Talk:Catherine Bell/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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 []; 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 [], 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Super Bowl XXXVI Prediction 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Wow.  You just made my point.  --Rob 15:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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 (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)
thread_title:  scientology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia wrong on Superbowl Trivia, Says Snopes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The sky is grey, and the sun is not shining. --Tilman 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: q.e.d. COFS 04:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kristi Wachter not a person 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What the website owner says 

message: 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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. 
# 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)
thread_title:  Statement(s) opposing use 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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 . I know I am out-numbered but I am not trying to sandbag you guys. --Justanother 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement(s) supporting use 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: My pleasure:
# No longer support use Russeasby 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TAS site creator's statements supporting use 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I already rewrote it in NPOV and correct fashion. --Justanother 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar problem

message: 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)
thread_title: previous surgery

message: * "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." 
* "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." 
* "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." 
</blockquote>
This section should be transwikiied to Wikiquote.  Smee 10:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: 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)
thread_title: Messy

message: Substituted at 06:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment