Talk:Catherine Bell/Archive 1

Super Bowl XXXVI Prediction

I removed the text because it is not true. She made the prediction after the participants were known. The prediction is located at http://archive.sportingnews.com/nfl/articles/20020131/379058.html.

You are wrong . Look on date in linku on mountain, 31 January 2002 is, and final took place 3 February 2002. So she made the prediction before participants. This is additional link http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8786289

I do not see how I am wrong. The prediction was not made before the season started. It was made before the game as is traditionaaly done. You provide no proof that she made the prediction before September 9, 2001. The link to the TMQ article only confirms she guessed the exact score.

Read exactly. It writes clearly that "She's the only person to have ever correctly predicted the participants in, winner, and final score of a Super Bowl before a season began." Conversation with Catherine Bell also about this on http://www.nascar.com/2005/news/features/conversation/10/26/cbell/index.html.

I have read the quoted article and she says that her husband randomly picked the teams and the score. So it wasn't her and it was guessed' not predicted.Barfbagel 09:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that Mrs. Bell appears to believe this urban legend about her, that might be notable. Alas, the link to the Sporting News article clearly indicates that she made the prediction after the two Super Bowl teams had already been decided (the article is dated three days before the game), and was simply asked who would win, "Rams or Pats?" The fact that an article on NFL.com reports this urban legend as fact just demonstrates how popular the legend is (although that article used IMDb as its source, and to be fair, some people may have used Wikipedia as a source before it was fixed). -Eisnel 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Snopes just posted an article about this which confirms that the rumored prediction is not as miraculous as many people once thought. MrHen. 18:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article now looks ridiculous. Why do people keep on restating the allegation when the general body of evidence is that she didn't do what is actually claimed? Barfbagger 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Article has been published result to predict before beginning of Super Bowl with list of famous person which predicted final score. She it could predict before season, and it has been added for this article. So, you do not have certitude 100% if it has predicted after ends of conferences finals or before season.

• But you have certitude 100% if has predicted it after ends of conferences finals? Because I see so predict result and it has sent for The Sporting News editor before season, but article become published before Super Bowl XXXVI. There is in article http://www.nascar.com/2005/news/features/conversation/10/26/cbell/index.html clearly Catherine Bell's husband randomly picked those teams and that score. She emailed them back to my publicist and forgot about it.

http://www.teamkellyracing.com/castcrew/bell.php
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8786289

• Please sign your posts on the talk page by inserting four tildes at the end of your post. You have two sources above, one an interview on nascar.com and one on NFL.com. The one on NFL.com (that you used as a source on the article page) does not actually say at what point in the season Catherine Bell made her prediction. The NFL.com source links to IMDB.com. Anyone can change IMDB.com, and someone has changed it to reflect the Snopes article [[1]]; the IMDB page for Catherine Bell now says that she predicted the winning score after the teams playing was deciding. In the interview on nascar.com, the interviewer asks a leading question, Catherine Bell says it wasn't important to her and she had forgotten about it. The interviewer, not Catherine Bell, says that Catherine Bell predicted the outcome before the season. If you read the original The Sporting News article [[2]], Catherine Bell and the 69 other celebrities all predict either the Rams or the Patriots. The text at the top says that "rams or patriots" was the question. Therefore, the research for this article HAD to have happened after the teams playing had been determined. Have I convinced you? All that I am saying is also clearly laid out above by other posters. Enuja 16:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I kept the teamkellyracing.com reference you added. Is this a good compromise for you? Feel free to neaten up my grammar; it's a bit run-on. Careful with the editing, though; you shoved the trivia after the super bowl trivia to the references section. Enuja 16:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I don't want to criticise the pictures here, but may I ask if they are actually legally useable? Who holds the copyright, especially of the one from the TV show? Lao Wai 08:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm, it now looks as if we have two copyrighted photos. May I ask who has put them up and what legal right Wikipedia has to display them? Anyone? Lao Wai 20:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Several months later, they have now been removed. There was never a reason for them, as there are public domain ones available, which are there now. --Rob 10:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The more important issue: the second pic as of August 2006 looks like shit. Can't we get a DVD or HDTV screencap?Alvis 05:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

scientology

I don't object to removal of a full section on scientology. But using the edit comment "This Version is so much better" is some tricky. It implies you didn't want people to notice what's changed. I didn't revert, because I don't think scientology (beyond the current small mention) is relevant, and the old wording is bias, and even hostile. But, when doing such as edit, please say that. --Rob 03:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Similar sections exist for virtually every other celebrity Scientologist. When any celebrity is an active member of such an extremely controversial organization, I think it certainly merits the information being in their listing. To exclude it would be to present their biography in a very skewed, whitewashed, and NNPOV way. wikipediatrix 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If an actor's had a heavily covered involvement with the Church, say Tom Cruise, that's true. But simple involvement, doesn't count. Scientology shouldn't get treated any different than Roman Catholicism by Wikipedia, in this regard. I'm detecting POV pushing, on both sides here. I notice you seem to be editing a *lot* of scientology-related articles, and have expressed negative view of the organization, on talk pages. I suggest, if it's removed again, that you not personally re-add it. If it's truly relevant, somebody who is not actively involved in the Scientology-editing (on either side) will re-add it. This a biography of an actress, and doesn't fit in to the grand fight over Scientology some editors are sadly engaged in. --Rob 03:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any "fight over Scientology" and it has nothing to do with my own POV, which is NOT necessarily anti-Scientology. By your stated standards, most biographical information about Catherine "wouldn't count". The events mentioned in this article's Scientology section are factual and sourced. The recent notoriety of Scientology caused by Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, South Park, etc. makes Catherine's involvement all the more relevant. Some of Catherine's fans may be embarassed by Scientology and wish to downplay her involvement with it, but Wikipedia is a not a fan site. I don't understand your comparison to Catholicism: if Catherine was a Catholic and was taking part in Catholic anti-abortion protests or other controversial religious activities, I would expect that to be covered as well. This has nothing to do with my, or anyone else's, POV regarding Scientology, pro or con. wikipediatrix 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your comments do show this is a part of larger fight about scientology. You're bringing up, what should be irrelevant articles. Please, keep your views on this, or any other, religion out of Wikipedia. If neutral editors agree with this information, being here, I'm sure they'll put it back if it's removed. But people with strong pro- or anti- Scientology views, should *not* be adding/removing this. If anybody wishes to see who's bias here, a quick look at edit history will show who has, and who doesn't have, a Scientology related-agenda. --Rob 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your response doesn't answer any of my concerns or queries in my previous post. I'm sorry you think I have an anti-Scientology agenda, but there's no POV problem with noting her involvement with such a famous and controversial organization. Instead of attacking ME, why don't you stick to the subject at hand, and try discussing what is wrong with the Scientology section of the article, point by point? As I said, everything described in it is real and is sourced and I can't think of any reason you would want to keep it out of any legitimate biography of any celebrity. wikipediatrix 22:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a tip. If a web site has a name like "religionX-kills.org" it's probably POV. scientology-kills.org is POV. It is not a reliable mainstream independent media source. Rather, it has a vocal POV agenda, like you. Please, keep you POV-pushing, anti-scientology agenda out of here. BTW, I would just as strongly remove any pro-scientology junk from this article. I didn't even see the need for mentioning it at all. I'm opposed to using Wikipedia to promote a religion, or to attack/disparage a religion. Please do not use Wikipedia to link-spam on behalf of your personally preferred political sites. I suggest any other editors looking at this, please take a careful look the edit history of the above editor (feel free to look at mine to). You'll see clearly what's going on. --Rob 14:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your condescending attitude or your wrong-headed insistence that I must have an anti-Scientology POV. Turn down the testosterone and stop attacking ME personally instead of discussing the edits, OK? The events mentioned in the article happened (Catherine discussing Scientology on Stern show, etc.), and verifiably so. No one, including me, is using the article to disparage Scientology - please point out specifically where you think I have done so. Also, one of the things you removed was a cite to Bell's own website, www.catherinebellonline.com, hardly an anti-Scientology source! Including information about a celebrity's religion is a basic part of any legitimate biography, especially when the celebrity in question has been so public in her crusades with it. wikipediatrix 14:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said her own web site was anti-scientology. However, it isn't a good source for saying "She has been a very vocal activist for the church, promoting Scientology's Hollywood Education and Literacy Project". Maybe she's been a vocal activist, maybe she's been a minor one. We can't go to her for an opinion of that (we can only go to her, to see, she has an opinion, what it is). You should have cited a neutral source, like the NY Times, to establish how signficant she is. I don't want to get personal. But, frankly, your edit history is making it impossible not to see a much larger agenda. Somebody has to look at what you put here, in context, of all the many other edits, pushing the same agenda. --Rob 15:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think my edit history reveals an anti-Scientology bias, then you have jumped to conclusions. Just because I maintain on many articles that it is relevant to include controversial statements and misdeeds by the Church does not mean I have any agenda other than presenting the whole truth. It would be the same if Bell was a member of NAMBLA or the Communist Party or Heaven's Gate. I also spend a lot of time removing gratitutous anti-Scientology rants from articles as well, and all the dumb vandalism that has ensued since South Park's Scientology exposé. wikipediatrix 15:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You just made my point. --Rob 15:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Um...how? I said I remove vandalism and POV bias from both anti- and pro- scientology camps, and focus on presenting the whole truth. If this somehow proves your "point", woo-hoo for you. wikipediatrix 18:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you said you treated Scientology like other religions, such as Roman Catholicism, or Islam, of Hinduism, you would have made a good point. But your reference to NAMBLA, shows your bias. I note that you've also done similiar bogus anti-Scientology rants in bios of people who aren't even members, such as Neil Bush[3] (guilt by association is shameful, and violates WP:LIVING). So, you're just looking for every chance to push your POV agenda. It's not ok. You appear to be on a crusade about this issue. You can't even see your own bias. Note, I haven't written any pro-Scientology stuff in my edits. Whenever so many edits are related to one issue, and show one side, you know there's a problem. Get some people who don't hate Scientology to show agreement with you, and you'll have credibility. --Rob 18:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Unindenting, for Christ's sake. Anyway, the mere inclusion of material relating to Catherine Bell being involved in the Church of Scientology is appropriate because she is a celebrity that has made public appearances on behalf of the organization. Besides, public appearances aside, mentioning the religion of the subject of the article is appropriate factual information; it no more violates the NPOV rule any more than mention of their political affiliation would be, if known. --Molon Labe 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia wrong on Superbowl Trivia, Says Snopes

Eek! A month-old article on Snopes.com says that Catherine Bell predicted the 2002 Superbowl winner and score AFTER the teams playing were decided. The Snopes article is http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/catherinebell.asp; I'm referencing the original The Sporting News article in the article. Enuja 06:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientology Status of Catherine Bell

There is quite a bit of discussion of Scientology above, but there isn't any discussion on this talk page about whether or not www.truthaboutscientology.com is a reliable source. I know you guys have been going back and forth on each other's talk pages, but that isn't going to involve people interested in Catherine Bell and not already involved on one side or another of this spat. I see room for compromise here; if truthaboutscientology really does compile its information from Scientology publications, couldn't those publications be cited to show that Catherine "Bell has been affiliated with Scientology/Dianetics since 1990 and has achieved what they call "the state of Clear"?" If truthaboutscientology does not compile its information from Scientology publications, then it probably isn't a reliable source and this information probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia. I don't know how reliable www.truthaboutscientology.com is, but some of you obviously see it as an attack website, and that's something that should be addressed in some way. COFS, Cleduc, Justanother, Vivaldi, Fubar Obfusco and Tilman (names listed in order of first edit in April 2007), please stop edit warring about this sentence, and please put your discussion in one, central location that all interested parties will see; this talk page. Thanks, guys and gals. Enuja 04:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the voice of reason. truthaboutscientology is a hate site. Its "truth about Scientology" is one-sided hate. A large part of its function is an "outing" site to make trouble for ordinary Scientologists. My name is on that site and I personally am offended that a bigot has decided to make my religion public knowledge. That choice is mine, not some bigot's, to make. Two problems with the site. 1) it is a POV hate site and is not to be trusted for anything - it is non-RS. 2) While in theory one could use the Scientology mags themselves that would require a) that you had them and b) you had some way of knowing that the "Catherine Bell" in the mag is the same "Catherine Bell" as our article. Even for me, I have an unusual name but guess what, I am not the only person in the world with that name (it shows up occasionally in Filipinos, for some reason; very odd). So if you see "my" name in one of these mags, how can you say it is me? Intelius.com shows 280 Catherine Bell's, just in the US. It is OR to assume that a simple name in a list of names refers to anyone in an article here. And it is silly, too; all notable Scientologists can be sourced in RS as Scientologists. No place for that site here, thank you. --Justanother 04:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Justanother. This is a propaganda and hate site. Yes, there are lots of names on there and Sciento "course completions" and what have you. I don't know where the list are from and I do not trust Kristi Wachter, who is the sole source of this PERSONAL WEBPAGE (WP:EL, WP:RS), allegedly listing her research on there which cannot be found anywhere else (WP:OR). Next thing happening, Mr. Enuja, is that your name shows up there and some Scieno-haters start picketing in front of your door or my name shows up on there and Antaeus shows up on my door step (shudder). Why? Because the owner of the site is doing such things and there is no QC (quality control) of the information she puts on there. This could be anything. I might be a hysteric chick at times but KristiW beats it. Misou 04:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is somewhat of a mystery to me, how it becomes "propaganda" and "hate" when it just takes information from official scientology publications (including a scientology website with 16000 names [4]). There must be some mutation that I don't understand.

Please don't speculate about what "could" be. If you allege an error (not these that are already in the original magazines) or a lie, just show it. I know that Kristi is a very skilled expert at compiling and managing this data. --Tilman 05:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity 347 (April 2003) has an interview with Catherine Bell. She tells that the PTS/SP course was a help in recently getting clear. So, Justanother, are you suggesting that the celebrity that looks like Catherine Bell and has been interviewed by the scientology "Celebrity" magazine is really another Catherine Bell? Or is "Celebrity" also a "hate" publication? --Tilman 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not be silly, Tilman. I am talking about things like Impact magazine or old Church magazines that just have a list of names, not an article. A list of names sometimes pages long like so-and-so are members of the IAS or so-and-so finished a course this week with no other information, just a list of names; that is what Kristi uses. I could care less what you think of Kristi or of her site, Tilman. You two are birds of a feather except that you maintain an even worse hate site and Scientologist outing site designed to make trouble for people you do not know that are, by and large, good people trying to do good things in life. If you have a Celebrity mag in hand then just cite it like you would any reference; let's leave the hate sites out of the equation, please. --Justanother 12:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your constant allegations that Kristi's site (or mine) are "hate sites" are without any basis, and it doesn't get true by repetition. Especially since you admit that Kristi does compile scientology materials. So poof, the same list of names become "hate" just because a scientology critic hosts them in a database? Not. --Tilman 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Kristi's data is neither official nor necessarily correct. It could be wholly invented and neither you nor Justanother would be able to notice it, because you have no access to the official or original materials to compare it to. Neither does Kristi Wachter have access to such material. The site owner is doing original research, takes information sent to her by anyone - maybe even by anonymous sources whose agenda is unknown - and puts her conclusions online. There is a difference between Catherine Bell choosing to give a public interview and talk about her Scientology experiences and Kristi Wachter blacklisting Scientologists on a site which otherwise only carries questionable information about the same group. That difference is called "reliable source" and is the reason why Wikipedia Policy says to avoid linking to personal websites such as Krist Wachters. CSI LA 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Every external source is doing original research. The term applies only to wikipedia editors about not doing research on their own.

It is not a personal site. Nor is it "blacklisting". You have not provided evidence that Kristi asks readers to boycott.

Kristi does of course have access to the material she compiled. You are "just alleging" that she hasn't. --Tilman 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow - you removed her getting clear, but left in the scientology source in which she told that she just got clear??? --Tilman 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Her site and yours are "hate sites" because you both hate Scientology and/or the Church of Scientology and present a one-sided view - your side; the hate side. You no doubt feel that you do not have to present pro-Scientology materials because that is the job of the Church and they can do it on their websites. If that it what you feel then you are correct; the Church presents the "love" side and you and Kristi and others present the "hate" side. Fine. Just please do not pretend that the CoS sites are non-RS and your sites are RS. That claim insults our intelligence. --Justanother 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You have no evidence that I "hate" scientology. You just allege it. A one-sided presentation isn't a "hate site". For example, anti-drug sites don't present the positive sides of drugs. An allergy protection website doesn't show the positive sides of having an allergy. A child protection site doesn't present the "positive" sides of a child being ****ed by a pedophile. Does this make them "hate sites"?

However, by your logic, CCHR.org is also a "hate site". I agree with this, but for a different reason, since that organisation does promote proven falsehoods (available on request :-)).

Your text, the Church presents the "love" side and you and Kristi and others present the "hate" side is rather evidence for a black-and-white view of the world. However, the world is grey.

I would like to know why you don't want the wikireaders to know that Catherine Bell is a scientology "clear". Was the state of clear certificate taken away from her? Or is it embarassing that she is "clear" ? --Tilman 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Find a RS or get Kristi Wachter to send you the original of her "source". "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source.", that's all. CSI LA 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the current source for the (currently truncated) sentence in dispute is the April 2003 issue of Celebrity (Magazine of the Scientology Celebrity Centre Los Angeles). I found a website for Scientologies' "Celebrity Centre International," and it has archives of news items that appear to come from the magazine "Celebrity Livewire." The page for April 2003 is here[5], and man, those are short blurbs. All the website says about Catherine Bell was that she was present at an Awards Banquet, not how long she's been a scientologist or if she's achieved the state of the clear. Is the article in the print version more extensive? Is the print version in fact called "Celebrity Livewire? As it stands, this appears to be a pretty poor source, as it doesn't include any information about Catherine Bell personally. On to the nature of www.truthaboutscientology.com. I'm not entirely convinced that it falls into the category of "personal website" any more than www.snopes.com (the urban legend website whose article on Catherine Bell got me here and watching this page in the first place) does. It might, but both of these websites are compilations of information, with the "creators" acting more like editors than like personal writers. Again, I think it's a bit of a grey area, but it doesn't look like truthaboutscientology is obviously out of bounds. As to it being a "hate" site; why would a "hate site" have this notice;

"Safe for Scientologists: This site is designed to be a safe place for Scientologists to get factual data about outpoints in Scientology's management. While the information doesn't paint the same rosy picture of Scientology's health as you'll hear at Scientology events, I've taken care to avoid any mention of confidential upper-level information."

I think it's unfair to call something a hate site because it complies information from non-classified scientology publications. If it's not hateful to tell fellow believers who is a Scientologist, why is it hateful to tell non-believers who is a Scientologists? That kind of presupposes that there is something wrong with being a Scientologist. This is a particularly strange complaint about a celebrity scientologist. Aren't celebrities supposed to be good for Scientology because they raise its profile? Isn't it a way to spread Scientology to say that Catherine Bell is a clear? I still think a better source could be found, and maybe the print version of Celebrity Livewire is a good source, but does it mention that she's a clear? If so, could that bit of data go back into the article? Enuja 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess "hate site" is subjective. Kristi's site spreads hate and smears about Scientology. That is its purpose. That "Safe for Scientologists" should read "One-sided bigotry without confidential materials so you Scientologists can come over here to be insulted without worrying about seeing confidential materials". Golly, thanks Kristi! It is just another one-sided, POV, totally anti-Scientology and Scientologists, bigoted, and intolerant web site. Does that make it a "hate site"? Idunnaknow. Does it make it suspect and non-RS. Bet your booties, it does. So no, it cannot be cited here for that and the reasons I gave above. Re Celebrity Magazine; it has interviews with celebs in addition to the tidbits I saw on the scientology.cc site. Certainly using the mags themselves is appropriate. --Justanother 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That isn't an argument, that's just a contradiction. And you're just repeating again "its a hate site", despite being shown by someone else that it isn't. --Tilman 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That isn't an argument, that's just a contradiction. Where is that line from? Do I remember it from Thank You for Smoking? Great movie, that. Or was that line in the movie about negotiation vs. argument? No one has shown that Kristi is not a hate site. All that is going on here is a discussion. You might not like the label but you have a COI because you run an even worse hate site and you and your ilk would have Scientologists wear little cloth "S and double triangles" pinned to their coats. Ain't that right, Tilman? Gotta know who you are dealing with, right? --Justanother 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I read through the talk and article history more carefully, so how is this for a compromise?

Bell has been affiliated with [[Scientology]]/[[Dianetics]] since 1990 and has achieved what they call "the state of 
[[Clear (Scientology)|Clear]]".<ref>Interview with Catherine Bell, Celebrity (Magazine of the Scientology Celebrity Centre
Los Angeles), Issue 347 (April 2003)</ref>

This version 1) cites a scientology publication 2) includes the important information of date of entry into religion and status 3) does not cite www.thetruthaboutscientology.com which might qualify as personal website and is biased against scientology Enuja 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Opps, now I'm not happy with my compromise, because the Celebrity Magazine article does not include the year Catherine Bell started taking Scientology courses. Anyone have another source that will be considered by all to be reliable that gives the date? Enuja 05:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The www.thetruthaboutscientology.com site has the advantage that it shows her whole career, i.e. all the courses she took. --Tilman 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the Celebrity magazine interview include the date Bell joined Scientology? Enuja 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it only tells that she got in through Milton Katselas. --Tilman 05:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just "got" what you're asking about. Now, Celebrity is listed as a source for something it isn't. Celebrity can only be used as a source that she is a scientologist and a clear, not that she entered 1990. Truthaboutscientology.com is a source that she has been a scientologist at least since 1990. The "route to infinity" is not a beginners course. The "success through communication", which she took years later, is a beginners course. (It is common that scientologists are told to redo courses, after being told that the old materials were "altered", and are now rereleased "100% standard tech" or "golden age of tech" or "golden age of knowledge" or whatever the marketing dept came up with that day. For example, even Craig Jensen (a very high level member) had to do the "New OT VIII" course twice [6]). --Tilman 15:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got a new compromise version. How does everyone like ...

Bell was introduced to [[Scientology]]/[[Dianetics]] by her acting teacher [[Milton Katselas]] and has achieved "the state of 
[[Clear (Scientology)|Clear]]".<ref>Interview with Catherine Bell, Celebrity (Magazine of the Scientology Celebrity Centre
Los Angeles), Issue 347 (April 2003)</ref>

Which will read "Bell was introduced to Scientology/Dianetics by her acting teacher Milton Katselas and has achieved "the state of Clear"." We need Tilman or anyone else with the April 2003 Celebrity to confirm that the facts attributed to the source are, in fact, in the source, and I'd like people from a variety of viewpoints to agree on the wording. Please suggest any improvements here! Enuja 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kristi Wachter not a person

Tilman about KW's site: "It is not a personal site." That is interesting. So it is governmental? Educational? Commercial? Kristi Wachter's Scientologist Smearing Service Ltd.? She must spend a lot of time doing that and I always wondered who pays her - a non-Scientologist with a broke record label and no relation to Scientology at all - to do all the smear work. Quite interesting. Tilman, are you planning to come to the US in the next weeks? COFS 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not Kristis home page. It's just a database. I don't see anything about a "broke record label". --Tilman 05:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is Kristi's personal page. She even says it on each page: "Site created by Kristi Wachter, creator of Scientology Lies this site discusses the Church of Scientology but is not affiliated with them in any way. You can find their official site at www.scientology.org" and adds on another page: "I'm Kristi Wachter. I created this site out of a desire to know the truth about Scientology". Tilman, is the sun yellow and the sky blue? Just checking. COFS 06:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The specific guideline: WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Check the definition of personal web pages and see the discussion under Wikipedia talk:External_links#Symmetry and Scope for example, and it's not clear that it matches the intent or definition of personal web site. (That's for ELs. References have stricter rules, and I haven't checked.) AndroidCat 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The sky is grey, and the sun is not shining. --Tilman 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

q.e.d. COFS 04:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments - Use of the "truthaboutscientology" website

Comment - I am setting up this RfC a bit differently to make it more friendly to non-involved editors. Previously involved editors, please respect the way I have divided this up. I am trying to hold the threaded arguments down as they can get quite contentious. It is appropriate to politely ask an editor to clarify their view if you do not understand their statement.

Neutral statement of dispute

A number of editors oppose use of the "truthaboutscientology" website (http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/), abbreviated TAS, as a reliable source in biographies of living persons and other articles while a number of editors support its use. The site is generally used in WP:BLP articles to establish that the subject of the article is a Scientologist and the specific courses done, levels attained, donations made, or other activities in Scientology of the subject of the article. Please note that while the RfC is taking place here, this issue affects 20-30 or more Scientology-series articles (if someone can come up with a better count, please correct this number). This dispute is not about the appropriate use of Scientology publications as sources, it is about use of the TAS website.

What the website owner says

Here is what Kristi Wachter herself says about using these lists to say anything about a specific person (http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/aboutthelists.html).

Can I use these lists to find out if someone I know is a Scientologist?

I don't recommend it; there's a high probability that you'll reach an incorrect conclusion.

• The person you know may have the same name as a person listed here, but may not be the same person. Even very unusual names are sometimes shared by more than one person.
• Many people who are listed here no longer study Scientology or consider themselves Scientologists.
• The lists are extremely incomplete - in particular, there is little data from the individual orgs (Scientology offices in individual cities, like Boston, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco). Also, individuals may be omitted for other reasons - for example, staff member completions appear to be excluded sometimes.
• Scientology staffers are not perfect, and the lists are known to have a number of misspellings and other inaccuracies.
• While the lists are pretty reliable for my purposes (analyzing trends of the number of individuals pursuing Scientology activities), they are far from being 100% accurate.

If you want to know whether someone is a Scientologist, I recommend asking that person directly.

Sounds like she is making a pretty decent case for not using these lists the way our Scientology critics do here. --Justanother 19:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement(s) opposing use

Note: Please do not argue back and forth in threaded discussion. Please respect that this area is only for statements of opposition. Misplaced statements may be moved to the appropriate area.

Below are the reasons that use of the TAS site as a source is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

1. WP:BLP issues - Perhaps the most important consideration is the requirement that WP:BLP articles be built on high quality, reliable, sources.

   "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives."

   As will be shown, TAS is not such a source.
2. The overall nature of the site violates WP:V - The TAS site is the creation of Kristi Wachter. She is a critic of Scientology and also owns the sister website http://www.scientology-lies.com/. Kristi is unusual in that she maintains two sites; one a standard critic site and the other allegedly "Safe for Scientologists" which means only that she will be attacking their Church and their beliefs without revealing confidential materials - not very "safe" at all.

   "I hope you'll consider visiting my other web site, www.truthaboutscientology.com, which is intended more for Scientologists than for non-Scientologists (the intended audience for this site)."

   Kristi's sites are self-published, one-sided, and inherently POV. The violate the very spirit of WP:V, one of our key policies, which states:

   Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

   and again:

   Self-published sources (online and paper)

   Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

   and in the case of WP:BLP, we add never as in "never be used" in respect to "sources" such as Kristi's:

   Self-published sources, such as blogs, should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.

3. The nature of the sources themselves is problematic - While in theory one could use the Scientology mags themselves, it is important to understand that the materials that Kristi claims to be using, things like Impact magazines or old Church magazines, often just have a list of names, not an article. A list of names sometimes pages long like so-and-so are members of the IAS or so-and-so finished a course this week with no other information, just a list of names. It is OR to assume that a simple name in a list of names refers to anyone in an article here. For example, Intelius.com shows 280 Catherine Bell's, just in the US. How can we say that the name "Catherine Bell" in a list of names of course completions refers to the Catherine Bell of this article? We cannot.
4. Use of the TAS site is unnecessary - Notable Scientologists can be sourced in RS as Scientologists. Further, for this purpose Scientology websites are RS and the Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre maintains a website, http://www.scientology.cc/, that identifies Scientology celebrities as well as telling about their activities as Scientologists. No need to use a non-RS "source" like TAS.
5. Proper use of Church publications - Similar to the above, there is a proper use of Church magazines. If you have the magazine in hand, and it clearly refers to the subject of the article, then just cite it like you would any reference; let's leave the one-sided, self-published sites out of the equation, please.

Thank you. --Justanother 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good works. I just agree to everything JA says above there. This website is just no good for anyone. Hasn't changed since 2004 anyway. Who knows what she dreamed up in there? Then, someone running a website called "scientology-lies", well, how much POV-statements you need to predict what that site is like? Not one more. Misou 04:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement(s) supporting use

Note: Please do not argue back and forth in threaded discussion. Please respect that this area is only for statements of support. Misplaced statements may be moved to the appropriate area.

• The source is based on scientology's own publications. Thus, it can be verified, satisfies WP:V and WP:BLP (no scientologist would disagree to use scientology material as a source). The source is better than the "raw" scientology publications because of the ordering done - with a single link, many scientology publications are referenced. Since this is a compilation in a database, it isn't a "self-published" work. I'd even say that the TAS site improves the WP:V-factor instead of just writing "Source 198" without independent verification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tilman (talk • contribs).
• I strongly support both the statements made by User:Tilman, above, and by un-involved editor User:Russeasby, below. Smee 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
• To answer lquilter's concern, it does cite each Scientology publication. By the way, if this debate is supposed to be in any way binding on Scientology-series articles, why is here? AndroidCat 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Without addressing anything in your remarks other than the question; it is here because it has to be somewhere and the somewhere should be a WP:BLP article that used it. This one happens to be where most of the recent action on this issue was so it is a good place to hold the discussion. --Justanother 01:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Then you might have posted something in the series that this RFC was happening. I certainly don't watch all Scientology celebrity articles. AndroidCat 01:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I did - I put in the TODO for everyone to see because you can mirror TODO on your userpage but Smee made a big stink about it and removed my highlighting it as HOT and then she moved it to the bottom of the list and after she had edit warred with me over it I could not do anything more without violating 3RR so I left it as is. Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology. It is there at the bottom of TODO. See the TODO history for my highlighted version [7]. I know I am out-numbered but I am not trying to sandbag you guys. --Justanother 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments by non-involved editors

Note: This means editors other than those that normally edit in the Scientology-series articles and other than ALL those editors that have edit warred over this topic on numerous Scientology series articles. Please do not argue back and forth in threaded discussion. Please respect that this area is only for comments by non-involved editors. Misplaced statements may be moved to the appropriate area.

Comment in support of use: I clicked on the reference link to the site this discussion is about, and I cannot see how it could be considered unreliable, it directly references the actual church publications it obtained its information from. It is actually very useful in that it has compiled this information in a clear and organized way and makes for a very good reference to cite Catherine Bells involvement and status in scientology.

Now yes, obviously the site is biased, the churchs official site is just as biased in the opposite direction. So I cant see how any argument of using one over the other could be valid. Strong and well know critisism exists for scientology, as well as for those being members of it. If Catherine Bell was a member of a less critisized religion then I doubt there would be a lot of interest in an entire section in here wikipedia article relating to her religion, its the fact that she is a member of a controversial religion that warrents such a section, and thus using both pro and anti scientology references I think are useful and valid here. If someone can come up with a purely unbaised website to use as a reference, then that would be nice in a perfect world, but I highly doubt an unbiased website or publication on scientology exists. Russeasby 15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No longer support use: In light of User:Justanothers pointing out the statements made on [8], I cant support the use of this site for references. Russeasby 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from RFC editor, not previously involved in Scientology-related wikipedia articles: If this publication / website is being used primarily to identify individuals' relationships with Scientology, then it needs to be very well-sourced and reliable, indeed. As an encyclopedia project, we want people reading the articles to be able to follow the trail, and if someone is simply aggregating data but not maintaining the data trail, then we run the risk of (a) including false information; and (b) making it very difficult for people to follow-up truthful (or false) information. So, (A) if the site itself cites to the Scientology publications that it uses, then it should be used to find citations to the original Scientology publications. Wikipedia articles can then reference the original Scientology publications for those specific facts. The website can be listed in "further reading" as a general reference, with an appropriate description. (B) But if the site does not cite to individual Scientology publications for each fact it cites about a person, then it's not well-sourced enough to be verifiable by an ordinary individual. --lquilter 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  It seems that this site does not consider itself reliable? In that case, I think that individual editors could use this site as a starting point to suggest that person A might be affiliated with Scientology; but they would have to find reliable and verifiable sources to cite to actually include that information in the biographical articles for that person, and this website shouldn't be that citation. --lquilter 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  Unsolicited commentary on the other sources: The same would go for the Scientology website, if it too is not generally considered reliable about membership. Dis-inclusion or inclusion should only count if there's a reliable third-party cite. ... In general, because of WP:BLP issues, the best cites would be the ones where the person confirms their own membership. Any other cites should be handled very carefully and used only if exceedingly well-documented -- like in peer-reviewed research journals. --lquilter 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor recruited from RfC page

1. Disclaimers: I am not a Scientologist. I have not advocated anti-Scientology opinions. I do not have a stake in this editing disagreement. I have attempted informal mediation several times in a variety of subjects or have participated in RfC's. I am familiar with the name "Catherine Bell" and have watch her works on TV and film.

2. While the focus of the discussion is the reliability of the website, I see the primary focus of this article should be on Catherine Bell, not the said website.

3. It is difficult for me to make a determination of the accuracy of the website without knowing more of the background of the website's author, the source of the author's information, and the accuracy of the information (possibly determined by doing a scientific sampling of certain people on that list). I am sorry that I am unable to make such a determination for the purposes of this RfC.

4. It seems to be that there is little dispute of Catherine Bell's interest in Scientology. Please note this link ( http://www.catherinebellonline.com/main.html ) which is Catherine Bell's own website under links. She lists a Scientology link under "interests". She is also shown in a photo here doing a performance at a Scientology centre ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/scientology ) and is reported to have mentioned her Scientology ties in a radio interview which is reported here ( tp://www.hollywood.com/feature/Interview_JAGs_Catherine_Bell/1111826 ).

5. As a result, I have good reason to believe that Catherine Bell is a Scientologist.

VK35 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, VK35. Thank you for your input. There is no question that she is a Scientologist and that fact and her involvement in various Scientology social activities can be adequately sourced. This question is on the use of the TAS site to establish what courses she may have done in Scientology. Is there enough information here for you to make a call on that? I made my arguments above and I also included the website owner's caveats. Thanks. --Justanother 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See my point #3. There's no way to tell. Sometimes, people tend to discount website run by individuals and give more faith in institutions or government. The best way to assess the website is to ask the questions in #3. However, it's not easy for someone to do. Sorry! Maybe one has to assess each article to determine if the subject of the article is a Scientologist, perhaps using that website as a guide, but not as a definitive guide.VK35 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Other discussion

Note: This area can be for any other disussion. Editors may move threads here if they care to so as to keep threaded arguments out of the above areas.

There hasn't been very much action on this RFC, and the two non-involved editors do not support the use of www.truthaboutscientology.com. Can everyone agree that TAS is a good place to figure out which scientology publication you need, but not a good website to source for the fact that a particular person is a scientologist? Now that this article actually uses a scientology source (which is an interview with Catherine Bell) for the fact that Catherine Bell is a scientologist, is everyone comfortable with the sourcing? If so, I'll go back to actually editing the article (there are some errors resulting from the edit war, but I don't want to touch them until I'm sure the edit war is over.)

Also, thank you so much, Tilman, for finding the interview with Bell in a Celebrity. Enuja 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Kristi's warnings about using these mags to speak to a specific person are the same problems that I mention. You cannot use a simple list of names, even in the original mag, to say anything about a specific person - they are often just lists of names. You can, of course, use an article in a mag that further identifies the person. --Justanother 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help me count: Justanother did a mass removal, with the summary "Three neutral editors say no at RfC". Who are these? --Tilman 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure:

1. No longer support use Russeasby 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
2. this website shouldn't be that citation lquilter 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC
3. not a good website to source for the fact that a particular person is a scientologist Enuja 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Any future time you need help counting, you just give me a ring. I am at your service. --Justanother 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Justanother, I don't count. I was simply trying to describe the apparent (weak) consensus. Believe it or not, I don't have an opinion. If I were to express an opinion, it would be a very nuanced, complicated one, about the situations in which TAS would be a good and would be a poor source. Enuja 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not say you were "uninvolved", I said you were "neutral". Don't you say this "Can everyone agree that TAS is a good place to figure out which scientology publication you need, but not a good website to source for the fact that a particular person is a scientologist?" I inferred from that that you were one of the everyone; was I wrong in that inference? --Justanother 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have said "Can everyone agree that we should treat TAS as a good place to figure out which scientology publication you need.." Enuja 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But I agree with you in either instance. I feel that we, as editors, can use any leads we find in our search for reliable sources. So if a dubious website has a clue to finding a real source, then great. All I say is then go find the real source, read it yourself, and reference that, not the dubious site. This is not the first time this has come up. --Justanother 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it just comes up because you and COFS don't want this source to be used, despite that it's just a database source with no opinion. Hey, you can even use it yourself to look what levels your friends or your favourite celebrities have reached. --Tilman 19:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

<< Well, maybe I can use it (even though Kristi recommends against that) but this project certainly cannot. And I mean this is not the first time the issue of non-RS sites archiving possibly RS materials has come up. Find the real RS and use that! --Justanother 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help me count again (last time, it seemed that 3 was actually just 2). Before I put some energy in a mass reversion, what is your reason this time for removing the link? --Tilman 08:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is simple. You are ignoring the words of the neutral editors and continuing to hold to your POV that that biased, non-reliable site has any place here. No-one but critics of Scientology think that site belongs here. The best comments you have in the RfC are (paraphrased) one "I don't know but I guess it could be a guide if not a source" and one "I'd rather not say but can we all agree it is not a good source" against two "no, don't use it". Stop recasting that, in any way, this RfC supports you Tilman, it does not. I agree that there is not a ton of input here but what input there is speaks against inclusion. So please stop including. --Justanother 18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I have to say what I think, as Justanother continues to quote me despite my valiant attempt to keep from giving an opinion. I think that TAS is not a reliable source for identifying someone as a Scientologist because the names are complied from lists of names in Scientology publications. However, once someone has self-identified as a Scientologist, I think that TAS is a useful source to fill in the scope and and trajectory of that person's achievements as a Scientologist. However, I am aware that some editors feel that TAS is a "hate" source, and I'm a big fan of compromise, so I'm willing to let the people who don't like TAS find less biased sources.* Yes, I do think that Kristi Watcher is biased against Scientology, but I do not think that the database archived at TAS is, itself, biased against scientologists. After this RFC, I would personally only remove TAS as a source if it is the sole source "outing" someone as a Scientologist. However, since I personally disapprove of edit wars and couldn't care less how much information Wikipedia has on Catherine Bell's status as a Scientologist, I'm also not going to add back in sources that any editors think are biased. I will, personally only remove TAS as a source if it's the only source for someone's Scientology status, and I will not add it in as a source because I don't care about Scientology, one way or the other. *Which, I might add, hasn't happened in this particular conflict. Only Tilman, who appears to think that TAS is an important source, added any sources in this conflict. Enuja 20:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I undermined your decision to withhold your opinion but I am trying to resolve a dispute. The dispute is over whether the TAS has any place in a WP:BLP article and, if so, what place. The opinions of Scientologists and anti-Scientologists are foregone conclusions and, as there are only a handful of either, neither would represent any (mythical) "consensus". In my quest to capture the essence of that fabled beast I must make do with such sightings of it as I have. Your "non-opinion" is one such. Based on such input as I have I will soon write what I consider a closing statement for the RfC. Hopefully it will suffice as a resolution. Your help is welcome and appreciated. --Justanother 23:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to give a little additional input and perspective from my point of view. I commented as uninvolved and stick by my comments. But first I do want to add a statement of bias, I am actually very biased against scientology on the personal front. I have no desire to edit or get involved in scientology related articles (I have been around the net long enough and used to be a regular reader of the USENET scientology group), I dont have the patience to deal with such fiery topics on WP. But that said, even though I am pretty anti scientology, I agree very much on not using the TAS website. The author of the site themselves spells out very clearly that it is not a reliable source, I cant see how anyone can suggest it could be reliable in the face of that. Now it certainly can be useful for tracking down reliable sources and a great site to perhaps use for research, but not one to cite directly as a reference due to the authors own addmissions. What I see here in this article (and obviously many others) is a pro scientology and anti scientology group warring over content based on what may seem more favorable or less favorable to scientology, not so much about Catherine Bell (as an example) and wether she is a scientologist or not, or here status in scientology, but more about using references that when clicked on lead readers to anti or pro propiganda. There is clear bias on both sides of the conflict, but thats the nature of anything scientology really, it cannot be avoided. But I get beyond my point here. Bottom line, if the sites owner/author themselves suggests it is not a reliable reference, then how can it be used as one? Russeasby 00:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you for coming back and making that clear. --Justanother 05:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

TAS site creator's statements supporting use

As creator of truthaboutscientology.com (TAS) and scientology-lies.com (SL), I would like to respond to this RfC. I am including SL because some SL pages about celebrities contain more information than the TAS pages, such as how a celebrity became involved in Scientology.

(I hope I'm using the correct form in commenting/responding. If not, I apologize, and hope someone will move my comments to the correct spot.)

TAS is a Reliable Intermediate Source, and the Original Sources are Reliable for this Purpose

Most important to this discussion is the fact that TAS has been used as an intermediate source. The actual sources are Scientology publications, which may not be 100% reliable in all matters, but to my knowledge have rarely if ever described a celebrity as participating in Scientology if that person had not.

I have not seen any suggestion that, when a Scientology publication describes a known celebrity participating in a Scientology activity, the Scientology publication - the source - is unreliable. Is anyone in this RfC claiming that?

Citing Intermediate Sources Complies with Wikipedia Guidelines WP:CITE

Say where you got it - It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

I have not seen any suggestion that when TAS (or, for that matter, Scientology Lies) cites a Scientology publication, TAS (or SL) has misrepresented the citation. Is anyone in this RfC claiming that?

Neither Primary Sources nor Intermediate Sources are Required to Have no POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point-of-view

acknowledges that "All editors and all sources have biases." Limiting citations to sources with no POV would probably eliminate most Wikipedia citations. As I understand the guideline, the important thing is that the source's POV must not result in alteration or misrepresentation of facts.

I have not seen any suggestion that when TAS (or, for that matter, Scientology Lies) presents a fact (such as that Catherine Bell appears in the L12 completion list in Source 137), TAS (or SL) has misrepresented the facts. Is anyone in this RfC claiming that?

I (the TAS Site Creator) Consider it a Reliable Source

(relevant because suggestions that I do not have been cited as reasons not to use TAS)

Justanother quoted my About the Lists page ("Can I use these lists to find out if someone I know is a Scientologist? I don't recommend it" - I've added emphasis here); subsequently, Iquilter suggested that I do not consider the site reliable. As the author of that page, I can clarify my intentions. The phrasing - "someone I know" - is intentional and important. I am aware that people often look up new co-workers and other acquaintances on the Internet, and I didn't want such casual inquiries to cause people to jump to conclusions without reminding them of the potential for error. When it comes to celebrities and other Scientologists of public interest (such as David Gaiman and Reed Slatkin), the lists are considered (by me, and by other researchers, including scholars and journalists) reliable (if incomplete) sources of information about the timespan and level of their involvement.

For the purpose of establishing that an individual is or has been a Scientologist, the person's own site or the Scientology celebrity site may be the best available source, if either of them confirms that person's involvement. For additional information, however, I submit that the TAS site (or, in some cases, the Scientology Lies site) often offers details not available elsewhere (for example, Catherine Bell has begun the OT levels, having gone beyond the level of Clear mentioned in the Wikipedia article), and I believe them to be reliable sources in those cases.

I also believe there may be instances when the best source to establish a connection is TAS, and I believe it can be a reliable source in those cases, too. Journalists have used TAS to research connections between individuals and Scientology. Imagine a newspaper article that had used TAS in establishing a link between an individual and Scientology, and a Wikipedia article citing that article as a source. It seems unfortunate to prohibit Wikipedia editors from using TAS themselves.

Finally, when a consensus is reached, I'd like to see a clear statement of what that consensus is. For the reasons stated above, I'd like to see a consensus affirming that TAS (and SL) are appropriate sources to cite as intermediate sources. If there's a consensus discouraging use of these sites, it would be helpful to know whether (a) use is discouraged for establishing a link between an individual and Scientology, but acceptable to elaborate on that involvement once it's confirmed in some other source; (b) use is discouraged in all cases; or (c) there's some other guideline describing when it is and when it is not an appropriate source to cite.

Thank you.

Kristi Wachter 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kristi. Thank you for your comments. Your placement is fine. Kristi, first please realize that nothing I say is a reflection on you personally. I do not know you personally, nor you, me. Kristi, your site is not appropriate for an intermediate source. Your sites are highly POV self-published sites that do not meet the requirements of this project. You might feel that you do adequate "error-checking" and so might your friends but that is probably as far as it goes. If you have evidence to the contrary please submit it for consideration. That said, there is another problem that you yourself speak to: errors and ambiguities in the source materials. Let's take Catherine Bell. If a Scientology publication publishes a simple list of completions for the month and one "Catherine Bell" completed OT III, how do we know that that "Catherine Bell" is the same as the subject of this article. For either one of those reasons the site should not be used as our "anti-Scientologists" would use it here. What we can use it for is as an aid to the editors to find which source materials might contain non-ambiguous data about a particular person. The completion lists are useless for us, though. --Justanother 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar problem

Bell has been affiliated with Scientology/Dianetics since 1990[3], and has achieved what they call "the state of Clear".

"They" is not defined. Steve Dufour 12:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve! Please help re-write the sentence in question above (at the end of Talk:Catherine_Bell#Scientology_Status_of_Catherine_Bell). Enuja 18:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I already rewrote it in NPOV and correct fashion. --Justanother 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

previous surgery

There's a reference to the message board on Catherine Bell's website in the past. I saw it several years ago. She mentions a 3rd surgery that she's had besides thyroid and Lasik, that's breast enlargement. She also did not say LASIK. It is possible that she had PRK (probably not RK or LASEK due to the time period she had it done). Want to correct it anyone?VK35 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotes section

Quotes

• "This huge life-changing moment of going from zero to ninety in two seconds!" (Catherine on her reaction to getting a lead role on JAG)

• "It was strange, because I was showing my butt all day and all these guys (on the set) were hitting on me. It was like, 'You're showing your butt on camera, why don't you show me?' and they were so sleazy and gross..." (On being a "body double" for Isabella Rossellini in Death Becomes Her)

• "Almost every Marine I've met says I portray a Marine dead-on, which is really, really flattering."

• "Women in the military thank me for portraying a character who's feminine and attractive and sexual and yet still strong and intelligent and in the military. I think people have this perception that to be strong and a military woman you have to look a certain way or not be feminine."

• "People were showing you how to throw up. You’re taking diet pills. Everyone’s partying, so you start drinking a lot, and drugs. A couple of years messed me up for a while”. (On her modeling career - before embarking on acting.)

• "I don't mind nudity when it's done tasteful and not just gratuitous T and A. They showed my butt! It was fine, though. I think the female body is beautiful." [9]

• "My husband and I were sitting at our dining room table looking at a stack of bills trying to work out a way we could pay them. We'd already borrowed money and I was thinking we'd have to borrow more. I'd been working two jobs and my husband had taken on another while I did acting classes. I got the call and my agent said, 'You're not supposed to know this yet, but you've got the part...' I started crying and we went out and brought the cheapest bottle of champagne we could find." [10]

• "I love beer. There's nothing like having an ice-cold beer. Wine is good, too. My wild partying days of college are behind me, I think. Now if I get wild I seem to remember everything in the morning. It can be scary. For sure." [11]

This section should be transwikiied to Wikiquote. Smee 10:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Messy

This person's page is a mess. There is duplicating (regarding Army Wives), non-sourced information, and misplaced information, as well as gramatical errors. I recommend a cleanup. Anyone else agree? BTW, this discussion page is also a mess, with a lot of useless bantering and children yelling back and forth, I would also recommend an archive of all completed tasks on the discussion page(to cut down on length). Any takers? Odie1344

Feel free to fix any and all problems you find. Enuja 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Catherine Bell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*16 citations, 2 images, could use expansion, more citations. Smee 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)