Talk:Lisa Nowak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lisa Nowak article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1 /archive news March 7 2007


Contents

[edit] straightforward reportage

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)

I concur. To add to the consensus, I will voice my view that your interpretation of the applicable policies seems the most reasonable. The commentary should be left out. Butnotthehippo 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have to agree. Although something can be cited, doesn't mean that we should have it in the article. If anything the hobbies are getting into the realm of things that would appear in a section entitled Trivia, the bane of Wikipedia. Evil Monkey - Hello 19:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a smear, there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the prhase seemingly focus group tested but I can easily abide by an apparent consensus on this. I do agree that the topic of her hobbies should be treated in an encyclopedic way and that the wording could quickly sway into trivia. Gwen Gale 22:06, 13 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)

It could also imply she is so genuinely wonderful as a person that it's an utter shocker she got herself arrested and then charged with attempted murder. Separately, focus groups can be helpful but the methodology must be rigorous and they're often misused, either through errors in running them or interpreting the data they produce.

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)

Back to the hobbies, I mean, look at her CV and experience, meanwhile when reporters were snooping around her neighbourhood, local kids were riding up to them on their bikes saying she baked such great cookies. My jaw drops (in awe, not credulity). Gwen Gale 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why can't she bake good cookies?Bus stop 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop, please read my posts more carefully. Please! :) I said she reportedly bakes wonderful, extremely tastey, kid-approved cookies. Awe means I believe it, credulity would mean I did not. Gwen Gale 23:13, 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)

Please provide a diff where I doubted her cookie baking abilities. Truly Bus stop, I think you're badly misreading my posts here. Gwen Gale 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Horse=dead. No beating necessary. --Plek 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Nowak with George W. Bush

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)

Just noticed she is captioned as a Commander on 23 October 2006. When was she promoted? Evil Monkey - Hello 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that must have happened somewhere between the date that picture was taken and now (or at least the day she was arrested, assuming she didn't receive a promotion since then). The NASA bio doesn't list the date she was promoted to captain. This does also mean that she was still a commander when she flew on STS-121 (if that caption is in fact correct).--Plek 21:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what the military policy is, but she may have received a promotion for her spaceflight. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any other reference to her being a commander, though I only spent a couple of minutes googling and wouldn't rely on a negative result this nonetheless brings to mind... is it possible whoever wrote the White House caption, with all those folks and ranks, got it wrong? Gwen Gale 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
They could certainly gotten it wrong (PR people, and all that), but she must have been a commander at some point during her naval career, right? If, in fact, she did get promoted as a result of her space flight, that might be a (slightly) notable piece of information. I'll try searching some more. Wanna join me? :) --Plek 22:29, 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)

(edit conflict) Hmmm, I don't think so. A "Mission Commander" is not a naval rank, but rather a description of her role within the squadron. The only source I've found so far is a New York Times article: “Like any other people, they’re human,” said George Abbey, director of the Johnson Space Center when Commander Nowak was selected for the astronaut corps, who recalled her as “an outstanding candidate.” Deduction, reduction, and all that crap: she was a U.S. Navy commander when she joined the NASA astronaut corps in 1996. She must have been promoted sometime after that. Oh, and Gwen: United States Navy officer rank insignia. Happy reading. :) --Plek 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't see this before. Agreed, I later realized mission commander is not the same. Meanwhile that NASA roster of her astronaut class does refer to her as lieutenant commander. She was with NASA for ten years before her first shuttle flight, plenty of time to get notched up one pay grade to commander, then another to captain. Gwen Gale 06:19, 14 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)

Ooohhh... Great find! I'm impressed. Note that it's not an official NASA site; it's probably created by family/friends/fans/whatever. It's got some very nice pictures, and they also host this: a press release by the National Organization of Italian American Women. This could be used to reference the "first Italian-American woman in space" thing. I like. --Plek 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ack, I assumed it was NASA but it's TUCOWS, meaning "further verification would be a help." :) Gwen Gale 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, yep, these training pictures of her are wonderful. Gwen Gale 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the NOIAW (which I read, in a classic Freudian slip, as NOLAW) also lists Nowak's rank as commander, per April 26, 2005. --Plek 23:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Not very helpful for trying to find when she was promoted to Captain, but have just found that she was a Lieutenant Commander at least up to June 03, 1998, thanks to this press release[2] -- "…along with NASA astronaut Lt. Cmdr. Lisa Nowak, U.S. Navy,…". And she was a Lt Cmdr when selected as an astronaut ([3]). In the process of a quick google search of the .mil domain, I've found her Master's thesis abstract on "Computational Investigations of a NACA 0012 Airfoil in Low Reynolds Number Flows" from Sept 1992 [no rank though :-)]. It is rather weird that it seems impossible to find even a press release from NASA. You would think they would like to celebrate the promotion of their military astronauts. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This page on naval ranks would imply she must have gone through a period (however brief) as a commander, between lieutenant commander and captain. Gwen Gale 02:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's standard procedure for military astronauts to receive an automatic promotion upon completion of their first space flight (but not automatic after subsequent flights), so the promotion from Commander to Captain would have taken place sometime after the Shuttle Orbiter Discovery's safe landing in July 2006.
Davidkevin 06:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shipman's college degree

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)

I can't find any fault in Gwen's reasoning above, so I'd agree: no more info on Shipman than strictly necessary. --Plek 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that's the crux now isn't it? What exactly is "strictly necessary" and who gets to decide that? In sex crimes and underage crimes even the victims name is not known. Here we are dealing with a public person, they are in the service, you can even know what they earn just by counting their stripes, it's all public knowledge. The degree information was online it is not my personal knowledge. Why include where she works? What branch of service she is in etc.? What is relevant and how is it decided (name, age, sex, marital status, career, education)? In what order would you rank these in terms of importance? Is there anything else you would include? Anything there already that should be taken out? Why? Why not? How much "background" should be included? I believe it should all be public already, nothing that isn't already out there. I say her education is relevant.Tstrobaugh 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Shipman is not a public person, she's the victim of an alleged crime with no prior encyclopedic notability. The bare mention of her rank and job are indeed not such private info and could be interpreted as needed so as to provide the reader with helpful context relating to the crime itself, not the victim. Gwen Gale 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see how her degree in German is relevant at all to the article. Did Nowak speak to her in German? As for the engineering degree -- since she is an engineer for the military, I'd hope that she has some sort of qualification. How do we decide what is "strictly necessary"? Probably the same way most things on Wikipedia are --- consensus. And personally I don't think we need any more information that what is there about Shipman already. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you're being a smart alec or not. By asking if Nowak spoke German I'm assuming you are. Now I don't know what to take seriously about what you say. Here is citation for the education if more people come down in favor of it being included [4].Tstrobaugh 23:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What I was trying to say (not very well) was that Shipman's education doesn't seem relevant to an article on Lisa Nowak. There are many things that are public information about her that we don't need to include in this article. I agree with Gwen Gale that Shipman is barely notable. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Also... the Tribune article is a solid citation but it's a news org. I don't think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but the pith here has to do with notions of encyclopedic notability. If Shipman ever becomes publicly notable as anything other than a crime victim (the only notability now supportable through reliable secondary sources) then an article about her with all kinds and sundry meaningful stuff would be called for. Gwen Gale 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verb conjugation

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)

[edit] Pic

When was this taken?
When was this taken?

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)

Here's one... Gwen Gale 22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's one with her daughter, not so flattering and not ok for use here though. Gwen Gale 22:43, 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)

I hate to be totally pedantic here (okay, secretly I love it, but don't tell anyone that), but without a source, there's no way of knowing if that new picture is indeed published by NASA. Can anyone find a direct link to a NASA site for it? --Plek 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Spoke too soon. Nothing to see here. Move along, please --Plek 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have to say that the new photo actually looks older than the original one. I guess (without any supporting evidence for my assertion) that this could be the photo taken when she became an astronaut in 1996. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
At first blush I thought it was much more recent. Given what you've said, after looking at it again, I think I indeed may have botched and swapped in an older picture. For one thing, the scan isn't as crisp. For another, the current NASA bio links to a cropped one of her in the orange shuttle suit which was up before. Thoughts anyone? Gwen Gale 00:11, 15 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)

[edit] A helpful perspective?

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.

Maybe so, but the diaper part is funny. And I think she still is a mother of three. --Kalmia 11:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it's true, although using the past tense like that in an editorial summation is acceptable idiom blah blah, it could be misleading if one didn't know the first thing about what had happened. Gwen Gale 11:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The conspiracy angle

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

You can't combine sources to support an argument you've constructed on your own through original research. A blog or public discussion forum would be more suitable. Here's a site which might be able to assist you in applying scientific thinking and scholarly methodology to your thoughts. So far as the news cycle goes, NASA has worked hard to keep her totally out of the news, no public appearances or statements and so on, rather standard media damage control. These aren't the droids we're looking for. There's nothing to see here, move along, move along. Gwen Gale 13:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If I had a video recording of Lisa Nowak stating that this was a smear campaign and it never happened would you deny it here claiming original research if it was nowhere else to be found? 83.73.246.53 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Frederiksen
Since you don't have such a video it's not really relevant is it?--HarryHenryGebel 17:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
And to answer the question: if you did have such an unpublished video then yes, the use of that would constitute original research. Read the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:No original research. --Plek 18:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It was a rhetorical question to demonstrate the flaw in the 'original research' thinking. I wasn't seeking an answer. 83.73.246.53 19:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Frederiksen
Do you feel you have successfully demonstrated a flaw? Bus stop 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Frederiksen, it does not demonstrate a flaw. As Ms. Gale states, were you to make such a video available, someone would be sure to refer to it in the article.--HarryHenryGebel 11:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Plek, thank you, your answer was better than mine. Mr. Frederiksen, I apologize for my tone.--HarryHenryGebel 11:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

I believe Mr. Frederiksen was trying to imply that the assault on Capt. Shipman never happened, and that the entire incident was made up by NASA to discredit Capt. Nowak in the event that she started telling people that she had seen UFOs.--HarryHenryGebel 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrest And Arraignment Photos

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)

[edit] Semi protection

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)

Im not an admin but I do support this block. We're all human. We all make mustakes.Savwah 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Stupid open proxies. And they've moved on from adding an attack image of Nowak with diapers on her head, to using an image that we can't delete since it is used on another article. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added it to the bad image list—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep the article semi-protected.--Alabamaboy 21:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Which image is that? And why cant we delete it? The image I saw and speedied was a clearlWP:BLP violation and I cant imagine any situation in which such a pic would not be a BLP violation re Ms Nowak, SqueakBox 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Just look through the article's history and you'll find it. I'm not posting a direct diff in a futile attempt to avert another WP:BEANS situation. :-) --Plek 22:47, 20 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)

[edit] Space madness

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 TACO 09:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

More likely related to the psychological letdown of spending ten years of one's life as a semi-celebrity and military wunderkind preparing for a single shuttle flight and then "coming back down to earth" with maybe zero prospect of ever flying in space again, given NASA's plans for the shuttle and way too many astronauts. Both the psychological experience (Buzz Aldrin being the most famous example) and the surplus of astronauts are widely documented. That said, any "space madness" would appear to be the same madness anyone else has to deal with. Gwen Gale 10:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
450 people have been in space to date, many of them for much longer than Ms. Nowak. I think it is unlikely that permanent space related brain chemistry changes would not have been discovered by now.--HarryHenryGebel 11:46, 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)

[edit] GSN Game

Anyone think this is worth including in the Reactions section? -- MyrddinEmrys 06:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, if we listed every person or website that used this incident for humorous purposes the list would enormous.--HarryHenryGebel 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ick. Gwen Gale 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nowak Court Martial?

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)

From the horse's mouth:
"We are allowing the civilian authorities and judicial system to run its course," [Navy] spokesman Lt. Tommy Crosby said from the Pentagon. "Once that's completed, then the Navy will address any possible violations of the military code of justice."[6]
And before you get get to Rabb, wouldn't you need Special Agent Gibbs from NCIS? :-) Evil Monkey - Hello 20:50, 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)

The second chapter on Nowak's legal saga hasn't even been written yet. For starters, she's been booted from NASA and the announcement's wording makes clear this had to do with administrative concerns about how to handle the charges against her and that it was by mutual agreement with the US navy. Stay tuned. Gwen Gale 11:45, 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)

[edit] Anna Nicoles Smith death/Britney's new shave steals the spotlight

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 commentPumapayam 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting question

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 wouldn't do anything. First, it's not a grammar error but a usage or possibly spelling question. Second, the meaning is still very clear. Quotes shouldn't be altered at all. Doing so begins the long road to chavel. The most one might do is put a [sic] after carry over but I don't think it's needed. Gwen Gale 23:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that quotes shouldn't be altered. My point was that, if the original quote was oral, then the Associated Press (or whoever typed it in) altered the quote: the person actually said "carryover", but the reporter or typist rendered this as "carry over". These sound the same. If this is the case -- that is, the newspaper (or whoever) makes an error in transcribing a quote -- is it better to leave the error, or to correct to what the person actually said? Eric-Albert 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I understood what you meant and yeah, it's a drag, but quotes mustn't be altered from the source. It's always more helpful to leave them intact, since this wholly skirts any risk of compounding errors over time. Add the [sic] if you like though, it's the wonted way of dealing with dodgy syntax in quotes :) Gwen Gale 23:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I just asked for semi protection to come off. Seems quieter. - Denny 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper redirection

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).

Shipman is a private person, and unless she goes public/gets tremendously notable through a trial later, she doesn't need her own articl... - Denny 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
IMO the Shipman redirect should be speedily deleted and then reprotected as Shipman is not Nowak, SqueakBox 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
So long as no article about Shipman is created. She's a private person. Gwen Gale 20:07, 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)

Maybe it should be redirected to Lisa Nowak#Alleged attempted kidnapping and murder, I think that might decrease the chances of people accidentally thinking the article is about Colleen Shipman, and it would bypass the parts of the article that do not apply to her.--HarryHenryGebel 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I experimented with this section-based redirect and it seemed more confusing than just redirecting to the whole Nowak page.--Alabamaboy 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Colleen Shipman should basically not be mentioned or only mentioned minimally, unless we aspire to be gossipmongers. Bus stop

The only documentation I'm aware of depicts Shipman as a crime victim and otherwise unencyclopedic. There should be no separate article about her and only the lightest possible treatment in this article (name, job, her responses in public records and so on). Gwen Gale 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I note the redirect is locked and dont know why but IMO it should be redirected to astronaut and relocked, SqueakBox 17:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The redirect if protected b/c people kept trying to create articles about Shipman which violated WP:BIO. Perhaps instead of a redirect I should just strip out the link to this article and have the generic "This article has been deleted" template there. Would people support that?--Alabamaboy 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I would support this, SqueakBox 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Shipman's not an astronaut so a redirect there wouldn't be ok. I'd be more than ok with either a generic template or a protected redirect here. Gwen Gale 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] emails

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)

She said it was "more than a working relationship" and they were on the outs by then. I don't think she lied at all. My take, anyway, is Oefelein seems to have confirmed her statements to the Orlando police. Gwen Gale 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
She said it was more than working and LESS than Romantic. I understand that she had arranged her life so that she was divorcing her husband for him. Then she found out about Shipman. She had trashed her life and found out so she went ballistic. Maybe she does not think of a relationship where you are contemplating a marriage for the rest of your life to be Romantic, but I do. Certainly it is more than a working relationship for most people. --Blue Tie 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Erm, I must say, she did tell the police her relationship with WO was "more than a working relationship." Gwen Gale 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but mind, your take on this is original research, which can't be used in the article. If you can find a cite from a reliable published source (no blogs or personal websites) which supports your interpretation, please do bring it to the talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more dish

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)

[edit] Mug shot image?

Image:Astronaut nowak.jpg
Mugshot of Nowak

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)

Last I checked the image had come from a free source. Gwen Gale 10:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Not according to the tag - see Template:Mugshot. Mdwh 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the tag could use some re-working. The image's history says it was downloaded directly from a county website. Elsewhere on the website there is language implying the contents are freely available for public use. Either way, this image is direct from the source and about as free as it can get, any alternative would be more encumbered so no, I don't think it fails the fair use criterion. Gwen Gale 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not usually a softy, but I've been thinking a lot about this mugshot for the past several days. At first I was OK with it, but at length I've come to the conclusion that it is not encyclopedic, and should be pulled down. It is not news to anyone that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," and Nowak's behavior, while extreme, is newsworthy only because of her career. In fact, she hereself is noteworthy only because of her career and perosnal accomplishments. Wikipedia doesn't have pictures of Ben Franklin or George Washington or Martin Luther King on their worst days, and probably shouldn't have this picture of her, on her worst day, either. It is not reflective of her life. Her behavior in this episode is an important part of her story, and needs to be included. But, there are plenty of other places to find this picture on the 'net for those who need the titilation. I think it is an affront to proper decorum to have it here. Let's trash it, OK? My two cents worth. Cmichael 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you've made an excellent argument there. I tend to agree, so I pulled the mugshot pic. Never liked it anyway. Let's see who objects. --Plek 22:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the time has come for WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:BLP to have a bit of sway, it may have been helpful while this story was first unfolding but is much less so now. Gwen Gale 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and support your move... - Denny 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resuming the conversation

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)

I agree that the photo can stay out, per the previous concensus. However, no harm in seeing if people think the situation has changed (but I don't think it has). - Denny (talk) 22:09, 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)

While its nice that you've received assurance on the photo, it can not be used here unless someone can give a reliable source stating that it is in the public domain. We used to be able to use fair use to cover photos like this but Wikipedia guidelines have changed so that fair use no longer is permitted (much as I wish it was). Best, --Alabamaboy 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
First off thank you for the cordial response; other replies (on other pages) regarding this root issue were not nearly as such. As I continue to research I was hoping you or someone else could comment on matters involving "media release" information, notably the "Smoking Gun" article that includes the disputed booking photo as well as the associated police report in full. Can Wikipedia be considered a media outlet allowed to publish publicly released media information for these purposes or can we at least link to their article? At least for FL, I am keeping in mind the state's very broad public records legislation as part of FS 119.01, which has thus far been in itself discounted by other Wiki mwmbers. I am admittedly getting frustrated as everyone I have contacted - the law enforcement agencies involved and legislators - are all telling me there is no problem here?! Unfortunately my attempts to contact the permissions-en@wikipedia.org folks have yet to yield a response. Pending their reply can you recommend how I can properly provide a reliable source that will be upheld? --Jasap 18:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Technically you could call Wikipedia a media outlet. The problem, though, is that Wikipedia has set tougher guidelines for "fair use" and such than other places. The problem you're having is that it doesn't matter what law enforcement agencies and others say about the issue; we must follow what Wikipedia says. To see what we must follow, see Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images and Wikipedia:Image use policy. To claim fair use on this image is probably a stretch b/c it states at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Counterexamples, under item number 5, that images here may not claim fair use if they are "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo." That said, if you can prove that the image came from a public entity such as the sheriff's department (where the mug shot likely did come from, but what you need is proof), then the image would have a good shot at being either fair use or in the public domain. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:48, 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)

Although I could not find a direct link/reference at the Orange Co Jail Web site (because Nowak is no longer an inmate) the mug shot absolutely originated there as heavily reported by - and same image posted to - local media and many dozens of other news organizations around the world. It is also well known locally that all cities in Orange Co. utilize the county jail for "central booking" and related incarceration. I also thought it would be interesting to mention that the local JAIL Newspaper [9] publishes mug shots pulled from law enforcement agencies around the area. Mr. Devin James is certainly providing a valuable public service but how is it that he has been approved by, thanked for by local officials, and even receives compensation (albeit only covering his own costs) for his efforts? I do sincerely respect and appreciate Alabamaboy's reasoning regarding Wikipedia's stricter policies as well as following official Wikipedia guidelines but I believe this situation deserves more consideration. -- Jasap 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought we had reached a consensus to leave the photo out. Whether or not it is compliant with Wikipedia's policies, I find it to be in poor taste, and still don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Cmichael 13:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Since I was not part of the consensus, I reopened the discussion. I have to disagree with you that the photo is "poor taste". True, it is not very flattering to Ms. Nowak, but Wikipedia is not her publicity site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Ms. Nowak is known for both the good (her astronaut career, for which we have two very nice photos), and the bad (the unfortunate incident, for which we have the mug shot). IMHO, since we do not have any free photos of Nowak since the incident, our use of the photo is within the bounds of fair use. --However whatever 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:Mugshot says "to illustrate the person in question" - it says nothing about illustrating a person from a specific incident. Therefore this fails fair use according to that template, and if there is disagreement with that, it should probably be taken up on that page, as it would affect all mugshot images that might be used. Mdwh 02:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MugShots

I think that wikipedia needs a policy on mugshots. I think that it should be roughly like this:

  • Mugshots are typically fair use or uncopyrighted material.
  • Mugshots are atypically unflattering and are inherently biased.
  • In the interest of NPOV, use of Mugshots, even if they are the only photographs useable, is discouraged, but not forbidden.
  • Specifically, people who are more prominently and were previously known through other non-criminal activities should not be represented by a mug shot in the article.
  • People who may have other significant accomplishments but who came to prominent notice through a crime, may be appropriately represented by a mugshot, but not as the main picture on the page, and only as attached to the section about the crime. It should not be given preference and should not be the only picture of the subject or come first in the biography.
  • For people who are only substantially known for a crime, the mug shot is appropriate illustration for the article, but if a better picture, of good quality, can be found and used under wikipedia licenses, that other picture should be given preference, but the mug shot should also be considered a useful part of the biography. --Blue Tie 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What does the fourth bullet mean? --However whatever 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

And who would make that decision? --However whatever 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors. --Blue Tie 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
From WP:BLP: "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." I'm going to take it back out.Cmichael 05:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brown leather jackets

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)

[edit] Jacket

  • Brown or Black?
  • Both Lindsey and Ferguson or just Lindsey?
  • New or not so new?
  • Flight Jackets or ordinary jackets that anyone might wear?
  • Significant or insignificant?

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)

Except that there are several problems with your theory: 1. It looks black to me (hence this is an issue of original research on your part, contrary to wikipedia policy), 2) it does not look like a fiight jacket to me and hence it would not be a "right stuff" jacket 3) but it does look like the kind of jacket that is given out free for promotional types of activities. I have two like that and 4) even if one and two were true, it would not be particularly relevant since ... hey... they are pilots and would possibly be attracted to flight jacket like attire. frankly... This is really crufty. It makes wikipedia look like a place for really weird, minutia focused people to contribute... because honestly, no one will "grok" what you groked from it. They will just see it as a weird little unimportant detail. Something that a good editorial staff would have removed in a reasonably well-written publication. Now MAYBE if these guys were interested in sending a "right stuff" message they would have both worn their real flight jackets and Nasa insignia. But even if they did that, it might only be because they were interested in being somewhat official as representatives. However, I do not think that was the issue. Heck one of them wore a pink shirt. --Blue Tie 05:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem way emotional about the NASA bio hobbies and brown leather jackets. Gwen Gale 05:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be appropriate to refrain from personal insults and deal with the issues raised.--Blue Tie 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It was an observation. I took your remarks as original research and my impression was they were expressed more with emotion than with reason (or citations of reliable secondary sources). In my humble opinion these aspects of the article seem very important to you. That's cool. Meanwhile I'd rather have verifiable, citable material in the article and not keep stuff out in response to editor appeals which use trigger words like RfC, egregious, cruft, weird and so on. Gwen Gale 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal insults tend to be observations by one person against another -- as you have made. Even if you took my remarks to be personal research, it would be irrelevant, since I am not posting them to an article. Note, also, that if something does not exist, I would be unable to post a link to that thing to verify that it does not exist. How could I? So, raising an objection may be valid, even without a link, if the objection is that something is not true. You may take that to be emotional if you like but it is the way things work, with or without emotion. You are wrong to think that these "aspects" of the article matter to me. They don't. I am more interested in the integrity of wikipedia articles than these "aspects" which are, frankly, trivial. I would rather keep stuff out that is crufty (actually they are only included because of some really obscure theory) and thus improve wikipedia's articles and editorial integrity.
Now, if we have had enough of my personal stuff, perhaps we can get back to the issues. Here they are again: I think the jacket is brown black, you believe it is black brown. Where is there a verifiable source on this? I do not see both of them wearing jackets. Where is the source on that? Are they both the same? Where is the source on that? What is the relevance or importance to the article in any case? Suppose Nasa (or a contractor) just hands these out? Wouldn't they both have them and how would that fact matter one iota to the article? Indeed, how does it matter in either case? It doesn't. It does not belong in the article. --Blue Tie 06:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I said it was brown. I never said any jacket was black. Gwen Gale 06:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok fixed. but the issue remains the same--Blue Tie 06:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So what is the significance of it? I assume its something to do with the fact that they're not uniforms, but beyond that, I don't know. Linking the words to an article explaining the significance would be good thing(tm) Gible Fog 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There is an imagined significance that somehow these men were sending a signal to the judge or someone about the "right stuff" or something along that lines. Its a bit obscure and I guess you have to read between the lines.. which are also imaginary. --Blue Tie 06:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The article says they were wearing brown leather jackets. That's a verifiable historical fact. Swarm me out and hope no one notices the line has been removed but it's not imaginary, it's not a conspiracy, I glark they wore them for the same reason a lawyer shows up in court dressed in a suit and tie. Gwen Gale 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What article says that they were wearing browh leather jackets? If they wore those jackets, they probably wore them for the same reasons that I (and about 5 other people on any average airline flight in the US) wear them -- They are attractive and comfortable. Perhaps you should mention that in the article too. Or would that be too much detail?
As an aside, I would point out that both men AND the lawyer AND the guards were wearing pants. Perhaps that should be brought out in the article as well. Who knows what message they all were trying to send. Of course we do not know for sure if the judge was wearing pants because we could not see him. But if he was, it could signify... you know... some sort of club thing. --Blue Tie 06:25, 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)

No, as I recall, much of the discussion took place on user talk pages. I've said what I have to say about it, it's not a big deal, why worry? Gwen Gale 15:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, discussions on user pages are not available here. No appeal can be made to them to declare consensus here. THIS is the place for consensus discussion on THIS article. I agree and said early on that it was a minor matter and too crufty for inclusion in an encyclopedia, particularly based on original research. So, it is fine with me if we move on, now.--Blue Tie
Oh let's! :) Gwen Gale 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU related to this article

Just FYI, should contributors here wish to include information: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/However whatever. thanks. - Denny 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and a bit of context

Only for context, a rather sympathetic but pithy column about Nowak. Gwen Gale 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Brown Jackets again

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)

  • The "choice" you offer is not relevant.
  • Your use of the word "fashion" is intentionally misleading.
  • The line was in the article for many weeks until you rm'd it. Let's let some other editors comment on this.
  • Please stop edit warring, thanks. Gwen Gale 05:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


It is utterly irrelevant what they were wearing Gwen. But if you are going to comment on their apparel, then I may also. The only reason this was left untouched before was because I did not see it. The last time we discussed this you said it was not that big a deal to you, so I figured it was not going to re-appear. But here it is again, and you are very aware that I am opposed to this edit and have been. It is unencyclopedic to the absurd. I'm ok with other editors commenting on it. Why not put it up for RfC?--Blue Tie 05:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken as to relevance. Meanwhile let's let some other editors comment on this. Gwen Gale 05:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok make the case for relevance. How are their jackets MORE relevant than their haircuts, facial hair or other apparel? --Blue Tie 05:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how their clothes is relevant to this article. Dionyseus 05:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my comment from 8 February on this. Gwen Gale 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see any relevance. The article is about Lisa Nowak, not about what two people were wearing for court. Dionyseus 06:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you understand the relevance. Meanwhile the article already cites someone stating the relevance of this incident to The Right Stuff. Gwen Gale 06:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't see how their clothes is relevant to this article, please show how it is relevant to this article. Dionyseus 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the leather jackets don't mean anything. Most pilots have a leather jacket (including me). They are actually quite practical for flying tasks like standing around on cold, windy tarmacs. They are a form of traditional garb, a throwback to the barnstormer days (I also have a white silk scarf and snoopy hat, but they stay home in my dresser. However, pilots of open cockpit airplanes often wear leather snoopy hats because they keep your ears warm and won't blow away). It was probably a chilly day in Florida, so those two guys put on the jackets they happened to have with them, which happened to be their leather jackets. Most other pilots, including me, would have the same. And, I can assure you with no hestitation that I do NOT have the "right stuff." Leather jackets are more a "pilot thing" than an "astronaut thing." (The only astronaut I ever knew personally wore a space camp jumpsuit all the time...now THAT was notable, if only for its nuttiness). Cmichael 03:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
They wore them in a courtroom and they were identical. Gwen Gale 07:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
How is that relevant? Suppose, for example, they rented cars in Florida and got exactly the same model. Or suppose they had teh same haircut. Or wore identical shoes. How would that be relevant to the article? --Blue Tie 10:50, 10 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)

I have to agree that it isn't relevant by default. Could you (Gwen Gale) please explain why it strikes you as particularly worth mentioning? Is there a deeper meaning that we are not getting? Alpha262 13:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Blue Tie and Possible Personal Prejudice?

"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)

The first link is not in support of her it is a condemnation of people. The second link is not from a reliable wikipedia source. There really is nothing about this edit that adds value to the article. You do not own the article. Please stop adding unhelpful material.
Just so you know, I agree with the sentiments that you want to include. But I do not agree with their inclusion in this article. If that is confusing to you, please understand that my personal prejudice is for good articles. Crufty stuff from really obscure sources that are added to make an editorial point are not appropriate for the article. --Blue Tie 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought about it though, and I would be willing to go to RfC or third party comment. I would not want just one person to comment. I at least 5, preferably more to get at least some representative sample of the world. --Blue Tie 12:04, 9 May 2007(UTC)
I just read both of them again. Both shame those who would make fun of her; the second is a bit more explicit in calling for stopping the jokes, but I think it's reasonable to infer a call for stopping the jokes in the first.
You have not given any reason as to why the source for the second is not appropriate, you've just said it's not. It's a news site of some standing, and credible, and if you have a reason or reasons, could you please state it or them rather than just make an assertion?
(Parenthetically, if a criterion is "Do they add value to the article?", it seems to me they add a lot more value than the citation of the exploitative Law and Order: Criminal Intent episode does.)
Further comment from other editors would indeed be welcome. -- Davidkevin 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
We are both in agreement to seek comments from other editors and I hereby agree not to revert you if you edit that aspect of the article again, until we see what other editors say. As far as a citation for Law and Order Criminal Intent, I did not see that, but I generally do not like popular culture stuff in articles -- I also consider it of low value. But in the case of your additions, I also see them as distracting from the article as well as unencyclopedic in the sense of WP:NOT, particularly, WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLE and WP:NOT#IINFO. I think it is well beyond inconsequential and right on into vapid that some obscure newspaper opinion editor and an even more obscure feminist blogger think people should be nice to her. In an encyclopedia that sort of thing goes into the "who cares" pile and you wouldn't see it in Encarta, Americana, Brittanica, or other encyclopedias with strong editorial review. --Blue Tie 23:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Police Statements Released

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).

I don't think she's getting a pass. She's still up for trial in September. I read all 72 pages of her initial interview with the police officer and, frankly, couldn't find anything there that would make a useful addition to an encyclopedia article. After I finished reading it, my reaction was "so what?" Cmichael 14:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] I removed the 'disputed' tag

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)

[edit] DSMl?

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)

I just took the multiaxial diagnosis out. It doesn't add anything useful or helpful to the lay reader in understanding Nowak's situation...for most people, it's just gobbledygook. Plus, the prosecution will no doubt produce it's own experts with a completely different opinion of her situation. It's just plain unhelpful. Cmichael 03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references

This article appears to have excessive use of references. Enigmaman 18:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

is that even possible? considering the number of unreferenced articles littering WP, the occasional over-reference article is a breath of fresh air. i'm being only mildly facetious. i do agree that some of the cites where there's something like six or eight refs in a row look kind of silly.Anastrophe (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, obviously many articles lack sufficient references, but over-referencing can occasionally be a problem as well. This is one egregious example. The article says she's the first "Italian-American" to go into space, and then has TWELVE references. Really shoddy work. Enigmaman (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on adding a reference

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)

[edit] Naval Aviator vs. Naval Flight Officer

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)

[edit] Asperger's?

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:

Nowak suffered from major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, insomnia and "brief psychotic disorder with marked stressors," defense attorney Donald Lykkebak wrote. He said the already-petite woman had also recently lost 15% of her body weight and struggled with "marital separation." (Updated 8/28/2007 2:41 PM ) 76.21.8.213 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)