Jump to content

Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Some Further Suggestions

I've started a new section because the 'Firing' section had become very unwieldy, and the following are more general suggestions that apply to the article as a whole. First, let me clarify something, I'm a member of the Opera Project, not the Biography Project, although I have written several biographies of singers on Wikipedia. I am also a professional writer (but on linguistics, not opera). I see this article has been temporarily locked - an excellent idea. It provides time for reflection. With a bit of calm restored, I've had time to look more closely at the whole article and at some of its many (too many) previous versions. A few more suggestions for the future to avoid edit-warring, and improve the quality of the article at the same time:

  1. The best way to achieve neutrality over section titles and to avoid giving undue weight to any particular aspect of the subject's life and career (either positive or negative) is to use simple chronological labelling for the sub-sections. Take a look at how José Carreras is structured.
  2. The lead paragraph should outline briefly why the singer is notable, but avoid critical judgements like "She is particularly known for her pure timbre, exceptional technique and musicianship, and ability to connect with her audience.", especially unreferenced ones. Such assessments, meticulously referenced, preferably to multiple sources, belong more properly in the body of the article. For example, take a look at how this is handled in José Carreras, Rockwell Blake and Juan Diego Flórez
  3. Avoid adjectives that are in themselves evaluative when describing the person. e.g. 'gracious' unless they are part of a direct quote. There are some versions of this article (and to a certain extent the current version) which, to an outsider, give the slight impression of a 'fan' or 'PR' page. It actually does the subject a disservice, because readers then tend to discount what is written and start wondering about what is not written.
  4. For the same reason, avoid adjectives to describe the sources of quotes which appear to 'load' the importance or validity of their views. Let the reader decide. For example: "Matthew A. Epstein, a noted music producer..." (and the previous to-ing and fro-ing over whether he is "noted" or "distinguished"). Simply say: "Matthew A. Epstein, the music producer who has worked with Ms. Battle in a production of Handel's Semele at Carnegie Hall, also stated..." Note also than in all the melée, there is now a stranded mention of "Holland", whom I presume to be Bernard Holland, the NY Times critic. But the sentence in which it appears lacks any context, or referencing. It's a good example of how piecemeal, rapid-fire editing can be contraproductive to producing a well-written article.
  5. Similarly, watch out for describing colleagues, conductors, and collaborators as "important", "renowned", or "distinguished". Even though it's not intentional, it reads like 'PR speak' and tends to reduce rather than increase the article's credibility. A word like "prominent" is slightly preferable, but even that should be used very judiciously. Most of the colleagues, etc. mentioned in the article have Wikipedia articles to which their names are linked. That alone gives an idea of their prominence.

All the best, Voceditenore 07:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Voceditenore - I am following your guidelines and as well as that of the biographies of living person's; they get reverted. Would you please offer your expertise? The person (nrswanson) does not seem to respond to the response I gave him, when he said he was not aware of any living biography guidelines. Hrannar (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Actually I did respond to you a while ago (see below). And I continued to revert your edits because you did not address my concerns with the article's neutrality. You also deleted several essential pieces of information that were well sourced for no apparent reason.Nrswanson (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems our responses were out of synch with each other. You did not see mine; and I did not see yours. In reading various responses, it seems that on certain things, I am in the wrong. I am glad we have several mechanisms in place to help resolve issues like this. All the best. And thanks Voceditenore and Rickterp for your help! I can actually see that we could include more of Volpe's text; but the important thing, in my opinion, is to also note that for quite some time, people have seemed to have quite a field day -- again, look at paste articles -- focusing on the negative press, instead of her entire career includintg Kathleen Battle's education, repertoire, etc. There has clearly been improvements. Thanks again, all.Hrannar (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And finally...

The section Choral, recital repertoire, soundtracks, and collaborations has content too diffuse to be under one section. It's also rather 'bitty' and disorganized. I would suggest retitling it simply Recital repertoire, which can also incorporate information about the notable 'non-classical' (for want of a better word) repertoire. The work with Stevie Wonder, Bobby McFerrin, Grover Washington, Jr., Janet Jackson etc. should all be in the same paragraph. At moment those bits are scattered around in several paragraphs. I would also suggest removing the paragraphs which simply list collaborators and festivals variously described as "respected", "important" and "renowned". They contribute to the article's 'PR' tone which I mentioned above and are indeed very similar to this. They simply make the reader's eyes glaze over. They also contribute to the repetitiousness of the article, several of them are already mentioned elsewhere, e.g. Salzburg Festival, Cincinnati's May Festival, James Levine, Von Karajan, etc. etc.

It is important to give an idea of the breadth and importance of the conductors, orchestras, etc. that the artist has worked with, but there are ways to do this which make for a much better article:

  1. Some of the really key or unusual live performances can be much more usefully incorporated on an individual basis and in more detail in the section on her career. By more detail, I mean not simply listing the conductor and/or orchestra, but describing the performance including the date, and referencing to any available press coverage/reviews. I would also include the Vangelis project and the film track work in the relevant chronological sections of Life and career (see below for more on sections).
  2. Change the format of the discography. (The table is very constricting.) And then change the contents. Prune some of the compilations. The current selections make it seem like she only does recital discs and misses a very impressive opera discography. Provide some of the important full length opera recordings as well as some interesting collaborations she's done with links to Wikipedia articles of the conductors and fellow performers e.g. (I haven't done all the links, and she has several other major full-length opera recordings, but this gives you an idea)
  • Rossini: L'Italiana in Algeri - Marilyn Horne, Samuel Ramey, Kathleen Battle, Ernesto Palacio , Nicolai Zaccaria, I Solisti Veneti, conductor Claudio Scimone (Erato CD)
  • Donizetti: L'Elisir d'Amore - Luciano Pavarotti, Kathleen Battle, Juan Pons, Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, conductor Levine (Deutsche Grammophon DVD)
  • Mozart: Die Zauberflöte - Kathleen Battle, Francisco Araiza, Kurt Moll, Luciana Serra, Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, conductor Levine (Deutsche Grammophon DVD)
  • Richard Strauss: Ariadne auf Naxos - Jessye Norman, Kathleen Battle, Tatiana Troyanos, Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, conductor Levine (Deutsche Grammophon DVD)
  • Handel: Semele - Kathleen Battle, Marilyn Horne, Samuel Ramey, John Aler, Sylvia McNair, Michael Chance, English Chamber Orchestra, conductor John Nelson (Deutsche Grammophon DVD)
  • Kathleen Battle & Jean-Pierre Rampal in Concert (Sony CD)
  • Baroque Duet - Kathleen Battle & Wynton Marsalis (Sony CD)

Some final things to consider when you can all start editing again

  1. The line between respectful tone and reverent tone can be a very fine one. Singer's biographies should always aim for respectful and strenuously avoid reverent. The latter not only attracts time-wasting edit-wars but also detracts (paradoxically) from the importance of the singer's career. Another small point in this respect - this is an encylopedia, so avoid references to the subject as "Ms. (or Miss) Battle". Use either her full name or simply her last name.
  2. Don't go on and on fiddling with the part about her firing. Apart from my suggestions in the previous sections, leave the text about her firing pretty much as it is for a while. There is far more valuable and important work to be done on this article, including sorting out the very poor referencing format. Also, by adding more and more material to it, you simply attract attention to the episode and give it undue weight in what has otherwise been a very distinguished career. Besides, the more additions that are made to put it in as positive a light as possible... well... it's liable to make the famous Hamlet quote come to the reader's mind "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."  ;-) Note also that in something controversial, the use of direct quotes which are only positive will invite negative ones to redress the balance. Trust me, there are some very damning ones out there from quite prominent figures in the opera and classical music world quoted in reputable sources e.g. Time Magazine (Feb. 21, 1994), The Sydney Morning Herald (November 8, 2002), to name a few.
  3. In terms of the chronological labelling of the sub-sections, I'd suggest Early years, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000 to the present. Then move the various relevant debuts, landmark performances, etc into their appropriate chronological sections. At the moment, there is a certain amount of disorganzation and repetition in the way these are presented.
  4. Given the 'history' here, the editors who are most involved in this article should think about having sandboxes in their user pages so they can show each other what they are thinking of adding and get some consensus before adding it to the article itself. See this for how to create one if you don't already know.

All the Best, Voceditenore 10:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All these suggestions do indeed focus more on making it a solid, living biography. And apologies about the 'protesting' too much. I hoped to share the other side (about the dismissal), but I can see I wasn't too succesful. I think the Jose Carreras article is a nice example. You note several other ways to make this article more valuable. Thanks again! Man, Voceditenore, I wish I had contacted you much earlier. :-) For some time, as you are probably aware, editors were posting information like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathleen_Battle&oldid=56514996; so while that might be perfect for the national enquirer, it just didn't seem right for wikipedia. Hrannar 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was happy to help, and I think that this article has the potential to become a really good one. In its current state, it's a definite improvement over its earliest versions. The main thing now, is for everyone involved in the article to agree to discuss significant additions/deletions or rephrasings here first. It's also a good idea to work in larger chunks, getting the wording right, making sure it's well-integrated into the article and does not repeat what is written in another section, ensuring that the references are there and properly formatted, proofreading for spelling and punctuation, etc. rather than adding or changing only a small bit at a time. Otherwise, when there are several editors involved, each of whom is editing bits in rapid succession, the article gets out of whack. It becomes disorganized. And worse, in the rapid to-ing and fro-ing, references get lost, and things everyone was happy to keep go missing or become oddly worded, etc.. That's why I recommend adding sandboxes to your user pages. Anyhow, from what I can see, the main editors here all have the same goal, producing a balanced, well-written article that does justice to Battle's career. Everyone just got into a bit of a tizzy over how to go about it.;-) All the best, and happy editing, Voceditenore 05:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Living Bio Regulations

Someone asked about regulations regarding Biographies of living persons. The entire text is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

but the portion that specifically relates to the termination incident is:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid...An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

Volpe's official language regarding the terminatation of Kathleen Battle is given. Kathleen Battle's response is given. Since this is a living biography of a singer, the focus is clearly on the art and not about what some people have tried to do, which is making it tabloid and gossip about her personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrannar (talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I feel you are distorting the living bio regulations to the point that it violates WP:NPOV. The section on Battle's firing has already gone through an exhaustive amount of discussion and editing both here and at the opera wikiproject (see edit history). The current version is the product of that discussion. The topic of Battle's conduct is not "tabloid fodder" as several reputable news sources such as the New York Times, Time Magazine, and mainline television news such as ABC, CBS, and NBC have all discussed and in some cases interviewed Battle on the topic. The issue is also highly relevent to her biography as her label of difficult has virtually stopped her opera career since the Met firing. Not thoroughly covering this topic would be like ignoring the Monica Lewinsky scandal on a biography on Bill Clinton. Right now nothing in the language of the wikipedia article seems to me to be "harmful" and is actually in fact tame compared to comments made in major news magazines and in television news coverage. Nrswanson (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
How am I distorting the living bio regulations? In providing information about the termination, I kept Volpe's reason he used for the termination. And, Kathleen Battle's response was also provided.

Mostly this is a place for those interested in the biography of a singer. It is interesting that you accuse me of NPOV violation when you seem to be interesting in EXPANDING this portion of the article. Anyway, When we had a dispute earlier, one of Wikipedia's editor's offered ways to improve this article. Vocetenore. I have followed his guidelines and don't understand why you continue to revert those, when I am simply following an editors suggestions. There is no dispute that Volpe terminated Kathleen Battle; but the dispute is the label and mainstream press has not been neutral in offering both sides. And unfortunately readers take it as fact, even though she has others who completely disagree with Volpe or the media without ethics. In fact, the NAACP honored her with an image award -- an award that is not designed to be bestowed upon a "difficult" person. So when there are opposing opinions, recognizing that only events such as a termination and the statements of the key players, can be included. But covering it like one covers a national trial of a figure as public as Bill Clinton does not seem to be relevant. Hrannar (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Hrannar a lot of thought and discussion (and editing) has already gone on between now and Vocetenor's comments and as a new editor you may want to familiarize yourself with the article's history rather than drawing bad assumptions. I already personally deleted half of the information in the firing section about a year ago so I am not interested in "expanding it". Editors have also trimmed the section further since Voceditenore made his comments. To trim it further, in my opinion, would bias the article in favor of Kathleen Battle fans rather than presenting an accurate unbiased picture of the truth which is what we should be trying to do here. The Met firing was not an isolated incident of unprofessional conduct and to present it out of context would be biased. (P.S. Mainstream media is typically viewed as a neutral source within the wikipedia community) Second, I don't mind if you restructure the article as long as you don't delete relevent information which you have been doing. You deleted the section on major debuts without incorporating them into the main body of the article. As a list of major debuts is part of the assessment of the opera wikiproject that deletion is contrary to policy regarding opera singer pages. You may also want to familiarize yourself with the policies of the opera wikiproject regarding opera singer articles as some of these policies vary from those at the biography project. We usually tend to break a singers career into sections reflecting career decisions/ types of roles (since singers tend to cycle through different vocal types at different points in their careers) rather than through decades. Good article requirements tend to frown upon biographies with decade sub-headings. Nrswanson (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the major debut section was noted as being moved, NOT deleted. It took a step to first cut them, than move them to another section. Make sense? Secondly, it is not obvious to me, especially in a biography and musical career, that decade sub headings are frowned upon. In fact you see it quite often and musically, it seems more appropriate, since singers and musical tastes change over time. Sorry if we disagree. And voceditenore seems to speak with authority. But in fact, we have broken the section's that are not necessarily time bound or could stand on their own, like major debut, or opera roles. Thirdly, nmainstreem media, though it may claim to be, though it tries, has one element that cannot be avoided: humanity. Isn't Fox news mainstream media? Isn't Vanity Fair a mainstream publication? It's article around the time of the termination had very little NPOV. Time and Newsweak also have their biases. Fourthly, you state that trimming is further biais? How so, if we state what Volpe said, than Battle's response? That is, in fact, NPOV, when we use only their words. And not the speculation or commentary of others -- especially when the commentary could be disputed between indiduals like you and I. Hrannar (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar
A few comments. First, voceditenore, although an excellent editor (and a friend of mine with whom I collaborate often by the way), is just an editor like any other editor and can not be cited as an "authority". Second, in recently recieving peer reviews on articles such as June Anderson I was told by the good article reviewers to change the sub titles to something else (this has happened to me more than once). So I simply was trying to save you a potential future headache if you choose to nominate this article for GA standing. As for media, I stand by Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reference desk which uphold mainstream media as viable sources. Obviously if other opinions in reliable sources can be found than all views should be presented. To delete the views of mainstream media is a violation ofWP:Censorship and WP:Neutrality. Hence why I am against deleting the information that you have deleted.Nrswanson (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The wonderful thing about wikipedia as this is, as much as we are able to try, a collaborative process. We discuss. We disagree. And we do our best. I am sorry if you feel I am full of violations and I am sorry if I question the neutrality of mainsteam media -- who can make mistakes, as we can all. But it is fair that certain issues are certainly up to interpretation. At the end of the day, we all do our best. Voceditenore, you, myself. So we ALL need to be careful of believing our views are the only correct views and becoming indignant and generally quoting WP:Censcorship or WP:Neutrality. BUT MOSTLY -- and this goes for any bio I would edit -- it seems to me that guidelines of Biographies of Living persons does apply i.e., and that it is understandable to mention the termination but, per the biographies guidelines, be careful about the "disparaging" (biographies of living person's term) remarks that have been made. I agree that it is not mean we paint inaccurate positive picture, but that we be careful about the motive of the discussions of Battle's personality. Hrannar (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Neutrality

Recent edits by Hrannar have removed relevent information regarding Battle's firing and her reputation of being difficult prior to the firing. These deletions cause the firing to be presented as an isolated incident which distorts the nature of the firing as well as failing to present an accurate picture of the event as reported in mainstream media. Although, this section could probably be improved from its prior version, I believe the prior version should be restored as it is more neutral than the current version which caters to Kathleen Battle fans who want to present her in a more positive light.Nrswanson (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussions about Kathleen Battle have often been disputed. In the latest updates/edits to information on Kathleen Battle, there were a number of things that led me to consider the edits. Nrswanson is of the opinion that a version caters to "Kathleen Battle fans", because it attempts to focus on what the two parties said to each other. It includes Volpe's assertion of her "unprofessional behavior" and Kathleen Battle's response. Reasons for the termination, however are not agreed upon and culpability is also not agreed upon. So why make this an article, going back and forth about that? Clearly it would be difficult to maintain NPOV. MOSTLY it is not clear to me why stating Volpe's statement and Battle's response favors Battle (or Volpe) for that matter. Perhaps one can than state that adding statements would favor Volpe. I believe, as I understand wikipedia's guidelines, that living biographies and information in them should focus on specific events and less speculation and judgement of those events. Hrannar (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar
Nrswanson, I want to thank you for the neutrality tag. I wrote to Voceditore trying to get his help, but I agree that the neutrality tag is appropriate. Thanks so much. Hrannar (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar
This isn't a question of what is stated Hrannar (as all of this info was already in the prior version) but what is not stated. You deleted information showing a history of difficult/ unprofessional behavior extending as far back as the early 1980s, thereby changing the context of the Met firing significantly.Nrswanson (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The information, that Kiri Te Kanawa and Battle had a disagreement, was actually information that I MYSELF had put in. YES. I ORIGINALLY thought it was important to place what was rumored (not an official statement from either Te Kanawa or Battle) and to explain the feud. So I, in fact, was editing myself, for the most part, not someone else. I, however, after some thought, wondered if rumor had place; also how much focus and weight should be applied to an area where MANY dispute and disagree, even disagreements happen in the media. Peter Gelb publicly said he would not have terminated Battle and both he and Jessye Norman have often worked together, with a fairly recent collaboration in the Vangelis Mythodea project with Battle and Jessye Norman. So whether you feel he had a valid point or not isn't the point. The point is people disagree about working with Kathleen Battle. But some voices seem to be loud (and sometimes downright vitriolic). That's not to say that's what was going on in our dispute regarding the section I thought to edit out (which you'll see I've expanded Volpe's and the cast members assertions. Hrannar (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I agree with Nrswanson here. I don't see anything in my suggestions re the previous controversy which could be possibly be taken as support for the wholesale removal of a well-referenced paragraph. The references were not to tabloids. They were to reliable, highly regarded media. The way it is handled in this version seems about right to me. And in no way was it a violation of BLP policy. Restricting the coverage to one terse quote from Volpe (and ignoring the basis for the charge of "unprofessional conduct", which is a serious one, followed by a more lengthy denial by Battle, clearly distorts both what happened and the implications. How the sections are subtitled is a relatively minor issue. I personally prefer chronological ones, regardless of what the mavens over at FA prefer. For one thing, I find them useful in avoiding giving undue weight to particular episodes. But regardless, of how the career sections are subtitled, I feel the Met firing episode needs to be restored to the previous version, both to maintain a neutral point of view and more importantly to make it an informative, comprehensive article. There was a similar issue with the Joan Sutherland article. There, it was some seemiingly anti-immigrant remarks that she made after her retirement, the subsequent controversy and her apology. I supported including the information in a paragraph under "Retirement years". The "Battle vs. Met" episode is far more relevant to her career as an opera singer than the remarks made by Sutherland. What happened there basically ended her career. It deserves far better coverage than the current version. Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there was not the same weight given to Volpe and Battle, that Battle's explanation was longer. So I tried to find and add Volpe's statement as well as the cast. I hope this addition will truly make it more Neutral. The following paragraph adds that she has not performed in an Opera since, though continues to perform in recitals, concerts, recordings, etc. So have never disputed the addition of the termination incident, but want to remain careful and cautious as to the details and even some of the implications i.e., because though she no longer performs in opera, the Recital and concert work and performances had been and are still there, and some seem to exaggerate with no proof that her entire career basically ended. When you could see advertisements (and reviews) (I live in the midwest) of her performances in the Chicago area, Michigan, Wisconson, and Ohio -- even though she was in her 50s, which for a light lyric voice, seems unusual for the number of concerts she was giving. Others of similar voice types and with all due respect to them -- you didn't see them as much. Barbara Bonney. Sylvia McNair. Dawn Upshaw. You saw them in recital, just not as much. And this is nothing against them, just to point out that Kathleen Battle still remained a huge draw -- even despite the negative press. Hrannar (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar
I agree with Voceditenore that the current version is inadequate. The expanded section, as it's covered here was in place for months through many edits of the article by many editors and seems to have achieved consensus as an appropriate way to cover this portion of her career. I would like the article to go back to this version to provide complete and fair coverage of this topic. Rickterp (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the slightly expanded version now added by Hrannar does not go far enough as it fails to set the firing in context and is also poorly referenced to an "abstract". (It needs full bibliographic information. The one which was recently replaced wasn't perfect and could use a good copy-edit for style and referencing format. But the basic gist of it is fine, as is the balance. Frankly there's enough to document a section three times as long as the one which was deleted. I should also point out, that the fact the mainstream press painted a largely negative view of her behaviour (even prior to the Met firing) is an unfortunate but significant aspect of her biography. And, this was happening even before before the final straw with Daughter of the Regiment. See Richard Dyer (Prima Donna, The Boston Globe, February 7, 1993) which recounts her walking out of Der Rosenkavalier at the Met, her behaviour during rehearsals with the the Boston Symphony Orchestra, cancelling an appearance with the Vienna Philharmonic three hours before a concert (forcing them to cancel for the first time within living memory), walking offstage in the middle of the televised opening night concert of the New York Philharmonic when a group of Strauss orchestral songs didn't go very well, etc. etc.

I'd suggest keeping the current structure for now, but restoring and copy editing the previous version of the Met firing. Also, this article needs a lot of work in many other places. There's a lot of material out there about her operatic career and performances that could be usefully added, the prose could be polished up, and the references need formatting very badly. There are also a wealth of reviews of her post-Met concerts out there. Why focus so much on trying to air-brush what is essentially a very significant (but not all-consuming) aspect of her career? Like it or not, by the early 1990's her behaviour had become increasingly erratic towards colleagues, orchestras, opera management, you name it. And increasingly disliked by them. Like it or not, it was widely reported in the press at the time, and like it or not, it basically ended her career both on the opera stage and with many major symphony orchestras. The best way to put the Met episode into context, is to expand and improve the rest of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Update I've re-written the Met episode paragraph, and referenced it properly. In my view it gives adequate coverage of the issue and explanation of the background. I would strongly suggest that the 1990's section now be filled out with more detailed coverage of her concerts following the dismissal. See in particular those available at the New York Times [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

" RESPONSE, after reading update closely Please tell me how a paragraph that begins, "Kathleen Battle's reputation as "difficult" or "tempermental" first surfaced in a 1983 production of Arabella with Kiri te Kanawa in the title role." is neutral? And how it follows of guidelines of living biographies of Do no harm? It has not seemed inappropriate to me to include the Met episode or the view of Volpe and cast that she was "unprofessional" etc. The "difficult" and "tempermental" terms and rumor (unsubstanted by nothing official from Te Kanawa or Battle) has changed the ethical, journalistic just the facts reporting to something else. Hrannar (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Voceditenore - Completely agree that that the citation is poorly referenced, which can easily be fixed; the citation actually points to the full NY Times article written by Kozinn. But, regardless of who they come from, newspaper or Magazine, some of the stories are still not completely accurate and worse, misleading. It is understandable why some individuals want to know the negative details around the termination, but it doesn't seem relevant to a person's biography (if I understand the to repeat the negative details -- especially if they are still in their career and we are following the living biographies guidelines. In my humble opinion, to say that the Met termination was the final straw seems biased to me. Others assert that her disputes with conductors or staging issues are not personal, but have to do with music, as Battle also stated. And this is where the dispute comes in -- Volpe did not handle the situation properly. Both you and I know that in any human resources situation, before a person is let go, the reasonable thing to do is to let them know where they need improvement, if there is a perceived need. Volpe did not do that. In addition, other Opera singers cancel. Or choose to not do performances, because of disagreements about a production. But again, these are two sides to the stories. Battle, for some reason, does not tend to speak out or against others or defend herself -- as Volpe has done in his book. When you mention the Vienna cancellation shortly before the concert, Didn't Pavarotti cancel about 40 minutes before his Tosca concerts at the Met? Double standard. So she has detractors, fans, and those in between. What I think follows wikipedia guidelines is to not portray Kathleen in a way that does sways either way, per se. Which is why I tried to give equal weight to both sides, by adding more details about what Volpe said and the cast stated. Secondly to avoid the gossipy, tabloid tales of "erratic behavior" and "diva behavior" of what wikipedia is not striving for, in my humble opinion, that is also valid. Those who want and care about the gossipy details that paint her as more demanding than any other artist at her level, even though many do not clearly see her as such, can go to the message boards or read the Vanity Fair article for their pleasure. Hrannar (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar
I don't consider the current revised paragraph biased or "gossipy" at all. The paragraph is not referenced or linked to Vanity Fair or any tabloid newspaper article or message board. It is referenced to the New York Times. Note also that if sources like the New York Times or Time Magazine are considered reliable for highly complimentary quotes and opinions elsewhere in the article, one cannot then selectively disregard them as sources for negative ones. As it happens, I did not reference or link to this rather damning Time article on the Met firing in the paragraph.
The paragraph as it now stands actually makes the point at the outset that her disputes with colleagues, conductors, etc. were viewed by the New York Times critic, Bernard Holland, as being primarily about music rather than self-agrandizement. It ends with her own statement on the firing in full, as well as Volpe's admission that Levine opposed the firing at the time and that Volpe wondered if his desire to impose his authority may have influenced his decision. There is no mention of the many Battle stories, no assertion of "erratic" or "diva" behaviour, no mention of the reactions of her erstwhile colleagues to the firing - only that her relations with the Met had become increasingly strained - a well documented fact. Nowhere in the paragraph does it say that the Met termination was "the final straw". What it quotes is a public statement by Volpe at the time, in which he explained the reasons for his actions in general terms and clearly stated that that all offers that had been made for future performances at the Met were cancelled. She never sang again at the Met. She never sang again in any opera house in the world. Those are indisputable facts. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but been busy and unable to participate in this discussion for a bit. I think there was a slight misunderstanding regarding the gossipy point I tried to make. The gossipy comment I make was not in reference to how the article stood as of yesterday early afternoon, which I thought was fair; The point I was trying to make is to strive to provide both sides, give equal wait. And avoid making this a lengthy discussion about termination. This is not an article about the termination. Those details (or supposed details) already exist in print and I'm not sure why the details are expected here. Hrannar (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar
Voceditenore. I agree with you that the paragraph (at least as I saw it yesterday afternoon) was fine. And I had no problem with that. I shouldn't be misrepresented in having disagreement with that. In fact, I added Volpe's more complete statement. But also, it was reworked to show both sides fairly equally. Volpe and colleagues had a problem; Kathleen Battle responded. You mention the "final straw" and explain that I was oppossed to it in the article, even though it wasn't used. Well, the term "final straw" was your term used in one of the discussions you made where you state, "And, this was happening even before before the final straw with Daughter of the Regiment." I understood it wasn't in the article. And I am not stating there is a mention of the stories. I state that wikipedia strives to avoid the gossipy aspect that an article about Kathleen Battle can turn into, and which I am concerned can happen when you suggest expanding and mention different incidents in your comment that begins, "In my view, the slightly expanded..." And who is disputing that Kathleen Battle has not performed at the Met or in Opera's since the Met incident? It was stated that she hasn't performed in Operas since then. Hrannar (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

In my view the recent changes and editions made by Voceditenore have not only solved the neutrality problems but have also greatly improved the article. If no one objects, I would like to remove the neutrality tag.Nrswanson (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you yesterday, but there have been many changes since that have caused me to question the neutrality including the "Kathleen Battle's reputation as "difficult" or "tempermental" first surfaced in a 1983 production of Arabella with Kiri te Kanawa in the title role." statement, which is the original concern that I had. And as of noon July 23, 2008 EST, the neutrality seems in quesiton I would request that it remain and perhaps get some others who have not heard of or follow Kathleen Battle. It is clear to me that Voceditenore and yourself have. Hrannar (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar
  • Response I would also say that neutrality is no longer an issue with the revised paragraph on the Met dismissal and the addition of a preceding paragraph outlining her other projects and performances in the early 1990's. What the article now needs to do is document her post Met career much more fully, starting with two important performances at Carnegie Hall in March and April of 1994: [2] and [3]. The problem with this article is that so much time and energy has been expended edit-warring about the Met incident, that its serious deficiencies have all gone unremedied - repetitiveness, choppy narrative (much of which is heavily paraphrased from online bios), poor referencing, inadequate documentation of her major debuts, and extremely sketchy coverage of her later career which makes it look like all she's done of note is a Stevie Wonder tribute, a concert at Aspen, and singing for the Pope a few months ago. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Response I apologize, but I feel that neutrality is an issue, since some of the recent changes last night and today. And the details of the preceding paragraph detailing her concerts in the 1990s seems odd, out of place. This is not done for the previous years where she also concertized and recorded extensively; no specific heading is made to outline those concerts then. Could it, perhaps, be a reason, so that someone could make a "dismissal" subheading? Since it seems important to you to outline and document the change of her operatic performances. Why not simply state she has not performed in Opera since. Often people are lazy about references, but that can be fixed, simply by finding a reference in placing it there. The wonder, Aspen, and pope are current these last years. They mention new repertoire and document that she continues to perform. It would not be difficult to make a separate 2000s section. In addition, I took my cue to avoid giving "undue weight" (your words) to a certain aspect of her career by following your very own recommendation, Voceditenore. You stated, "The best way to achieve neutrality over section titles and to avoid giving undue weight to any particular aspect of the subject's life and career (either positive or negative) is to use simple chronological labelling for the sub-sections. Take a look at how José Carreras is structured." Hrannar (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar
Hrannar, I have now removed the material about the Arabella dispute, which you yourself had originally added and referenced and now object to. In addition, I have now changed the headings back to a strict chronological order. (The previous subheadings had been added by another editor.) As for the preceding paragraph detailing her concerts, recordings, and opera performances in the 1990s, I added it so that the 1990's section would not focus predominantly on the Met dismissal. It is also why I suggested that more work needs to be done on her post-1994 career. It is not odd at all to have that much detail. I consider it a model for the way the other sections should be written. The other sections are sketchy, missing key information, and poorly referenced. Likewise, the discography is lacking her key opera recordings, and has innaccurate dates. Likewise the "Choral, recital repertoire, soundtracks, and collaborations" section which is not only repetitive but full of peacock PR terms which lessen the overall credibility of the article. If you are really concerned to do justice to Battle's career, why not concentrate on improving the coverage and referencing instead of edit-warring over her dismissal from the Met, as you have been doing on and off for over a year now, both under your own name and as the anonymous IP 129.74.18.183? I have now asked for an outside opinion at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Heya, Voceditenore. Thanks for helping with this article. I appreciate it. It is clear to me that we disagree on how to keep the met termination NPOV and within wikipedia guidelines. In your response, there are a few comments explaining/defending actions for which you are not being blamed i.e., subheadings being added by another editor. Please do not take these edits or questions personally. If you disagree, simply state why with examples and I will do my best to do the same. And in fact, in some instances, I agree with you and have stated so. Disagreements are not always solved in one response, as you can imagine. / FWIW, in an effort (however imperfect) to make this page a more complete and informative living biography, my efforts have clearly been throught the article, though you seem to suggest otherwise. Firstly, the general shell and basic information was instigated by myself beginning June 11, 2007 (I am 129.74.18.183 -- Unfortunately I did not know about signing in and signatures at the time.) / Regarding the edit warring, I recall being in one "edit war" last summer, where an individual only seemed interesting in presenting one side of the story. Out of fairness to me, you should recognize that I have not balked at showing both sides. And if I understand you correctly, undue weight should not be given to the met incident. / In mentioning that the "detailing her concerts in the 1990s seems odd", it seems that doing so, we see sentences like "The concert was televised on PBS,[12] and the live recording was later released by Deutsche Grammophon" and "The great contralto, Marian Anderson, who had ended her farewell tour with a recital at Carnegie Hall in April 1965"; though fascinating, that seemed too much detail. But I could be wrong, as the past has already proven. And yet, perhaps I am not the only one that can be wrong. Are we not all human? All the best. Hrannar (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Sub-headings

I personally disagree with the decision to remove the sub-headings. For one thing they served the useful purpose of allowing quotes and discussions from the 1980s without them seeming out of place or awkward in the 1990s section. That 1985 quote doesn't seem to fit now. I also do not believe that they caused any "undue" weight. Like it or not, the Met firing will probably be the most remembered part of Battle's career after she's gone. I think not having a sub-section is more odd to readers than having one. Nrswanson (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fussed one way or another about sub-headings, although in general I prefer chronological ones for a variety of reasons, not simply to avoid giving undue weight to certain events. If headings are chronological, then setting off the Met dismissal as a sub-sub-heading makes the remainder of that decade sort of awkward, especially since she has been performing well into the 2000's by now and that should probably be hived off as its own subheading. I do see your point about the 1985 quote, so have changed the tense to make it fit better. Frankly, I'd also be happy to remove it completely. I agree with you that unfortunately the Met firing will probably be the most remembered part of Battle's career after she's gone. There's not an article or review post-1994 that fails to mention it. Ah well, there's considerable cleaning up and additions to do at the moment. Once the article overall is in better shape, we could ask for a peer or Good Article review, and see what happens vis-a-vis the sub-headings. Voceditenore (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kathleen_Battle/Archive_2&oldid=1190121515"