Talk:Cassie Bernall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-04-21. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cassie Bernall article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

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

Sounds reasonable. Martin 23:04, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
My take on the best organisation of these articles is to have the massacre article, an article on each of Cassie and Rachel, and have Valeen redirect to the massacre. The current situation of these two being lumped together but not Rachel looks odd.. However having all three lumped in one article but separate from the massacre article would look odder still. We could have them all redirect to the massacre article but I think there is enough material and points of emphasis (e.g. the massacre article is about the two killers and the mechanics of the day). The Cassie and Rachel article are more pointed towards the religious of their lives and deaths, which were more specific to them. Pete 11:29, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This has now been implemented. Pete 12:12, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I thought Bernall and Schnurr could be dealt with together as the article is really about a single incident that involved them both. However, I see your point, and the new organisation also works. Martin 18:42, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] External link is 404

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

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

I am still getting the old 404...


[edit] External link Salon News

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

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

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

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

[edit] Schnurr disrespect

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

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

[edit] Inspiration

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

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

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

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

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

Cassie herself was just a kid, no more notable than any of us would have been at that age. It is the controversy, frankly, which makes her notable. --Orange Mike 13:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
User:65.25.24.245|65.25.24.245 above makes an interesting point, i.e., that part of the problem with this entry is that it needs to be renamed to something that denotes the reason why Bernall has been given an individual entry. Renaming this entry to "Cassie Bernall controversy" as suggested, or to something similar would get my vote. Labyrinth13 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do Not Delete This Article!

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

68.161.120.145 09:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Citation Needed

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

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

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

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

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

The statement is "Unsourced reports alleging that Cassie said "yes" persist" which is truthful and cited, it also speaks about the current state of the controversy, just what is your real beef with this?
The existence of these persistent rumors is a fact, and indeed the main thing that keeps Ms. Bernall notable: the legend that she was not merely an unfortunate teen, but a martyr for Christ. (See websites like this one, set up to exploit the legend and this one.) That makes the persistence of the rumors highly encyclopedic. The article cited is from a reputable and certainly not anti-Christian source (as contrasted with the lengthy articles on various atheist sites); this is the essence of proper sourcing. --Orange Mike 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on this thread and I have to agree with Orangemike's assessment above: I see no reason why the statement that reads "Unsourced reports alleging that Cassie said 'yes' persist" should not be included so long as there is a reliable, published secondary source for the statement. Such a statement is not making any sort of judgments in and of itself, but rather is only reporting on the current mindset as far as the ongoing controversy is concerned. Nothing more and nothing less. About the only problem I see with the inline citation to the Zoba article is that it appears to require that one to be registered to read the entire thing, but I don't know if that alone would disqualify it. Labyrinth13 00:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Also there is Links normally to be avoided 1,2 and 6. Are we not striving to make Wikipedia the best it can be? We can't do that if we ignore the rules of editing. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

It certainly is! And yes, they do. If you do a Google you will find oodles of sites which preach the full martyrdom story without any quibble or even the suggestion of a hint that it almost certainly didn't happen. (And as an evangelical Christian I can assure you that the story in its original form still circulates verbally; but that can be argued to be OR.) --Orange Mike 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
As of March 18[1]. Though, technically, Christianity Today's report persists until and unless they publish a retraction. I removed the whole "Christian publications" thing though, given the obvious. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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 ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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 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"? :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Conflicting Sources

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

No. There are no: zero, zilch, nada, no reliable sources supporting the early rumor. All the reports agree that it was a rumor which got out of control, as the article makes clear. It is a good story, but it is clearly not a true one. To pretend otherwise cheapens the real deaths of real martyrs. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And did you read the book "She Said Yes?" KC109 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
I have, once, passing some time at a Barnes & Noble. It came of as a sentimental expression of Misty Bernall's grieving process. While it was short, preachy, naive, anecdotal, and just generally banal, I found it easy to sympathize with her loving attempt to understand her daughter's life and passing. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Neutrality

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

A lot of folks have already put a lot of work into cleaning this up. Some of us are Christians, saddened to learn that there are no reliable sources whatsoever to back up a lovely but false myth of witness and martyrdom. But truth trumps pretty story; John 8:32 and all that. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's where I disagree. We maybe could tell the rumor, add a controversy section, and leave it at that? THE KC (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

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