Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Comment by NaySay

This comment has been edited per WP:BLP, and WP:SOAP Wow. I never thought the WikiKrazies would be found here among the fans of classical music! Guess I was wrong! It's apparently not just the performers that wear wigs in opera, huh? Look, I'm outside of this whole insane, um, battle, but I'm an opera fan with a strong background, and I yield to very few indeed in my knowledge of the subject. I came here to get some dates and background in Ms. Battles many er, *battles* with everyone who ever hired her , and lo and behold [], the article read as though she were just another run-of-the-mill African-American soprano. Hardly anything about the fact that this woman is []the most notable thing about her whole second-rate career. She's a nice little coloratura, better than most, but by no means the best, who is without any question best remembered for the fact that she irritated, aggravated, riled and instigated every single person who ever worked with her. That fact MUST be a large part of any Wiki article on this woman. To do anything else to play serious havoc with the truth. Since when did Wiki become Pravda? [] It's only the truth. If you still like her (I do; very much), why should you give a rat's ass about it? Is the person trying to whitewash this article a relative of Kathleen Battle(Axe)? [] Anyway, it's probably the most important thing about her career; the many loony instances [] made headlines in the nineties when very little else in opera did. Honestly. Brrr. Nadine Harris (NaySay)72.209.11.245 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What does "froth of ill will" Mean?

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

The quote is similar to the Walsh quote but from a different source. Walsh of Time Magazine stated that "mercurial lyric soprano Kathleen Battle, renowned for leaving a trail of ill will in her wake wherever she goes..." [1] The Boston Globe quote was in reference to her opening of the Boston Symphony season in October of 1992, "After opening the Boston Symphony Orchestra's season last night, Metropolitan Opera star Kathleen Battle is expected to return home to New York today -- leaving in her wake a froth of ill will." [2] The quote was used in the New York Times piece at the time of her firing after a description of her 1993 dispute with Conductor Thielemann in which she quit Der Rosenkavalier when Volpe failed to appear within 5 minutes in her dressing room to hear her complaints. In Boston, she switched hotel suites at different hotels dissatisfied with accommodations, food and service including the Ritz-Carlton. [3] The article suggests, I believe correctly, that most people find their suite at the Ritz-Carlton satisfactory. Leaving in her wake "a froth of ill will" is descriptive of people's reaction to and dislike of Ms. Battle in Boston. Volpe's description in his book, The Toughest Show on Earth: My Rise and Reign at the Metropolitan Opera, described her, "The only Kathleen Battle I remembered was the one who became a troubled, continually troublesome woman whose behavior defined diva in the worst sense - a performer with a pattern of behavior that makes the working life of everyone around her miserable." [4] I don't believe use of descriptions and adjectives in accurate quotes from respected national publications is a violation of any Wikipedia policy.--Eudemis (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Eudemis. Helps to better understand your concerns and understanding of wikipedia guidelines. So, to double clarify, you are stating that if a "respected" national publication (Time, you suggest) makes a statement, it is within wikipedia guidelines to use their "descriptions and adjectives." And you also feel that a statement like, "mercurial lyric soprano Kathleen Battle, renowned for leaving a trail of ill will in her wake whereever she goes" is appropriate and follows guidelines for bios of living persons. I really want to understand your perspective. Hrannar (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

I cannot speak for Eudemis, but if properly attributed to the persons who made the statements and included in proper proportion, yes such comments are suitable for Wikipedia articles, even articles about living people-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, Red Pen of Doom. I want to make sure I upderstand Eudemis' concerns and understanding of wikipedia guidelines. In that way, I can make sure responses are specific and pointed to his concerns. I can respond to you, also, but sometimes, it's easier to speak to one person at a time, even if may (or may not) share identical views. Thanks for understanding. Hrannar (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

To answer your question specifically, yes. I believe the Time Magazine quote in question is both descriptive and appropriate under the guidelines. The guidelines call for both NPOV [5] and verifiability [6]. As you've noted another reputable source, The Boston Globe, published a very similar comment in reference to Ms. Battle's effect on people.

I'm concerned that you seem be defining the "do no harm" guideline far too broadly. The guideline is not an impossible standard that prohibits any uncomplimentary entries. Where multiple reliable sources are in general agreement surrounding a topic, editors have an obligation to present that consensus fairly, whether it be flattering to the subject or not.

Please note: Neutral Point of View [7] "The 'do no harm' principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources)." --Eudemis (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source and Statements of Fact vs. "Reportedly" Statements

Thank you, Eudemis. That helps. So for you, Time Magazine and The Boston Globe are 'reputable' sources. / Please let me share my understanding Time and the Boston Globe. I believe most would agree that these are mainstream news sources. However the degree of reputabilty, quality, and lack of bias varies from mainstream media to mainstream media. Some would argue that Fox News is reputable. Others would not. / Some would question some statements that come from any of these mainstream sources, especially when they use such language or do not exactly give exact dates or rationale. A person may move from another hotel, for example, not for lack of quality or service, but perhaps from hounding papparazzi or a stalker. Who knows? That is the point. / To just blindly report and suggest, without proper investigation, is, in my humble opinion, questionable, and not something that should be taken as fact. I would like to state that her moving hotels, in theory, could have been pure whim. But I will also state that we really do not know, given the way the story is written. / Language like "reportedly" is based on heresay and in no way a clear indication of verification or fact. / Please see what wikipedia says about what sort of sources must be used in Bios of Living Persons. [[8]] Thanks for your consideration. Hrannar (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

The attribution to the Boston Globe is clear in the piece. Just to be clear, that quote, the one currently in the piece, is from the New York Times, date of publication February 8, 1994. The New York Times author did not ascribe the quote to unknown sources and cited The Boston Globe. The date that particular article appeared in the Boston Globe was October 2, 1992. Absent some indication to the contrary, I believe the reporting on Ms. Battle in both publications to be unbiased. --Eudemis (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Eudemis. This is a bit of work and time on both our sides. Also this helps in getting to an understanding of what is a 'reliable' source. And what is 'clear'. When you say the attribution to the Boston Globe (mainstream popular media) is clear, who is the eye witness? The fact that it is PRINTED in Boston Globe 'surely is not an indication that it is a reliable source.' -- not without the rigorous research and objective chronicaling of events, excluding gossip (such as limo driver account) and sensationalist language (trail of ill will), this would make the negative (or positive) claims more credible. / For example, which 'eye witness' does this info come from? 'How was the information verified?' According to the biographies of living persons guidelines, it mentions, "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and 'attributions to anonymous sources.' Especially, as wikipedia states, "The 'possibility' of harm to living subjects [to their reputation] is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." / You state, 'Absent some indication to the contrary' seems to suggest that that is what qualifies the information to be a fact. I really believe that wikipedia guidelines suggest much higher standards to verify something to be a fact -- mere absence to contrary is not verification or proof or evidence. / Also, wasn't asking about dates when article appeared. I was asking about dates of alleged hotel hopping, who involved, etc. These specific who, what, where, how's are the basis of quality, unbiased journalism. / In conclusion, 'who i.e., which eye witnesses' (versus the papers that run the stories such as The Boston Globe or Time Magazine) are the reliable sources in these two stories that mention her froth/trail of ill will or hotel switching? Hrannar (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

"The fact that it is PRINTED in Boston Globe 'surely is not an indication that info comes from a reliable source.' " Yes, the fact that it is printed in a major newspaper that has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking is indeed the primary indication that the material is from a reliable source. There are instances where some material from major newspapers/publications/media outlets is not reliable, but in those instances the burden would be on the side of the person to show where/how/why that particular article is somehow not up the the standards of having been reviewed for accuracy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis - One thing should be clarified: The fact that it is PRINTED in Boston Globe 'surely is not an indication that it is a reliable source' means fact that something is printed in Boston Globe surely is not an indication that it (it meaning statement, utterance, idea, etc.) is not an indication that it COMES FROM a reliable source i.e., eye witness or someone who is unbiased. That is the meaning behind the sentence. In my above response to you, I go on to clarify, based on what I read in wikipedia guidelines, why mere printing in a newspaper is not enough. Thanks. Hrannar (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

I believe a wikipedia article is in essence is a compilation of reliable resources. See Reliable Sources [9] “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” Once the sources themselves are recognized as reliable and particularly as here where the information from them is very consistent that ends the inquiry.

What you are suggesting is that each line of a newspaper article or magazine piece be individually scrutinized by wikipedia editors themselves for possible error. Speculation by editors that the published facts might be in error is primary research. The guidelines prohibit this kind of speculation. See No Original Research [10] “This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas.”

Newspapers and magazines never publish the reporter’s notes with the article. Their objective is to provide their readership with the most organized and informative article possible. For them, publishing an accompanying treatise on their fact finding process, follow up and confirmation of each statement would be counterproductive. The mere fact that the information is printed in a reliable source is sufficient for inclusion. The guidelines are crystal clear on this point. [11] “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.” (Emphasis added by Wikipedia)--Eudemis (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. It seems we've expressed our possition on what it means to have a reliable source of information. And what constitutes a fact and reliable source. Because those Times and Boston Globe articles did not mention any eye witnesses, and information is "reportedly", a reader need not question the veracity of their news stories. / On this we clearly disagree and have different understandings of wikipedia policies regarding BLP. / Since it seems that we have shared our views on 'reliable' sources and 'verifiability' of information, and so has Red Pen of Doom, 'perhaps we can bring in a moderator who can see our thoughts and understandings and help us to ensure we are applying and understading those issues.' / It would be useful to have them look at the portion of this portion of the article: In October of 1992 "when Miss Battle opened the Boston Symphony Orchestra season, she reportedly banned an assistant conductor and other musicians from her rehearsals, changed hotels several times, and left behind what a report in The Boston Globe called 'a froth of ill will.'" [26] In February 1994, during rehearsals for an upcoming production of La Fille du Régiment, Battle subjected her fellow performers to "withering criticism" and made "almost paranoid demands that they not look at her."

• And see if it is, indeed, applying BLP accurately, even though it's only claim to verifiability is using the words "reportedly." Moreover the phrase 'left behind what a report in the Boston Globe alled a 'froth of ill will' is clearly disputable and defamatory; or "Battle subjected her fellow performers to 'withering criticism" and made "almost paranoid demands..." / It is so clear to me that this is defamatory, so anything negative or unflattering and/or red pen say, actually has a higher burden of proof. / BUT LET'S DOUBLE CHECK THESE WITH ADMINISTRATORSHrannar (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Administrators on Wikipedia have no greater say/authority/right to decide about anything than any other editor. They just have access to tools that lock articles/block editors which they have been granted access to because the Wikipedia community believes that they have demonstrated characteristics that they will use the tools appropriately. What it sound like you are proposising is to begin a Request for Comment WP:RfC, which would certainly be appropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. What I am suggesting is, 'perhaps we can bring in a moderator who can see our thoughts and understandings and help us to ensure we are applying and understading those issues.' and LET'S DOUBLE CHECK THESE WITH ADMINISTRATORS, given that fact that I believe the issues and concerns of both sides have been expressed, basically. It is my assumption that moderators and/or administrators would be the most experienced with these issues, particularly in the cases of disagreements, disputes. / However your statement "Administrators on Wikipedia have no greater say/authority/right to decide about anything than any other editor...They just have access to tools that lock articles/block editors which they have been granted access" made me want to understand better what administrators CAN do in this case and this is what Wikipedia says BLP Proposed Remedies : "Administrators are authorized to use 'any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy.' Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance. 'Administrators should counsel editors that fail to comply with BLP policy on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area,' and should ensure that such editors are warned of the consequences of failing to comply with this policy. Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary." so my suggestion, request seems appropriate. Hrannar (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

While formal meditation is an option (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation), it is the "second to last step" in dispute resolution, and a WP:RfC would generally come first. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It was my hope to clarify, based on information I quoted above, that administrators do more than "just have access to tools that lock/block, etc" (as you indicate) and can be valuable resources in applying and ensuring compliance with wikipedia policies. / I did am not thinking, in fact, we currently need formal mediation and hope we don't need to. That is why I have requesting this dialog on the talk page first, in fact, to have each of us civily, without personal attacks, and assuming good faith, discuss these issues out first. / I am sorry if my efforts to get input from administrator or moderator is taken to mean "formal mediation" or "dispute resolution." / I am looking for those, moderators and/or administrators (who presumably can have with more understanding than editor on policies), who can 'help us with application of policy' with presumably more authority than those, like myself, who have to constantly look up policy, and try to understand them, lol. FWIW, Wikipedia Steps for Dispute Resolution -- since you shared your ideas on dispute resolution, thought it'd be useful to share the guidelines. But BLP Help may also apply, since editing this article has had its challenges, differences among editors. Thanks for your involvement red pen of doom. We all mean well and believe we can get through this fine together.Hrannar (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Thats fine, I personally feel a "what do the 'authorities' tell us to do" approach counter to the general philosophy of Wikipedia's reliance on the community consensus. Being given Administrative rights is typically portrayed as being given a mop - they are here to help clean up messes and really only need to be called on as Administrators when their tools are necessary.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard referral

I referred the controversial 'sacking section' to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, see here. I hope the suggestions made there will help define a neutral point of view for this article. --Kleinzach 04:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Met accusations I rephrased as allegations - per input from Notice Board. --Eudemis (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In speaking of the termination and per substantiating biased statements and of course, per higher burden to prove negative statements for BLP due to possible infamatory nature, and fact that statements are not subbstantiated by SPECIFIC facts see let facts speak for themselves and descriptors like "difficult" and "leave froth of ill will" are moralizing and wikipedia advises against this in by stating, Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide. Hrannar (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Also, in an effort to provide equal weight to both parties involved, I took the lead of another moderator, voceditenore, who often seemed to collaborate with nrswanson, and used his strong attempt to (1) focus on the termination and (2) provide equal voice to both parties. See here ðhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Battle/Archive_3#Another_attempt_at_reaching_consensus Moderators suggestion for reaching consensus]. Hrannar (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Hrannar, You have, yet again, purged the article which isn't surprising. You have been exercising ownership of it for quite a while. I believe what is different this time is how obvious your desire for control is. The request for comments by Kleinzach yielded nothing about the descriptions being a problem. I find very odd that you should cite Voceditenore who so openly complained of your controlling behavior and making the collaborative process impossible. "I certainly don't intend to significantly contribute here, given the current atmosphere." Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC). I think it may make more sense for me to Neutrality tag the article as I originally intended some time ago. My observation has been that you cannot tolerate an accurate description of her firing at least in part because you are an admirer. What you think benefits Ms. Battle is a disservice to the Wikipedia readers who look here for unbiased information. As owner, whatever odd, strained reasoning you choose to justify controlling the piece suffices only because no one's opinion carries any weight except your own. --Eudemis (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation finished

The case is over, see here. Several sockpuppets, including Inmysolitude, were confirmed. They've been blocked indefinitely, together with Nrswanson himself. Eudemis was also checked but shown to be an unconnected bona fide contributor, not a puppet. Given the circumstances, I trust he'll understand why his appearance here seemed suspicious. --Kleinzach 08:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank for the update and advising on the appropriate actions to take when suspected socketpuppetry. There is still quite a bit I don't know how to do in wikipedia. Hrannar (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Neutrality tag April 2009

So the neutrality tag is back again - this time care of Eudemis. Can he explain, if possible in a clear and concise style, numbering the points etc? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I placed the "clear and concise" explanation under the existing Neutrality heading. I believe you are well aware of the recent editing activity in question. The ownership issues persist and the firing section is back to its misleading former incarnation. --Eudemis (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's misleading to put it under 'Neutrality tag: March 2009'. You should put your views here at the bottom of the page where they are easily accessible. Also please drop the silly cliché about ownership. Vague labeling of your opponent doesn't help your argument. We need to have cogent arguments. In the past the editors here have written verbose paragraph after paragraph of badly-expressed, badly-formatted prose, putting off others from becoming involved. So please make your case and make it properly. Otherwise Hrannar will be justified in removing it. --Kleinzach 00:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Kleinbach, your involvement is neither appropriate nor welcome as "disinterested" moderator. Your bias has been so obvious to me from the beginning as I've stated many times. You have falsely accused me of sock puppetry and are by no means neutral. You have fought every attempt at making this article more encyclopedic and have used Hrannar to make the changes you wanted, encouraging his conduct. As I have stated previously you are a big part of the problem. If you were better informed, you would know that ownership is a wikipedia concept, WP:OWN [12], not a cliche. "Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not." That is happening. Your current suggestion that Hrannar remove the Neutrality tag is classic. Please reread the tag: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." You should not be suggesting that wiki policies be ignored. Having multiple Neutrality tag headings on the discussion page is far more confusing for readers than having one. The onus is not on me to justify the inclusion of the New York Times, The Boston Globe and Time Magazine explanation of her firing. It is on you and Hrannar to explain why it is irrelevant or prohibited. --Eudemis (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again you don't read what I wrote. If you choose to put a neutrality tag on an article then the onus is on you to justify it here on the talk page - not to indulge in yet another personal attack. You can't pass the onus onto other editors. (Also note that in WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.") Your assertion that I " have fought every attempt at making this article more encyclopedic and have used Hrannar to make the changes you wanted, encouraging his conduct." is ridiculous. I did not and do not endorse his recent edits any more than I would regard your rant as a fine example of assuming good faith. I was hoping that my initiative above (see 'Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard referral') was moving towards resolving the issue, and I'm disappointed to see the decline once more into paranoia. --Kleinzach 02:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my objections to your acting in any way as a moderator. You are not disinterested. The onus is on you and Hrannar as he "adds or restores material" his version of the firing. --Eudemis (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not acting as a moderator now. I acted as a moderator in the past, with the consent of those involved. Please read the previous discussions.

Also read WP:BURDEN. It's perfectly clear. If you think material should be in the article you must say why. Otherwise editors may regard you as being disruptive, though admittedly your graduation — from edit-warring on 2/3 April [13] to merely tagging today [14] — might be seen as some kind of progress.--Kleinzach 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis - I will assume good faith, and ask you to please provide specific examples that the neutrality no longer applies, how it shows favoratism to one side or the other. / Moving the discussion away from content and to discussions of editors, especially when negative, does little to build collaboration. / Disagreements can happen, and there is nothing wrong with that, among civil editors. / That's why we have language, to help shed light on our ideas. / However, we can best shed light on our ideas when we give specific examples and link them to the wikipedia guidelines that they illustrate. / Please assume good faith and share your rationale more explicitly please. It is hard to understand your rationale if this talk page is the appropriate place to share ideas, but we don't see them here. / Thanks, Eudemis. / A remember, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander, no? When people were removing positive things about Kathleen Battle, particularly red pen of doom, I did not balk if they could not be specifically supported by clear facts, so it goes both ways. Also, in terms of supporting your statements, when I believed nrswanson to be engaged in socketpuppetry, I had to give SPECIFIC examples and not just make blanket statements. Without the examples, neither I nor administrators would have reason to believe my assertion. / I hope that helps in undestanding the value of supporting your statements. Thanks again. Hrannar (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Your admission, Kleinzach, to being biased on this subject is an enormous step in the right direction, your false accusation against me notwithstanding. Again your characterization of the debate is distorted as anyone who reviews the discussion will see. You and Hrannar have worked in concert. He is just the one who purges this information. The version currently in the article is your version. Your material is currently in the piece. You have to justify its current state. I do not. My explanations of why these excellent reliable sources should be included I have made previously. You clearly bypassed the discussion process with your recent edits/reversions. Currently, the consensus view that Ms. Battle caused her own firing by being difficult and demanding is not presented. This view is supported by very reliable sources. With this omission, the article does not present fairly all significant views. --Eudemis (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What admission am I supposed to have made? This is becoming bewildering. Are we still talking about Kathleen Battle? Eudemis says: "The version currently in the article is your version." Well, it isn't. I didn't write it. Check the history [15]. The last thing I did was to correct the capitalization of a French opera. There are a few other minor edits, but I am not a contributing editor. --Kleinzach 05:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis - In all honesty, are we reading to different statements by Kleinzack. What did he say to make an "admission...to being biaased on this subject?" Please cite what gave you that impression. Also, you state, "your characterization of the debate is distorted" and that is a personal attack and is highly frowned upon, for obvious reasons. / Please avoid personally attacking a person. / It can discourage editors from wanting to get involved, for fear of this sort of hassle, and does nothing to enhance open and civil dialog. / Also, you make several assertions, but the one easiest to refute is Eudemis assertion that "The version currently in the article is your [Kleinzach's]version." In fact, it was voceditenore's. See here Voceditenore's version Hrannar (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Let's try this approach to stay on topic. What in these opinions causes you to believe that there is a defamatory problem with the prior version?:

In the context of the article, it doesn't seem too much of a problem. It's not so large that it raises WP:UNDUE issues, and these are respected commentators and sources. Unless there are other sources to contradict this, it seems OK. I would tweak it by adding "was said to have" to "Battle subjected...". Rd232 talk 14:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

'Who wrote the above statement attributed to RD232' / It does not not seem signed properly, but looks similar, but not identical to something written on the BLP discussion page. / This is important, because it gives the appearance that Rd232 wrote this, but I am wondering if you, Eudemis, copied it. Rd232 may very well have written it, so just want to clarify, whose thoughts are whose. Rd232 seems experienced enough that he would have known how to sign properly. But some glitch could have happened also. Thanks! Hrannar (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Generally I think the material is OK. It's placed in the correct chronological position, rather than having a pov section of it's own. The sources meet WP:RS. There isn't a violation of WP:UNDUE, but a slight trim would be favorable. The article could do a better job of noting that these are not stone cold proven facts, but rather allegations. — R2 04:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)--Eudemis (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis: You have placed this notice on the top of the article: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." We are waiting for your explanation. Why are you disputing the neutrality of the article? What specifically are the problems you have found with it? --Kleinzach 10:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You are well aware the edits yesterday by Hrannar removed quotes by the New York Times The Boston Globe and Time Magazine. They described Ms. Battle's behavior that led to her firing. This same/similar information has been purged many times by you (the chauffeur incident)and Hrannar when added by different editors. The consensus view that Ms. Battle caused her own firing by being difficult and demanding is not presented. This view is supported by very reliable sources. With this omission, the article does not present fairly all significant views. I believe this is clearly stated above as well.

Hrannar's edits and deletions were, he argues, necessary because these were "defamatory" and "libelous", at least that was the explanation. I'm interested in his reasoning being an attorney myself. What in these outside, neutral opinions causes you to believe that there is a defamatory issue with the prior version?:

In the context of the article, it doesn't seem too much of a problem. It's not so large that it raises WP:UNDUE issues, and these are respected commentators and sources. Unless there are other sources to contradict this, it seems OK. I would tweak it by adding "was said to have" to "Battle subjected...". Rd232 talk 14:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally I think the material is OK. It's placed in the correct chronological position, rather than having a pov section of it's own. The sources meet WP:RS. There isn't a violation of WP:UNDUE, but a slight trim would be favorable. The article could do a better job of noting that these are not stone cold proven facts, but rather allegations. — R2 04:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)--Eudemis (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I have not purged information "many times". I removed one unreferenced anecdote (about the chauffeur). Please don't mislead this discussion. --Kleinzach 03:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Further Clarification You failed to make any effort to cite the entry [16] which is "expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." A source for it was a single click away. [17] Instead you deleted it to get the article back to the hyperglycemic version you prefer.--Eudemis (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit is here. There was no source given for the anecdote either one click away or 50 clicks away. --Kleinzach 08:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Battle Fatigue" from Time Magazine, the same Michael Walsh you suggested ignoring entirely, [18] If you are going to participate in the discussions and suggest authors be ignored, perhaps you should read them. " ...the time when, feeling chilly while riding in a limo in Southern California, she used the cellular phone to call her management company in New York, which phoned the limo service, which phoned the driver, who turned the air conditioning down..."--Eudemis (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis - Thanks for responding. It was asked that you specifically list the reasons that indicate something is no longer neutral. So

• You state, "The consensus view that Ms. Battle caused her own firing by being difficult and demanding is not presented." In your statement lies the very reason that the portions you feel should be present do not seem appropriate per wikipedia, which is why I remove them. "The concensus VIEW" does not mean something is FACT. That is, concensus view DOES NOT EQUAL fact. In WWII Germany the concensus view was that those of jewish decent were greedy, selfish, inferior. Media helped to spread this view. German people were not "bad" people, but a critical mass and media helped keep this view prevalent which certainly did the opposite of "do no harm." / If concensus view were supported by "stone cold proven facts" (verifiable events and from credible, unbiased witnesses), then it would qualify as fact.
• Please remember that you are an agent in this article too. In this case, you add what you claim to be true information that led to her firing. However there (a) no cold proven facts and (b) it is potentially libelous/defamamatory. It has been shared several times that wikipedia places a larger burden on the one who adds 'negative' material, not the other way around, and any 'potentially libelous' material should be removed immediately. (In other words, innocent, until proven guilty. NOT guilty, until proven innocent.) This guideline from wikipedia has been quoted a number of times in BURDEN.
• Eudemis specifically asked, "What in these outside, neutral opinions causes you to believe that there is a defamatory issue with the prior version?" / My response is: Here is wikipedias view of defamation: In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written publications), slander (for spoken word), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant). full definition /

'With statements like, "As Battle's status grew, so did her reputation for being difficult and demanding" and "she...left behind what a report in The Boston Globe called 'a froth of ill will.'" , statements like this clearly makes a claim expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image' / (a) That is why these are 'potentially libelous'

• It is fine to quote other editors to support why we believe a certain, but it should point to the specific phrases in wikipedia too, so we see the clear link to the wikipedia guideline. Otherwise, it can be seen as possible opinion. Hrannar (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Direct quotations from respected publications properly attributed to their sources were removed from the firing section. There is little harm in telling the well documented truth. You aren't suggesting that the quotations themselves are misquotes or that they did not, in fact, appear in the publications cited. You are stating that you disagree with their content or believed they were potentially false and on that basis they needed to be removed.

The mere fact that the information is printed in a reliable source is sufficient for inclusion. The guidelines are crystal clear on this point. [19] “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.” (Emphasis added by Wikipedia)

Eudemis - You asked me, ""What in these outside, neutral opinions causes you to believe that there is a defamatory issue with the prior version?" and I responded providing the section of wikipedia guidelines that address your question citing full definition. By provided the definition/guidelines section of wikipedia regarding defamation and pointing to the specific phrases that expressly state or imply negative image, I have explained items were removed to avoid 'potentially slanderous' information. Hrannar (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Are you suggesting Time Magazine, The New York Times and The Boston Globe are unreliable? See Reliable Sources [20] “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.”--Eudemis (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to respond to this second point you make. But you specifically were concerned about my claims to 'potentially libelous/defamatory.' So to make sure we are on the same page, those statements I pulled out makes a claim expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. That is why they are 'potentially libelous' / Is there any confusion on how those statements are implying or stating something to be factual that may give Kathleen Battle a negative image? Hrannar (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Since that appears to be your primary concern, in New York state, where these events occurred, "opinion" is a complete defense to libel. Additionally, as a public figure, Ms. Battle would have to prove these statements were provably false, known by the newspapers to be and disseminated with "actual malice" to harm her. (see Freeman v Johnston, 84 NY2d 52, 56-57 [1994], cert denied 513 US 1016 [1994]). Given their consistency, the possibility of her successfully arguing any of these is zilch. Further, the statute of limitations for these statements ran out 12 months after publication (CPLR § 215(3)) so they have been time barred since 1995. So your concerns about libel are groundless. Did you have any other concerns?--Eudemis (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't asking about whether there was confusion about NY law regarding defamation, but rather of wikipedia guidelines regarding defamation. I am not sure what you mean by "[my] primary concern" since you are the one who asked me "What in these outside, neutral opinions causes you to believe that there is a defamatory issue with the prior version?" / After I responded with, "'With statements like, "As Battle's status grew, so did her reputation for being difficult and demanding" and "she...left behind what a report in The Boston Globe called 'a froth of ill will.'" , statements like this clearly makes a claim expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image' / I thought it would be good to check if there could be a confusion regarding wikipedia's concerns of 'potentially libelous/defamataory' statements made, which was why those portions were removed. Hrannar (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

The terms libelous/defamatory used in the guidelines are concerned with the legal concept, particularly financial liability, and not an invitation to editors to delete negative information at their discretion. Again NPOV [21] "The 'do no harm' principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person." --Eudemis (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So Eudemis, you do or do not disagree with the wikipedia guidelines/definition of defamation which is that 'potentially libelous' statement "makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image." Hrannar (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

"Libelous" is a legal term not a redefined term within wikipedia. The quotes in question are not potentially libelous for the reasons I've provided. "'Potentially libelous' material should be removed immediately" is for financial liability reasons. Those reasons don't exist here. --Eudemis (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hrannar- You haven't expressed your other objections.--Eudemis (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis - Please give me at least a day to respond. It's been crazy at work and now that things have calmed down here, I can respond. (2) To respond, You state, "The quotes in question are not potentially libelous for the reasons [you] provided." Maybe these wikipedia discussions are hard to follow, and I am doing my best to sift your reasons out and do not find how have provided reasons that the statements 'are not potentially libelous.' / The operative words are 'potentially' (a significant qualifier) and 'libelous' which wikipedia interprets as "makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image." / Seems fairly stFrom what I can tell, the 'reasons,' you provide appear to be :

• (1) quotes from Rd232 and R2 (where they don't really address the wikipedia guidelines of 'potentially libelous') you copied onto this page;
• (2) NY Legal Defintion of Defamation; and
• (3) Your statement/observation 'libelous is a legal term not a redefined term in wikipedia."
• (4) Anything else? Please forgive me if I missed anything, but I'm trying to sift through this all.
• Just want to ensure that I haven't misquoted or misunderstood you and/or that I haven't missed anything. Thanks! Hrannar (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Libel is something called a tort, meaning you can seek damages for it in court. It does not have a broader meaning than its legal one in wikipedia. Nothing quoted from the press from the 1990's is "potentially libelous". I realigned your entry -when you use bullets you have to remember to realign them. --Eudemis (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So Eudemis - Thanks. Looks like you added a fifth point to the four I identified? When you stated, "The quotes in question are not potentially libelous for the reasons I've provided", these are the reasons you mean? That way, any onlookers can see the arguments from all sides. / p.s. Once we've come to some sort of understanding of this issue, we can move on to several others i.e., reliable sources, etc., which I am happy to address also. (Just want you to know didn't forget or trying to ignore). Makes sense to not try to interweave other issues into this "defamation" discussion. Just too difficult to keep track of things. / Hrannar (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar