Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"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. [1] 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. [2]--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.

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 [[3][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 [[4]][Neutral Point of View]] / You state article implies Kathleen Battle was victim of firing.]] and [[5][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)

Update: The consensus explanation for Ms. Battle's Metropolitan Opera firing is repeatedly purged from the article. The publications cited and quoted in the removed portion of the biography were The New York Times, The Boston Globe and Time Magazine. Editor(s) have sought to conceal unflattering information regarding Ms. Battle's conduct that led to end of her career in opera . The Neutrality tag is necessary to alert readers of this purposefully removed, relevant information.--Eudemis (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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 [[6][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. [7] 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 [8] 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