Talk:Theresa Obermeyer

Edit of 2006-08-29

This material is written in a rather non-encyclopedic, even inflammatory style, and is clearly not NPOV. This person certainly sounds worthy of more then the stub one-liner that was here before your contribution, but I think the content needs a lot of work. It's missing some basic facts, and full of opinions expressed as fact. Some examples:

• Basic biographical facts—when and where was she born, etc
• widely viewed in Alaska—references, please.
• her husband who has flunked the Alaska Bar exam on dozens of occasions—c'mon, "dozens"? That sounds unbelievable, if it's really dozens, document the exact number.
• a fact Ms. Obermeyer sees as an unfair tragedy rife with sinister conspiratorial implications—We don't know what she sees: provide evidence in erms of her utterances and actions.
• It was inappropriate behavior—what behavior, exactly?
• Later she served a jail term—when, exactly? How long?

Please read WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE, and try to fix the material. —johndburger 13:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Author's Response

Yes sir, it is amazing and if I get the time, I can do that, but it is all true and forms the basis for her noteriety. I contacted 60 Minutes about doing a piece on her but they declined. I think Tom Obermeyer has failed the Alaska Bar approximately 40 times. The archives of the Anchorage Daily News [[1]] would be a good place to start, facts corroborated by Theresa's own website [[2]] I can't provide a link to the following story so I purchased it and it is as follows below. There are other articles related to the end of her career on the School Board as a result of her using her position, board time and stationery to advocate for her husband's admission to the Bar. The Alaska Bar's position is as follows: While Alaska does have reciprocity with Missouri, a further Bar rule prohibits anyone from being admitted who has taken and failed the Bar which is a blind anonymous test like the SAT so there is no issue of personal favoritism and has a pass rate for first time takers that averages between 55-70%. The Obermeyers, however, will hear nothing of it. They have gone so far as to seek a private bill from the Legislature to have him admitted. Ms. Obermeyer obtained the Democratic Party nomination to run against Ted Stevens for U.S Senate, in 2000 I think, because no one wanted to run against Stevens. She used that campaign and her television appearance to crusade for her husband's admission to the Bar which she sees Stevens as a part of a conspiracy to prevent from occuring. As a result the Green Party came in ahead of the Democrats in that race. As far as I know Obermeyer has taken the Bar every time it has been offered since the article below was printed ten years ago. Thus I believe my contribution was fair and accurate. Again, it is these events that were reported in tne newspapers, radio and TV over a period of years that Ms. Obermeyer is most known for, that define her as a public figure. If someone would presume to be my editor or censor, that person should at least have some familiarity with this issue and the community it emanates from.Tom Cod 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________

Anchorage Daily News June 12, 1996

JUDGE JAILS OBERMEYER FOR 30 DAYS EX-SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER'S PROBATION REVOKED FOR COURTHOUSE ALTERCATIONS Liz Ruskin, Daily News Reporter

(Text of copyrighted news article removed - can be viewed in page history if required)

-via Tom Cod

Censor?

Tom writes: If someone would presume to be my editor or censor, that person should at least have some familiarity with this issue and the community it emanates from. Uh, so only Alaskans can edit your material? That's not how Wikipedia works (or editing in general, for that matter). And censor is the kind of overwrought language that your subject seems to like to use. Your material has been "censored" by at least four different editors—I'd pay attention to that, as well as the warning at the top of this Talk page. Biographies (that's what this is) of living people have to be written very carefully, here and elsewhere.

But anyway, the newspaper article you've provided is a beginning—I've added it as a reference, and changed some of the material to match the facts as stated there. It's not hard to do things properly. —johndburger 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but those who would edit anothers' work for substance should be familiar with the subject matter at issue. For example, one who would censor, and that's what it is, by restraining the publication of another, say an article on Monica Lewinsky, should at least be familiar with her connection with Clinton's impeachment. Similarly with the story of Ms. Obermeyer, with whom you are apparently completely unfamiliar, unlike the reading public in Anchorage. For example, if you KNOW certain facts are wrong that's one thing that may justify editing/deletion of substance. But to just presume, for example that the story is outrageous, when it may actually be an outrageous story, is incorrect absent some knowledge or inquiry, as a person could well reasonably assume, without any knowledge of this issue, that the Lewinsky/Clinton scandal is outrageous (which is was) and therefore obviously specious etc. (A President impeached for that?? C'mon!) However, if one knows something about the story and is in a position to make informed criticism, that is entirely different.Tom Cod 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about—your material was reverted (by multiple editors) due to it's style, lack of references, etc., not because it was "outrageous". Perhaps you're referring to my comment of "unbelievable" concerning failing the bar dozens of times? If you read that carefully, you'll see that I simply asked for a better, substantiated number. Not unreasonable, I think, for any Wikipedia article, but especially important for living persons' biographies. (Please read WP:BLP.) Wikipedia is global, it's largely irrelevant what "the reading public in Anchorage" is familiar with. —johndburger 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's relevant in terms of whether a critic is informed or not about his or her subject matter before engaging in radical surgery on the substance of articles on the basis of haute rules of style and citation. Wikipedia may be global, but perhaps local people know more about their local issues than self appointed "global" editors.Tom Cod 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do local people know more about libel? If you won't read WP:BLP, at least read the warning at the top of this very page. If you disagree with the policy, then as a lawyer, it'd be great if you could refine it. 'Til then, I'll follow the rules. —johndburger 10:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you're not a lawyer or you wouldn't make such a statement. Absolutely I know something about libel, which makes me wonder, as I did initially, whether you are acting on behalf of someone in the Obermeyer family as she is an extremely litigous person. For something to be libel it must be false, and as my post from the Anchorage Daily News demonstrates, this is clearly the truth. Moreover, as the Supreme Court elucidated in New York Times v. Sullivan, for libel to be actionable against a public figure, the publisher of the ostensible libel must be acting with "actual malice," that is that he or she knows what is being said is false or is acting with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Thus SINCE YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS STORY YOU HAVE NO BASIS FOR HAVING AN INFORMED OPINION AS TO WHETHER IT IS LIBELOUS OR NOT. Therefore your critique appears misguided. It is incumbent upon you to show where and how what I posted was libelous, something you cannot even begin to do without knowing something about the subject. Thus it is entirely inappropriate for you to be reviewing this or similar articles for substance. I suggest this matter be mediated by a higher authority as it is unacceptable for those ignorant of certain subject matter to be excising it.Tom Cod 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"It is incumbent upon you to show where and how what I posted was libelous". No, on Wikipedia everything is backwards. It is incumbent upon you to show what you posted is true. In other words: WP:V: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, please assume good faith. In other words, I assure you that I'm not "acting on behalf of someone in the Obermeyer family" and I assume (and can all-but-guarantee) that johndburger is not "acting on behalf of someone in the Obermeyer family". Many editors (not just us two) have been editing the article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but given that someone, not myself, has incorporated much of this material into the article, isn't this a moot issue and isn't the libel disclaimer inappropriate unless you think the Anchorage Daily News was engaging in the same.Tom Cod 17:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's moot if you think it is. I thought you were arguing that the material should be added back in. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the substance of it largely has been if you look at the article page. Previously, it kept getting reverted back to the first two sentences. Thanks very much. Tom Cod 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What Arichnad said. :) —johndburger 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments from User:Tobermeyer6

User User:Tobermeyer6, who is or claims to be Theresa Obermeyer, added some comments and requests to the body of the article, where they don't belong, so they were deleted, but they do belong here on the talk page so I'll repost it here. The complete diff is here. I omitted some material because it's intertwined with other material (see the diff for full details) but the bulk is contained here:

Please include my picture which I sent to info-en-o@wikimedia.org along with copies of my two current Alaska licenses.

THERESA NANGLE OBERMEYER, Ph.D., has held Alaska Type A Teaching Certificate since 1979 and Alaska Real Estate Broker’s License since 1979. She received her Ph.D. from St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 1975 and her Master of Education 1970 from the same institution. She majored in Political Science and minored in History, English, and Education at Maryville University from which she graduated 1967, St. Louis, Missouri. She graduated from Villa Duchesne High School, 1963. Dr. Obermeyer held public office on Anchorage School Board 1990-94 and prior to that taught at McLaughlin High School 1984-90. She was her Party's Nominee to U.S. Senate 1996. She has been a college administrator at four colleges in three states including Lindenwood University, Loyola University Maryland, St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley, and University of Alaska. She taught Introduction to Sociology at Chapman University Fort Richardson/Elmendorf part-time 1981-1993. She was a Fulbright Fellow twice to India 1974 and to Jordan 1977. She is married with four adult children.

My 161 word revision to my biography is above.

Please delete all the five references as they are defamatory. FYI, I have never used the term "conspiracy." That term was fabricated by the corrupt press in Alaska which is about 90% owned in many states of the Lower 48.

Please also do not use the name of Ted Stevens in my biography. Please only state that I was "my Party's Nominee to U.S. Senate 1996."

As stated above, please publish my biography verbatim with my picture. Please let me know that you have removed all the five newspaper references and that you will only use the verbage, "Party's Nominee to U.S. Senate 1996," regarding my right as an American to run for public office and be nominated by my Party for high office.

Herostratus (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

11/9/13 Theresa Nangle Obermeyer, Ph.D. I have mailed documents about Mr. William J. Moran, Jr., Chair, Alaska Permanent Fund Board regarding http://www.apfboardconfirmatin.org/moran.html to Ms. Maggie Dennis, Senior Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation. She acknowledged receipt of the packet 11/6/13. I hope that she has forwarded the documents to those who will research what I mailed. I would appreciate that very much. In the meantime, please update my biography as above as follows: "She received her Ph.D. from St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 1975 and her Master of Education 1970 from the same institution." If appropriate, update that statement as follows:". . .her Master of Education 1970 from St. Louis University as well."In other words, I have two degrees from St. Louis University. I apologize if I have not follows the rules of Wikipedia and hope that my biography will, at a minimum, be corrected to include that I have a Ph.D. and M.Ed. from St. Louis University. Thank you in advance for any help that you can give in this regard.

Requested version from user:Tobermeyer6

THERESA NANGLE OBERMEYER, Ph.D., has held Alaska Type A Teaching Certificate since 1979 and Alaska Real Estate Broker’s License since 1979. She received her Ph.D. from St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 1975 and her Master of Education 1970 from the same institution. She majored in Political Science and minored in History, English, and Education at Maryville University from which she graduated 1967, St. Louis, Missouri. She graduated from Villa Duchesne High School, 1963. Dr. Obermeyer held public office on Anchorage School Board 1990-94 and prior to that taught at McLaughlin High School 1984-90. She was her Party's Nominee to U.S. Senate 1996. She has been a college administrator at four colleges in three states including Lindenwood University, Loyola University Maryland, St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley, and University of Alaska. She taught Introduction to Sociology at Chapman University Fort Richardson/Elemndorf part-time 1981-1993. She was a Fulbright Fellow twice to India 1974 and to Jordan 1977. She is married with four adult children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermeyer6 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Page Locked

I have locked the page for 3 days as we appear to have a content dispute brewing. The subject of the article should raise their concerns on the talk page here rather then editing the page directly. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Now two weeks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

External links section

It appears that the "official site" is no longer archived at archive.org; although it is still available at archive.is (see http://archive.is/KWSKO ). Is there consensus to use this alternate archive site for the link in the article, or just remove mention of the no longer active official site? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Remind me: what was the problem about archive.is raised on the admin boards? If there's no problem, I think retaining the old official website is a good idea, although perhaps it needs to be marked "historical"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My recollection of the ANI discussions was that there were IP bots being used to add the links into multiple articles. There were also concerns raised about the reliability and the site makes no promise to remain advert free in the future. However, I don't know the outcome of those discussions; I'll try to search for the discussions later today to find the outcomes. As of today, there are still several thousand links to Special:LinkSearch/archive.is, and it's apparently not blacklisted (as I was able to add the link above).

While I agree the archive is useful historical data; it's also apparently something the owner of the site is actively wanting to eliminate - they have deactivated the site, and have had it purged from archive.org (either via a robot.txt notice on the site, or by contacting the operators or archive.org). So there are multiple issues to weigh in on using an archived link, which is why I asked for consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification from the user who closed the RFC; but my interpretation of Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC is that archive.is should no longer be used on Wikipedia. However, even when blacklisted, some specific pages can be white-listed and still allowed if consensus exists, which is why I'm wanting to get some clarification on this to see if the RFC closure allows room for talk page consensus to still permit some links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The RfC concluded that we were to remove existing links no matter if added by bot or by hand and blacklist the site. Whatever mechanisms exist to get exceptions to the blacklist should also apply here. Though I would worry that whatever bot removes all the links might catch your whitelisted link also. So it might be a bit of chore. That said, I've no idea if the folks that maintain the blacklist and handle exceptions would be willing to have one here. I'm just saying the RfC doesn't prevent them from granting one. Please let me know if this is unclear in any way. Hobit (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that feedback from Hobit, I believe we could get the link white-listed assuming consensus exists that it is a useful link that should be included. It's just a matter of monitoring the link in case it's erroneously removed by a bot once one is scripted for the cleanup process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)