text:
Talk:Catherine Bell/Archive 1

Super Bowl XXXVI Prediction
I removed the text because it is not true. She made the prediction after the participants were known. The prediction is located at http://archive.sportingnews.com/nfl/articles/20020131/379058.html.
 * You are wrong . Look on date in linku on mountain, 31 January 2002 is, and final took place 3 February 2002. So she made the prediction before participants. This is additional link http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8786289
 * I do not see how I am wrong. The prediction was not made before the season started. It was made before the game as is traditionaaly done. You provide no proof that she made the prediction before September 9, 2001. The link to the TMQ article only confirms she guessed the exact score.
 * Read exactly. It writes clearly that "She's the only person to have ever correctly predicted the participants in, winner, and final score of a Super Bowl before a season began." Conversation with Catherine Bell also about this on http://www.nascar.com/2005/news/features/conversation/10/26/cbell/index.html.
 * I have read the quoted article and she says that her husband randomly picked the teams and the score. So it wasn't her and it was guessed' not predicted.Barfbagel 09:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's interesting that Mrs. Bell appears to believe this urban legend about her, that might be notable. Alas, the link to the Sporting News article clearly indicates that she made the prediction after the two Super Bowl teams had already been decided (the article is dated three days before the game), and was simply asked who would win, "Rams or Pats?" The fact that an article on NFL.com reports this urban legend as fact just demonstrates how popular the legend is (although that article used IMDb as its source, and to be fair, some people may have used Wikipedia as a source before it was fixed). -Eisnel 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

http://www.teamkellyracing.com/castcrew/bell.php http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8786289
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * Okay, so I kept the teamkellyracing.com reference you added. Is this a good compromise for you? Feel free to neaten up my grammar; it's a bit run-on.  Careful with the editing, though; you shoved the trivia after the super bowl trivia to the references section.  Enuja 16:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

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

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

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

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

scientology
I don't object to removal of a full section on scientology. But using the edit comment "This Version is so much better" is some tricky. It implies you didn't want people to notice what's changed. I didn't revert, because I don't think scientology (beyond the current small mention) is relevant, and the old wording is bias, and even hostile. But, when doing such as edit, please say that. --Rob 03:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Similar sections exist for virtually every other celebrity Scientologist. When any celebrity is an active member of such an extremely controversial organization, I think it certainly merits the information being in their listing. To exclude it would be to present their biography in a very skewed, whitewashed, and NNPOV way. wikipediatrix 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If an actor's had a heavily covered involvement with the Church, say Tom Cruise, that's true. But simple involvement, doesn't count.  Scientology shouldn't get treated any different than Roman Catholicism by Wikipedia, in this regard.  I'm detecting POV pushing, on both sides here.  I notice you seem to be editing a *lot* of scientology-related articles, and have expressed negative view of the organization, on talk pages.  I suggest, if it's removed again, that you not personally re-add it.  If it's truly relevant, somebody who is not actively involved in the Scientology-editing (on either side) will re-add it.  This a biography of an actress, and doesn't fit in to the grand fight over Scientology some editors are sadly engaged in. --Rob 03:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with any "fight over Scientology" and it has nothing to do with my own POV, which is NOT necessarily anti-Scientology. By your stated standards, most biographical information about Catherine "wouldn't count". The events mentioned in this article's Scientology section are factual and sourced. The recent notoriety of Scientology caused by Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, South Park, etc. makes Catherine's involvement all the more relevant. Some of Catherine's fans may be embarassed by Scientology and wish to downplay her involvement with it, but Wikipedia is a not a fan site. I don't understand your comparison to Catholicism: if Catherine was a Catholic and was taking part in Catholic anti-abortion protests or other controversial religious activities, I would expect that to be covered as well. This has nothing to do with my, or anyone else's, POV regarding Scientology, pro or con. wikipediatrix 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, your comments do show this is a part of larger fight about scientology. You're bringing up, what should be irrelevant articles.  Please, keep your views on this, or any other, religion out of Wikipedia.  If neutral editors agree with this information, being here, I'm sure they'll put it back if it's removed.  But people with strong pro- or anti- Scientology views, should *not* be adding/removing this.  If anybody wishes to see who's bias here, a quick look at edit history will show who has, and who doesn't have, a Scientology related-agenda.  --Rob 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your response doesn't answer any of my concerns or queries in my previous post. I'm sorry you think I have an anti-Scientology agenda, but there's no POV problem with noting her involvement with such a famous and controversial organization. Instead of attacking ME, why don't you stick to the subject at hand, and try discussing what is wrong with the Scientology section of the article, point by point? As I said, everything described in it is real and is sourced and I can't think of any reason you would want to keep it out of any legitimate biography of any celebrity. wikipediatrix 22:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Here's a tip. If a web site has a name like "religionX-kills.org" it's probably POV.  scientology-kills.org is POV.  It is not a reliable mainstream independent media source.  Rather, it has a vocal POV agenda, like you.  Please, keep you POV-pushing, anti-scientology agenda out of here.  BTW, I would just as strongly remove any pro-scientology junk from this article.  I didn't even see the need for mentioning it at all.  I'm opposed to using Wikipedia to promote a religion, or to attack/disparage a religion.  Please do not use Wikipedia to link-spam on behalf of your personally preferred political sites.  I suggest any other editors looking at this, please take a careful look the edit history of the above editor (feel free to look at mine to).  You'll see clearly what's going on. --Rob 14:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate your condescending attitude or your wrong-headed insistence that I must have an anti-Scientology POV. Turn down the testosterone and stop attacking ME personally instead of discussing the edits, OK? The events mentioned in the article happened (Catherine discussing Scientology on Stern show, etc.), and verifiably so. No one, including me, is using the article to disparage Scientology - please point out specifically where you think I have done so. Also, one of the things you removed was a cite to Bell's own website, www.catherinebellonline.com, hardly an anti-Scientology source! Including information about a celebrity's religion is a basic part of any legitimate biography, especially when the celebrity in question has been so public in her crusades with it. wikipediatrix 14:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said her own web site was anti-scientology. However, it isn't a good source for saying "She has been a very vocal activist for the church, promoting Scientology's Hollywood Education and Literacy Project".  Maybe she's been a vocal activist, maybe she's been a minor one.  We can't go to her for an opinion of that (we can only go to her, to see, she has an opinion, what it is).  You should have cited a neutral source, like the NY Times, to establish how signficant she is.  I don't want to get personal.  But, frankly, your edit history is making it impossible not to see a much larger agenda.  Somebody has to look at what you put here, in context, of all the many other edits, pushing the same agenda.  --Rob 15:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think my edit history reveals an anti-Scientology bias, then you have jumped to conclusions. Just because I maintain on many articles that it is relevant to include controversial statements and misdeeds by the Church does not mean I have any agenda other than presenting the whole truth. It would be the same if Bell was a member of NAMBLA or the Communist Party or Heaven's Gate. I also spend a lot of time removing gratitutous anti-Scientology rants from articles as well, and all the dumb vandalism that has ensued since South Park's Scientology exposé. wikipediatrix 15:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. You just made my point.  --Rob 15:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Um...how? I said I remove vandalism and POV bias from both anti- and pro- scientology camps, and focus on presenting the whole truth. If this somehow proves your "point", woo-hoo for you. wikipediatrix 18:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you said you treated Scientology like other religions, such as Roman Catholicism, or Islam, of Hinduism, you would have made a good point. But your reference to NAMBLA, shows your bias.  I note that you've also done similiar bogus anti-Scientology rants in bios of people who aren't even members, such as Neil Bush (guilt by association is shameful, and violates WP:LIVING).  So, you're just looking for every chance to push your POV agenda.  It's not ok.  You appear to be on a crusade about this issue.  You can't even see your own bias.  Note, I haven't written any pro-Scientology stuff in my edits.  Whenever so many edits are related to one issue, and show one side, you know there's a problem.  Get some people who don't hate Scientology to show agreement with you, and you'll have credibility. --Rob 18:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Scientology Status of Catherine Bell
There is quite a bit of discussion of Scientology above, but there isn't any discussion on this talk page about whether or not www.truthaboutscientology.com is a reliable source. I know you guys have been going back and forth on each other's talk pages, but that isn't going to involve people interested in Catherine Bell and not already involved on one side or another of this spat. I see room for compromise here; if truthaboutscientology really does compile its information from Scientology publications, couldn't those publications be cited to show that Catherine "Bell has been affiliated with Scientology/Dianetics since 1990 and has achieved what they call "the state of Clear"?" If truthaboutscientology does not compile its information from Scientology publications, then it probably isn't a reliable source and this information probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia. I don't know how reliable www.truthaboutscientology.com is, but some of you obviously see it as an attack website, and that's something that should be addressed in some way. COFS, Cleduc, Justanother, Vivaldi, Fubar Obfusco and Tilman (names listed in order of first edit in April 2007), please stop edit warring about this sentence, and please put your discussion in one, central location that all interested parties will see; this talk page. Thanks, guys and gals. Enuja 04:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the voice of reason. truthaboutscientology is a hate site. Its "truth about Scientology" is one-sided hate. A large part of its function is an "outing" site to make trouble for ordinary Scientologists. My name is on that site and I personally am offended that a bigot has decided to make my religion public knowledge. That choice is mine, not some bigot's, to make. Two problems with the site. 1) it is a POV hate site and is not to be trusted for anything - it is non-RS. 2) While in theory one could use the Scientology mags themselves that would require a) that you had them and b) you had some way of knowing that the "Catherine Bell" in the mag is the same "Catherine Bell" as our article. Even for me, I have an unusual name but guess what, I am not the only person in the world with that name (it shows up occasionally in Filipinos, for some reason; very odd). So if you see "my" name in one of these mags, how can you say it is me? Intelius.com shows 280 Catherine Bell's, just in the US. It is OR to assume that a simple name in a list of names refers to anyone in an article here. And it is silly, too; all notable Scientologists can be sourced in RS as Scientologists. No place for that site here, thank you. --Justanother 04:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Justanother. This is a propaganda and hate site. Yes, there are lots of names on there and Sciento "course completions" and what have you. I don't know where the list are from and I do not trust Kristi Wachter, who is the sole source of this PERSONAL WEBPAGE (WP:EL, WP:RS), allegedly listing her research on there which cannot be found anywhere else (WP:OR). Next thing happening, Mr. Enuja, is that your name shows up there and some Scieno-haters start picketing in front of your door or my name shows up on there and Antaeus shows up on my door step (shudder). Why? Because the owner of the site is doing such things and there is no QC (quality control) of the information she puts on there. This could be anything. I might be a hysteric chick at times but KristiW beats it. Misou 04:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat of a mystery to me, how it becomes "propaganda" and "hate" when it just takes information from official scientology publications (including a scientology website with 16000 names ). There must be some mutation that I don't understand.
 * Please don't speculate about what "could" be. If you allege an error (not these that are already in the original magazines) or a lie, just show it. I know that Kristi is a very skilled expert at compiling and managing this data. --Tilman 05:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity 347 (April 2003) has an interview with Catherine Bell. She tells that the PTS/SP course was a help in recently getting clear. So, Justanother, are you suggesting that the celebrity that looks like Catherine Bell and has been interviewed by the scientology "Celebrity" magazine is really another Catherine Bell? Or is "Celebrity" also a "hate" publication? --Tilman 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not be silly, Tilman. I am talking about things like Impact magazine or old Church magazines that just have a list of names, not an article. A list of names sometimes pages long like so-and-so are members of the IAS or so-and-so finished a course this week with no other information, just a list of names; that is what Kristi uses. I could care less what you think of Kristi or of her site, Tilman. You two are birds of a feather except that you maintain an even worse hate site and Scientologist outing site designed to make trouble for people you do not know that are, by and large, good people trying to do good things in life. If you have a Celebrity mag in hand then just cite it like you would any reference; let's leave the hate sites out of the equation, please. --Justanother 12:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your constant allegations that Kristi's site (or mine) are "hate sites" are without any basis, and it doesn't get true by repetition. Especially since you admit that Kristi does compile scientology materials. So poof, the same list of names become "hate" just because a scientology critic hosts them in a database? Not. --Tilman 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Kristi's data is neither official nor necessarily correct. It could be wholly invented and neither you nor Justanother would be able to notice it, because you have no access to the official or original materials to compare it to. Neither does Kristi Wachter have access to such material. The site owner is doing original research, takes information sent to her by anyone - maybe even by anonymous sources whose agenda is unknown - and puts her conclusions online. There is a difference between Catherine Bell choosing to give a public interview and talk about her Scientology experiences and Kristi Wachter blacklisting Scientologists on a site which otherwise only carries questionable information about the same group. That difference is called "reliable source" and is the reason why Wikipedia Policy says to avoid linking to personal websites such as Krist Wachters. CSI LA 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Every external source is doing original research. The term applies only to wikipedia editors about not doing research on their own.
 * It is not a personal site. Nor is it "blacklisting". You have not provided evidence that Kristi asks readers to boycott.
 * Kristi does of course have access to the material she compiled. You are "just alleging" that she hasn't. --Tilman 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow - you removed her getting clear, but left in the scientology source in which she told that she just got clear??? --Tilman 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Her site and yours are "hate sites" because you both hate Scientology and/or the Church of Scientology and present a one-sided view - your side; the hate side. You no doubt feel that you do not have to present pro-Scientology materials because that is the job of the Church and they can do it on their websites. If that it what you feel then you are correct; the Church presents the "love" side and you and Kristi and others present the "hate" side. Fine. Just please do not pretend that the CoS sites are non-RS and your sites are RS. That claim insults our intelligence. --Justanother 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have no evidence that I "hate" scientology. You just allege it. A one-sided presentation isn't a "hate site". For example, anti-drug sites don't present the positive sides of drugs. An allergy protection website doesn't show the positive sides of having an allergy. A child protection site doesn't present the "positive" sides of a child being ****ed by a pedophile. Does this make them "hate sites"?
 * However, by your logic, CCHR.org is also a "hate site". I agree with this, but for a different reason, since that organisation does promote proven falsehoods (available on request :-)).
 * Your text, the Church presents the "love" side and you and Kristi and others present the "hate" side is rather evidence for a black-and-white view of the world. However, the world is grey.
 * I would like to know why you don't want the wikireaders to know that Catherine Bell is a scientology "clear". Was the state of clear certificate taken away from her? Or is it embarassing that she is "clear" ? --Tilman 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a RS or get Kristi Wachter to send you the original of her "source". "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source.", that's all. CSI LA 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I think it's unfair to call something a hate site because it complies information from non-classified scientology publications. If it's not hateful to tell fellow believers who is a Scientologist, why is it hateful to tell non-believers who is a Scientologists? That kind of presupposes that there is something wrong with being a Scientologist. This is a particularly strange complaint about a celebrity scientologist. Aren't celebrities supposed to be good for Scientology because they raise its profile? Isn't it a way to spread Scientology to say that Catherine Bell is a clear? I still think a better source could be found, and maybe the print version of Celebrity Livewire is a good source, but does it mention that she's a clear? If so, could that bit of data go back into the article? Enuja 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess "hate site" is subjective. Kristi's site spreads hate and smears about Scientology. That is its purpose. That "Safe for Scientologists" should read "One-sided bigotry without confidential materials so you Scientologists can come over here to be insulted without worrying about seeing confidential materials". Golly, thanks Kristi! It is just another one-sided, POV, totally anti-Scientology and Scientologists, bigoted, and intolerant web site. Does that make it a "hate site"? Idunnaknow. Does it make it suspect and non-RS. Bet your booties, it does. So no, it cannot be cited here for that and the reasons I gave above. Re Celebrity Magazine; it has interviews with celebs in addition to the tidbits I saw on the scientology.cc site. Certainly using the mags themselves is appropriate. --Justanother 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't an argument, that's just a contradiction. And you're just repeating again "its a hate site", despite being shown by someone else that it isn't. --Tilman 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't an argument, that's just a contradiction. Where is that line from? Do I remember it from Thank You for Smoking? Great movie, that. Or was that line in the movie about negotiation vs. argument? No one has shown that Kristi is not a hate site. All that is going on here is a discussion. You might not like the label but you have a COI because you run an even worse hate site and you and your ilk would have Scientologists wear little cloth "S and double triangles" pinned to their coats. Ain't that right, Tilman? Gotta know who you are dealing with, right? --Justanother 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I read through the talk and article history more carefully, so how is this for a compromise? This version 1) cites a scientology publication 2) includes the important information of date of entry into religion and status 3) does not cite www.thetruthaboutscientology.com which might qualify as personal website and is biased against scientology Enuja 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Opps, now I'm not happy with my compromise, because the Celebrity Magazine article does not include the year Catherine Bell started taking Scientology courses.  Anyone have another source that will be considered by all to be reliable that gives the date? Enuja 05:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The www.thetruthaboutscientology.com site has the advantage that it shows her whole career, i.e. all the courses she took. --Tilman 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the Celebrity magazine interview include the date Bell joined Scientology? Enuja 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it only tells that she got in through Milton Katselas. --Tilman 05:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just "got" what you're asking about. Now, Celebrity is listed as a source for something it isn't. Celebrity can only be used as a source that she is a scientologist and a clear, not that she entered 1990. Truthaboutscientology.com is a source that she has been a scientologist at least since 1990. The "route to infinity" is not a beginners course. The "success through communication", which she took years later, is a beginners course. (It is common that scientologists are told to redo courses, after being told that the old materials were "altered", and are now rereleased "100% standard tech" or "golden age of tech" or "golden age of knowledge" or whatever the marketing dept came up with that day. For example, even Craig Jensen (a very high level member) had to do the "New OT VIII" course twice ). --Tilman 15:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Kristi Wachter not a person
Tilman about KW's site: "It is not a personal site." That is interesting. So it is governmental? Educational? Commercial? Kristi Wachter's Scientologist Smearing Service Ltd.? She must spend a lot of time doing that and I always wondered who pays her - a non-Scientologist with a broke record label and no relation to Scientology at all - to do all the smear work. Quite interesting. Tilman, are you planning to come to the US in the next weeks? COFS 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not Kristis home page. It's just a database. I don't see anything about a "broke record label". --Tilman 05:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is Kristi's personal page. She even says it on each page: "Site created by Kristi Wachter, creator of Scientology Lies this site discusses the Church of Scientology but is not affiliated with them in any way. You can find their official site at www.scientology.org" and adds on another page: "I'm Kristi Wachter. I created this site out of a desire to know the truth about Scientology". Tilman, is the sun yellow and the sky blue? Just checking. COFS 06:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The specific guideline: WP:EL, 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 for example, and it's not clear that it matches the intent or definition of personal web site. (That's for ELs. References have stricter rules, and I haven't checked.) AndroidCat 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

What the website owner says
Here is what Kristi Wachter herself says about using these lists to say anything about a specific person (http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/aboutthelists.html). Can I use these lists to find out if someone I know is a Scientologist? I don't recommend it; there's a high probability that you'll reach an incorrect conclusion. 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)
 * 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.

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

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

Thank you. --Justanother 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:BLP issues - Perhaps the most important consideration is the requirement that WP:BLP articles be built on high quality, reliable, sources."'Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives.'"As will be shown, TAS is not such a source.
 * 2) The overall nature of the site violates WP:V - The TAS site is the creation of Kristi Wachter. She is a critic of Scientology and also owns the sister website http://www.scientology-lies.com/. Kristi is unusual in that she maintains two sites; one a standard critic site and the other allegedly "Safe for Scientologists" which means only that she will be attacking their Church and their beliefs without revealing confidential materials - not very "safe" at all."'I hope you'll consider visiting my other web site, www.truthaboutscientology.com, which is intended more for Scientologists than for non-Scientologists (the intended audience for this site).'"Kristi's sites are self-published, one-sided, and inherently POV. The violate the very spirit of WP:V, one of our key policies, which states:"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."and again:"Self-published sources (online and paper)""Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."and in the case of WP:BLP, we add never as in "never be used" in respect to "sources" such as Kristi's:"Self-published sources, such as blogs, should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP."
 * 3) The nature of the sources themselves is problematic - While in theory one could use the Scientology mags themselves, it is important to understand that the materials that Kristi claims to be using, things like Impact magazines or old Church magazines, often just have a list of names, not an article. A list of names sometimes pages long like so-and-so are members of the IAS or so-and-so finished a course this week with no other information, just a list of names. It is OR to assume that a simple name in a list of names refers to anyone in an article here. For example, Intelius.com shows 280 Catherine Bell's, just in the US. How can we say that the name "Catherine Bell" in a list of names of course completions refers to the Catherine Bell of this article? We cannot.
 * 4) Use of the TAS site is unnecessary - Notable Scientologists can be sourced in RS as Scientologists. Further, for this purpose Scientology websites are RS and the Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre maintains a website, http://www.scientology.cc/, that identifies Scientology celebrities as well as telling about their activities as Scientologists. No need to use a non-RS "source" like TAS.
 * 5) Proper use of Church publications - Similar to the above, there is a proper use of Church magazines. If you have the magazine in hand, and it clearly refers to the subject of the article, then just cite it like you would any reference; let's leave the one-sided, self-published sites out of the equation, please.

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

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

 * The source is based on scientology's own publications. Thus, it can be verified, satisfies WP:V and WP:BLP (no scientologist would disagree to use scientology material as a source). The source is better than the "raw" scientology publications because of the ordering done - with a single link, many scientology publications are referenced. Since this is a compilation in a database, it isn't a "self-published" work. I'd even say that the TAS site improves the WP:V-factor instead of just writing "Source 198" without independent verification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tilman (talk • contribs).
 * I strongly support both the statements made by User:Tilman, above, and by un-involved editor User:Russeasby, below. Smee 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * To answer lquilter's concern, it does cite each Scientology publication. By the way, if this debate is supposed to be in any way binding on Scientology-series articles, why is here? AndroidCat 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Without addressing anything in your remarks other than the question; it is here because it has to be somewhere and the somewhere should be a WP:BLP article that used it. This one happens to be where most of the recent action on this issue was so it is a good place to hold the discussion. --Justanother 01:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you might have posted something in the series that this RFC was happening. I certainly don't watch all Scientology celebrity articles. AndroidCat 01:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did - I put in the TODO for everyone to see because you can mirror TODO on your userpage but Smee made a big stink about it and removed my highlighting it as HOT and then she moved it to the bottom of the list and after she had edit warred with me over it I could not do anything more without violating 3RR so I left it as is. 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)

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

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

Now yes, obviously the site is biased, the churchs official site is just as biased in the opposite direction. So I cant see how any argument of using one over the other could be valid. Strong and well know critisism exists for scientology, as well as for those being members of it. If Catherine Bell was a member of a less critisized religion then I doubt there would be a lot of interest in an entire section in here wikipedia article relating to her religion, its the fact that she is a member of a controversial religion that warrents such a section, and thus using both pro and anti scientology references I think are useful and valid here. If someone can come up with a purely unbaised website to use as a reference, then that would be nice in a perfect world, but I highly doubt an unbiased website or publication on scientology exists. Russeasby 15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No longer support use: In light of User:Justanothers pointing out the statements made on, I cant support the use of this site for references. Russeasby 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Comment from RFC editor, not previously involved in Scientology-related wikipedia articles: If this publication / website is being used primarily to identify individuals' relationships with Scientology, then it needs to be very well-sourced and reliable, indeed. As an encyclopedia project, we want people reading the articles to be able to follow the trail, and if someone is simply aggregating data but not maintaining the data trail, then we run the risk of (a) including false information; and (b) making it very difficult for people to follow-up truthful (or false) information. So, (A) if the site itself cites to the Scientology publications that it uses, then it should be used to find citations to the original Scientology publications. Wikipedia articles can then reference the original Scientology publications for those specific facts.  The website can be listed in "further reading" as a general reference, with an appropriate description. (B) But if the site does not cite to individual Scientology publications for each fact it cites about a person, then it's not well-sourced enough to be verifiable by an ordinary individual. --lquilter 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that this site does not consider itself reliable? In that case, I think that individual editors could use this site as a starting point to suggest that person A might be affiliated with Scientology; but they would have to find reliable and verifiable sources to cite to actually include that information in the biographical articles for that person, and this website shouldn't be that citation. --lquilter 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsolicited commentary on the other sources: The same would go for the Scientology website, if it too is not generally considered reliable about membership. Dis-inclusion or inclusion should only count if there's a reliable third-party cite. ... In general, because of WP:BLP issues, the best cites would be the ones where the person confirms their own membership. Any other cites should be handled very carefully and used only if exceedingly well-documented -- like in peer-reviewed research journals. --lquilter 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Comment by uninvolved editor recruited from RfC page
 * 1. Disclaimers:  I am not a Scientologist.  I have not advocated anti-Scientology opinions.  I do not have a stake in this editing disagreement.  I have attempted informal mediation several times in a variety of subjects or have participated in RfC's.  I am familiar with the name "Catherine Bell" and have watch her works on TV and film.
 * 2. While the focus of the discussion is the reliability of the website, I see the primary focus of this article should be on Catherine Bell, not the said website.
 * 3. It is difficult for me to make a determination of the accuracy of the website without knowing more of the background of the website's author, the source of the author's information, and the accuracy of the information (possibly determined by doing a scientific sampling of certain people on that list).  I am sorry that I am unable to make such a determination for the purposes of this RfC.
 * 4. It seems to be that there is little dispute of Catherine Bell's interest in Scientology.  Please note this link ( http://www.catherinebellonline.com/main.html ) which is Catherine Bell's own website under links.  She lists a Scientology link under "interests".  She is also shown in a photo here doing a performance at a Scientology centre ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/scientology ) and is reported to have mentioned her Scientology ties in a radio interview which is reported here ( tp://www.hollywood.com/feature/Interview_JAGs_Catherine_Bell/1111826 ).
 * 5. As a result, I have good reason to believe that Catherine Bell is a Scientologist.

VK35 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, VK35. Thank you for your input. There is no question that she is a Scientologist and that fact and her involvement in various Scientology social activities can be adequately sourced. This question is on the use of the TAS site to establish what courses she may have done in Scientology. Is there enough information here for you to make a call on that? I made my arguments above and I also included the website owner's caveats. Thanks. --Justanother 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See my point #3. There's no way to tell.  Sometimes, people tend to discount website run by individuals and give more faith in institutions or government.  The best way to assess the website is to ask the questions in #3.  However, it's not easy for someone to do. Sorry!  Maybe one has to assess each article to determine if the subject of the article is a Scientologist, perhaps using that website as a guide, but not as a definitive guide.VK35  18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Also, thank you so much, Tilman, for finding the interview with Bell in a Celebrity. Enuja 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that Kristi's warnings about using these mags to speak to a specific person are the same problems that I mention. You cannot use a simple list of names, even in the original mag, to say anything about a specific person - they are often just lists of names. You can, of course, use an article in a mag that further identifies the person. --Justanother 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

 * 1) No longer support use Russeasby 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) this website shouldn't be that citation lquilter 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC
 * 3) not a good website to source for the fact that a particular person is a scientologist Enuja 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any future time you need help counting, you just give me a ring. I am at your service. --Justanother 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Justanother, I don't count. I was simply trying to describe the apparent (weak) consensus.  Believe it or not, I don't have an opinion.  If I were to express an opinion, it would be a very nuanced, complicated one, about the situations in which TAS would be a good and would be a poor source. Enuja 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not say you were "uninvolved", I said you were "neutral". Don't you say this "Can everyone agree that TAS is a good place to figure out which scientology publication you need, but not a good website to source for the fact that a particular person is a scientologist?" I inferred from that that you were one of the everyone; was I wrong in that inference? --Justanother 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have said "Can everyone agree that we should treat TAS as a good place to figure out which scientology publication you need.." Enuja 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But I agree with you in either instance. I feel that we, as editors, can use any leads we find in our search for reliable sources. So if a dubious website has a clue to finding a real source, then great. All I say is then go find the real source, read it yourself, and reference that, not the dubious site. This is not the first time this has come up. --Justanother 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it just comes up because you and COFS don't want this source to be used, despite that it's just a database source with no opinion. Hey, you can even use it yourself to look what levels your friends or your favourite celebrities have reached. --Tilman 19:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Please help me count again (last time, it seemed that 3 was actually just 2). Before I put some energy in a mass reversion, what is your reason this time for removing the link? --Tilman 08:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is simple. You are ignoring the words of the neutral editors and continuing to hold to your POV that that biased, non-reliable site has any place here. No-one but critics of Scientology think that site belongs here. The best comments you have in the RfC are (paraphrased) one "I don't know but I guess it could be a guide if not a source" and one "I'd rather not say but can we all agree it is not a good source" against two "no, don't use it". Stop recasting that, in any way, this RfC supports you Tilman, it does not. I agree that there is not a ton of input here but what input there is speaks against inclusion. So please stop including. --Justanother 18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I have to say what I think, as Justanother continues to quote me despite my valiant attempt to keep from giving an opinion. I think that TAS is not a reliable source for identifying someone as a Scientologist because the names are complied from lists of names in Scientology publications. However, once someone has self-identified as a Scientologist, I think that TAS is a useful source to fill in the scope and and trajectory of that person's achievements as a Scientologist. However, I am aware that some editors feel that TAS is a "hate" source, and I'm a big fan of compromise, so I'm willing to let the people who don't like TAS find less biased sources.* Yes, I do think that Kristi Watcher is biased against Scientology, but I do not think that the database archived at TAS is, itself, biased against scientologists. After this RFC, I would personally only remove TAS as a source if it is the sole source "outing" someone as a Scientologist. However, since I personally disapprove of edit wars and couldn't care less how much information Wikipedia has on Catherine Bell's status as a Scientologist, I'm also not going to add back in sources that any editors think are biased. I will, personally only remove TAS as a source if it's the only source for someone's Scientology status, and I will not add it in as a source because I don't care about Scientology, one way or the other. * Which, I might add, hasn't happened in this particular conflict. Only Tilman, who appears to think that TAS is an important source, added any sources in this conflict. Enuja 20:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I undermined your decision to withhold your opinion but I am trying to resolve a dispute. The dispute is over whether the TAS has any place in a WP:BLP article and, if so, what place. The opinions of Scientologists and anti-Scientologists are foregone conclusions and, as there are only a handful of either, neither would represent any (mythical) "consensus". In my quest to capture the essence of that fabled beast I must make do with such sightings of it as I have. Your "non-opinion" is one such. Based on such input as I have I will soon write what I consider a closing statement for the RfC. Hopefully it will suffice as a resolution. Your help is welcome and appreciated. --Justanother 23:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to give a little additional input and perspective from my point of view. I commented as uninvolved and stick by my comments. But first I do want to add a statement of bias, I am actually very biased against scientology on the personal front. I have no desire to edit or get involved in scientology related articles (I have been around the net long enough and used to be a regular reader of the USENET scientology group), I dont have the patience to deal with such fiery topics on WP. But that said, even though I am pretty anti scientology, I agree very much on not using the TAS website. The author of the site themselves spells out very clearly that it is not a reliable source, I cant see how anyone can suggest it could be reliable in the face of that. Now it certainly can be useful for tracking down reliable sources and a great site to perhaps use for research, but not one to cite directly as a reference due to the authors own addmissions. What I see here in this article (and obviously many others) is a pro scientology and anti scientology group warring over content based on what may seem more favorable or less favorable to scientology, not so much about Catherine Bell (as an example) and wether she is a scientologist or not, or here status in scientology, but more about using references that when clicked on lead readers to anti or pro propiganda. There is clear bias on both sides of the conflict, but thats the nature of anything scientology really, it cannot be avoided. But I get beyond my point here. Bottom line, if the sites owner/author themselves suggests it is not a reliable reference, then how can it be used as one? Russeasby 00:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you and thank you for coming back and making that clear. --Justanother 05:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Citing Intermediate Sources Complies with Wikipedia Guidelines WP:CITE

Say where you got it -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Kristi Wachter 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Kristi. Thank you for your comments. Your placement is fine. Kristi, first please realize that nothing I say is a reflection on you personally. I do not know you personally, nor you, me. Kristi, your site is not appropriate for an intermediate source. Your sites are highly POV self-published sites that do not meet the requirements of this project. You might feel that you do adequate "error-checking" and so might your friends but that is probably as far as it goes. If you have evidence to the contrary please submit it for consideration. That said, there is another problem that you yourself speak to: errors and ambiguities in the source materials. Let's take Catherine Bell. If a Scientology publication publishes a simple list of completions for the month and one "Catherine Bell" completed OT III, how do we know that that "Catherine Bell" is the same as the subject of this article. For either one of those reasons the site should not be used as our "anti-Scientologists" would use it here. What we can use it for is as an aid to the editors to find which source materials might contain non-ambiguous data about a particular person. The completion lists are useless for us, though. --Justanother 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar problem

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

"They" is not defined. Steve Dufour 12:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve! Please help re-write the sentence in question above (at the end of Talk:Catherine_Bell).  Enuja 18:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I already rewrote it in NPOV and correct fashion. --Justanother 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Quotes

 * "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."

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

Messy
This person's page is a mess. There is duplicating (regarding Army Wives), non-sourced information, and misplaced information, as well as gramatical errors. I recommend a cleanup. Anyone else agree? BTW, this discussion page is also a mess, with a lot of useless bantering and children yelling back and forth, I would also recommend an archive of all completed tasks on the discussion page(to cut down on length). Any takers? Odie1344
 * Feel free to fix any and all problems you find. Enuja 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Catherine Bell/Archive 1


text:
The Riddle of the Sands

The Riddle of the Sands: A Record of Secret Service is a 1903 novel by Erskine Childers. The book, which enjoyed immense popularity in the years before World War I, is an early example of the espionage novel and was extremely influential in the genre of spy fiction. It has been made into feature-length films for both cinema and television.

The novel "owes a lot to the wonderful adventure novels of writers like Rider Haggard, that were a staple of Victorian Britain". It was a spy novel that "established a formula that included a mass of verifiable detail, which gave authenticity to the story – the same ploy that would be used so well by John Buchan, Ian Fleming, John le Carré and many others." All of the physical background is completely authentic – the various Frisian islands and towns named in the book actually exist and the descriptions of them accurate (often, from the author's own experience). The same is true for the various "sands" of the title – vast areas which are flooded at high tide but become mudflats at ebb. Navigating a small boat under these conditions requires a specialized kind of skilled seamanship, of which the character Davies is an unsurpassed master, and the descriptions of his feats are of abiding interest to yachting enthusiasts, quite apart from their role in the book's espionage plot.

Plot summary
Carruthers, a minor official in the Foreign Office, is contacted by an acquaintance, Davies, asking him to join in a yachting holiday in the Baltic Sea. Carruthers agrees, as his other plans for a holiday have fallen through, and because of a heartbreak due to a woman he courted becoming engaged to another man.

He arrives to find that Davies has a small sailing boat (the vessel is named Dulcibella, a reference to Childers's own sister of that name), not the comfortable crewed yacht that he expected. However, Carruthers agrees to go on the trip and joins Davies in Flensburg on the Baltic, whence they head for the Frisian Islands, off the coast of Germany. Carruthers has to learn quickly how to sail the small boat.

Davies gradually reveals that he suspects that the Germans are undertaking something sinister in the German Frisian islands. This is based on his belief that he was nearly wrecked by a German yacht luring him into a shoal in rough weather during a previous trip. The yacht was owned and captained by a mysterious German entrepreneur called Dollmann, whom Davies suspects of being in fact an expatriate Englishman posing as a German. The situation was further complicated by Davies having fallen deeply in love with Dollmann's daughter, Clara – who, Davies is sure, is not involved in whatever nefarious scheme her father is engaged upon. In any case, Davies is suspicious about what would motivate Dollmann to try to kill him, and believed that it is some scheme involving the German Imperial government. Having failed to interest anyone in the British government in the incident, Davies feels it is his patriotic duty to investigate further on his own – hence the invitation to Carruthers.

Carruthers and Davies spend some time exploring the shallow tidal waters of the Frisian Islands, moving closer to the mysterious site where there is a rumoured secret treasure recovery project in progress on the island of Memmert. The two men discover that Dollmann is involved in the recovery project. Carruthers and Davies try to approach Memmert. They are warned away by a German Navy patrol boat, the Blitz, and its commander von Brüning – who is friendly and affable, but still makes a veiled warning. This makes them all the more sure that there is something more than a treasure dig on the island. And meanwhile, they discover that not only is Dollmann indeed an Englishman, he had been an officer in the Royal Navy – evidently having had to leave Britain in hurry and take up a new life as a German.

Taking advantage of a thick fog, Davies navigates them covertly through the complicated sandbanks in a small boat to investigate the Memmert site. Carruthers investigates the island. He overhears von Brüning and Dollmann discussing something more than treasure hunting, including cryptic references to "Chatham", "Seven" and "the tide serving", and hears of a rendezvous at the Frisian railway station, several days ahead. The pair return through the fog to the Dulcibella, moored at the island of Norderney. There, they find Dollmann and von Brüning have beaten them and are seemingly suspicious. However, getting in the fog from Norderney to Memmert and back is a nearly impossible feat, which only Davies' superb seamanship could have achieved, and the Germans do not seriously suspect them of having done that.

Von Brüning invites them to Dollmann's villa for a dinner, where he attempts to subtly cross-examine them to find out if they are British spies. Carruthers plays a dangerous game, admitting they are curious. But he convinces von Brüning that he believes the cover story about treasure and merely wants to see the imaginary "wreck". The party also serves to show that the Germans do not fully trust the renegade Englishman Dollmann and that there is some rift between them which might be widened.

Carruthers announces that the Foreign Office has recalled him to England. He heads off, being accompanied part of the way to the Dutch border by one of the German conspirators – outwardly an affable fellow-traveller. But instead of embarking from Amsterdam to England, he doubles back, returns to Germany in time to be present at the conspirators' rendezvous (to which Dollmann, significantly, was not invited). He manages to follow von Brüning and his men without being noticed, and trails them to a port where they board a tugboat towing a barge. Carruthers then sneaks aboard and hides, and the convoy heads to sea.

Carruthers finally puts the riddle together. The Germans are linking the canals and the railways, dredging passages through the shifting sands and hiding a fleet of tugs and barges. The only explanation is that they are preparing to secretly transport a powerful German army across the North Sea to invade Britain's east coast. He escapes after grounding the tugboat and rushes back to Davies. He finds him and explains how they must flee before the Germans come after them. They convince Dollmann and Clara to come with them to avoid Dollmann's being arrested by the Germans, who will think he has changed sides again. They promise Dollman immunity from being charged for treason in Britain – which, acting on their own and not having any authorization from the British government, they were not truly in a position to promise. As they sail across the North Sea, Dollmann commits suicide by jumping overboard, presumably to avoid disgrace and probable arrest.

An epilogue by the "editor" examines the details of a report prepared by Dollmann, outlining his plan for the invasion force. A postscript notes that the Royal Navy is finally taking countermeasures to intercept any German invasion fleet and urges haste.

Literary criticism
Childers's biographer Andrew Boyle noted: "For the next ten years Childers's book remained the most powerful contribution of any English writer to the debate on Britain's alleged military unpreparedness." It was a notable influence on John Buchan, and on Ken Follett, who described it as "an open-air adventure thriller about two young men who stumble upon a German armada preparing to invade England." Follett has also called it "the first modern thriller".

Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones listed The Riddle of the Sands as one of the ten classic spy novels, in The Guardian's best spy novel list. Robert McCrum of The Observer included it in his list of the 100 greatest novels of all time.

The Daily Telegraph has cited the book as the second best spy novel of all time, after Kipling's Kim.

Historical context
Though wars with Germany would become a central issue for Britain for much of the first half of the 20th century, few Britons anticipated that before 1900. Historically, it was France which was the traditional enemy of England and Britain, from the Hundred Years' War until the Napoleonic Wars. Just nine years before The Riddle of the Sands, William Le Queux published The Great War in England, raising the spectre of a French surprise invasion of England, reaching London – with Germany cast as Britain's loyal ally, rushing to help and in the nick of time saving England from the French. But Emperor Wilhelm II's policy of building up the German Navy and challenging British sea power effected a change in the actual power relations – reflected in the specific literary genre of invasion novels and the identity assigned to the possible invader of British soil.

As described in its author's own words, Riddle of the Sands was written as "... a story with a purpose", written from "a patriot's natural sense of duty", which predicted war with Germany and called for British preparedness. The whole genre of "invasion novels" raised the public's awareness of the "potential threat" of Imperial Germany.

The Riddle of the Sands has been credited with the creation of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, which trained civilians with no professional sea-going experience for service with the Royal Navy. In the book, Davies is an enthusiastic advocate of such a body:

"There must be hundreds of chaps like me—I know a good many myself—who know our coasts like a book—shoals, creeks, tides, rocks; there’s nothing in it, it’s only practice. They ought to make some use of us as a naval reserve. They tried to once, but it fizzled out, and nobody really cares. And what’s the result? Using every man of what reserves we’ve got, there’s about enough to man the fleet on a war footing, and no more. They’ve tinkered with fishermen, and merchant sailors, and yachting hands, but everyone of them ought to be got hold of; and the colonies, too."

In fact the influence the book had on the formation of the Volunteer Reserve has been overstated. The 1903 Naval Forces Bill authorising the formation of the RNVR was introduced to Parliament in March 1903 (the novel would debut in May) and was passed in June. The formation of a naval reserve for civilians had been heavily discussed since the Boer War and its formation came after a concerted political and press campaign led by Thomas Brassey and Charles Chadwyck-Healey - in his book Childers was espousing the arguments made in favour of the Volunteer Reserve but the novel was by no means the source of the idea or the force behind its creation. However the impact of the book and its popularity has been credited with adding backing to the Naval Forces Bill and speeding its passage through parliament. Childers would in fact be commissioned into the RNVR on the outbreak of the First World War

Similarly, the belief has grown that the book was responsible for the development of the naval base at Rosyth, but the chronology here is also incorrect; the purchase of the land for the Rosyth naval base was announced in Parliament on 5 March 1903, two months before the novel's publication, and some time after secret negotiations for the purchase had begun. Although Winston Churchill later credited the book as a major reason why the Admiralty had decided to establish the new naval bases, this seems unlikely. When war was declared he ordered the Director of Naval Intelligence to find Childers, whom he had met when the author was campaigning to represent a naval seat in Parliament, and employ him. At the time Childers was writing Riddle he was also contributing to a factual book published by The Times in which he warned of outdated British army tactics in the event of "conflicts of the future". He developed this theme in two further works he published in 1911: War and the Arme Blanche and German Influence on British Cavalry.

The novel contains many realistic details based on Childers' own sailing trips along the East Frisia coast, and large parts of his logbook entries from an 1897 Baltic cruise "appear almost unedited in the book". The yacht Dulcibella in the novel is based upon Vixen, the boat Childers used for his exploration. In August 1910, inspired by the work, two British amateur yachtsmen, Captain Bernard Trench RM and Lieutenant Vivian Brandon RN, undertook a sailing holiday along the same section of the Frisian coast, during which they collected information about German naval installations. The two men were sentenced to four years custody by a military court in Leipzig, but they were pardoned by the Emperor in 1913. They joined "Room 40", the intelligence and decoding section of the British Admiralty, on the outbreak of war.

It is noteworthy that the demonization and vilification of Kaiser Wilhelm, which would become a staple of British propaganda in later years, are conspicuously absent from The Riddle of the Sands. To the contrary, on several occasions the character Davies expresses admiration for the German Emperor: "He is a fine fellow, that emperor. [...] By Jove! We want a man like that Kaiser, who doesn't wait to be kicked, but works like a nigger for his country, and sees ahead".

Lower in the hierarchy, Carruthers several times states that he likes Commander von Brüning as a person – and this liking is not diminished by the discovery that von Brüning is deeply involved in the plan to invade England. In general, the book's protagonists feel no malice towards the Germans. Rather, they take a "sporting" attitude, frankly admiring the Germans' audacity and resourcefulness while being determined to outwit them and foil their plans.

Film, television, and theatrical adaptations
The Riddle of the Sands (1979) is a film adaptation of the book, starring Michael York as Charles Carruthers and Simon MacCorkindale as Arthur Davies.

A seven-part radio adaptation by Valentine Dyall was broadcast on the BBC Light Programme starting in December 1949, with Dyall himself taking the role of Carruthers.

A 90-minute BBC Radio 4 adaptation was broadcast in January 1994, as part of the Saturday Night Theatre strand, starring Laurence Kennedy as Carruthers and Charles Simpson as Davies.

In Germany, the novel was popularised by the TV movie Das Rätsel der Sandbank (1984), produced by the public television and radio station Radio Bremen, and starring Burghart Klaußner as Davies and Peter Sattmann as Carruthers.

Sequel
In 1998, nautical writer Sam Llewellyn wrote a continuation of the story named The Shadow in the Sands. This is subtitled "being an account of the cruise of the yacht Gloria in the Frisian Islands in April 1903 and the Conclusion of the Events described by Erskine Childers."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: The Riddle of the Sands


text:
Dorothy Heyward

Dorothy Heyward (née Kuhns; June 6, 1890 – November 19, 1961) was an American playwright.

In addition to several works of her own, she co-authored the play Porgy (1927) with her husband DuBose Heyward, adapting it from his novel of the same name. Their work is now known best in its adaptation as the opera Porgy and Bess (1935), with music by George Gershwin.

Early life and education
She was born in Wooster, Ohio, as Dorothy Kuhns, and lived in New York, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, throughout her childhood years. She was interested in literature from an early age and started writing plays. After graduating from high school, she attended Harvard University, where she studied to become a playwright.

In 1922, Kuhns attended MacDowell Colony, where she met DuBose Heyward. They married in September 1923 and she changed her name.

Career as a playwright
In 1924, Heyward wrote her first play, The Dud, for which she won a Harvard Prize. The Dud was later retitled to Nancy Ann, and Nancy Ann was produced on Broadway in 1924, running a total of 40 performances.

When her husband was writing his novel Porgy, Dorothy Heyward saw dramatic possibilities in the story. She convinced him that it would work as a play. They collaborated to adapt it to the stage, making sure the play's company be cast with only black actors. This was seen as a controversial decision during its time, when black characters were almost always portrayed by white actors in blackface. Nonetheless, the play was a success and the 1927 Theatre Guild production ran for 367 performances.

Their play was later adapted as the opera Porgy and Bess (1935), with music by George Gershwin and lyrics by Ira Gershwin and DuBose Heyward. This was adapted as a film by the same name in 1959.

Throughout her career, Heyward wrote many plays, most of which did not achieve the same level of success as Porgy. Her play, Jonica, co-written in 1930 with playwright Moss Hart, as well as her plays, South Pacific, Cinderelative, and Set My People Free were all performed on Broadway, but were ultimately short-lived.

In 1939, Heyward collaborated with her husband on their play Mamba's Daughters, which was adapted from DuBose's 1929 novel of the same name.

Many of her works focused on African-American culture and often touched on subjects such as slavery and prejudice.

In the 1930s, Heyward wrote several novels, including one in 1930 titled Three-a-Day, and another in 1932 titled The Pulitzer Prize Murders.

Plays

 * The Dud (Retitled Nancy Ann ) (1924)
 * Love in a Cupboard (1925)
 * Porgy (1927), co-written with DuBose Heyward
 * Jonica (1930), musical: book co-written with Moss Hart; lyrics by William Moll; music by Joseph Meyer
 * Cinderelative (1930), co-written with Dorothy De Jagers
 * Mamba's Daughter's (1939), co-written with DuBose Hayward, adapted from DuBose Heyward's 1929 novel of the same name
 * South Pacific (1943), co-written with Howard Rigby (not correlated with the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical of the same name)
 * Set My People Free (1948)
 * Babar the elephant (1953), children's opera: co-written with Nicolai Berezowsky and Judith Randal; based on the Babar the Elephant stories by Jean de Brunhoff

Novels

 * Three-a-Day (1930)
 * The Pulitzer Prize Murders (1932)

title: Dorothy Heyward


text:
Diversion

Diversion, Diversions or The Diversion may refer to:

Arts and entertainment

 * Diversion (film), a 1980 British television film adapted into the 1987 movie Fatal Attraction
 * Diversion (play), a 1927 work by John Van Druten
 * The Diversion, a 2001 novel by K. A. Applegate
 * Diversion Books, an American publisher
 * Diversions, op. 21, for piano left hand and orchestra by Benjamin Britten
 * Diversions (album), a 1987 jazz album
 * Diversions, former name of the National Dance Company Wales
 * Diversions Entertainment, manufacturer of One Must Fall video game

Companies

 * Divert (company), an American impact technology company based in Massachusetts

Transport

 * Diversion airport, an airport designated for an emergency landing
 * Traffic diversion, the rerouting of traffic
 * Yamaha Diversion, a motorcycle manufactured by Yamaha

Other uses

 * Diversion dam, the rerouting of water
 * Diversion program, criminal justice scheme usually for minor offenses
 * Drug diversion, the transfer of legally prescribed controlled pharmaceuticals to other individuals
 * Product diversion, the sale of products in unintended markets
 * Weapons diversion, the loss or theft of weapons and ammunition

title: Diversion


text:
La Posta Astro-Geophysical Observatory

The La Posta Astro-Geophysical Observatory was a 60 ft Navy Electronics Laboratory radio-telescope installation at Campo, CA, US.

Construction began in 1964 at a 3900 ft site in the Laguna Mountains, 65 miles (105 kilometers) east of San Diego.

It is being dismantled as of November 2015.

History
The observatory played a major role in solar radio mapping, studies of environmental disturbances, and development of a solar optical videometer for microwave research.

Its 60-foot dish, which could both transmit and receive, was used for important research programs in propagation and ionospheric forecasting which were used during a number of Apollo space launches to predict solar activity that might hamper communications from the ground to the space capsules. The building located at the lower right of the dish housed a turbine-powered alternator used to provide power for the dish operation. There was insufficient power available from the national grid. In addition, the dish was computer controlled by an operator located in the building below the dish. The dish movements were monitored by close-circuit television.

The observatory was decommissioned in 1986. The large dish physically remained unused until it was dismantled in late 2015; the surrounding site is now used as a Naval Weapons Training Facility.

Nicknames
Local residents referred to the unused, upwards-pointing, dish as "the Pterodactyl Birdbath".

title: La Posta Astro-Geophysical Observatory


text:
Nicky Byrne

Nicholas Bernard James Adam McGarry Byrne Jr. (born 9 October 1978) is an Irish pop singer, songwriter and radio and television presenter. He is best known for being a member of the pop group Westlife; Westlife has since released twelve albums, embarked on thirteen world tours, and won some awards, becoming one of the most successful Irish boys groups of all time.

Before his music career, he played professional soccer, representing the Republic of Ireland at several teen levels. Since then he has had a successful TV and radio presenting career. His wife Georgina is the daughter of former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, and they have fraternal twin sons and a daughter.

In September 2012, it was announced that Byrne would be a contestant for the tenth series of Strictly Come Dancing. He was the ninth contestant to be eliminated. He was ranked number two on Ireland's Sexiest Man of 2014. After RTÉ internally chose him to represent Ireland, he released the song "Sunlight" and performed it in the second semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2016 competition in Stockholm in May 2016, but failed to advance to the final.

Football
Byrne was a footballer and played for Home Farm and St. Kevins Boys in North Dublin. He became a professional player, and joined Leeds United as a goalkeeper in 1995, and was a squad member of the FA Youth Cup winning team of 1997. He played for Leeds for two years, leaving when his contract expired in June 1997. He played in a reserve game for Scarborough and in a trial game with Cambridge United, before returning to join Dublin club Shelbourne. He then signed for Cobh Ramblers playing 15 games in all competitions, then St. Francis F.C., all in Ireland's League of Ireland.

On 14 May 2009, Byrne was a substitute for a Liverpool Legends XI that played against an All Star XI in a Hillsborough Memorial match to mark the 20th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. All the proceeds from the match went to the Marina Dalglish appeal. He represented the Republic of Ireland at U15, U16 and U18 levels. He is a fan of Celtic FC, and on 9 August 2011 played in a Celtic Legends XI at Celtic Park in front of a crowd of 54,000 against a Manchester Utd Legends team. Byrne participated in and won Soccer Aid 2014. He scored in the match, played at Old Trafford. He was the only non-professional player to score in the match. The Rest of the World team won the game 4–2.

Music
In June 1998, Byrne attended an audition for new Irish boyband, where Boyzone manager Louis Walsh approached him to join his new venture, Westlife. Byrne joined Westlife along with Kian Egan, Mark Feehily, Shane Filan and Brian McFadden. Byrne revealed in Westlife: Our Story that he had wanted to change the name of the band to West High; but the others preferred Westlife. With Westlife, Byrne has had 25 top ten UK singles, 14 of which were number one, 7 number one albums and has sold in excess of over 55 million records worldwide. It is certified that Westlife have sold 20.2 million records and videos in the UK across their 14-year career – 6.8 million singles, 11.9 million albums and 1.5 million videos. Byrne also had a number one single in Ireland in 2002, alongside the Republic of Ireland national football team and Dustin the Turkey with the Irish 2002 FIFA World Cup anthem, "Here Come The Good Times (Ireland)". He also co-wrote many of Westlife songs.

In early January 2016, it was rumored that RTÉ had internally chosen Byrne to represent Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016. Byrne had not yet confirmed or denied such information but announced that he would grab the opportunity with both hands if given. On 13 January, Byrne was confirmed to be the Irish singer for the 2016 contest in Stockholm with the song, "Sunlight". He performed in the second semi final on 12 May 2016, but failed to advance to the final.

In October 2018, a video was posted to Westlife's official social media platforms announcing the group's reunion as a four-piece. In 2019, the group headlined "The 20 Tour", named in honour of Westlife's 20th anniversary since its formation and the release of its first single, "Swear It Again", in 1999. In addition to touring, Westlife also released new music. "Hello My Love", the first single from the group's eleventh album, Spectrum, debuted on the Graham Norton Show on 10 and 11 January 2019.

Television and radio
In 2003, Byrne guest-hosted an edition of CD:UK with Cat Deeley.

Byrne hosted the closing ceremony of the Special Olympics live from Dublin's Croke Park in front of 80,000 spectators.

Throughout the years, Byrne has appeared on Children in Need and Comic Relief several times. In 2001, he co-hosted Children in Need live from Belfast and in 2011 and co-hosted a BBC Radio 2 radio special with Patrick Kielty for the cause.

Byrne has narrated stage shows such as The Snowman Christmas Special and the Picture of You documentary dedicated to former Boyzone member Stephen Gately, who died on 10 October 2009.

Byrne has also hosted the Cheerios ChildLine Concert a record seven times, which was broadcast on RTÉ2, and in more recent years on TV3.

In addition, Byrne presented several editions of the Celebrity Sunday radio programme on RTÉ 2fm in 2010. Listeners tuned in from as far and wide as Mexico, Chile, the United Kingdom, Philippines and Indonesia. The fourth and final edition of the programme, broadcast on 14 February 2010, trended worldwide on Twitter. FM104 publicly offered him a job the day Westlife announced their split.

In October 2012, Byrne hosted the RTÉ reality TV show Football's Next Star. The series followed ten young hopefuls competing for a chance to win a place with Celtic Football Club's youth squad.

In 2013 through 2015, and again in 2017 and 2018, Byrne presented the Irish votes at the Eurovision Song Contest. He also co-hosted the short-lived TV talent show The Hit on RTÉ One along with Aidan Power.

On 4 February 2014, Byrne signed a contract with RTÉ 2fm to host a new weekday show from 11am to 2pm together with veteran DJ and presenter Jenny Greene. In March 2019, he stepped down to focus on Westlife and preparations for their upcoming tour.

In January 2015, Byrne started hosting the new weekly National Lottery game show The Million Euro Challenge on RTÉ 1, although the show was axed that July.

In January 2017, Byrne started hosting an Irish version of the TV show Dancing with the Stars, alongside Amanda Byram and with Jennifer Zamparelli from 2019.

In June 2020, he hosted RTÉ Does Comic Relief during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In October 2021, Byrne was announced as the host of a new singing competition commissioned for RTÉ entitled Last Singer Standing.

Songwriting
Byrne has co-written some songs in his Westlife years and on all ten tracks on his debut solo album and also to one unreleased song:

 * "Sunlight"
 * "Explosion"
 * "Song For Lovers"
 * "Pop Machine"
 * "Still The One"
 * "Some Things Always Seem To Last"
 * "Finishing Line"
 * "Broadway Show"
 * "Thank You"
 * "Pretty"
 * "Talking with Jennifer"
 * "Sweeping Up"
 * "When You Come Around"
 * "Don't Let Me Go"
 * "Imaginary Diva"
 * "Reason For Living"
 * "Where We Belong"
 * "I Won't Let You Down"
 * "Singing Forever"
 * "You See Friends (I See Lovers)"
 * "I'm Missing Loving You"
 * "Closer"
 * "Last Mile of the Way"
 * "The Way That You Love Me"
 * "Alive"

Personal life
Byrne was born to parents Yvonne and Nicholas (d. 2009) and has an older sister and a younger brother. He was born in Dublin and grew up in the Northside area of the city, where he attended Pobalscoil Neasáin and continues to reside.

Byrne married Georgina Ahern, his secondary schoolmate, on 5 August 2003 at the Wicklow Register Office, Wicklow, County Wicklow. The civil ceremony was followed by a church blessing on 9 August at the Roman Catholic Church of St Pierre et St Paul in Gallardon, Eure-et-Loir, France.

The couple have three children.

Philanthropy
In 2010, Byrne and his family organised the 'Nikki Byrne Twilight Ball', a fundraising event, in memory of their father who died in November 2009. The event raised over €200,000 and completely funded a television and radio heart attack awareness campaign in connection with 'The Irish Heart Foundation'.

title: Nicky Byrne


text:
Makoto Hagiwara

Makoto Hagiwara (萩原 眞) (15 August 1854 – 12 September 1925) was a Japanese-born American landscape designer responsible for the maintenance and expansion of the Japanese Tea Garden at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California, from 1895 until his death in 1925. Hagiwara is often credited with the invention of the fortune cookie in California.

Biography
Hagiwara was born on 15 August 1854 in a village in northern Kai Province (located in present-day Yamanashi, Yamanashi Prefecture) into a peasant family. His father died when he was 15 years-old and ran the family farm until he emigrated to the United States in 1878. He opened the first Japanese restaurant in San Francisco, and records show that he was the owner of a restaurant called Yamatoya in Chinatown. Hagiwara opened another restaurant in nearby Oakland but this venture failed.

After the close of San Francisco's 1894 World's Fair, Hagiwara was then hired to manage the fair's tea garden site. He personally oversaw the modification of the temporary Japanese Village fair exhibit to the permanent Japanese Tea Garden and was official caretaker of the garden for most of the time between 1895 and his death in 1925. It was there that he is said to have introduced the modern version of the fortune cookie, which he is believed to have adapted from Japan's tsujiura senbei (辻占煎餅).

title: Makoto Hagiwara


text: Talk:Encyclopédie nouvelle

title: Talk:Encyclopédie nouvelle