![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What is gained by this sort of writing?
Her reported hobbies, characterized by one national magazine as a "seemingly focus-group-tested list," include reading, running, piano, gardening, skeet shooting, gourmet cooking, rubber stamp collecting and crossword puzzles.[1][6]
The phrase "seemingly focus-group-tested list," is an entirely gratuitous negative spin. We don't care that one national magazine characterized her hobbies that way. Her hobbies are her hobbies. Take personal opinion, especially negative personal opinion, out of it. This is the biography of a living person. Wikipedia guidelines tell use to to treat the subject sympathetically, not to go out of our way to try to smear the subject of our biography. I am removing the negative and completely gratuitous language. Please don't put it back. Please use the Talk page to discuss this.
A perfectly good form could read as follows:
Her reported hobbies include reading, running, piano, gardening, skeet shooting, gourmet cooking, rubber stamp collecting and crossword puzzles.[1][6]
That is straightforward reportage, without spin. Bus stop 14:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"Seemingly focus group tested" has a negative spin. What positive spin can be found for it? "Focus group tested" implies "tailored to look good," regardless of the truth behind the image. By testing before a "focus group," one can use feedback gained to tailor a product that one can reasonably expect to be met with approval by the larger population. Focus groups are commonly used to test products or political positions. And feedback can help design products or political messages that the public wants. But when the phrase is applied to an individual's hobbies it implies "untruth." Hobbies only serve the individual, unlike products for the society. The implication is that these are not really her hobbies. It is implied that NASA created a list of hobbies that are likely to be met with approval by the public when the public reads her NASA profile. The publication that wrote that in their article meant it as a jab against NASA. NASA is a big institution and it can take criticism of that sort. In fact maybe NASA is deserving of the criticism. But putting it into Lisa Nowak's biography is unfair. The link to the article is fine, in my opinion. In fact, I like the article. But I don't think we should be excerpting that quote. There is a Wikipedia article on Focus groups, but I must admit I haven't read it. Bus stop 22:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can see your point. I hadn't thought of it that way. But it is, I think, besides the point. I think we should just list her hobbies, and leave it at that. The reader can then read into those particular hobbies if they choose to, but we are not suggesting anything. Bus stop 23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why can't she bake good cookies? Bus stop 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Her cookie baking abilities should not be doubted. I think that would express a point of view at variance with Wikipedia guidelines. Bus stop 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Horse=dead. No beating necessary. -- Plek 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to fix a statement in the arrest section of this article, which states that police recommended no bail, but she was later released on $10,000 bail. This is wrong; she was released on $25,000 bail. The arraignment section clarifies her bail, where I feel it should be brought up exclusively. All pertinent information for the arrest section can be found in the police report; there are three articles cited (news sources) that I find to be unnecessary. I would like to remove these references, as it appears they were cited in error. TDogg310 ( talk) 22:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
We could have this photo in the article " President George W. Bush stands with crew members of the Space Shuttle Discovery, the Space Shuttle Atlantis and the Space Station Expeditions 11, 12, and 13 Monday, Oct. 23, 2006, in the East Room of the White House" [1], which includes Lisa Nowak. Actually I'm kidding, but is still an interesting picture. Perhaps we could create a commons gallery of all her NASA and USGov PD images? Evil Monkey - Hello 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok from her NASA bio (the one linked in the article), She was assigned to Electronic Warfare Aggressor Squadron 34 at Point Mugu, California... While assigned to the squadron, she qualified as Mission Commander and EW Lead. Dunno if that's where some PR person snagged it, dunno if one can still refer to her as "commander" after she left that post. I'm no friggin' expert on US Navy ranks, all I know about them is some comparative vocabulary from stuff I've read through the years :) Gwen Gale 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hookay... this NASA link, another bio, ranks her as Commander, USN in docking big letters so I think it's safe to say whoever wrote the caption had some support... and the context starkly shows she was referred to as a USN commander before the launch and what's more, as a reader I'd interpret it as having been since before she joined NASA. Gwen Gale 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not keen on putting this into the article. I don't see how it links up with Nowak or the crime she's accused of (Shipman's military rank and basic job seem like enough). Moreover there is a privacy concern. Shipman is an alleged crime victim who was (unlike Nowak) not a public figure before this happened. Being a crime victim in itself is not notable in encyclopedic terms. Her CV is personal information which could be used to invade her privacy. Lastly, this article is about Nowak, not Shipman. If this were an article about Shipman her CV would be helpful but not only is this not an article about her, the creation of a WP article about Shipman has been banned and her name redirects here. Gwen Gale 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The simple past tense verb conjugation describes both (the widely documented, see charging affadavit) intent and outcome along with the widely supported avoidance of a superfluous conjunction. [5] Gwen Gale 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually though I didnt put it there myself the pic right now is more recent and we should use a recent pic according to wikipedia style guidelines, SqueakBox 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I see Evil Monkey reverted the anon. Is there any way we could get a flattering but more recent pic? SqueakBox 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I swapped it (with a version of the top one above). Gwen Gale 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that looks much better, clearly much more recent than the other one, SqueakBox 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyway I've swapped the original back in again for now. She's wearing an STS-121 mission patch and the scan is much sharper, both hints it's more recent. Gwen Gale 01:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
From the Kennebec Journal. Gwen Gale 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
We would all do well to remember that this woman was a mother of three, a wife and a consummate professional who risked her life in service to her country. One only need compare the shining photos of Nowak before the incident with the pathetic booking photo of her afterwards to recognize that we are all but a synapse away from such madness.
We have become a nation of small-town gossips and big-time bullies. We are rude and crude to perfect strangers, humiliate them and use language that would horrify our mothers -- and when we do it on the Web, we don't even have the guts to sign our real names. At times like these, we should be ashamed of ourselves.
There seems to be many editors on this article with opinions about not uttering opinions so this might ruffle some feathers but I think it deserves to be said. Anyone of sound mind looking into the UFO phenomenon will find it to be real and by implication that Nasa is lying about it. Several astronauts have stated this ranging from implicitly to fully explicit. Sourcing can be provided if it must. More careful researchers will also note that discrediting whistle blowers is a significant part of that secrecy game which leads us to Lisa Nowak. The charges certainly does make her look ridiculous. I wouldn't bring this up if it wasn't for what appears to be an absense of news regarding her arrest after the initial first wave. Is the absense of news on a very news worthy case news? and if so how do we source that to satisfy WP policies 83.73.246.53 13:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Dan Frederiksen
If Nowak starts publicly claiming she was set up and aliens are involved, somehow I think it'll be put in the article. Gwen Gale 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
What, pray, do UFOs, NASA's supposed lying, and discredited whistleblowers, have the slightest, tangental application to this issue? Someone please inform this ignorant one as to how this topic assists the development of the article?-- Wikidelphia 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
At present, the article has an arrest photo of Nowak in the 'Arraignment' section and no photo at all in the 'Arrest' section. Shouldn't the arrest photo be moved to 'Arrest' and an arraignment photo (one was once posted before) moved to 'Arraignment'. Would make for a more accurate and complete article. I would just do it myself, but many of you seem more knowledgable about both the article and the topic. Dialwon 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If there are any admins around it may not be a bad idea to SP this for awhile. Seems we have a very persistent vandal using differing IPs.-- Looper5920 03:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It was a pic of a rack of laddy magazines. Boring. However, the pic has a legitimate use in another article. The BIL is for restricting the use of easily abused pics. Gwen Gale 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I found that image. I thought the diaper image had other legit uses, which of course it couldnt do. I dont see any harm in semi-protection with newbies making edit requests here, SqueakBox 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I had joked earlier with friends that Nowak's actions were not premeditated but were instead brought on by ' Space Madness', but after thinking it over, I realized that it's very well possible that her visits to space may have affected her brain chemistry, to a point that she had become mentally unstable upon returning from her last mission. Is this at all possble? Does it deserve further inquiry? — Down10 TA CO 09:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
And on the other hand there have been similar cases of highly educated women in obsessional-emotional breakdowns, and none of the others have been to space, SqueakBox 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
well it would seem that brain chemistry changes after long periods of time in space is indeed possible, even not considering the claustrophobia and lack of normal stimuli, yet it seems little excuse in this case considering the large number of people staying in space that havent experienced such radical happenings afterwards, yet of course some people would be more or less susceptable to detrimental brain chemistry changes after periods in weightlessness or small spaces, and it could play a part in a defense case actually, its sort of uncharted territory, that excuse/defense is, yet really still plays into a case of just general mental instability whatever the causing factors for her neurochemical "uniqueness"... yet shoot for the stars Lisa, go with the unprecedented "space case defense"... no matter her defense, the clear appropriate sentence is mental rehabilitation with no jail time, and rocket propulsion out of NASA, there are after all a bunch of kids involved and serious crime was prevented for whatever reason be it fate or whatever, if she starts to go psycho-killer again then perhaps something more serious, yet america likes to punish (not quite so bad as SE-Asia & the ME), and many americans dont excuse mistakes for whatever reasons they happen, (unless the mistakes were made in the executive office)(GW can get thousands of military people killed, if Lisa pepper sprays one in the eyes though it spells trouble for her, sorry Lisa, "totem pole justice") 83.79.168.184 01:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone think this is worth including in the Reactions section? -- MyrddinEmrys 06:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Being that Nowak is an active-duty U.S. Naval Officer (rank of Captain/O-6) and that the victim is an active-duty U.S. Air Force Officer (rank of Captain/O-3), and that Nowak traveled 900 miles through six states and committed a crime at a U.S. civilian airport (which is automatically a federal crime due to post-9/11 laws being enacted), I think that the Nowak case will be taken out of the State of Florida's hands and be placed into the hands of the Navy's Judge Advocate Corps (JAG). Where's Captain Rab when you need him? Rwboa22 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. I still don't understand why the navy is allowing this to be handled in civilian courts. It seems like this should go right to court martial. I would think that this would almost be required under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Westwind273 11:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
From the NYT: "The Navy has decided to reserve judgment against Captain Nowak pending the outcome of her case." [7] Gwen Gale 12:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added this to the article, along with her new navy job. Gwen Gale 12:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I bet she is happy that Anna/Brit are taking up all the media attention. I bet everyone forgot about her, and you can tell in the amount of wikipedia revisions. She lucked out. This was more of a comment Pumapayam 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In the "Reactions" section of this article, there's the following quote: "The astronaut culture is still a carry over from 'The Right Stuff' days. It is very high intensity; it is very competitive. I followed the footnote, and that is the verbatim quote from the Associated Press. But it's grammatically incorrect: the noun form is "carryover", as can be verified in any dictionary. My guess is that the quote was an oral one, the error was in the transcription by the AP reporter, and it got by the copyeditor (or was introduced in the typing process). But that's just a guess; maybe it's a written quote, and the original writer spelled it wrong. What's Wikipedia policy here? Can we just correct it? Do we have to footnote our correction? I realize this is a tiny detail in this article, but I've had this kind of question before, and didn't know what to do. Eric-Albert 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I just asked for semi protection to come off. Seems quieter. - Denny 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't intend to remove a redirection of Colleen Shipman to this page, but can someone else see it as improper. These are not the same people and someone who is not careful would end up being deceived he/she is reading the proper biography. We need Colleen Shipman or else pull that redirection out —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.220.231.106 ( talk) 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
I originally deleted the Shipman article and protected it from recreation. However, several editors wanted it to be a redirect to here, so I then did that. So far, it appears that opinion is split between just having the article redirect here or simply being deleted. If people reach a consensus here, let me know and I'll go along with whatever is agreed on. The only thing that we can't do, though, is create an article about Shipman, b/c she private crime victim. Best, -- Alabamaboy 20:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Colleen Shipman should basically not be mentioned or only mentioned minimally, unless we aspire to be gossipmongers. Bus stop
I'd support leaving it as-is for now, like we have been. People might legitimately look for Shipman for information, and redirecting them to Nowak's page (here) gives them all that we can supply by our standards. It's fine, and by linking their names we're not doing any harm. The media and public records have their names linked now probably unto death. - Denny 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So this is the email she found which reportedly set her off... Shipman's email to Oefelein whilst he was in orbit onboard the shuttle...
“First urge will be to rip your clothes off,” Air Force Capt. Colleen Shipman wrote to Oefelein while he was aboard the shuttle Discovery. “But honestly, love, I want you to totally and thoroughly enjoy your hero’s homecoming.” USA Today
A bit too tabloidy IMO for an enyclopedia article, but put here for context at least. Gwen Gale 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Out on the web there are the entire complete contents of email exchanges between Oefelein and Shipman -- about 10 emails I think. They would be a reasonable link in the "See other" or "references" or some section like that. Oefelein has sort of undermined Nowak's statement that their relationship was not romantic. He said it was since 2004. --
Blue Tie
13:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
From the BBC, - In one paper, Capt Shipman said she expressed concern about Capt Nowak to Cmdr Oefelein, asking: "Is there gonna be some crazy lady showing up at my door, trying to kill me?" ... "He said, 'No... she's not like that. She's fine with it. She's happy for me'." [8] - put here for context only. Gwen Gale 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely this fails the fair use criterion of "where no free alternative exists or could be created", since we have perfectly good free images for this article? Mdwh 02:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The fact that technology did not exist during the days of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington to take their photos is irrelevant. Her mugshot is a part of her biography. Unless I missed something, including the mugshot seems to fall under the guideline of WP:BLP. I also dont see why it's not a fair use image. There is no alternate image of her from the incident. -- However whatever 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep it IN! Regarding However whatever's biographical purposes argument the rather significant change in physical (and emotional?) appearance between the official NASA photos and "the incident" seems quite relevant here. Furthermore, the booking shot is freely available from multiple "public" agencies. Although I expect to receive yet more opinions to the contrary, I have been assured by the agency in question (Orange County Sheriff's Office/Corrections) as well as my state congresswoman that all images obtained from their Web site(s) are in the public domain. -- Jasap 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You lost me. Are you trying to challenge the fact that the mug shot came from the Orange County Sherrif Department? Where else could the mug shot have come from? -- However whatever 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that wikipedia needs a policy on mugshots. I think that it should be roughly like this:
Bullet 4 means that, suppose Jimmy Carter were arrested for Jaywalking, booked and then photographed, that incident, while definitely noteable, would not require a mug shot in the article. -- Blue Tie 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The reference was rm'd without discussion. I thought there was a consensus to leave it in (they were indeed wearing them), however I don't think this is a big thing and I'll go with the sway of consensus without saying anything more about it. Gwen Gale 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If the information is verified, then these should be answerable questions.
If there is some secret code behind wearing jackets that people should grok, maybe its that one of these astronauts is secretly a Canadian Record producer ( http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/adam.html) because they obviously like to wear that kind of jacket there and why would anyone ever thing that such a thing would be a coincidence? -- Blue Tie 05:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Brown. Both. Significant. Movie. The Right Stuff (the Chuck Yeager character wears a highly similar one during the late 40s scenes). Not secret, maybe a code though, depends wholly on semantics. It's documented by the videos taken of Nowak's 1st arraignment. They look brand new but that last bit is OR. Gwen Gale 05:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I have restored the above discussion for reference. Note the questions at the start of the article and the complete lack of verifiable, reliable sourcing for this inclusion. Also note that despite the statements of the advocate for this position, there was no consensus. Finally, I would point out that consensus would not normally trump policies such as NPOV ,VER and NOR. -- Blue Tie 15:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, should contributors here wish to include information: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/However whatever. thanks. - Denny 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Only for context, a rather sympathetic but pithy column about Nowak. Gwen Gale 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Gwen, you claim I am the only one who has objected to your edit. You are the only one who has objected to mine. Why do you imagine that your statements on the fashion of the gentlemen are superior to mine? If there is no good reason to exclude them then they should be included as much as yours should be. Or both should be removed. Choose. -- Blue Tie 04:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how their clothes is relevant to this article. Dionyseus 05:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Without a shadow of a doubt, the fact that brown leather jacket were worn should NOT be included in the article. It is completely irrelevant. -- However whatever 12:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"You don't like it" does not equal "unencyclopedic".
"You don't like it" does not equal "invalid source".
The first link is a call for people to stop making fun of her. The second link is a call for people to stop making fun of her. Both are valid sources of valid accounts of public reaction.
To remove these counterbalancing public reactions is to bias the article against Novak away from NPOV. Unbalanced is "unencyclopedic".
You don't own the article. Please stop removing valid material. -- Davidkevin 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like she is getting a pass, no one even follows the story anymore, she is on active duty, and no one even saw fit to add anything on the statements to Wikipedia. Including me, I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.215.41 ( talk • contribs).
Getting a pass? She was dismissed by NASA, only lately got the ankle bracelet removed, is facing protracted criminal court worries, is now claiming insanity to avoid prison time and will still have to deal with her current employer, the US Navy, after the trial, all of which is noted in the article. Gwen Gale 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I just rewrote the section on the arrest in Orlando, and removed the disputed tag. In doing so, I removed some of the inferences recently inserted by another editor, and tried to bring it all back into alignment with the known facts. Hope I got them all. I went ahead and removed the tag because I am unaware of any serious dispute about any of the facts or allegations remaining in the section. If there IS such dispute, then I would encourage others to bring the issues here, so that they can be resolved. I also removed all of the Shipman redlinks which were recently put in...there has been extensive discussion previously on this page involving Shipman, and I think there is still consensus that she will not have her own Wikipedia article as long as the only thing notable she has done is to be a victim. So, the links are useless. Cheers. Cmichael 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a common tendency to bloat the end of the article with a bunch of details from the latest news item about the subject. A little bit more maturity would help you to see that it is not appropriate and will eventually disappear. WP:NOT the news. Please, keep the prose balanced based on what is likely to be important over the long term. Five axis of DSM insanity is distracting and unbalanced.-- Francine3 03:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that the full list of Nowak's diagnoses are bloat; Nowak's defense team will be defending their client via the insanity defense. Accordingly, detailing Nowak's full diagnoses is very much appropriate; rather then a selective and thus misleading partial list. Furthermore, her full diagnostic description provides the reader with an idea of the defense strategy that will be employed - lonely and socially isolated, depressed, obsessed, tired/confused and finally deluded = otherwise law-abiding citizen pepper sprays her love rival. -- Diamonddavej 23:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to have excessive use of references. Enigmaman 18:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to guess that this may not be included because the source may not be "notable" or something, but someone wrote a song about Lisa Nowak and the whole road trip revenge thing... It's called "Road Trip" and it can be found on YouTube right here. I'm curious if there would there be any space for this, but I'm guessing probably not. -- Fesworks ( talk) 03:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight...
She is not a pilot,,,she may have gone to TEST PILOT school but she is classed as a "NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICER"...another word for navigator ("back-seater"), radio operator, bombardier, missile control or weapons officer, or a combination of any of those. A pilot in the navy is a "NAVAL AVIATOR".. There is a big distinction.
Now, how does one tell which is which? EASY!! If the officer is in uniform, look at their gold wings, if there is only 1 vertical anchor then you have a naval aviator...IF you have 2 smaller anchors criss-crossed at 45 degrees from vertical (ninety degrees to each other) then you are looking at a naval flight officer (NFO). This is what LISA CAPUTO (as we knew her at Boat School) has.
If they are not in uniform, and they are talking smack about flying this aircraft or that aircraft, just ask them, "oh, you were aircraft commander?" This is not something a NFO can be. Only mission commander. They can never control the operation of an aircraft only the mission it is performing.
Don't get me wrong, some of my best buddies are NFOs. Some are FAA certified pilots able to fly Cessnas and Piper Cubs. Some may even have twin or jet time... BUT NOT IN NAVAL AIRCRAFT!! They have to be designated NAVAL AVIATORS to pilot the aircraft. Period end of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.22.252 ( talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Her lawyer stated that she suffered from major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Asperger's syndrome, insomnia, and "brief psychotic disorder with marked stressors" at the time of the incident. (Links to Lisa Nowak pursuing insanity defense)
I followed the link, but saw nothing in the article referenced indicating the her lawyer argued she had Asperger's. Instead, the article says:
They may have said she has Aspergers, but they wuould not let her in the Navy with that, much less let her become an astronaut. 141.116.212.32 ( talk) 19:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Her story is retold/referred to in the Ben Folds song Cologne from his album, Way To Normal. The lyrics can be found here: [10]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.4.149 ( talk) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Although Oefelein's full name appears in the lead to this article, it does not appear in the full text of the article. Shouldn't it? --Mel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.117.41 ( talk) 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Instead of nonsense about Lisa Nowak's moronic hobbies, what is actually needed in the article is explication of the fact that her case was blatantly covered-up by NASA political pressure in Florida. In short, if any normal person was caught in Florida doing what Lisa Nowak did, they would be doing at a few years in prison. She did two days in jail, which is an utter joke. It ridiculous, absurd, and quite obvious that the legal system in Florida was politically forced to make her case disappear because it was huge embarrassment to NASA and the Navy. Not including anything which leads readers to this obvious conclusion is POV, specifically pro-establishment as it is a denial of corruption by omission. Get serious Wikipedia. 24.11.186.64 ( talk) 18:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The article states that Nowak and Oefelein began their affair "immediately after he divorced" however, the article on Oefelein states their affair began whilst both were still married. A timeline of known events support the latter version: Oefelein was divorced in 2005 but Nowak's "incident" and arrest was at the beginning of Feb 2007 and after their affair had ceased (Oefelein had begun seeing Shipman several months prior). Oefelein was, like Nowak, dismissed from NASA for poor conduct (like the military, NASA considered his adulterous conduct disruptive and indicative of poor judgment). So, the claim should bbe struck - it sounds like someone's lawyer being disingenuous and just doesn't tally with known facts. Plutonium27 ( talk) 00:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What is gained by this sort of writing?
Her reported hobbies, characterized by one national magazine as a "seemingly focus-group-tested list," include reading, running, piano, gardening, skeet shooting, gourmet cooking, rubber stamp collecting and crossword puzzles.[1][6]
The phrase "seemingly focus-group-tested list," is an entirely gratuitous negative spin. We don't care that one national magazine characterized her hobbies that way. Her hobbies are her hobbies. Take personal opinion, especially negative personal opinion, out of it. This is the biography of a living person. Wikipedia guidelines tell use to to treat the subject sympathetically, not to go out of our way to try to smear the subject of our biography. I am removing the negative and completely gratuitous language. Please don't put it back. Please use the Talk page to discuss this.
A perfectly good form could read as follows:
Her reported hobbies include reading, running, piano, gardening, skeet shooting, gourmet cooking, rubber stamp collecting and crossword puzzles.[1][6]
That is straightforward reportage, without spin. Bus stop 14:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"Seemingly focus group tested" has a negative spin. What positive spin can be found for it? "Focus group tested" implies "tailored to look good," regardless of the truth behind the image. By testing before a "focus group," one can use feedback gained to tailor a product that one can reasonably expect to be met with approval by the larger population. Focus groups are commonly used to test products or political positions. And feedback can help design products or political messages that the public wants. But when the phrase is applied to an individual's hobbies it implies "untruth." Hobbies only serve the individual, unlike products for the society. The implication is that these are not really her hobbies. It is implied that NASA created a list of hobbies that are likely to be met with approval by the public when the public reads her NASA profile. The publication that wrote that in their article meant it as a jab against NASA. NASA is a big institution and it can take criticism of that sort. In fact maybe NASA is deserving of the criticism. But putting it into Lisa Nowak's biography is unfair. The link to the article is fine, in my opinion. In fact, I like the article. But I don't think we should be excerpting that quote. There is a Wikipedia article on Focus groups, but I must admit I haven't read it. Bus stop 22:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can see your point. I hadn't thought of it that way. But it is, I think, besides the point. I think we should just list her hobbies, and leave it at that. The reader can then read into those particular hobbies if they choose to, but we are not suggesting anything. Bus stop 23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why can't she bake good cookies? Bus stop 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Her cookie baking abilities should not be doubted. I think that would express a point of view at variance with Wikipedia guidelines. Bus stop 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Horse=dead. No beating necessary. -- Plek 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to fix a statement in the arrest section of this article, which states that police recommended no bail, but she was later released on $10,000 bail. This is wrong; she was released on $25,000 bail. The arraignment section clarifies her bail, where I feel it should be brought up exclusively. All pertinent information for the arrest section can be found in the police report; there are three articles cited (news sources) that I find to be unnecessary. I would like to remove these references, as it appears they were cited in error. TDogg310 ( talk) 22:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
We could have this photo in the article " President George W. Bush stands with crew members of the Space Shuttle Discovery, the Space Shuttle Atlantis and the Space Station Expeditions 11, 12, and 13 Monday, Oct. 23, 2006, in the East Room of the White House" [1], which includes Lisa Nowak. Actually I'm kidding, but is still an interesting picture. Perhaps we could create a commons gallery of all her NASA and USGov PD images? Evil Monkey - Hello 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok from her NASA bio (the one linked in the article), She was assigned to Electronic Warfare Aggressor Squadron 34 at Point Mugu, California... While assigned to the squadron, she qualified as Mission Commander and EW Lead. Dunno if that's where some PR person snagged it, dunno if one can still refer to her as "commander" after she left that post. I'm no friggin' expert on US Navy ranks, all I know about them is some comparative vocabulary from stuff I've read through the years :) Gwen Gale 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hookay... this NASA link, another bio, ranks her as Commander, USN in docking big letters so I think it's safe to say whoever wrote the caption had some support... and the context starkly shows she was referred to as a USN commander before the launch and what's more, as a reader I'd interpret it as having been since before she joined NASA. Gwen Gale 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not keen on putting this into the article. I don't see how it links up with Nowak or the crime she's accused of (Shipman's military rank and basic job seem like enough). Moreover there is a privacy concern. Shipman is an alleged crime victim who was (unlike Nowak) not a public figure before this happened. Being a crime victim in itself is not notable in encyclopedic terms. Her CV is personal information which could be used to invade her privacy. Lastly, this article is about Nowak, not Shipman. If this were an article about Shipman her CV would be helpful but not only is this not an article about her, the creation of a WP article about Shipman has been banned and her name redirects here. Gwen Gale 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The simple past tense verb conjugation describes both (the widely documented, see charging affadavit) intent and outcome along with the widely supported avoidance of a superfluous conjunction. [5] Gwen Gale 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually though I didnt put it there myself the pic right now is more recent and we should use a recent pic according to wikipedia style guidelines, SqueakBox 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I see Evil Monkey reverted the anon. Is there any way we could get a flattering but more recent pic? SqueakBox 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I swapped it (with a version of the top one above). Gwen Gale 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that looks much better, clearly much more recent than the other one, SqueakBox 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyway I've swapped the original back in again for now. She's wearing an STS-121 mission patch and the scan is much sharper, both hints it's more recent. Gwen Gale 01:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
From the Kennebec Journal. Gwen Gale 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
We would all do well to remember that this woman was a mother of three, a wife and a consummate professional who risked her life in service to her country. One only need compare the shining photos of Nowak before the incident with the pathetic booking photo of her afterwards to recognize that we are all but a synapse away from such madness.
We have become a nation of small-town gossips and big-time bullies. We are rude and crude to perfect strangers, humiliate them and use language that would horrify our mothers -- and when we do it on the Web, we don't even have the guts to sign our real names. At times like these, we should be ashamed of ourselves.
There seems to be many editors on this article with opinions about not uttering opinions so this might ruffle some feathers but I think it deserves to be said. Anyone of sound mind looking into the UFO phenomenon will find it to be real and by implication that Nasa is lying about it. Several astronauts have stated this ranging from implicitly to fully explicit. Sourcing can be provided if it must. More careful researchers will also note that discrediting whistle blowers is a significant part of that secrecy game which leads us to Lisa Nowak. The charges certainly does make her look ridiculous. I wouldn't bring this up if it wasn't for what appears to be an absense of news regarding her arrest after the initial first wave. Is the absense of news on a very news worthy case news? and if so how do we source that to satisfy WP policies 83.73.246.53 13:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Dan Frederiksen
If Nowak starts publicly claiming she was set up and aliens are involved, somehow I think it'll be put in the article. Gwen Gale 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
What, pray, do UFOs, NASA's supposed lying, and discredited whistleblowers, have the slightest, tangental application to this issue? Someone please inform this ignorant one as to how this topic assists the development of the article?-- Wikidelphia 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
At present, the article has an arrest photo of Nowak in the 'Arraignment' section and no photo at all in the 'Arrest' section. Shouldn't the arrest photo be moved to 'Arrest' and an arraignment photo (one was once posted before) moved to 'Arraignment'. Would make for a more accurate and complete article. I would just do it myself, but many of you seem more knowledgable about both the article and the topic. Dialwon 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If there are any admins around it may not be a bad idea to SP this for awhile. Seems we have a very persistent vandal using differing IPs.-- Looper5920 03:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It was a pic of a rack of laddy magazines. Boring. However, the pic has a legitimate use in another article. The BIL is for restricting the use of easily abused pics. Gwen Gale 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I found that image. I thought the diaper image had other legit uses, which of course it couldnt do. I dont see any harm in semi-protection with newbies making edit requests here, SqueakBox 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I had joked earlier with friends that Nowak's actions were not premeditated but were instead brought on by ' Space Madness', but after thinking it over, I realized that it's very well possible that her visits to space may have affected her brain chemistry, to a point that she had become mentally unstable upon returning from her last mission. Is this at all possble? Does it deserve further inquiry? — Down10 TA CO 09:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
And on the other hand there have been similar cases of highly educated women in obsessional-emotional breakdowns, and none of the others have been to space, SqueakBox 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
well it would seem that brain chemistry changes after long periods of time in space is indeed possible, even not considering the claustrophobia and lack of normal stimuli, yet it seems little excuse in this case considering the large number of people staying in space that havent experienced such radical happenings afterwards, yet of course some people would be more or less susceptable to detrimental brain chemistry changes after periods in weightlessness or small spaces, and it could play a part in a defense case actually, its sort of uncharted territory, that excuse/defense is, yet really still plays into a case of just general mental instability whatever the causing factors for her neurochemical "uniqueness"... yet shoot for the stars Lisa, go with the unprecedented "space case defense"... no matter her defense, the clear appropriate sentence is mental rehabilitation with no jail time, and rocket propulsion out of NASA, there are after all a bunch of kids involved and serious crime was prevented for whatever reason be it fate or whatever, if she starts to go psycho-killer again then perhaps something more serious, yet america likes to punish (not quite so bad as SE-Asia & the ME), and many americans dont excuse mistakes for whatever reasons they happen, (unless the mistakes were made in the executive office)(GW can get thousands of military people killed, if Lisa pepper sprays one in the eyes though it spells trouble for her, sorry Lisa, "totem pole justice") 83.79.168.184 01:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone think this is worth including in the Reactions section? -- MyrddinEmrys 06:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Being that Nowak is an active-duty U.S. Naval Officer (rank of Captain/O-6) and that the victim is an active-duty U.S. Air Force Officer (rank of Captain/O-3), and that Nowak traveled 900 miles through six states and committed a crime at a U.S. civilian airport (which is automatically a federal crime due to post-9/11 laws being enacted), I think that the Nowak case will be taken out of the State of Florida's hands and be placed into the hands of the Navy's Judge Advocate Corps (JAG). Where's Captain Rab when you need him? Rwboa22 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. I still don't understand why the navy is allowing this to be handled in civilian courts. It seems like this should go right to court martial. I would think that this would almost be required under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Westwind273 11:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
From the NYT: "The Navy has decided to reserve judgment against Captain Nowak pending the outcome of her case." [7] Gwen Gale 12:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added this to the article, along with her new navy job. Gwen Gale 12:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I bet she is happy that Anna/Brit are taking up all the media attention. I bet everyone forgot about her, and you can tell in the amount of wikipedia revisions. She lucked out. This was more of a comment Pumapayam 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In the "Reactions" section of this article, there's the following quote: "The astronaut culture is still a carry over from 'The Right Stuff' days. It is very high intensity; it is very competitive. I followed the footnote, and that is the verbatim quote from the Associated Press. But it's grammatically incorrect: the noun form is "carryover", as can be verified in any dictionary. My guess is that the quote was an oral one, the error was in the transcription by the AP reporter, and it got by the copyeditor (or was introduced in the typing process). But that's just a guess; maybe it's a written quote, and the original writer spelled it wrong. What's Wikipedia policy here? Can we just correct it? Do we have to footnote our correction? I realize this is a tiny detail in this article, but I've had this kind of question before, and didn't know what to do. Eric-Albert 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I just asked for semi protection to come off. Seems quieter. - Denny 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't intend to remove a redirection of Colleen Shipman to this page, but can someone else see it as improper. These are not the same people and someone who is not careful would end up being deceived he/she is reading the proper biography. We need Colleen Shipman or else pull that redirection out —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.220.231.106 ( talk) 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
I originally deleted the Shipman article and protected it from recreation. However, several editors wanted it to be a redirect to here, so I then did that. So far, it appears that opinion is split between just having the article redirect here or simply being deleted. If people reach a consensus here, let me know and I'll go along with whatever is agreed on. The only thing that we can't do, though, is create an article about Shipman, b/c she private crime victim. Best, -- Alabamaboy 20:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Colleen Shipman should basically not be mentioned or only mentioned minimally, unless we aspire to be gossipmongers. Bus stop
I'd support leaving it as-is for now, like we have been. People might legitimately look for Shipman for information, and redirecting them to Nowak's page (here) gives them all that we can supply by our standards. It's fine, and by linking their names we're not doing any harm. The media and public records have their names linked now probably unto death. - Denny 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So this is the email she found which reportedly set her off... Shipman's email to Oefelein whilst he was in orbit onboard the shuttle...
“First urge will be to rip your clothes off,” Air Force Capt. Colleen Shipman wrote to Oefelein while he was aboard the shuttle Discovery. “But honestly, love, I want you to totally and thoroughly enjoy your hero’s homecoming.” USA Today
A bit too tabloidy IMO for an enyclopedia article, but put here for context at least. Gwen Gale 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Out on the web there are the entire complete contents of email exchanges between Oefelein and Shipman -- about 10 emails I think. They would be a reasonable link in the "See other" or "references" or some section like that. Oefelein has sort of undermined Nowak's statement that their relationship was not romantic. He said it was since 2004. --
Blue Tie
13:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
From the BBC, - In one paper, Capt Shipman said she expressed concern about Capt Nowak to Cmdr Oefelein, asking: "Is there gonna be some crazy lady showing up at my door, trying to kill me?" ... "He said, 'No... she's not like that. She's fine with it. She's happy for me'." [8] - put here for context only. Gwen Gale 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely this fails the fair use criterion of "where no free alternative exists or could be created", since we have perfectly good free images for this article? Mdwh 02:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The fact that technology did not exist during the days of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington to take their photos is irrelevant. Her mugshot is a part of her biography. Unless I missed something, including the mugshot seems to fall under the guideline of WP:BLP. I also dont see why it's not a fair use image. There is no alternate image of her from the incident. -- However whatever 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep it IN! Regarding However whatever's biographical purposes argument the rather significant change in physical (and emotional?) appearance between the official NASA photos and "the incident" seems quite relevant here. Furthermore, the booking shot is freely available from multiple "public" agencies. Although I expect to receive yet more opinions to the contrary, I have been assured by the agency in question (Orange County Sheriff's Office/Corrections) as well as my state congresswoman that all images obtained from their Web site(s) are in the public domain. -- Jasap 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You lost me. Are you trying to challenge the fact that the mug shot came from the Orange County Sherrif Department? Where else could the mug shot have come from? -- However whatever 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that wikipedia needs a policy on mugshots. I think that it should be roughly like this:
Bullet 4 means that, suppose Jimmy Carter were arrested for Jaywalking, booked and then photographed, that incident, while definitely noteable, would not require a mug shot in the article. -- Blue Tie 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The reference was rm'd without discussion. I thought there was a consensus to leave it in (they were indeed wearing them), however I don't think this is a big thing and I'll go with the sway of consensus without saying anything more about it. Gwen Gale 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If the information is verified, then these should be answerable questions.
If there is some secret code behind wearing jackets that people should grok, maybe its that one of these astronauts is secretly a Canadian Record producer ( http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/adam.html) because they obviously like to wear that kind of jacket there and why would anyone ever thing that such a thing would be a coincidence? -- Blue Tie 05:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Brown. Both. Significant. Movie. The Right Stuff (the Chuck Yeager character wears a highly similar one during the late 40s scenes). Not secret, maybe a code though, depends wholly on semantics. It's documented by the videos taken of Nowak's 1st arraignment. They look brand new but that last bit is OR. Gwen Gale 05:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I have restored the above discussion for reference. Note the questions at the start of the article and the complete lack of verifiable, reliable sourcing for this inclusion. Also note that despite the statements of the advocate for this position, there was no consensus. Finally, I would point out that consensus would not normally trump policies such as NPOV ,VER and NOR. -- Blue Tie 15:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, should contributors here wish to include information: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/However whatever. thanks. - Denny 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Only for context, a rather sympathetic but pithy column about Nowak. Gwen Gale 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Gwen, you claim I am the only one who has objected to your edit. You are the only one who has objected to mine. Why do you imagine that your statements on the fashion of the gentlemen are superior to mine? If there is no good reason to exclude them then they should be included as much as yours should be. Or both should be removed. Choose. -- Blue Tie 04:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how their clothes is relevant to this article. Dionyseus 05:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Without a shadow of a doubt, the fact that brown leather jacket were worn should NOT be included in the article. It is completely irrelevant. -- However whatever 12:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"You don't like it" does not equal "unencyclopedic".
"You don't like it" does not equal "invalid source".
The first link is a call for people to stop making fun of her. The second link is a call for people to stop making fun of her. Both are valid sources of valid accounts of public reaction.
To remove these counterbalancing public reactions is to bias the article against Novak away from NPOV. Unbalanced is "unencyclopedic".
You don't own the article. Please stop removing valid material. -- Davidkevin 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like she is getting a pass, no one even follows the story anymore, she is on active duty, and no one even saw fit to add anything on the statements to Wikipedia. Including me, I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.215.41 ( talk • contribs).
Getting a pass? She was dismissed by NASA, only lately got the ankle bracelet removed, is facing protracted criminal court worries, is now claiming insanity to avoid prison time and will still have to deal with her current employer, the US Navy, after the trial, all of which is noted in the article. Gwen Gale 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I just rewrote the section on the arrest in Orlando, and removed the disputed tag. In doing so, I removed some of the inferences recently inserted by another editor, and tried to bring it all back into alignment with the known facts. Hope I got them all. I went ahead and removed the tag because I am unaware of any serious dispute about any of the facts or allegations remaining in the section. If there IS such dispute, then I would encourage others to bring the issues here, so that they can be resolved. I also removed all of the Shipman redlinks which were recently put in...there has been extensive discussion previously on this page involving Shipman, and I think there is still consensus that she will not have her own Wikipedia article as long as the only thing notable she has done is to be a victim. So, the links are useless. Cheers. Cmichael 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a common tendency to bloat the end of the article with a bunch of details from the latest news item about the subject. A little bit more maturity would help you to see that it is not appropriate and will eventually disappear. WP:NOT the news. Please, keep the prose balanced based on what is likely to be important over the long term. Five axis of DSM insanity is distracting and unbalanced.-- Francine3 03:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that the full list of Nowak's diagnoses are bloat; Nowak's defense team will be defending their client via the insanity defense. Accordingly, detailing Nowak's full diagnoses is very much appropriate; rather then a selective and thus misleading partial list. Furthermore, her full diagnostic description provides the reader with an idea of the defense strategy that will be employed - lonely and socially isolated, depressed, obsessed, tired/confused and finally deluded = otherwise law-abiding citizen pepper sprays her love rival. -- Diamonddavej 23:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to have excessive use of references. Enigmaman 18:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to guess that this may not be included because the source may not be "notable" or something, but someone wrote a song about Lisa Nowak and the whole road trip revenge thing... It's called "Road Trip" and it can be found on YouTube right here. I'm curious if there would there be any space for this, but I'm guessing probably not. -- Fesworks ( talk) 03:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight...
She is not a pilot,,,she may have gone to TEST PILOT school but she is classed as a "NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICER"...another word for navigator ("back-seater"), radio operator, bombardier, missile control or weapons officer, or a combination of any of those. A pilot in the navy is a "NAVAL AVIATOR".. There is a big distinction.
Now, how does one tell which is which? EASY!! If the officer is in uniform, look at their gold wings, if there is only 1 vertical anchor then you have a naval aviator...IF you have 2 smaller anchors criss-crossed at 45 degrees from vertical (ninety degrees to each other) then you are looking at a naval flight officer (NFO). This is what LISA CAPUTO (as we knew her at Boat School) has.
If they are not in uniform, and they are talking smack about flying this aircraft or that aircraft, just ask them, "oh, you were aircraft commander?" This is not something a NFO can be. Only mission commander. They can never control the operation of an aircraft only the mission it is performing.
Don't get me wrong, some of my best buddies are NFOs. Some are FAA certified pilots able to fly Cessnas and Piper Cubs. Some may even have twin or jet time... BUT NOT IN NAVAL AIRCRAFT!! They have to be designated NAVAL AVIATORS to pilot the aircraft. Period end of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.22.252 ( talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Her lawyer stated that she suffered from major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Asperger's syndrome, insomnia, and "brief psychotic disorder with marked stressors" at the time of the incident. (Links to Lisa Nowak pursuing insanity defense)
I followed the link, but saw nothing in the article referenced indicating the her lawyer argued she had Asperger's. Instead, the article says:
They may have said she has Aspergers, but they wuould not let her in the Navy with that, much less let her become an astronaut. 141.116.212.32 ( talk) 19:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Her story is retold/referred to in the Ben Folds song Cologne from his album, Way To Normal. The lyrics can be found here: [10]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.4.149 ( talk) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Although Oefelein's full name appears in the lead to this article, it does not appear in the full text of the article. Shouldn't it? --Mel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.117.41 ( talk) 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Instead of nonsense about Lisa Nowak's moronic hobbies, what is actually needed in the article is explication of the fact that her case was blatantly covered-up by NASA political pressure in Florida. In short, if any normal person was caught in Florida doing what Lisa Nowak did, they would be doing at a few years in prison. She did two days in jail, which is an utter joke. It ridiculous, absurd, and quite obvious that the legal system in Florida was politically forced to make her case disappear because it was huge embarrassment to NASA and the Navy. Not including anything which leads readers to this obvious conclusion is POV, specifically pro-establishment as it is a denial of corruption by omission. Get serious Wikipedia. 24.11.186.64 ( talk) 18:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The article states that Nowak and Oefelein began their affair "immediately after he divorced" however, the article on Oefelein states their affair began whilst both were still married. A timeline of known events support the latter version: Oefelein was divorced in 2005 but Nowak's "incident" and arrest was at the beginning of Feb 2007 and after their affair had ceased (Oefelein had begun seeing Shipman several months prior). Oefelein was, like Nowak, dismissed from NASA for poor conduct (like the military, NASA considered his adulterous conduct disruptive and indicative of poor judgment). So, the claim should bbe struck - it sounds like someone's lawyer being disingenuous and just doesn't tally with known facts. Plutonium27 ( talk) 00:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)