Talk:William Oefelein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Colleen Shipman[edit]

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[edit]

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).[reply]

Davis[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
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)[reply]

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)[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]

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)[reply]

RFCU related to this article[edit]

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

much ado about however[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks Kyoko[edit]

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)[reply]

and a bit of context[edit]

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

Apology requested[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
We are also not supposed to copy verbatim from the source. --However whatever 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Who exactly did I slander? - Denny (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Accusing me of misrepresentation is certainly slander. --However whatever 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reassigned by NAVY, no longer with NASA[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Libel?[edit]

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)[reply]

It is untrue and defamatory. There is no source from NASA cited as stating that he was "fired" or "terminated". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.182.233 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NASA never fired Oefelein. And Wikipedia has never cited a source from NASA stating that. It is libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.87.115 (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There also isn't a source from NASA that he wasn't fired. We currently don't have any citations from NASA at all related to his dismissal. What we do have is multiple sources that agree he was terminated involuntarily. Please provide a citation that contradicts those sources before claiming libel. Rillian (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oefelein Claims Article is Inaccurate[edit]

The Anchorage (Alaska) Daily News reports that Oefelein thinks, or at least implies, that this article contains inaccuracies:

Q. I was just looking at your Wikipedia page ... there's more on there about the Lisa Nowak stuff than your NASA career. Do you feel like that's kind of come to define you at this point?

A. No, I don't think so. Because that stuff is not necessarily accurate. So, you know, I don't think so. I'm not going to talk about any of that, but anything on the Wikipedia as you know, anybody can put on there. If people are going to use that as fact, they've got some problems.

All in all, it seems to me like the Nowak material is relatively brief, and reasonably well sourced. Does anybody know anything specific about Oefelein's complaint? If anything is actually broke, then we need to fix it. Cmichael (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know about Oefelein's complaint. He was never "fired" or "dismissed" (btw, "dismissed" is a legal term in the military. It means that he was punitively removed from his position following UCMJ action...that never happened.) He was reassigned to active duty no different than Susan Helms was. He is a combat veteran, who retired honorably from federal service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.182.238 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of the word "dismissed" has been discussed in great detail in a section below. I would refer 75.15.182.238 to that section for further discussion. Cmichael (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sts-116-patch.png[edit]

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Sts-116-patch.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:STS-116 emblem.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oefelin's departure from the Astronaut Corps[edit]

I rolled back edits by anon user User:75.15.182.233 because they were based, in part, on a reference to Oefelein's own web page. You can't use his self-published biography as a source. Cmichael (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


False and defamatory statements continue to appear in this article. If Wikipedia cannot control false and defamatory publications in this article, then it is Wikipedia's duty to delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.182.233 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "status" field in the Astronaut infobox refers to the person's status as an Astronaut, so Oefelein's retirement from the US Navy is not relevant. As to whether he retired, resigned, was dismissed or fired from the NASA Astronaut Corps, here are some verifiable citations - NASA Fires Astronaut Oefelein, Fired astronaut in love triangle shows up with new girlfriend, Second astronaut fired in NASA love triangle, NASA requested a reassignment. Regards, Rillian (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One comment, I've gotten a chance to read the references. Right now the box says "Fired, reassigned to navy". the headline writers love the word fired, but the word dismissed is used frequently in the text. Fired is a little more of a charged word. I can anticipate the IP's opinion, but what does everyone else think off swapping fired with dismissed?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good idea. The exact difference between fired and dismissed isn't cleared to me. But dismissed certainly sounds more NPOV than fired. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Termination of employment, terminated is the generic word. Under the category of involuntary termination, the common terms are "dismissed" or "fired" (when terminated for performance issues) and "laid-off" (when terminated for economic reasons). I agreed that dismissed is does have less POV than fired. Rillian (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your verifiable citations are false. William Oefelein was not "fired" or "terminated." These statements are libelous and defamatory. Also, active duty military assigned to the astronaut corps cannot retire from NASA or the astronaut corps. They retire from the military or get reassigned to active duty service. His status is "retired". Wikipedia is informed of these false and defamatory statements. If it cannot prevent editors from posting statements, which are intentionally, maliciously or negligently defamatory, it is Wikipedia's duty to delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.182.233 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we have sources that say he was effectively fired. Whether that firing amounted to a forced reassignment or not is a matter of semantics. If you do think that these claims are libelous (note not defamatory. Defamation is for spoken word. Libel is for the written word) then you should get a lawyer and it take it up with the newspapers and other sources which described him as fired. Have Oefelein sue them. Or get them to issue a retraction. If that happens then come back to us and you will have a leg to stand on. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP may be referring to a NASA press release that presumably uses words other than dismissed or fired. I can't find it on the NASA web site, but the article includes a link to "www.zimbio.com/William+Oefelein/articles/7/Statement+Regarding+William+Oefelein+Departure". However, it's apparently an image of a press release and I can't read it. Can anyone blow it up or find the original source document? Rillian (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images in question don't have enough detail to be effectively blown up. I tried to increase the size and there's not enough detail for it to be legible. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could read it. It was a press release from Oefelein's counsel, disputing the accounts in the media. Basically, it says that the Navy requested that he be removed from the NASA program and that NASA acquiesced. As a statement on behalf of Oefelein, I don't feel this account is reliable. But it might be worth mentioning that Oefelein disputes the account in the media -- his opinion is not irrelevant after all. Mangojuicetalk 04:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Not sure why I had trouble then. I agree that that his claim is relevant and should be included. How to formally cite it might be an issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it seems to be a no-name blog [2], and I can't find mention of this press release anywhere else, which given the nature of press releases and the prominence of the subject makes the link a bit difficult to rely on. Even if the media didn't pick up on the disputing of facts (why not? grist for the mill, surely), it should be on various press release websites, and doesn't seem to be. Disembrangler (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was going to say that a person's own words, even if not published, can be considered a reliable representation of what they said or their opinion, but this is not from Oefelein, it's from someone claiming to be his counsel, which we have no way to verify, and apparently was not even a press release. All Oefelein would have to do is have a web site or blog and make a statement and we could include his opinion but maybe it's a bit unwise to include this. Mangojuicetalk 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "fired" in this instance is a conclusion drawn from the context, not the technical fact of what happened. He was reassigned by the Navy out of the astronaut corps; that may not account for the political subtext, but it is technically correct. I think the infobox should have the technical information (its function, after all) and we can write about his "dismissal" in the body of the article, making it clear that describing it as a dismissal draws a conclusion that doesn't come directly from NASA or the Navy. Nathan T 18:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an email from NASA Public Information Office that states Oefelein was never "fired". Who the heck do I have to send this to make Wikipedia STOP PRINTING THIS CRAP? This is such an irresponsible organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.182.238 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters, in one of the cited sources, says both dismissed and fired, although the bureaucratic terminology may not be the same, his departure from NASA was clearly owing to the scandal and was not voluntary. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word "dismissed," as used in this article, refers to his status as an astronaut, not as a navel officer. We have never said that he was "fired" or "dismissed" from the navy. However, there are abundant reliable sources that refer to his separation from the Astronaut Corps as a "firing" or a "dismissal." To suggest that the manner of his leaving was routine or voluntary would be a distortion of the truth. Cmichael (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75.15.182.238, you might find it helpful to read wp:5p in order to better understand Wikipedia's objectives and methods. Generally speaking, we do not do original research. Rather, we report information from sources we deem reliable. If you believe that the information we have presented does not fairly represent that found in the sources to which we refer, then please be bold and go ahead and fix it. If you believe that we have relied on a source or sources which are truly not reliable, please feel free to bring that concern up for discussion here. Finally, if you believe that one or more of the sources contains inaccurate information, then please take that concern to the author(s) of that particular source. I hope this helps. Cmichael (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken it to the "sources". Corrected a few, but can't afford to correct them all, so we've hired a lawyer to deal with Wikipedia. Wikipedia won't consider Oefelein's own statement as a reliable source, so "discussion" seem futile at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.135.106 (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for legal threats and semi-protected the article owing to IP edit warring. Editors are more than welcome to discuss the sources on this talk page and come to a consensus as to how this might be handled in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, where does "Oefelein's own statement" appear? Cmichael (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP may be referring to a statement from Ofelein's laywer that was posted to "www.zimbio.com/William+Oefelein/articles/7/Statement+Regarding+William+Oefelein+Departure". Rillian (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. This is the first time I've ever looked at Zimbio. It seems more like a celebrity scandal sheet than a hard news organization. It would be hard to make the case that they are a reliable source. I wonder if any other publications have seen this lawyer letter? Had a chance to verify its authenticity? Made any effort to verify its claims? If we can find a reliable source on this, (eg "New York Times says that Oefelein cries foul!") then I would have no problem with adding a sentence to the effect that "Oefelein claims that he left the astronaut corps at the Navy's request, and on good terms" and referencing that source. Just for balance. Cmichael (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The letter looks verifiable to me. It says he was released from NASA by request of the US Navy. This is understandable, since he was an officer of the US Navy throughout his service with NASA. I didn't see anything in the letter about this having been voluntary (for Oefelein), that it had nothing to do with the scandal, or that he left in "good standing," (whatever that might mean). However, if any verifiable claims have been made about this by Oefelein, they should likely be put in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But would Olefelin's own statement (presented by his lawyer) be neutral? How would we separate his understandable desire to present himself in the best, possible light from the facts so as to present an NPOV article? Rillian (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following WP:NPOV, the pith is, sundry sourced outlooks can be given. Moreover, this is a BLP, so verifiable, published statements from Olefelin would indeed be helpful. This doesn't mean the verified, independent sources can't also be cited. Many of those do say quite straightforwardly he was dismissed/fired from NASA owing to his personal behaviour as to Nowak. This seems to have been done through a bureaucratic request from the US Navy, his employer (which the letter wholly supports). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the letter mentioned "good standing"' or suggested that his departure from the Astronaut Corps was unrelated to the scandal. Rather, I meant to suggest that that was the type of language that the IP would like to see. He or she obviously objects to the terms "fired" and "dismissed." And I would be agreeable to accommodating the IP by presenting Oefelein's POV (in contrast to the others) if a reliable source for it can be found. WP:V says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I just don't see that in zimbio.com. Cmichael (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen correctly points out that as aBLP, we should/can look to Oefelein's own statements. WP:BLP provides the following guidance "Living persons may write or publish material about themselves, such as through press releases. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1.it is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties or unrelated events; 3.there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it; 4.the article is not based primarily on such sources." For #3, we would have to assume that Oefelein's lawyer is making a statement that Oefelein would make himself. However, I see problems with meeting tests #1 and #2. Oefelein is making a statement that by it's very nature is self-serving and he is making claims about third parties - NASA and USN, their intentions and their actions. Rillian (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, I see nothing about the letter that supports any assertion his split with NASA or the US Navy was voluntary. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, are we agreed that, absent a properly sourced statement from Oefelein himself, we are unable to address the IP's concerns? Cmichael (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the many cited sources along with the letter, I don't yet see how the article text is "false and defamatory." I'm open to any source which might show how it could be, moreover given this is a BLP. So far, my reading of the sources is that NASA didn't want him anymore and asked the US Navy, his employer, to end his assignment with NASA, which they did, whereupon he retired from the US Navy. The sources tend to cut to a pith by calling this a "dismissal" or "firing" from NASA, which the text echoes. The only weakness I see in the text is that it doesn't straightforwardly say his dismissal from NASA was bureaucratically brought about when the US Navy ended his assignment to NASA and ordered him back to an assignment within the US Navy. If other editors don't have this outlook or reading on the sources, they're very welcome to say so here (lacking legal threats or blatant incivility). Wikipedia is a tertiary reference, with text built only on its sources in a way following editor consensus, so long as it falls within the website's policies.
If Oefelein has made, or ever makes, a verifiable published statement that he was not ordered to leave NASA until he asked to leave and/or NASA was otherwise willing to keep him on as an astronaut and/or none of this had anything to do with Nowak, or whatever else, it should also be put in the text. Likewise, the cited, independent sources should stay, so long as there's a consensus among editors that those sources are verifiable and reliable: If those sources don't agree with him, readers should be aware of it. If all those sources are mistaken or somehow lacking, there is little editors here would be able to do about it until any such mistake or lack has been dealt with further by independent, reliable and verifiable sources. If Oefelein or his representative(s) believe US law has sway as to en.Wikipedia content beyond this, the Wikimedia Foundation has the means to deal with this as they think fit if they are contacted by email (off-wiki) at info-en@wikimedia.org. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. One of the citations [NASA Fires Astronaut Oefelein was changed in August 2009 to not include the word "fires" in the title and now includes this sentence "A [Oefelein] spokesman said the Navy and NASA came to a mutual decision that Oefelein's services as an astronaut are no longer required." So it clearly wasn't Oefelein's decision, i.e. it was an involuntary reassignment. Rillian (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I read it. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say or even imply that it was Oefelein's spokesman. The spokesman is not clearly identified at all. Given the following paragraph, I took it to mean "a Navy spokesman."
In any case, the article makes it clear that the decision to separate Oefelein from the Astronaut Corps was made by people above his pay grade. If my boss told me that my services were no longer required, I would take it that I had been fired. Cmichael (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William Oefelein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Oefelein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on William Oefelein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First wife[edit]

Under “Personal Life”, could it be added that “He married the former Michaella Davis in 1988. They had two children and divorced in 2005.”? (If you need sources, would https://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Astronaut-in-middle-looked-acted-part-of-space-1813709.php and http://www.astronautix.com/o/oefelein.html do?). I understand and respect that another site was asked to delete the names and birthdates of the children, so I’m not asking for that. Minicarmen (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Oefelein&oldid=1216440487"