Talk:Annie Lobert

Suggesting article rewrite with Suggested Points Missing from the Original Article

Agree with the article rewrite. Not agreed about notability. This is definitely a notable person, but the article is missing that aspect.
Several points that need including in a future update:
1) Direct connection to "Hollywood Madam", Heidi Fliess is missing. This woman was Heidie's protege.
2) Controversy concerning her organization in Christian denominations
3) Documentary Information from IMDB and other film sources
4) Relationship to other famous people during her time as a prostitute
5) Her relationship to police agencies and joint projects, which are significant are left out.
6) Her significant role in the creation of the "Minnesota Connection" to Las Vegas Prostitution is missing from the article (e.g. http://www.heart-intl.net/HEART/080105/JuvenileProstitutionMinn.pdf). She and her first Pimp created the primary network of human trafficking of teenage girls from Minnesota to Nevada.

This article should also be linked to the following on Wikipedia in a "See Also" section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pornography_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Veitch

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Toviaheli (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 

Hi Tov. While I agree that the article needs extensive work, the points provided cannot be supported with verifiable citations and references.

1. Annie has had no direct contact with Heidi Fleiss and in fact, they have never met.
2. Information regarding the controversy over the name of the organization and assumptions regarding her lifestyle could be beneficial. And yet, it could also be contentious and potentially libelous or harmful. As such, it would ride a fine line respecting compliance with Wikipedia Terms of Use. Any notation regarding controversy would require an unbiased presentation of all suppositions, along with careful and meticulous sourcing.
3. Information regarding the documentary may be better set aside until the film is released. It is now in post production. But who knows what the future holds? In this same vein, statements regarding the future publication of her memoirs should probably be deleted. While she was working with a literary agent in late 2008, after reading her first chapter, various national secular and religious publishing houses have chosen not to move forward with a contract.
4. Providing information pertaining to famous relationships maintained during her time working as a prostitute would be highly inappropriate in this forum. It would be considered contentious and potentially libelous or harmful. Additionally, any claims would be hearsay, lacking documentation and/or sources.
5. While information could be provided regarding joint projects and collaboration with legal authorities and government officials, much of this cannot be sourced. And as such, it's simply hearsay.
6. While Annie is often credited with a viable link with the Minnesota Connection, consider it urban legend at best. While Annie arrived from Wisconsin via Minneapolis, neither her nor her first pimp were responsible for creating a network of teenage girls trafficked from Minnesota to Nevada. In fact, when Annie would occasionally discover an underage girl working, she would covertly encourage them to get out any way they could. The facts regarding the Minnesota Connection and Annie's involvement cannot be documented through verifiable sources.

Annie Lobert is definitely a notable person. Her current activities, ministry, and history have been reflected in several media appearances and national network news magazine programs. Google provides links to over 105,000 Web sites for Annie Lobert and over 62,000 for her organization, Hookers for Jesus. At various times, online searches for "Annie Lobert" have trended in the top searches on google.com. Since 2006, her blogs have been consistently ranked as the most visited and commented on MySpace.

And finally, I agree that a link could be provided to the Anti-pornography movement page on Wikipedia. However, while an inline link has been provided to Heather's Wikipedia page, in my opinion, additional links are unwarranted. Annie and Heather work in two separate organizations. They attend separate churches and share neither vision in ministry nor resources. While they are friends, they do not ordinarily work together. While Heather's focus involves reaching out to dancers in the strip clubs, Annie's focus involves working with prostitutes and the Destiny House in Henderson. Over three years ago, Heather and Annie shared a desire to create video diaries under the guise of "Saving Sex City." However, the project was short lived and is no longer in development. - Cindy Nelson

Cindamuse (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting article rewrite

I noticed that a lot of Cindamuse's edits have been copy-and-pasted from Hookers for Jesus' website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annie_Lobert&diff=prev&oldid=263160826 "Hookers for Jesus is a grassroots organization founded in January of 2005, birthed from the heart of Annie Lobért"

http://www.hookersforjesus.net/aboutus.cfm "We are a grassroots organization founded in January of 2005, birthed from the heart of Annie Lobért."

I suggest this article undergo some serious rewriting. There's not only POV problems, there's also issues with US-centrism "interviewed in major news publications across the nation and throughout the world" and in general the article reads like someone who feels very strongly on this topic decided just to copy and paste to promote the organization. The prose is coming out pretty damn purple and I think Wikipedia can do better.

Muncadunc (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am neither an involved party promoting myself nor did I plagiarize. I am the sole author of the original material posted for the Annie Lobert and Hookers for Jesus Wikipedia pages. This information was additionally used on the Hookers for Jesus Web site. Your statements attempting to harm my credibility and reputation are bad form at best and at worst are libelous. Prior to posting future messages on talk pages, you may want to consider reviewing the talk page guidelines regarding appropriate behavior. In hindsight, while I agree with some of the edits that were made, the personal attacks on the Cindamuse talk page were inappropriate. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cindamuse, you should seriously consider -- if your material written for Wikipedia is considered suitable for the Hookers For Jesus website, how "neutral" could it be? The purpose of the website is outreach and fundraising...the wiki is for objective, factual information. How is it that your prose is deemed apropos for both applications? Bustter (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The material to which the original poster was referring was initially posted over two years ago. It completely lacked a neutral point of view. The article as originally written was inappropriate for Wikipedia. The article was revised over a year ago with my blessing. I had no qualm with his concern, but rather with his approach and lack of civility. Cindamuse (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing that we merge Hookers for Jesus with this article as the two articles already say just about the same thing. There are currently issues with both article but by putting them together and doing a bit of research and clean up I believe these could be cleaned up and made into a more acceptable article according to Wikipedia Guidelines. TimonyCrickets (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Ltwin (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• I too agree. Material is redundent. Until there is something more substantial on thei "Hookers for Jesus" org, it makes sense to merge. Proxy User (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, Lorbert's only notability stems from her "organization" -- and I doubt if "organization" is even the word...at her website, link "about us" and then "our team" -- Lobert is the ONLY person mentioned on the "team" page (team). Are there any existing interviews with girls L:obert has rescued? Any hard evidence at all that she is what she claims to be other then the media attention she works hard to get? Yeah, I'm not neutral on this topic, that's why I'm not editing this article, which imo needs major surgery.

addendum: visited her Facebook...over 300 photos of Annie with celebs, Annie public speaking...ZERO photos of anyone identified as a "rescued" girl. Okay...a lot of people like their privacy. But she's rescued dozens, right? Certainly one of the girls so saved by Annie should recognize how much she could return the favor by standing up for Jesus....but NOBODY. I doubt Annie wants to share her spotlight anyway. Bustter (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Additions made by Oz Fox represent a Conflict of Interest in violation of Wikipedia Terms of Use. These comments present biased and speculative information inappropriate according to Wikipedia standards. Additionally, this information negates a neutral point of view. Unless something has actually taken place and is indeed "fact" this information does not belong on Wikipedia. For example, stating that Annie is an author, when in reality, her work has never been published. Once her work is published, the notation of "Author" should be included. But not until that point. Speculative information regarding approval of tax exempt status is additionally not appropriate for Wikipedia. Once status has been confirmed and presented with references and citations, then at that point, it should be included within the article. But not until these facts have been shown to be true and verified. Additionally he has removed notations stating that a citation is needed. Wikipedia content must include citations and be verified with reliable, secondary sources. Statements presented by the subject's husband lacking documentation and citations are not appropriate in this forum. Verified COI and NPOV. Continued revisions will result in escalation to the Administrator and/or editorial response team.CatGirl 05:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Cindamuse (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind the 3-revert rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_war Cindamuse (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Escalation to Administrator re: violation of 3RR. Cindamuse (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This should be a reminder that anyone with personal involvement with Ms. Lobert should not be engaged in editing this article without at very least disclosing the conflict of interest. I've gone through and resolved (in response to an OTRS complaint a number of POV statements. I'm also altering the statement around non-profit status to say simply that the organization has applied. It's not necessary, in this article, to explain what that means. That's why we have an article about non-profit status itself.  :) - Philippe 20:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that a primary source cannot add information without introducing POV is in itself POV. It's not against WP:V. All that is required is the burden of evidence. If you feel a statement is libellous it should be removed. If it requires citation, mark it as such. If a section has required a citation for an inordinate amount of time, it too may be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's recommended that primary sources disclose their interest, see WP:CONFLICT. This makes no assumption as you describe, but if an editor chooses not to disclose his personal stake in a topic, that is a strong indicator that not all is right.

I have contributed to my own entry in the wiki, but that is disclosed on the Talk page of that article. The fact that portions of this article lend to Lorbert's self-promotion (aka "outreach") suggests to me that the editing here has not been objective. Bustter (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You are late to the party on this issue. The relationship that Oz Fox has with Annie Lobert is disclosed within the article itself. Additionally, he has disclosed his COI with Lobert in edit summaries. I have no objection with his contributing to this article within the guidelines established by Wikipedia. NPOV issues were addressed in his editing, along with personal attacks and legal threats made against editors. He was temporarily blocked in response. It was in no way, my desire to have him blocked. My interest involves compliance with the Wikipedia policies and standards of quality. My previous affiliation with Annie Lobert and Hookers for Jesus as former VP and board member was disclosed a long time ago. You are jumping on the backs of previous concerns that have already been addressed. Please refer to WP:COI for conditions under which edits are allowed. Cindamuse (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

"She spoke her thoughts from the heart, based on personal experience, rather than from opinions established through formal education or gained through theological degrees."

Some editor presumes to see what is in Lobert's heart...such editorializing is inappropriate.

Looking at Lobert's media appearances and her website, I have difficulty separating her efforts at outreach from garden-variety self-promotion and fundraising. The wiki should not assume Lobert's motives are pure. Bustter (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not the place for driveby critiques. Your comments lack a neutral point of view on your part. Editors should also refrain from assuming that an individual's motives are impure. I have refrained from inserting my personal opinions in this article. The comment was a neutral point of view based on fact and consensus made by ABC during the debate. Lobert spoke from heart knowledge based on personal experience, rather than head knowledge based on formal education. This was her position and contribution in the debate presented by ABC. In the future, if you find something inappropriate, revise it, backing it up with citations based on reliable secondary resources. Until then, please refrain from unconstructive comments on talk pages. Cindamuse (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the talk page, not the article itself, no neutral point of view is required in discussion. What is a "drive-by critique?" I haven't driven by, I am here to discuss. What I pointed out to you regarding the multiple applications for your work (fundraising at Annie's website, and informational here at the wiki) still applies, unless you want to tell me that you CAN serve two masters? By your own book (Matthew 6:24) you cannot. However non-neutral I may be, the observation is valid until you can tell me why it is not.

I am NOT going to participate in the editing of any article relating to Lorbert, because I am well aware that my own lack of regard for Christian missionaries & evangelists disqualifies me from neutrality. But as a long-time editor here, I have every right to say something when I see the Wiki being manipulated to benefit a fundraising phony. Show me ONE rescued girl other than Lorbert herself. Bustter (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And, in order to impress upon you that this is not a "drive-by," I will promise you right now that, unless a consensus is arrived at contradicting my intuition, I will soon be tagging both articles for disputed neutrality. Bustter (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that some sort of threat? I don't know if you're aware of Wikipedia's policies on threats but you certainly have indicated that you have a distinct POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not, you are responding to my statement that I am seeking a consensus about neutrality, I am in no way in violation of any Wiki rules or guidelines.

By talking about my planned future actions I am merely responding to Cindamuse's accusation that I am performing a drive-by...I have posted here in order to seek consensus regarding neutrality, and secondarily to ask whether there is ANY evidence that Lorbert's so-called "organization" is what she advertises it to be.

Who is in this organization other than Lorbert and her husband? Where is there a SINGLE rescued girl? Lorbert is soliciting donations that she promises will be tax-deductible in the future.

Walter, if you do not see any danger that Wikipedia is being used to support a phony fundraising scam here, then you have somehow lost your objectivity, unless you can point to at least one of these rescued girls. Can you?

It is my opinion that any objective observer would clearly see this danger. If you think I am violating policies, PLEASE, report me to Wikipedia authorities -- the sooner this situation comes to a head, the sooner it will be resolved to the Wiki's benefit. Bustter (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any fund-raising going on here. It seems you have lost your objectivity. I Agree that it would be good to see some stories of those who have been rescued and at least some of the literature or events they attend to work with these women. However your opinion is just that: an opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there was fundraising happening in the articles. I only stated that an objective observer would recognize the danger that these 2 articles could be manipulated by Lorbert's friends and associates to support her outreach and fundraising efforts.

If you don't see such a danger then you are not aware of the great frequency of such happening in the Wiki. Wiki management, and all experienced Wiki editors are quite aware that self-promotion -- profit-motivated and otherwise -- is one of the biggest recurring issues on the Wiki. Even if Lorbert's ethics are of the highest order, that doesn't mean that a well-meaning admirer isn't compromising neutrality for her benefit. Bustter (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I commented below on the Nightline section, which seems undue to me, and I think should be touched up to make more encyclopedic. However, I don't think we need examples of saved souls, etc. Wikipedia isn't a fund-raiser, and I don't think it's being used as such. If the organization is legally a charity, we report that. We don't require evidence other than what's reported in reliable sources. Dayewalker (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You've gotten the wrong impression, probably from believing what you've read -- which is part of my point.

The organization is not legally recognized as a charity at this time; quoting Lorbert's website: "Hookers for Jesus is registered and organized as a nonprofit corporation with the State of Nevada. While we are preparing our documents and application with the IRS requesting official recognition as a federally tax-exempt public benefit organization, we are legally functioning as a nonprofit corporation under section 501 (c) (3) of the federal internal revenue code and the State of Nevada. Upon approval, all donations are tax deductible, retroactive to the date of incorporation effective 18 July 2007."

So, the organization is structurally a non-profit, but has not yet been found to be working to the public benefit. One would never guess that from reading the articles.

Even if the government were to grant tax-exempt status, that still does not establish as fact that Lorbert has ever rescued anyone from anything, nor does it guarantee that Lorbert's friends and allies are not editing the wiki in order to promote her private interests.

Since Lorbert's main fundraising tool is a website that shares much identical text with the Wiki's articles, it is a matter for concern, and requires that these articles be held to the highest possible standard for neutrality. Bustter (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bustter, you're flailing. You have called me an inexperienced wikipedia editor. I suggest you take a look at my profile and check how experienced I am. Check Cindamuse's while you're at it. It seems that this editor has interests other than promoting this subject. It also seems that the editor is a wikignome. Those are high credentials. I don't know what your position is but you are breaking a few rules: you're not assuming good faith, you're making deliberate ad hominem attacks on editors, and taking other uncivil actions (and you don't have a spell-checker, but that I can understand). If you want to discuss the subject with proof, feel free. If you just want to cast aspersions, you might want to try a tabloid instead. They have a lower standard of proof. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done none of the things you say, I have only made statements about the articles themselves, about Lorbert's organization, and about Wiki policies. When I used the phrase "experienced wiki editors" I did not claim more experience than anyone else, nor did I deprecate anyone's experience. If you and Cindamuse are experienced, then I do not doubt that you are aware of how often COI becomes an issue. The only assumption of bad faith here is yours of me.

I'll repeat my main point now: "Since Lorbert's main fundraising tool is a website that shares much identical text with the Wiki's articles, it is a matter for concern, and requires that these articles be held to the highest possible standard for neutrality."

Do you have an argument with that? Or do you prefer to continue to attack me instead of the point I am making? Bustter (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You have done all of those things. There is no excuse for not following the rules of civility and assuming good faith that are the foundations of Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be easy for you to quote the words I wrote that so shook the foundations of the Wiki. Please do so, instead of providing accusations with no case in point.

Without any sleight intended to Cindamuse, she has indicated that she sees no conflict in text that lends itself perfectly to both Lobert's purposes and to the Wiki's. This not a criticism, an accusation, or a conjecture about her intentions -- it is a fact that Cindamuse pointed out herself, and it is a fact that remains worrying to me, and that merits discussion here. Assuming good faith does not mean assumption of infallibility or invulnerability from reasoned criticism. Bustter (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole is not civil in this case. I didn't say you shook the foundations of Wikipedia I merely said that you did not assume good faith by suggesting that there is vested interest and suggested that somehow the pair were making money off this article or could (or would) use it to that extent. The lack of civility was your suggestion that we're attacking you. I know I'm not. I'm simply trying to tone down your rhetoric and get to the real issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You're being silly now. "foundations of Wikipedia" was your phrase, so the hyperbole is yours...I added the word "shook," which isn't much. I'm finished defending myself to you. Please consider Cindamuse's Facebook activities on behalf of HFJ (see the imagge linked below), and then defend your own actions --

Why are you so blind to this obvious COI? Why are you so defensive of Cindamuse, whose denial of involvement in HFJ is clearly not entirely true? Why are you so dedicated to attacking me?

The conflict of interest is clear. The fact that Cindamuse has an interest in bringing funds to HFJ's coffers is also clear. The lack of neutrality in her contributions is demonstrable. In my opinion, the article needs a top to bottom rewrite to a NPOV -- but, as always, I will defer to a consensus -- a proper one, established among disinterested parties. Bustter (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Bustter (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the spelling flame, Walter; since my stroke in 2006, I am by necessity a one-handed typist, and do not find correcting every typographical error that I make worth the effort. But flame away. Bustter (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear. Get a browser with a built-in spell-checker. That ability shouldn't have been diminished with your stroke. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The way you're responding makes no sense. This discussion has lost all flow.

1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility are two foundations on which Wikipedia is built. AGF "is a fundamental principle" and CIVIL is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and is one of Wikipedia's five pillars, the other two are Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is free content, and Wikipedia does not have firm rules. So yes, those are foundational. And you're not assuming good faith and you're not being particularly civil.
2. I have not attacked you. I am pointing-out that you are not abiding by some fundamental or foundational principles of Wikipedia. It's you who are attacking me.
3. I am not defending anyone, I am questioning your assumptions and your insistence on using hyperbole to blow things out of proportion.

In short stop feeling like you're a martyr. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If this lacks flow, one reason is you post your replies in rather odd junctures...this one is positioned to look like it concerns your spelling flame.

At any rate, no matter. I am done. I'm not going to go into further detail about what I think is going on, but I believe there's enough evidence of COI to request more experienced hands deal with this matter -- hence my request for a NPOV check, and my posting to WP:COIN about this whole matter. Cindamuse is sending out Lobert's Annual Reports with one hand while writing her wiki bio with the other, but your idea of improving the Wiki is to heap accusarions on top of me.

You do not look neutral, Walter. Bustter (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have stated in sections above and below and will include here, the following regarding NPOV.

My previous business relationship with Annie Lobert and Hookers for Jesus has already been disclosed. The NPOV issue is old news. If you were to take your research a bit further, you would discover that the current article is completely different from the initial one, which was written in June 2008. It completely lacked a neutral point of view. The article as originally written was inappropriate for Wikipedia. The article was revised over a year ago with my blessing. The assumption here regarding lack of a neutral point of view is based on my previous business relationship with the organization. This NPOV has already been addressed. Again, I will state the following.

I am the former Vice President and founding board member of Hookers for Jesus. This affiliation ended in February 2009. I have no business or personal affiliation with either Lobert or the organization. Additionally, I have no business or personal interest in either supporting or hindering financial support of Lobert or her organization. ~Cindy Nelson

My only interest in this article is regarding its inclusion and compliance within the guidelines established by Wikipedia. This personal vendetta by Bustter against Annie Lobert and Hookers for Jesus, along with the continued personal attacks are seriously in violation of the Wikipedia Code of Conduct.

While you are entitled to your personal convictions regarding the integrity and character of Annie Lobert and the legitimacy of the organization as a nonprofit corporation, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to air these concerns. Wikipedia involves providing articles on notable information, based on reliable sources. As such, your personal opinions, according to Wikipedia, are not valid in the writing and publication of articles. Cindamuse (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nightline

I understand that the Nightline appearance is significant, but it seems to be getting undue coverage in the article. It's at least half of the current article, does anyone else agree it should be trimmed down? Dayewalker (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is large, but it is the foundation of her positions. It would be good to reduce it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be in far too much depth about the entire show. If the show itself is that notable, it should have its own article. Dayewalker (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

While I wrote the information in the article about the debate, I agree that it could be trimmed down. I attempted to simply present Lobert's participation in the debate and any significant statements that were specific to her. There was so much that I actually left out, and yet it still seemed rather long. Honestly, I didn't know what to trim at that time. I have no problem if someone is interested in reducing it somewhat. Go for it. Cindamuse (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and removed most of the section. It seemed to be all running play-by-play and commentary on the Nightline appearance, and didn't seem suitable for an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dayewalker. I appreciate your contribution. ;) Cindamuse (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cindamuse, I expect you will consider this harassment, or uncivil, but it is merely offered as an observation that might allow you to better understand my motives.

When you say "I appreciate your contribution" to someone whom you feel has improved the Annie Lobert article, you are expressing ownership of this article in a manner that is entirely inappropriate for a former officer of Hookers For Jesus. If you will just reflect on this you may better understand my concerns. Bustter (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. You're assuming that's what she means. I suspect that she is speaking out of concern for Wikipedia. WP:OWNERSHIP# Examples of ownership behavior does not list positive comments as an example of ownership. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see way too many negative comments and argumentative feedback on Wikipedia between various editors making contributions to the same article. It's disheartening. I'm not going to be hindered or bullied from expressing a kind word, simply because there is a possibility that motives may be questioned. I enjoy the collaboration. That is what makes Wikipedia a quality encyclopedia. I'm not perfect and I'm not interested in ownership of articles. Although the thought may be foreign to some, positive affirmation and appreciation goes a long way. Cindamuse (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cindamuse soliciting donations on Facebook

[1]

Bustter (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

and? Is she not allowed to use Facebook to solicit funds? The organization is a registered charity and charities are permitted to solicit funds. What does this have to do with Wikipedia? Now you're just mud-slinging. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be coy. You have vaunted your experience to me, so we've established that you are familiar with policies regarding COI. Atop this page, Cindamuse denied being an "involved party" She is announcing the publication of the oreganization's Annual Report -- meaning that she is closely involved with HFJ's fiscal matters. She says "we are getting ready to send out the annual report" -- that's not ambiguous, it shows her direct and deep involvement in the organization.

She is soliciting funds for the organization -- organizational fundraisers are the very LAST people who should be writing about the org for which they raise funds.

You're both experienced editors, so you certainly know the implications. I won't spell it out because then you'll be screaming "bad faith" at me again -- but Walter, you are not looking very neutral yourself right now -- not at all. Bustter (talk)

Your logic is becoming trying. I never accused you of having bad faith. I accused you of not assuming badgood faith. Please don't confuse the two. I now understand your concern that Cindamuse is also attempting to be a fund-raiser for the charity. However the fact that she assists in raising funds is not a conflict of interest as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I have worked for companies whose marketing people and technical support staff write and edit articles on Wikipedia. The issue is that they must do so without displaying a point of view. Feel free to mark the article as having a specific POV, but you will have to back that up. You can also mark it as reading like an ad, but this ad-copy wouldn't get approved anywhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"never accused you of having bad faith. I accused you of not assuming bad faith." What does that mean? Why should I assume bad faith? On whose part? You accused me of flailing? okay okay, you accused me of not assuming good faith, I get that... but not assuming good faith is pretty much the same as assuming bad faith, hence you screaming 'bad faith' at me. If I can figure out your mangled sentence, is that leap so very hard to make?

But I have never assumed bad faith; my assumption of good faith was only defeated upon finding firm evidence of less than good faith -- abuse of the Wiki to serve fundraising purposes. But like I said I am done I will leave this to others to sort out/ Bustter (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Great research. However, the post that you are referring to was contributed over two years ago, prior to creating the initial article for Annie Lobert. This previous business relationship with Annie Lobert and Hookers for Jesus has already been disclosed. The NPOV issue is old news. If you were to take your research a bit further, you would discover that the current article is completely different from the initial one, which was written in June 2008. It completely lacked a neutral point of view. The article as originally written was inappropriate for Wikipedia. The article was revised over a year ago with my blessing. NPOV has already been addressed. Again, I will state the following.

I am the former Vice President and founding board member of Hookers for Jesus. This affiliation ended in February 2009. I have no business or personal affiliation with either Lobert or the organization. Additionally, I have no business or personal interest in either supporting or hindering financial support of Lobert or her organization. ~Cindy Nelson

My only interest in this article is regarding its inclusion and compliance within the guidelines established by Wikipedia. This personal vendetta, along with the continued personal attacks are seriously in violation of the Wikipedia Code of Conduct. Cindamuse (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I came here from the WP:COIN. I am a neutral, experienced editor. Cindy, the WP:COI policy is not limited to current connections with a subject, but all connections with a subject. Since you have self-declared that you are a former officer of the organization that Lobert founded, you have a conflict of interest and should refrain from editing on this subject. You may want to review the applicable policies. Any material that you believe should be in the article can be posted here, to the talk page where neutral editors can review it and then one of them will post it if appropriate. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 09:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My previous business involvement with Lobert and Hookers for Jesus was disclosed over two years ago. Conflict of interest and my involvement in editing this article has been addressed through the Head of Reader Relations for the Wikimedia Foundation. Please refer to WP:COI for conditions under which edits are allowed.

I have exercised care and caution in editing articles related to previous affiliations. I have refrained from promoting the organization. I have avoided violating relevant policies and guidelines, neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography. All of my edits have been supported through reliable secondary sources. Additional concerns and edits have been made through consensus.

The current controversy is based on previously addressed edits. There are no current issues, but rather rehashing of old issues that have already been addressed. As such, my participation in editing this article is permitted, when additions are presented and backed up with reliable citations based on secondary sources. Again, my participation in editing this article has been previously addressed and approved. Cindamuse (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Request to limit personal information in the article

It has come to my attention that individuals may be using the family information in this article to make threats to the family of the subject. This then becomes a real WP:BLP issue. I believe that the listing of the subject's parents should be removed for their safety. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nefarious

Can we add a mention of Nefarious Merchant of Souls, an award winning documentary that she was featured on? I believe that it deserves a mention. Flofor15 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Annie Lobert. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026100106/http://charismamag.com/index.php/inspire/30254-las-vegas-liberator to http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/inspire/30254-las-vegas-liberator
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110305234820/http://www.destinyhouselv.com/ to http://www.destinyhouselv.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605214934/http://www.thewhosoevers.com/the-whosoevers-conference/ to http://www.thewhosoevers.com/the-whosoevers-conference/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://vegasblog.latimes.com/vegas/2008/01/born-again-vega.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)