Talk:Kirstie Alley

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 19:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Turning down STIII

What kind of evidence there is for the claim that Alley turned down the second Saavik appearance because of typecasting fears? Personally, I wouldn't be very surprised if that was the reason, but the reason I have heard being cited (mostly by Leonard Nimoy, the director) is that she just wanted more money than the producers were prepared to give her.

AJK 20:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Her name

If she got her last name through a marriage, I don't understand why it's considered her stage name. Gilliamjf 08:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Her father's name is Robert Deal Alley. Alley is her maiden name. Questors 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In her book, she mentions a grandfather, whose name is also Robert Alley. Weird. Makes me doubt about her first husbands name.--Tilman 04:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Her first husband was indeed named Bob Alley. --Spencer

Please provide a source. --Tilman 05:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Her father's name is/was Alley, and her first husband's name was Alley? That seems like an incredible coincidence, although Eleanor Roosevelt did it...

As long as nobody brings up evidence, her first husband is Parker Stevenson. --Tilman 22:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No real image of the Cheers cast available?

Is there no photo of the Cheers cast available to put in this article? The caricature seems out of place here.

Fixed it, used image from main article. Staxringold 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sourced

In 2006, Alley expressed some disenchantment with Scientology, noting that it was of no help in her attempts to lose weight, and that ultimately she turned to Jenny Craig. [1]

The above is not sourced - the link does not support the statement at all.--Justanother 03:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I visited the link. I think it is misleading to refer to the situation as "the link does not support the statement at all"; that implies that there is a news story at that URL, but the news story in question fails to support the statement referenced to it. There is in fact no story at that URL; I think it is fairly obvious that the news article which was at that URL has expired. Accordingly, I am restoring the reference, per WP:CITE#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The text of the link can still be found here: [2][3]. However, the Alley quote does not support the text. Personally, I don't trust indian media for anything except Bollywood movies, and I do also not trust "BANG media" (formerly "WENN", which runs hollywood.com, contactmusic.com and femalefirst.com etc) very much.

10 Jan 2006 # IANS

Alley questions Scientology

New York: Former "Cheers" star and Scientology devotee Kirstie Alley has questioned the religion saying that it may not be as inspirational as is claimed because it did not help her to diet.

According to hollywood.com, Alley once weighed 220 pounds and was forced to seek advice from weight loss expert Jenny Craig to help her shed weight, despite Scientology's claim to hold the answer to dieting.

She had used the religion's teachings to kick a cocaine habit but she couldn't use the same techniques to help her food addiction.

According to Alley: "It was different in that I developed a nutty attitude where I'd think, 'If some guy really loves me, he does not care if I am fat.' Or, 'To be a good mother, you have got to cook and eat the food you give your kids.' I'd come up with all these stupid justifications and reasons why it would be okay to be fat."

--Tilman 04:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, really? Why is it that you don't trust them? They are definitely one of the 'lighter' news sources out there, so I would not use them as a source for analysis or comprehensive overview, but for what's claimed here, I would. Why do you feel differently? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3474519 is the link I think I would favor for sourcing, were we to use this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One reason that that years ago, WENN had a crazy story that Tom Cruise had paid off scientology so that they let him go. From all the stories I read, I think that WENN / BANG is at the lowest quality... most stories are that some "friend of a star" said something, or a story that was already written elsewhere. Yes, the stories are fun. But usually, it is something that may or may not have happened.

Btw, in her book (which I bought for 1 EUR on ebay) and is fun to read, Kirstie Alley mentions an auditing session where she realized that she was fat because of a miscarriage. It is mentioned here [4] (WENN!) but without the auditing session. --Tilman 19:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Justanother objects to the observation that Alley remained silent while Narconon was being tossed out of the San Francisco and Los Angeles public schools, on the grounds that it is "unsourced". Alley's public statements are widely reported. But how do you source someone NOT speaking out? Also, the rejection of Narconon is relevant to the article because as their spokesperson, and someone actively involved in educational issues (she opened a Scientology learning center in Wichita), it's surprising that she would stand by and let this happen without uttering a word. -- Touretzky 08:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A number of issues here. Re not speaking out. Unless you can source that specific comment it is "original research"; it is your point or idea. It needs to go on those grounds alone. That is really enough and we do not need to go further. But we can. This is a bio of a living person and you don't put that kind of unsourced derog stuff in there. Out it comes until you can source it. You DON"T leave that sort of stuff in while waiting for sourcing.--Justanother 13:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)