Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

For sake of truth

It has been suggested that the version I reverted to is one that I did single handedly. Well actually, it was written by voceditenore -- not me. See here: version created by voceditenore along with his rationale. In fact I incorporate quite a few of voceditenore's suggestions. Hrannar (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

You neglect to quote my comment the following day (before I left on vacation in August 2008):

"Hrannar, you should not have edited the article to add my suggestion without first gaining consensus here. You have now reverted in whole or in part the paragraph as it stood prior to my suggestion at least four times in a few hours and risk blocking. Note that you have also been editing in this melee as 129.74.18.183. Nrswanson, you're probably at 4 reverts too. For what it's worth, I actually agree with Nrswanson, and Rickterp re the desirability of placing the Met firing in the broader context of Battle's previous dispute(s) with the Met, which are a matter of record. In no way does it favour Volpe to say that her relations with the Met had become strained and reference it to the Rosenkavalier story. And in no way, can WP:BLP be invoked to censor that information from the article. I was simply suggesting for discussion a way to get this article out of its current impasse, and was willing to put up with a less than optimal coverage of that episode in order to move forward. I strongly suggest that you both wait to edit that paragraph again until you have had some other outside input and worked out the wording here first. For the record, I have no problem with a version that puts her dismissal in a wider context if that becomes the consensus."[1]

Re my infamous edit summary: I have over 1,500 opera-related pages on my watch list and make an average of 12-15 edits a day in many different articles. I check the diffs. Unless I'm unsure whether to revert, I don't bother reading the article itself or clicking on the link. At a quick glance I assumed it was appropos of the firing section, saw that it was a bad source and deleted on that basis . The important thing is that the link was deleted. If you consider my edit summary indicative of being an unprincipled and biased editor, fine. I stand by my contributions to this talk page and to the article itself. Both of which I am now taking off my watch list. Kleinzach's suggestion above to get back to discussing the text itself is a good one. I suggest you follow it. Voceditenore (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While this may be digressing / counterproductive, I appear to be a co target in this discussion and must address one of the editors’ concerns. Stained apron has been around for over a decade and has been feature in/on: The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Examiner, Atlanta Journal, The Sunday Times (London), CNN, Good Morning America - March 2005, The Ellen DeGeneres Show (September 2005), Fortune Magazine - April 2001, Seattle Times, Stern Magazine (Germany), Money Magazine, BBC Newshour, Smart Money Magazine, Atlanta Constitution, Seattle Times, Food Arts Magazine, The Denver Post, San Diego Union, among many others. “If you're interested in celebrities and what they tip, the Stained Apron is the spot.” New York Times, August 25, 1999. [2] The only reason she isn’t mentioned by name is she is less notable than Dan Quayle and Ice-T. Before you complain that a few waiters can put anyone onto the list by online vote, the NAACP image awards are determined by online voting. [3] That might explain how Ms. Battle with her reputation or fellow recipient ,Whitney Houston, who has been in and out of drug rehab, could win any kind of image award.

This particular editor’s criticism of anyone else’s editing is absurd. He defines “Tendentious editing”[4]:

You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first.

There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information."

Regarding appropriate headings: the Maria Callas wikipedia entry has such headings as “Callas-Tebaldi controversy”, “Vocal decline” and “Scandals and later career”. In spite of these, Ms. Callas’ stellar reputation as a singer seems to have survived in tact. Similar headings would seem appropriate for the Battle article. Given the “Love Letter” format of the piece, there is, of course, no appropriate place to put her well documented uncomplimentary attributes. I believe her conduct and the reasons for her firing might justify more visibility than what they have currently. As written, five sentences buried in the 1990’s section should be sufficient camouflage to satisfy even her most ardent fans.

Concerning trivia in the article, duplicate listings of her Grammies on two Kathleen Battle pages? The overkill on this page is obvious. The two links to her record label and management group should have eliminated a lot of this clutter.

I’m more than happy to reopen these discussions about content with a view toward more accurate headings and greater balance if the current version isn’t acceptable. One thing is certain. The article will change. That’s how wikipedia is supposed to work; one editor having a stranglehold on its content is not.--Eudemis (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis, let me express my support for that determination. As Wiki editors, we actually have an *obligation* to improve the accuracy and credibility of all of Wiki's material wherever we have the chops. I'd like to know if one or more of the people involved in this article are artist's representatives for Ms. Battle or PR representatives. NaySay (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis : FYI, voceditenore also noted that the Stained Apron posting is vandalism. Your position that it is not helps me to better see why our discussions about what is appropriate is challenging. I believe in the wikipedia process and guidelines, though, and hope we can come to some sort of positive outcome. Thanks. Hrannar (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Note: I made a very short comment whose point was: 'It has been suggested that the version I reverted to is one that I did single handedly. Well actually, it was written by voceditenore -- not me.' The link is included, showing voceditenore's version as well as many, many, responses afterwards. Calling it neglect seems irrelevant to me, given that I only meant to point out that the version I am advocating for and used, is one you created. Not one I created. Hrannar (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Back to the headings issues, having only "career achievements" "awards and honors" type headings for a biography of someone as controversial as Ms. Battle is itself a huge problem. The "not fitting the headings is vandalism" issue is easily remedied by adding "Controversies" or "Difficult reputation" headings to the article. Of course, I can't speak for Voicedtenore, but just based on this exchange you need to look elsewhere to support your many reversions. --Eudemis (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But it's not a controversy. I realize you're trying to compromise. "Difficult reputation" makes sense, but the trouble is that these events were organic components of her 1980s and 90s career with the enormous consequence that she was canned by the world's most important opera house and ignored by all the others. NaySay (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My, you are new here. You haven't seen Hrannar's unbiased reliable sources who state that Ms. Battle is not difficult: an unsigned article in a non daily from the island of Bermuda complete with misspellings whose web presence is supplied by none other than Ms. Battle's management company. [5] You may wish to scan the archives for other examples of his unique perspective.

I think the objective for a long time has been to stabilize somewhat the tone of the article so that it isn't an inaccurate farce that ignores and excuses all of her antics nor a bash fest that diminishes her accomplishments. If you'll look a lot of editors who have been involved with the piece have signed off on this version, by my count four. That number is six if you include the editors from the Notice Board. The reasons for the firing are, at least, mentioned. I am the last person to argue this biography is balanced but the piece does include some context for understanding the sudden end of her operatic career and that was a huge hurdle. Trust me, I understand what you are seeing.--Eudemis (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I bow to your knowledge. No I haven't gone through all the versions. The article as it stands is fine to me, if a little bit like a CV. As you say, a wonderful singer. Thanks for your patience. NaySay (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all apologies. I stopped editing after entering graduate school, because I didn't have time, because I also work full time. It is also particularly challenging to focus on content when editors who made various degrees of ad hominem attacks from sarcasm and moving discussion away from content and efforts to show both sides of a situation. When the subject of the firing is breached, considerable ink is spilled and any effort, including opinions that offer other support, are categorically dismissed. The issue is presenting FACTUAL evidence and specific quotes from people, not quotes from newspaper articles quoting faceless people. Some contributors fall back on hominem attacks and seem to easily dismiss the journalistic ethics to support their evidence. Kathleen Battle has been the target of many personal attacks and those who offer other opinions are also personally attacked. This really isn't what wikipedia is about, NaySay. I assure you. Kathleen Battle was moving away from opera which is not at all uncommon for singes of her light voice type and the challenges of opera, which MANY opera singers who are honest will admit. She enjoyed recital performances and that continued. When was the last time Norman, Bonney, McNair, Upshaw, were in FULL blown, traditional operas? Hrannar (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Hrannar

Point of view

I find the first sentence amusing in its inaccuracy. " known for her agile and light voice and her silvery, pure tone"? No, she's known for being the most difficult soprano to work with that anyone has ever known. This article has no NPOV or it would mention some of her legendary run-ins with conductors and impresarios. The list of those unwilling to consider working with her may be longer than the list of those who have worked with her and would be willing to do so again. C. Cerf (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

Our articles are supposed to present more than just the awards and achievements of our subjects. So why is there so little in this article about Kathleen Battle's notorious "diva" behavior? There's plenty of stuff on it out there:

• "Today the embattled Battle is more often remembered for her bad behavior offstage than her uncommon artistry onstage."[6]
• "After years of Battle's tormenting of conductors, directors, costume designers and other colleagues with some seriously nasty behavior..."[7]
• "...Kathleen Battle, another brilliant African American singer, famous for her imperious and even self-important ways."[8]

Etcetera. The only thing I can find in this article is a small bit buried in the '90's section when she was fired from the Metropolitan opera - in reality her behavior is almost as notable as her career and probably deserves more attention. Why so little mention of it here? Doc talk 19:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I broadly agree that this article does not present Battle the same way she is often portrayed in other media. On the other hand, Wikipedia has policies and practices which limit overly aggressive criticism of living people. This article has a long history (see all 10 archives) of balancing reliably sourced criticism with the requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you decide to introduce a more critical view, I suggest to present it on this talk page first so a consensus can be reached about what should be included, avoiding an edit war between different camps. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to dig through the archives to dissect this issue: I found it on my own. I had heard she was a major diva, then I came to the article and see mostly a wall of accolades. Any sort of "edit war" would be most unfortunate indeed, but if reliably sourced content were removed without proper cause, some... more unfortunate issues could develop. There is no need to first ask permission on any article's talk page to achieve consensus for material to be included, BTW - WP:BRD encourages bold changes. Doc talk 05:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the articles to which Dove above provided links, and they don't seem to me to support his argument very well. The third article isn't even about Battle and only mentions her once in passing: She was annoyed that a review called her a black singer instead of simply a singer. I feel that I would have been just as annoyed. The other two are indeed mostly about Battle's putative imperious misbehavior, but, unlike this Wikipedia article, they don't pretend to offer a complete Battle bio: their subject is the imperious behavior; this Wikipedia article's subject, necessarily, is Battle in general. That's a huge difference Doc doesn't seem to be taking into account. Moreover, the first two articles to which he provides links are balanced with examples of how other famous opera singers have behaved similarly and how Battle has been and remains popular in many quarters. The most significant dispute in her career was clearly that with the Met, and that dispute is adequately covered in this Wikipedia article as it currently reads. The bits about allegedly complaining about limousines and such seem to me extremely trivial and not at all worth mentioning. TheScotch (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Doc9871, I absolutely agree with you that this article is overly one-sided on this issue in favor of Battle. There are a plethora of sources that were provided years ago better than the ones you gave with a much more exhaustive history on this subject (see the archives with articles from The New York Times, Time, The Washington Post, etc.). Unfortunately, Battle fans protested and edited all the distasteful content out. Edit wars ensued and ultimately everyone fighting to keep the negative content in just got tired of the whole thing and walked away. Frankly her firing from the Met ended her opera career, as she never performed in an opera after that. However, she did continue to perform in concerts and recitals, and make recordings after that. I support what you are attempting to do, but I warn you of the hornets nest you might stir up. Best.4meter4 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I read two New York Times articles about Kathleen Battle just before I came here the first time. I found nothing very different from the Wikipedia article as it currently stands except that, again, one of the New York Times articles was completely devoted to the subject of her dispute with the Met and therefore, quite properly, concerned itself almost (there was a little background information too, of course) completely with that dispute, and, again, the Wikipedia article is about Battle as a whole, so, quite obviously, it would be wrong for the Met dispute to occupy a disproportionate amount of space in it. TheScotch (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There are also article titles such as, "The Met Fires a Diva"[9], and this one, and this one and so on. It depends on where and how you look. Her firing from the Met unleashed a torrent of negative press. It's a fact, and it should be better reflected here. Doc talk 08:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

To put it in perspective, The Oxford Handbook of Opera (2014, Oxford University Press, editor Helen M. Greenwald, pg 377) specifically mentions Battle only in the context of her notoriety for bad behaviour, and gives the details of several anecdotes. The fact that a major publication (not an article but a book) on opera with a broad focus published 20 years after the Met firing specifically mentions and dwells on this fact should tell you that this is not just a blip in Battle's career but something she is famous for. In fact the books specifically states that this issue has overshadowed Battle's career. Also, Women and music in America since 1900: an encyclopedia, Volume 1 begins its biography like this: "Kathleen Battle has gained the reputation of being one of the finest, if most tempestuous, coloratura lyric sopranos in the history of opera." The fact it is in that encyclopedias lead sentence should say something. This topic deserves its own section in the article and in the lead in my opinion. I am making a list of references below for those who choose to edit in this area. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

How many times do I have to point this out before you begin to grasp it? This Wikipedia article is about Kathleen Battle, necessarily about Kathleen Battle, not Kathleen Battle's dispute with the Met. The articles you cite are specifically about Kathleen Battle's dispute with the Met. That dispute does deserve a place in this Wikipedia article, and it already has a place in this article, but it cannot overwhelm the reason for her fame, which is obviously and indisputably her singing. If you prefer tabloid journalism, read a tabloid. TheScotch (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point User:TheScotch, you have chosen to ignore the plethora of source material in favor of your particular point of view. Multiple sources (books not tabloids or newspapers of the moment), including other published encyclopedias, give this issue a much more prominent place than what you are suggesting. Further, multiple published books where Ms. Battle is not the main subject reference her reputation as a difficult diva; which is representative of the fact that she is famous now for more than just her singing. Indeed, some sources go as far as saying she is now more famous for her unprofessional behavior than for her actual work as an artist (a salient point made by Greenwald and others in the books below). One may not like the fact that Battle is famous for poor behavior, but the truth of that fact appears in multiple reliable tertiary references.4meter4 (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Going forward

Chiming in: I just looked at the article in its current state, and I think the body text is fine like it is and shouldn't be changed further towards one POV or the other. That is, I think enough evidence is presented to document Battle's poor behavior, and I don't think any more verbiage on that is needed; nor do I think that any of this should be removed. Right now the amount of coverage in this article accurately and neutrally represents its overall importance for a BLP.

That said, I do believe the lede needs dealing with. Obviously Battle has had a successful non-operatic career since her Met dismissal, and that needs to be mentioned/reflected in the lede. The lede should summarize the entirely of the article, and not simply leave off with a negative statement about an occurence 21 years ago. Someone please update the lede. Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... So we should completely ignore the multiple tertiary sources below (many of them published in the last five years), some by famous writers on music, that say her career has suffered and that she is now more famous for her poor behavior (not just the Met firing) than for her actual singing career. I ask that that you take the time to read the source material before making an editorial decision on this topic. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

the multiple tertiary sources below (many of them published in the last five years), some by famous writers on music, that say her career has suffered and that she is now more famous for her poor behavior (not just the Met firing) than for her actual singing career. I read all the sources below, and I'm personally not seeing that. Most of the sources are either passing mentions, or are about Volpe, or are about the behaviors (not just at the Met) that led up to the Met firing, or about the firing itself and the aftermath of no further operatic career (all of which has been covered already in the wiki article). We've already established that she had no further opera career (therefore to say that her career per se suffered is redundant). That's all already covered in the current wiki article. That doesn't mean that her career ended, and the fact that it didn't end should be reflected in the lede.

Anything beyond that about her career or behavior in the 21st century would have to be carefully cited from very reliable sources, and would have to avoid OR and SYNTH and cherry-picking of random reviews, incidents, or opinions -- especially since this is a BLP. And in terms of her career/voice at this point (2015), she'll be 67 in two months and as a soubrette her vocal peak time has certainly passed, so we can't really pass judgment in Wikipedia's voice on a 67-year-old soubrette's current "career", in my opinion. Even Volpe said in his book that Battle's hyper-young-sounding and hyper-birdlike voice-type didn't have much future in opera at her age (45), so in his opinion she probably wouldn't have had much more of a career in opera even if he hadn't fired her. Softlavender (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Softlavender's stance hits just the right balance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

As an observer and commenter from the beginnings of this brouhaha years ago, I also think Softlavender strikes the right balance. Voceditenore (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that consensus. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

All that brilliant reference research and you're ready to bow to the whitewash version? This is not over quite yet. Doc talk 05:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Doc, I am not one for contentious editing. Conflict on wikipedia is a waist of my time, puts a strain on my emotional well being, and takes me away from doing other more positive things that make me feel happy and productive. I would rather use my research skills somewhere that is conflict free. It's clear there is a consensus against making any changes for the time being. Some of the editors who have chimed in are editing friends whom I have worked closely with for years and I respect their opinions. That said, I am fairly certain obituaries on Battle (not that I am wishing her any ill because I love her singing and own every recording she has ever made) will eventually set the record straight and more content will ultimately be added in the long run. As I said before, I agree this article deserves more coverage in this area, but I am bowing out. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

‘ Conflict on wikipedia is a waist of my time, puts a strain on my emotional well being’ and affects your spelling, too. Waist of time?