Talk:Lisa Nowak/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

1st to try attempted murder?

I was wondering if Nowak was the 1st astronaut to attempt murder on an individual. I did a search, but found nothing to prove or disprove this. I figured that it would be best to ask & see if anyone knew this for certain. Tokyogirl79Tokyogirl79

she is the first astronaut to get arrested at all. at most, during the apollo program there was a scandal of astronauts getting bribe to take first-day envelopes to the moon.217.132.219.40 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See Apollo 15 postage stamp scandal and Apollo 15#Controversies. Evil Monkey - Hello 19:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

She is the first that we know of to be accused of a felony.

To 217.132.219.40: However, she is NOT the first astronaut to be arrested. For instance, Dr. Mae Jemison was arrested in 1996 during a traffic stop. Dsf 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

another pic

NASA astronaut Captain Lisa Nowak

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwen Gale (talk • contribs) 04:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For new edits, there are interesting pictures that contain Nowak and Oefelein together in 2004 in these articles: http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/news/2004/01/16_e.asp http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/apogee/2004/03_training_astros.asp Since it's a Canadian government article, the pictures there are fair use.Sturmde 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is her arrest history here??

This isn't part of her career as a 'onaut?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.210.68 (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

• This is part of her life. 193.56.37.1 10:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Yup. You wouldn't have an article on Edgar Mitchell without mentioning the Institute of Noetic Sciences or Valentina Tereshkova's article without mentioning the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. A valid encyclopedia would do likewise.--T. Anthony 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• This is biographically significant and also is all over the US national news. I've also restored what she told police about the diapers lest people's imaginations run wild. Gwen Gale 15:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see is that this is still a current event, and hasn't resolved yet. As such it should be reserved for a WikiNews article (which is at this moment, lacking) and not included in the page on her till it has had some time to resolve. (not necessarily conclude.)Tonerman 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowak was already notable as an astronaut, the article was on WP before the incident, I don't see any reason to break it apart but that's only my thought on it. Gwen Gale 13:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

New sections

The main Arrest section was already getting extremely muddled so I broke it up into a few sections. - Denny 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rank

She's a captain in the US Air Force (same as a Lieutenant in the US Navy). She's not a captain in the US Navy (same as a Colonel in the US Air Force). GoodDay 17:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, Shipman is the US Air Force captain, Nowak IS a US Navy captain. GoodDay 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Yeah, that trips up people not familiar with the ranks. USAF Captain = USN Lieutenant (O-3). USN Captain = USAF Colonel (O-6). Dialwon 00:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Current Event

Arrest story should be marked as current event -4AM 2/06 1:15PM EST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.77.108.72 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

It has been for quite some time. Gwen Gale 18:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remove excess speculation about bail

199.33.32.40 is indefinitely-banned Amorrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Fplay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Pinktulip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka as various other titles. He is to be blocked on sight, and everything he does is to be reverted. Gwen Gale, since all you've written here is just short replies to his posts, I'm removing the entire thread. I hope you don't mind. If you feel that you've said anything of value that you want kept, without his posts, feel free to partially revert me. Musical Linguist 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, naw, I was only drawing him out to see if there was any good faith or helpful notions lurking about. Gwen Gale 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected page

I've semi-protected this page due to the extreme vandalism this subject is bringing out in many anonymous editors.--Alabamaboy 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page seeing the initial surge of interest should have died down. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And something else has taken over the news cycle. Gwen Gale 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

why you are removing my info about her support page?

kirpitchom@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.1.1.101 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

This talk page is for discussions on article content and how to improve it. Your input referred to an advocacy effort unrelated to this page's reason for being. Gwen Gale 19:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Important Point from Affidavit is Missing

The affidavit states that inside the black bag was found a hand written list of the following items (along with the items themselves): brand new steel mallet, brand new folding knife with a 4-inch blade, 3-4 feet of rubber tubing, several large plastic garbage bags, approx. $600 in cash. 161.44.46.225 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, with all the other stuff she was carrying and the already stark evidence that she'd made thorough plans, most news reports seem to have left it out as rather superfluous. Gwen Gale 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for having deleted that. It seemed like nonsense at first glance (troll meter is on high right now). Sorry. - Denny 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It seemed canny on the edge to me, the bolding, use of the words important amd missing along with an anon IP didn't help did they. Gwen Gale 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If what the anon IP claims is true, the list could be a strong indication of premediation and calculation (needed for 1st degree murder charge). Admittedly, the "I bought all those suspect objects on impulse in a fit of mad rage"or"I just happen to have this random unrelated stuff in a bag to be tidy" defense would probably be shaky anyway, but with the less there's a clearcut grounds for 1st degree charge Bwithh 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, it is, spot on. That's what the Orlando police think too, although I don't recall that they even mentioned it in the second charging affadavit. I was only responding to why it's not in the article. Gwen Gale 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Any indication of when she bought the stuff and made a list? Lots of people have bags full of gear at home or in their cars, in case of some kind of breakdown, and a prepared-type person would have a list of the stuff. If she had that bag of stuff in her car for several years that's much less incriminating than if she bought it the day before the incident. Also I wonder if she's been tested for substance abuse. The events and the mug shot give an impression of someone who went on a binge in a time of personal stress. 67.117.130.181 23:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Premeditation? Driving over 900 miles in 12 hours; speeding! Book her, Danno. Ronbo76 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page guidlines

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, specifically the section

Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

Also, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons might be of interest. --Lincoln F. Stern 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if you honestly think the talk page content that was removed is of such importance to this article in particular, or to Wikipedia in general, go ahead and restore it. I'm sure everybody will marvel at the high level of maturity on display. --Plek 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No angry mastodons --Lincoln F. Stern 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT Gwen Gale 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikistress --Lincoln F. Stern 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nettle :) Gwen Gale 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, nettle WP:TEA? --Plek 23:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ick! :) Gwen Gale 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines seem to be overwhelmed yet again by POV comments irrelevant to the purpose of this page. This is so common that I wonder if a new tab should be included for every main page that allows a forum of that particular item. Can anyone recommend how I could go about proposing that as a general change?--Wikidelphia 04:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's called IRC, and you can pretty much say what you want. I don't bother with it because I've heard it's generally unpleasant. Rklawton 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahah. "IRC, where Wikipedians gather to gang up on other Wikipedians!" Gwen Gale 13:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS sorry, had to. :) --Lincoln F. Stern 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I mean a tab on each main page (such as 'action', 'edit this page'), perhaps one as simple as 'comment.' Could someone guide me to a forum on which I could suggest & request this format change? It might move most of the problematic discussions to a better spot....--Wikidelphia 03:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

erm... is the above username appropriate? Gwen Gale 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mine or Wikidelphia's username? My username is not my real name. See my userpage for an explanation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lincoln F. Stern (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC). (woops forgot my sig, sorry) --Lincoln F. Stern 22:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Factoring

This is a breaking story and the chronology is still an important aspect of context. Please discuss any input about changes (such as creating a reactions section) here first, thanks. Gwen Gale 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

video news

Canadian TV news has photos of Colleen Shipman and say that Nowak had an affair with Oefelein at CFB Val-Cartier, when they were doing cold weather and isolation training.

CTV Nightly News - Tue, Feb 7, 2007

Joy Malbon on the bizarre love triangle

• mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2007/02/06/ctvvideologger2_500kbps_2007_02_06_1170814789.wmv
• mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2007/02/06/ctvvideologger2_218kbps_2007_02_06_1170813108.wmv

CBC News - Tue, Feb 7, 2007

Neil Macdonald reports for CBC-TV

• http://www.cbc.ca/clips/rm-hi/macdonald-astronaut070206.rm
• http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/macdonald-astronaut070206.mov

70.51.11.102 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard Nowak employment

The NPR article asserting Richard Nowak's job title refers to a Washington Post article. Apparently, NPR gets it wrong, because that multi-author WaPo article does not cite employment info on R. Nowak. See this link. AuntieMormom 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that's the only Washington Post article ever written about Nowak? Gwen Gale 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrate otherwise. And please stop RVing a cited assertion. AuntieMormom 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The NPR article doesn't specify the one you linked to as their source. In any case, his employment is cited in the article to a reliable secondary source. Are you trying to stir things up? Gwen Gale 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway Richard Nowak works at JSC for a communications contractor, as the cited NPR article notes. Gwen Gale 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another cite from the Detroit News [1] Gwen Gale 15:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And here's one from the AP, directly citing NASA's assistant administrator. [2] Gwen Gale 23:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

With three independent citations, I've altered the article accordingly. Parenthood.com is not an authority on NASA employment, which is complex and often involves contractors and they appear to have muddled something Nowak said during a 2006 interview. Gwen Gale 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

TheSmokingGun.com

• http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0206073astronut1.html

--68.207.206.69 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but it seems that the article doesn't contain anything new compared to the ones that are already cited.--Plek 19:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. ;) Tuttt 06:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Smoking Gun dreams of stories and mugshots like this one. Since they just post law enforcement documents, they should probably be considered a reliable source. Edison 21:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That stuff has been cited and linked to more directly by this WP article for more than a day now, wholly apart from Smoking Gun. Gwen Gale 21:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Children's names

I can't see any good or worthwhile reason to include those. Lets keep them out of the article. It adds nothing and has no relevance to her notability... - Denny 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO no way should those kids' names be in the article. Gwen Gale 21:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I found this on the German website spacefacts.de:

the NASA Astronaut Office asked us to remove the children's data for security reasons

And rightfully so. Please revert anyone on sight who tries to add the children's data to this article, I'd suggest. --Plek 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Romantic"?

"Canadian news sources have reported that Oefelein and Nowak's relationship was at one point of a romantic nature" is referenced to a CBC video. But all they say in the video is that Nowak "loved" Oefelein, not that they were in a romantic relationship. And from what Nowak has said (bearing in mind she drove 1400 km across the US to [allegedly] attack a woman) that it wasn't a romantic relationship, I don't think we should include this line in the article. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

His ex-wife's mother, I think, has blamed Nowak for the breakup of her son's marriage. Now, I loathe getting into the tabloid side of this, ick, it's enough to say I think it appears they had an affair whilst training in Canada, then he moved on, so to speak. Unanswered is how Nowak still had access to his computer but... astronauts truly are a tight-knit and presumably trusting bunch, especially when they've trained together and by all accounts Nowak's reputation and history were spanking bright until sometime in late January. Gwen Gale 03:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok so I look it up and find the opposite at Salon of what I read somewhere else. [3] His ex-wife's mum says Nowak had nothing to do with the breakup of her son's marriage. Truth be told, there is no support for a two way romantic relationship and even Nowak told Orlando police it was "less than." Gwen Gale 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I've added it, let the article reflect the possible ambiguity (or whatever) of the documented record so far then. Gwen Gale 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the bit about there being a romantic relationship. At the moment, until more concrete evidence emerges, we are just crystal ball gazing. Plus, as I said earlier, the CBC item doesn't really back up the statement that was in the article. All they said was that Nowak loved Oefelein and not that there was any reciprocation. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Likely the thing to do and yeah, sounds like a WP editor may have misinterpreted the vid. Ever read microfiche newspapers from say, the 1930s tho? Bears only a passing resemblence to the world we learn about in history books. Part of that's institutional spin and botched simplification, which is indeed a scourge but I'd say half of it is because a typical news report gets the broad swath of a story basically, kind of, within reality, but gets lots of detail flat wrong (or lacks it altogether). So has it ever been. Gwen Gale 04:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Followup She seems to have contradicted herself in subsequent interviews, now implying Nowak's friendship with Ofelein did have something to do with his divorce. Too tabloid for me to comment further, other than removing reference to Davis from the article as I noted below and to say I do still think use of the term romantic to describe LN and WO's friendship is too thinly supported for now. Gwen Gale 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Test Pilot Qualification

Captain Nowak is a Naval Flight Officer and not a Naval Aviator (Pilot). While she is a graduate of the US Naval Test Pilot School she is not a Test Pilot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

WP:BLP, talk pages

Does it apply here? If so we need to be policing the page, someone wrote above, "She wasn't on her job, and she is completely mad". - Denny 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I did see it's getting a bit thick today. Gwen Gale 16:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP definately applies on talk pages.--Alabamaboy 17:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I removed both above instances (my repost and the other). - Denny 17:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Davis

I'm removing reference to her (Ofelein's ex-mother-in-law) because she seems to have made conflicting statements to the media. [4] Gwen Gale 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Which "publisher" to use?

When citing a source like this one: NASA to Review Screening Process, which publisher should be listed? Associated Press, the originator of the news item and the organization the reporter works for, or My Way News, the web site that actually publishes the story? Or, list both of them? Free drinks for the first to come up with the right answer... --Plek 19:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

AP. MyWay is a licensed aggregator. Gwen Gale 19:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Goes back changing all My Ways into Associated Presses. Mutter, grmbl. Thanks for the answer! :) --Plek 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Aagh, lost my chance of a drink there (and definitely is AP), SqueakBox 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• But before we go, would the same apply to Astronaut charged with attempted kidnap-murder, with Yahoo! News being replaced with Reuters, you think? Oh, and I forgot the drinks! How rude of me! Gwen, you've earned it: WP:DRINKS.--Plek 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha I was about to write... I hate to say this, but Yahoo is an aggregator too. :) I'm makin a coffee then. Gwen Gale 19:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One more comment, but about something you've likely already done, when we get to orgs like MSNBC or the LA Times and whatnot, they wontedly put together articles from a combination of wire reports and staff writers, or might carry an AP, Reuters or other wire story unchanged. The byline should tell the tale (meanwhile I thought the change you made to the MSNBC cite was the thing to do). Gwen Gale 19:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Aye, I think this should do it for now. Looks like USA Today, Orlando Sentinel, and the New York Times are using their own staff writers, whereas the others are just copying the newswire. Lazy buggers. :-) --Plek 20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

AP is docking big (which is both helpful and unhelpful, some say but that's another tale). Sometimes it's hard to do much beyond what comes off "the wire" without spending more than it's worth and anyway, the licensing fees are not cheap. Also, the Orlando Sentinel totally broke and developed this story entirely on the web (based on a "tip" from an airport employee about a "catfight" involving an astronaut), the world is changing once again. Gwen Gale 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Caputo

Does anyone know if this is a maiden name, or a name change due divorced parents etc? Evil Monkey - Hello 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Maiden name, her parents are still together. Gwen Gale 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Shipman's "redacted" restraining order

When will the authorities finally learn that using Adobe markup to redact documents is not in any way secure? There goes Shipman's privacy as well. *sigh* --Plek 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the authorities had no problem to give away the un-redact-ed document to reporters, since it is about a public proceeding, that could have been witnessed by everybody. The redacted document is obviously created by reporters of "Orlando Sentinel", who care a little more for Shipman's privacy than the authorities. --Homer Landskirty 11:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lovely too; a signature. - Denny 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

She can change all that stuff. Sad she'll likely have to move though. Gwen Gale 00:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fox news and appropriateness of citations from them

regarding the latest thread with posted story from Fox news: "STAR-CROSSED SPACE CADET"...well Plek on your doubting the reliability of FOX news: their headline and then sub-headline states the ex-wifes mother stated Nowak tried to breakup the marriage, yet further reading of the story shows the ex-wifes mother (ex-mother in law) only "hinted" this and actually said "ill let you draw your own conclusions". First of all this clearly shows the true nature of FOX as what it always has been, its a tabloid (next lets go to the ex-wife's mother's ex-husband's latest girlfriend and see what she says). FOX happens to cater as a tabloid newsplatform to a right wing audience. Wendi Deng and Rupert Murdoch, the chinese-australian couple that run the show for FOX, have made their business & money through mainly UK & Aussie tabloids previously to FOX. Why would they change their game plan??? Anyways if I was the ex-mother in law, I'd sue FOX for that headline and grab some of wendis and ruperts cash (they have too much) Perhaps lisa will end up sueing the ex mother-in-law and that will force the ex mother in law to sue FOX...who knows?...and i think with that in mind comes the decision: (1) that FOX news might be a bad source to base lisas page on if wikipedia wants to maintain tip-top resistance to getting sued over something...and (2) if wikipedia wants reliablity on articles it will avoid FOX news like the plague.......or if it uses them must write clearly that "a right wing chinese-australian owned tabloid, (FOX news) claims" .......(deng & murdoch may also have american citizenship now yet what does that go for??? im sure they can afford the cost of acquiring citizenship, how much does getting US citizenship cost these days anyways???)

you got to hand it to the tabloid people at FOX though..."star-crossed space cadet???!!!"...its hard to suppress a chuckle even though this is really a three-family tragedy at this point and there are a bunch of kids involved in this, twin 5 year old girls even.FOX doesnt care about that & wendi deng & rupert operate on a profit motive, not a "family values" motive. They dont care about blasting out headlines like that to the international airwaves & theyll recoup any losses from law suits just in extra sales & advertising prices...Benjiwolf 13:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want anyone to read all that, I'd suggest using punctuation. Properly. As it stands, your text is incomprehensible—to me, at least. --Plek 13:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK hows that???...i'm sorry yet ive been playing with doing away with most punctuation...especially apostrophes, im thru with writing through all the way out, and ive stopped capitalizing...why should i spare the extra effort???...Benjiwolf 14:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I count one citation of Fox news in the article, hardly enough for any worries about slanted PoV or whatever. Last I heard US citizenship "cost" around $200,000 (so to speak) but they may have raised the price since 9/11. Gwen Gale 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mars mission?

I wonder how such negligence could happen on a Mars mission. The only lesson NASA can pull out of this incident is, that they should provide a rich offer of potential candidates during that flight -- knowing that females are more endurable than males... Could somebody find some intelligence about this? --Homer Landskirty 15:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

One can be fairly confident they're already rethinking some of this stuff. Where it takes them's another tale though. Gwen Gale 17:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Shipman information

I removed the following line from the article: Shipman is an engineer at the 5th Launch Support Squadron at Patrick Air Force Base. Can anyone find a reliable source to confirm this information? Thanks. --Plek 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not add that, but I did see it in the Senteniel article and I think one other, last night. Gwen Gale 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Argh. The Sentinel may have changed its article, as there is nothing about Shipman's function in there anymore. Oh, the joys of electronic publishing! Thanks for the heads-up, though.--Plek 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they're trying to protect her privacy (quite understandable). The article does still say she works at the cape, which I've added now. I also read that at the bail hearing the judge was adamant that upon release, Nowak not go anywhere near KSC. Gwen Gale 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's official: I can't read. I could have sworn that that wasn't in there before. Thanks for the update! --Plek 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha I don't think you were blind, I couldn't find it either, then I did again and was about to add it when I saw you'd already done. Meanwhile there may have been a "discussion" in a Florida newsroom... Gwen Gale 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Most online news articles say that she works for the 45th Launch Support Squadron, not the 5th. According to Patrick AFB's own official website, both units are active. But since she's only a captain, it's hard finding any official government link connecting her to any unit. It would be much easier if she maybe were a Colonel (O-6, like Lisa Nowak). Likely, law enforcement, NASA, PAFB or Shipman herself may confirm eitherway in coming days. Dialwon 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told much depends on her. She's a crime victim who wasn't at all a public figure before this happened and can effectively shut down lots of disclosure about her life. Gwen Gale 01:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4532072.html

Okay, it's starting to come out. According to the Houston Chronical, she's with the "45th Launch Support Squadron" and a 2002 graduate of Penn State. If true, and barring more info eitherway, I suspect she's likely younger than 30, though everything suggests otherwise. Dialwon 17:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-ex-020607astronaut,0,7578124.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Shipman is 30 years old, a USAF Capt, stationed at Patrick Air Force Base south of Kennedy Space Center.

So you can add her age and where she was posted to the article, as it can be properly sourced. 132.205.44.134 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Booking image

Can someone review the fair use I put on it? It seems right. Also, isn't the 9th court Federal? If so this needs to be retagged as public domain. - Denny 21:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should make a fair use claim for this image b/c it's an Associated Press photo, not a photo from the court itself. As such it is copyrighted.--Alabamaboy 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did you see it's an AP photo? It's tagged by the official Ninth Court watermark at http://www.ninja9.org/. - Denny 21:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The image that replaced this image in the article you referenced has the "AP Photo" tag on it. The two images were obviously taken within seconds of each other and by the same photographer. In addition, if you go to [5] you will see that this is one of a number of similar photos, all credited to the AP or other news sources using pool coverage (i.e., using AP's images). As for [6], I'm not seeing the photo at that link. While its possible the photo did come from the court, I've seen nothing to support that view. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You are confused with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which doesn't include Florida. Evil Monkey - Hello 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any support that it did not travel through a copyrighted source between the court and WP. Gwen Gale 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Unless someone can present absolute evidence that the image was taken by the court itself and is in the public domain, then its fair use will be questioned by people here at Wikipedia. Personally, I believe fair use allows places like WP to use images like this. However, I'm in the minority in this around WP and given up trying to fight on the issue. While I won't delete the image, don't be surprised if others try to do so--unless someone finds proof of it being in the public domain. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, sorry I wasn't clear. I can't find support that the image is ok under fair use, it looks like a copyvio to me. Gwen Gale 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Random question - even if it was taken by the court, does that make it PD? Since it would be a Florida state employee, does Florida state have copyright? Evil Monkey - Hello 21:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the policy of the government entity involved (in the US, the states, counties and towns are quite separate in this regard from the federal government). Some let things go as PD, some assert a copyright. Moreover, there are sometimes privacy and other use restrictions. In this example, it would depend on the policy of that Florida court and I couldn't even find any terms of use on their website, though I might have missed it. Gwen Gale 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My assumption of non-APage of the image was based on the ninja9 stamp on the lower right. If thats wrong, we can remove this if it's a copyvio. I wasn't trying to start a problem; just wanted it done right... - Denny 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the stamp was put there by CNN, citing their source. If the file is PD but came from CNN, provenance is dodgy, maybe a technical copyvio. If ninja9 has non-free use-restrictions or requires some sort of a media permit, fee or license, it's outright copyvio. Either way, I see no free path supported by this file's upload info. I wouldn't have uploaded it. Gwen Gale 22:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I was trying to see if it was OK after that original uploader did it. Tag it for copyvio delete? - Denny 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never been a wiki image grass but aye, that's the pith of it (I mean, if you don't, someone else will). I've seen images with much stronger/safer fair use assertions get deleted without so much as a comment. Gwen Gale 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll pull it from the article and tag it. Thanks! - Denny 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey was there a copyright issue with the mugshot or what? Gwen Gale 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't lend yourself to copyright paranoia. Fair use of those images seems to be entirely appropriate (at least to me). They are being used to illustrate a notable aspect of the subject's life, of which no free alternatives are available. Also, they are shown in a reduced resolution, not thought to be detrimental to the copyright owner's financial benefits, yadda, yadda, yadda. --Plek 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but that's not WP's current image policy. The notion, anyway, is to ensure that WP is freely copyable anwhere by anyone, no worries, no tears. Hence, fair use for WP servers in Florida USA is not enough. Gwen Gale 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the original mugshot, plus the two astronaut images, is the best illustration. The two astronaut images perfectly summarize the first 2/5 of the article; her career, and the mugshot is the best fit for the latter portions illustrating where she is now... for better or worse. Copyright on the mugshot I believe was fine, I'll readd that under Astro#2. - Denny 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the mugshot's been over-used on the American media put that'll fade. Gwen Gale 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly... long term probably best, and the juxtaposition between the NASA profile image and that is compelling for the article. - Denny 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me an opening to say... I do like where you put them. Gwen Gale 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hobbies section

I undid this... They're cited and no reason not to have them. - Denny 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

All standard NASA astronaut bios wontedly have these formulatic hobby entries and as such, they make it into the WP versions. Her arrest for attempted kidnapping and pending charges for attempted murder don't change their encyclopedic, biographical nature. Gwen Gale 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I fully support removal of this information as suggested by WP:TRIVIA. Citation is insufficient reason for inclusion in Wikipedia, especially for such trivial content Nowak's official NASA bio does not include any mention of hobbies[7]. Bwithh 20:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on random sampling of [8], "hobbies" are not a standard feature of official NASA astronaut bios Bwithh 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the edit does have a great summary: "This isn't Miss America". I like it. :) The editor may have a point here.--Plek 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the hobbies may be "important": I for one am baffled how someone, who lists reading, piano playing and gardening as her hobbies, is driven to commit assault. I'd say: leave it in. It provides some useful information about her character. --Plek 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh the summary was wonderful! I didn't agree with the pith of it is all. Gwen Gale 20:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Theres no hobby policy that I can find, but most bios have interesting sourced information that expand what we know about people and help put things in context. Plus it doesn't hurt a single thing (especially since it's sourced). Just looking through some random astronaut articles like Michael E. Fossum, Kenneth Cockrell, Gus Grissom, William G. Gregory, Mary L. Cleave, and Michael R. Clifford I found loads of personal little things like hobbies, club memberships, etc., and it's fine. It adds to the level and quality of the article... - Denny 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I do stand by my earlier comment on this. Gwen Gale 20:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So many hobbies... [9] Gwen Gale 17:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added Time magazine's characterisation of the list [10]. Gwen Gale 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gale, such characterization is uninformative, a POV and an advertizing plug for bigwig TIME, might as well add a million other of their unhelpful drivel.Modocc 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What's PoV? Anyway PoV from a cited, reliable secondary source is within (and even encouraged by) WP policy. If you can find another PoV take on this which is more to your liking, in any reliable secondary source, let's by all means put it in too. Gwen Gale 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though POV might be encouraged, its still a plug for TIME, not that I care all that much, its just that I envision TIME editors and others infiltrating WIki with links such as this only to gain readership by asserting their POV slant on anything and everything whether or not its justified. With regards to Nowak's hobbies, I think the issue of whether or not they are canned should be segregated or eliminated as irrelevant. In fact, if it was really an important or widely held view or fact, TIME should then be sourced as a footnote, like most sorces, rather than as it is with a prominently featured link! Why should we give them or anyone else a leg up on the competition?

Are you saying that someone from Time magazine has placed text in this article for the purpose of advertising that publication? Gwen Gale 04:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? For every article there should be a section called "According to TIMES"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Modocc (talk • contribs) 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Ok. If I understand you correctly, that you feel it doesn't matter, what specific objections do you have to the cited line of text? Gwen Gale 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"seemingly focus-group-tested list," implies that the list in question may not be sincere and is simply contrived just to please a focus-group. Its speculative opinion that is not even an accepted viewpoint(with the weasle word "seemingly") as one would expect from an encylopedia. Even TIMES might get the right stuff wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Modocc (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes. The phrase does imply at least some question as to a) why publish an interest in so many hobbies and b) were they somehow chosen for editorial purposes by either the astronaut herself or by some NASA civil servant. The quote does include the word seemingly, which indicates a reaction or general impression, not an assertion. I would like to know, which do you object to more, the cited statement, or its attribution to Time magazine in the body of the article? Gwen Gale 05:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Personally, if it was my biography, I would be offended most by the implication that I was not truthful. In fact, one of the reasons I am reacting to this statement is because, except for the shooting bit, I also engage in these same hobbies and have even listed them on job applications! No doubt others have too and would also find nothing wrong with the list whatsoever. But from a broader perspective, I object more to the prominence of the insertion of a TIME's comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Modocc (talk • contribs) 05:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

The statement doesn't say anything about these hobbies being "wrong," if anything it only implies they may be too appealing to readers or whatever. However, it does sound like your biggest objection is to the mention of Time magazine in the body of the article. Thanks for talking about this. Gwen Gale 05:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an egregious editorializing by Time and repeating it in Wikipedia does a disservice. It does not add informative content to the article, but instead it is a wild comment that by innuendo, casts aspersions all around -- baselessly. The way these hobbies are collected is that some low level functionary in Nasa, writing the bios, ask the people what they like to do. There are no focus groups. The comment is simply a cheap and entirely unwarranted shot at NASA. The only way it had any relevance at all in the original article was as a point of ironic juxtaposition between the simplicity of these hobbies and the hostility apparent in her crime. That is how it was presented in the original article but that juxtaposition (which is really not appropriate here anyway) is entirely missing and thus the quote is also out of context. It should go and I have removed it. Not every opinion about every facit of very minute detail of her life needs to be put in here, particularly when they are misquotes of egregious editorializing.--Blue Tie 04:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference is supported by a citation. If they (NASA) were publishing her hobbies as a significant part of her very short official NASA bio, I see nothing untoward about citing comments on them from a US national news magazine. Either way, WP policy supports the citation of PoV. If you can find a citation in a reliable secondary source which supports a different PoV regarding her hobbies, let's put it in. Gwen Gale 04:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You may not see anything untoward about citing comments on them but I do and so does Modocc. I do not believe that this sort of error in citation is reasonable under wikipedia policy. Just because something "fits" into what wikipedia policy says does not mean it should be included. And this is one of those cases. I would be willing to go to mediation on this or to go to RfC on this but I am not willing to just let it stand without challenge. I have given my reasons previously and they still apply to wit:

It is egregious editorializing

It was intended as irony but that irony is now missing hence it is a misquote

It does not add any reasonable information to the article

It is reasonable to exercise editorial judgment and not include every single little opinion on the web or in print on an obscure issue like her hobbies.

I believe these are sufficient reasons to leave it out. I believe it compromises wikipedia integrity.

--Blue Tie 05:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

At least a dozen editors have worked on this article since it showed up and haven't deleted it. I've posted my reasoning. Your post makes it clear you're not willing to discuss this. Gwen Gale 05:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No. There are not a dozen editors who have had input to that bit of editorializing. And it is you who will not discuss. Others have rised objections and you are hiding behind the policy instead of addressing the issues raised. That is a failure to discuss. Even wikipedia acknowledges that the written policies do not cover every instance and this is one where you have overstretched them. If you want to discuss the issues then address them. Otherwise, shall we take it to mediation or RfC? --Blue Tie 05:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of hobbies is unfair in light of her present plight. (I mispelled egregious in my edit summary.) Bus stop 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the list of hobbies as trivializing her. I do see the editorial comment as trivializing several things at once.. a highly cynical comment that does not belong in an encyclopedia. I somewhat agree that her current situation way overshadows the hobbies, but I notice that other astronauts have their hobbies listed and so, putting hers in there, just treats her like them. It does not bother me. It is a bit shallow, but its ok. --Blue Tie 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Blue Tie, I do think the Time reference is helpful because it puts these "standard NASA bio" hobbies into a wider cultural context, never mind she's awaiting trial for allegedly trying to kill someone. We all know her bio was reviewed and packaged for public consumption. NASA's half century of cultivating the public image of astronauts is widely described. The Time quote alludes to that. Gwen Gale 06:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You might have a point, if: 1) the list of hobbies were invented by Nasa upon review of focus groups and 2) that same comment appeared in every biography. The time quote is an egregious editorializing.. and you comment here supports that ... an editorializing about Nasa public relations. But that editorializing about Nasa public relations does not belong here. It belongs in an article about Nasa public relations, if such an article exists. Furthermore, this comment was created as an ironic contrapoint given her current predicament. Irony is not really proper encyclopedic writing so it would not be correct to record the irony. But without it, you are misquoting. So, leave it out. --Blue Tie 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please supply diffs where I've misquoted something. Gwen Gale 06:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie. But that you ask for a diff suggests to me that you are not really reading the objection. Here is the [diff]. --Blue Tie 06:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can see that's not a misquote. Please stop making misleading statements about my edits. Thank you. Gwen Gale 06:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not anyone can see that it is not a misquote. I for one am unable to see that. I have explained why: Misquote by removing information and context. Please stop ignoring the issues that I raise. Thank you. --Blue Tie 06:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What's unfair about it? Do we change history because she got arrested for attempted murder? She's a human being, apparently with tonnes of meed stuff about her. People need context to learn from this kind of thing and that's what encyclopedias are all about. Gwen Gale 05:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale -- It doesn't matter if it is sourced. This is a biography of a living person. Wikipedia guidelines call for sensitivity. Juxtaposing those hobbies into this biography belittles this particular subject. The aim is to convey an accurate picture of the person. Belittling the person is to be avoided. Those hobbies detract from her stature and do not contribute to conveying an accurate portrait of the person. Bus stop 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale -- This is not Advocacy journalism. I can agree with you that people need "to learn." But that is besides the point. It is not for you to "teach" them. Bus stop 06:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what you're doing here. Meanwhile, these items are fully supported by citations from reliable secondary sources and footnoted, all according to WP policy. Gwen Gale 06:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, just because something can be sourced does not mean it should be included. This is one of those times. Wikipedia should not stand as a soapbox by proxy for the Time editorializers. --Blue Tie 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would commentary be placed in the references section? Bus stop 08:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever read a scholarly, footnoted book in your life then? You might want to start with the Chicago Manual of Style. Oh, and so as not to mislead readers, I didn't put the comment in the footnote, but I was willing to accept it as a compromise. Gwen Gale 09:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale -- Why are you insisting on including that slight into her biography? That is not factual. That is opinion. That is commentary. That is a snide comment made by a writer in Time. How do you reason that that qualifies for an explanation for who Lisa Nowak is? Bus stop 08:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Her many listed hobbies, to some readers, appear to have been a bit canned. I cited a reference to this in a reliable secondary source. Whether or not you think it's snide or a slur doesn't matter (although I think it's neither). Her academic and military credentials are stunning and I have no doubt she has these hobbies. Gwen Gale 09:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Diapers

While I see why her reason for wearing the diapers is relevant, why is the fact the astronauts wear diapers during launch and re-entry in the article?--Hgebel 01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

By including this fact in her article, you have the full context of why she had and wore diapers. Most people are unaware of the rigors placed on astronauts and why they do the things they do. Unfortunately, it appears Nowak fell back on her training to accomplish her alleged mission. Ronbo76 02:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazing that she wore diapers so she wouldn't have to stop. I assume she would have had to stop to get gas on the trip. That made no sense at all.

Yes its absolutely essential to mention that she first wore diapers as an adult on Nasa trips. This is, IMO, one of the most notable aspects of the case and if we didnt explain that Nasa astronauts do this it would make her sound completely mad, whereas it was something she was entirely used to and therefore didnt mean what it would mean to someone who had never worn diapers as an adult so for the sake of WP:BLP we need to include this, SqueakBox 16:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"This is, IMO, one of the most notable aspects of the case" - really??? I don't see why it makes her sound mad, even if she wasnt an astronaut, she could have got the idea from an episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent (which gets a lot of ideas from real life cases anyway). Bwithh

Well, she is an astronaut. (Or maybe "was" would be more accurate.) While the vast majority of us would have had to get the idea from a tv show, she did not -- she actually had to do this in space, and as someone said above, it seems she used her astronaut training in this sorry episode. (Though I am not sure which class in astronaut training involved BB-guns, hunting knives or pepper spray.) So it is relevant -- unfortunately. 6SJ7 20:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying she's not an astronaut (obviously), I'm saying I don't see why it makes her look mad even if she wasn't Bwithh 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

NASA astronauts on the job do not wear diapers in order to save time on trips, they wear them because using the shuttle's facilities is impossible during lift-off and re-entry. And while she was apparently using the type of diapers astronauts wear, I don't think it is reasonable to assume the the idea of wearing diapers came from the fact that she uses them at work instead of from a television show or from her own deteriorating mind.--Hgebel 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Its entirely reasonable, indeed any conclusion not relating this to the normal practice of astrona\uts would be unreasonable, SqueakBox 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article only reports what's been documented. Nowak told police exactly why she had them and most media reports have been careful to qualify this with a mention of their routine use by astronauts. Gwen Gale 17:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some woman, perhaps Nowak too, dislike and will completely avoid using public stalls as many are often in poor condition and filthy. They will plan trips accordingly. In that respect, this diaper business is not that unusual.Modocc 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think it is either relevant or reasonable to include it in the article, but since I seem to be the lone voice in the wilderness, I concede the point.--Hgebel 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Musings on where to take this article from here

Now that the initial news storm has abated for a bit, it might be a good time to discuss how to shape this article as events unfold. Given the media's record in such matters, my guess is (*wild speculation alert*) that this will be a huge spectacle, with reporters tripping over each other in essentially reporting the same thing, times one hundred. My crystal ball reveals things progressing along these lines:

1. "Stuff" happens.
2. Media report on "stuff."
3. Media editorialize on "stuff", citing each other in the process.
4. Those involved in the case react to "stuff" and to the media's reporting.
5. Media report on the involved's reaction.
6. Media editorialize on the reported reaction.
7. Goto 1.

Regarding all this, a couple of potential issues come to mind:

• On-line media tend to update their web reports without creating a new page; what once was a good reference could therefore change underneath us.
• Reporters using other published reports as their sources, distorting the facts along the way.
• Reporters' opinions being mixed with the facts, leading to a hodgepodge of half-truths.
• On-line reports disappearing behind a paywall.

To avoid these issues, we might take some time to figure out which on-line sources would be preferred, and which ones better be avoided. I've noticed, for instance, that L.A. Times articles are paywalled after only a week, while articles from The Houston Chronicle remain freely accessible (seemingly indefinitely). Maybe someone more familiar with the U.S. media could share some insights on all of this.

Oh, and I think it will be very hard to maintain a separate "Reactions" section. As events occur, both "stuff" and "reaction" will be closely related. Chronicling those in separate sections might lead to a disjointed article, in which the same event needs to be discussed in two separate places.

Okay, that's my incoherent ramble for today. Please share your views. --Plek 22:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your crystal ball missed one, I think. The Apollo moon hoax, rabid PoV warrior who will inevitably show up here and demand at least some mention that "researchers believe" Nowak was "set up" by NASA and the CIA because she threatened to "blow the whistle" on all those fake shuttle flights. There are at least a few conspiracy books (fiction marketed as non-fiction) lurking in this tale. Gwen Gale 22:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not forget that she obviously rode hell bent to Florida as part of the 9/11 horrors, which happened to cover up the lone gunman that did Kennedy. - Denny 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it canny fits, dunnit :) Gwen Gale 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

your analysis of what the media will do was both bitter, yet oh so true, "Plek"...a very penetrating analysis...and my advice is for wikipedias page on the matter to maintain a higher standard than the news media...were not after ratings...we dont want to put things in peoples heads that arnt true or bias the trial...were just interested in facts...not sensationalism...and..its a sad story it sounds like...if i was her defense i would go with temp. insanity plea...a BB gun & diapers?...maybe she had thought of killing colleen...yet she had it seems regressed to the level of a child...a savvy adult with her training and intelligence level would have killed colleen..and maybe even gotten away with it...i see no reason to put nowak away for life...what good does that do anyone?...she likely can accomplish many great things in life still...yet her time at NASA is clearly over...and she is obviously to be regarded as dangerous from here on out...after 20 years in civilian life maybe she will have made up for that reputation...i see treatment & monitoring, and not jailtime, as the best solution for her...and for society...Benjiwolf 13:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But there are too many "allegedly" statements in there. It should be said differently such as "according to the arresting affidavit she___________________ and leave out the allegedly. stuff. Looks like we are bending over backwards so hard to be politically correct that we become annoying to read. --Blue Tie 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree...good writing means we will mix our wording up some...we shouldnt always say "allegedly"...i threw a couple "allegedly"s in there quickly just to get some of the speculation by police a bit more as that instead of definitives of exactly what happened...as the case hasnt even started yet, let alone been decided...ive personnaly met some police that were great..yet others whose words meant nothing and were worse than criminals...and know of tons of stories of police and DAs heading to prison themselves...in this particular case i dont see that such a problem (yet i know nothing of the particular police department involved)..yet still...anyways i agree someone would be good to reword here and there for writings sake...Benjiwolf 10:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded three allegedlies. There are still a few but the word is needed now and then as a reminder to readers and so on. At least it doesn't seem to repeat so much without end now. Gwen Gale 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What paywall? I fully expect there will be a plea deal, perhaps with the most serious charge dropped or reduced somehow. Otherwise, the DA presses on with the charges and the wrenching "stuff" regarding the trial proceedings will create considerable controversy and it will be difficult to soften or underplay all the press. There will be even more incredulously naive, ignorant and heart breaking stuff posted here. It will require nixing the nonsensical threads, cleaning up, revision, for no pay, keep up the good work.Modocc 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A paywall is a website that restricts access to certain content only to paid subscribers.[11] I mentioned the term in my list of issues because articles cited from such sources will become inaccessible to the general public after some time. Many "paywalled" news sites make their articles freely available for a limited time period, but then move the content to the restricted, pay-to-read part of the site. If possible, we should use sources that keep their articles available for free. See also: List of online newspaper archives (incomplete). --Plek 00:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Also, some of the outcome will depend (no, I will not drop that pun) on her subsequent behaviour in many sundry ways, along with all kinds of stuff we'll never hear about. NASA will try to quiet this down fast, it's a public relations... upchuck. The tabloid aspects alone could canny thwart their hopes. Ick. As wonted, the true botches could be overshadowed by the stuff that sells. Gwen Gale 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Nowak site

• www xxxxxxxxxx dot com, A fansite supporting Nowak

Is that compliant with WP:EL and WP:NPOV in this article? Just curious how it is, as it was readded by Squeek after I removed it. Just want to be on the same page. - Denny 17:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I rm'd it as linkspam, it contains no new information other than PoV. Gwen Gale 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam. Remove it. Merely someone trying to cash in on the whole tragic affair.--Alabamaboy 17:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks genuine to me but if folk dont want it here that is fine by me, SqueakBox 17:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Genuine it may be, it's also linkspam. Gwen Gale 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Something tells me it is not legitimately tied to Nowak...

Domain Name.......... xxxxxxxxxx.com

Creation Date........ 2007-02-08

Registration Date.... 2007-02-08

Expiry Date.......... 2008-02-08

Organisation Name.... fuzzy ip

Organisation Address. 254 s grand oaks ave

Organisation Address.

Organisation Address. pasadena

Organisation Address. 91107

Organisation Address. CA

Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

That is the whois of the site. Lets keep it out. - Denny 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Along that line, a unique and verifiable statement from family or co-workers demonstrating support for the site and advocacy for LN would carry enough encyclopedic interest for a link. Someone independently copy-pasting some text and photos, throwing in some PoV and linking to a petition is not. I noticed the banner was generated through a myspace applet, myspace indeed is the place for this sort of thing. Gwen Gale 18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kind of, though its obviously more together and better financed than your average my space entry, looks like a Berkeley student. I would say the real test is does it add new information that our readers wont get anywhere else, or are we using it as a source ourselves. If it fails on these points it ashould be left out, SqueakBox 18:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Berkeley student? That's San Francisco. Pasadena is in LA. Anyway not only does that information have to be "new," it has to be from a verifiable, identifiable and responsible source. So far as financing, I could have done that site for less than ten euros (registering the domain name then pointing it somewhere) :) Gwen Gale 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but myspace is free. If you know what you are doing producing such a site is easy. The Berkeley bit came form the email address, could be a professor, but you have to know how to write html and do ftping I would have thought, all easy skills if you already have them, SqueakBox 18:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

More likely a fake username at berkely.edu. Gwen Gale 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By the bye, the dozen or so "signatures" I saw on the "petition" (one of those free web thingies) were uniformly prankish and derisive. I'd say the whole thing's a prank. Gwen Gale 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless the site gets mentioned in the news I see no reason to include it. --Lincoln F. Stern 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm Fuzzy Ip, I'm indeed a Berkeley student and the creator of the website. I feel that Nowak was falsely charged for her crime; I'm just trying to support her side of the story which nobody else seems to be doing. It's definitely NOT a prank site. The entries in the forum are free for anyone to voice their opinion; there's nothing I can do if people want to make funny or rude remarks. What steps can I take to edit the website so that it can be validated for Wikipeda linkage? Noeltazz 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try answering that. First read your statement again: "I'm just trying to support her side of the story which nobody else seems to be doing." Then read the official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This will tell you that the current goal of your website is incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia. Reading Wikipedia:External links may give you some insight into the types of sites that are appropriate for external linking. Thanks. --Plek 20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. What you say you're trying to do is ok in principle, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Gwen Gale 21:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)." I'm not providing an article, It's a link to a site (not a personal site or a blog) that provides unique interpretation on the situation at hand. I went over the "what should not be linked" section of the External Sites section and I do not believe my site falls into any of those categories. 71.204.186.123 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that page meets three qualifications of "what not to link" to a WP article:

• 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

This is not a unique resource, it provides zero unique information about this topic, only PoV.

• 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

This page links directly to a discussion forum.

• 11. Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority.

This page appears to be a personal website, and by the info you've provided on this talk page, it is indeed a personal site, not a commercial or institutional one. Gwen Gale 00:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Nowhere on my site is there a link to a "social networking site", There are 3 links total, one to CNN, one to the sites discussion board where people can speak their opinion freely, and one to Lisa's Bio at Nasa.gov. Links to Blogs and personal webpages? Sorry but nowhere on the site is a link to a personal webpage, my email is not a personal webpage. As for the first one it does provide a unique resource. Noeltazz 00:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I did not say "social networking site." I said "discussion forum."

• I did not say your page links to a personal webpage. I said your site is a personal webpage.

• I did not mention your email address in the points above.

• According to WP policy, your personal webpage is not acceptable as an external link. However, please tell me anyway, what unique resource does your personal webpage provide on this topic? Gwen Gale 00:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Davis (the mother in law)

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — The star-crossed space cadet who allegedly made it her mission to murder the woman dating her Cape Canaveral crush helped break up his 17-year marriage, his former mother-in-law said yesterday. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250851,00.html Crocoite 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

She's been making conflicting statements but yes, seems to be sticking now to the notion LN and WO made excursions into the suburbs of tabloid bliss. Oefelein's still rather the big unknown in this tale. Gwen Gale 00:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we've now definitely reached stages #5 and #6 of Plek's Media Hype Cycle™. So she's a "crazed moonbat" now? *sigh again* Somehow I doubt FOXNews qualifies as a reliable source. --Plek 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha Fox is calling her a moonbat. If they only knew. As I say (and you do so starkly imply)... tabloid bliss. Gwen Gale 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The suburbs of tabloid bliss, otherwise known as Sleazeville? :-) --Plek 01:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes! By Tattletown, between Grass Grove and Hurling Heights. Gwen Gale 01:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, on a thread, what I want to know is... shall the nicknames Robochick and Billy-O be showing up in this article or what. Gwen Gale 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... As I understand it, Nowak and Stephanie Wilson were called the "Robochicks" by their peers because they operated the robotic arms on the shuttle and station. It would make sense to use the nickname in the context of their mission activities. To use it on Nowak in the context of the assault, however, reeks of editorializing. It imposes an (not too flattering) image on the person that cannot be supported by verifiable facts, and it thus seems somewhat gratuitous. I'd vote against it (now where's my ballot?) As for Mr. Billy-O... no idea. I'd say a similar rationale against it could be made, but I haven't done too much reading into the life and times of Mr. Oefelein, so your guess is as good as mine. --Plek 01:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. On the one hand, it would be helpful to readers to spill these nicknames cuz they in themselves, on sight, tell skeins about NASA astronaut culture (as a cited shrink in the article says, they're human, after all) but... these nicknames are also fodder for more or less endless sniggering, on sight. I mean, if an editor (it won't be me) came along with a supporting citation (there are many and sundry), I couldn't argue against their smooth integration into the narrative. Yeah, I know, WP:BEANS. Gwen Gale 01:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to add more beans to the fire, it appears that listing "kidnapping" and "driving around in diapers" to her list of hobbies is now so last week, and that we're long overdue for a newly inspired round of vandalism. Let's see where and when "Robochick" will rear its ugly head. Thank the Wikigods for sprotect. --Plek 02:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's more creative nicknames now, oh and photoshopped pictures. I mean, it's not like these pranksters are original thinkers or anything, I've read that comedians on north American television have been joking about her endlessly. begin irony Meanwhile for all I know she'll be enhancing the family college fund a few years hence, appearing as a spokesperson for a specialised paper products company, such is American pop-culture (I cite the fast food flog by Britney's x along with pharmaceutical endorsements made by certain retired US politicians). end irony Gwen Gale 03:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How will she fare

A Florida criminal attorney's notions [12] Gwen Gale 07:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This guy is a bit nuts. He is listing crimes that she has not been accused of and really cannot be accused of. Look at the list:

Florida Statutes 787.02 False imprisonment (5 years) Florida Statutes 790.07 Persons engaged in criminal offense, having weapons (5 years) Florida Statutes 812.133 Carjacking, armed (Life) Florida Statutes 787.01 Kidnapping, armed (Life) Florida Statutes 810.02 Burglary, with assault/battery, armed (Life)

Yet she never had the chance to do these things. She was foiled in any attempts. She was not even charged. And they would have charged her if they could have. At best she can be charged with attempting those things. However, attempt generally has to get closer to accomplishment than she mustered. Perhaps an attempt at one of those would stick. But not all of them.

That lawyer is really extreme. --Blue Tie 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So is Florida law from what I gather and in that state apparently, attempts at these crimes are comparable to the crimes themselves. There is plenty of evidence Nowak planned or at least prepared for a murder (never mind what she truly had in mind, she had a murder kit in her bag). She certainly seems to have attempted a carjackiing and a kidnapping (the way Florida law defines those things). Note however, he doesn't say she'll go to prison for life, but will wind up in a mental health facility followed by years of probation. Gwen Gale 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Attempts are not exactly comparable to the acts. The law recognizes this in two ways: 1. Specifically declaring attempts, not just the acts themselves, subject to penalties and 2). Declaring that the penalties for attempts are automatically less than the penalties for the acts. It is clear that Nowak planned something. But it is not clear that she planned murder. It does not seem certain that she attempted a carjacking. Carjacking requires the separation of the owner of the car from the car. There is no evidence she planned to do that and it is clear that she did not do it. It is possible she was planning a kidnapping. It can be argued that she confessed to that. Attempted kidnapping would carry a maximum sentence of 15 years as I read the law. Sentencing guidelines would probably put that closer to 4 years. On the other hand, successful kidnapping would be likely to result in more than twice that sentence. This does not seem all that extreme to me. However, the lawyer you quote, I think, is sort of extreme and goes way too far. --Blue Tie 03:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sundry jurisdictions legally define carjacking in sundry ways. Florida law has a reputation for being singularly severe (like, no parole). This said, yeah, lots of folks will be surprised if she gets a stiff custodial sentence. One can be sure negotiations have already begun. I do get the feeling though, if a waitress or office worker had attacked Capt S the same way, with the same stuff in her bag and car, she might still be in nick with no bail at all. I'm only throwin my thoughts out though. Gwen Gale 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, different jurisdictions do that, but I was focused on Florida. Im not sure that Florida is tougher than other places. Having no parole does not matter or is less significant if there is no time to serve or it is less than in other states. Some people may be surprised at almost anything. I would not be surprised if she had to do some time, and I would not be surprised if she did not. The basic acts, connected to her prior crimes do not support time, really. But the attempts would. I disagree with you about a waitress or office worker. They would probably also get out on reasonable bail if they had substantial supporting characters testify and vouchsave their reliablity as she did. They would also probably get bail because the actual act, pepper spray, would not support a high bail. --Blue Tie 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Florida is widely known for its aggressive criminal justice system as compared to other US states. This is an observation, not a criticism. Gwen Gale 09:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowak's amateur radio license

It was already public information before the incident. Hardly an invasion of privacy since the only way the call sign would help anyone reach her would be if she was sitting by a radio waiting to hear her call sign spoken by other licensed amateur radio operators and she's the only person authorized to use that call sign. Gwen Gale 19:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Attempted 1st degree murder

• I am not familiar with Florida law. What does this mean and what does she gets with that ? Life ? Hektor 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The police obviously were miffed that she made bail. Gwen Gale 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but probably best to not speculate too much... but the kidnapping charge alone news sources said could get her life in Florida. - Denny 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't speculating (but I understand why you said that). Gwen Gale 17:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The most severe sentence would be life, I imagine they'll offer her a plea bargin though. Really stupid way to end a sparkling career if you ask me. Zerbey 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont think she was functioning normally here...she had clearly somehow snapped and the last thing on her mind was rational decsions about her career prospects...it wasnt "a stupid way to end her career"...it was basically a tragic way that her career ended and that she had little control over apparently...this story is a sad story, she even has three kids and 2 five year old daughters...she snapped and wasnt thinking clearly...luckily for everyone involved she had snapped so far that her actions werent very together, and it ended less tragically than it perhaps could have, with a BB gun instead of a real gun...Benjiwolf 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile she was arrested with what the Orlando police have interpreted as a murder kit (knife, latex gloves, plastic garbage bags, three feet of rubber tubing, a new steel mallet), then a couple of astronauts show up at her hearing saying, literally, "we take care of our own" and the judge reluctantly grants bail. In response the police crank up the charges to attempted murder. To be continued. Gwen Gale 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You can wonder about the strategy of the defense. This was like agitating a red flag under the nose of the prosecution. Hektor 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's understandable that both her astronaut family and NASA wanted her out on bail. The hitch is, she wasn't only found with pepper spray. This is a big docking scandal for NASA, a public relations and recruiting disaster. Can one imagine what might have happened had she done something like this during a long mission? Like to Mars? This could cause some rethinking of the whole manned space program (which is already under fire) and as they say, no bucks, no Buck Rogers. Gwen Gale 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

well it does somewhat reflect on NASA...yet really... its been a roller coaster couple of days for italians...first a police officer is killed in soccer riots in italy and all soccer is suspended indefinitely...then the next day this crazy story from the first italian american female astronaut...and at the same time rudi guliani says hes running for president!!!...Benjiwolf 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree it's certainly not positive spin for NASA, do remember she is also a member of the U.S. military and has been entrusted with flying various military aircraft during her career, among other activities. If this is some underlying personality fault at work, it's not just NASA that missed the signs, it's also the U.S. military. Remember, people who've committed crimes aren't unheard of in the U.S. military, just as in _all_ other walks of life; notable examples include: Timothy McVeigh, Lynndie England, Charles Graner, etc. I hardly think one bad apple means the future of manned spaceflight need be called into question. If anything, it calls into question just how reliable "psych evals" really are at detecting/predicting criminal and/or socially deviant behavior. Just some food for thought... Ageekgal 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

She's not enlisted infantry. She's an officer, Naval Academy, astronaut, right stuff and all. Gwen Gale 23:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

... or not-so-right-stuff, as it turns out... My original points still apply. In fact, her rank and priveleges in the military, if anything, indicate even greater scrutiny must have been on her at various stages prior to her acceptance into the U.S. astronaut corps, as well as during and after same. My point being, is this type of abberant behavior necessarily always something that can be predicted, or do some people just "snap" (or, alternative postulate, do some people just hide this well... from themselves, as well as others.)? Ageekgal 00:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, I completely agree with everything you've said. Before coming to this discussion page and reading your comments, I did question to myself the longterm impact this would have on the manned space program. It's already expensive enough to send people into space to do what machines can do and do more reliably for much, much less. Now, along with physical well-being, and despite their stellar educations and careers, we have to concern ourselves with their mental well-being as well. We can learn so much more, go so much farther, more reliably, for far less without astronauts imo. Things aren't going to change overnight. And despite future 'plans', I think this will (or at least 'should') be the beginning of the end. And it's long due. Dialwon 00:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't assume that robots won't have problems, either. Look what happened to the GM Robot recently... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HughGRex (talk • contribs) 00:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Really, where do I either suggest or assume that there wouldn't be problems with machines/robots? Quotes, please. You're making assumptions based on nothing -- certainly nothing I've said.

However, what I DO both suggest and assume, both implicitly and explicitly, is that we'd learn much more for much less without a manned space program. Either way, one would have to agree, though, there wouldn't be a love triangle among machines nor would NASA have to fund ongoing psychological screenings or training for them. Not that there wouldn't be other problems, but those problems would be much less in the cost to lives and money than they are with a manned program. And this conclusion was reach long before this astronaut 'snapped'. Better here on Earth than out there. How many lives could it have been had it been in space? At what cost? Dialwon 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think diawons reasonings are totally ridiculous and invalid...the fact is the main ultimate goal of the manned space program is manned missions to other planets and then entirely new planets for human settlement...while we see thousands of other benefits from this ultimate goal such as all sorts of scientific information, it remains the goal...and the fact is when u take a thousand people...even that can make astronaut status...ur going to see a few problems here and there...its just the nature of human beings...to cancel the manned space program as of one astronaut...or even a dozen...going spacey...is just not going to happen...even when a dozen accidentally explode its not going to cancel things...yet the bigger factor is that the rock we are currently on is eventually going to explode or melt or freeze or whatever...so people take risks and enter stressful jobs...and anyways even if the americans stop their manned space program...the chinese are still sending some people to the moon sometime soon here...manned spaceflight will not be cancelled...yet there may be certain missions that are more appropriate for robots and such...Benjiwolf 14:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Heya Benjiwolf, please tone it down (stuff such as I think diawons reasonings are totally ridiculous and invalid). Ok? Thanks. Anyway the pith of discussions regarding manned spaceflight come down to expense and risk/reward ratios. Adding a pressurized cocoon and life support to any mission can add ten times or more to its cost and whatever you or I say, the risks are not fully understood much less described. The notion that people will colonize space (or the solar system, whatever) is blurred by the romance and endless optimism of our human spirit along with our experiences here on earth. A dozen people have been to the moon, ending 35 years ago. Folks may very likely visit all the planets one day. The question is in what numbers and to what end. Robots are much, much cheaper and when they do fail the losses are orders of magnitude lower.

As for the risks of losing our biosphere (on earth) any time soon, these are generally overstated in the extreme, although there are tangible but low level worries about asteroid impacts (never mind wars, let's not go there). So far as saving the species goes, there's plenty of work to do on earth and for me, space travel advocacies hooking into "saving the human race" are wholly emotional and unsupported by the evidence so far. For starters, by the evidence, the earth appears to have at the very least, tens or hundreds of millions of years to go with more or less its current environment (and its cycles), maybe a few billion. This is not a statement of complacency, but it took billions of years for us to evolve on this wet rock and we're very much woven into its ways, likely more so than we fully grok and that includes pondering the expenses, plausibilties and benefits of duplicating earthlike conditions elsewhere. To compete with the Chinese? For awhile maybe but political reasons like that are unlikely to last. Gwen Gale 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm such a fan of the Apollo moon landings but this does make one think robotics (ironic Nowak is mission qualified in them) are much safer and far more cost-effective after all. Look at what Opportunity and Spirit have done on Mars, for years now, wonderful science, gripping too! Gwen Gale 00:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye, if the system couldn't catch something like this, it creates more worries about putting folks together in a small crew, in isolation for months at a time (say on a mission to Mars), without much wider community support and infrastructure. Gwen Gale 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

... or in life-threatening combat situations as soldiers face in combat, no? Ageekgal 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The military expects that. Lots of horrid, person-to-person stuff happens out there that we never hear of. Gwen Gale 00:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean, opening up a $20 billion (or whatever) mission to chavel because someone might break a wire is not what I would call keen risk management. Gwen Gale 00:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I can now at least cite this with an astronaut's comments as reported by the AP [13] Gwen Gale 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally with you Gwen, I have been following the shuttle program for quite some time now and have been awed by it and the amazing people who come together to make such wonders of science a reality. But, what I cant understand is how an astronaut with so much training benid her just snapped. I wonder what kind of a mind job would have gone in to act without thinking. The big reason why this news is such a sensation is because she was an astronaut. I am sure stuff like this happens all the time. SO am pretty sure NASA are going to be pretty upset about this whole thing Seedar 13:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when is pepper spraying someone while carrying a knife count as attempted murder? And what's the Murder#Degrees_of_murder system in use in Florida? 203.109.174.60 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowak was carrying what the Orlando police have interpreted as a "murder kit." Knife, garbage bags, rubber tubing, a new steel mallet, other seemingly incriminating stuff. She pepper-sprayed the victim through a cracked window when the victim wouldn't open her car door. The question is, what did she have in mind? Nowak's lawyer says one can "speculate and speculate," whilst the Orlando police say it was attempted murder. Oh and now, the victim says Nowak was stalking her for 2 months. Who knows how the legal stuff will spin out but meanwhile, they've put a GPS tracker on her ankle. Gwen Gale 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

well it is hard to say definitely what she intended...and can one even take her own words for granted whether she confesses to an attempted murder or just scaring & intimidating, either way???...she is clearly not functioning normally...the trash bags and rubber tubing make it look real bad tho...so the police have a right for some serious concern...Benjiwolf 13:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Desperate people have been known to do irrational stuff.Nowak could just have wanted to scare Shipman, but the fact will still remain she confronted and attacked her and that will hold good in the court of law.I dont think it will matter what was going on in her head at that time. Seedar 13:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what was Nowak's current assignment or if she was slated for any future shuttle missions. Cause I cant imagine the amount of stress these people endure. Seedar 13:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

She was assigned to lead flight communications for the next mission. As of yesterday she's off all active duty, apparently indefinitely and is on a 30 day leave from NASA. Gwen Gale 13:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are reports now in the media that they heard dishes breaking at her house in november or something...and that she and her husband of 19 years had just recently seperated...a few weeks later this happened...it currently sounds like her personal situation, and then her mental state, rapidly spiralled out of control...Benjiwolf 13:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the point where the news agencies become fiction authors. A cat could have broken the dishes. Sometimes the media can sure turn on the heat on things. Seedar 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, some of the reports seem to be "jumping the shark" or whatever now, putting undue weight on stuff like a neighbour saying he heard dishes breaking one night (scandal!) or mining her NASA interviews for any possible mention of everyday stuff like (shudder)... stress. On the other hand and in fairness, most of the "neghbour" and "colleague" interviews I've read have folks saying she was more or less wonderful. Anyway love triangles and romances happen among co-workers all the time and JSC, like lots of other workplaces, has been a hotbed for that sort of thing for decades. Most don't resort to stalking and pepper spray attacks, though. Gwen Gale 14:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing what should be in the article, not for speculating about the subject of the article, interesting as that may be. Please do not do speculate on her plans and motives, unless law enforcement personnel have made such statements as part of their case. Per WP:BLP any original speculation about her mental state is inappropriate. Please stick with discussing what has been reported elsewhere in reliable and verifiable sources and how/whether it should be in the article or how the article should be revised. Nothing sourced to blogs or lurid tabloid stories should be added to the article. Thanks. Edison 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

This discussion helps establish NPoV weight for the article. Moreover, if you have identified any original research in the article, or citations of blogs or tabloids, I hope you'll either immediately remove them yourself or bring it up here. Meanwhile, thanks for your input. Gwen Gale 20:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Oefelein has made any comment. I know he is cooperating with the authorities, but has there been any comments from him available. I think he's the one who can help clean up some of this mess. Seedar 06:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time an astronaut is under fire. Jack Swigert the pilot of the Apollo 13 moon mission was allegdly involved in a stamp scandal. The only difference between then and now is that the media did not make it such a big sensation. Somewhere along the line I feel the authorities could have spoken to NASA about this and had a closed room hearing and not have made so much news about it. NASA is a place a lot of people look up to. It's a place where we know dreams become a reality. This might sound bookish but the truth is a lot of people are inspired by NASA's work, so its not good tarnishing that image. It's a source of realising someone's dream. Seedar 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard, freedom of the press was more or less at least gurdgingly acknowledged in the states. Gwen Gale 17:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is slightly more protected in the US than in England, though they are roughly comparable. --Blue Tie 03:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)