Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Another attempt at reaching consensus

Look, can we reach an agreed wording and move forward to actually improving the article? I suggest paring the "dismissal" paragraph down to this:

_____________________________________________

In February 1994, when Metropolitan Opera General Manager Joseph Volpe dismissed Battle from the upcoming production of Donizetti's La Fille du Régiment for "unprofessional actions" during rehearsals. Volpe called Battle's conduct "profoundly detrimental to the artistic collaboration among all the cast members" and indicated that he had "canceled all offers that have been made for the future." Battle was replaced in La fille du régiment by Harolyn Blackwell. In a statement released by her management company, Columbia Artists, Battle said: "I was not told by anyone at the Met about any unprofessional actions. To my knowledge, we were working out all of the artistic problems in the rehearsals, and I don't know the reason behind this unexpected dismissal. All I can say is I am saddened by this decision."

Since her dismissal from the Met, Battle has not appeared in opera performances. However, she continues to appear in concerts and recitals, as well as lending her voice to recordings...

_____________________________________________

It gives an equal amount of space to what Volpe said in the Met press release in terms of why he fired her and what Battle said in hers. It confines itself to that. There are no mentions of past behaviour no quotes whatsoever from Volpe's book with his post hoc views either pro or con about the action he took (or anyone else's views either). This is just about the limit to which this airbrushing can be taken. Even The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, New Grove Dictionary of Opera and The Encyclopedia Americana have in their entries for Battle her dismissal, the reasons for it, and the fact that she never again sang on the opera stage . We are not talking about the artist's private life, we are talking about her public, professional life, and an event which had a profound effect on her career. It is a matter of public record, published in multiple respected reference works, as well as newpapers of record. To put any less than what is in the revised paragraph I've suggested above is a complete distortion and misreading of WP:BLP. I'm going to be away until the end of August, hopefully the rest of you can thrash this out. Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Voceditenore - Thank you. Clearly a more neutral paragraph; states events; than gives equal voice and weight to subjects involved. It may be worth noting that I have never had an issue with the inclusion of the termination. In fact, I added Volpe's perspective, when it was pointed out to me that the perspective was unbalanced. Hrannar (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I am ok with the above paragraph. I also think a mention of mounting tensions between Battle and the Met management is relevent here and should remain in the article. I could care less about whether Volpe's post hoc statement is included (although I highly disagree that it negatively effects neutrality as he was the one who did the actual firing and his viewpoint is therefore highly relevent).Nrswanson (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This statement you make here, "I highly disagree that it negatively effects neutrality as he was the one who did the actual firing and his viewpoint is therefore highly relevent" is at the crux of the NPOV. In your opinion, anything Volpe or anyone says regarding the termination is RELEVANT. Unfortunately, what is RELEVANT to you also happens to show bias towards Volpe's and Company's point of view: Where is the neutrality in that? And it seems that, in this matter, you feel that his assessment of Kathleen Battle is true. We couldn't be more in disagreement. That is why we must strive to simply show both sides, providing them each as much equal weight, without feeling that one side is more justified than the other. Hrannar (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

In order for an article to remain neutral it must present all sides. The answer in neutrality is not to censor but to give everyone (by that I mean those directly involved) a voice. If sources with Battle's perspective can be found I would want those included as well. Sadly, this is more difficult for us as editors as Battle has been reluctant to talk about the event publically. This, however, should not prevent the accurate and thorough coverage of the Met's perspective. Also, a post hoc view seems not as relevent as a source at the time of the event which is why I am ok with not including it. (although I do not have a problem with it's inclusion) However, there are quotes from the time of the event which you have removed and I do not support their removal. Also, I do not support the removal of information regarding Battle's prior history with the management of the Metropolitan Opera. This is relevent to not only the firing but the overall coverage of her career. Nrswanson (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As Voceditenore, the paragraph as he has fashioned it gives equal weight to both sides; and represents the termination within the context of the termination -- the cause they give for her termination was "unprofessional behavior" during the rehearsals. It seems we can at least adopt the version Voceditenore wrote. No one seems to be considered that it gives undue weight to either side, therefore compromising NPOV, which is the issue at hand. 129.74.18.183 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I disagree that the above paragraph provides adequate context when tensions between Battle and the Met management were publically reported prior to the Donizetti production. Once again, this was not an isolated event.Nrswanson (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the version suggested by Voceditenore, the language is clear that she was terminated for : "...unprofessional actions" during rehearsals [and] Volpe called Battle's conduct "profoundly detrimental to the artistic collaboration among all the cast members." It states the rationale of Volpe as he officially stated. Readers who want more "context" can read the reference citation. Perhaps the context you feel would make this more adequate would in fact lend support, justification to Volpe's action. This then would bring to question, in my humble opinion, NPOV and stray from the guidelines for surrounding biographies of living persons, since she is still performing. Hrannar (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar Hrannar (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I don't think this violates NPOV. It is a well documented fact that Battle and the management of the Met were having problems the years prior to the Met firing. This is not judgment on Battle as no blame for the tension is placed either on her or the management. But this history does play an important part in the context of the Met firing. I argued in the first place that deleting this info violates neutrality in favor of Battle fans. The deletion of that line was the whole reason I placed the tag in the first place. This is essential information in my opinion and without it the Met firing loses its context within the broader picture of Battle's history with that company and her overall career.Nrswanson (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me how voceditenore's suggestion violates neutrality in favor of Battle fans? His version includes fairly strong, specific, and unflattering language. How does that favor Battle fans? Honestly he seems to represent BOTH SIDES -- key component of NPOV -- pretty evenly. Again, the key is both sides. Again, rationale stated is that she was terminated for her "unprofessional actions", etc. during the rehearsal.Hrannar (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I have already explained why above in my comments over the last several days about the ommission of contextual material. Also, how does my added information skew the presentation in any way or add weight to any one side over the other? Second, how can a quote directly from main stream media that is directly related to the facts of the event be viewed as an NPOV violation? Your interpretation of NPOV and living bio regulations seem rather odd and, although I believe you are editing in good faith, I do think you are Gaming the system. I am seeking a request for help in this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsNrswanson (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting additional help. I agree that we could use some help here. Not sure why you feel my living bio claims are odd, but that is your oppinion. Your claims to neutrality are more a reaction against what you believe might favor "Battle fans." When clearly, I have not been been opposed to including the strong, negative language used to describe the reason for the termination. It appears that you seek little balance, just more justification for Volpe's side. And that, and you can call it gaming the system if you'd like, seems to go against NPOV as I understand it. Hrannar (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I am not seeking to justify Volpe or Battle. I am merely trying to present an acurate picture of events. I believe presenting quotes from the New York Times and other major news sources helps the process of presenting information and events accurately. You oppose including information in major news sources which seems to me to be counterproductive to the entire wikipedia process, in particular to issues of neutrality and cencorship.Nrswanson (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Presenting an "accurate" picture of events is indeed the goal. And where does your statement, "You oppose including information in major news sources" come from? It has not been clear how the version voceditenore presents is lacking in neutrality; it is also not clear to me how his version, as you state in your own words, "violates neutrality in favor of Battle fans." Again, this is the what the version offers: "Joseph Volpe]] dismissed Battle from the upcoming production of Donizetti's La Fille du Régiment for "unprofessional actions" during rehearsals. Volpe called Battle's conduct "profoundly detrimental to the artistic collaboration among all the cast members" and indicated that he had "canceled all offers that have been made for the future. That is Volpe et al. perspective. Battle's pespective is then giving. NPOV. Seems accurate AND neutral and factual, since we use the words of the parties invovled Hrannar (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I have already said this twice over the last week but hopefully the third time will be the charm. The issue is not with what is said but what is not said (i.e. ommitted). One, not explaining Battle's conflict with Met management for several years prior to the 1994 firing casts the incident in a different light and glosses over a well publicized bumpy part of her career in the early 1990s which deserves to be covered even if she hadn't been fired. Two, statements printed in the New York Times by those involved in the production of La Fille du Régiment are relevent as they are first person eye witness accounts that describe Battle's "unprofessional actions" during rehearsals. I don't see how this skews the event in favor of one person or another, as it simply states the facts of what happened. Third, you have stated on several occasions (see above) that you don't trust main stream media and have then proceeded to remove sections of the article that directly quote from the New York Times and other sources. These edits in my view are your attempt to censor this article in the name of NPOV, thereby making this article unbalanced and un-neutral by withholding information and failing to accurately present all views.Nrswanson (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Final word before I leave.... 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. Voceditenore (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle battle

Thank you Hrannar and Nrswanson for your messages. Does this means that you are both willing to accept my mediation? I see you have both received warnings and risk blocking if you continue edit warring. So I suggest, first of all, that we have a cooling off period of 24 hours, i.e. until 01.00 am GMT, 2 August.

Second, I suggest we use Voceditenore's version (above) for the next 24 hours or until we have consensus on a new version. If you can both agree to this, I will then post it. Can you agree with this interim arrangement so we can move on? Thanks. --Kleinzach 00:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No. I do not agree. I suggest we leave it at this version by Voceditenore which was where it was when he suggested the proposed change (which I have issues with). Hrannar implemented Voceditenore's version without first gaining consensus here which resulted in the conflict. It should also be noted that Voceditenore has admitted that he is not thrilled with his proposed version either. Also, I do accept your role as a mediator and thank you for stepping in. Nrswanson (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Over to Hrannar. Do you accept the earlier Voceditenore version? --Kleinzach 01:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Please see my response above. Hrannar (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

To clarify, the version suggested by Nrswanson was not what I had originally written. This is [1]. "My" version had subsequently been edited by both Hrannar and User:Nickbigd before I made my latest suggestion here on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for correcting that. Then I support the corrected voceditenore version.Nrswanson (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I assume we are referring to the Voceditenore version of 02:53, 24 July 2008. Is that correct? Frankly if Voceditenore is still here I think we should leave it to her to produce an interim version. --Kleinzach 02:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

that is correct and I agree with your suggestion.Nrswanson (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, but I just signed on today. I am willing to accept your mediation. To answer your question, I agree with the above version that voceditenore proposed; however, in an effort to compromise, I am also ok with the version available as of 10 am EST today is ok. Hrannar (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Kleinzach. on second thought. I take back the above. Your suggestion that "we use Voceditenore's version (above) for the next 24 hours or until we have consensus on a new version." makes more sense, for the reason that it gives BALANCED weight to both parties, which seems closest to NPOV guidelines as I understand them. Other versions really do not seem to do that. / After reading more closely today's version as of 10 am EST today, it clearly does not seem Neutral to me. It includes data which support Metropolitans actions which I have no problem with; but it doesn't seem interested in really showing that their is another side. Again, it's the neutral issue at stake here. There is no issue here, as far as the termination, the issue is giving it undue weight and including the negative press which was vocal and often, undilligent in presenting Battle's side of the story. Just don't see it as neutral. Sorry. So, very much accept voceditenore's and am happy that version he presented yesterday as an attempt to resolve this situation. Thank you for your help! Hrannar (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I disagree with the assertion that that version is more neutral than other versions. Since the implementation of the above Voceditenore proposal by Hrannar (without first gaining consensus as mentioned above by Voceditenore) was the cause of the initial edit war, I would view such a move as showing favortism to his position. I request that the version mentioned by Voceditenore and myself in this discussion be used since neither myself or Hrannar are satisfied with the article in that state.Nrswanson (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In Voceditenore's own words, "[he] suggests paring the "dismissal" paragraph down to this...It gives an equal amount of space to what Volpe said in the Met press release in terms of why he fired her and what Battle said in hers." / If I am not mistaken, it was his effort to come to a compromise of what we both are attempting. Perhaps it is not 'optimal' in his, yours, or my perspectives; however to suggest that adopting that version shows favoritism to me is interesting, since it was (1) voceditenore's attempt to come to a compromise between the BOTH of us (your concerns and mine) and (2) it gives equal space and lines to both parties (battle and met management.). (talk Hrannar (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Sorry not to have got back to both of you earlier. Reading the last few posts I have to say I am confused by the textual details. In theory, I think it should be possible for us to get to an agreed text about half way between the versions each of you favour, however I am not sure what these are exactly. Would it be possible to put your preferred versions in (your) userspaces and give me links? Thanks. --Kleinzach 10:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I have gone ahead and placed the version I believe to be the most thorough and accurate picture of events that is also neutral (i.e. avoiding the extreme reports cited in Vogue magazine and other sources and presenting both sides) at User:Nrswanson/sandbox. I have no doubt that Hrannar will disagree. Please understand that I do not believe this version to be perfect, but to be the best possible version with the currently available sources.Nrswanson (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Zach. Helps to create a safe space where discussions can be held, without the personal attacks. / Here is a suggested version which I believe uses the least suggestive language for either side and attempts to place both perspectives on equal footing and equal air time; this allows the exact language of the principle players to stand on their own; let wikipedia readers see both sides of the story and make their own conclusions -- a useful feature of neutrality IMHO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hrannar/sandbox/k_battle / p.s. I am usually not online after 5:30pm or on weekends, so please excuse my delayed response. Hrannar (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Yes thanks Kleinzach and for the record I don't think any personal attacks have been made by either myself or Hrannar which I appriciate. Thank you for keeping this conversation civil. Now to buisness. My issues with Hrannar's version are the following: 1. It doesn't put the firing in context with Battle's hisory with the Met management which I think is essential for understanding the event. Without it, it makes the firing look like it came entirely out of nowhere and frankly that sort of presentation is entirely unfair to Volpe and the Metropolitan Opera. Also, Battle's difficult behavior was the subject of much press during the 1980s so including it in the article is fair. Remember, Battle's reputation is not the only one at stake here. 2. It doesn't include a description of said "unprofessional actions" at the time of the firing. I believe the New York Times description to be the most fair and balanced of articles at the time, especially since they avoided the inflammatory sort of remarks in other publications like Vogue. I don't see how including the quote from NYT would unfairly balance the article. In fact, in only serves to explain what happened. 3. I think the post hoc quote by Volpe helps vindicate Battle to some extent and is therefore helpful to balancing the neutrality. 4. I disagree with the general philosophy of Hrannar towards this section. I don't believe "equal air time" in this case creates a neutral point of view for several reason. First, Battle never really explained her side to the press beyond the quoted released statement. For this reason, presenting "her side" is virtually impossible sense she has never made her perspective public beyond a press release most likely drafted by her management. So really, presenting her side only involves that one quote. Anything else would be original research or speculation. On the other hand, we have the Met's side of things which in order to present fully and acurately requires much more time and explanation. So really equal air time only serves to disservice the Met's side of the story and distort the reality of the Met's perspective. I see no reason why the Met/ Volpe viewpoint should not be accurately presented for the sake of equal air time. 5. Hrannar seems intent on leaving the discussion of the event to statements made by the management and Battle without actually discussing what happened. This really distorts neutrality as, without actually stating the facts, the reader can't draw their own conclusions. The truth in these sort of things is often somewhere in the middle between both sides. However, as Hrannar presents it one would have to either believe Battle over Volpe or vice versa rather than seeing some truth to both points of view which comes across much more in the version I am advocating. Hence why my version is more neutral than Hrannar's version.Nrswanson (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

-- Thanks again for your time and assistance, Kleinzach. It is fair to say that the views of nrswanson and myself on neutrality differ in this article. So I agree to disagree on how to remain neutral re: discussion of the termination; maybe unable to add more to discussion but this one thing: Nrswans stated that given the situation, "equal air time only serves to disservice the Met's side of the story and distort the reality of the Met's perspective." Neutrality, in general, indicates that both sides may have, well, their side. PERHAPS Battle's behavior was unprofessional; PERHAPS Management did not communicate to Battle that her actions were 'detrimental' and unprofessional and make an attempt at discussions and conflict resolution. / Seeing where both sides may have a point is the key to neutrality. / Nrswans indicates that not enough information is given to explain "the 'reality' of the Met's perspective" and that doing so would make it more neutral. Well, it certainly would be giving more the Met's perspective; how it makes it more neutral is still beyond me. The version I propoosed, basically verbatim to voceditenores, clearly states that Met felt she was unprofessional, etc. And Battle was unaware of those issues, etc. / Again, that approach (enhancing Met perspective) just doesn't make sense to me if we are to present a neutral reporting. I am not saying that that is wrong, that I am certain of my perspective, just saying that it doesn't make sense to me to take that approach and claim it as truly neutral when neutral generally indicates that no side is taken, as I understnad it. Thanks again. p.s. I will not be able to respond until tomorrow sometime as I have to leave. Sorry.Hrannar (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I am not "taking sides" but covering each perspective as thoroughly as possible. (which should be the goal here to present both views as thoroughly and accurately as possible.) A distorted inaccurate picture can not be neutral and the version by Hrannar is a distortion by virtue of key information that is withheld. Also, I have concerns that not allowing relevent information from a major newspaper article is a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored..Nrswanson (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We disagree on what is neutral, as well as the validity in representing both sides, not just enhancing one side -- what nrswanson states as "presenting both views as thoroughly and accurately." If he wants to assert that what I do is a violation of censorship, since I clearly have no problem presenting the dismissal, so be it. It seems to me that we present it differntly -- I suggest using the words the official statement of the Met/Volpe (which did not use unclear language) and Battle regarding the situation and including the NY Times reference. This reports the events without potential bias to either side, IMHO. Hrannar (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Comparing the two alternative versions

I'm now looking at the two userspace versions and I see that Nrswanson is using three sub section headings (In opera, concert and recordings, 1990 - 1993/1994 dismissal from the Metropolitan Opera/Later career) but Hrannar is not. Is this a significant point of difference? On the face of it having subheadings makes the text easier to navigate. --Kleinzach 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Kleinzach - What to you think about the proposal for the text of the dismissal section of the article?/ Also regarding sub-headings, please see the sub-headings discussion above. It is discussed in a section with the "sub-heading" title, as well throughout this discussion. / I agree that sub-headings can often be very useful to the reader; however, it is fairly clear that sub-headings would not really be an issue were there not the intent to make the dismissal stand out; as a way to avoid making it stand out and give undue weight, Voceditenore suggested the sub-headings by year (and uses it in the wikipedia page he seems to have a lot of input in José Carreras)) as a way to help keep things neutral. He explained in the first section of this talk page, "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..." / In addition, much of the information of the 90s could be summarized and made more succinct, avoiding, removing details that seem to be more fluff and space taker uppers, such as the title a recital, which record companies released which disks, and when Marian Anderson ended her farewell tour; after the Met incident, she continue to perform steadily in the 90s and 2000s; and that could be summarized briefly. / So if we take into consideration the neutrality question but also see that in other pages eg., the Jose Carreras page, using chronolical sub-headings does not seem to detract, unless one wants to give a certain weight to the Met dismissal by making it stand out as a separate sub-heading; as mentioned, sub-headings would probably not be an issue, were it not for the met dismissal. / ADDITION: I have reworked the 1990 section and 2000 section, so both sections are separated out; and have tried to provide a more general summary of the 1990s here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hrannar/sandbox/k_battle#1990s Hrannar (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Once again, here I disagree with Hrannar. I like the sub headings for several reasons. First, it makes the page more easy to navigate. Second, decade headings are not very useful without more specific sub-headings and I would like to see similar headings in the other sections of the article. Three, I disagree that a sub-heading gives the event any undue weight. First, I am not convinced that sub-headings really can give a subject more weight at all but for arguement sake I will assume it does. The question here is whether or not any weight given is undue. The event had a significant impact on Battle's career and one now find's it hard to read any press on her without the firing mentioned. Like it or not, the firing is a major part of Battle's biograpy. In this case the weight is due not undue. In a biography on Battle, one would expect an entire chapter dedicated to the Met firing.Nrswanson (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle hasn't performed in Opera since then, which is what is mentioned in the wikipedia article. However, to suggest that it is merely the Met dismissal requires "due weight" ie., presenting it in its own section with its own title is unclear. Why? The dismissal from the Met obviously meant she would not perform in La Fille du regiment or other future contacts at the Met that might have been in the works at the time. But it is interesting to note that, despite the fact that she has a light lyric voice, at least one other of heavier voice types stopped or significantly slowed down performing opera around their late 40s -- Jessye Norman who has not to appearred (as far as I can find) at the Met since 1996 (just a couple years after Battle) or in Opera in general. Sylvia McNair (almost 10 years younger than Battle) stopped performing Opera and even classical music also around the same time Battle stopped performing, preferring the recital and broadway and jazz. Norman, McNair, Battle all seem to have moved away from performing operas...and interestingly around the same time. / It is my hope that we can be fruitful and at least get a neutral look at the text surrounding the dismissal. Hrannar (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I'm afraid drawing comparisons to these other singers is somewhat unfruitful and off topic since they really don't relate well being different people. Norman for example, has appeared in operas with other opera companies besides the Met into the early 2000s and has also sung with symphony orchestras recently. Let's not forget that Battle hasn't continued in the concert literature that older lyric sopranos tend to still enjoy, such as Dawn Upshaw, later in their careers. However, drawing speculations that the firing stopped her getting work with other opera companies and major orchestras would be original research and I don't think that the article can or should say that. (which it doesn't) Be that as it may, the firing is important enough that a sub-heading would not be undue weight. This is especially true since the firing ended her collaborations with James Levine as well as the Metropolitan Opera. Both Levine and the Met (who were responsible for putting together many of her classical recordings) were incredibly important parts of her career so the firing was a major setback to her both professionally and personally. Battle after all was called "the Queen of the Met" at one time. Nrswanson (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems rather on topic to consider what is appropriate to sing for your voice. Any singer interested in a long career considers it; judging from her engagements and recordings, has focused on a variety of projects and musical genres including art songs, jazz, spirituals, and a movie soundtrack. / About Jessye Norman, I have all the respect in the world for her. And like all singers, seems selective in her projects, as she is performing less and less. But I am curious, what other Operas did perform AT THE MET after 1996? And how many operas has she performed in since 1996. When was the last time she performed in Opera? / It seemed to me that Norman, like Battle, has slowed down in her Opera and recital performances. / It is understandable for a singer to do this as they age. Completely understandable. Yes, Norman continues to sing, but in terms of recording and recital, I do not see Norman performing more or less than Battle. / You mention, "Let's not forget that Battle hasn't continued in the concert literature." Where does that come from? How can that be when, since the Met, she has performed with Milwaukee Symphony, Detroit Symphony, China National Symphony Orchestra, Orchestra of St. Lukes, Brazilian Symphonic Orchestra / So I question the accuracy or neutrality of the though that the dismissal was a "major setback to her" since she continued to give recitals and concerts; in 1999 she sold out Carnegie Hall and also received an NAACP image award that same year / she was asked to sing on two major occasions including the presidentail inauguration and the first visit of the pope. Why would anyone ask a singer who is not respected and highly regarded to sing publically, for all to see, if they were not highly regarded? / And interesting that you mention that she "ended her collaborations with James Levine..." When in 1999 she performs with the CSO and James Levine on the CD Fantasia 2000. So that part of the statement simply proves to be inaccurate. / You and I have not disputed that her collaboration with the Met has ended. I agree with you there. And have not disputed mentioning it. / But let's keep to activities, not assert any interpretations on them. / And with much respect to Dawn Upshaw, she is not performing as frequently at the Met as she used to. And Opera. Yes, she has sung Ainadamar which is not as taxing to sing and does not require to project over music of Mozartian or Donizetti proportions. Upshaw was around 47 years old when she last sang Ainadamar. Kathleen Battle, a light lyric voice, was still singing a full Bel Canto opera (San Francisco) when she was 45. / Upshaw is a fantastic artist. But like most light voices, she is careful and had, even before the cancer, slowed down in Opera appearances. / The point is, Battle and Upshaw have taken care of their voices that, due to their voice type and age, see them not eager to attempt to perform full blown productions of traditional Opera. / In other words, there are a HANDFUL of light lyric voice types performing Opera. And fewer yet performing complete Operas in their late 40s and 50s. / So Battle not performing Opera at the time she left it does not seem unusual (when you look at other singers of similar age and voice type); she continues (she'll be 60 this year) to perform repertoire that is not uncommon to those of her age and voice type. / These assertions of major setbacks just continue to baffle me; that is, unless one assumes that performing in complete Operas is the end all be all of any vocalists existence; that is not my assumption. Hrannar (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Good. I don't see a very large gulf between your two positions. I see Hrannar has now agreed to have subsections. That makes it easier to take it section by section. Nrswanson: Will you agree to Hrannar's text '2000 - Present' ?:

She has continued to pursue a number of diverse projects including the works of composers who do not traditionally compose classical music, performing the works of Vangelis, Stevie Wonder, and George Gershwin. In 2001 she and frequent collaborator Soprano Jessye Norman, performed the work Mythodea at the Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens, Greece. In 2006 she appeared in an Tribute to Stevie Wonder and she began including his music in her recitals.

On 2007 she debuted at the Aspen Music Festival performing an all Gershwin program as part of a season benefit on the recommendation of the festival's Music Director, conductor David Zinman.

On April 16, 2008 she sang an arrangement of The Lord's Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI on the occasion of his Papal State visit to the White House. This marks the second time she sang for a pope. (She first sang for Pope John Paul II in 1985 as Soprano Soloist in Mozart's Coronation Mass.)

If so, we can put this in the article and take the section out of contention. --Kleinzach 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to any of the material in that section, but I do feel that it could be expanded further to include her soundtrack recordings, recitals, etc. That of course is really not an issue of contention in this discussion. Nrswanson (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have posted the '2000 to present' section. Can you both remove this from your sandbox versions? --Kleinzach 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Per your request, I have removed the '2000 - present' section from my sandbox version. Hrannar (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Next stage: Section/sections for the 1990s

The next thing we need to decide is the section/sections for the 1990s. Is one section OK? Would it be better to subdivide the 1990s? --Kleinzach 23:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel sub-divisions are helpful here for three reasons. One, it makes it easier to draw together earlier quotes from the 1980s without them seeming out of place. Two, it highlights a major shift in Battle's career that should be noted, namely her move away from opera in the mid nineties post-firing. Three, it makes the section easier to navigate.Nrswanson (talk)

Fair enough. What do you think Hrannar? Have you seen Nrswanson's 3 subsections? --Kleinzach 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach. I have seen Nrswansons subsections. I don't feel they reflect a neutral position. / Chronological sub-headings are about as neutral a heading as you can get and do provide time-based context / They show what happened when. / Nrswansons states he feels wikipedia should "highlight [what he understands] to be a major shift"; this assertion may be "true and accurate" for some, but not for others. (see my discussion about Norman, Upshaw, McNair above.) / Let's include the dismissal; in addition why not let the reader make their own conclusions without guiding or highlighting. Leading (through highlighting) readers towards a certain conclusion that has not be conclusively proven (since many classical vocalists slow down from both heavier repertoire as well as activities as they reach their late 40s) suggests desire to lead readers towards a certain conclusion : counter the goals of neutrality. As mentioned, for her age and voice type Battle is still as active as most singers (who were not dismissed from Met) both in recitals and recordings; therefore argument that Met dismissal 'highlights major shift' is inconclusive; that is why a plain, neutral decade sub-headings (like the other sections) makes sense. / Major headings to aid navigation are indeed provided throughout the article to help readers, not just within this relatively small section, so for purposes of navigation, it doesn't resolve any major navigational issues. To see other examples of how general time sub-sections are used in wikipedia living biographies, please see Jose Carreras and Jessye Norman. Thanks again for your help.Hrannar (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Response by nrswanson

Once again I have to respectfully disagree with Hrannar. First, I am not convinced that my sub-headings in anyway distort neutrality or add undue weight. Again, this is a major event in Battle's career for several reasons:

• 1. It ended her professional relationship with undeniably the most important opera company in her career
• 2. It ended a long fruitful artistic partnership with James Levine.
• 3. It earned her international noteriety. This is evidenced by the fact that even today most press coverage on Battle mentions the firing.

Since this is undeniably a major event, a sub-heading on the topic would be reasonable and not giving undue weight or negatively effecting neutrality. After all the sub-heading simply gives the year and name of event without passing judgement. As on other biographies on living people with scandals or major tragic events such as: Winona Ryder, Bill Clinton and Larry Craig (and a plethera of others on wikipedia) sub-headings on scandals are normative practice and are not viewed by the wikipedia community as giving undue weight or negatively effecting neutrality.

Second, although it is certainly possible that Battle may have chosen to stop performing in operas at some point, like other singers have done, she also might not have. Such assertions are speculative however. What we do know from Volpe is that Battle was on the books to perform at the Met for at least the next few seasons, so her opera career was at least cut short by a few years if not much longer. That seems significant and a definite fact which could not be applied to other singers who stopped doing opera of their own accord. However, to be fair my version simply states that she no longer did opera after the firing, which is a simple fact without judgment. Also, FYI, a number of the examples you gave are bad like Norman, who was in an opera in 2002 at the age of 57, and Upshaw, who was in an opera in Calgary this year. I don't think you can make a case that Battle's career in opera was over by virtue of her voice type, etc. as other singers with similar voices have continued into their fifties. There is evidence, however, that shows her opera career was cut short.

Third, my version does not criticize Battle for moving away from opera, nor does it suggest in anyway that she is less active than other singers or for that matter less actrive than she was during her earlier career.

Finally, decade sub-headings are not standard practice on biography articles and are in fact, in my experience, frowned upon in GA and FA reviews. When there are decade sub-headings, they usually request that the headings be changed or for sub-headings to be added under decade sub-headings with a topical approach (as is done in my version). So your assertion that decade sub-headings are somehow superior is not in keeping with the general thought process for high quality articles, at least at GA and FA review. (Ironically, I wrote most of the Jessye Norman article and organized it into decades a long while ago.)

In conclusion, I find no reasonable arguements to not include sub-headings and the assertions by Hrannar that sub-headings somehow distort neutrality to be totally rediculous.Nrswanson (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Response by Hrannar

Firstly, to be clear, regarding the discussion of the termination, the version Voceditenore offered in the talk section Another attempt at reaching concensus seems the fairly neutral. And to be clear, I have no difficulty mentioning or showing both sides of the dismissal. My disagreement and reserve with Nrswansons preferred versions are (1) what effect dismissal had on her and her entire opera career (not just engagements at Met) and (2) how much weight is should have within a wikipedia living biography.

LIVING BIO GUIDELINES Secondly I am grateful for anyone's efforts to prevent censorship present a fair, balanced and neutral article that follows guidelines for biographies of living persons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_living_persons) that include these notions:

• Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. / When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.' [I am not exactly sure how nrswanson determines how a person earns international notoriety , however I suspect that if it is due to the frequent mentioning in press, that does provide not compelling reason that it is neutral or factual, in my opinion.]
• Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. (Media, particularly Volpe in his book, very directly di
• Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends (Battle still performs.)
• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
• The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.
• If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. [That is why I have no problem mentioning the termination and supporting facts, ie. "official press statements" of both parties. Statements from offended colleagues or a General Manager who needed to defend his actions are neither unbiased nor necessarily accurate. They may be. Than again, they may not be.

FACTUAL AND ACCURATE Also, In his latest response, Nrswanson states, "Assertions by Hrannar that sub-headings distort neutrality [are] totally rediculous"). To be honest, it is not my feeling that sub-headings distort neutrality. I CLEARLY stated that I feel HIS subsections/subheadings do not REFLECT neutrality. Rather these subsections (and often, language within the sections) reflect a his position that:

• "This issue is highly relevant to her biography as her label of difficult has virtually stopped her opera career since the Met firing."; and
• "trimming it further...would bias the article in favor of Kathleen Battle fans rather than present an accurate unbiased picture of the truth"

• A) It is not conclusive, and therefore not factual or accurate as Nrswanson (or certain press may speculate) that "the firing virtually stopped her Opera career." It may' have, as Nrswanson states, "cut [her career] short by a few years." But here are various factors that involve why a singer performs in a grand Opera including whether it is healthy for the voice, whether the music interests them, or whether they are still capable of pulling off the demands of the music. Singers who sing Opera slow down as they age and stop at some point. Regarding her relationship with James Levine, Volpe stated that Levine was in the midst of visiting his sick father and came back to try to convince Volpe out of it; But even though Levine could not conduct her AT THE MET (for obvious reasons) he did IN FACT work with her again in the Fantasia 2000 recording. So the statement it ended their partnership does not seem accurate to me. But again, speaking of Jessye Norman, it is difficult to find data on Norman's last performance AT THE MET save the 1996 Ariadne auf Naxos which was just two years after Battle's last performance. But Norman's opera performances post the Met are FEW and FAR between. She has SLOWED WAAAAAY DOWN as far as I can tell. How many times since 1996 did Jessye perform opera? And when was the last time she performed at the Met? This is very relevant to your claims that Battle no longer performing Opera has all and everything to do with the Met dismissal versus the evidence out there that light lyric and older sopranos have a propensity to move away from Opera around towards their late 40s.

• B) Voceditenore's version offered in the talk section Another attempt at reaching consensus gave equal voice to both parties and I am still baffled at nrswansons's statement that that version is "in favor of Kathleen Battle fans" claim.

NEUTRALITY The termination occurred and is a event that did indeed occur and confirmed as a bona fide FACT; but the diagnoses of her personality or the implications regarding her career have not been conclusively proven and need to be documented neutrally and per living bio guidelines, avoiding "disparag[ing] ... directly or indirectly" which he would do with the suggestions that Battle is "difficult" or that it "the firing virtually stopped her Opera career." ; again mention the events and let them speak for themselves, not hearsay; and keep subheadings so as not to highlight or guide to a certain conclusion, so that readers make their own conclusions without guiding or highlighting.

SUB HEADINGS If pure decade sub-headings are not considered useful or neutral, than I am be willing to compromise and change them to subheadings like "early career", "mid career", and "later career"; although there is substantial activity in each decade to warrant their own sub-section as we see in the case of Carreras. And if there isn't, we can combine decades, as it is done with Carreras and Norman (which Nrswanson indicates he organized into decades and has, for some reason, seen fit to leave that way and though seems to work just fine with Jose and Jessye and no one seems to be rushing to change those, which makes insistence for them here suspect to me) and, to use another example Nrswanson provides, Ryder.

Thanks again, Kleinzach. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Hrannar (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Reply to Hrannar

Once again I feel I have to respectfully disagree with all your assertions for the following reasons:

• 1. In no way does my version state that the firing directly ended Battle's opera career. It merely states she no longer appeared in operas after the firing which is a verifiable fact.
• 2. In no way does my version state that the firing had a profoundly negative impact on Battle's career or even attempt to give an opinion as to the firing's effect. I may speculate about it on this talk page but I certainly didn't include it in my proposed article. Did you actually read my version Hrannar?
• 3. In no way does my version violate the living bio guidelines as the facts reported are just that, facts.
• 4. In no way does the article resort to tabloid style reporting or referencing. I purposely have avoided such reports, like the ones in Vogue etc. My version is written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. The writing style is neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.
• 5. In no way does your arguement actually talk about my version or yours and the facts at hand. You spend the entire time critiqueing what I have said here without really saying anything about my proposed article specifically.
• 6. Norman and other singers are irrelevent to this conversation and your use of them here is a red herring. Also a rather pointless one as I never said in the article that the firing was the cause of the end of Battles opera career.
• 7. The fact that Battle's opera career was cut short by the firing is a provable fact.
• 8. The reports on Battle's behavior being difficult occured over a long period of time from numerous reliable and respected sources and are relevent to this topic. Not including them is a mischaracterization of events surrounding the firing which distort the reality of events. This distortion serves to paint a rosy picture of Battle and make the Met/Volpe look bad. My point in saying this is that not including this information effectively harms the reputation of the Met and Volpe. Wouldn't that also be against living bio guidelines?
• 9. How can a sub-heading entitled "1994 Metropolitan Opera dismissal" guide the reader to a certain judgment/conclusion? The answer is it can't.

In short, none of your accusations are based at all on the actual article I suggested and really don't hold water when you look at my proposed article.Nrswanson (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hmm, frankly, both of you are being a bit longwinded about this! Can we concentrate on what both of you actually want? My understanding is that Nrswanson wants three subheadings for the 1990s, and Hrannar wants one. Is that right? If so can we compromise on two? --Kleinzach 08:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach. In brief, apologies. I'll try to keep this brief. (1) I can compromise on two subheadings. For example, "First half of 1990s"; "Second half of 1990s." (Wikipedia does not seem interested in neither "rosy" or negative presentations, just reporting of events; hearsay and opinions of fans and/or detractors weaken the factual content of the article; hopefully we can allow the readers to form their own opinion and assessments of her career.) For my promise to keep brief, I'll just ask that a glance be taken at Joseph Volpe (opera manager)'s page for both its discussion of his career and the discussion of the dismissal and subheadings. Thanks again. Hrannar (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Sigh... The reason for the brief mention in Volpe's article is because the firing isn't as relevent to his biography as it is to Battle's biography. But any presentation, whether on here or another page, should be presented in a fair manner to both sides. Hrannar's version removes the event from context, making it seem like an abrupt decission from out of nowhere. This could lead readers to misconstrue the actions of Volpe and the Met. Also, I see no reason why including a history of tension between Battle and the Met management in anyway violates the living bio guidelines or effects the neutrality of the article. It rather, gives the reader a more accurate understanding of the history and context of the event which should be the goal in editing this article. In no place have I seen either Battle or the Met deny that this tension did not exist so I don't see how Hrannar can object to it's inclusioon given the information comes from credible sources. Also, I would hardly characterize the inclusion of statements by Volpe, those working with Battle in the Donizetti production and are thefore eye witnesses to said events, or those of reputable reporters from major newspapers as "hearsay and opinions of fans and/or detractors". All of these sources are credible and relevent. Now onto sub-headings. I frankly do not think two sub-headings is the best decision. The three sub-headings given are the most natural break up for the section that makes the article flow well and be most easily navigable. If there were two sub-headings only, the second one would need to be placed just before the firing section so that earlier qoutes from the 1980s can be included without looking odd.Nrswanson (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with kleinzach that we have been a bit long winded about this. I could respond to above comments and statements, and generally what nrswanson mentions above I've already addressed (see my responses re context and rational for chronlogical subheadings, if interested). Kleinzach, I believe you are trying to focus now on solution for subsections/subheadings. Please see my response above which is an desire for compromise, even though the chronogical approach (used for other singers bios) seems most neutral. Hrannar (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Kleinzach, can I make a request? I don't think this is the best place to start. The real issue here is what content can/cannot be included and really sub-headings should be a reflection on the content, not the other way around. If the content I want included is allowed than my sub-divisions make the most sense. If the content is not allowed than really I could care less about the sub-headings as the article really wouldn't need them as much. My main concern here is that I believe Hrannar is grossly distorting BLP guidelines and WP:NPOV for the purposes of withholding/censoring relevent and important information about the Met firing and Battle's reputation. I want that issue addressed first and foremost. If necessary, I will contact the BLP board and draw them into this discussion. Normally I do not have a problem compromising with other editors but in this case I am not sure it is possible since I believe the integrity and ethics of this encyclopedia would be compromised by giving into Hrannar's demands.Nrswanson (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that I am the one characterized as having demands. So be it. / Kleinzach, it seemed to me that you were taking one issue at a time. And you were going to get the discussion of the termination as well. But decided to break it down, since our discussions seemed to touch on varioius issues / As stated when you originally agreed to mediate, I am willing to accept your mediation. FWIW, I find you, Kleinzach, to be methodical, reasonable, and fair as you work to resolve this. / Also though I disagree with nrswansons approach and views in this matter, I hope that I have maintained a respectful tone even though I voiced a difference of opinion. And I am sorry nrswanson feels that I "grossly distort BLP guidelines, etc." but that is his right. This is a community project and we all, within reason, have a voice - no more, no less. / But if others are brought it, I am happy to work with them as well. And I look forward to coming to a resolution. Hopefully within this century. :-) Respectfully. Hrannar (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Hrannar, please try to understand things from my perspective. If you look at the talk page history and article history a lot of work has already been put into the section on the Met dismissal. That portion of the article had been unstable for a long time until editors talked it out and worked to make a presentation that we were satisfied was neutral. The result was a stability to the article for several months until you came along just recently and removed half of the information. Those edits basically undid the massive amount of hours spent by other editors trying to find the right NPOV balance. You basically undid the results of what had been a long but ultimately fruitful discussion by multiple editors on this page. In my view, you un-balanced an already neutral article.Nrswanson (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to nrswansons statement above: (please forgive length.)

• In response, I would hope that attempts be made to also understand all "perspectives", not just your perspective that, basically, "[I] undid...an already neutral article"./ * I would invite anyone reviewing this case to make your own assessment of my contributions and nrswansons contributions by looking at the history of the logs beginning from from around January 2007 how the discussions went. And not to simply accept the statement he makes above. First, judge for yourself how "fruitful discussions" were and how editors talked this out and made a presentation that, as Nrswanson states, "we" were satisifed was neutral. By the way, you can see my contributions are noted as Hrannar and 129.74.18.183 (before I understood how to properly sign in.); and you will also see nrswansons. / What it seems to me (regarding how satisfied we were and how neutral the version was about a year ago) is that this was after an edit war and editors just sort of stopped editing the section for a while per recommendation, but did not actually agree nor stated anything close to suggesting we are satisfied. In fact Voceditenore made his suggestions for actions on making this a more neutral page (beginning of see talk page) and the editing stopped, but there was no confirmed statements of satisfaction or confirmation that this was NPOV. Later I actually tried to start implemented his recommendations including the chronological subheading (for career years only) that he suggested. And recently, he made another suggestion (see 1st suggestion) regarding text discussing dismissal that was his attempt to take the perspective of both editors (and the subject) into account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Battle#Another_attempt_at_reaching_consensus

I think it is also valid to point out that nrswanson and I have different views as to what we do when we actually edit and how we describe it in the comments. For sake of openness, it is my opinion that unless minor edit, editors should be fairly clear as to what they are doing. Otherwise, history log will not provide accurate picture. For example, note the edit that nrswanson did on on June 22, 2007 at 5:11,where he states that he is "rephrasing for professional language: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathleen_Battle&diff=139829673&oldid=139829248

• ORIGINAL

Some, though not all, of the other music professionals who have worked with Battle have viewed her as lacking appropriate professionalism. One of these was former Metropolitan Opera General Magager Joseph Volpe, who fired her from an engagement to perform the lead in La Fille du Regiment in 1994

• NRSWANSONS "Rephrasing for professional language"

A perfectionist in her own work, Battle became more and more difficult to deal with as her career moved forward. Some felt that her demands were becoming unreasonable, and her behavior became erratic. These difficulties came to public attention when she was dismissed from the Metropolitan Opera in 1994 for "unprofessional conduct." by former Metropolitan Opera General Magager Joseph Volpe.

IMHO, this is a change of content, not just whether this is professional language or not.

• I hope reviewers of this case will also note that history frequently does not portray the real story behind the editing of this article. A few MINOR edits is to be expected, but particularly when making statements that cast Battle in a negative light, the edit comment does not reflect this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathleen_Battle&diff=144071074&oldid=144070720

• I apologize when I did not follow protocol in my edits. And when it was brought to my attention, I engaged in a discussion and apologized for my error. Did nrswanson follow protocol, when I recently placed the Neutrality dispute tag, and he within a day had reverted the tag?

• The central issue of this discussion is neutrality, what type and how much information (positive or negative) is to be included in a bio of a living person. I have no qualms including the termination. I however see frequent attempts to provide more "data" to support a view that Battle is "difficult" and the extent of its affect on her career, assertions are inconclusive and speculative (for any assertion) given the broad spectrum of her career and interests, her voice type, and age. (For specific details and support for this, see previous discussions on this page, since this is just a brief summary.) Hrannar (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar