Talk:Cassie Bernall

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  should I move the article? 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I didn't think you lied. I thought you linked the wrong article.  My apologies. Wikiwikikid (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sorry for jumping to conclusions. Landon1980 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Source (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/23/columbine/index1.html) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. Pcb21| Pete 21:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link is 404 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External link Salon News 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Schnurr disrespect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inspiration 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Merge all non-notable victims to a single page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Do Not Delete This Article! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

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

text:  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)

text: * As in, "Cassie Bernall: She (Allegedly) Said Yes"? :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Just a facetious remark, not worth thinking about. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:   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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Would your opinion change if the article included more biographical information? Komponisto 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:She Said Yes.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And did you read the book "She Said Yes?" KC109 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hence "anecdotal". Do some research beyond the book, take a look at  & . Put simply, we're not here to spin the facts. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. I'll do some research and be back. THE KC (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Sorry, but that's been acknowledged. KC109 00:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conflicting Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Overstatement for an Encylopedic article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What a load of hogwash.... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  26 Nov 2003 

message: 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)
thread_title:  poorly written 

message: 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)
thread_title: 2018 cleanup

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rick Santorum Quote