Biography: Military Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group.

Military history: North America / United States Start‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway I can now at least cite this with an astronaut's comments as reported by the AP [1] Gwen Gale 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • I fully support removal of this information as suggested by WP:TRIVIA. Citation is insufficient reason for inclusion in Wikipedia, especially for such trivial content Nowak's official NASA bio does not include any mention of hobbies[2]. Bwithh 20:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on random sampling of [3], "hobbies" are not a standard feature of official NASA astronaut bios Bwithh 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

So many hobbies... [4] Gwen Gale 17:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, specifically the section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CTV Nightly News - Tue, Feb 7, 2007

Joy Malbon on the bizarre love triangle

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

CBC News - Tue, Feb 7, 2007

Neil Macdonald reports for CBC-TV

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

70.51.11.102 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another cite from the Detroit News [5] Gwen Gale 15:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While everybody is concerned about Lisa Nowak's love life and her encounter with someone in a love triangle, it would probably be best to put this in light of the experience of Lisa Nowak - which makes it less of a big deal.

Everybody is making a big deal of her wearing a diaper to drive across the country, which may be one of the reasons you see this on the news so much.

While you and I think wearing a diaper is strange, this is just something that she uses in her line of work. A tool. Not many of us need to wear a diaper on the job, or even have adult size diapers laying around, but then not many of us get paid to go to outer space where bathrooms are in short supply. I'm sure the diapers seemed odd to the cops when they arrested her, so they made a big deal of it. And the prosecutors made a big deal of it. And the press made a big deal of it.

Lisa Nowak is obviously a Type A personality, and must be very driven to get where she has. I'm sure as a member of the Armed Forces she's had firearms training, and has access to or owns guns. Considering that this lady has accomplished everything she's tried to do in her life (except maybe marraige where a lot of us fail - sometimes several times), I'm pretty sure that if she wanted to kill the other lady she would have easily succeeded. It's absurd to think that she was trying to kill the other lady, since she used pepper spray rather than a 45.

Upping the charges to murder in light of Lisa Nowaks demonstrated abilities to get the job done, any job, is pretty silly. There are thousands of cases like this every year that don't get into the news, but Lisa Nowak is a public figure so it must be news.

The bottom line is that this lady has been trained by the US Government to accomplish any goal she has to, using whatever resources are available. These are exactly the abilities our country needs in an astronaut that may have to deal with incredible problems at a moments notice, or by anybody in the military who needs to outsmart the enemy.

She used the tools at hand to accomplish her mission. She just did it bigger than life - which is what she does for a living every day. Mike Sandman 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her mission, whatever it was, culminated in pepper spraying another employee of the US government through a cracked car window. The significance of this isn't Lisa Nowak, but NASA and how the agency sells an image of astronauts to the public and why it does this (hint: money), along with the inevitable question: What if something like this happened among a crew of 7 or 8 people isolated in a $20 billion publicly funded spacecraft or Martian habitat? Never mind psychological screening, most scientists will tell you applied pschology is still mostly an art in social management, not a science and even if one does successfully select astronauts for characteristics like "happy, educated, reliable, well-adjusted, able to handle confined spaces and lots of stress, team oriented" and so on, people change. Gwen Gale 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if people don't understand that astronauts are people too, guess what, they are. And while I would not debate the terminology of psychology as an "art" or "science", it is certain far from an exact science, and you know, stuff happens. People do change. This particular person had a lot of stress, and was officially deemed capable of handling it, and ultimately could not. I don't know if it will hurt the space program. One crackup out of several hundred astronauts is still not a bad record. (Though I seem to recall Buzz Aldrin had some problems, but they did not result in him chasing across the country after someone with a BB-gun, hunting knife and pepper spray.) 6SJ7 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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