Talk:William Oefelein: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:31, 19 March 2007

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the military biography work group.

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

CBC News - Tue, Feb 7, 2007

Neil Macdonald reports for CBC-TV

70.51.11.102 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://tools.canada.com/southparc55/actions/doctest.aspx?guid=0ecaeb81-401c-4135-aa3d-2b451cd82b82#

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lisa's words to police about her relationship with Oefelein is all that's needed. --Banana Republic 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is? Gwen Gale 19:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your interpretation that the word However means that Lisa is lying is OR. --However whatever 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Trolling? WP:No personal attacks. Would a disinterested admin please have a look at this? Thanks. Gwen Gale 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 ::Trolling? [[WP:No personal attacks]]. Would a disinterested admin please have a look at this? Thanks. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
+:::I know you like to delete your history, but that's just not possible in Wikipedia. Trolling is '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=108157397 YOUR WORD]'''. --[[User:However whatever|However whatever]] 02:31, 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. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)