Talk:Cassie Bernall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-04-21. The result of the discussion was Keep.

	Criminal justice Portal This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do: edit  Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Criminal Biography: Requests: Magdalena Solis, Justina Morley, Impersonating an officer, List of major crimes in the United States, Shanghai Kelly, Tucker Prison Farm, Kendall Francois, Purgatory Correctional Facility Expand: Credit card fraud, Theresa Knorr, Marybeth Tinning, Brenda Ann Spencer, Lords of Chaos (self-styled teen militia), Stubs: Calling card (crime), Federal crime, Leslie Irvin (serial killer), Violent crime, Crime Classification Manual, Anthony Sawoniuk Perfect crime Images: Charles Ray Hatcher, Thor Nis Christiansen, Richard Cottingham, Caleb Fairley

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cassie Bernall article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Since this article is now about Bernall AND Schnurr, should I move the article to "Cassie Bernall and Valeen Schnurr"? WhisperToMe 22:44, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Martin 23:04, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My take on the best organisation of these articles is to have the massacre article, an article on each of Cassie and Rachel, and have Valeen redirect to the massacre. The current situation of these two being lumped together but not Rachel looks odd.. However having all three lumped in one article but separate from the massacre article would look odder still. We could have them all redirect to the massacre article but I think there is enough material and points of emphasis (e.g. the massacre article is about the two killers and the mechanics of the day). The Cassie and Rachel article are more pointed towards the religious of their lives and deaths, which were more specific to them. Pete 11:29, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This has now been implemented. Pete 12:12, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I thought Bernall and Schnurr could be dealt with together as the article is really about a single incident that involved them both. However, I see your point, and the new organisation also works. Martin 18:42, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 External link is 404 2 External link Salon News 3 Schnurr disrespect 4 Inspiration 5 Merge all non-notable victims to a single page 6 Do Not Delete This Article! 7 Citation Needed 8 Unsourced reports alleging that Cassie said "yes" persist. 9 Requested move 10 Fair use rationale for Image:She Said Yes.jpg 11 Conflicting Sources 12 Neutrality

[edit] External link is 404

Just thought you guys might want to know that the second external link is 404. All the best. Redux 19:51, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. Pcb21| Pete 21:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am still getting the old 404...

[edit] External link Salon News

Should it be added in the article that according to the Salon.com news report she was "In trouble with friends and in school, Cassie was forced by her parents -- whom she'd threatened in letters to kill -- to attend West Bowles Community Church, where, after protest, she underwent a spiritual awakening and was born again." I think it should because it talks about her history. What does everyone else think? GZadmin 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can add a source to the statements next to it, other than salon.com, to confirm it then yes go ahead. I don't have anything against salon.com myself, but I'm sure that if people were to read that and find salon as its source there may be some who would attempt to remove it because of the whole political war going on in the US right now. Of course, I'm sure that it's mentioned elsewhere, so it shouldn't be hard to find another source for it. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually that was discussed in length in her mother's book. So as you said it won't be hard at all to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.84.41 (talk • contribs)

Alright, find the page in the book where it is stated and we can use that as a citation. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 01:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schnurr disrespect

Why does Valeen Schnurr redirect here? That is incredibly disrespectful, I think. It's fine if we make a page including both, but don't name it after just one.

--L'postrophi 23:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspiration

I added a link to Michael W. Smith and his "This Is Your Time" album, since the (it turns out, false) rumors inspired the title track, and had a profound impact on the evangelical Christian community. And I added that the rumors went so far as to say that Cassie had just seen another student shot for answering "Yes." I'll track down cites. ChristinaDunigan 17:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge all non-notable victims to a single page

She isn't notable; she should be on a single page with all the other non-notable victims, whose only claim to importance is being shot in the massacre. Titanium Dragon 05:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Im tempted to nominate this article for deletion. I think the victims should be merged into one page, to give them all individual ones is ridiculous. TSMonk 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bernall stands apart from the other non-notable victims, beacause of the controversy surrounding the "She Said 'Yes'" misunderstanding. Although i suppose if we did glom them all together, this existing article is small enough to fully include. In addition, this page seems to focus on the Cassie Bernall Controversy, rather than the victim herself, perhaps it should be renamed.65.25.24.245 07:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cassie herself was just a kid, no more notable than any of us would have been at that age. It is the controversy, frankly, which makes her notable. --Orange Mike 13:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:65.25.24.245|65.25.24.245 above makes an interesting point, i.e., that part of the problem with this entry is that it needs to be renamed to something that denotes the reason why Bernall has been given an individual entry. Renaming this entry to "Cassie Bernall controversy" as suggested, or to something similar would get my vote. Labyrinth13 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do Not Delete This Article!

I would personally like to thank all those who have worked on this page, and would very much to see it NOT BE DELETED since it is one of the very few existing sources on the web that actually gets the story right about who said "yes", and does so from a NPOV standpoint. The massive PR campaign that went on in the aftermath of Columbine by those that have been "saved" persists on the web and without this accurate entry, many people may continue to believe in the martyrdom associated with Cassie Bernall's tragic demise.

68.161.120.145 09:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I second all of the above. This page represents a valuable resource in that it debunks and lays bare the worst sort of propaganda, i.e., the type that shamelessly exploits the life and death of a young person in order to create and sell a myth. Thank you to the editors who worked hard on this entry.

-- Labyrinth13 14:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

But should the article focus on the girl? No. It should be renamed to The Cassie Bernall Controversy or The She Said Yes Controversy, especially considering it's not known whether or not it actually happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.183.9 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Needed

Someone else needs to add the reference from "She Said 'Yes'", i am unfamilar with the procedure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.24.245 (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

The article from Christianity Today is the unsourced bit that needs to be removed or a better (sourced) article to replace. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

no, im talking about the fact tag you put in. the article from Christianity Today has nothing to do with that.

[edit] Unsourced reports alleging that Cassie said "yes" persist.

Should Unsourced reports really be included in this article? It is not very encyclopedic is it? I think the whole thing should be removed. Unsourced reports alleging that Cassie said "yes" persist. Zobra, Wendy Murray. "Cassie Said Yes, They Said No", Christianity Today, 1999-11-01. Retrieved on 2006-06-18. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement is "Unsourced reports alleging that Cassie said "yes" persist" which is truthful and cited, it also speaks about the current state of the controversy, just what is your real beef with this?

The existence of these persistent rumors is a fact, and indeed the main thing that keeps Ms. Bernall notable: the legend that she was not merely an unfortunate teen, but a martyr for Christ. (See websites like this one, set up to exploit the legend and this one.) That makes the persistence of the rumors highly encyclopedic. The article cited is from a reputable and certainly not anti-Christian source (as contrasted with the lengthy articles on various atheist sites); this is the essence of proper sourcing. --Orange Mike 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this thread and I have to agree with Orangemike's assessment above: I see no reason why the statement that reads "Unsourced reports alleging that Cassie said 'yes' persist" should not be included so long as there is a reliable, published secondary source for the statement. Such a statement is not making any sort of judgments in and of itself, but rather is only reporting on the current mindset as far as the ongoing controversy is concerned. Nothing more and nothing less. About the only problem I see with the inline citation to the Zoba article is that it appears to require that one to be registered to read the entire thing, but I don't know if that alone would disqualify it. Labyrinth13 00:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also there is Links normally to be avoided 1,2 and 6. Are we not striving to make Wikipedia the best it can be? We can't do that if we ignore the rules of editing. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Article looks great! My thanks goes out to, SmthManly, Orangemike, Anetode and Labyrinth13 for your help on fixing this article and ending this dispute. Thank you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to all of the above. The only existing change needed is the above mention of renaming this article to more properly reflect the articles aim. Thanks again.65.25.24.245 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue with it is that it says that it persists, but the source is 8 years old now. Do they still persist, I think, is a relevant question. Titanium Dragon 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is! And yes, they do. If you do a Google you will find oodles of sites which preach the full martyrdom story without any quibble or even the suggestion of a hint that it almost certainly didn't happen. (And as an evangelical Christian I can assure you that the story in its original form still circulates verbally; but that can be argued to be OR.) --Orange Mike 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As of March 18[1]. Though, technically, Christianity Today's report persists until and unless they publish a retraction. I removed the whole "Christian publications" thing though, given the obvious. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The above mention "obvious" is not so obvious to me, perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate. This may be obtuse of me, but some clarity would be greatly appreciated, thanksEuPhyte 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Two factors. 1: WP:NPOV; 2: The March 18th article cited above came from a non-denomenational publication. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Whle the first factor is too vague to be helpful, the second factor alone warrants the removal, as the article now contains a citation other than Christianity Today. Thanks anetode!EuPhyte 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob, sorry for being unclear ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Not only is opinion fairly evenly split between the two options, but the proposed target is an invented title with a Google Support Index of just 1 hit out of a total of 63,000 for Cassie Bernall. This is less than for "Cassie Bernall case", "Cassie Bernall incident" and much less than (the somewhat POV) "Cassie Bernall martyrdom". It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:She Said Yes.jpg

Image:She Said Yes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting Sources

No one seems to be able to prove she didn't say "yes" to the killers. Can't we just let it spin the martyr way? KC109 (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

No. There are no: zero, zilch, nada, no reliable sources supporting the early rumor. All the reports agree that it was a rumor which got out of control, as the article makes clear. It is a good story, but it is clearly not a true one. To pretend otherwise cheapens the real deaths of real martyrs. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And did you read the book "She Said Yes?" KC109 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC).

I have, once, passing some time at a Barnes & Noble. It came of as a sentimental expression of Misty Bernall's grieving process. While it was short, preachy, naive, anecdotal, and just generally banal, I found it easy to sympathize with her loving attempt to understand her daughter's life and passing. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you actually read it, you'd see the accounts of at least two witnesses; as well as the report that the gun had been less than an inch from her head. THE KC (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

Hence "anecdotal". Do some research beyond the book, take a look at [2] & [3]. Put simply, we're not here to spin the facts. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll do some research and be back. THE KC (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

I see one contradictory person (who could have been looking for attention) against some witnesses in the book. One idea, "I don't understand why they'd pop that question on someone who wasn't" praying. The investigator said she had a gun at her head, and that the tip of her finger had been blown off; indicating that if this Emily girl said that he'd yelled "PEEKABOO!" and shot her, he wouldn't have had time to put the gun to her head. THE KC (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for reading those, but your personal appraisal of the veracity of the claims is irrelevant as WP:OR. The article reports Misty Bernall's claims and the initial rumor, but defers to the official investigation and follow-up by investigative journalists over one mother's account of hearsay. Readers are free to decide which account they wish to accept. Since Misty Bernall's story is now an inspiration for pop-Christian culture, I can see how religious preference plays a role in that decision. Nonetheless, Wikipedia editorial standards are based on verifiability, not truth, and the "martyr" angle has been thoroughly trounced by a number of reliable sources. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright. But, out of curiosity, isn't all of that original research at one point? THE KC (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, however I can assure you that the answer you're looking for is probably discussed in one of the following policies: WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, & WP:RS. Wikipedians are encouraged to base articles on secondary sources. Editors are considered to have engaged in original research if they cherrypick or misrepresent sources to advance a particular position (WP:SYN). Differing opinions and interpretations lead to healthy debate, we just can't substitute what a Wikipedia editor has to say for an outside source. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's an answer to the "Why would the ask her that question" statement. She was a known Christian. Saksjn (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's been acknowledged. KC109 00:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Neutrality

I'm just saynig, this seems to serve as an article to contradict the story of several people that she got shot for being Christian. Just saying, maybe a little cleanup could help? THE KC (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

A lot of folks have already put a lot of work into cleaning this up. Some of us are Christians, saddened to learn that there are no reliable sources whatsoever to back up a lovely but false myth of witness and martyrdom. But truth trumps pretty story; John 8:32 and all that. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's where I disagree. We maybe could tell the rumor, add a controversy section, and leave it at that? THE KC (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

I'll agree, this article feels like a "this is a Christian lie!" article. Saksjn (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As a born-again Christian who's worked on this article, I disagree. It would be absurd to pretend that we're any more invulnerable to the human weakness for a pretty story than anybody else. This one is a debunked legend, and the article points that out pretty even-handedly, with full documentation. It also documents the sad fact that the debunking has not stopped some folks from continuing to claim the story is true, long after we knew better. Where is the bias in that? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and do a little more research, but the claims of few individuals won't be enough for me. Saksjn (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)