve the readability of the article if some of the sources were indeed to be pruned: though White's article should be added in.

The presumption of innocence and innocent until proven guilty are possibly not exactly the same thing: but the latter phrase always reminds me of the 1997 election in Tatton. GroupCohomologist (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The section still gives vastly undue weight to opinions of various commentators, some of them churchmen with an obvious conflict of interest. Wikipedia deals in verifiable facts without comment and analysis. It is not a vehicle for propagating the unverifiable opinions of political columnists. I will be pruning it shortly in line with Wikipedia guidelines.Charles (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Pruning the child abuse section

This is no longer about the POV flag that I set long ago, hence the new section.

Charlesdrakew: What I would prune and what you have pruned are completely disjoint. I would start by removing Morris and Hanson as they don't add anything; and with Pardoe it would be better to restrict ourselves to his factual criticisms. Whereas

• Fraser founded Inclusive Church: Surely he can be trusted to take abuse allegations seriously?
• Butler speaks for the CofE central hierarchy and is basically backing Warner up. That's not COI. And even if it was, it would be relevant.
• The choirboys' letter is less relevant than it was at first, when we did not know whether the victim was male or female. But it is still a first-hand testimony about the character of a person long dead, and that by people who would have been at great risk in the hands of a child-molesting bishop.

I realise that there is ample pretext for fearing a cover-up: but that does not make everything a churchman says COI. GroupCohomologist (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would a group of choirboys know anything? The bishop probably did not have day to day contact with them. Opinions in letters to newspapers are not encyclopedic material. I almost did remove Hansonm but he does seem to reflect local opinion in the Chichester clergy. It is just better to steer clear of sources close to the C of E and cover verifiable facts. Wikipedia does not do editorial analysis.Charles (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hanson: You're right, that point is worth saving: but one can also work it into the bit on Warner's letter to the Telegraph, which acknowledges "bewilderment and anguish … in the Diocese of Chichester". As to the rest, I begin to fear that we will have to agree to differ. GroupCohomologist (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If we are pruning, rather than just spitefully removing things with which we disagree because of our personal prejudices, then let's prune the evidentially worthless sections about how the police were not called to investigate the actions of a dead man (why would they be? The alleged crime was in the far past and the suspect, being no longer alive, was beyond prosecution, to assist which is their only function. You might as well say that the fire brigade or the coastguard or the Home Guard or the Spanish Inquisition weren't called) and how the police later said they would have arrested a dead man if he had been alive (so what? An arrest is proof of nothing even when a live person is arrested, and the police in any case had no business naming the notionally arrested person. They aren't allowed to do this when the arrestee is alive). Similarly, the stuff about the 'experts' , unnamed, their expertise undisclosed, their independence unproven, finding 'no reason to doubt' the claim is of no evidential value either. The reason to doubt any claim of criminal acts against anybody does not need finding, if one is in England at the time. It is called the presumption of innocence. If they couldn't even find that, then their other attempts to find reason to doubt must have been pretty laughable too. If we're truly pruning for strict relevance, this worthless, prejudicial flannel should go, pronto.The fact that it is not clear what the Bishop of Chichester apologised for (and has, significantly, never been disclosed) should be added, if this apology is to be mentioned. Is 'pre-litigation process' accurate? Surely an out-of-court settlement of a claim against the Church is a more accurate description. No case of any kind against George Bell himself was ever conducted. Nor did anyone in this process represent his interests. The letter from the former Choirboys is significant in that it represents a contribution to the discussion from several named living people, entirely disinterested, corroborated by each other, who actually remember George Bell, and whose knowledge of him is beyond dispute, as a result of their known duties at the time. The only other such direct material comes from the alleged victim, an unnamed person who.in an uncorroborated statement, is recalling incidents when she was five years old. Peter Hitchens Clockback (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile I genuinely don't understand why the Giles Fraser reference has been removed. Clockback (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Though I don't agree with Charlesdrakew's argument, I think I do understand it: see his last comment in the old POV section.

I'm still a relatively inexperienced editor, and don't go in for combative editing (the one exception is clearcut vandalism, but that most definitely does not apply here). Do you know if Relentlessly is still interested in this story? I would be interested in their opinion. GroupCohomologist (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't get it, especially now the Bishop of Chichester's latest fact-free blethers have been added to the entry. Mr Drake was objecting to 'right wing' media supporters of George Bell. Why then would be exclude the defence of him offered by a left-wing clergyman? Also I don't understand what interests are being defended by those who insist that GB is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The Church has two clear interests - its desire to appear decisive and effective when faced with allegations of child abuse, having hitherto handled proven cases of this feebly and inadequately, and its later consequential desire not to look silly by admitting it rushed to judgement in the Bell case on inadequate evidence, which it did. Several media also have an interest in not being shown to have been wrong to have treated an allegation as if it were a proven charge. But GB's defenders have no interest except a desire to defend truth and justice in general. The breadth and depth of the criticism of the Church's behaviour (all of it personally disinterested, and going against the general fashion of presuming guilt in such cases) is evidence in itself that the charge is not beyond reasonable doubt. So is the absence (which can hardly be noted by Wikipedia but which much influences GB's defenders) that there has been no subsequent allegation against him of the same kind by anyone else, despite quantities of local and national publicity. It is not I who have been combative. It is Mr Drake, who has sought to remove material he does not like. I have never at any stage removed any of the large amount of material in this entry which I regard as irrelevant and prejudicial. I have added material to balance it, which Mr Drake now seeks to 'trim'. Let him trim his own side's stuff, which is badly in need of it. Otherwise, let him leave it alone.Clockback (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I am User:Charlesdrakew not "Mr Drake" and I do not have a "side". I am merely trying to bring this section more in line with wikipedian policy of reporting verifiable fact rather than unverifiable opinion and editorialising. The spoutings of professional loudmouths who have no way of knowing what may or may not have happened in Bell's private life come in the latter category. This whole article is about Bell, not about church politics and reactions to them. That belongs in another article.Charles (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Whoever you may be, and whatever your name or username may be, your ad hominem attitude here, for instance using such terms as 'professional loudmouths', and your imputations of low motives, such as 'whitewash job' do not suggest a dispassionate encyclopaedist but a person with an axe to grind. You most certainly have a 'side', even if you yourself are unaware of it, as demonstrated a) in your irrelevant complaints about the political affiliations of ('right wing') journalists (in fact these interventions are disinterested, have nothing to do with political affiliations and are evenly balanced between left and right, though the entry no longer shows this important fact) who have commented on the matter and b) in the contrast between your severe attitude towards legitimate pleas for the presumption of innocence, the treatment of uncorroborated unproven allegations as uncorroborated unproven allegations and not as proven facts, and caution in a rush to judgement, and your lack of severity towards evidentially worthless matter such as the non-calling of the police (for what purpose should they have been called?) in 1995, the police's later ultra vires public claim that they would have arrested Bishop Bell had he been alive, after an alleged 'investigation' which appears to have been no more than a conversation with the sole complainant, the current Bishop of Chichester's mysterious apology in which he has never revealed for what he has apologised, and the failure of unidentified allegedly independent alleged experts to observe the presumption of innocence in their so-called and misdescribed 'pre-litigation process' which would be better described as an out-of-court settlement between the Church and the complainant, in which Bishop Bell was neither sued nor represented. The accusations against George Bell are an important fact, and so are the defences made of him by many people familiar with his life and work. Both should be properly represented here, and if they are to be 'trimmed' (though I see no great reason why they should be, there being no current shortage of electrons) , the trimming should be be done by a dispassionate person, not by somebody who calls his opponents names and imputes sordid motives to them. Indeed, we have no way of knowing what happened in George Bell's private life. That is why we cannot allow claims of his guilt to go unchallenged. The balance in the article between the allegations and the challenges must therefore be maintained in the interests of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockback (talk • contribs) 10:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Claimant/Victim/Survivor and other review issues

We need to revisit the whole child abuse section in light of the Carlile review. Just as when I raised a POV issue above, I believe we need to follow the best sources currently available. I contend that on publication, Carlile's review immediately became our most authoritative source. Consequences:

• We need to work in more of the review's content. At the same time we should shorten our existing material, especially the long paragraph on criticisms of the original press release.
• We report that the police advised that Bell would have been arrested if still alive. This fact continues to be relevant, but in light of Review paragraph 167 we should change the wording to "An investigation by the police concluded incorrectly that …".
• Potentially very controversial: In Part N, Carlile concurs with the Henriques report [1] that persons who make an abuse complaint should be designated complainant rather than victim or survivor unless the matter is undisputed or proved in a court. In this case, the church used the word survivor and also managed to give everyone the impression it was admitting liability, whereas actually it did not admit liability. My suggestion is that we use complainant in most cases, for the sake of NPOV: but where we report what the church said, we should follow their choice of words. Specifically:
  • Change Martin Warner, the Bishop of Chichester, issued a formal apology to the alleged victim to Martin Warner, the Bishop of Chichester, "wrote to the survivor formally apologising".
  • Change In February 2016 the female alleged victim spoke publicly to In February 2016 the complainant spoke publicly (no need to specify her gender here, as it has already been mentioned, and "her" occurs later in the sentence).
  • No changes to the quotations from Bishop Warner's Jan 2016 letter (church officer uses "victim" twice).
  • Change Following the settlement with the alleged victim, Bishop Bell School to Following the settlement with the complainant, Bishop Bell School.
  • Today's The Church repeated its apology for failing to report the alleged victim's allegations to the police is a quote from the BBC, not a direct quote from the Church. Following [2] I suggest that we change to The Church repeated its apology for its "lamentable failure […] to handle the case properly in 1995", which is a direct quote from the church.
  • Alternatively, we could introduce the Carol pseudonym right at the start of the section, and then use it instead of most instances of complainant/survivor/victim: though the quotes from the Oct 2015 press release and the Jan 2016 letter should not be altered.

As these changes may well prove controversial, I prefer to invite comments first, rather than to wade in and implement them without prior discussion. --GroupCohomologist (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

By the way: Am I the only person left wondering whether there is a subtext to Review, paragraph 267? (Start reading at paragraph 264.) --GroupCohomologist (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I would steer clear of using "survivor" at all as it seems a rather touchy/feely neolism. Alleged victim is fine and neutral, as is complainant. No need to add "incorrectly" to the police report as that would be taking a non-neutral position. We just report what the police said at the time.Charles (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I think these suggested changes are quite correct. The behaviour of the Sussex police(which we now know from their response to my complaint to them was not on their own initiative, but solicited by the Church, and which we also now know from the review was not at all a proper investigation, was quite wrong. Carlile specifically criticises their misunderstanding of process, and says that they would not in fact have arrested Bell had he been alive. Given the huge weight attached by many people and media to the 'arrest' claim at the time, this is extremely important. The item should also reflect that Carlile said at his press conference on 15t December that if he had prosecuted the case on the evidence available, he would have lost it(the report makes it clear that it simply would not have passed the CPS tests for charging) ; he also said that Bell had been 'hung out to dry' by the Church(words he also uses in the review) . He further criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury's response to his report as 'less than adroit' . there are references to this in published media reports. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it about time these changes were made? I hesitate to do it given my partisan position, but it's two weeks now since the Carlile report, and the entry still reads as if the sloppy, ill-researched and biased attack on Bell was a real investigation, full of proven rubbish about arrests and no reason having been found to doubt the allegations. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I started an attempt at a complete re-write here, but didn’t find as much time over the festive season as I had hoped. Sorry. —GroupCohomologist (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

My edit this afternoon was to elaborate slightly on the publication of the report, correcting the date and providing a link/citation to the CofE's offical statement and referencing the three principle signatories, the Bishops of Bath/Wells, Chich' and Cant'. I summarised the statement as best I could and endeavored to make clearer Lord Carlile's condemnation, specifying that the church had not simply "been unfair" (as was the initial reading) but rather had critically erre in it's judgement. For what it's worth I'm in full agreement with the contributors above in what they propose as a fuller treatment. M Sheff (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I have, like Cohomo above, done some provisional drafting of the abuse section in my sandbox here. I have expanded on his first section about the 1995-2013 build up and detailed the main aspects of the investigations by the core group and police, as well as a minor expansion to the conclusions of carlile, but have left the aftermath/response section largely unchanged. It is lacking links, and clearly incomplete but where the (cit*) appears it is my intention to provide page referneces to the report document. Tagging (GroupCohomologist) and (User talk:Clockback). M Sheff (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope to invest more time in this before the end of the week, so edit suggestions and additions are most welcome.M Sheff (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

A further consideration. In my proposed edit here I have added a final subsection considering the response to the reports publication. I am unsure how to begin this, but i think it needs to be acknowledged that many see the official response as less than adequate, and that the archbishop has been the subject of much critiscim, both from within the CofE and outside. An excellent article from Dr Ian Paul (a member of the archbishop's council) can be found here https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-is-missing-in-the-george-bell-case/.M Sheff (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@M Sheff: My understanding of Wikipedia is that any good faith editor is allowed to make any good faith edit at any time. The dicussion page only becomes necessary when people disagree. But my proposed edits would have taken a lot of work, and moreover Charlesdrakew, Clockback and I have disagreed here in the past. That's why I chose to outline my plan first. In no way did that mean that I had "bagged" the post-Carlile changes. I am just glad that someone is doing the work, especially as I turned out to have less time available than I had hoped.

Having said that, I would like to say a couple of things about your edits on this discussion page: Perhaps you didn't notice, but this section once had a different heading. If I have reconstructed things correctly, then you first disabled the old section heading, then deleted it, and then replaced it with one of your own. Might I request that you restore the original heading? And also: It may be that I am over-sensitive (I spend most of my time on German Wikipedia, where everyone distrusts everyone else), but I would have preferred it if you had stuck to chronological order rather that adding a note right at the beginning of the section.

Back to the article, specifically the reaction to Carlile: We certainly need to report that church officers distanced themselves from certain findings in the review (e.g. there should have been a confidentiality clause), and Carlile's adroitness remark in reply. I am less sure about the Paul article: my concern is not about the author, nor about the contents of the article, but rather about the place where it was published. (A blog, if I see correctly) --GroupCohomologist (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @GroupCohomologist:, the advice is helpful. To be clear, I didn't think I'd done anything explicitly 'against the rules' with my edit, but was rather concerned that I'd broken a 'taboo', or was simply committing bad practice. Had I thought to check the talk/tab in advance, I'd have come here first. I have however removed the comment at the top at your request, so as to keep things chronological.

Regards the re-ordering of this page, I am not certain what you mean? My understanding is that I simply split an existing section in half, and didn't actually delete or move anything. All of the above conversation appeared under the heading "External Links Modified", and I simply added a new heading in, thus creating a break in the page. The only modifications I made to the text were to add in formatting controls, specifically indents....

I apologise sincerely if I altered the substance of what's here, but I do not think I did, or at least I'm not aware of it.

The linked Article (from Psephizo, which yes, is a blog, and yes I know an untrusted source) was not one I intended to formally cite, rather it was used to illustrate my question concerning responses to the report's publication. I am not sure how to flesh that aspect out, or indeed, if I even should. Thanks for your guidance and feedback. Are you otherwise happy with the wording and structure of my amendments to your proposal? M Sheff (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I checked the edit history and you are correct, it appears I did delete something without realising I had done so. I have restored the original heading. Once again, my apologies for the "clunkiness" with which i am handling this.M Sheff (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the incorrect claim that Bell would have been arrested had he been alive (this is demolished by para 167 of the Carlile report, in which Lord Carlile says specifically 'Had Bishop Bell been alive, unless there was evidence that he appeared to represent a danger to the public, he would not have satisfied the arrest conditions. I am surprised that the police did not appear to be aware of this'. We are also now aware that the police were asked to get involved in this by the Church. See also the relevant paras 132 and 139. I've also removed the passage in which it is recorded (rather embarrassingly for them) that the core group had found no reason to doubt the allegations. As we know both from the Bell Group report and the Carlile report, they found no such reason because they did not look for one. Everyone else looked. Everyone else found at least one, even if it was only the rule of English law that the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. *** I had hoped someone else would get round to this, but since they haven't. I've done it. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Since someone has reverted these fully-explained, entirely justified and long-needed changes,I have now made them again. I shall continue to do so unless a good reason is given for retaining incorrect material in the entry. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)I'd add that the argument that they were asserted at the time does not mean that they were correct at the time. Lord Carlile knows more about the law than the junior Sussex police officer who was cozened into making this illiterate statement. Likewise the claim that no reason had been found to disbelieve the allegations was fatuous when it was made, and it could only have been made by a legal ignoramus. If these pieces of rubbish are to be retained in an already much-edited entry on the grounds that they were uttered at the time, then they must be accompanied by their refutations. It is surely simpler to remove them. I can see no purpose in retaining them, as someone coming newly to the case would only be misled by them. But if my reverter insists on retaining them, then I will insist on accompanying them with lengthy explanations as to why they are rubbish, and were rubbish at the time. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens/Clockback has a serious conflict of interest here, having been a long term advocate for Bell, including an episode of BBC's "Great Lives" series. Peter should avoid editing the article itself and seek consensus on this talk page for any changes.Charles (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • • What is this conflict of interest? My involvement in this matter is entirely disinterested, completely open and is a simple pursuit of the truth. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
        • • Thanks to unexplained and unjustified reversion of my explained and justified edits, I have done as I said I would. If these are removed,I will replace them. Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Someone is still, without explanation or justification, interfering with my edits. Let me make my purpose clear. This is a highly truncated account of the attack on George Bell's reputation by the C of E, and the pathetic unquestioning acceptance of ill-investigated and partial claims as fact by many media. My own view is that the false claim by the police that Bell would have been arrested, and the legally illiterate, wrong and frankly stupid claim that the Core Group had found no reason to doubt the allegations do not deserve any place in such a tightly-edited version (so tightly-edited that until my recent intervention it contained no link to the Carlile Report, the only independent account of the matter, an amazing omission in a supposedly impartial reference to the case) . I have previously tried to remove these discredited claims on these grounds, as they might create false impressions about the case in the mind of any reader new to the subject. Others, for reasons which they have not deigned to explain or justify here, have restored them. As a result, I have promised to make sure that they are placed in context and explained, so that they are not wrongly assumed by readers to be factual. I would ask that these explanations are now left alone. If they are not, I shall restore them. I am of course willing to listen to any proposals for settling this dispute, but so far all I have is a flat unexplained insistence on retaining known rubbish, inadequately qualified, in the entry,.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • • I have, as promised, restored the edits, and will continue to do so until the person who repeatedly reverts them without explanation explains himself or herself, and shows any sign of willingness to discuss the matter. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
                      • And again . Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Reorganization of child abuse allegations section

I have reorganized the child abuse allegations section, which focuses too much on day-to-day news reports, and not on the basic points of the matter. In particular, the first two paragraphs jump all over the place, trying to litigate claims and counter-claims. I suggest people read [Church of England Unfair to Dead Bishop, Abuse Inquiry Finds this] NYT article Church of England Unfair to Dead Bishop, Abuse Inquiry Finds for an overview.

Here's my scheme

• Allegations surface of child abuse in the 1940s and 1950s
• Church of England issues a formal apology and paid compensation in 2015
• Independent enquiry under Lord Carlile set up in 2016
• Inquiry issues report in late 2017. Here are the parts of conclusion highlighted by the NYT

In the case he was asked to review, he said, the available evidence did not suggest there would have been “a realistic prospect of conviction” in court, the standard that prosecutors in England and Wales use in deciding whether to pursue a case.

Rather, he said, “there was a rush to judgment: The church, feeling it should be both supportive of the complainant and transparent in its dealings, failed to engage in a process which would also give proper consideration to the rights of the bishop. Such rights should not be treated as having been extinguished on death.”

Church of England figures rejected one part of Lord Carlile’s report, which urged that the names of those accused of abuse should in some circumstances be kept secret unless there are “adverse findings of fact” and “it has also been decided that making the identity public is required in the public interest.”

• The police inquiry and the Carlile report are discussed together.
• Media criticisms of one sort or another.
• Wider effects, like changing places named after Bell.

I have also rephrased or omitted several sentences. And added one sentence by the NYT.

This is a very rough reorganization. Many things can be trimmed and simplified. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to improve the content here. I had no knowledge of this matter, and just reading it from top to bottom there were things that didn't flow. (for example, there was no explanation of why there was suddenly action in 2015, after the complaint was made in 1995. There was no explanation of who "Carol" is.... There still is no explanation of why she gave an interview at all. (the Guardian source makes it clear, that it was to respond to the backlash))

All the content to tell the story is here, but it is fragmented. I suggest that everything be put into chronological order so that the content tells the story, and also condense it. The "media reaction" section is too detailed and can be summarized with something like "The Church's settlement and statement on the matter was harshly criticized by supporters of Bell, who also questioned the truth of the allegations" or the like.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Chronological order may be useful, but topical order also makes sense. The two most important aspects of this story were the initial allegations (followed by the Church apology), and a second one, when the Carlile report was issued (and the Church's second apology). These aspects should be given the most weight. One way to achieve this emphasis is to mention the main aspects first (newspaper style), and then fill in the details. This is what I attempted to do.

One issue with chronological order in controversial articles is that it leads to litigation of claims and counter-claims, so it jumps back and forth. This kind of disorientation was what I experienced when I read the article.

I do not claim that my rewrite will win a Pulitzer prize, but at least it tries to keep it coherent. I am sure there are plenty of ways in which it can be improved. Sometimes coherence has to be sacrificed for NPOV. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried it, condensing and putting in chronological order. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I did some further condensing. I should note that I found the whole section to be way too big, and UNDUE overall with respect to this person's biography. This is a fairly typical RECENTISM/NOTNEWS problem, which has been exacerbated by at least one player in the real world controversy coming here to emphasize the details and importance of their own views on the matter. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly much shorter, but there's at least one big issue. The police did not say "brought in for questioning", they said "arrest". This is noted in the Carlile report (and criticized). The report says that the use of this word was likely the reason the Church acted as it did (Carlile also criticized these actions). In general, the report has many other things to say, both about the police as well as the Church, which aren't mentioned in the section. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Added back "arrest". Neither the NYT piece nor the Guardian piece cited, discuss Carlile's criticism of the police, hence I didn't do so in the edit. Yes there is much more that could be said. The question is what is appropriate WEIGHT in this biography page overall. Perhaps there should be Church of England handling of sexual abuse allegations against George Bell page where WP could go into the weeds? Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The conclusions of the Carlile report are given one single sentence in this section. That is by no means WP:DUE weight. At least add some version of the sentence in the NYT report In the case he was asked to review, he said, the available evidence did not suggest there would have been “a realistic prospect of conviction” in court, the standard that prosecutors in England and Wales use in deciding whether to pursue a case.

More generally, we do not have any obligation to stick to what a summary article in the NYT/BBC say. The summary article does not mention that "arrest" claim either, so that should be removed too? The Carlile report spends a fair bit of time investigating the police claims and tries to explain how they led to the events they did. It is doing a disservice to the casual reader to simply say "arrest" and then mention nothing about the context. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I just added a bit of context. I have spent a bunch of time today and yesterday building out Anglican_Communion_sexual_abuse_cases#Church_of_England which was very scant (and there is more to do there...). I now understand that the 2nd expression of the allegation was made at a time of very high sensitivity in the CoE and especially in Chichester. Hm

About the police thing, even Carlile noted in Paragraph 167 on p22 that it is likely that the police would have searched his house and computer and to interview him under caution (the same paragraph where it says the case would not meet the criteria for arrest). With regard to the casual reader I don't imagine there is a major difference.

It is also noteworthy on a few levels what Carlile wrote in paragraph 204 which I will quote "There was a perceived problem that people such as the journalist Peter Hitchens, who recently had described Bishop Bell as a personal hero, would regard the Church as ‘caving in’ and would cause a media storm if the Church was insufficiently robust in its position. In this context, it was recommended that it was important that the Church openly should say that it had ‘settled a claim’, so that it was clear ‘there has been a legal test and an investigative threshold has been set’." (emphasis as in the original). One of things that apparently pushed them to "oversteer" was the perceived risk of pressure from people like Hitchens. Hm.

In any case, i would be fine sourcing the entire section only from two or three independent, secondary sources that are attempting to summarize the matter rather than give opinions, emphasizing what they do. Would that be acceptable to you? Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog for adding that useful context on the situation in the Chichester diocese. I think the word arrest is needed because it was specifically what Sussex Police stated. We should also I think add a single sentence pointing out that this was technically incorrect in Carlile's view, as I was trying to do under bombardment from Clockback. I also see that the new allegation passed to police by the church has been lost from the present version. As a significant fact should this go back in?Charles (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Could Jytdog kindly explain how my edit gave undue weight, and why he/she reverted it? Thank you. DarthPalmer (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog can speak for themselves, but I suspect that the text was simply too long, as a proportion of the section. However, as I argue above and Charlesdrakew also agrees, the Carlile report's comments about the word "arrest" should be presented in the article. Or, we could remove the "arrest" claim altogether.

Here's the issue: see para 131 of the Carlile report. I will quote it in full: However, from the police viewpoint this was not a case for a full evidential inquiry or even a call for evidence. By 2013 Bishop Bell had been dead for 55 years, and the police could not have been expected to take the matter any further, because there was no possibility of a prosecution. They had and have received no other complaints about his behaviour at any time. Please also see paragraphs 137-139. I quote from paragraph 139:At this point the limited police action effectively ended. Thus, it can be seen that there was no real police inquiry into the case ... In this light, simply saying that the "police said that the allegations were credible and Bell would have been arrested" is very misleading, as Carlile himself stressed.

In the meantime I have added the quote I mention above, from the NYT article, about realistic prospect of conviction. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I am OK with that edit. No more than that. Thank for you for being contained about it.Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That edit was not about the main issue under dispute though: should we quote the Carlile report's comments about the police, and how. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand that this aspect was very important to Hitchens and others. (As an aside -- a personal opinion -- it remains somewhat odd to me that Carlile that stepped outside his mandate to evaluate the church's process and evaluated the police's. But he did do so.)

In my view the best way to resolve this (and other issues) would be source the whole section from two or three independent reliable sources. I offered that above, and await your response to that. I'll note that neither the NYT, the BBC, nor the Guardian discuss that aspect of the Carlile report and none of them mention "arrest" at all; neither the NYT nor the Guardian mention "police" at all while the BBC does mention them, saying that the church did not refer the matter to the police the first time, that it did so the 2nd time, and that part of the church response to the Carlile report was again apologizing for not referring it the first time. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm talking, not Hitchens, and you may assume that it is important to me. To repeat my point above, the BBC or NYT report don't discuss the police using "arrest" either. So should we remove that as well? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence about the police activity, here. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

But you removed the other part too, which is indeed quoted in both the BBC and the NYT. My edit was not related to the arrest matter at all. As I said in my post above, the findings of the Carlile report get one single sentence in this whole section. Surely that can't be WP:DUE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now that the "arrest" is gone there is no need for the content you had added earlier about the small chance of success in prosecution and i have removed that. This is all part of a long argument that Carlile built about the legal strategy that Carlile suggested the church should have taken; namely to consider it a civil not criminal matter and offer a settlement with no admission of wrong-doing under confidentiality. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

the independent refs don't go into all that, but do report that the church rejected the confidentiality thing. There are many strings that can be pulled and followed out in a very difficult moral/legal/political matter like this. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with that. We don't need to quote the whole legal argument, sure, but we do need to note the conclusion. It's mentioned in the summary of conclusions of the report (see paragraph 17). This part of the conclusion is quoted in both the BBC and the NYT summary of the case.

As for the confidentiality thing, in my initial edit did say something about it (from the NYT article), but that seems to have been lost in the condensation. We can add it back in some form, if required. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this ref helpful, with respect to the content you want to add back about criminal prosecution? Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Guardian ref from same time. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Helpful for what? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

the church says in both of those pieces, that they based what they did on the model of a civil suit, not a criminal prosecution. In light of this, what is the need to elaborate Carlile's (somewhat off-mission) conclusions about the low probability that a prosecutor would even bring a criminal trial? Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Sorry, didn't get time to get to this matter. Let me answer your point in two parts. First, narrowly focused on Wikipedia procedures, and second, your broader point.

First, the Carlile report, in Wikipedia terms is WP:RS. It is treated as RS by every relevant actor. It is a WP:PRIMARY source, so it should be used with caution, and with care not to editorialize. This is why I stressed the fact that this particular conclusion of the report is included in both the secondary RS sources BBC and NYT. It does not have anything directly to with the arrest claim.

Coming to the broader issue, I read the sources you provided, but you're missing a crucial point here. What the Church says it did, and what the Church actually did are two very different things. The links provided only talk about what the Church says it did. What it actually did was the following. Read paragraph 41 of the report. Briefly, the issue is as follows.

To deal with an accusation, there are three standards of proof which one can use. The criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt), a civil standard (balance of probabilities) and the opposite extreme (taking the accusation as true). Carlile stated that the Church conduct was to take the third option (paragraph 43). And, in fact, the whole thing was, to use a technical term, a clusterfuck. They involved the police in the matter, who rendered a faulty opinion based on no investigation, which was taken to be something it was not by the Church. This comedy (or tragedy) of errors is why I think the conclusion belongs in the article (and I presume this is also why the NYT and the BBC quoted it).

I was planning to add a short sentence on this matter (roughly the same as what I added before), but I was ninja'ed by Oncenawhile who has added a somewhat longer excerpt from the Carlile report, quoting Vice. I am not sure if such a long excerpt is needed, or a shorter one might be more appropriate. I am also not sure if the last sentence Much of the British media, in particular Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens, presented this view as a clearing of Bell’s name – such a conclusion has been criticized by other commentators as being without foundation and an injustice to Bell’s accuser. needs to be there; it's rather weasel-wordy (who are the "other commentators"?) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies- I hadn’t realized that this exact sub-topic was being discussed here. My two cents - if we refer to the report’s view that there wasn’t enough evidence (which we should, given the publicity it had) we also need to be clear on both the caveat in the report that it did not assess the merits of the case, and the controversy over the way the report was subsequently covered in the media. The Vice article is a very good summary / provides a good structure for this. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There used to be a section/paragraph in this article devoted to "media coverage" both before and after the event. If the media reaction is to be covered, it should be done properly. I don't consider the Vice article to be particularly good; but in any case, it only looks at a small time period (the reaction after the report was published). This matter has been going on for at least three years now (and it still isn't finished).

As for the terms of reference of the Carlile report (which did not attempt to establish whether the claim was true or false), I have no objection to including it. I had added one sentence (from the BBC) about the terms of reference in my earlier edit. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi KingsIndian. yes the Carlile report is RS; it is also primary. We use primary sources carefully as it is easy to use them in a skewed way. Indeed, fans of Bell have been pounding on the finding about the "criminal prosecution"; they apparently view this as supporting their "innocent until proven guilty" argument. What those people are doing, is ripping that bit out of context.

Again, Carlile's mandate was to examine what the Church did. The stuff about prosecution is in there as part of Carlile's analysis of the legal situation, with a view to the Church's strategy in negotiations with Carol's lawyer. He argued like a litigator in that document, whose job it is to protect the church. In his view: a) because the legal case for prosecution was so weak, b) Carol's attorney's negotiating position in the civil settlement talks was very weak, and c) the Church should have been much more tough and offered no apology (or better, no admission of liability) and demanded things be kept confidential. That is the only reason why the bit about the criminal prosecution is in there. See Para 258 That said, if the criticisms are substantially valid, in my judgement the decision to settle the case in the form and manner followed was indefensibly wrong. In giving that view, again I emphasise that it is not part of my terms of reference to venture an opinion as to whether Carol was telling the truth. Mine is (I hope) an objective exercise about the conduct of a potential piece of litigation. and also the following paragraphs.

If we are going to mention it, we should also put it in context and summarize Carlile's whole a-b-c above (see paragraphs 30-32 for his general recommendation and paragraphs 258 & following for their application in Carol's case). I have left the bit about criminal prosecution in for now, in your shortened version. But we should add the rest of the context. I have gone ahead and added Welby's statement that the matter was handled as a civil one, not as a criminal one, as I mentioned above. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not really care what the fans of Bell are pounding over; all I want is a summary which reflects the sources and is not misleading.

I do not have any direct problem with including Archbishop Welby's statement, but the context is actually a bit more complicated. If the matter is to be treated as a civil matter, and settled without the admission of liability (as was done here), Carlile recommended that name of the alleged perpetrator not be published (see paragraph 33). This is the recommendation which was rejected by the Church. The current text does mention that one recommendation of the Carlile report was rejected, but doesn't say which one. Perhaps this should be made clear. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why you are advocating to pull the finding about criminal prosecution out if its context in this primary source. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I did not use the primary source directly. As I stated above (three separate times), I was quoting the BBC and NYT secondary sources. See the very first post in this thread. The point about publicizing the alleged perpetrator's name (and the Church's rejection of it) also comes from the NYT article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't view that response as on point, and I don't wish to continue this particular discussion. In any case I'm not contesting its inclusion for now. With time there will be sources that deal with this more adequately. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

That's because I told you I don't understand your point. I tried to guess, but apparently didn't succeed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to the editors who tidied up this section of the article: I'm sorry that I didn't have the time. --GroupCohomologist (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hitchens

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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)

I have added the {{Recruiting}} tag above. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fact and Opinion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Notes for article development in response to [3]

"Fact One: The police, in England, have precisely no statutory role in the investigation of crimes allegedly committed by the dead." [4]

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"[5]

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.’"[6]

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Administrator note This section has been restored and closed as a result of dispute resolution at AN/I. Please do not reopen or remove. Swarm ♠ 19:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Fact and Opinion revisited

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)

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)

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)

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)

Section regarding his views and actions during the Third Reich and after the war

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)

Bell's family and First World War

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: [7] [8] [9], deaths by [10] [11] and POW by Red Cross info [12], [13] and [14] and also Evelyn's service record [15] (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)