Talk:Evelyn Lozada

Notability?

She appears to only be notable for 1 event - her appearance on a reality TV show. The policies would recommend that the article be redirected there, unless there are other accomplishments which have not yet been sourced and added to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it, she doesn't meet WP:ENT, which requires "significant" roles (plural). However, I haven't done WP:BEFORE to see if there are other indicia of notability not present in the article. According to IMDb, the only other things she seems to have done are a few guest spots as herself. (I don't think a role on a TV series is an "event" as that term is contemplated in WP:BLP1E.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why?

Why doesn't the fact that there was an incident of assault belong?Television fan (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

First, the article is about Lozada, not about Johnson. Any material about an alleged assault by Johnson belongs in the Johnson article. Second, WP:BLPCRIME generally prohibits reporting of criminal activity until a conviction has been obtained. In the Lozada article, you reported only the arrest. Apparently, per the Johnson article, he pleaded no contest to the charges (which eliminates BLPCRIME as that sort of plea in most jurisdictions is equal to a conviction), but then here in the Lozada article, we'd have to report that, too, to make it clear that it wasn't just an arrest. At some point, the whole thing becomes WP:UNDUE for this article, particularly given how short the article is. In my view, it's sufficient just to report that she married him and divorced him because the marriage was "irretrievably broken". I don't see why we have to report the domestic violence in her article. Hopefully, other editors will chime in with their views.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Bbb23. The article gains nothing about the subject of the article by a potential smear of another living person. TVFans repetition of WELLKNOWN does NOT become a cure all that just becuase criminal allegations are in the news they are appropriate for every encyclopdia article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The test is not whether there is "a potential smear of another living person." That is not the test of whether allegations concerning public figures are warranted. You're getting caught up with "criminal allegations." The reference to the "criminal allegation" of "domestic battery" has been taken out; the "incident" of "domestic violence" has been put in. Here's the test:

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Is the incident of domestic violence noteworthy? Yes. It it noteworthy becuase it triggered the divorce actions.

Is the incident relevant? Yes, divorce proceedings of the short, celebrated, and public marriage resulted because of the incident.

Is the well-documented? Yes. I'd be more than happy to put more in.

Because the above-stated test has been met, "it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." My edits coincide and align with the standards set forth by Wikipedia.

Finally, if you can find another standard which supports your position please discuss. Otherwise, please stop with your edit war.Television fan (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your editwarring restoration of contentious content when it is clear by this disussion that there is no consensus that it is appropriate is entirely problematic and you need to reverse yourself NOW. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? You have failed to show where my argument is not supported or improperly supported by the objective, Wikipedia standards. If you wish to continue provoking this edit war, then I will have no other alternative but to counter each of your attempts. My actions and edits are easily supportable -- and yours are not.Television fan (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As for policy, we can start with: "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." and In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details." -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And your statement that you intend to continue to edit war is likely not to be seen in a good light by any administrator looking into the situation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way, but I didn't start this edit war.Television fan (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes you did (and in any manner "I didnt start it" is not a valid excuse for editwarring) and you are the primary constituant of the edit war vs multiple other editors. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your statement: "An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details." My edits certainly falls short of this. Does my edit mention "headbutting of her"? Does my edit mention "an argument over a box of condoms"? I am not exploiting all possible details. I don't believe in making this an article of salaciousness or providing the salacious details. Just a mention of the a relevant and noteworthy incident.Television fan (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Red Pen of Doom: How about this as a compromise?

Instead of:

"Following an incident of alleged domestic violence"

How about:

"Following a reported incident"

Trying to compromise....Television fan (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise to the situation. Since she still fails WP:BLP1E we just redirect to the show. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't work for her. She is a star of a television show. Her courtship was televised. Do you not agree that she is a public figure? Are you saying that she isn't? She is not a person known for one event.Television fan (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Her only notability and coverage is directly related to and solely because of the TV show. Show any coverage otherwise. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's what WP:BLP1E states: "Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people." This is met; she is alive. "Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." She is NOT a low-profile individual. She stars in a show, and she markets herself on a website.Television fan (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've offered my compromise. I've changed the article to reflect it.Television fan (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Offering a compromise that was rejected doesn't give you the right to change the article according to your wishes. A consensus needs to be reached, and there is none. I tend to agree with Red Pen about her notability, although I don't know what would happen if the article were nominated for deletion, although it certainly could be discussed as a merge or a redirect. As for your wording, it doesn't bother me as much as your previous wording because it says almost nothing, so it isn't undue. At the same time, the very fact it says nothing is problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

She is a highly likely search term so I do not propose deletion. However her only notability is in relation to the TV show, nothing else, and therefore the redirect is the appropriate course- unless there those proposing a stand alone article can find coverage that covers her in a manner not tied directly to the show. We are after all an encyclopedia and not a celebrity gossip page.-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Any sources for coverage of her that indicate she is notable for anything other than her appearance in the reality show? Beuler? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Could you put it another way? From what I can tell, she became famous for starring in one TV show. However, according to her website:

"VH1 Reality Star Evelyn Lozada of the #1 hit show, ‘Basketball Wives’ is one of the most sought after reality personalities to date. Currently, her resume includes Entrepreneur, Reality Star, Philanthropist, Producer and most recently Author by signing a lucrative book deal with Cash Money Content."

So, I think she is gaining notoriety beyond ‘Basketball Wives’. It sounds like she is now an author and seeking publicity through her website (and perhaps a publicist).Television fan (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Her notability at Wikipedia cannot be based on her own claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like she has some level of notarity as an author. The following is referred to as a "novel" authored by Lozada:

http://www.amazon.com/Inner-Circle-The-Wives-Association/dp/193639927X#_Television fan (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily establish any notability as an author. The publisher is fairly new and fairly small. What you'd need to find is secondary coverage about her writing by reliable sources, not just an entry at Amazon that she wrote a book.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article

Nice job, TheRedPenOfDoom.Television fan (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Birthday

Apparently, her birthday is somewhat of a mystery:

http://knowledgering.com/answers/entertainment/celebrities/how-old-is-evelyn-lozada-from-basketball-wives

On December 13, 2011, she "recently" celebrated her 36th birhtday:

http://theybf.com/2011/12/13/evelyn-lozada-celebrates-her-36th-birthdayand-throws-shade-at-jennifer-williams-again?page=5

Television fan (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

reliable sources are required, particularly about potentially controversial personal information. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Danika Berry's selective editing

FYI...Danika Berry is the name of Lozada's PR person. See http://evelynlozada.com/contact/

What is the policy that the content of Wikipedia is selective and determined by public relations personnel?Television fan (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The account has identified themself as the agent [1]. the WP:COI policies state that the individual should not edit the article directly except in cases such as minor grammar tweaks or the removal of non properly sourced WP:BLP content. the account has been notified that future edits should be made through suggestions and providing sources on this talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Updates and Infoboxes

Hi, Bbb23. Not sure if you consider these changes "unconstructive" because they are too small or if they are simply not of interest to you. You'll find, as you use Wikipedia more, that it is normal to add specific biographical details about a person and their life. You would be right to say that, for example, the name of someone's Grade 3 homeroom teacher is unconstructive, but that is very different from the concrete updates that you deleted, then re-deleted despite my adding a stronger explanation to the edit.

It is common to add updates to articles that cover specific developments in the person's story. For example, adding material such as the name of the new show that Ms. Lozada and her daughter are starring in, adding the name of her daughter (given that she is clearly identified on the show), adding the fact that she came to the world's attention as the wife of a major league sports celebrity (she wrote a book that plays on this very fact, starred in a television show that plays on this fact, planned a second show that plays on this fact, features it in her current television show), adding the name of her son are legitimate and pertinent additions to the article. References were also added.

The "Infobox" has a specific line for partners, so the long-term effort and consensus of Wiki-editors is that partner information is "constructive" - in this case, the gentlemen were more than just partners, they were also engaged for marriage to Ms. Lozada.

Please don't be discouraged in your efforts, we all have something to add. For example, this does not mean that you shouldn't adjust the wording and sentence structure of the changes I (or other editors) make, even on data like this that are hard facts and figures. For example, the changes I made in the lead could have been softened to "...may be best known..." or "...first came to attention...". Feel free to add, adjust, find new references, etc. Those efforts, as compared to complete deletion of something you might not be interested in, are the liveblood of Wikipedia. Your interest is greatly appreciated.

I've added back a couple of the items, will wait a bit before adding back the rest of the data, and will watch here for your comments first. Thanks, in advance, for your feedback. Jmg38 (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jmg38: I'll try to contribute my thoughts tomorrow. I'm tired at the moment from learning how to use Wikipedia. Over 100,000 edits, an administrator, and a CheckUser, and yet there's so much to learn. (sorry, couldn't resist) Have a good evening if that's the time zone you're in.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Bbb23 - should have looked at your history! To be honest, I was surprised by the bluntness and reason for your revert, assumed (and we all know what "assume" makes me) you were a newer editor. That's on me - again, I should have checked. Catch up with you tomorrow. Cheers. Jmg38 (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's take your two current changes one at a time. The partner parameter is not for long-term relationships or for engagements. It's reserved for legal relationsips, i.e., jurisdictions that permit people to register for domestic partnerships, or for long-term relationships where the subject of the article herself calls the other person her partner. Neither is present here, and it should be removed from the infobox. The sentence about the third series and her daughter is unsourced and should be removed (I believe there is a source for it and it could be kept as long as the source is cited). Now let's go back to the other changes that you made earlier. You can't define Lozada in the lead (the opening sentence yet) as being "best known" or any kind of known "for her series of relationships with major league athletes". That rather bold and somewhat biased statement has to be discussed in the body with a source. There's no reason for the parentheticals about when her children were born. It's not relevant enough to this article. And the "some dude" quotation is wholly inappropriate. I know it's supposedly a quote from her but it's sourced by a gossipy rag and is hardly noteworthy. This article is a WP:BLP and, as such, it is held to very high encyclopedic standards, both in terms of the material included and in terms of the sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to let it go. Reading the "Talk" history, I now see that notability, and the influence of the "public relations personnel", are already intruding in the mix, so I'll let them worry about whatever names and tv shows they want to highlight. Only learned of this person last week after seeing the "current" show on t.v. (157 Channels And Nothin' On!!), checked this wiki-article out of curiosity as to why they had their own show, then put too much effort into adding details to something that was already more than it ever needed to be. Thanks for the feedback. BTW - love the picture of the Bourdeilles countryside on your user page. Jmg38 (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Everyone seems to like that picture. It was even lovelier when we were there. It's the best thing about going to my userpage. It was nice getting to know you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)