Talk:William Oefelein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Start This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Colleen Shipman

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

70.51.11.102 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] video feeds

Global Nationa; - Tue, Feb 7, 2007 (Canada)

Paul Johnson reports a NASA astronaut is facing attempted murder charges -- the apparent result of a love triangle situation.

Global National: NASA love triangle

CNN

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/ssi/js/1.3/main.js

An astronaut is charged in a lover's triangle kidnap plot. CNN's Miles O'Brien reports. (February 6)

NASA love triangle?

  • javascript:cnnPlayListVideo('/video/us/2007/02/06/obrien.astronaut.arrested.wftv.affl','3')
NASA astronaut charged with attempting to murder a romantic rival. CNN's Miles O'Brien reports (February 6)

Bizarre space love triangle

  • javascript:cnnPlayListVideo('/video/us/2007/02/06/obrien.astronaut.love.triangle.affl','0')
Shuttle astronaut Lisa Nowak accused of plotting to kidnap a romantic rival was granted bail. (February 6)

Astronaut makes court appearance

  • javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/law/2007/02/06/astronaut.in.court.cnn','2007/02/20'); —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.11.102 (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Davis

I'm removing reference to her because she seems to have made conflicting statements to the media. [1] Gwen Gale 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate relationships section

I have removed a "separate relationships" section from this article because I have serious concerns that it could give severe undue weight to the topics of LN and CS in his very short biography here as an astronaut, the latter for which he is noted. Astronauts, unlike movie actors for example, are not (yet, anyway) noted for their personal relationships. Lastly, other than their training together, Oefelein's relationship with LN is as yet almost wholly undocumented. I would be willing to compromise, however, with a different title for a subsection dealing only with the LN news reports. Gwen Gale 21:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

His personal relationships have shoved him into the spotlight, and therefore deserve a separate section. They are certainly NOT part of his accomplishments as an astronaut. --Baba gump 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You're now on the edge of violating the 3 revert rule. If you violate this rule, you could be blocked.
  • You have not explained how his being "shoved" into the "spotlight" causes the article to "deserve" a separate section. Gwen Gale 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I like having it as a seperate section. If you think there is undue weight being put on that section you are free to expand the other sections. Yes, he is notable for being an astronaut, but that isn't what put his picture on the front page of CNN. VegaDark 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know I'm free to add material to the article. You may like it as a separate section, but you haven't explained why a separate section might conform to WP policy. Until the article is expanded, undue weight remains a serious risk to NPoV. Meanwhile, I've placed mention of the Nowak incident in a separate sub-section with a corresponding title and truth be told, you are mistaken, his being an astronaut is spot on what put him into the news.

His relationship with LN is almost wholly undocumented. Including her in a "relationships" section would be very hard to support through verfiable secondary sources. Gwen Gale 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lisa's words to police about her relationship with Oefelein is all that's needed. --Banana Republic 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
is? Gwen Gale 19:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

This edit carried the edit summary:

The word "however" is mandatory because Oefelein and Nowak are contradicting each other. It does not imply that Oefelein is truthful and Nowak is not. DO NOT EDIT WAR OVER THIS)

This is WP:OR. Please provide a verifiable citation from a reliable source which supports the assertion WO and LN contradicted each other. Thanks. Gwen Gale 11:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation that the word However means that Lisa is lying is OR. --However whatever 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not making any interpretation or assertion whatsoever. You're the one making the assertion that the statements contradict each other. Please support your assertion with a verifiable refrence from a reliable source. Thank you. Gwen Gale 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

She said no romantic relationship, he said there was a romantic relationship. This is a contradiction. --192.45.72.27 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

She said specifically, that at the time of her arrest, there was no romantic relationship. He later confirmed that the romantic relationship had ended previous to the arrest. Please note, the article does not assert this interpretation. You however have been attempting to assert a contradiction where there is no support for that assertion. Either way, please provide a citation supporting your assertion or let it go, thanks. Gwen Gale 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If I may intrude, I think that there is a misunderstanding based upon certain ambiguities in what was said.

Here is the text as of revision 115845902:

Nowak described her relationship with Oefelein as "more than a working relationship but less than a romantic relationship". However, Oefelein later told detectives that he had a two-year romantic relationship with Nowak which he ended in November 2006.

The first sentence raises some questions: is Nowak talking about her relationship with Oefelein as of the time of her arrest? Is she describing the past few months or years? This is an important distinction, because both sentences could be correct, if this is understood as a romantic relationship that has since dissolved.

Likewise, with the second sentence, with the word "however", it highlights a contradiction between the two astronauts' statements, when there may or may not have been any contradiction in what actually occurred. I'm still trying to decide if omitting the word "however" is better, worse, or the same as leaving it in. I don't have any ideas for better wording at the moment. --Kyoko 02:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Nowak gets arrested. She tells the police, "more than a working... less than a romantic" relationship.
  • Oefelein later tells them that at the time of the arrest, the romantic relationship had been over for months.
  • So she was being truthful. "More than a working..." (they'd had a romantic relationship) and "less than a romantic..." (because the romantic relationship had been ended by WO).
  • The however is clearly not supported by the supported text and moreover, is unsupported by any citation from a reliable source describing an interpretation that these statements contradict each other. Gwen Gale 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Would it be fair to say the following:
Nowak described her relationship with Oefelein at the time of her arrest as "more than a working relationship but less than a romantic relationship". Oefelein later told detectives that he had had a two-year romantic relationship with Nowak which he ended in November 2006.
I've omitted the word "however" and highlighted my additions in red to make them easier to spot. I hope this will be amenable to both parties. --Kyoko 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it. All I can say is that you might conjugate to skirt the double had :) Thanks for helping! Gwen Gale 02:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the double "had" would emphasize that the relationship was in the past, but I guess a single "had" will do. --Kyoko 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes that's true. I'm ok with it either way, I have a quirky thing about repeated words is all :) Gwen Gale 02:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think the word However is necessary as the two gave a different version of their relationships. Saying their reltionship is less than romantic implies that it was never romantic. Otherwise, the relationship is really that of an ex-boyfriend/ex-girlfriend. --However whatever 22:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of a citation problem

Perhaps it's just me, but cite 4 "Astronaut charged in bizarre love triangle" links to MSNBC Page not found. The same title on an Associated Press story links here, which says Earlier, Nowak was quoted by police as saying she and Oefelein had something "more than a working relationship but less than a romantic relationship." – so it would be best to modify the sentence to read "Police stated that Nowak described her relationship...", unless we're less cautious than the press and assume that this police statement will stand. Cite 5 "Associated Press, Shuttle Pilot: Nowak Showed No Emotion" takes me to a Mar 8, 9:53 AM EST AP story titled "Astronaut Lisa Nowak Fired From NASA" which does not have the quotation used in the article. Do AP use the same link for different stories over time, and can we get a better link for the article? ... dave souza, talk 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No they don't. The latter reference supports Oefelein's later statement to the police that he had ended the relationship in November (and as it happens, confirming LN's statement that at the time of her arrest, it was "more than a working... less than a romantic" relationship, since it was over). Gwen Gale 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] However

I am at a loss to understand the dispute over the use of this word. It is on the list at Wikipedia:Words to avoid and the meaning of the sentence is totally clear without it. It clearly does not belong. WjBscribe 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid is just a guideline, not a compelling policy (note that the word "However" appears in the second sentence of that page). In this case, the word however is necessary to indicate that there is a conflict in the two versions (Nowak's and Oefelein's). --However whatever 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Please support your assertion that the statements are contradictory with a verifiable citation from a reliable source. Thanks. Gwen Gale 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The statements, as quoted form verifiable citations, are contradictory. They do not match. --However whatever 23:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines represent the concensus of the majority of editors on Wikipedia. They are not overridden because one editor finds them inconvenient. The conflict between the two sentences is obvious. There is no need to point it out. Pointing it out amounts to editorial comment- which we should avoid. WjBscribe 23:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, WjBscribe. I can go along with that. It was difficult to deal with Gwen Gale, as she seems to be trolling around saying that I need to prove the obvious (that the two statements are contradictory). I'll stop insisting on using the word "However". --However whatever 23:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Trolling? WP:No personal attacks. Would a disinterested admin please have a look at this? Thanks. Gwen Gale 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Baba gump! Erm, or is it Banana Repub... or, er, uhm, However whatever!
Hi Baba gump! Erm, or is it Banana Repub... or, er, uhm, However whatever!
I know you like to delete your history, but that's just not possible in Wikipedia. Trolling is YOUR WORD. --However whatever 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's from when you were posting to this page as User:Baba gump. Then there was User:Banana Republic. Oh and by the bye the diff you cited is viewable by all in my talk page archive, which is automatically maintained by a bot. Gwen Gale 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, please review WP:OR. Your assertion is not implicit to the text. It's an interpretation. Pls provide a citation to support your assertion. Gwen Gale 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I happened to pop in and noticed that this dispute had flared up again. I personally feel that in the absence of further information, there isn't necessarily a conflict between what Nowak said and what Oefelein said, if you consider the timeframes that they are talking about. If Nowak said that her relationship at the time of the arrest was "more than a working, less than a romantic", that doesn't mean that she never had at any time in the past a romantic relationship with Oefelein. Likewise, just because Oefelein said that he had had a romantic relationship with Nowak in the past does not mean that the relationship was still ongoing at the time of Nowak's arrest.
If you would like, a request for comment can be opened for this article, but it might be better to give some time for other editors to share their comments on this talk page first. --Kyoko 23:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the exclusion of the word however in this instance of the article, on the passage in question... - Denny 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree: as stated in Wikipedia:Words to avoid, "however" implies editorial judgement of the relative value of the two statements, and even if a citation is found for this usage, it is too vague for enclopedic use unless part of a direct quotation openly attributed to the author. ... dave souza, talk 09:05, 19 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] much ado about however

I think the problem here is a matter of interpretation regarding what Nowak and Oefelein said.

Let's take the following sentence:

At the time of her arrest, Nowak described her relationship with Oefelein as "more than a working relationship but less than a romantic relationship.".

Set against a timeline where each character (except for |) represents a week, we get:

????????????????????X Nowak's statement
OCT |NOV |DEC |JAN |FEB
2006|2006|2006|2007|2007

Based solely upon Nowak's statement, and assuming that she was being accurate in what she said, all we can deduce is that at the time of the first week of February 2007, Nowak's relationship with Oefelein was closer than just a purely professional relationship but not as close as a romantic one. This is represented by the X in the graph above. While it can reasonably be conjectured that this also describes their relationship in the time prior to Nowak's arrest, we just can't be sure one way or the other, which is why there are question marks prior to the first week of February 2007. Based only on this statement, we can't know if Nowak had a romantic relationship with Oefelein or not, because the information just isn't there.

In revision 115845902, there is the following sentence:

However, Oefelein later told detectives that he had a two-year romantic relationship with Nowak which he ended in November 2006.

Note the revision number. I'll get to that later.

Setting this sentence of this revision against the timeline above, we get:

????????????????????X Nowak's statement
++++XXXX Oefelein's statement
OCT |NOV |DEC |JAN |FEB |
2006|2006|2006|2007|2007

In the sentence of this revision, Oefelein says that he had a romantic relationship with Nowak (represented by +), but that he ended it in November 2006. He doesn't specify which week he terminated the relationship. Because of the ambiguity of Nowak's statement, it can be seen that what Oefelein said doesn't necessarily contradict what Nowak said.

Revision 116212441 of the page says that the end of the Oefelein-Nowak relationship took place in January 2007 rather than November 2006. The Orlando Sentinel article doesn't explicitly support the January 2007 date, but it does say the following:

According to his sworn interview, Oefelein and Nowak met in 1996 and became friends a couple of years later, after they joined NASA. He said their friendship grew during several years of training together.
However, Oefelein met Shipman in November 2006 during a training exercise at Kennedy Space Center and they began dating shortly afterward, police said. Shipman is stationed at Patrick Air Force base near KSC.
Relationships overlap Although Oefelein continued to see Nowak, records show his relationship with Shipman was blossoming.

Again, there is ambiguity in the accounts, but this still doesn't mean that either astronaut's account is inaccurate or deceptive, or that one astronaut's account must necessarily contradict the other's. Even if Oefelein had ended the relationship in January 2007, this would still fit in with Nowak's description of their relationship in February as more than a working one, less than a romantic one, if this is understood as a romantic relationship that has ended but whose emotional ties haven't completely faded away.

The inclusion of the word "however" introduces an editorial slant which forces the two sentences to be read as if they must contradict each other, along the lines of a "he said, she said" dispute, which goes beyond the limited information in the astronauts' words. Including the word "however" in this section is unwarranted, and furthermore, unfair to both astronauts. Keeping in mind the guidelines set forth by WP:BLP, it is far better to leave the word "however" out of the text, and let the readers interpret the statements as they see fit. --Kyoko 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is similar to Bill Clinton's reasoning that "there is no sexual relationship with Monical Lewinsky" because at the time he made the statement he did not have a sexual relationship with her. None of that matters, though, because I've already dropped my insistence on including the word "however" for other reasons. --However whatever 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Kyoko

Thanks Kyoko. The OR and BLP sides of this are more than enough to leave out that word. Now, only to send things home, I never wanted to stray into this but take it from me, it's spot on what a girl might say, ok? The other person has ended the romantic relationship so to her in truth it's now "less than a romantic... more than a working." Which is why one won't find much independent support for the notion their statements are contradictory. Haha! So many bois about this wiki. Cheers! :) Gwen Gale 14:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and a bit of context

Only for context, a rather sympathetic but pithy column about Nowak. Gwen Gale 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology requested

Moved from User_talk:DennyColt#Apology_requested

I think it would be proper for you to apologize for this slander. --However whatever 17:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NLT. No legal threats are allowed. I removed that possible false information because that source did not say that. How is that even slander? - Denny (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Why are you insisting that the source did not say that? Did you not read The Orlando Sentinel? See this edit summary. --However whatever 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say "3 months"? It says they dated. We do not add anything to BLPs that is possibly controversial or contentious if it is not 100% sourced. I don't see any reference to how long they dated. Please show me. Thanks! :) - Denny (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do the math. It says they met in November, started dating shortly afterward, and the incident occured in February. Unless my math is wrong, that's approximately 3 months. --However whatever 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The math may well be right, but we don't/won't use that. Please see:
WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position
Which says:
  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
  • Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.
  • Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.
Thanks, - Denny (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
We are also not supposed to copy verbatim from the source. --However whatever 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. So, we won't be saying that they "were in a relationship for 3 months" unless a source says that they were. Thanks, - Denny (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I will hereby cease further contributions to this discussion which is going nowhere, as I see that you refuse to apologize for your obvious slander. I will take your refusal into account in all future interactions with you. --However whatever 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Who exactly did I slander? - Denny (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Denny, per WP:ATT, "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." I think converting November-February into "about 3 months" is acceptable under the above proviso. That said, User:However whatever, there's really no "slander" here, and such accusations are counterproductive and uncivil. MastCell Talk 17:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Accusing me of misrepresentation is certainly slander. --However whatever 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, it isn't acceptable. The source, as DennyColt points out, says that they met in "November 2006" and that the dating began "shortly afterward". That could reasonably mean December 2006, if the point of their meeting was near to the end of November (which the source does not specify). The start of December 2006 to the beginning of February 2007 is not 3 months. In performing the calculation and coming up with "3 months" as the answer, editors are making additional assumptions beyond what is actually stated in the source. They are assuming that "shortly after" "November 2006" is close to 2006-11-05. It is quite correct not to state "3 months" in the article. Uncle G 18:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • That's why it says "approximately" --However whatever 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
          • 2 is not "approximately" 3. Uncle G 08:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it is best to quote the source as in: According to the New York Times, "Smith dated Jones starting in June of 1999 and married her the next year."[cite goes here] rather than make assumptions that may not be true or for distinctions that can get lost as people edit each other's edits. 4.250.198.151 08:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, why don't we just reword it to match what the source says? Say something like "they started going out shortly afterward from when they met in November" to February. That would be accurate and lets the reader interpret what "shortly afterward is, instead of us interpreting it. VegaDark 20:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reassigned by NAVY, no longer with NASA

Need to be incorporated into the article. Poor guy: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_re_us/astronaut_arrested;_ylt=Ai2GAsiCmYTHqW.n4kZSD2ADW7oF Ikilled007 06:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

His reassignment isn't effective until June 1. The article is updated but it will need slight future-tense-to-past-tense revisions on June 1. davidwr 09f9(talk) 15:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libel?

Naw, it isn't "potentially libelous" unless it it's untrue. It's well-sourced. So, I put it back. Cmichael (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)