Talk:Cassie Bernall

should I move the article?

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)

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)

I've had one of the girls who was in the library with Cassie come and talk at my school. She confirmed the alleged "rumor." My personal question is why she would lie about it? I find some of these sources to be slightly shaky, and personally think that eyewitness accounts are better than anything some opinionated website might have to say. While it was stated that there were eyewitnesses that denied the rumor, there were others that verify it. What I think is that, as above stated, there should be a controversy section for the sake of neutrality, seeing as what really happened is not properly documented and has conflicting eyewitness accounts. --Alevins (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? How about because that's how she gets paid to come and speak at schools? There's a whole Cassie Bernall, Girl Martyr business going on among evangelicals who want to believe the pretty story. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alevins.. Its religion. People like to lie. Besides, the story has been debunked as false for years now. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only thing she got paid for was the flight over. My question to you is, why would she take time out of her schedule to come speak at some dumb tween school if she truly didn't believe what she was saying? The whole idea doesn't make sense. You sound to me like somebody who just flat out doesn't want to believe the story, so goes around editing wikipedia articles to fit your viewpoints. The facts are: there are varying eyewitness accounts, that the sources used to purport that she didn't say yes are nothing more than gossipy web sites that will say anything for a story (like ALL modern media), and that you in person have never had an eyewitness speak to you about the incident. Why you continue to bash people with your quick to judge slow to research ideas and opinions is still unknown to me. The FACTS are that nobody can be certain what EXACTLY she did say. Therefore: you have no more right to believe you're right than I do. This article must be neutral in order for it to adequately achieve the standards set forth by writing articles by the facts. --Alevins (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that we only use reliable sources. We don't insert any information from blogs, commercial sites, etc. Do you have any such sources to add which contradict the reports from various official sources? It's a lovely story; but without some solid backing, it remains only a legend. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, people, we really don't care if you're a born-again hamster, christian, whatever. The fact remains the conversation between the shooter and Bernall never occured, its been debunked for years now, and you're an idiot if you still believe it did. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction, oh cowardly anon IP - you have your opinion as does the authors of books, articles, etc., many disagree with their conclusions. As far as being an idiot, well, the toad knows where he croaks.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no; there are no reliable sources who take the martyrdom story seriously. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI—I updated the statement about Bernall to include ‘likely’ never had the exchange… I agree that neutrality is the goal here, and the source article cited from salon.com does not support a direct negative. Within that article it clearly states “But while no one would go on the record, key investigators made it clear that an alternate scenario is far more likely”… “far more likely” is not absolute. It does not match a blanket negative statement that the exchange did not happen. If people wish to change the statement to simply “never had the exchange”, then it must have a valid source which supports that statement. I am PERFECTLY content with it being changed to a blanket negative if a valid article supporting a blanket negative is cited… but debate aside, if we really do seek neutrality, we need to cite the sources for EXACTLY what they say and let people draw their own conclusions. The nature of neutrality is to report, not filter based on what we believe we know.Samuraifan121 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate whoever keeps deleting my insertion of the word "likely" to post a rationale, OR I would request the user find a different source as mentioned in the argument in my immediately prior post. Samuraifan121 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I read in your log that you have another source but the old source was still cited and no new source was added. It may be that another user undid it, but that doesn't show up on my history page. If you want to change the page due to a valid source, as I said, please do BUT please include the new source and remove the citation from the source that does not support the statement. Thanks!Samuraifan121 (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has grown up in missions where people sacrifice their finances and time and even their lives for Christ I want to object to the comment that religion likes to lie and people will do anything for money. Are there dishonest Christians (tele-evangalists) that don't care for not but money.... yes. But do not discount the thousands of Christians that will sacrifice their times and lives to talk to others. Don't sterotype... that is the definition of OR. Saksjn (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

btw... if 208.65.188.23 wants to continue bashing Christians and flat out denying the story without giving any reasons then maybe he or she should get an account and not hide behind an IP address.

What is really sad is that the militant anti-Cassie or anti-Christian remarks that seem to seethe with contempt are so analogous to Eric Harris's rantings; man, he hated those Christian idiots and sheep. Natural Selection was going to take care of all that, right?

I think the weight of evidence points to the Bernall story being false, but it shouldn't be so hard to understand how it arose or why even some kids that were in the library still believe it. Human memory and recall is very selective and prone to error; and very susceptible to suggestion. These kids were in Hell, with crazed gunmen shooting and killing, the fire alarm blaring, people screaming and crying. Is it really so hard to see how a barely audible exchange between Harris and Schnurr was conflated with other exchanges, and then mixed and confused later after the Bernall story came out?

And if the Bernall story is wrong; so what? Why are so many secularists so threatened by this, what does it matter? This poor girl was violently slain in a horrific attack. Her parents and others in her community obviously take tremendous comfort from believing it. Historical accuracy notwithstanding-- the anger so many seem to express toward this story, the Bernalls, those damned "Christianists," etc., is bizarre and, to me--not a particularly religious person myself--very disturbing.

214.13.130.104 (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Vainamoinen

For many Christians, one of the most important foundations of our faith is that it is based on events which actually happened, not on pretty stories and mythmaking. Thus, the persistence of certain parties in defending the "She said 'Yes'" story on the grounds that "okay, so it didn't actually happen: but it's a nice story!" is incredibly offensive, in that it's using a pretty lie to spread the Gospel, the most important truth there is. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that, if someone can add some sources, the over-sized debunking paragraph should stay. Until then, however, someone needs to cut it down. Mwakin21 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of Source (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/23/columbine/index1.html)

I read the article. All I got was that the investigation said it will never be clear what was said and why it was said, or who it was said to, or why people were targeted. Does anyone disagree? Saksjn (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the official report, and many other sources all Eric said to Cassie was peekaboo. Not even one reliable source supports the martyr angle, at least not that I'm aware of, they all say it's nothing but a myth. Landon1980 (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, weasel words such as "likely" should be avoided. According to all of our reliable sources the exchange is a myth, not likely. It is a pretty story, but only a myth. Landon1980 (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon--if a reliable source exists that states it did NOT happen, then please get rid of the salon source and put it in. With respect, you keep bringing up reliable sources or 'the official investigation' but the only source quoted in support of the directly negative statement is a salon.com source that clearly does not support the statement. Sources and evidence operate in cold hard facts, and you have failed to provide any. Please post your 'reliable source' and end this debate or cease editing this article. Until then, with the source in place, likely must be added to the statement because that is EXACTLY what the source says. It is not my word, it is the word in the source material. If you don't want a 'weasel' word like likely then find a non-weasel source that uses absolutes and get it in there.Samuraifan121 (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I am detecting a strong bias in your edits that seek to prove the incident did NOT happen when your sources clearly do not support your edits. As stated before, and I do mean this with respect, I do not care if it is stated that Bernall did not have the exchange if you or anyone else can come up with a 'reliable source' that SUPPORTS it! You keep challenging people to provide 'relaible sources' that it did, but the fact is that there are none yet produced that definitively state it did not--and there is a good reason. It's because the truth, irrelevant of your side or the other, is that no one can say with certainty what happened except individuals who are dead. Neither side will find a source supporting their stance because there isn't one. As such, the article should be left open-ended because the unbiased truth is that the question can never be definitively resolved and readers seeking no bias should know that. Again, I am fine stating that the event likely did not happen because that's what the sources say, but they do NOT say it didn't, and unless you actually produce a source to that effect, I respectfully suggest you cease editing this page to that effect.Samuraifan121 (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp the idea of verifiability, Sam. It's hard to prove a negative; but the reliable sources are unanimous in saying it didn't happen: that the reported exchange never took place. Those who were in earshot made sworn statements to the effect that the only exchange was the "Peekaboo!" --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The official conclusion of what happened to Cassie is Harris walked over to row 19, slapped the top of the table twice, knelt down and said peekaboo, then shot her with a shotgun in the head/face area, and that the impact broke the shooter's nose. That is what it says in the official report anyways. Landon1980 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is one of many that supports a direct negative. If you will take two minutes to conduct some research you will find many more. Landon1980 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I also suggest you read WP:EW and WP:3RR. You have been edit warring over this for quite some time now. You are a single purpose account with an agenda to spin the facts regarding this article. You also removed the bit about the FBI concluding it did not happen, which was cited by a reliable source that said just that. Continued edit warring against consensus will result in a block from editing wikipedia. If your sole purpose on wikipedia is to disrupt this article you are not welcome here. Have a look at WP:VERIFIABILITY as well. Landon1980 (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources stating it didn't happen. the salon one only states that it will never be clear. stop twisting the facts! Saksjn (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you saying there are no reliable sources makes it so. So now sources like USA Today, various official websites, etc. are considered unreliable? I suggest you take the time to read the discussion along with the source I provided. Landon1980 (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The USA Today article has no mention of Cassie or the incident at all. A couple of comments on the article mention it, but not the article itself. DOES mention the incident and DOES prove the negative. (should have read the entire text instead of searching for her name). Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Now why on earth would I lie about that being in the article knowing good and well anyone could simply look and see it wasn't there? I know that you struck that part; I'm just surprised you made it to start with. Landon1980 (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you lied. I thought you linked the wrong article. My apologies. Wikiwikikid (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for jumping to conclusions. Landon1980 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Orange—I am fairly new to wikipedia editing. The fact is that I’ve always traced the links back to their sources for research, using wikipedia as a link to actual, verifiable data. I’ve never considered wikipedia articles to be authoritative in their own right. As such, when I caught this article and found links that did not support the data, I decided I’d try my hand at the editing thing. When I did, I skim-read the requirements and caught the neutrality bit, which I supported, and several other key things but didn’t catch all of the verifiability. I did follow your link and read up on it—I appreciate your point. When it comes to the verifiability of the data, there are two links, now, which are traceable regarding the fact that the exchange did not happen. The salon.com article seems to be the best on the subject, unless there’s some other source people aren’t mentioning, it’s the one that details what likely happened with the peekaboo incident and such, and it clearly states the event is unclear. To quote the largest chunk of the article dealing with the subject: "Many of the kids were actually hiding under desks and hearing only bits and fragments of the conversation," one investigator explained. "It appears that exactly who they taunted, what questions were asked and who replied what may never be crystal clear." And even if it is clear, investigators clearly don't intend to tell. They cited the tense political climate around the story in this heavily evangelical community, as well as the potential embarrassment to Cassie's family, uniformly describing the Bernalls as sincere victims who may have been misinformed "through no malicious intent." “But while no one would go on the record, key investigators made it clear that an alternate scenario is far more likely: The killers asked another girl, Valeen Schnurr, a similar question, then shot her, and she lived to tell about it. Schnurr's story was then apparently misattributed to Cassie.” There’s no room for interpretation—at its strongest the article states that an alternate scenario is far more likely. It never claims an absolute. As such, this verifiable source fails to back up the quotation it is used with. My original edit was to change the page to reflect this source. As such, and this is key, this original reliable source supports my editing. The article admits, as my edits have, that “an alternate scenario is far more likely: The killers asked another girl, Valeen Schnurr, a similar question, then shot her, and she lived to tell about it. Schnurr's story was then apparently misattributed to Cassie.” An edit that fairly admits this is necessary and supported by this verifiable source. An edit that steps beyond to state it didn’t happen jumps beyond using this article for what it says and into ‘original research.’ So far, this source at salon.com supports my stance throughout the entirety of its article, and it is verifiable source. Orange, is this not how you would use a verifiable source by wikipedia policy? Samuraifan121 (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon—I do not appreciate your lack of professionalism or the continued attacks on my person or motives without having any knowledge of my person or motives. “You are a single purpose account with an agenda to spin the facts regarding this article.” “If your sole purpose on wikipedia is to disrupt this article you are not welcome here.” If you legitimately seek to represent this article fairly, then you and I have the same purpose and such attacks are attacking your own ‘side’. I make two requests—first, examine your motives and see if you truly wish to represent this article fairly, and second, please leave personal attacks at home so we can get to the business of getting a fair edit up that supports ALL the facts at hand. Above I posted a rationale to Orange that includes the fact that the salon.com article clearly supports the edits I have been seeking to implement. Please respond based on the article. Additionally, you keep referencing many many sources but have only used the salon.com article and the usatoday article. If there ARE more sources, please post them so we may peer-review them. If they are fairly quoted and clearly support and absolute negative, then this will build your case and result in me changing my opinion as I only have your salon.com article supporting me at present. I am willing to change my opinion based on evidence, so please provide it. Samuraifan121 (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that I have left the article as is to avoid being accused of an edit war, but I do not believe the article is fairly representative of the source material as the article presently stands. As such, if this is not resolved relatively soon, I will need to request comment from other users.Samuraifan121 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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...

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)

They found the letters on December 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.11 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cassie Bernall → Cassie Bernall controversy —(Discuss)— more acurately reflects this articles notability status. See discussion —EuPhyte 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm neutral on the move, but it will require a new lead if implemented. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support it for all the reasons given. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - the whole controversy is about Cassie, who she is said to have been and what she is said to have done. I think it's fine where it is. --Orange Mike 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Im surprised to hear you say that, given your above acknowledgement of the notabilty of the controversy while Cassie herself lacks notability. That is to say no more notable than the other young victims. EuPhyte 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just think that, if we have an article about her, then we should have an article about all the others, this could be avoided by making it just about her controversy. Didn't the Rachel Scott article get deleted because of this? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, that is a concern. In fact it was that idea that started the move. My personal concern is that the article is already about the controversy, and should be labeled as such. What I mean is, the only sentence dealing solely with Cassie is the first:"Cassie Bernall (November 6, 1981 – April 20, 1999) was a student killed in the Columbine High School massacre." As you stated, if this fact alone constitutes notability, each student killed in the massacre would require their own page. I think the consensus is that the creation of individual articles is excessive. EuPhyte 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree per EuPhyte and SmthManly comments. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 14:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree This entry needs to be renamed in order to denote the reason why Bernall has been given individual entry status over the other victims. Labyrinth13 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• As in, "Cassie Bernall: She (Allegedly) Said Yes"? :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, again my brain could be failing me. I am missing the question you are trying to ask, and/or the point you are trying to make. Perhaps im over-thinking your statement. EuPhyte 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a facetious remark, not worth thinking about. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see causes for moving. This article is about Bernall and her death. Ad EuPhyte: About this victim is here book, that was translated in number of languages (for example czech). From this PoV is here serious diference from others victims of this massacre. Sorry for my horrible english. Cinik 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is disputing that this article is about her death, but rather, the issue concerns whether the title reflects a singling out of her death out over that of the other victims, and because of that, needs to be changed in order to make that distinction. Labyrinth13 20:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott get singled out because they were photogenic Christian kids whose parents we're able to secure publishing deals. Neither article has much biographical information, each is concerned with documenting the specific portions of the Columbine massacre and the public debate that followed. Right now the Cassie Bernall article could be characterized as an article on her mother's book. While the proposed addition of "controversy" to the title seems fair, I can't help worry that it might come off as argumentative, or even as an embellishment. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(@Labyrinth13) Sorry, but this PoV is unaccetable for me and (IMHO) for wikipedia also. In reality is Bernall more known from other victim of this massacre. Yes, You can think, that this is no good or valid honor. But wikipedia is here for description of reality, not for correction of reality. And move Cassie Bernall → Cassie Bernall controversy is very stupid and ridiculous way for correction of reality, frankly speaking. Present name is good name - for this article. It is describing current article accurate, I think. Cinik 21:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what are you trying to say? Labyrinth13 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, my english is horrible, I know. But I can not better. :o( Cinik 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well your english sure beats my Czech, so don't feel bad. The problem with the current title is that it inaccurately reflects the scope of this article, which does not meet the standards of what one would normally consider to be a biographical entry. I would encourge you to read through the article again, asking yourself what is covered by the text (again, what is the scope?). We are drawing some lines here, i realize that they are fine lines. EuPhyte 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think current name is accurate. More accurate from new alternative. Tell me, do you plan move King Arthur to King Arthur controversy? Cinik 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For a better idea of the aim of the move, see the above sections "Merge All Non-Notable Victims..." and "Do Not Delete This Article", that should help you a bit. EuPhyte 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for your input on this, i wish more people would chime in with their two cents.:) EuPhyte 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But she is notable, as symbol and subject of book about her - it was translated in a number of languages... She is the same case as Arthur. All cardinal is unknown - and opinions, statements and controversies create overwhelming majority of articles. So again: do you plan move King Arthur to King Arthur controversy? :o) Cinik 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think using the King Arthur entry is at all analogous to this situation. We are not talking about a single controversial individual here, but rather, about a situation where one victim among multiple victims is being singled out without giving a clear reason why in the entry title. Labyrinth13 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I thought I would move past that question, as it is silly, non-applicable, and essentially a reduction to the absurd. Also, at this point, I think I have said all I can without repeating myself. My concern is simple enough, if you don't see it, you don't see it. Again, thanks for your opinion. EuPhyte 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree (change of position) - I am convinced by the arguments advanced by advocates of the move. Cassie (God bless her) was just a kid, no more notable than most of us at that age. It is the controversy and the shilling which are notable. --Orange Mike 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

An article about her controversy could still have a bit about her, there's nothing preventing anyone from adding a bit of back story to the basic subject of the article, but when people look for Cassie Bernall, especially on a place like WP, I'm sure they want to read about the controversy, not the person, so really, we wouldn't be changing much in the article by changing the title, all that would be done is that the subject would be shifted from Cassie to the controversy that makes Cassie notable, we wouldn't be banning any mention of her as a person. The more I think about it, the better and better the move sounds. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree the name change more accurately reflects the article's true purpose. Labyrinth13 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cinik. This article is a biography about a person and should be titled at the person's name. The "controversy" is merely an element within the biography. It would be absurd to elevate one element of a person's biography into the title. It would be like moving the article of a president, like Franklin Pierce to Franklin Pierce presidency and letting the element of his presidency consume the whole article. Or how about moving Timothy McVeigh to Timothy McVeigh bombing? It just doesn't make sense. 205.157.110.11 05:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose for the same reason. The subject of the article is notable, period. Perhaps the article should be edited to contain more biographical information, but this would not be difficult. Komponisto 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • But the young lady wasn't notable. Her death, we remember; but not really Cassie herself. Sed fakte, la fraŭlino tute ne estis notinda! Ŝian morton, ni memoras; sed vere, ne Kasin mem! --Orange Mike 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It's true she wasn't notable before she died, but she is now--even if only because of the circumstances of her death. A single event can make a person notable. In this case we have three: the controversy, the book, and the evangelical youth movement inspired by the "yes" story. Estas vere, ke ŝi ne estis notinda antaŭ ol ŝi mortis, sed ŝi ja estas notinda nun. Unu sola okazo povas notindigi personon. En tiu ĉi kazo ni havas tri: la polemikon, la libron, kaj la evangelian junulmovadon kiun inspiris la "jes"-historio. Komponisto 00:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support per EuPhyte. The topic of this article is the controversy and nothing else, whereas the topic of Franklin Pierce is Franklin Pierce - where he was from, what he did, his political views. I note the titles of Azaria Chamberlain disappearance, Lindbergh kidnapping, and (dun-dun-dun) Essjay controversy. Dekimasuよ! 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Would your opinion change if the article included more biographical information? Komponisto 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Also, let me point out that what you and others have said is not true. Only the final paragraph deals specifically with the controversy, so it is incorrect to say the article is "only" about the controversy. It and the first three constitute entirely appropriate material for a (minor) biographical article: the first identifies the person, the second establishes notability, the third discusses the book (more biography would probably go here), and the fourth discusses the controversy. I frankly don't see anything wrong with the current version. If you prefer more biographical information than this in a biographical article, that's fine with me (I can even help with that), but there's no need to rewrite and rename a perfectly good existing article. Komponisto 23:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

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)

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).

You're point? Don't deny that Christians aren't persecuted at all in this country. Compared to the rest of the world its rare but it does happen. So far what I'm seeing is that we have several witnesses saying she was never asked the question, and several saying she was. As far as I can comment I see no reason why she wouldn't be asked a question like that. She's not the only instance of this happening. The Christianity Today article is a valid source. We should be using it. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she was simply senselessly murdered. But I think someone needs to argue her case. I'll take that mantle up and fight for her. And if I'm wrong, well at least we worked for the truth. Saksjn (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I still see no solid evidence that the discussion did not take place. It seems like if someone goes out of their way to prove that someone did not have a conversation with someone, they have an agenda, and it's probably not just truth seeking. I don't have the money to alter what people percieve as truth, so I'm not going to bother too hard, but to dismiss an eyewitness account of something that tragic is haughty at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.61.149 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Overstatement for an Encylopedic article

I want to say first off that it appears fairly clearly that the rumor about Cassie saying yes is not true. So I am not arguing that this should not be the thrust of the article's information. However, when checking on the refrences used they appear weak, unclear, and one-sided. For instance the third refrence, says that it was unlikely that the incidence happened, and for political and senstive reasons chose not to speak strongly in the affirmitive. Yet, in the same article it says that no one can know forsure what was said. This refrence is far from the certaintly which is expressed throughout the Wiki article.

The fourth refrence seems to be one-sided in that you are taking the word of one person and what she claims to have said, instead of the word of others. Both of these are words of mouth and either neither should be accepted, or both should be represented fairly.

The fifth refrence is the strongest in that it clearly states that the FBI denies that the incident ever happened. However, the article is a newsaper article that itself does not give any refrence or source to the infromation of what the FBI is now saying.

I say all this to say that if you are going to speak with such certaintly you should have more certain refrences and sources. For instance, give us an actual FBI source, or police report that verifies that this surely is the official account. This is what real encyclopedia articles are supposed to do. I have to agree with some people in other discussions on this page that the article seems heavily bent toward painting Christians as ignorant, foolish, and people who ignore truth. There is not even any refrences given to back up that the 700 club is still reporting that Cassie is a martyr. A good encylopedia would sound much more neutral and would sound more like such:

"Many people believed at first that Cassie had been a martyr (insert source). (Give brief story of the "yes" incident). However police records, FBI sources, and eye-witnesses have verified that this likely was not what really happened (give necessary sources, if there are). The mistake may have resulted from a mix up with another student who claims that she was the one who was asked the question and that said "yes" (give source). Though no one can know forsure what actually happened on that day, all availiable information would point to the incident never occuring."

Then you could maybe show some relevant resources of Christians who are still advocating this, and some sources of Christians who are now accepting the offical account.

My desire is for Wikipedia to truly become unbiased, but unfortunatley, due to its format, this is usually not the case on any contemporary, controverstial articles. I can always guess which side Wiki will represent as official in most of these controversial subjects. But Wiki is good for objective information. --Ic2705 (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)ic2705 May 16, 2009

I agree with your assessment. Well said. Samuraifan121 (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Could some other users please comment on this particular revision concept? I would be interested in working with it, but am already accused in the "Use of Source" topic of 'edit-warring' and don't care to implement changes for that reason... Samuraifan121 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not acceptable. Part of our job is to evaluate the sources, and there are still no reliable sources that support the legend that Bernall's mom perpetuated. To say otherwise is to ignore our core principles of verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assesment. Orange, you make it sound as though her mom purposefully set out to "perpetuate" a legend. This isn't the case. The sources indicate that she acted on the information she had been given at the time when she wrote the book. Anyway, I think Ic IS evaluating the sources. Further, Ic isn't proposing we ignore verifiability. On the contrary! IC proposed that it be worded "Many people believed at first that Cassie had been a martyr (insert source)." This is true, and the news articles and police reports DO support this. As Ic also pointed out, the articles tend to imply that while it's unlikely, it's not really possible to know "for sure" what happened. Going out on a limb to assume that it DEFINITELY didn't happen seems to violate WP:SYNTH. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not when you have a reliable source that definitively says just that. The article is fine the way it is, stop always trying to make trouble where there isn't any. We have some sock puppetry going on here I believe. I'm not referring to you as a sock (only to the above accounts), wikiwikikid, I know how you ended up on this article. Landon1980 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not tyring to cause trouble. I agreed with you previously, but I agree MORE with what Ic has suggested. As for sock-puppetry, I don't think so. They are both relatively un-involved editors, but the accounts don't seem to have any other overlap. At the worst, samurai might be a single-purpose account. Either way, I believe that Ic has a point. The articles aren't conclusive. They frequently go out of their way to make sure the reader knows that it isn't conclusive... Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC) After more discussion with Landon at his talk page, I have to say I agree with him. That it was initially reported that she was martyred is already in the article. Further the official police investigation of the event shows that all they said to her was "Peekaboo." Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon, why do you assume that there is sock puppetry just because there is agreement? All I did was make an observation and a statement. No where am I saying that the article should not show that the story was a myth. My whole point, which is the title of this section, is that the sources are not as certain as the article sounds. The sources are weak and need to be made stronger. If stronger sources cannot be found then the tone of the article needs to reflect the sources instead of the other way around. The only strong souce is source number 5, but as I pointed out, it is still not very strong because it is a secondary, or for all we know tertiary source, which alludes to a primary source without giving any refrence to the actual primary source.

What do you want me to say, Yaay you all did this article perfectly and bravo? I don't think you did and I'm giving suggestions to help improve the perceived bias. Strenghten the sources, or make the article to fit the weakness of the sources. If you're so sure you should have no problem giving primary sources to reflect the information. Don't just quote a newspaper who quotes the FBI without giving us any information about where they got there quote from.

This was an emotionally charged incident. An encyclopedia should reflect this. Please read my first entry and see that someone two hundread years from now would get the more fuller truth then they would from this article. From your article they would get the idea that we all know what happened even though it was a chaotic situation, and even though a myth had been propagated.

My entry would show that there had been a mix up, likely based on what happened with Schunner, but that the mix up was likely a myth which certain Christians could not let go. There's nothing that's a lie about this. The only difference is the tone that is used. But I don't expect any to give any consideration to this, I just hope the articles and editing will be approved in the future, especially seeing that the youth is beginning to see Wiki as an encylopedia and source for truth. --70.251.224.133 (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)ic2705 May 21, 1:22

I'm assuming you must be Ic? OK, Ic, WP:PRIMARY says that we are SUPPOSED to use secondary (and to a lesser extent tertiary) sources (NOT primary sources). USA Today says that the FBI stated it hasn't happened, and USA Today is a reliable, verifiable, independent secondary source (what we use on Wikipedia...). If it eases your conscience, there are other sources that reference the actual Sherrif's investigation as to what happened in the library... Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point about the primary and secondary articles based on Wiki standards. But I still think what I was saying originally holds up. The citations for the article are weak and need to be strenghtened. The USA Today article simply states the FBI said something and it carelessely gives no refrence. For all we know the reporter heard it from someone who spoke to an FBI spokesperson. This is called "rumor", and should not be found in encyclopedic articles. Even when "verifiable" sources are used they need to be well refrenced themselves or else they become unreliable. Are you asking me to believe it because USA Today said it? I would if they would have quoted the FBI person or at least refrenced it. Either way, I still believe the article is weak for an encyclopedic entry although it would be okay for a blog. --Ic2705 (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)ic2705 July 13

It is not our job to determine the truthfulness of a given USA Today article. It is a fact that USA Today is a reliable, verifiable, non-self-published source. Leave the sources they use up to their editors. Further, many times FBI and government sources are not allowed to disclose their names... I'm not asking you to believe USA Today, but unless you can find more substantial coverage (in reliable, verifiable, third-party sources) that this is NOT the truth, it shall remain. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits I reverted, and why

One described another student's religious beliefs (inappropriate, and could be interpreted as attempting to impeach the witness, so to speak); another changed the neutral verb "states" for an FBI statement to the non-neutral "professes". (Government agencies do not "profess".) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The first provided context and the second was more accurate than "states". I'm aware that this article has a history of nuanced POV-pushing, but these are style edits, it seems paranoid to attribute to them an ulterior motive. I don't see how a reader might mistake the mention of his sister's religious views as an attempt to impeach/discredit Craig Scott's testimony. This detail does not add commentary or analysis to the article, the context only becomes objectionable if a reader/contributor already has preconceived notions of the incident.

"States" may be neutral, but "professes" qualifies the release of information as the result of an FBI investigation rather than the plain recounting of a statement. Removing these edits is no big deal, the article is fine without them, nonetheless it is discouraging to see a stub so hermetically sealed away from conscientious editing by anonymous users. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What a load of hogwash....

I read the article...which basically goes: She was praying, they killed her, she became a martyr. Then only towards the end of the article it actually refutes all of the above. She was not asked about god she was just killed, so two thirds of the article is giving undue prominence to to false allegations.

If this article was in a real encyclopedia it would be rewritten to state she was killed at Columbine, she was not praying or asked about god, however a story was then circulated/invented that attested to these things that make her notable. it even led her mother to write a book based on this misconception. That is the reality not the bias on show here. The article treats the purported events as 'gospel' (pardon the pun) before debunking them with a twist at the end.

Let's use the same logic to consider America's white, god-fearing Republican's favorite magic negro. Using the same criteria, that article should first start by stipulating he's a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, and not American et al BUT then to conclude at the end that he is in fact none of the above. Do you get my point. This article is completely biased towards a very clear religious agenda. It is not fair because it places fiction above reality. It also does not make clear that Bernall was no angel (turbulent teenage life) either. But it's her adoption as a poster girl for Christian beleifs of martyrdom that make her famous. A further 14 people died at Colombine, and none of them have articles like this because they do not have purpose in the agenda's of other people.

This article needs to be scrubbed and rewritten in neutral tones, i.e. the facts first then the fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.56.139 (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

26 Nov 2003

11 years almost from the first writing and still this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.143.71.39 (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

poorly written

It seems the controversy of the subject has led to poor phrasing. In the 4th paragraph, when did she say this? If before her conversion, the quote should be parenthetical after "turbulent teenage life"; if after, it begs explanation (and might be better deleted). Also, if "Yes" was just a rumor, why the book title, She Said Yes? Presumably, her mother believes/defends the story, but that should be stated to avoid confusion. It would also be interesting to know if Misty has expressed doubts since the book's publication. ProfessorAndro (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

2018 cleanup

I just did a mad clean-up to this article. WOW HOW WAS THIS NOT DONE BEFORE? I feel pretty good about the changes but think the article could still use a little work. Cait.123 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There of course isn't as much information about her available as other victims such as Rachel Scott, so anything drastic isn't really possible. I think the article looks pretty good now. MutchyMan112 (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Rick Santorum Quote

The sentence with the Rick Santorum quote should either be edited to neutrally describe exactly what he said or removed entirely. Despite an abundance of media stories that were published after his speech, it is not at all clear that Santorum was referring to Bernall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EC:DF11:8301:38CF:F65F:DD67:608B (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)