Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 4

Break down?
Having seen Voceditenore's 'hands-on' approach fail, I've been trying to mediate without getting personally involved, without giving my own opinion - just trying to arrive at a compromise that satisfies/dissatisfies you both equally. (IMO your differences are not irreconciliable.) So I've been trying to provide you both with a process to agree the text section by section, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence.

However I see that Nrswanson has reservations about this ( "I don't think this is the best place to start. . . ." ) and is thinking of bringing other parties into this. Perhaps I should withdraw from the process and let someone else take over? -- Klein zach  23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That might be a good idea. Personally I feel this converation could benefit from the input of more editors rather than just a back and forth between two people. I also think that fundamentally we need to get a firm grasp on the BLP guidelines and how they best apply here. I personally would like to know your personal opinion Kleinzach, since I have a high regard for you as an editor.Nrswanson (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, Kleinzach. I have no reservations about your approach you've taken and see no evidence to suggest that this is ineffective method, other than nrswanson disagrees (from what I can see) with the compromises that both you and voceditenore have suggested (after hearing both sides) and feels that, in his words, my demands compromise the "integrity and ethics of this encyclopedia." / It is understandable that you opted to a more neutral approach to this (avoid personal involvement), so that there would be not doubt as to your neutrality as a mediator. Thanks for that! It is also understandable that you employ a process. I am frankly wondering how differently others are brought into this will handle it, and assuming that they too will apply the same sort of process. And when it comes time to discussing certain content that involve BLP guidelines, we will do our best to get a better understanding by providing examples and, if necessary, the input of others. / Nonetheless, I agree with nrswanson (yeah, :-)) "fundamentally we need to get a firm grasp on the BLP guidelines and how they best apply here." Respectfully, Hrannar (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * OK. This is me then, amicably signing off and saying goodbye. You have various options. I'd recommend trying a more formal approach. Requests for comment/Biographies and Requests for mediation are probably both worth looking at. Good luck! -- Klein zach  22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kleinzach for your time and help. I too applaud your effort but in this case I think leaving the discussion between just the two of us will never get anywhere and we need the input of more people in achieving a balanced article, particularly from editors with experience in BLP guidelines. Ultimately I think that approach will prove to be more fruitful in the long run. I would like to take this discussion to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I also invite you Kleinzach and anyone else who is interested to join that discussion. I personally detest debates between just two or three editors since usually they never result in a long term solution. Even if my opinions get shot down, I'd rather have it come from a community consensus than from just one editor. And Hrannar, I don't appriciate you taking my words out of context. It is very annoying and insults everyone's intelligence.Nrswanson (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kleinzach. You did the best that you could and nrswanson seemed to prefer another route. It seems to me that he has frequently accused various actions that are "annoying and that "insults everyone's intellignece" and that is his right to his opinion. Rather than counter respond to another accusation on his part -- as I think much time has already been done doing that -- let's just let what stands on the discussions speak for themselves and avoid what seems to be personal attacks. And we can agree to disagree about taking words out of context. Can you be specific? For the record, I would have been happy to continue working with your (Kleinzach's) process, non personal involvement, approach. Hrannar (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * I have gone ahead and started a discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.Nrswanson (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see nrswansons discussion and have added additional input. Hrannar (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * Hrannar I appologize to you if I have offended you at all but in all fairness I am a bit non-plussed as to where I have personally attacked you? My concerns have always been about the content of this page and I have never resorted to name calling or deroggatory remarks of any kind. I have pointed out disagreements I have with your edits and how I believe they may not allign with wikipedia guidelines but I would not characterize that as a personal attack.Nrswanson (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nrswanson - I don't really feel offended, just obviously needing to respond to some statements you make of me you state that I am "gaming the system", "grossly distorting BLP"; I never said you name called. However, if you do not feel you have made and/or strong suggest derogatory remarks, than we must agree to disagree. As long as we stick to the content, I will not address any civility concerns. Hrannar (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * Hrannar, those are not personal attacks but my valid opinions about your position and how they fit within wikipedia guidelines. These are points I had/have to make. I didn't think you intended to distort blp guidelines or game the system on purpose, but you are doing those things. I don't take back those statements either since I believe them to be true. At the same time, I think you are trying to do the right thing and are acting in good faith (which I keep stating over and over to show you I respect you and am not trying to offend you). The crux of my arguement is based around the fact that I believe the information you removed and/or object to be included is essential for a NPOV, essential for non-cencorship reasons, and perfectly acceptable under the BLP guidelines. I can't make that case without pointing out my viewpoint on your edits. Again this is not an attack on you personally. Up to this point, neither Kleinzach, Voceditenore, or yourself have addressed my concerns directly which is why I fealt/feel another process needed to be pursued. Basically, I didn't think anybody was listening to me at all.Nrswanson (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that if their had been personal attacks by either of us our mediator would have certainly have jumped on us for it. As for taking my words out of context it's not worth going into. The short of it is you made it seem like I communicated something when I really had not intended to communicate that at all. This is really not worth going into. It will only cause further back and forth arguing. At this point I am a little leary at talking to you directly as it seems we are at an impass. Also, I did not feel that the so called compromises took my position into any serious consideration or for that matter improved the article in any meaningful way. For instance, I would have prefered no sub-headings over only two becuase two sub-headings just didn't make sense to me based on the content I want to include. Anyway, this discussion never seems to get anywhere and both of us seem to get either hurt or frusturated frequently. What we need is a community discussion where it isn't just back and forth between us all the time. That will give a better ground for a fruitful discussion without all the heated diatribes. I think it will also help us focus solely on the content so we can come up with a positive solution. I would also ask that you possibly re-think some of your statements on the current discussion, in particular those regarding my supposed lack of civility. Also, what was the point in bringing up an old January 2007 edit made by me when I have no interest in keeping that wording today? I agreed that that wording was bad a long time ago. This is once again a mischaracterization of myself and my opinions. I also don't like the way you keep on refering to Voceditenore as some sort of ally. He himself had issues with your attempt to implement his ideas (which are not in themselves infallible either) and also expressed no problem in my presentation. Also, in regards to removing the neutrality tag, I genuinely believed that there was enough consensus at the time because of Rickterp, Nickbird, Voceditenore, and myself appearing to be ok with it. I appologize for my error in judgement but it was done in good faith. I would appriciate your removing that comment as well. With those kind of comments, this really is not the best way to go into this with a great deal of spirit of cooperation. Nrswanson (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nrswanson, I know you are good people and look forward to resolving this. As both of us have suggested, let's move on. And move the focus from defending. Ok? This can keep going on and on, can't it. So let's just agree to disagree. And now work to making this an awesome article. This is, as you probably would agree, not productive. Also, I accept and thank you for your apology. I too apologize and did not mean to change what you state had been agreed upon consensusly when, from from what I could see, had not occurred. All the best and looking forward to creating a useful, ethical, and neutral article. Hrannar (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Request from Nrswanson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrannar (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Would you please remove some of those statements from the other page as discussed above. I will likewise remove anything you feel is unfair or unjust. Obviously our differences of opinion of what neutral is and the interpretation of BLP guidelines is a fact that will have to remain for the benefit of finding a possible solution. In particular I would like this entire section to be removed:

" 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 and his "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 have not advocated nor supported that wording sense November 2007 and its inclusion here is frankly not helpful in any way.

I would also like this section removed: "ABOUT CONCENSUS and CIVILITY. But please look at the history around July 31 2008. When nrswanson seemed satisfied with the article, he removed the neutrality tag. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, he did not seek concensus. So when I expressed my concern over Neutrality by readding the neutrality dispute tag, nrswanson shortly thereafter removed my neutrality tag stating, "neutrality tag no longer applies. you are just trying to unbalance a balanced presentation in the name of neutrality. if it is altered from this version it will be an NPOV violation and censorship vio." I feel this is fairly typical of how nrswanson communicates with me."

I could easily point to places where you have been just as unkind to me. This really is not helpful here to getting a fresh start.

Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Request from Hrannar RE: Important Discussions No Longer Visible on This Talk Page

>>>> PLEASE IGNORE this section beginning HERE and ending... <<<<<<<<


 * I appreciate your efforts to clean this up. In fact, it looks like you have moved my edits around, inserted comments, and archived some things as well. I suppose I can understand the archiving. However, so that people can more easily see the history of our efforts and complete discussions on the issue, starting from the edit warring last summer (I refer to using voceditenore's suggestion) or kleinzach's mediation efforts, 'I'd like to request that for now that the info be taken out of archive for the moment please.' Let's at some point move them to the archives, but for now, I think it would make it easier to see the history of this discussion. Thanks.


 * Also, it looks like you've moved comments around, so that it looks like I am responding to one thing, when in fact I am responding to another. For example, scroll down the bottom of ORIGINAL DISCUSSION PAGE:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kathleen_Battle&diff=231508143&oldid=231507773 then go to the CURRENT VERSION (where several key discussions are no longer available) here:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kathleen_Battle&diff=231518895&oldid=231518773 ; it certainly is cleaner; but much regarding many of our discussions and concerns are no longer visible. 'I would respectfully ask that both our original discussions be restored, left to stand as it records our interactions and our own thoughts on the matter. Mostly it appears as if you are editing my words and so maybe its just easier to leave it as it was. If you don't like what I say or do, you are free to express it. But I would like to suggest we not edit each others discussions in any way, but rather, to just respond, as we have been doing. Thanks so much. Hrannar (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

>>>> PLEASE IGNORE this section above and ENDING HERE. The above observation was a TOTAL error on MY part. <<<<<<<<

Hrannar I don't believe I have edited your words at all or moved anything out of it's original place or inserted comments. If I did it was done unitentionally. I of course can fix that in the log. I do however, think that an archive is appropriate right now. 1. The archives are there for an easy reference for all to see. The record of our conversation is easily available as you put it to "record our interactions and our own thoughts on the matter." Anybody can look in the archive and if you feel that a detail from the archive is important you can always direct people there. 2. It prevents a split conversation from occuring on this page and the new place of discussion. A new reader could respond to an old comment on this page which would be a headache trying to talk in two places or potentially address a concern already dealt with on the other page. A new reader wouldn't edit an archive but could easily read it. 3. a new comer to this page would be intimidated to join the new conversation if they had to weed through our long diatribes. Those conversations are of course available but to be honest I think it best to leave those conversations behind us and start afresh. A do over if you will. Ok?Nrswanson (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your points, nrswansson. Since both our ideas (and others) are on recorded on the talkpage, I would like to request that perhaps both of us be sure to seek CONSENSUS before doing something major like moving information from the talk page to the archives. ok? I don't know how to restore information that was put into archives? How is that done? Hrannar (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * IGNORE THIS PLEASE. NO LONGER VALID (HRANNAR) I hear you don't believe you have moved anything out of it's original place. So I will explain why I believe this was done. Look at the two versions.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kathleen_Battle&diff=231508143&oldid=231507773  and (2)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kathleen_Battle&diff=231518895&oldid=231518773 ;  Then, scroll to the bottom of both pages. See how my response directly to the paragraph above at the end was moved to another? It's not really a problem, since it was unintential. Apology accepted. But I would prefer my comments and what they were responding to remain as they were.  And I'll find out from another editor how to restore this properly. Thanks!Hrannar (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar.


 * I have no problem with you editing the language yourself to exactly what you wanted to say in that paragraph and moving it to the propper place.Nrswanson (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * IGNORE THIS PLEASE. NO LONGER VALID (Hrannar) Great. Actually I am seeking to restore the page as it was. That way, there is not question to what either all parties communicated to each other. Hrannar (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * In investigating the matter further Hrannar, you made the changes yourself and not me to the conversation. See here: and intermediate edits all by you. Obviously inadvertently sense you are now complaining. I never moved or altered your words in any place according to the edit log which I have now reviewed thoroughly. If you wish to change something back you can by editing the archive directly. I think an archive right now is essential. The purposes of the archive are to avoid two simultaneous conversations now that the discussion has moved to another page. An archive is useful not only for back reference but for avoiding spliting of the conversation off onto multiple pages. I hope you can agree to this because it really will make both of our lives easier. We can also add a link to the archive at the BLP discussion. Nrswanson (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was aware of my text edits I made, where I for example in this example, stated that "I know you are good peoples." For the record, when I brought the edit issue up, that is not what I meant. I thought a paragraph I had written had been moved around, when if fact you had copied it as an example for something. Again, please accept my apologies. I am very embarassed. :-) Hrannar (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

No problem. I had captioned that because I was asking you to rethink including that information on the other page. A point you never addressed...Nrswanson (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have tried my best to respond to your points. But at some point, I have (and I thought you also) advocate stopping the back and forth, etc. I could respons to the caption and yet, I suspect you will not agree with it; then, most likely (if past is any indication) you will respond in kind. Which would continue the back and forth. As we both acknowledged, it is time to stop this and move away from concerns of misrepresentations and move towards the article. I have no desire to have you remove anything you've said. They were your honest thoughts and I wouldn't want them censored. If you feel the need to remove or apologize for anything, that is your choice. I will do the same. Hrannar (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Is there a particular reason why you think it essential to present something I wrote from November 2007 that has not hitherto been an issue at all in this debate, particularly sense I renounced that edit as an a bad judgment on my part and did so a long time ago? Frankly, it really bothers me. I don't mind you presenting the overall article history as differently than me but did you have to do that? I really can't let others think that I am ok with that edit and it will only force me to respond to make that clear on the other discussion page. I also will have to explain that I acted in good faith on removing the neutrality tag and I really don't want to have to do that either. Can you just let it go please and believe me. Thank you. Nrswanson (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As stated above, "I could respons to the caption and yet, I suspect you will not agree with it; then, most likely (if past is any indication) you will respond in kind. Which would continue the back and forth. As we both acknowledged, it is time to stop this and move..." ; I and others note your disagreement with the statement. Shall we, per YOUR suggestion as well as mine, stop the back and forth and focus on the content. Hrannar (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Yes, I agree. But I still fail to see why the November 2007 edit is relevent enough to remain. And all it seems to serve is to bring up a long set right error on my part. I have not brought up a long history of your past edits on this page into this discussion. I really don't think this is fair and it is hard to assume good intentions on your behalf in moving into this next round of discussion. Sigh. Hrannar please do this as a favor to me as a sign of good faith.Nrswanson (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry. But as you and I stated, this back and forth about personal stuff is unfruitful. Clearly. It is unfortunate that you will find it hard to assume good intentions on my part, because I comment that "rephrasing for professional language" is not accurate for what the type of edit done that time; if it had been stated something like, "adding assertion of difficult behavior by some", than that would have been a more accurate comment of the type of edit you made. That is an accurate reflection of my opinion that our comments, unless minor, should generally be reflective. Sorry.129.74.18.183 (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Current discussion over the Metropolitan Opera dismissal
There is currently an on-going discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. All those interested in participating are welcome. All prior discussions about this topic have been archived with the most recent conflict archived in Archive 2.Nrswanson (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears like the Kathleen Battle section on the Noticeboard was removed. Was this intentional or inadvertent? []? I realize I am a beginner, and it could be that it's there or somewhere that I should know about. Can some please let me know. Thanks! Hrannar (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * If there wasn't activity on that discussion after a certain amount of days they archive it. To clarify for others, that link above is when I added the discussion to the BLP noticeboard on August 12 and I had nothing to do with its removal. Hrannar I believe that the discussion is over now. If it is all right with you I am going to archive this notice on here and my decission to withdraw.Nrswanson (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I simply had no idea. Since the above notice no longer applies (discussion does not exist in BLP Noticeboard), than it makes sense to me to archive it. I also have no problem with you archiving your decission to withdraw. Thanks for asking and all the best. Hrannar (talk)Hrannar. —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Decision to withdraw
After repeated attempts to try to work with Hrannar with unsuccess I have decided to withdraw from this discussion. At this time I find it impossible to find an equitable solution to this problem. Although I have attempted to extend an olive branch to Hrannar in the most recent round of discussions, not enough common ground and good will on the part of Hrannar (on this talk page, in user space, and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard) has been achieved to make me feel that I can work well with him. Rather than prolong a tedious conversation that may or may not achieve success, I am choosing to withdraw at this time. Other editors are welcome to continue conversing as they please. Hrannar can do what he wants with the article without my interference from me. However, I will caution other editors that a strong amount of cencorship has been advocated by Hrannar and that I believe this has had and will have a negative impact on this article's neutrality and integrity. I have archived our discussion in Archive 2. Best of luck to all.Nrswanson (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * INAPPRORIATENESS: I ask visitors to this page to suspend judgement about me, Hrannar, until you read the latest archives. After reading the archives, you may or may not agree with nrswansons claim above. But I am seeking the help from administrators regarding this. I believe the statement above is inappropriate, and should not be the type of discussion on a talk page. It is my understanding that this page is designed for discussions of content, not personal beliefs regarding another editor eg., "not enough...good will on the part of hrannar". / SOLUTIONS OFFERED BY 3RD PARTY AND MEDIATOR NOT ACCEPTED BY NRSWANSON: One mediator and another respected editor stepped in to help and offered two solutions after listening to both nrswansson's points and mine; (1) Here [] and here (2) [] ; I accepted their outside solutions that attempted to address both our concerns. / CENSORSHIP ASSERTION: It seems that for some people, censorship means supressing one view (but it is ok to enhancing another), rather than what NPOV suggests, which is offering both views, equally. I plead guilty to only supporting inclusion EVENTS or asseertions that can be PROVEN conclusive. Hrannar (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * In all fairness, Kleinzach and Voceditenore never directly addressed the concerns raised by myself, namely issues regarding censorship and issues relating to neutrality. There was never a discussion of BLP or NPOV guidelines by either editor and if their had been perhaps a viable solution could have been found. Since there wasn't, none of the said compromises achieved anything in solving this fundamental difference between Hrannar and myself. This is why I wanted to move things over to BLP, where they specialize in these sort of debates. Neither Kleinzach or Voceditenore have much experience in this area as both will tell you. Regardless, it wasn't Hrannar's difference of opinion that caused me to leave this discussion but his/her behavior.Nrswanson (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

STOP IT
Both of you stop it right now. Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. And if that doesnt work, perhaps a long wikibrak from this article will do you both good. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL. THANK YOU, Red pen!!! I could use a nice cup of tea. :-) Oops. I just clicked on the link and realized that it is a conflict resolution. (See how goofy I was.) Anyway, this is just what the doctor ordered. Thank you for kindly stepping in. I'll see what I can do there. Hrannar (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Neutrality tag
Hi there once again Hrannar. I think the section tag works better per WP:NPOV section on tags. The tag at the top of the article is for use when the neutrality of the entire article is in question whereas the section tag is meant to mark only a portion of the article (which is the case here). Anyway, I don't want to get sucked back into this or fight with you again. So do what you will.Nrswanson (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Nrswanson. It seems that by my question, by my request, you feel this has created a situation that "[you] don't want to get sucked back into this." I don't know how to respond to that. / Remember when I first placed the article neutrality tag, didn't you remove it claiming "neutrality tag no longer applies. you are just trying to unbalance a balanced presentation in the name of neutrality. if it is altered from this version it will be an NPOV violation and censorship vio." / I actually first learned about the article neutrality tag, because I saw another editor use it on this page -- in a similiar circumstance, so I thought it was appropriate. So please forgive me if I ask you to talk changes out first. You have asked me to do the same and I respect that. / I believe that etiquette suggestions that wikipedia makes are designed to help come to consensus and maintain an atmostphere of respect, as we work to create quality content to share. With the archiving of the discussion, the reason for the tag may not obvious. So I will do my best to provide that information. I hope that should you choose to respond, that we keep to discussion of ideas and content. Thanks a bunch! And please reread my strong complements and hats of to you in the cup of tea here [] : I meant what I said! All the best, Hrannar (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Why the Neutrality Tag?
This article had moved towards hinting or directly stating that Kathleen Battle is/was 'difficult' with wording such as "At the time of the dismissal, The New York Times reported that a number of people involved with the production said that Battle had been "difficult" and "uncooperative even after rehearsal schedules were changed to accommodate her demands, and that she had upset other members of the cast."; This article also seems to minimize her non Opera career throughout her entire career. It has led some to assert that her Opera career ended mainly due to Volpe's actions and her supposed "difficult" behavior, rather than examine other possible factors including age, voice type, and interests. Or consider that she may not be difficult, but rather she shares attributes with artists of similar acclaim such as Pavarotti or Norman in terms of being late, wanting conductors to conduct at a tempo the artists prefer, etc. After research and listing her activities (Work with Symphony, Recital, and Opera), it seems the number of her other activities were seem to occur with similar frequency. And from the very beginnings of her career including her professional debut as soprano soloist, her career has included more than just Opera. In the long run, no CONCLUSIVE CASE can be made for either perspective as to the dismissal's effect on her career. We only have facts. And it is my hope that we let them speak for themselves.


 * In addition, there was a censorship claim and "an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included." We both agreed that the dismissal from Metropolitan was verifiable and the cancellation of any other contracts as well, and they should be included. We don't agree on the proper NPOV language. One editor felt it appropriate to state things such as, ""Kathleen Battle's reputation as "difficult" or "tempermental" first surfaced in a 1983..." or ""those who have found her occasionally difficult...". I disagreed. And based on the input from an editor with far more experience that I (and after reading comments from both myself and the editor who disagreed with me) This is text was proposed:

[Proposed Text from outside editor]

(I did make one change to the suggested text -- the first sentence. I felt it put both parties on equal plain. And state only factual events that can be proven. "Volpe called Battle's conduct "profoundly detrimental" etc.)


 * In the version proposed by another editor, I felt no point was being made, other than stating that Volpe dismissed Battle; he felt she was unprofessional; she felt she had not been approached about this issue; and she has not performed in Opera since. All PROVABLE facts.

Also, it was suggested to include a statement like: "a number of people involved with the production said that Battle had been "difficult" and "uncooperative even after rehearsal schedules were changed to accommodate her demands, and that she had upset other members of the cast."

However, note wikipedia's NPOV guidelines which state:


 * "In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias."


 * "There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems." I agree and feel that was done with statements such as,

Apologies for the length. For these reasons, I have placed a NPOV article tag. Hrannar (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * Lol. All of this just over the use of one neutrality tag over another. Personally I don't think the supposed "opera centric" focus was intended. No one is trying to under value the other aspects of her career. Rather than complain about it, just add to the article's content.Nrswanson (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL. Actually per wikipedia guidelines a person is supposed to explain why they invoke the tag on the talk page, so that others who see the tag understand why. I am sorry if it sounds like complaining to you. :-( I have been adding to the articles content.Hrannar (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * This comment:"This article also seems to minimize her non Opera [sic] career throughout her entire career" is really quite absurd, especially the implication that the addition of the badly lacking detailed information on her opera career (e.g. her role list and major debuts) was done to make her firing from the Met and the subsequent refusal of any other opera house to engage her, was an attempt to give the Met firing "undue weight". Until very recently, the article actually minimized her opera career, which was a distinguished and significant one (and, like it or not, was her main one), and was primarily filled with cross-over projects and collaborations. Her discography still gives the impression that her only significant recordings were cross-over projects, and compilations, whereas her discography of complete opera recordings is highly distinguished and extensive. Like all Wikipedia articles, this one is a work in progress. If areas need expansion, the answer is for editors to expand them, not nitpick and question the motives of other editors who expand different areas. For what it's worth, the neutrality tag for a single section rather than the whole article was far more appropriate than taggiing the entire article. But who cares? Apart from correcting typos, errors of fact, and the remaining poorly formatted references I certainly don't intend to significantly contribute here, given the current atmosphere. Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry it seems absurd to you. It would useful if you would take a breathe and stop taking things so personally and avoid feeling so frustrated at differences of opinion. We all can get frustrated, but I don't think it's productive. It makes people defensive and want to attack back. So let's avoid it, please. / AT THE TIME I invoked the tag, it seemed that way to me, simply because so much space, particularly in the 1980s section, was given to her Opera work, and there was hardly significant mention of her non Opera work, though there was significant space to describe her Vatican and Vienna New Years concert - basically only mention non opera performances. So it is not clear how this article minimized her Opera career. I have SINCE been adding more information and in fact tried to remedy it, instead of, as you say, "complain." But that's the reason for the tag. Sorry if it wasn't clear. / It is clear to me that you feel that "like it or not, was her main one)." And here, we agree to disagree. Why? Because her discography and her recital and performances with symphonies and chorus suggested she sang more than just opera, though, because she has a classically trained voice, she sounds like an Opera singer, but she has used the voice to sing more than Opera. Also it has been claimed that Kathleen Battle "makes a thrilling case for the return of the recital." I also venture to say that more people have heard Kathleen Battle on the radio or in the record store listening stations, singing non Opera work. So to say Opera is her main career (your words) may be accurate, but when one examines her entire body of work, it seems that she was much more than just opera. To verify this, two good discographies can be found on her official website (http://www.kathleenbattle.com/) or a longer list on her management site (http://marketing.cami.com/worddocs/wordDocs27/Discography.pdf), you see an extensive list of varied repertoire which include opera, recitals, seasonal, choral, etc. The facts speak for themselves. I am not sure why the discography on the wikipedia page is so sparce. I am not sure who created it. But I completely agree that it can be improved. Thanks, Voceditenore. Hrannar (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * I'd like to endorse what Voceditenore has just said about the discography and her complete opera recordings. Perhaps one way forward would be to make a much better and more representative list? -- Klein zach  20:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. A great suggestion. Interstingly. It seems that whoever did create it, not me, did not view Opera as her "main" career. But her Opera recordings should be included as it was certainly a part of her repertoire. Thanks for that proactive suggestion, Zach and voceditenore! Hrannar (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Hrannar, refer below for list of Battle's recordings in CD and DVD format. From the list, you can create a new page for her discography like how I did for Plácido Domingo discography
 * Kathleen Battle Discography from CD Universe
 * List of Kathleen Battle's recordings from Amazon
 * List of Kathleen Battle's recordings from Universal Music
 * List of Battle's recordings from deutschegrammophon.com - Jay (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Jay! These are helpful indeed. If you have time, please don't hesitate to add to the discography or other portions of this article. Hrannar (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * Sure, I will help to add on for Battle once I have finished with Domingo’s discography. It will probably take me months to finish because Domingo’s recordings are too many. I have lots more to go including filling up details of each recordings such as catalog numbers + conductors, ensembles and opera houses. It is actually better if you could fill in all the details to avoid double entry. Most all the times, recording companies will change catalog numbers + album covers when they re-produce the same recordings, also, sometimes, the very same recording will be produced under different label. - Jay (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jay. I don't mind at all. I'll do my best. Thanks again for you help.Hrannar (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar