Talk:Kathleen Battle

Neutrality tag

Hi there once again Hrannar. I think the section tag works better per WP:NPOV section on tags. The tag at the top of the article is for use when the neutrality of the entire article is in question whereas the section tag is meant to mark only a portion of the article (which is the case here). Anyway, I don't want to get sucked back into this or fight with you again. So do what you will.Nrswanson (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nrswanson. It seems that by my question, by my request, you feel this has created a situation that "[you] don't want to get sucked back into this." I don't know how to respond to that. / Remember when I first placed the article neutrality tag, didn't you remove it claiming "neutrality tag no longer applies. you are just trying to unbalance a balanced presentation in the name of neutrality. if it is altered from this version it will be an NPOV violation and censorship vio." / I actually first learned about the article neutrality tag, because I saw another editor use it on this page -- in a similiar circumstance, so I thought it was appropriate. So please forgive me if I ask you to talk changes out first. You have asked me to do the same and I respect that. / I believe that etiquette suggestions that wikipedia makes are designed to help come to consensus and maintain an atmostphere of respect, as we work to create quality content to share. With the archiving of the discussion, the reason for the tag may not obvious. So I will do my best to provide that information. I hope that should you choose to respond, that we keep to discussion of ideas and content. Thanks a bunch! And please reread my strong complements and hats of to you in the cup of tea here [[1]] : I meant what I said! All the best, Hrannar (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Why the Neutrality Tag?

This article had moved towards hinting or directly stating that Kathleen Battle is/was 'difficult' with wording such as "At the time of the dismissal, The New York Times reported that a number of people involved with the production said that Battle had been "difficult" and "uncooperative even after rehearsal schedules were changed to accommodate her demands, and that she had upset other members of the cast."; This article also seems to minimize her non Opera career throughout her entire career. It has led some to assert that her Opera career ended mainly due to Volpe's actions and her supposed "difficult" behavior, rather than examine other possible factors including age, voice type, and interests. Or consider that she may not be difficult, but rather she shares attributes with artists of similar acclaim such as Pavarotti or Norman in terms of being late, wanting conductors to conduct at a tempo the artists prefer, etc. After research and listing her activities (Work with Symphony, Recital, and Opera), it seems the number of her other activities were seem to occur with similar frequency. And from the very beginnings of her career including her professional debut as soprano soloist, her career has included more than just Opera. In the long run, no CONCLUSIVE CASE can be made for either perspective as to the dismissal's effect on her career. We only have facts. And it is my hope that we let them speak for themselves.

• In addition, there was a censorship claim and "an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included." We both agreed that the dismissal from Metropolitan was verifiable and the cancellation of any other contracts as well, and they should be included. We don't agree on the proper NPOV language. One editor felt it appropriate to state things such as, ""Kathleen Battle's reputation as "difficult" or "tempermental" first surfaced in a 1983..." or ""those who have found her occasionally difficult...". I disagreed. And based on the input from an editor with far more experience that I (and after reading comments from both myself and the editor who disagreed with me) This is text was proposed:

[Proposed Text from outside editor]

(I did make one change to the suggested text -- the first sentence. I felt it put both parties on equal plain. And state only factual events that can be proven. "Volpe called Battle's conduct "profoundly detrimental" etc.)

• In the version proposed by another editor, I felt no point was being made, other than stating that Volpe dismissed Battle; he felt she was unprofessional; she felt she had not been approached about this issue; and she has not performed in Opera since. All PROVABLE facts.

Also, it was suggested to include a statement like: "a number of people involved with the production said that Battle had been "difficult" and "uncooperative even after rehearsal schedules were changed to accommodate her demands, and that she had upset other members of the cast."

However, note wikipedia's NPOV guidelines which state:

• "In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias."

• "There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems." I agree and feel that was done with statements such as,

Apologies for the length. For these reasons, I have placed a NPOV article tag. Hrannar (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• Lol. All of this just over the use of one neutrality tag over another. Personally I don't think the supposed "opera centric" focus was intended. No one is trying to under value the other aspects of her career. Rather than complain about it, just add to the article's content.Nrswanson (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Actually per wikipedia guidelines a person is supposed to explain why they invoke the tag on the talk page, so that others who see the tag understand why. I am sorry if it sounds like complaining to you. :-( I have been adding to the articles content.Hrannar (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• This comment:"This article also seems to minimize her non Opera [sic] career throughout her entire career" is really quite absurd, especially the implication that the addition of the badly lacking detailed information on her opera career (e.g. her role list and major debuts) was done to make her firing from the Met and the subsequent refusal of any other opera house to engage her, was an attempt to give the Met firing "undue weight". Until very recently, the article actually minimized her opera career, which was a distinguished and significant one (and, like it or not, was her main one), and was primarily filled with cross-over projects and collaborations. Her discography still gives the impression that her only significant recordings were cross-over projects, and compilations, whereas her discography of complete opera recordings is highly distinguished and extensive. Like all Wikipedia articles, this one is a work in progress. If areas need expansion, the answer is for editors to expand them, not nitpick and question the motives of other editors who expand different areas. For what it's worth, the neutrality tag for a single section rather than the whole article was far more appropriate than taggiing the entire article. But who cares? Apart from correcting typos, errors of fact, and the remaining poorly formatted references I certainly don't intend to significantly contribute here, given the current atmosphere. Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry it seems absurd to you. It would useful if you would take a breathe and stop taking things so personally and avoid feeling so frustrated at differences of opinion. We all can get frustrated, but I don't think it's productive. It makes people defensive and want to attack back. So let's avoid it, please. / AT THE TIME I invoked the tag, it seemed that way to me, simply because so much space, particularly in the 1980s section, was given to her Opera work, and there was hardly significant mention of her non Opera work, though there was significant space to describe her Vatican and Vienna New Years concert - basically only mention non opera performances. So it is not clear how this article minimized her Opera career. I have SINCE been adding more information and in fact tried to remedy it, instead of, as you say, "complain." But that's the reason for the tag. Sorry if it wasn't clear. / It is clear to me that you feel that "like it or not, was her main one)." And here, we agree to disagree. Why? Because her discography and her recital and performances with symphonies and chorus suggested she sang more than just opera, though, because she has a classically trained voice, she sounds like an Opera singer, but she has used the voice to sing more than Opera. Also it has been claimed that Kathleen Battle "makes a thrilling case for the return of the recital." I also venture to say that more people have heard Kathleen Battle on the radio or in the record store listening stations, singing non Opera work. So to say Opera is her main career (your words) may be accurate, but when one examines her entire body of work, it seems that she was much more than just opera. To verify this, two good discographies can be found on her official website (http://www.kathleenbattle.com/) or a longer list on her management site (http://marketing.cami.com/worddocs/wordDocs27/Discography.pdf), you see an extensive list of varied repertoire which include opera, recitals, seasonal, choral, etc. The facts speak for themselves. I am not sure why the discography on the wikipedia page is so sparce. I am not sure who created it. But I completely agree that it can be improved. Thanks, Voceditenore. Hrannar (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I'd like to endorse what Voceditenore has just said about the discography and her complete opera recordings. Perhaps one way forward would be to make a much better and more representative list? --Kleinzach 20:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. A great suggestion. Interstingly. It seems that whoever did create it, not me, did not view Opera as her "main" career. But her Opera recordings should be included as it was certainly a part of her repertoire. Thanks for that proactive suggestion, Zach and voceditenore! Hrannar (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Hrannar, refer below for list of Battle's recordings in CD and DVD format. From the list, you can create a new page for her discography like how I did for Plácido Domingo discography

• Kathleen Battle Discography from CD Universe
• List of Kathleen Battle's recordings from Amazon
• List of Kathleen Battle's recordings from Universal Music
• List of Battle's recordings from deutschegrammophon.com - Jay (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jay! These are helpful indeed. If you have time, please don't hesitate to add to the discography or other portions of this article. Hrannar (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Sure, I will help to add on for Battle once I have finished with Domingo’s discography. It will probably take me months to finish because Domingo’s recordings are too many. I have lots more to go including filling up details of each recordings such as catalog numbers + conductors, ensembles and opera houses. It is actually better if you could fill in all the details to avoid double entry. Most all the times, recording companies will change catalog numbers + album covers when they re-produce the same recordings, also, sometimes, the very same recording will be produced under different label. - Jay (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jay. I don't mind at all. I'll do my best. Thanks again for you help.Hrannar (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Heads-up re YouTube links

Several of these are clearly links to copy vio excerpts and as such should probably be removed, as per [2]. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those, Voceditenore. Anything that is a copyright violation should definitely be removed. Your expertise is greatly appreciated.Hrannar (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Discography Suggestion?

In taking the discography suggestion to heart, in addition to being not as representative as it could be, the formatting seems bulky. In looking for possible solutions to reduce bulkiness, but still provide useful info, we see varying formats for discographies including Carreras, Fleming, McNair, and Upshaw. We can do a general listing, separated by commas, or we can make bulletted lists; we can include entire cast or just album title and year or variations thereof, like Album Title, album content, year, conductor and, where appropropriate, accompanist or symphony. What do you folks think? Hrannar (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I'm in favour of using a standard, easy to follow, standard format for singer discographies. Perhaps Jay can make a suggestion as he is working on the Domingo one? --Kleinzach 02:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

<Jay>Ok look here.

Year	Title	Cast	Conductor, Opera House and Orchestra	Label
1972	Bellini: Norma	Plácido Domingo, Montserrat Caballé, Fiorenza Cossotto, et al	Carlo Felice Cillario (Studio) London Symphony Orchestra Ambrosian Singers	RCA Cat: 6502-2 Cat: 8650

• Donizetti: L'elisir d'amore (Katia Ricciarelli, José Carreras, Leo Nucci, Susanna Rigacci, Domenico Trimarchi, Coro della RAI di Torino, Orchestra Sinfonica Della Rai Di Torino, Claudio Scimone) CD Philips 00289 475 4422

Obviously, the frame format is much better - easy to read compared to the same I took from Carreras page. But it is also depending on yourself and the singer. if the singer just have less than 30 recordings, well, then it ok to have it without the frame. But still, if you look at the sample above, in my opinion, the second format is difficult to read. We have to take consideration that not many people know who is "Susanna Rigacci" or "Carlo Felice Cillario". Could they be the conductor or singer or is it the title of the opera? Anyway, it is your choice. I wrote Domingo's discography because I want people to know his hard work and read the list I wrote; and to make people enjoy reading, I make sure they are "user friendly". - Jay (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO using the frame would be preferable when there are more than, say, five or six main entries. I like the frame format. I'm wondering however whether it would be a good idea to have an additional column for the type of recording. In the case of Norma (above) this would presumably be 'Studio (Audio)'. I guess this would go to the left of 'Label'. What do you think? --Kleinzach 01:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Since we would adding to this, per recommendations, and the number would grow to more than five or six, why not use the frame, per your recommendation? And thanks for the suggestion about the live/studio. Many collectors are often interested in whether performance was live. Sounds good, IMHO. Hrannar (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar.

Could we add what role she portrayed on the opera CDs please.Nrswanson (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have the sources, why not. BTW, I am fixing the frame formats but have to stop for a while because you are still adding the list in Recitals, Concerts, aria and song collection. I will do it after you're done. I have fixed the format in Choral and symphonic and [[[Kathleen_Battle#Complete_operas|Complete operas]]. I also added the conductor full name, etc in both two sections. Try to avoid writing too long because it doesnt look nice for non-wide screen PCs or laptops. - Jay (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I have many of the CDs (I own almost every recording made by Battle). Would I need a source beyond the flip jacket of the CD?Nrswanson (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, for CDs that you dont have, you can browse the detail at cduniverse.com - Kathleen Battle Discography from CD Universe - Jay (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A few questions/suggestions

Recitals, concerts, aria and song collection section:

• The entries: 1989 Live In Tokyo 1988 (with Plácido Domingo, James Levine) and 1995 Battle & Domingo Live refer to the same recording (just different release/re-release dates).

Choral and symphonic section:

• The entry: André Previn: Honey and Rue; Samuel Barber: Knoxville: Summer of 1915; George Gershwin: selections from Porgy And Bess would be more aptly placed in Recitals, concerts, aria and song collection section. Both Honey and Rue and Knoxville: Summer of 1915 are song cycles (albeit orchestral ones), as opposed to the more large scale choral and symphonic works listed in this section, and the Gershwin part of the recording consists of two songs from Porgy and Bess.

General:

• I'm not sure about the center alignment of the tables. I personally find left alignment less confusing to the eye.
• With the addition of more and more recordings, this is turning into a complete discography, and makes the page quite long (currently 39 44 kilobytes). The Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends a maximum of 30 to 50 kilobytes for readability. Once this section is finished, it might be a good idea to make this a separate page, and write a summary paragraph about her recording career in this article with a link to the discography page as Jay has done for the Domingo article here

Best,Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think it is best to move the recording list into a new article. About centre or left alignment, it is up to you guys. If majority thinks left alignment is better, I will revert all including in Domingo's main page and his discography. It is best to make things standard. - Jay (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done the format adjustment and also changed the alignment to the left and will revert it at Domingo's discography too - Jay (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing Tag

Thanks nrswanson for adding the grammar editing tag! Great eye! No one is perfect. My errors, and those of other editors, no doubt are done in haste and unintentionally. It's wonderful that Wikipedia has these tools to help with these matters. Hrannar (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

The Purpose of References

Dear fellow editors, Voceditenore:

Please look at these two versions describing the same event.

• Battle's Carnegie Hall solo recital debut came on April 27, 1991; the recital was part of the Centennial Festival celebrating the 100th anniversary of Carnegie Hall. Accompanied by pianist Margo Garrett she sang arias and songs by Handel, Mozart, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Gershwin and Richard Strauss as well as several traditional spirtuals. The great contralto, Marian Anderson, who had ended her farewell tour with a recital at Carnegie Hall in April 1965, was in the audience that night as Battle dedicated Rachmaninoff's "In the Silence of the Secret Night" to her.[18] The recording of the recital earned Battle her fourth Grammy award.

• Battle's Carnegie Hall solo recital debut came on April 27, 1991; the recital was part of the Centennial Festival celebrating the 100th anniversary of Carnegie Hall. The recording of the recital earned Battle her fourth Grammy award.

Of the two version, one clearly provides much more detail. It is my understanding that the shorter version provides the pertinent details to Kathleen Battle's career. At the same time, that fascinating detail such as "The great contralto, Marian Anderson, who ended her...." can be found in the reference. Or even, perhaps, by going to the wikipedia page for this artist. (And if it isn't there, it should be added.) Aren't references included for those who want to read the details of the event? Am I misunderstanding something? I believe if this were an print biography of Kathleen Battle's life, I would suspect this sort of detail would be more than welcome. Also, I have looked at other recitalists sites, and do not see nearly the specifity provided in the more detailed version. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.Hrannar (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• The primary use of references on Wikipedia is to verify assertions and facts, not to provide extra information (although they often do that as well). I re-added the details that you removed as "extraneous verbiage" because I feel they are pertinent and provide the reader with an interesting insight into the occasion. Voceditenore (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I believe it could be written more clearly and shortened. If you want to add, in the audience was her special guest was Marian Anderson, whom Battle pointed to as an important influence, than that would perhaps offer the interesting insight you mention. Again, a sentence like ""who had ended her farewell tour with a recital at Carnegie Hall in April 1965" seems far more appropriate to Marian Anderson's own page. And since we can link there, that seems fairly common in wikipedia. If there is insight that such a sentence brings, however, maybe we can state that insight? Hrannar (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• I think the sentence is quite clearly written, and I don't think it needs shortening at all. The reason you don't see as much detail in some other singers' articles is, as I have stated before, most Wikipedia articles are works in progress. But I'm not going to get into (yet another) endless talk-page debate. If you think that removing the phrase "who had ended her farewell tour with a recital at Carnegie Hall in April 1965" is a crucial improvement to the article, please remove it.Voceditenore (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Voice Type - Operatic Soprano vs. Lyric Soprano?

There has been discussion of Kathleen Battle's voice type already. Soprano? Lyric Soprano? Soubrette? Etc. Editor nrswanson recently changed the voice from Lyric Soprano to Operatic soprano. Why this was done given the talk page discussions to which nrswanson contributed [talk page discussion on voice type] where nrswanson argued for lyric soprano is unclear. If that is in fact a more appropriate designation for her voice type, let's change it. But from what I can tell, based on discussions and documentation (from her managaement, CD data and reviews discussing her) which describe her as Lyric Soprano, that is the most widely agreed upon voice type. Than again, if there is compelling documentation to show otherwise, that's fine. But just please share, so that future editors will understand as well. Thanks. Hrannar (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• Well her onstage roles have mostly been in the soubrette repetoire (normal for a young singer but they usually branch out into more mature roles later), with an equal amount in the light lyric and lyric coloratura repetoire in her later career. However, her recordings and concert work have expanded significantly into the coloratura repetoire and in all liklihood she would have done coloratura roles if she had continued with her opera career. Ultimately it might be good to track her voice type throughout her career similar to how the Harolyn Blackwell article handels it. The important thing is that we shouldn't give multiple voice types without explaining it clearly within the context of her career. (that will take some time and research though) Operatic soprano covers all the different voice types so it makes a good general overall distinction. I personally think it is more confusing to call her a lyric soprano and lyric coloratura soprano because if a lyric is capable of coloratura roles they are just refered to as a lyric coloratura. Her recordings have been more in the coloratura repetoire (examples her baroque CD with Marsalis, her Bel Canto CD, her live from Tokyo CD with Placido Domingo, her French Arias CD, Rosina in The Barber of Seville, Zerbinetta in Ariadne auf Naxos, Cleopatra in Giulio Cesare, Oscar in Un ballo in maschera etc.) and she really hasn't recorded much of the lyric literature. Nrswanson (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is there compeling documentation to show otherwise that she is not a lyric soprano. And as you said in the earlier talk discussion, Her publicist at sony classic that produces and markets all her solo recordings describes her as a lyric soprano. For this reason I have changed her description to lyric soprano. I have also found several newspaper articles, including the New York Times, that have refered to her as a lyric soprano. / From the above paragraph, you site examples from her Opera repertoire. Am I to assume that is why you chose Operatic Soprano? As the article and facts indicate, her repertoire has always encompassed far more than Opera. In addition, Renee Fleming, Dawn Upshaw, Sylvia McNair, all are described as Soprano, not Operatic Soprano, to because they also perform a variety of repertoire, not just Opera. / In addition, I can see that you are actually THE major contributor to Harolyn Blackwell article. / In the end I am wondering in terms of her voice type and wikipedia guidelines whether it seems fair to defer to how articles and herself and management (as you suggested [talk page discussion on voice type] versus what we ourselves think. Hrannar (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• Hrannar I am not going to work with you sense you are getting hostile. But just to let you know the flip jackets in her bel canto and french arias CDs call her a lyric coloratura soprano so even sony classic isn't consistant. See Lucia Popp for another example that I didn't contribute to (because obviously anything I do is inherantly evil to Hrannar). Also one could argue that her management is a biased source sense it is not independent of the subject. You are once again quoting things that I don't necesarily believe anymore. Time and experience have made me wiser. Also this isn't what I think as there are numerous newspaper articles out there refering to her as a soubrette, lyric soprano, and lyric coloratura soprano. Nrswanson (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrannar: It's important to understand how the Fach and other voice classification systems work. Some voices may be a perfect fit for a type, but most are not. In any case singers are often tempted to extend their range by lucrative offers (etc. the famous Karajan/Freni story - "You can sing Aida. I'll keep the orchestra down for you . . ."). Anyway that's why we generally use the phrase operatic soprano in the leads - you normally can't go wrong with it! Best. --Kleinzach 00:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach. Yes, the fach system, used mostly to describe opera roles/singers, isn't infallible, since singers can sing different types of roles and differs depending on the country. At the same time, how would you describe the voice she uses when she sings a Faure chanson, Brahms or Schubert Lieder, a Stevie Wonder song, or a spiritual like Fix Me, Jesus? You can be a classicaly trained vocalist and not sing opera, as you know. If one feels that Lyric is not close enough, than Soprano would work. That is what is done for Fleming, Bonney, McNair, and Upshaw. That seems to be the standard. I just haven't seen this Operatic Soprano before on wikipedia. Hrannar (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

The voice she uses for Fauré/Schubert etc. is the same she uses for opera, though the style in spirituals is a little different. How about operatic and concert soprano? I don't think this should be a big deal. --Kleinzach 01:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach. I have not heard the term "Concert soprano" before? Is that a new voice designation? Would Soprano be incorrect, given that is is also used for Fleming, Upshaw, Bonney, and others. Can we agree on this common denominator, since that seems common? Also, I have not seen a wikipedia page, however, called "Operatic Soprano." Is it being created? I actually don't understand why, on Kathleen Battle's page, it seems certain editors wish to focus (see it as her "main" (their word) career) on the Opera-tic portion of her career. (If we are to recognize the recent discussion.) / But if we take this one step at a time, we are talking about the voice type here, if I am not mistaken. There are other singers like Fleming, Upshaw, McNair, and Bonney who perform(ed) Opera and Recital and Crossover, and editors seem to have settled with the Soprano voice type. Hrannar (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I used small 'o' and small 'c' intentionally above. Some other editors may regard me as a capitalization fanatic, but in this case it's significant. Operatic is an adjective! --Kleinzach 02:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, kleinzach. I will pay more attention to the capitalization. Hrannar (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• See *Category:Operatic sopranos.Nrswanson (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A request to all editors - please note changes of content in comment history

For sake of openness, it is my opinion that unless minor edit, editors should be fairly clear as to what they are doing. Otherwise, history log will not provide accurate picture. For example, if you delete or add to content. An example / The repertoire categories were created today; then voceditenore edited what I had done, removing the repetition of "repertoire" because he felt they were redundant. AND, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT, HE STATED SO IN THE HISTORY, with a "removing redundant repetitions of "repertoire", fixing capitalization per MoS"; Voceditenore also, in my humble opinion, improved on the title of one of the repertoire categories, "art song, jazz, and crossover." Then, nrswanson went and edited those areas. However, one would not know this. Since I couldn't note the change, I had to research to identify what was done. The word repertoire that voceditenore removed was reinserted; the title "art song, jazz..." was changed to "concert and recital repertoire." / This was also done with the change of voice type designation lyric soprano to Operatic soprano. / Changes of content should be noted, if I am not mistaken, per wikipedia guidelines. / No harm about what was already done, but just so we can follow what is going on better, especially since we don't always agree on changes we make, noting this in history makes it easier to note what is going on with the article. Thanks so much. I will do my best, also Hrannar (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Time to remove the neutrality tag?

The editing is going ahead very well. The article is already written to a high standard. I wonder if it's time to remove the neutrality tag? Would everyone be willing to agree to this ? Hrannar? Nrswanson? --Kleinzach 10:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with its removal. I see no lack of neutrality in the article's current state, either in the Met "brouhaha" coverage or in the balance of coverage between the concert, recital, and opera aspects of her career. Obviously there are still some writing improvements to be made, especially in the Recital repertoire and Major collaborations sections, as well as some missing refs to be supplied, but the article is at a good standard now. It would be a pity to put readers off (or reduce confidence in what they're reading) with an (undeserved) neutrality tag. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the Met brouhaha paragraph, if necessary, I'd recommend removing this sentence:

At the time of the dismissal, The New York Times reported that a number of people involved with the production said that Battle had been "difficult" and "uncooperative even after rehearsal schedules were changed to accommodate her demands, and that she had upset other members of the cast." [27]

The 'complainants' are not named and it gives a slight advantage in terms of 'air time' for the Met's side of the story. Hopefully Hrannar and Nrswanson would both be able to accept this compromise and move on? Voceditenore (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Voceditenore's suggestion is a very sensible one. . . . --Kleinzach 13:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I see nothing wrong with including that sentence, I will agree to the compromise.Nrswanson (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tags - Jay (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed the NYT sentence above. Hopefully this should be the end of it.Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've uprated it to B-class! --Kleinzach 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me to remove the tag. Not been able to get on here these past few days. Nice job, everyone. 21:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Hrannar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrannar (talk • contribs)

Excellent. I'm now taking this off my watchlist. I once encountered Miss Battle . . . (quick exit left). --Kleinzach 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Salzburg debut

I'm correcting some apparent errors re Battle's Salzburg debut. Her Salzburg debut came on July 28, 1982 as Despina in Cosi Fan Tutte.[3], not in an "All-Mozart Program". She is not listed in the Salzburg Archives as a solo recitalist at all that year. See: [4]. She did appear in one of the 1982 "Mozart Matinee" concerts. See: [5] but they were not solo recitals, and in any case, the first one took place on July 31st.

Her solo recital debut came at Salzburg in August 25, 1984 and was not an all-Mozart programme. See: [6]

I believe the error comes from this source:

• Richard LeSueur, "Kathleen Battle" Classical Artist Biographies, All Media Guide, 2008. (also reprinted on Amazon)

At one stage of the Wikipedia Kathleen Battle article it had been pasted in verbatim. None of the many other sources that I've checked mentions an "All-Mozart Program" [sic] or "All-Mozart Concert" [sic] at Salzburg in 1982. LeSueur's article is not a particularly good source. Note this whopping error in the first paragraph "Schippers who brought her to the Spoleto Festival in South Carolina to sing the Brahms Requiem in 1972", followed later by "She first appeared in Europe in 1978 at the Italian Spoleto Festival"

A general caveat to editors: This is not the first time I have found multiple errors in the All Music Guide articles. They have no bibliographies, and have minimal editorial oversight. I personally always double check information taken from them, and avoid using them if there are alternative, more authoritative sources.

I'm also correcting the current reference for the list of her Salzburg performances [7] (added 9 August) which gives a most unilluminating page saying:

Performances: from 01. January 1940 to 31. December 2007

Artist: kathleen battle

No matches were found. Please try again.

Always check the links in references to make sure they actually support the assertion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bach aria album

can it be that we are talking about different discs? the one to which i refer is titled 'the bach album'. all the performers are as you describe. it begins with 'Vernugen und Lust' (sorry, since they took away the special characters, i don't know how to do an umlaut.) from cantata 197. it concludes with 'auch mit gedampften, schwachen Stimmen'. the cover shows the soloists, with kb in a yellow something, and ip in coat and tie with his fiddle.at the top is the unmistakable yellow dgg banner.it is dgg #429 737 2. it can also be found on amazon.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry when I did a comparison in the edit history it showed a change was made to her Christmas CD and not the Bach CD. Anyway, you are right about the Bach CD.Nrswanson (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag: March 2009

After reading through the biography sections, it appears that Ms. Battle's difficulty and its impact on her career are still glossed over and that this is essentially a fluff piece written by fans. The article appears to suggest that Ms. Battle was blindsided by her firing by the capricious management at the Met. I have no doubt my edit won't survive longer than a day but it is an attempt to add clarity to the premature end of her operatic career sourced by the same Michael Walsh of Time magazine already sited in the article:

At the time of her termination from the Met, Michael Walsh of Time magazine reported that Ms. Battle is "renowned for leaving a trail of ill will in her wake wherever she goes" and that "(T)he cast of The Daughter of the Regiment applauded when it was told during rehearsal that Battle had been fired." -cited 18:19, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eudemis (talk • contribs) 18:19 8 March 2009

• I have moved the above comment for greater visibility. I have also signed it. Eudemis, please sign all talk page comments. The background to the current state of the article can be read in the talk page archives: Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 2. I personally have no objection to the addition of the Time magazine quotation and reference. Given that addition, I don't think the {{POV}} tag is applicable any longer. They aren't meant to be "pre-emptive strikes" in case an edit is deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point but it is not a preemptive strike. The quotations listed were the mildest to be drawn from the Time magazine piece and I thought the least objectionable to her devoted fans who have constructed the article. It describes her firing as the culmination of a career long penchant for surly behavior, not the result of an isolated incident. It mentions the wide spread support of the larger operatic community to her termination citing Ernest Fleischmann (Los Angeles Philharmonic)and Hugues Gall (Paris Opera). Adjectives used to describe her in the article included "crazy" "very, very screwed up" and "sick" and that she endlessly issued demands and ultimatums to management. I think any balanced article about Ms. Battle should minimally make clear that her own actions resulted in her firing, not age, race or creative differences with management. Even as currently edited, this piece doesn't appear balanced to me. The NY Times piece at the time of her firing included a partial list of her demands such as that other singers leave rehearsals while she was singing and giving General Manager Volpe 5 minutes to appear in her dressing room to hear her complaints. I don't think these criticisms should be the centerpiece or sole focus of the article but they are undisputed in spite of the slant the article has and certainly should be mentioned and not just as a blurb. In compromise, I've removed the tag. Eudemis Eudemis (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eudemis (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 March 2009

It is fair to say that there has been considerable discusion on the issue Eudemis is raising again. You can see it in the archives. Eudemis you make points that have been discussed back and forth. and as you suspected, the points you reraise may be viewed as not being appropriate to a wikipedia. Understanding this, why not first propose your changes here, before changing the public version that was created with much discussion, debate, and input from moderators? Can you agree to do that please? Hrannar (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

• Um... nothing was ever settled Hrannar. You are rather mis-characterizing the past discussion which never came to a definite decision. I just simply grew tired of arguing with you and so the discussion ended and you won. Eudemis, I argued a similar case which is in the archives. I agree with your above comments and support your proposed changes entirely. That's all I am going to say here. Ciao.Nrswanson (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just had another look at the article — as a whole — and I think it is excellent. I don't agree that "it is a fluff piece written by fans" (Eudemis). I think it should be nominated for GA. Hrannar's suggestion that any further changes to the Met sacking section should be proposed here first before being added to the article is sensible. As one of the former 'moderators', my understanding is that the former discussions did reach a conclusion — or as much of a conclusion as we could reasonably have hoped for in the circumstances. Battle was not the first or last singer to have a fight with an opera company and I have to wonder why her dismissal should be the focus of such extraordinary attention. The article should be about her whole career. --Kleinzach 01:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've removed the chauffeur anecdote (added by an IP) -uncited tittle-tattle. --Kleinzach 09:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Any referenced deletions that are quotes from Mr. Walsh should stay in at least as long as as his favorable ones are left in as both represent his opinion. The taking ownership of articles, as tends to happen with entries about performers, does not produce a well rounded or accurate piece. Some people will be interested in her firing from the Met and they will learn little enough about it reading the piece as it is currently. Eudemis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

1. It is Mr. Walsh's opinion and perhaps others, whether favorable or negative, regarding the termination, not an observable fact. 2. Just because it is a quote does not mean it adheres to standards of bios of living persons of do no harm. But the leaving ill will in her wake is opinion and gossipy, much like language and phrasing of the vanity fair article that lacked NPOV and journalistic ethical standards. 3. I am seeking compromise by not protesting the inclusion of the applause of the cast upon the termination announcement, since it does not use judgemental, opinionated language. 4. NPOV means showing both sides re: the termination, without favoratism to either. Adding more info to either side (favorable or negative) would end its NPOV. Hrannar (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

It appears you win these arguments by attrition noting Nrswanson's comments above. Mr. Walsh's statements about Ms. Battle's reputation are as relevant as his other comments in praise of Ms. Battle's talent. You also misconstrue my comments when you suggest that I suspected my additions were inconsistent with wikipedia standards. I expressed my concerns that Ms. Battle's ardent fans would not tolerate an accurate accounting of her dismissal. In any event, your changes create a less informative recitation of her firing and are to some extent misleading. I have restored the Walsh quote. Eudemis (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You state, "It appears you win arguments by attrition?" Please. Cut the personal attacks. If you disagree with a statement, disagreement with a specific statement and give your rationale. I will do the same. Personal attacks lead to no where positive. You simply state that Walshe's statement is relevant. Why? Because he said something positive as well? So I can say something positive, then something negative, and that negative thing (or positive thing) is valid? You mention that fans cannot tolerate an accurate accounting of the dismissal. All of us on wikipedia have learned that Truth is CLEARLY subjective. So the next bext thing is to offer a balanced approach. Several moderators stepped in and said, ok, let's compromise. Even though some moderators PERSONALLY may have felt something, they did the admirable job of trying to be objective. And that is key. That is showing both sides. Favoritism to one makes it no longer NPOV. Wikipedia is pretty explicit about the Do No Harm clause. Publishing something publicly that she is "crazy" "very, very screwed up" and "sick" and leaves a trail of ill will does not seem to fall in line with living bio wikipedia guidelines. Hrannar (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

It's not really a personal attack hrannar. It's a statement of fact. And Walsh, a highly respected reporter from a highly respected media publication, is certainly important and credible enough to be quoted. The fact is, Miss. Battle's misbehavior (both at the Met and elsewhere) was widely publicized in multiple media sources and ignoring that equates to censorship and a misrepresentation of her firing. Sugar coating it also makes the Met and Volpe look bad in a highly unfair way. You don't fire someone with Battle's popularity and talent without just cause. I don't want to get sucked into this again so good luck Eudemis. Oh, and to Kleinzach, I would vehmently oppose a GA for this very reason. It wouldn't pass until the firing was more fairly addressed. Nrswanson (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Nrswanson (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Take care, nrswanson. Thank you for sharing. We disagree, but I wish you well. Hrannar (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

OK. Perhaps it make sense to involve an administrator. We contributors are generally asked to discuss possibly disputable content and try to come to some sort of consensus, no matter how strongoly they feel that the content they add is justifiable. If you look at the history, we had several editors and moderators involved in the last iteration of this article. Took some work. But that is the process we followed. Wish it were easier. Because I am not a expert in mechanics, I will have to figure out how to get an administrator involved, unless someone watching can help. I asked Eudemis if could agree to first propose and discuss. He may not be logging on frequently, but I still think this should be done. Thanks Hrannar (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Nothing personal Hranner but you are way too involved in this article and its subject to be objective. Your desperation to eradicate this quote by a respected opera critic for a nationally respected magazine makes no sense apart from wanting to clear the article of any unflattering information concerning Ms. Battle. It appears you have played a hand in purging the article previously of the consensus explanation for her termination. There is a very similar quote from the Boston Globe that Ms. Battle appeared with Boston Symphony Orchestra in 1992 "leaving in her wake a froth of ill will." The Boston Globe is another nationally respected publication. These journalists have no ax to grind. Ms. Battle's career in opera went from late start to meteoric rise to catastrophic end. Naturally people are interested in why it was cut short and the circumstances that brought it about. To the extent the article implies Ms. Battle was the victim of a firing and not the cause of it, the piece is just inaccurate. Eudemis (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree with everything you have said Eudemis. It appears that hrannar has been blocked for edit waring so he probably won't respond for another day or so.Nrswanson (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal taken Eudemis. FWIW, statements like "It appears you win arguments by attrition" is a [[8][personal attack]], rather than a discussion of article content. / The verifiable fact is you added material without discussion, material that I think was, as you imagined, a point of debate, whether or not you feel that point comes from a "fan." The second verifiable fact is that nrswanson "changed my edits back" , though he did not technically revert them, meaning us the "undo" to "change my edits back." 6 of 1. Half a dozen of the other. Third verifible fact is you seemed to have followed Kathleen Battle's career to have formed a fairly strong opinion of her. And yet, I am the "way to involved in this article and its subject to be objective." Very interesting. / My objections to that single sentence is based on this [[9]][Neutral Point of View]] / You state article implies Kathleen Battle was victim of firing.]] and [[10][Bio of Living Persons]]. The statement "Michael Walsh of Time magazine reported that Ms. Battle is "renowned for leaving a trail of ill will in her wake wherever she goes" is not a conservative statement nor does it consider the possibility of harm it can do: namely, people hear the statement and accept it for Truth, when in fact, others have quite a different view of hers. NPOV, on a basic level, would also suggest including the other side, which would be others have found her to be gracious and hard working. Hrannar (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

I have no objection to your adding quotes from similar sources in the following paragraph that Ms. Battle was a delightful and generous member of the Met who never should have been fired. Her reputation for making bizarre demands and giving ultimatums is no secret and well documented. There is little harm in telling the well documented truth. The piece is overly conservative in its treatment of this subject as in its present form it is devoid of any details. The circumstances surrounding her firing are not a mystery. Any journalistic article that reviews her history is going to mention her bad reputation and the adverse impact it has had on her career, principally her firing. Remember a deletion is an edit as well as an addition and you don't appear to require any consensus to edit the piece back to your liking by deleting others' well sourced entries. I find it bizarre that you argue that exact quotes from Time magazine supported by similar quotes from the Boston Globe are off limits. No article should ever be that whitewashed. I, at least, have no objection to your adding well sourced quotes in the response paragraph that her firing was unjustified. Eudemis (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.92.151 (talk)

Proposing a one week moratorium

I propose a one week moratorium. No further editing of the article for one week: can everyone agreed to that? Eudemis? Hrannar? Nrswanson? The article as of today (edit by 98.26.92.151/Eudemis) is now identical to that of Voceditenore on April 1.

I understand that the contentious section is this one:

"At the time of her termination from the Met, Michael Walsh of Time magazine reported that Ms. Battle is "renowned for leaving a trail of ill will in her wake wherever she goes" and that "the cast of The Daughter of the Regiment applauded when it was told during rehearsal that Battle had been fired."

If that is correct, perhaps each of you in turn can explain, as clearly and succinctly as possible, why this should be included/not included? Thank you for your cooperation. --Kleinzach 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• That is absolutely acceptable to me. I think my comments above clearly establish my position. I am not necessarily beholden to the quote itself but a more accurate presentation of the facts which clearly demonstrate that: 1. Battle had a reputation for unprofessional conduct which stretched over several years and was widely publicized. 2. That their had been tensions between herself and the Met for a considerable amount of time before the firing. 3. That the firing was a direct result of such conduct. 4. That the article not imply that the Met and Volpe were somehow rash or unjustified in making the decision that they did. (Unless a source indicated that) Thank you Kleinzach for stepping in. I can see that this might turn into another ordeal, and honestly I don't want to get involved further. I am taking this article off my watchlist. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach. Yes, a one week moratorium is fine. Mostly its the phrase, "renowned for leaving a trail of ill will in her wake wherever she goes." Seems totally against the NPOV and Living Bio guidelines to make a unsubstantiable statement like that, other than with 'respected' critic says. After quite a bit of discussion and several points by various editors being made, Voceditenore created the following version that [[11][attempt at compromise, July 2008]] It seems to be the most "conservative" version as prescribed by living bio guidelines. Hrannar (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Thank you both. Nrswanson can you accept Vociditenore's so-called July 2008 'attempt at compromise' [12]? --Kleinzach 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. I don't feel that 'compromise' adequately addresses even one of the four issues I raised above. In fact, its exactly the kind of treatment that I am opposing. Its a highly censored account of the event in question which purposely depicts the circumstances in a light which is positive for Battle. Nrswanson (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction to reading the article was how unbalanced it was. Ms. Battle's long standing reputation as demanding and difficult received no mention at all. No fair recounting of her career could fail to mention that her behavior led to her being fired from the Met. Her termination was well publicized including articles that could be easily referenced online. They also include concrete examples of her objectionable behavior. My conclusion was that Ms. Battle's fans had taken over editing the bio and had not permitted any entries surrounding the cause of her firing to survive. My experiences thus far have done nothing to alter that opinion.

My entry was some attempt to add clarity to what appeared to me to be a glaring omission. I also wanted to provide an explanation for average readers of the piece who would be baffled by the sudden, inexplicable termination of this star soprano. I chose quotes from Time Magazine's Michael Walsh because he was already quoted in the article and felt that no one could effectively argue that his quotes praising Ms. Battle were fine but his quotes critical of her behavior required deletion. If you read the source materials, these were among the mildest quotes dealing with her behavior. I believe my entry is essential to add some small modicum of balance to what has turned into a tribute page for Ms. Battle. As I look through Nrswanson's entry, number 3, without question, has to be addressed. It is this information even when well sourced that has been repeatedly purged: her own behavior led to her firing. Eudemis (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To adhere to the much quoted Wikipedia policy NPOV, the Walsh quote as proposed by Eudemis needs to be included in the article; omitting that quote would leave the article biased. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Omitting material facts might leave an article biased. I don't see the same risk from omitting a single individual's disputed opinion about a person's career or character. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to create different classes of facts seems like wiki-lawyering to me; the description of public perception by critics is also a fact. As has been shown above, it's not a single person's opinion — several people have commented that way. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires a neutral point of view and WP:BLP says that we dont go out of our way to include hatchet jobs. This source [13] would appear to be a way to meet the NPOV issues. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Neutral" doesn't mean glossing-over; as others here and in other singers' articles have observered many times, many opera singers had disputes; they become part of their biography. As to source offered by TheRedPenOfDoom, what does it say? Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad, the Walsh opinion is not "disputed". In no place has any media defended Battle and her behavior. On the contrary, the media at large has commented on her bad behavior. Walsh's recounting is actually mild in comparison to certain other media reports. There aren't any published sources depicting an opposing account. So in this case a neutral view is going to be a negative picture of Battle. There is no way around that. As for the way All Music handles it, I think it doesn't do the topic justice. All Music's purpose is to display a brief biography of the subject, like a start class article on wikipedia. A B-class or better article on Battle is going to give a much more detailed account. If this were a FA article, I would expect an entire subsection on the Met firing/Battle's erratic behavior. (Just like an article on Bill Clinton would have a section on sexual misconduct) Its that important of an event in her life and career. Lets be real here. This is an ugly chapter in Battle's life and depicting it as anything but ugly is just wrong. Nrswanson (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The DOOM quote: "A perfectionist in her own work, Battle became more and more difficult to deal with as her career moved forward. Some felt her demands were becoming unreasonable, and her behavior became erratic. These difficulties came to public attention when she was dismissed from the Metropolitan Opera in 1994 for 'unprofessional conduct.'” Richard LeSueur

I think there is some failure to acknowledge that the bio has been hijacked by fans. This short entry standing alone is very neutral and I think for a synopsis, which is all it is intended to be, fairly complete, but it will not stand alone. The press releases already in the piece from Camp Battle regarding the firing are going nowhere I can assure you. So in fairness something should explain in some detail what her behavior was like to warrant the firing. Balance in this instance is not difficult to achieve as all the press accounts are very consistent. The difficulty is in the Battle fans’ refusal to allow their inclusion.

If we could agree that this brief unbiased entry alone is all that is to be said about the firing in toto, nothing else, I think that would work. The super abbreviated treatment of the firing would definitely appeal to them by minimizing its importance. Inadequate treatment? Yes but this gets around the current “good: it stays; bad: it’s out” mentality that controls every entry, even quotes from previously referenced sources like Walsh. The quote is better than omitting her difficult behavior entirely, the end result of these repeated purges. Eudemis (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis. Please explain how a phrase like "more and more difficult to deal with as her career moved forward. Some felt her demands were becoming unreasonable, and her behavior became erratic" is unbiased. It seems biased to a view that sees Kathleen Battle as "difficult." Hrannar (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Hrannar, the fact that she was difficult is a fact, not an opinion. That's the point here. You're trying to re-write history. There are dozens of sources backing up this view. There are zero sources contradicting this view. If you find a legit source defending Battle, produce it. As per usual, you have no evidence for your position and spend your entire time arguing about NPOV violations.Nrswanson (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis, should I assume that Nrswanson speaks for you? I think it is fair to say that you both share similar views on this matter. Hrannar (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Pen of Doom had suggested the quote. It is a terse statement very consistent with other longer descriptions of her behavior found in other print sources. New York Times used "difficult and uncooperative." Time Magazine used "impossible fussy, erratic and arbitrary." If The New York Times and Time Magazine are biased, unfair and harmful, Mr. LeSueur finds himself in excellent company. I have yet to find any journal anywhere that chides the Met or questions the need to terminate Ms. Battle. I don't believe there is any genuine debate as to whether she's difficult. The issue is whether this fact will be expunged from the article because it is unflattering. Eudemis (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis. I'd be happy to respond to what you just said. But just for sake of ease of discussion, dealing with one point at a time, can you please explain how the phrase "more and more difficult to deal with..." is unbiased? Hrannar (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Please read WP:NPOV again. You do not seem to have a grasp of what the policy says and means. "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I felt I'd answered your question. The statement is very consistent with other longer descriptions of her behavior found in other print sources. Therefore there is little reason to suspect this source is biased. Eudemis (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nrswanson states above "So in this case a neutral view is going to be a negative picture of Battle." This "neutral view is...negative" seems lacking in the spirit of wikipedia's NPOV stance. His statement, "This is an ugly chapter in Battle's life and depicting it as anything but ugly is just wrong" seems moralizing, but more importantly, makes his desire to include an statement like, "renowned for leaving a trail of ill will..." understandable, even if the statement is not conservative or does not adhere to "do no harm." / Unfortunately we disagree, because I support the notion that wikipedia articles can present NPOV, which by definition is a balanced view, not just a negative view. Hrannar (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar.

Hrannar, NPOV doesn't mean something is not negative, it means it refrains from editorial bias. In this case we have a negative situation. The facts are negative. They are going to appear negative when presented without bias. That's my point. Please continue in your per usual habit of quoting others and taking their words entirely out of context.Nrswanson (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nrswanson has the much better explication of NPOV. If all of the third party reported facts are bad, that is what we report. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fellow contributors - Just a heads up that its a few days off for me and I won't have access to a computer until Wednesday and unable to participate in this discussion until then. Thank you. And thanks to Kleinzach (for moderating) and other editors the discussion. Hrannar (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

User:KP Botany apparently read this discussion and removed the quote in question with a "someone needs to check this" description. Anyone can verify the quote simply by clicking the online reference. The quote is verified. I believe Pen of Doom removed her other edits. Pending some resolution of this, I removed the Walsh quote from the intro. Eudemis (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.92.151 (talk)

(Please leave the IP signature until you properly log in and acknowledge that this is indeed you and not an attempt at impersonation. - With all the allegations of sockpuppetry, we need to be able to verify who is who. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Personal attack?

Nrswanson the quote I use is from your statement directly above my response. I will let others judge, then, if I have taken it, as you state 'out of context' or 'entirely out of context.' / You also state, 'Please continue in your per usual habit of quoting others and taking their words entirely out of context.' This is a [[14][personal attack]]. Can we all do our best to stick to content?

Its not a personal attack, Hrannar. I'm calling you on the carpet for your behavior. There's a difference. If you continue to misconstrue others words on purpose then you should expect others to react negatively to you. This is not something new. I've talked to you about this before. Kindness doesn't seem to get anywhere, so now I'm trying sarcasm. Nrswanson (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nrswanson, I have included the wikipedia definition of a [[15][personal attack]]. Then I quote the statement you make that leads me to state that. If Administrators are looking on, they can correct me if I misunderstand, but people can see why I make the assertion. Hrannar (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Just take a look in the archives everyone. You'll see exactly what I mean.Nrswanson (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I echo Nrswanson's request to look at the archives. You can also look at the exchange above to see if I truly took quotes out of context or possibility, that is an opinion of nrswanson that perhaps is fueled by his disagreement with my assertions. Hrannar (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

As a non-participant in this conversation I think you both need to calm down and cool off. This sort of dialogue is not helpful. At this point I see two editors who appear to have a shared history of hostility towards one another. I don't think in this conversation that either of you has stepped across the line... yet. But if things continue this way I'm sure it will lead to that. Nrswanson can you please try and not be sarcastic in your comments to Hrannar. Sarcasm is never likely to cause a positive response and will only escalate conflict. Likewise, Hrannar you may want to consider more carefully how you phrase your comments. While you aren't doing anything that is overtly wrong, some of your comments seem to be designed to needle nrswanson. Snipping at one another is not going to bolster support for either of your positions. I think you are both capable of being more careful in future. Can you both agree to calm down and pursue a more civil dialogue?Inmysolitude (talk) 19:56, 3 April

In my solitude. Since you stated that there appears a shared history of hostility, please give an example using specific sentence I wrote that show hostility, so I'll understand. / I am trying to keep focused on content, but am occassionally side tracked by personal attacks such nrswansons response (to my discussion with Eudemis) that it is a "fact" that I win by attrition. / Also what comment(s) did I make that you state seems designed to needle Nrswanson? If you give an example or two, than I'll understand. Thank you. Hrannar (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

I'd be happy to explain further Hrannar. In looking at Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 2 it appears that the two of you have not gotten along well. There have been a number of occassions where the two of you have made accusations against one another. (I shouldn't have to point these out; they are very clear) The problem escalated to the point where one moderator appears to have quit and a number of editors felt the need to say something. That to me indicates a hostile history between the two of you. Sometimes I think both of you have been premature in your accusations because you haven't understood well the thought process or the motive of the other editor. However, I'm not going to rehash old history and choose sides in an old discussion. That is only likely to cause further arguements and further attempts at self justification by either party. My main advice is to remain calm, think about how your words will be received, and try not to be so quick to accuse each other. The two of you might also want to consider the complaints of the other editor seriously. Even complaints made in anger sometimes have some truth in them.Inmysolitude (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Inmysolitude - You are correct that there have been discussions back and forth. Yes we can see that. However is useful to see examples of sentences (and the context they were in) that indicate in your mind that I am needling. One other thing that leads me to believe that you may be Nrswanson is that, in fact, Kleinzach, a moderator, indicated in fact that it was Nrswanson who was doing the needling. Then, interesting enough, state that I was doing the needling. I may have been needling, but you just don't suggest what I did to needle. It is difficult for a person to access whether a claim is valid or not, without evidence to support the claim. / Though admission "I readily admit to having a dislike for hrannar" nrswansons behavior seems truly fueled by that emotion. / I really think he knows quite a bit and can be quite a capable editor, he just doesn't seem to take to positively to a different perspective, that is really my issue with Nrswanson. / If you are a different person, please forgive me. Hrannar (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Honestly Inmysolitude, I feel at my wits end with Hrannar. I have never encountered another person that has so thoroughly gotten under my skin. This is why I did not want to participate in this conversation. The arguements keep on going in circles and I always have to keep on making the same points over and over; points which Hrannar always manages to misconstrue or avoid responding to. I feel entirely justified in the comments I've made. I'm not saying this to demean hrannar but to point out the utter frustration that I feel. I don't think any amount of moderation between the two of us is going to get anywhere. He has a set understanding of the issue which he will not back down from. Likewise so do I. I'm willing to try and keep my comments as civil as possible in future. Fortunately, more people are involved in the conversation this time so its not just a back and forth between hrannar and I. I guess a good rule of thumb is to not respond when I am frustrated.Nrswanson (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that conflict can be frustrating. It sounds like you haven't calmed down enough yet to move forward. You may want to consider taking a break from this discussion to give yourself some time to cool down.Inmysolitude (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson. I asked for checkuser because of the edit warring [16] on 3 April and my suspicions that Hrannar (subsequently blocked) had been 'set up'. --Kleinzach 23:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach, Actually I am wondering if Nrswanson and Inmysolitude are the same person. Also, when I presented reasons for not being blocked, Inmysolitude stated, "I would appriciate it if you would look at this. Hrannar is challenging his block and making some angry accusations." / It is a (a) contributors right to challenge their block and (b) He judged my challenge as "angry," so it came across to me as if he took the challenge personally -- something I believe Nrswanson would do. That, and the fact that he seems to be a skilled editor for what I can tell to be a short time as an editor and was created very near the time the Kathleen Battle article was being re-editing this year, uses a similar "voice" and writing style" / I may be wrong about my suspicion; I just want to know if that might be something that can be checked. If he isn't, my deepest apologies to Inmysolitude. Hrannar (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

2nd Sockpuppet Investigation

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrswansson. My suspicion is that Nrswansson, as a sockpuppet (Inmysolitude), reported me for edit warring which Nrswansson himself was involved in. Was the sockpuppet report done correctly? Hrannar (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Generally, if there is a current investigation going, you would simply add the additional suspected sock to the current case with an outline of why you believe the two accounts are actually one person rather than starting an entirely new case. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

:: Thanks for responding, Red Pen. So even if it is a separate sockpuppet, I can just put it under the same heading. Good to know! Hrannar (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Yes, you should add your text to the original investigation. Also note that Nrswansson should be spelt Nrswanson. --Kleinzach 23:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added Inmysolitude to the first case. I was unclear as to where to add the details. Am I a "comment from other users" or am I also considered a reporter. Also, should I request an administrator delete the second case, or should I? I may not be able to get doing anything until Monday or Tuesday though, if anything requires my action, since I may not have access to a computer until then. Thanks. Hrannar (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Michael Walsh of Time magazine quotes

I note this reversion[17] with the edit summary "Walsh quotes not considered reliable by other editors". (I see another Walsh quote remains in the article.) Can we discuss this here? It seems Michael Walsh quotations are contentious both pro- and anti- Battle. Can we agree that he sometimes makes exaggerated claims about things of which he clearly has no direct knowledge? Time Magazine may well have encouraged him to write in this way, but is it appropriate for WP? IMO we need to use this kind of material carefully — either not using them or using them in a way that indicates that they may not be reliable. Is that reasonable? --Kleinzach 23:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of falling into the very trap I describe below, the approach that makes sense is to use accurate quotes from excellent sources like Time Magazine and The New York Times that regularly cover the New York cultural scene. You will not find better sources than these. Instead, you are speculating without a scintilla of evidence that Mr. Walsh exaggerates his columns due to pressure from Time's editors. Where is the evidence for this? Mr. Walsh is not a gossip columnist. Time and The New York Times are not tabloid publications. You may dislike what facts they uncover about Ms. Battle but you will need respected sources of your own to refute them. Mr. Walsh clearly admires Ms. Battle's talent. That fact alone should give you more reason, not less, to believe his investigation of her firing was fair and accurate. --Eudemis (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletions on 9 April

On 9 April, TheRedPenOfDoom made a series of deletions from the article, see [18]. These included the following sentences:

1. "One of the most prominent recitalists and opera singers of her generation, she is admired for her wide ranging recital repertoire and performances of the operas of Handel and Mozart."

2. " . . .and by the early 1980s had become a favorite at many of the world's best opera houses within the soubrette repertoire."

3. "It became increasingly more common to hear an unaccompanied spiritual at the end of her recital or concert program."

4."On November 23, 2008 she performed "Superwoman" with Alicia Keyes and Queen Latifah at the 2008 American Music Awards."

Can TheRedPenOfDoom explain? These don't seem to be particularly controversial passages. If the intention is to make the article more 'encyclopedia' the usual way to o this is to remove adjectives, superlatives etc. while retaining the facts (e.g. in items 1 and 2). If the facts are disputed (items 3 and 4?), then the usual thing to do is put a {{Fact}} tag in the article.

P.S. I wrote to TheRedPenOfDoom about his edits yesterday and his initial reply is here. --Kleinzach 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As per the edit summaries

1. "One of the most prominent recitalists and opera singers of her generation, she is admired for her wide ranging recital repertoire and performances of the operas of Handel and Mozart." - Says who? WP:V

You can keep the information about Handel and Mozart by saying something like: "As a recitalist and opera singer, she has[had] a wide ranging repertoire and specializes in the operas of Handel and Mozart." ? --Kleinzach 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So if you want to include it and it is so important, it will be in a source - find one and add it.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2. " . . .and by the early 1980s had become a favorite at many of the world's best opera houses within the soubrette repertoire." Again, says who? WP:V

But why not retain the information about her international career as a soubrette by saying something like: ". . .and by the early 1980s she was appearing at many of the world's opera houses in the soubrette repertoire." --Kleinzach 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Find a source that says the dates. Find a source that says she was at "many" of the "best". -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

3. "It became increasingly more common to hear an unaccompanied spiritual at the end of her recital or concert program." Really? WP:PROVEIT

Material can be challenged but should not be removed until the editor(s) involved have had a chance to respond. If everybody rampaged through WP at will, deleting passages that didn't have inline citations, we wouldn't have an encyclopedia at all! --Kleinzach 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Material can be challenged but should not be removed Incorrect. "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." --Kleinzach 06:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are objecting to having material removed without "sufficient time", your objection is noted. However, it does not appear that the content is in any way essential to a reader to gain understanding of the topic, and so it can remain out of the article until a source is provided. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

4."On November 23, 2008 she performed "Superwoman" with Alicia Keyes and Queen Latifah at the 2008 American Music Awards." - Duplicative - the exact same content already exists in the article.

"-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above, I'd appreciate it if you could give answers in ordinary, straightforward, polite English rather than cryptic links to WP policy pages. See Avoid projecting elitism. --Kleinzach 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:V (and its subsection WP:BURDEN) is a BASIC wikipedia content policy. If you areAny editor unwilling to click and read links to the guidelines that should be shaping the content, then maybe you should reconsider being the gatekeeper of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN:"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations . ." --Kleinzach 06:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Material sourced to Time and The New York Times is not "unsourced" and you have not provided any evidence to consider those articles "poorly sourced." Just because something reflects negatively on someone does not inherrently mean that the content or the author of the content is biased which appears to me to be the basis of your objections. If I am wrong, please explain your objections further.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See 'Michael Walsh of Time magazine quotes' section above. Walsh includes hearsay and anecdotal material that may be appropriate for popular journalism but not for an encyclopedia. The Hearsay article on Wikipedia explains 'hearsay' is "information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience." --Kleinzach 01:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not the gatekeeper to this article, nor (for the record) am I a contributor to this content of this article, 'core', marginal, occasional or whatever, see [19]. --Kleinzach 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

objection noted. comment edited.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am so glad to hear you say that. Shall I add back the anecdote about the chauffeur you deleted just last week with a corrected reference? Since it was unflattering it might give the false impression you were purging the article of all such embarrassing entries. --Eudemis (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

These Doom edits certainly add to the credibility of the article. In my estimation, the piece still has far to go to be "encyclopedic" in its approach. Sadly, the bio makes no mention of Ms. Battle being difficult, something even her staunchest defenders admit as quoted in the Time Magazine article. Every journalistic piece concerning Ms. Battle makes mention of it, save one <click "article" tab above>.

With regard to passages not being "particularly controversial", one editor whose identity is in question recently described the article as a "fluff piece written by fans." I should have been more specific, but I knew sounding any sour note in this chorus of praise would meet with fierce opposition. The piece is selectively detailed in noting her prominence and accomplishments while ignoring completely her well documented reputation for being demanding and disliked by colleagues. All such references are routinely purged. Will average readers really be looking for her contributions to Chinese action cinema? I can't believe that her performance in "House of Flying Daggers" is more significant than the reasons her operatic career ended.

My singular addition of one sentence properly referenced to Mr. Walsh of Time so disturbed the core editors, it resulted in 9 pages (4,587 words) of debate, is now partially deleted with a complete purge expected. This outcome is a salutary warning for Pen of Doom. I don't believe trying to respond to the core editors' demands for endless discussion, more debate and more justification is fruitful. We do, however, need to address the obvious ownership issues at work here. --Eudemis (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As we know, we can go round and round about the validity of the assessments of Kathleen Battle's personality. I've tried to address them many times in the archive. It is always important to consider the source. Peter Gelb, fairly successful and respectful in his field, said he would not fire her. Levine tried to prevent Volpe from the termination. Levine, Von Karajan, Muti, Solti, which of these great conductors had anything negative to say about her? NAACP gave her an image award. Clearly there are those that respect her as a person and artist. / As for claims that the termination ended her career catastrophically (someone elses term in these latest discussions), the only thing a person can factually say is she hasn't performed Opera since. She continued/continues to record and perform recitals. Checking dates of albums or performances schedules post the Met incident will verify that. In fact she is quoted as saying she devoted 2/3rds of her time to recitals. And based on recordings and performances, that seemed fairly factual. Also, Wynton Marsalis, younger than Battle, had put down his classical trumpet and had moved away from classical repertoire before Battle did. Battle, with her voice type had been moving away from full blown productions of Opera and doing it less and less, because performing a full opera is hard on the voice, especially a light one. / How many light sopranos, like McNair, Bonney, Upshaw do you see performing FULL operas (I don't really count Ainadamar as a full opera). Before McNair's health, with much respect to her, she was moving away from classical repertoire also. And since the termination, I had not seen Jessye Norman perform a full opera at the Met either. So a person suggesting it ended her career or she doesn't perform opera, because no one will invite her is false. Evidence that it has been helpful preserving her voice can be seen by fact she is still performing at 62. / Finally what do you mean exactly by ownership issues at work? All contributors apply their understanding of the guidelines that wikipedia has brought forth. If we articulate our understandings and stick to content, I believe we can come to a fruitful discussion and article. If we let our emotions influence our views, then the discussions and article will not be as fruitful and, I suspect, less likely to fall within wikipedia guidelines. Hrannar (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Cherrypicking the people who have positive (or for reasons refuse to say negative things on record) about the subject of the article and then labeling everyone else who says less rosey things as "biased" is completely inappropriate and a violation of our policies. see: WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to indent. Yet more WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!? As noted above there are two types of information: that which is factual, and that which is hearsay. This is an encyclopedia and it is essential that we get the facts correct, especially in the case of a biography of a living person, in which (according to WP policy) negative information has to meet a higher standard than positive information (see WP:BURDEN). --Kleinzach 02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Micheal Walsh's statements as the reporter in a reliable source is not "hearsay". -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

When you take part in these discussions it's important to present reasoned arguments not bald statements. You more you resort to the latter, the less value they have for other participants and the less notice anybody pays to them. --Kleinzach 05:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Occationally "bald statements" are needed to be made to ensure that the conversation is taking place in reality. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In ranking the quality of sources, citing a journalist in a major national magazine has to be near the top. All journalists necessarily report on events that they themselves did not witness and they always, to some extent, rely on interviews and others' accounts. To suggest that this somehow disqualifies them as reliable sources is really stretching. Their outsider status and detachment from the people and events involved helps to insure the reporting is objective. --Eudemis (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: The cherry picking comment, it was in response to suggesting everything about Kathleen Battle is negataive. There are other perspectives. So when people say there aren't any other views or they do not exist, that is not quite accurate. Hrannar (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Could you please present sources stating other views Hrannar. I have yet to find an independent source presenting another account of the firing. If there is one then by all means share it with us. Its all well and good to claim other views exist but until reliable evidence establishes it we can't assume it. Also, I think its unfair to say that any editor is looking to cast an entirely negative account of Battle. Most of the article is dedicated to chronicling her amazing talent and successful career. Including a more accurate presentation of the firing won't change that. Nrswanson (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My comment above was based on nrswansons comment "In no place has any media defended Battle and her behavior. On the contrary, the media at large has commented on her bad behavior. Walsh's recounting is actually mild in comparison to certain other media reports. There aren't any published sources depicting an opposing account. So in this case a neutral view is going to be a negative picture of Battle." That is what was stated by you in a section above. So when I shared that there were OTHER views, this caused Eudemis to suggest that I am cherry picking. When in reality, my point is just that, there are in fact other views. For example, http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608000859/Kathleen-Battle.html and http://marketing.cami.com/worddocs/worddocs27/The%20Royal%20Gazette%20Bermuda%20-%2010-4-06.pdf and http://www.cim.edu/download/dl/dlMusGeoOhBackground.pdf / If people feel the need to discuss the pesonality of a singer, writer, dancer, whatever, so be it. However assessements of a person's personality are challenging at best. Here are some published sources that in fact depict, discribe her are "gracious" and "liberated," which offer opposing perspectives, which you suggest do not exist. Hrannar (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Hrannar all of these sources have issues. http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608000859/Kathleen-Battle.html only covers her career up through 1990 and http://www.cim.edu/download/dl/dlMusGeoOhBackground.pdf / only covers her career up through 1991. They are therefore likely old publications made before the events of the 1994 Metropolitan Opera firing. Its lack of inclusion in her bio is therefore not surprising. http://marketing.cami.com/worddocs/worddocs27/The%20Royal%20Gazette%20Bermuda%20-%2010-4-06.pdf is not a source directly related to the firing but to a 2006 concert. The firing is an important event in her life and career but it isn't likely to be mentioned in every modern media publication about Battle. The evidence I am asking you to provide is a neutral source which actually discusses the 1994 firing in the way that you think it should be presented. The source should preferably be primarily about the firing, although a neutral biography of Battle that discusses the firing is ok too. Nrswanson (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Those "published sources" were provided in response to your statement, "In no place has any media defended Battle and her behavior. On the contrary, the media at large has commented on her bad behavior. Walsh's recounting is actually mild in comparison to certain other media reports. There aren't any published sources depicting an opposing account. So in this case a neutral view is going to be a negative picture of Battle." If you'd like to specifically discuss the termination, we can spill considerable ink here or simply go back to the archives, non? Hrannar (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Hrannar, the sources you provided don't defend Battle. A defense would require actually discussing the 1994 Met firing and defending Battle in relation to that. None of these sources even mention it. No sources presented by yourself in the archives have dealt with it either. Based on these sources, it appears that you are advocating a biography that doesn't even discuss the incident at all. This conversation is going in circles again. My comments from above still stand. "Could you please present sources stating other views Hrannar. I have yet to find an independent source presenting another account of the firing. If there is one then by all means share it with us. Its all well and good to claim other views exist but until reliable evidence establishes it we can't assume it."Nrswanson (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think these add anything to the article, speaking only for myself, I have no issues with you citing them. As has been mentioned, the musician guide's biography covers only to 1990 and CIU's to 1991. These would not be relevant to the firing. I also think you should make clear that the favorable "gracious" quote in the latter source is from the mayor of Ms. Battle's Portsmouth, Ohio hometown and not a journalist, opera critic or Met insider. The Royal Gazette post from 2006 is from an island newspaper in Bermuda that publishes "every day except Sunday." I strongly suspect it does not have an opera critic on staff and the marketing.cami.com web page on which it is posted belongs to Columbia Artists Management, Inc.(CAMI). They collect these favorable reviews for marketing and promotional purposes. It lists Ms. Battle as being a client managed by the firm's Ronald A. Wilford and Tim Fox. http://www.cami.com/?cat=Vocal&webid=27d It is hardly surprising the Met firing was overlooked in their "research." I'm not suggesting that CAMI supplied the Gazette with the article for publication but the piece lists no writer. I doubt any genuine music critic would misspell "Gershwin" as this author does.--Eudemis (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nrswanson. You state, "Based on these sources, it appears that you are advocating a biography that doesn't even discuss the incident at all." Believe what you will, then. My only concern recently started with the recent addition of the phrase that suggested Kathleen Battle was reknown for leaving a wake of ill will. As mentioned, if you'd like to specifically discuss the termination, we can spill considerable ink here or simply go back to the archives. If we go back to the archives, you will see that I did not argue for, as you state, biography that doesn't discuss the incident at all. You will see that I argue for using the language of those known involved individuals, such as Volpe and Battle, not the faceless individuals who report to critics and can say anything they feel like. / Eudemis and Nrswanson- There are several who do defend the reports about Kathleen Battle's behavior. Interesting that now that I can produce them, Holland (critic), Epstein (Producer) and Teachout (critic), all involved in the music industry in some way, you suggest that it is not relevant regarding the suggestion of some that she is "difficult" since they do not deal specifically with the termination. I can sort of see that, so let's stick to the termination, then. / So sticking with the termination and verified involved parties at the Met, we have what Volpe stated and what Battle stated. Why should we try to drum up evidence for either side? We shouldn't. We should let the language of the involved partis, not what was reported to a reporter, in vague, colorful language. This would give a balanced version that favors no one side. / That is what at least two official wikipedia moderators offered last year. (Yes I understand that Nrswanson didn't agree with them, and that is his right.) Little has changed, no new arguments have been added, on either side. / Check out the archives and I think this will be apparent. Hrannar (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

"African-American soprano"?

I changed this in the title to just "American soprano." The other just sounded wrong somehow, as if African-American sopranoes were different from other kinds. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Jessye Norman, Leontyne Price, Shirley Verrett, Reri Grist, and Marian Anderson are all described as 'African American' in their articles — also a certain Barack Obama. Other singers are described as Italian American, Polish American etc. Could this be useful information? --Kleinzach 13:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The manual of style is that we do not identify ethnic/racial background in the lede parargraph- unless the person's notability is based on work around the ethnic/racial background. [20] In this case, it would take a very good argument to convince me that it is appropriate. The ethnic/racial background can be and generally is mentioned in the body of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ms. Battle prefers not to be referred to as a black singer if this frequently seen anecdote is true. [21]--Eudemis (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You state, "if this frequently seen anectode is true." Is it true? / What is the difference between Jessye Norman, Leontyne Price, and Marian Anderson in terms of national origin and ethnicity? / She performs jazz, gospel, music of black pop artists, and spirituals. Is that not work around her ethnic background? This is actually a minor point, whether we include it or not, but if Jessye, Leontyne, et al are to be referred as African American, than it only make sense if we applying the same guidelines that applied to those sings that Kathleen Battle should be described in the same manner. Hrannar (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

To clarify The other articles explain directly that the subject is African American — and not necessarily in the lead — in this case it's indirect. That's the point here, though some people seem to have missed it. --Kleinzach 01:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that other articles do not meet our standards does not mean that we should not follow standards here. Jessye Norman, Leontyne Price in particular are just bad all around articles and should not be used as examples for anything other than what not to do.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope there is no misunderstanding. I 100% want the article to inform readers of her being African-American. I just don't think it needs to be the first thing said. Please note that Frank Sinatra does not call him an "Italian-American singer." Steve Dufour (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification of your point being that readers are informed of this aspect, just not the first thing said, as is the practice with the singers of her background eg., Leontyne, Marian, etc. And this is consistent with wikipedia guidelines and practices. Thanks again. Hrannar (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar.

Discuss First Before Making Disputable Additions / Let history comments reflect clearly and openly what changes we make

'Eudemis, all: Does it not make sense to discuss substantial changes like what follows below in the talk discussion here first?' Also, can we try to the history comments more reflective of the changes we do? In the example below, the additions made were not merely the inclusion of a citation from certain sources. Rather the additions seems to provide more rationale for the termination. The request to discuss on talk first is a sensible way to work together. This often has been suggested, not just by me, but other editors including Nrswanson, who at least on one occassion did not agree with my changes to article and suggested that changes be discussed first. Here also, under his other admitted username broadweighbabe, requests that a user discuss changes first [[22][here]] where he says, "at least talk about pertinent changes before you make them and just try to be a little nicer. You don't have to like me. And I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just try and be nice." Great advice on Nrswansons part! Is this not sensible and recommended by wikipedia?

It appears that Eudemis or someone has made the following editions to the article. In the history, they simply stated something like adding time and newsweek references. But this is what is added:

"... As Battle's status grew, so did her reputation for being difficult and demanding. A year earlier "when Miss Battle opened the Boston Symphony Orchestra season, she reportedly banned an assistant conductor and other musicians from her rehearsals, changed hotels several times, and left behind what a report in The Boston Globe called 'a froth of ill will.'" [25] In February 1994, during rehearsals for an upcoming production of La Fille du Régiment, Battle subjected her fellow performers to "withering criticism" and made "almost paranoid demands that they not look at her." / The information above does not state facts, just 'reports.' A fact is, would be something like, "On X date, Kathleen Battle asked the Boston Symphony Orchestra to keep assistant conductor (give name) away from rehearsal, because she claimed _______. Or "In his autobiography, Volpe indicated that he received faxes from various individuals including ____ and ____ applauding his decision." Those are facts. / It is the recommendation of wikipedia to discuss these sorts of changes first. I have not made any edits to the article, in the hope to set the example and work with moderators here, since editors feel that their concerns need to be heard and come to an understanding. Hrannar (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

I believe there are ownership issues at work here. I am a complete novice regarding wikipedia guidelines but the ones covering ownership of articles are here. [23] A definition of ownership is: "Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not." I am well aware that you do not believe this has happened and that all the deletions were helpful to the article. My position has been that the article should detail her many accomplishments and explain her well documented demanding behavior that led to her firing. The ownership guidelines included some examples of ownership behavior such as: on Revert "Get consensus before you make such huge changes." I was instructed not to make any edits, even cited ones from excellent sources, to the Met termination without first discussing those on the discussion page. Hrannar:"Understanding this, why not first propose your changes here, before changing the public version that was created with much discussion, debate, and input from moderators." Kleinzach: "Hrannar's suggestion that any further changes to the Met sacking section should be proposed here first before being added to the article is sensible." My impression was that two editors controlled content and that other editors were not going to change the article from its very flattering tone. I believe the section quoting The New York Times and Time Magazine is a clear improvement but even the most outstanding sources hold no sway with you and Kleinzach. Requiring your preapproval on the discussion page effectively ends the editing process as a review of this discussion page demonstrates. I will state this uncategorically:

I do not own this article. I encourage the contributions of other editors. I will not delete another editor's well-sourced entries, but I may add my own well-sourced entries when I feel the article requires more balance.

I believe all editors should be willing to adopt this collaborative approach.--Eudemis (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue at hand is discussing controvertial changes first. That has been suggested by Nrswanson before as well as other editors, including recently, during the edit ware. Another editor, voceditenore has said before in a similar situation, " The main thing now, is for everyone involved in the article to agree to discuss significant additions/deletions or rephrasings here first." Because we do not see eye to eye on applying wikipedia, in good faith and out of respect, neither of use should just trudge ahead and put what we feel is correct. Creating a non-published place where we can work out our concerns is good practice. The ownership thing still baffles me, my apologies. 'Should we bring in an administrator who can clarify when it makes sense to discuss changes on a talk page first? I'm happy to get their opinion.' It would be great to try to resolve this. / Hrannar (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

See Requests for mediation. One condition for making a request is that you should "have attempted other types of informal dispute resolution—including an article request for comment, a Mediation Cabal case, a third opinion, or similar—before requesting formal mediation." I think the previous involvement of Voceditenore and myself as informal mediators should cover that. --Kleinzach 01:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach. Perusal of talk archives will show that in past mediations where yourself and voceditenore served as mediators, did help, and we're grateful for those of you who work in that capacity. Wikipedia is an extremely public resource, so there is a certain standard and responsibility to be certain of facts, which is my greatest concern, and the notion that, even with a performance this month and others this year and next, Kathleen Battle has a career, so guidelines for bios of living persons apply as I understand it. Phrases in the article like "froth of ill will" seem so against it. I have chosen not removed it, because I wondered whether it would start an edit war. So to prevent that sort of unfruitful behavior, it was my understanding that discussion on talk page would be a smarter option. But since that option doesn't seem to be accepted, and we have tried other mediators like yourself, it seems then we should try the next thing. I am always slow to do these things, simply because I do not know how and I am trying to learn. Hrannar (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

OWN explains: "Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have contributed to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all others." Once again, I am not, I repeat, a contributor to this article. See the history [24] to confirm this. --Kleinzach 00:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting entries in the article back to the same or similar version you prefer is editing the piece. Your position opposing any inclusion of Ms. Battle's difficult reputation you made clear:

"I have just had another look at the article — as a whole — and I think it is excellent. I don't agree that "it is a fluff piece written by fans" (Eudemis). I think it should be nominated for GA. Hrannar's suggestion that any further changes to the Met sacking section should be proposed here first before being added to the article is sensible. As one of the former 'moderators', my understanding is that the former discussions did reach a conclusion — or as much of a conclusion as we could reasonably have hoped for in the circumstances. Battle was not the first or last singer to have a fight with an opera company and I have to wonder why her dismissal should be the focus of such extraordinary attention. The article should be about her whole career. --Kleinzach 01:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've removed the chauffeur anecdote (added by an IP) -uncited tittle-tattle. --Kleinzach"

I understand completely your affection for Ms. Battle. With beauty, on stage charm and a bright lovely voice she was irresistible at the Met. It's what made her a star . She did, however, have her flaws. They weren't obvious watching her perform but they were well known and well documented at the time of her firing. I've tried to cite the most respected sources available to support the need for changes. My impression is your wanting to show Ms. Battle in the most favorable light possible because you so admire her talent. I'm not sure if you can see or acknowledge that but any mention of her difficulty seems to set off the same defensive reaction to remove the offending comment as quickly as possible. Without these changes, readers looking up Ms. Battle for the first time will be left wondering why the Met would fire her. Anyone already familiar with Ms. Battle's history will notice that the piece appears sanitized; I did.

I'm sure you wish for her that the firing had never happened. You would prefer the article focus on her artistry and accomplishments as a singer and not detract from that with a lot of backstage gossip, perfectly understandable. I was reckless in throwing around the word "fan" as if admirers of the subject can't make worthwhile contributions. They probably make the best contributors because they care so deeply about the subject. Being one myself, I believe we can explain the end of her operatic career adequately without any embellishment or overkill using extremely reliable sources. Making the topic off limits only reduces the piece's credibility, diminishes the article and the hard work of all the people who have contributed to it. I'm sure you see me as a troublemaker. I don't mean to be. I know the long history. My hope is you will consent to allow the article to evolve as all wikipedia articles should with ongoing contributions from many people supported by very reliable sources.--Eudemis (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

An agreement by editors to formulate consensus on talk page or user sandbox to prevent edit warring on the article is a good thing. A demand by one editor that all edits get his/her pre-approval to be in the article is a bad thing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis - It is not for me to allow the article to do anything. It is for us, the contributors, to provide factual data, to do our earnest best to see BOTH sides of a situation if/when there is disagreement, and do our best to apply wikipedia guidelines. My suggestion to talk changes were first suggested to me. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander, it seems only reasonable and in line with wikipedia recommendations to talk things out first, given the edit warring potential. By the way, it is not unnoticed by me that you have reinserted the 'wake of ill will' comment. What does that mean, exactly anyway? Anyone can say anything, whether it is true or not. / In my humble opinion, your speculations of my wishes regarding Kathleen Battle eg., "I'm sure you wish for her that the firing had never happened" is inaccurate. / The termination is not an issue for me. It is the seeming inability of individuals to see that there are two sides to a story. Just because one side is extremely vocal (by their nature) doesn't mean that is the valid or correct side. Hrannar (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Thanks. All fair truisms, Red Pen of Doom. In this case, I believe we see things differently, and that is why the suggestion to bring an outside administrator is being made. They can listen with outside ears and objectivity and help us in determining whether in this case, it might be useful to talk changes first (since there is fairly opposing views), to focus on in understanding and applying NPOV and Bios for Living Persons, help us straighten any confusion in what is a fact and what is hearsay, etc. And if any of our understandings are incorrect, they can help with that. Hrannar (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

What does "froth of ill will" Mean?

Eudemis recently added this comment, one similar to "wake of ill will" which I expressed did not seem to comply with wikipedia standards, 'A year earlier "when Miss Battle opened the Boston Symphony Orchestra season, she reportedly banned an assistant conductor and other musicians from her rehearsals, changed hotels several times, and left behind what a report in The Boston Globe called 'a froth of ill will.'"' / What does that mean, froth of ill will, exactly? Not only am I uncertain of what behavior causes that, but it is not a fact, whatever it means exactly -- it is a moralizing and judgemental statement for those who of the same opinion -- and obviously not everyone believes it, so it cannot be accurate or factual. Unless someone can show how it is a fact, then I believe it is our responsibility to "do no harm" to remove it. / In addition, what does her changing hotel rooms several times mean, if it is in fact even true that she did? There could have been a number of reasons. Should we assume the reason was a negative one? Wikipedia advocates letting facts (true facts) speak for themselves, not moralizing or making these sorts of judgemental statements. Hrannar (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar