Talk:Lisa Nowak

straightforward reportage

What is gained by this sort of writing?

Her reported hobbies, characterized by one national magazine as a "seemingly focus-group-tested list," include reading, running, piano, gardening, skeet shooting, gourmet cooking, rubber stamp collecting and crossword puzzles.[1][6]

The phrase "seemingly focus-group-tested list," is an entirely gratuitous negative spin. We don't care that one national magazine characterized her hobbies that way. Her hobbies are her hobbies. Take personal opinion, especially negative personal opinion, out of it. This is the biography of a living person. Wikipedia guidelines tell use to to treat the subject sympathetically, not to go out of our way to try to smear the subject of our biography. I am removing the negative and completely gratuitous language. Please don't put it back. Please use the Talk page to discuss this.

A perfectly good form could read as follows:

Her reported hobbies include reading, running, piano, gardening, skeet shooting, gourmet cooking, rubber stamp collecting and crossword puzzles.[1][6]

That is straightforward reportage, without spin. Bus stop 14:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. To add to the consensus, I will voice my view that your interpretation of the applicable policies seems the most reasonable. The commentary should be left out. Butnotthehippo 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Although something can be cited, doesn't mean that we should have it in the article. If anything the hobbies are getting into the realm of things that would appear in a section entitled Trivia, the bane of Wikipedia. Evil Monkey - Hello 19:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a smear, there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the prhase seemingly focus group tested but I can easily abide by an apparent consensus on this. I do agree that the topic of her hobbies should be treated in an encyclopedic way and that the wording could quickly sway into trivia. Gwen Gale 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Seemingly focus group tested" has a negative spin. What positive spin can be found for it? "Focus group tested" implies "tailored to look good," regardless of the truth behind the image. By testing before a "focus group," one can use feedback gained to tailor a product that one can reasonably expect to be met with approval by the larger population. Focus groups are commonly used to test products or political positions. And feedback can help design products or political messages that the public wants. But when the phrase is applied to an individual's hobbies it implies "untruth." Hobbies only serve the individual, unlike products for the society. The implication is that these are not really her hobbies. It is implied that NASA created a list of hobbies that are likely to be met with approval by the public when the public reads her NASA profile. The publication that wrote that in their article meant it as a jab against NASA. NASA is a big institution and it can take criticism of that sort. In fact maybe NASA is deserving of the criticism. But putting it into Lisa Nowak's biography is unfair. The link to the article is fine, in my opinion. In fact, I like the article. But I don't think we should be excerpting that quote. There is a Wikipedia article on Focus groups, but I must admit I haven't read it. Bus stop 22:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, I can see your point. I hadn't thought of it that way. But it is, I think, besides the point. I think we should just list her hobbies, and leave it at that. The reader can then read into those particular hobbies if they choose to, but we are not suggesting anything. Bus stop 23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Bus stop, please read my posts more carefully. Please! :) I said she reportedly bakes wonderful, extremely tastey, kid-approved cookies. Awe means I believe it, credulity would mean I did not. Gwen Gale 23:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Her cookie baking abilities should not be doubted. I think that would express a point of view at variance with Wikipedia guidelines. Bus stop 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Nowak with George W. Bush

We could have this photo in the article " President George W. Bush stands with crew members of the Space Shuttle Discovery, the Space Shuttle Atlantis and the Space Station Expeditions 11, 12, and 13 Monday, Oct. 23, 2006, in the East Room of the White House"[1], which includes Lisa Nowak. Actually I'm kidding, but is still an interesting picture. Perhaps we could create a commons gallery of all her NASA and USGov PD images? Evil Monkey - Hello 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed she is captioned as a Commander on 23 October 2006. When was she promoted? Evil Monkey - Hello 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that must have happened somewhere between the date that picture was taken and now (or at least the day she was arrested, assuming she didn't receive a promotion since then). The NASA bio doesn't list the date she was promoted to captain. This does also mean that she was still a commander when she flew on STS-121 (if that caption is in fact correct).--Plek 21:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the military policy is, but she may have received a promotion for her spaceflight. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any other reference to her being a commander, though I only spent a couple of minutes googling and wouldn't rely on a negative result this nonetheless brings to mind... is it possible whoever wrote the White House caption, with all those folks and ranks, got it wrong? Gwen Gale 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

They could certainly gotten it wrong (PR people, and all that), but she must have been a commander at some point during her naval career, right? If, in fact, she did get promoted as a result of her space flight, that might be a (slightly) notable piece of information. I'll try searching some more. Wanna join me? :) --Plek 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok from her NASA bio (the one linked in the article), She was assigned to Electronic Warfare Aggressor Squadron 34 at Point Mugu, California... While assigned to the squadron, she qualified as Mission Commander and EW Lead. Dunno if that's where some PR person snagged it, dunno if one can still refer to her as "commander" after she left that post. I'm no friggin' expert on US Navy ranks, all I know about them is some comparative vocabulary from stuff I've read through the years :) Gwen Gale 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmmm, I don't think so. A "Mission Commander" is not a naval rank, but rather a description of her role within the squadron. The only source I've found so far is a New York Times article: “Like any other people, they’re human,” said George Abbey, director of the Johnson Space Center when Commander Nowak was selected for the astronaut corps, who recalled her as “an outstanding candidate.” Deduction, reduction, and all that crap: she was a U.S. Navy commander when she joined the NASA astronaut corps in 1996. She must have been promoted sometime after that. Oh, and Gwen: United States Navy officer rank insignia. Happy reading. :) --Plek 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see this before. Agreed, I later realized mission commander is not the same. Meanwhile that NASA roster of her astronaut class does refer to her as lieutenant commander. She was with NASA for ten years before her first shuttle flight, plenty of time to get notched up one pay grade to commander, then another to captain. Gwen Gale 06:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hookay... this NASA link, another bio, ranks her as Commander, USN in docking big letters so I think it's safe to say whoever wrote the caption had some support... and the context starkly shows she was referred to as a USN commander before the launch and what's more, as a reader I'd interpret it as having been since before she joined NASA. Gwen Gale 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooohhh... Great find! I'm impressed. Note that it's not an official NASA site; it's probably created by family/friends/fans/whatever. It's got some very nice pictures, and they also host this: a press release by the National Organization of Italian American Women. This could be used to reference the "first Italian-American woman in space" thing. I like. --Plek 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ack, I assumed it was NASA but it's TUCOWS, meaning "further verification would be a help." :) Gwen Gale 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, yep, these training pictures of her are wonderful. Gwen Gale 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the NOIAW (which I read, in a classic Freudian slip, as NOLAW) also lists Nowak's rank as commander, per April 26, 2005. --Plek 23:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not very helpful for trying to find when she was promoted to Captain, but have just found that she was a Lieutenant Commander at least up to June 03, 1998, thanks to this press release[2] -- "…along with NASA astronaut Lt. Cmdr. Lisa Nowak, U.S. Navy,…". And she was a Lt Cmdr when selected as an astronaut ([3]). In the process of a quick google search of the .mil domain, I've found her Master's thesis abstract on "Computational Investigations of a NACA 0012 Airfoil in Low Reynolds Number Flows" from Sept 1992 [no rank though :-)]. It is rather weird that it seems impossible to find even a press release from NASA. You would think they would like to celebrate the promotion of their military astronauts. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This page on naval ranks would imply she must have gone through a period (however brief) as a commander, between lieutenant commander and captain. Gwen Gale 02:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's standard procedure for military astronauts to receive an automatic promotion upon completion of their first space flight (but not automatic after subsequent flights), so the promotion from Commander to Captain would have taken place sometime after the Shuttle Orbiter Discovery's safe landing in July 2006.

Davidkevin 06:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Shipman's college degree

I'm not keen on putting this into the article. I don't see how it links up with Nowak or the crime she's accused of (Shipman's military rank and basic job seem like enough). Moreover there is a privacy concern. Shipman is an alleged crime victim who was (unlike Nowak) not a public figure before this happened. Being a crime victim in itself is not notable in encyclopedic terms. Her CV is personal information which could be used to invade her privacy. Lastly, this article is about Nowak, not Shipman. If this were an article about Shipman her CV would be helpful but not only is this not an article about her, the creation of a WP article about Shipman has been banned and her name redirects here. Gwen Gale 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any fault in Gwen's reasoning above, so I'd agree: no more info on Shipman than strictly necessary. --Plek 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's the crux now isn't it? What exactly is "strictly necessary" and who gets to decide that? In sex crimes and underage crimes even the victims name is not known. Here we are dealing with a public person, they are in the service, you can even know what they earn just by counting their stripes, it's all public knowledge. The degree information was online it is not my personal knowledge. Why include where she works? What branch of service she is in etc.? What is relevant and how is it decided (name, age, sex, marital status, career, education)? In what order would you rank these in terms of importance? Is there anything else you would include? Anything there already that should be taken out? Why? Why not? How much "background" should be included? I believe it should all be public already, nothing that isn't already out there. I say her education is relevant.Tstrobaugh 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Shipman is not a public person, she's the victim of an alleged crime with no prior encyclopedic notability. The bare mention of her rank and job are indeed not such private info and could be interpreted as needed so as to provide the reader with helpful context relating to the crime itself, not the victim. Gwen Gale 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how her degree in German is relevant at all to the article. Did Nowak speak to her in German? As for the engineering degree -- since she is an engineer for the military, I'd hope that she has some sort of qualification. How do we decide what is "strictly necessary"? Probably the same way most things on Wikipedia are --- consensus. And personally I don't think we need any more information that what is there about Shipman already. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you're being a smart alec or not. By asking if Nowak spoke German I'm assuming you are. Now I don't know what to take seriously about what you say. Here is citation for the education if more people come down in favor of it being included [4].Tstrobaugh 23:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to say (not very well) was that Shipman's education doesn't seem relevant to an article on Lisa Nowak. There are many things that are public information about her that we don't need to include in this article. I agree with Gwen Gale that Shipman is barely notable. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also... the Tribune article is a solid citation but it's a news org. I don't think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but the pith here has to do with notions of encyclopedic notability. If Shipman ever becomes publicly notable as anything other than a crime victim (the only notability now supportable through reliable secondary sources) then an article about her with all kinds and sundry meaningful stuff would be called for. Gwen Gale 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Verb conjugation

The simple past tense verb conjugation describes both (the widely documented, see charging affadavit) intent and outcome along with the widely supported avoidance of a superfluous conjunction.[5] Gwen Gale 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pic

When was this taken?

Actually though I didnt put it there myself the pic right now is more recent and we should use a recent pic according to wikipedia style guidelines, SqueakBox 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see Evil Monkey reverted the anon. Is there any way we could get a flattering but more recent pic? SqueakBox 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's one... Gwen Gale 22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

I swapped it (with a version of the top one above). Gwen Gale 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that looks much better, clearly much more recent than the other one, SqueakBox 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be totally pedantic here (okay, secretly I love it, but don't tell anyone that), but without a source, there's no way of knowing if that new picture is indeed published by NASA. Can anyone find a direct link to a NASA site for it? --Plek 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. Nothing to see here. Move along, please --Plek 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that the new photo actually looks older than the original one. I guess (without any supporting evidence for my assertion) that this could be the photo taken when she became an astronaut in 1996. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

At first blush I thought it was much more recent. Given what you've said, after looking at it again, I think I indeed may have botched and swapped in an older picture. For one thing, the scan isn't as crisp. For another, the current NASA bio links to a cropped one of her in the orange shuttle suit which was up before. Thoughts anyone? Gwen Gale 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I've swapped the original back in again for now. She's wearing an STS-121 mission patch and the scan is much sharper, both hints it's more recent. Gwen Gale 01:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A helpful perspective?

From the Kennebec Journal. Gwen Gale 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We would all do well to remember that this woman was a mother of three, a wife and a consummate professional who risked her life in service to her country. One only need compare the shining photos of Nowak before the incident with the pathetic booking photo of her afterwards to recognize that we are all but a synapse away from such madness.

We have become a nation of small-town gossips and big-time bullies. We are rude and crude to perfect strangers, humiliate them and use language that would horrify our mothers -- and when we do it on the Web, we don't even have the guts to sign our real names. At times like these, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Maybe so, but the diaper part is funny. And I think she still is a mother of three. --Kalmia 11:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's true, although using the past tense like that in an editorial summation is acceptable idiom blah blah, it could be misleading if one didn't know the first thing about what had happened. Gwen Gale 11:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy angle

There seems to be many editors on this article with opinions about not uttering opinions so this might ruffle some feathers but I think it deserves to be said. Anyone of sound mind looking into the UFO phenomenon will find it to be real and by implication that Nasa is lying about it. Several astronauts have stated this ranging from implicitly to fully explicit. Sourcing can be provided if it must. More careful researchers will also note that discrediting whistle blowers is a significant part of that secrecy game which leads us to Lisa Nowak. The charges certainly does make her look ridiculous. I wouldn't bring this up if it wasn't for what appears to be an absense of news regarding her arrest after the initial first wave. Is the absense of news on a very news worthy case news? and if so how do we source that to satisfy WP policies 83.73.246.53 13:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Dan Frederiksen

You can't combine sources to support an argument you've constructed on your own through original research. A blog or public discussion forum would be more suitable. Here's a site which might be able to assist you in applying scientific thinking and scholarly methodology to your thoughts. So far as the news cycle goes, NASA has worked hard to keep her totally out of the news, no public appearances or statements and so on, rather standard media damage control. These aren't the droids we're looking for. There's nothing to see here, move along, move along. Gwen Gale 13:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If I had a video recording of Lisa Nowak stating that this was a smear campaign and it never happened would you deny it here claiming original research if it was nowhere else to be found? 83.73.246.53 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Frederiksen

Since you don't have such a video it's not really relevant is it?--Hgebel 17:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And to answer the question: if you did have such an unpublished video then yes, the use of that would constitute original research. Read the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:No original research. --Plek 18:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question to demonstrate the flaw in the 'original research' thinking. I wasn't seeking an answer. 83.73.246.53 19:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Frederiksen

Do you feel you have successfully demonstrated a flaw? Bus stop 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Frederiksen, it does not demonstrate a flaw. As Ms. Gale states, were you to make such a video available, someone would be sure to refer to it in the article.--Hgebel 11:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Plek, thank you, your answer was better than mine. Mr. Frederiksen, I apologize for my tone.--Hgebel 11:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If Nowak starts publicly claiming she was set up and aliens are involved, somehow I think it'll be put in the article. Gwen Gale 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What, pray, do UFOs, NASA's supposed lying, and discredited whistleblowers, have the slightest, tangental application to this issue? Someone please inform this ignorant one as to how this topic assists the development of the article?--Wikidelphia 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Arrest And Arraignment Photos

At present, the article has an arrest photo of Nowak in the 'Arraignment' section and no photo at all in the 'Arrest' section. Shouldn't the arrest photo be moved to 'Arrest' and an arraignment photo (one was once posted before) moved to 'Arraignment'. Would make for a more accurate and complete article. I would just do it myself, but many of you seem more knowledgable about both the article and the topic. Dialwon 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection

If there are any admins around it may not be a bad idea to SP this for awhile. Seems we have a very persistent vandal using differing IPs.--Looper5920 03:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Im not an admin but I do support this block. We're all human. We all make mustakes.Savwah 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stupid open proxies. And they've moved on from adding an attack image of Nowak with diapers on her head, to using an image that we can't delete since it is used on another article. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added it to the bad image list—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep the article semi-protected.--Alabamaboy 21:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Which image is that? And why cant we delete it? The image I saw and speedied was a clearlWP:BLP violation and I cant imagine any situation in which such a pic would not be a BLP violation re Ms Nowak, SqueakBox 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just look through the article's history and you'll find it. I'm not posting a direct diff in a futile attempt to avert another WP:BEANS situation. :-) --Plek 22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a pic of a rack of laddy magazines. Boring. However, the pic has a legitimate use in another article. The BIL is for restricting the use of easily abused pics. Gwen Gale 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I found that image. I thought the diaper image had other legit uses, which of course it couldnt do. I dont see any harm in semi-protection with newbies making edit requests here, SqueakBox 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Space madness

I had joked earlier with friends that Nowak's actions were not premeditated but were instead brought on by 'Space Madness', but after thinking it over, I realized that it's very well possible that her visits to space may have affected her brain chemistry, to a point that she had become mentally unstable upon returning from her last mission. Is this at all possble? Does it deserve further inquiry? —Down10 ^TACO 09:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

More likely related to the psychological letdown of spending ten years of one's life as a semi-celebrity and military wunderkind preparing for a single shuttle flight and then "coming back down to earth" with maybe zero prospect of ever flying in space again, given NASA's plans for the shuttle and way too many astronauts. Both the psychological experience (Buzz Aldrin being the most famous example) and the surplus of astronauts are widely documented. That said, any "space madness" would appear to be the same madness anyone else has to deal with. Gwen Gale 10:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

450 people have been in space to date, many of them for much longer than Ms. Nowak. I think it is unlikely that permanent space related brain chemistry changes would not have been discovered by now.--Hgebel 11:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And on the other hand there have been similar cases of highly educated women in obsessional-emotional breakdowns, and none of the others have been to space, SqueakBox 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

well it would seem that brain chemistry changes after long periods of time in space is indeed possible, even not considering the claustrophobia and lack of normal stimuli, yet it seems little excuse in this case considering the large number of people staying in space that havent experienced such radical happenings afterwards, yet of course some people would be more or less susceptable to detrimental brain chemistry changes after periods in weightlessness or small spaces, and it could play a part in a defense case actually, its sort of uncharted territory, that excuse/defense is, yet really still plays into a case of just general mental instability whatever the causing factors for her neurochemical "uniqueness"... yet shoot for the stars Lisa, go with the unprecedented "space case defense"... no matter her defense, the clear appropriate sentence is mental rehabilitation with no jail time, and rocket propulsion out of NASA, there are after all a bunch of kids involved and serious crime was prevented for whatever reason be it fate or whatever, if she starts to go psycho-killer again then perhaps something more serious, yet america likes to punish (not quite so bad as SE-Asia & the ME), and many americans dont excuse mistakes for whatever reasons they happen, (unless the mistakes were made in the executive office)(GW can get thousands of military people killed, if Lisa pepper sprays one in the eyes though it spells trouble for her, sorry Lisa, "totem pole justice") 83.79.168.184 01:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

GSN Game

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

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

Ick. Gwen Gale 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowak Court Martial?

Being that Nowak is an active-duty U.S. Naval Officer (rank of Captain/O-6) and that the victim is an active-duty U.S. Air Force Officer (rank of Captain/O-3), and that Nowak traveled 900 miles through six states and committed a crime at a U.S. civilian airport (which is automatically a federal crime due to post-9/11 laws being enacted), I think that the Nowak case will be taken out of the State of Florida's hands and be placed into the hands of the Navy's Judge Advocate Corps (JAG). Where's Captain Rab when you need him? Rwboa22 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth:

"We are allowing the civilian authorities and judicial system to run its course," [Navy] spokesman Lt. Tommy Crosby said from the Pentagon. "Once that's completed, then the Navy will address any possible violations of the military code of justice."[6]

And before you get get to Rabb, wouldn't you need Special Agent Gibbs from NCIS? :-) Evil Monkey - Hello 20:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

I bet she is happy that Anna/Brit are taking up all the media attention. I bet everyone forgot about her, and you can tell in the amount of wikipedia revisions. She lucked out. This was more of a commentPumapayam 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting question

In the "Reactions" section of this article, there's the following quote: "The astronaut culture is still a carry over from 'The Right Stuff' days. It is very high intensity; it is very competitive. I followed the footnote, and that is the verbatim quote from the Associated Press. But it's grammatically incorrect: the noun form is "carryover", as can be verified in any dictionary. My guess is that the quote was an oral one, the error was in the transcription by the AP reporter, and it got by the copyeditor (or was introduced in the typing process). But that's just a guess; maybe it's a written quote, and the original writer spelled it wrong. What's Wikipedia policy here? Can we just correct it? Do we have to footnote our correction? I realize this is a tiny detail in this article, but I've had this kind of question before, and didn't know what to do. Eric-Albert 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything. First, it's not a grammar error but a usage or possibly spelling question. Second, the meaning is still very clear. Quotes shouldn't be altered at all. Doing so begins the long road to chavel. The most one might do is put a [sic] after carry over but I don't think it's needed. Gwen Gale 23:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that quotes shouldn't be altered. My point was that, if the original quote was oral, then the Associated Press (or whoever typed it in) altered the quote: the person actually said "carryover", but the reporter or typist rendered this as "carry over". These sound the same. If this is the case -- that is, the newspaper (or whoever) makes an error in transcribing a quote -- is it better to leave the error, or to correct to what the person actually said? Eric-Albert 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I understood what you meant and yeah, it's a drag, but quotes mustn't be altered from the source. It's always more helpful to leave them intact, since this wholly skirts any risk of compounding errors over time. Add the [sic] if you like though, it's the wonted way of dealing with dodgy syntax in quotes :) Gwen Gale 23:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)