Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 6

Personal attack?
Nrswanson the quote I use is from your statement directly above my response. I will let others judge, then, if I have taken it, as you state 'out of context' or 'entirely out of context.' / You also state, 'Please continue in your per usual habit of quoting others and taking their words entirely out of context.' This is a [[personal attack]]. Can we all do our best to stick to content?
 * Its not a personal attack, Hrannar. I'm calling you on the carpet for your behavior. There's a difference. If you continue to misconstrue others words on purpose then you should expect others to react negatively to you. This is not something new. I've talked to you about this before. Kindness doesn't seem to get anywhere, so now I'm trying sarcasm. Nrswanson (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nrswanson, I have included the wikipedia definition of a [[personal attack]]. Then I quote the statement you make that leads me to state that. If Administrators are looking on, they can correct me if I misunderstand, but people can see why I make the assertion. Hrannar (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Just take a look in the archives everyone. You'll see exactly what I mean.Nrswanson (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I echo Nrswanson's request to look at the archives. You can also look at the exchange above to see if I truly took quotes out of context or possibility, that is an opinion of nrswanson that perhaps is fueled by his disagreement with my assertions. Hrannar (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

As a non-participant in this conversation I think you both need to calm down and cool off. This sort of dialogue is not helpful. At this point I see two editors who appear to have a shared history of hostility towards one another. I don't think in this conversation that either of you has stepped across the line... yet. But if things continue this way I'm sure it will lead to that. Nrswanson can you please try and not be sarcastic in your comments to Hrannar. Sarcasm is never likely to cause a positive response and will only escalate conflict. Likewise, Hrannar you may want to consider more carefully how you phrase your comments. While you aren't doing anything that is overtly wrong, some of your comments seem to be designed to needle nrswanson. Snipping at one another is not going to bolster support for either of your positions. I think you are both capable of being more careful in future. Can you both agree to calm down and pursue a more civil dialogue?Inmysolitude (talk) 19:56, 3 April
 * In my solitude. Since you stated that there appears a shared history of hostility, please give an example using specific sentence I wrote that show hostility, so I'll understand. / I am trying to keep focused on content, but am occassionally side tracked by personal attacks such nrswansons response (to my discussion with Eudemis) that it is a "fact" that I win by attrition. / Also what comment(s) did I make that you state seems designed to needle Nrswanson? If you give an example or two, than I'll understand. Thank you. Hrannar (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * I'd be happy to explain further Hrannar. In looking at Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 2 it appears that the two of you have not gotten along well. There have been a number of occassions where the two of you have made accusations against one another. (I shouldn't have to point these out; they are very clear) The problem escalated to the point where one moderator appears to have quit and a number of editors felt the need to say something. That to me indicates a hostile history between the two of you. Sometimes I think both of you have been premature in your accusations because you haven't understood well the thought process or the motive of the other editor. However, I'm not going to rehash old history and choose sides in an old discussion. That is only likely to cause further arguements and further attempts at self justification by either party. My main advice is to remain calm, think about how your words will be received, and try not to be so quick to accuse each other. The two of you might also want to consider the complaints of the other editor seriously. Even complaints made in anger sometimes have some truth in them.Inmysolitude (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Inmysolitude - You are correct that there have been discussions back and forth. Yes we can see that. However is useful to see examples of sentences (and the context they were in) that indicate in your mind that I am needling. One other thing that leads me to believe that you may be Nrswanson is that, in fact, Kleinzach, a moderator, indicated in fact that it was Nrswanson who was doing the needling. Then, interesting enough, state that I was doing the needling. I may have been needling, but you just don't suggest what I did to needle. It is difficult for a person to access whether a claim is valid or not, without evidence to support the claim. / Though admission "I readily admit to having a dislike for hrannar" nrswansons behavior seems truly fueled by that emotion. / I really think he knows quite a bit and can be quite a capable editor, he just doesn't seem to take to positively to a different perspective, that is really my issue with Nrswanson. / If you are a different person, please forgive me. Hrannar (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Honestly Inmysolitude, I feel at my wits end with Hrannar. I have never encountered another person that has so thoroughly gotten under my skin. This is why I did not want to participate in this conversation. The arguements keep on going in circles and I always have to keep on making the same points over and over; points which Hrannar always manages to misconstrue or avoid responding to. I feel entirely justified in the comments I've made. I'm not saying this to demean hrannar but to point out the utter frustration that I feel. I don't think any amount of moderation between the two of us is going to get anywhere. He has a set understanding of the issue which he will not back down from. Likewise so do I. I'm willing to try and keep my comments as civil as possible in future. Fortunately, more people are involved in the conversation this time so its not just a back and forth between hrannar and I. I guess a good rule of thumb is to not respond when I am frustrated.Nrswanson (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that conflict can be frustrating. It sounds like you haven't calmed down enough yet to move forward. You may want to consider taking a break from this discussion to give yourself some time to cool down.Inmysolitude (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a one week moratorium
I propose a one week moratorium. No further editing of the article for one week: can everyone agreed to that? Eudemis? Hrannar? Nrswanson? The article as of today (edit by 98.26.92.151/Eudemis) is now identical to that of Voceditenore on April 1. I understand that the contentious section is this one:
 * ''"At the time of her termination from the Met, Michael Walsh of Time magazine reported that Ms. Battle is "renowned for leaving a trail of ill will in her wake wherever she goes" and that "the cast of The Daughter of the Regiment applauded when it was told during rehearsal that Battle had been fired."

If that is correct, perhaps each of you in turn can explain, as clearly and succinctly as possible, why this should be included/not included? Thank you for your cooperation. -- Klein zach  00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely acceptable to me. I think my comments above clearly establish my position. I am not necessarily beholden to the quote itself but a more accurate presentation of the facts which clearly demonstrate that: 1. Battle had a reputation for unprofessional conduct which stretched over several years and was widely publicized. 2. That their had been tensions between herself and the Met for a considerable amount of time before the firing. 3. That the firing was a direct result of such conduct. 4. That the article not imply that the Met and Volpe were somehow rash or unjustified in making the decision that they did. (Unless a source indicated that) Thank you Kleinzach for stepping in. I can see that this might turn into another ordeal, and honestly I don't want to get involved further. I am taking this article off my watchlist. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kleinzach. Yes, a one week moratorium is fine. Mostly its the phrase, "renowned for leaving a trail of ill will in her wake wherever she goes." Seems totally against the NPOV and Living Bio guidelines to make a unsubstantiable statement like that, other than with 'respected' critic says. After quite a bit of discussion and several points by various editors being made, Voceditenore created the following version that [[attempt at compromise, July 2008]] It seems to be the most "conservative" version as prescribed by living bio guidelines. Hrannar (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Thank you both. Nrswanson can you accept Vociditenore's so-called July 2008 'attempt at compromise' ? -- Klein zach  02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. I don't feel that 'compromise' adequately addresses even one of the four issues I raised above. In fact, its exactly the kind of treatment that I am opposing. Its a highly censored account of the event in question which purposely depicts the circumstances in a light which is positive for Battle. Nrswanson (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My initial reaction to reading the article was how unbalanced it was. Ms. Battle's long standing reputation as demanding and difficult received no mention at all. No fair recounting of her career could fail to mention that her behavior led to her being fired from the Met. Her termination was well publicized including articles that could be easily referenced online. They also include concrete examples of her objectionable behavior. My conclusion was that Ms. Battle's fans had taken over editing the bio and had not permitted any entries surrounding the cause of her firing to survive. My experiences thus far have done nothing to alter that opinion.
 * My entry was some attempt to add clarity to what appeared to me to be a glaring omission. I also wanted to provide an explanation for average readers of the piece who would be baffled by the sudden, inexplicable termination of this star soprano. I chose quotes from Time Magazine's Michael Walsh because he was already quoted in the article and felt that no one could effectively argue that his quotes praising Ms. Battle were fine but his quotes critical of her behavior required deletion. If you read the source materials, these were among the mildest quotes dealing with her behavior. I believe my entry is essential to add some small modicum of balance to what has turned into a tribute page for Ms. Battle. As I look through Nrswanson's entry, number 3, without question, has to be addressed. It is this information even when well sourced that has been repeatedly purged: her own behavior led to her firing. Eudemis (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To adhere to the much quoted Wikipedia policy NPOV, the Walsh quote as proposed by Eudemis needs to be included in the article; omitting that quote would leave the article biased. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Omitting material facts might leave an article biased. I don't see the same risk from omitting a single individual's disputed opinion about a person's career or character. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to create different classes of facts seems like wiki-lawyering to me; the description of public perception by critics is also a fact. As has been shown above, it's not a single person's opinion — several people have commented that way. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV requires a neutral point of view and WP:BLP says that we dont go out of our way to include hatchet jobs. This source would appear to be a way to meet the NPOV issues. --  The Red Pen of Doom  05:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Neutral" doesn't mean glossing-over; as others here and in other singers' articles have observered many times, many opera singers had disputes; they become part of their biography. As to source offered by TheRedPenOfDoom, what does it say? Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To Newyorkbrad, the Walsh opinion is not "disputed". In no place has any media defended Battle and her behavior. On the contrary, the media at large has commented on her bad behavior. Walsh's recounting is actually mild in comparison to certain other media reports. There aren't any published sources depicting an opposing account. So in this case a neutral view is going to be a negative picture of Battle. There is no way around that. As for the way All Music handles it, I think it doesn't do the topic justice. All Music's purpose is to display a brief biography of the subject, like a start class article on wikipedia. A B-class or better article on Battle is going to give a much more detailed account. If this were a FA article, I would expect an entire subsection on the Met firing/Battle's erratic behavior. (Just like an article on Bill Clinton would have a section on sexual misconduct) Its that important of an event in her life and career. Lets be real here. This is an ugly chapter in Battle's life and depicting it as anything but ugly is just wrong. Nrswanson (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The DOOM quote: "A perfectionist in her own work, Battle became more and more difficult to deal with as her career moved forward. Some felt 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.'” Richard LeSueur
 * I think there is some failure to acknowledge that the bio has been hijacked by fans. This short entry standing alone is very neutral and I think for a synopsis, which is all it is intended to be, fairly complete, but it will not stand alone. The press releases already in the piece from Camp Battle regarding the firing are going nowhere I can assure you. So in fairness something should explain in some detail what her behavior was like to warrant the firing. Balance in this instance is not difficult to achieve as all the press accounts are very consistent. The difficulty is in the Battle fans’ refusal to allow their inclusion.
 * If we could agree that this brief unbiased entry alone is all that is to be said about the firing in toto, nothing else, I think that would work. The super abbreviated treatment of the firing would definitely appeal to them by minimizing its importance. Inadequate treatment? Yes but this gets around the current “good: it stays; bad: it’s out” mentality that controls every entry, even quotes from previously referenced sources like Walsh. The quote is better than omitting her difficult behavior entirely, the end result of these repeated purges. Eudemis  (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Eudemis. Please explain how a phrase like "more and more difficult to deal with as her career moved forward. Some felt her demands were becoming unreasonable, and her behavior became erratic" is unbiased. It seems biased to a view that sees Kathleen Battle as "difficult." Hrannar (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Hrannar, the fact that she was difficult is a fact, not an opinion. That's the point here. You're trying to re-write history. There are dozens of sources backing up this view. There are zero sources contradicting this view. If you find a legit source defending Battle, produce it. As per usual, you have no evidence for your position and spend your entire time arguing about NPOV violations.Nrswanson (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eudemis, should I assume that Nrswanson speaks for you? I think it is fair to say that you both share similar views on this matter. Hrannar (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Pen of Doom had suggested the quote. It is a terse statement very consistent with other longer descriptions of her behavior found in other print sources. New York Times used "difficult and uncooperative." Time Magazine used "impossible fussy, erratic and arbitrary." If The New York Times and Time Magazine are biased, unfair and harmful, Mr. LeSueur finds himself in excellent company. I have yet to find any journal anywhere that chides the Met or questions the need to terminate Ms. Battle. I don't believe there is any genuine debate as to whether she's difficult. The issue is whether this fact will be expunged from the article because it is unflattering. Eudemis (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eudemis. I'd be happy to respond to what you just said. But just for sake of ease of discussion, dealing with one point at a time, can you please explain how the phrase "more and more difficult to deal with..." is unbiased? Hrannar (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Please read WP:NPOV again. You do not seem to have a grasp of what the policy says and means. "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I felt I'd answered your question. The statement is very consistent with other longer descriptions of her behavior found in other print sources. Therefore there is little reason to suspect this source is biased. Eudemis (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nrswanson states above "So in this case a neutral view is going to be a negative picture of Battle." This "neutral view is...negative" seems lacking in the spirit of wikipedia's NPOV stance. His statement, "This is an ugly chapter in Battle's life and depicting it as anything but ugly is just wrong" seems moralizing, but more importantly, makes his desire to include an statement like, "renowned for leaving a trail of ill will..." understandable, even if the statement is not conservative or does not adhere to "do no harm." / Unfortunately we disagree, because I support the notion that wikipedia articles can present NPOV, which by definition is a balanced view, not just a negative view. Hrannar (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar.
 * Hrannar, NPOV doesn't mean something is not negative, it means it refrains from editorial bias. In this case we have a negative situation. The facts are negative. They are going to appear negative when presented without bias. That's my point. Please continue in your per usual habit of quoting others and taking their words entirely out of context.Nrswanson (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nrswanson has the much better explication of NPOV. If all of the third party reported facts are bad, that is what we report. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fellow contributors - Just a heads up that its a few days off for me and I won't have access to a computer until Wednesday and unable to participate in this discussion until then. Thank you. And thanks to Kleinzach (for moderating) and other editors the discussion. Hrannar (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * User:KP Botany apparently read this discussion and removed the quote in question with a "someone needs to check this" description. Anyone can verify the quote simply by clicking the online reference. The quote is verified. I believe Pen of Doom removed her other edits. Pending some resolution of this, I removed the Walsh quote from the intro. Eudemis  (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.92.151 (talk)
 * (Please leave the IP signature until you properly log in and acknowledge that this is indeed you and not an attempt at impersonation. - With all the allegations of sockpuppetry, we need to be able to verify who is who. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Sockpuppet investigation
See Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson. I asked for checkuser because of the edit warring on 3 April and my suspicions that Hrannar (subsequently blocked) had been 'set up'. -- Klein zach  23:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Kleinzach, Actually I am wondering if Nrswanson and Inmysolitude are the same person. Also, when I presented reasons for not being blocked, Inmysolitude stated, "I would appriciate it if you would look at this. Hrannar is challenging his block and making some angry accusations." / It is a (a) contributors right to challenge their block and (b) He judged my challenge as "angry," so it came across to me as if he took the challenge personally -- something I believe Nrswanson would do. That, and the fact that he seems to be a skilled editor for what I can tell to be a short time as an editor and was created very near the time the Kathleen Battle article was being re-editing this year, uses a similar "voice" and writing style" / I may be wrong about my suspicion; I just want to know if that might be something that can be checked. If he isn't, my deepest apologies to Inmysolitude. Hrannar (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

2nd Sockpuppet Investigation
Please see Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrswansson. My suspicion is that Nrswansson, as a sockpuppet (Inmysolitude), reported me for edit warring which Nrswansson himself was involved in. Was the sockpuppet report done correctly? Hrannar (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Generally, if there is a current investigation going, you would simply add the additional suspected sock to the current case with an outline of why you believe the two accounts are actually one person rather than starting an entirely new case. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * :: Thanks for responding, Red Pen. So even if it is a separate sockpuppet, I can just put it under the same heading. Good to know! Hrannar (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Yes, you should add your text to the original investigation. Also note that Nrswansson should be spelt Nrswanson. -- Klein zach  23:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added Inmysolitude to the first case. I was unclear as to where to add the details. Am I a "comment from other users" or am I also considered a reporter. Also, should I request an administrator delete the second case, or should I? I may not be able to get doing anything until Monday or Tuesday though, if anything requires my action, since I may not have access to a computer until then. Thanks. Hrannar (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Michael Walsh of Time magazine quotes
I note this reversion with the edit summary "Walsh quotes not considered reliable by other editors". (I see another Walsh quote remains in the article.) Can we discuss this here? It seems Michael Walsh quotations are contentious both pro- and anti- Battle. Can we agree that he sometimes makes exaggerated claims about things of which he clearly has no direct knowledge? Time Magazine may well have encouraged him to write in this way, but is it appropriate for WP? IMO we need to use this kind of material carefully — either not using them or using them in a way that indicates that they may not be reliable. Is that reasonable? -- Klein zach  23:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of falling into the very trap I describe below, the approach that makes sense is to use accurate quotes from excellent sources like Time Magazine and The New York Times that regularly cover the New York cultural scene. You will not find better sources than these. Instead, you are speculating without a scintilla of evidence that Mr. Walsh exaggerates his columns due to pressure from Time's editors. Where is the evidence for this? Mr. Walsh is not a gossip columnist. Time and The New York Times are not tabloid publications. You may dislike what facts they uncover about Ms. Battle but you will need respected sources of your own to refute them. Mr. Walsh clearly admires Ms. Battle's talent. That fact alone should give you more reason, not less, to believe his investigation of her firing was fair and accurate. --Eudemis (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletions on 9 April
On 9 April, TheRedPenOfDoom made a series of deletions from the article, see. These included the following sentences:

1. "One of the most prominent recitalists and opera singers of her generation, she is admired for her wide ranging recital repertoire and performances of the operas of Handel and Mozart."

2. " . . .and by the early 1980s had become a favorite at many of the world's best opera houses within the soubrette repertoire."

3. "It became increasingly more common to hear an unaccompanied spiritual at the end of her recital or concert program."

4."On November 23, 2008 she performed "Superwoman" with Alicia Keyes and Queen Latifah at the 2008 American Music Awards."

Can TheRedPenOfDoom explain? These don't seem to be particularly controversial passages. If the intention is to make the article more 'encyclopedia' the usual way to o this is to remove adjectives, superlatives etc. while retaining the facts (e.g. in items 1 and 2). If the facts are disputed (items 3 and 4?), then the usual thing to do is put a   tag in the article.

P.S. I wrote to TheRedPenOfDoom about his edits yesterday and his initial reply is here. -- Klein zach  23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As per the edit summaries
 * 1. "One of the most prominent recitalists and opera singers of her generation, she is admired for her wide ranging recital repertoire and performances of the operas of Handel and Mozart." - Says who? WP:V


 * You can keep the information about Handel and Mozart by saying something like: "As a recitalist and opera singer, she has[had] a wide ranging repertoire and specializes in the operas of Handel and Mozart." ? -- Klein zach  00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So if you want to include it and it is so important, it will be in a source - find one and add it.-- The Red Pen of Doom  02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. " . . .and by the early 1980s had become a favorite at many of the world's best opera houses within the soubrette repertoire." Again, says who? WP:V


 * But why not retain the information about her international career as a soubrette by saying something like: ". . .and by the early 1980s she was appearing at many of the world's opera houses in the soubrette repertoire." -- Klein zach  00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Find a source that says the dates. Find a source that says she was at "many" of the "best". -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. "It became increasingly more common to hear an unaccompanied spiritual at the end of her recital or concert program." Really? WP:PROVEIT


 * Material can be challenged but should not be removed until the editor(s) involved have had a chance to respond. If everybody rampaged through WP at will, deleting passages that didn't have inline citations, we wouldn't have an encyclopedia at all! -- Klein zach  00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Material can be challenged but should not be removed  Incorrect. "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and 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." -- Klein zach  06:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are objecting to having material removed without "sufficient time", your objection is noted. However, it does not appear that the content is in any way essential to a reader to gain understanding of the topic, and so it can remain out of the article until a source is provided. -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4."On November 23, 2008 she performed "Superwoman" with Alicia Keyes and Queen Latifah at the 2008 American Music Awards." - Duplicative - the exact same content already exists in the article.

"-- The Red Pen of Doom  23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comments above, I'd appreciate it if you could give answers in ordinary, straightforward, polite English rather than cryptic links to WP policy pages. See Avoid projecting elitism. -- Klein zach  00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:V (and its subsection WP:BURDEN) is a BASIC wikipedia content policy. If you are Any editor unwilling to click and read links to the guidelines that should be shaping the content, then maybe you should reconsider being the gatekeeper of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BURDEN:"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations . ." -- Klein zach  06:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Material sourced to Time and The New York Times is not "unsourced" and you have not provided any evidence to consider those articles "poorly sourced." Just because something reflects negatively on someone does not inherrently mean that the content or the author of the content is biased which appears to me to be the basis of your objections. If I am wrong, please explain your objections further.-- The Red Pen of Doom  12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See 'Michael Walsh of Time magazine quotes' section above. Walsh includes hearsay and anecdotal material that may be appropriate for popular journalism but not for an encyclopedia. The Hearsay article on Wikipedia explains 'hearsay' is "information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience." -- Klein zach  01:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not the gatekeeper to this article, nor (for the record) am I a contributor to this content of this article, 'core', marginal, occasional or whatever, see . -- Klein zach  03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * objection noted. comment edited.-- The Red Pen of Doom  12:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am so glad to hear you say that. Shall I add back the anecdote about the chauffeur you deleted just last week with a corrected reference? Since it was unflattering it might give the false impression you were purging the article of all such embarrassing entries. --Eudemis (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These Doom edits certainly add to the credibility of the article. In my estimation, the piece still has far to go to be "encyclopedic" in its approach. Sadly, the bio makes no mention of Ms. Battle being difficult, something even her staunchest defenders admit as quoted in the Time Magazine article. Every journalistic piece concerning Ms. Battle makes mention of it, save one.


 * With regard to passages not being "particularly controversial", one editor whose identity is in question recently described the article as a "fluff piece written by fans." I should have been more specific, but I knew sounding any sour note in this chorus of praise would meet with fierce opposition. The piece is selectively detailed in noting her prominence and accomplishments while ignoring completely her well documented reputation for being demanding and disliked by colleagues. All such references are routinely purged. Will average readers really be looking for her contributions to Chinese action cinema? I can't believe that her performance in "House of Flying Daggers" is more significant than the reasons her operatic career ended.


 * My singular addition of one sentence properly referenced to Mr. Walsh of Time so disturbed the core editors, it resulted in 9 pages (4,587 words) of debate, is now partially deleted with a complete purge expected. This outcome is a salutary warning for Pen of Doom. I don't believe trying to respond to the core editors' demands for endless discussion, more debate and more justification is fruitful. We do, however, need to address the obvious ownership issues at work here. --Eudemis (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As we know, we can go round and round about the validity of the assessments of Kathleen Battle's personality. I've tried to address them many times in the archive. It is always important to consider the source. Peter Gelb, fairly successful and respectful in his field, said he would not fire her. Levine tried to prevent Volpe from the termination. Levine, Von Karajan, Muti, Solti, which of these great conductors had anything negative to say about her? NAACP gave her an image award. Clearly there are those that respect her as a person and artist. / As for claims that the termination ended her career catastrophically (someone elses term in these latest discussions), the only thing a person can factually say is she hasn't performed Opera since. She continued/continues to record and perform recitals. Checking dates of albums or performances schedules post the Met incident will verify that. In fact she is quoted as saying she devoted 2/3rds of her time to recitals. And based on recordings and performances, that seemed fairly factual. Also, Wynton Marsalis, younger than Battle, had put down his classical trumpet and had moved away from classical repertoire before Battle did. Battle, with her voice type had been moving away from full blown productions of Opera and doing it less and less, because performing a full opera is hard on the voice, especially a light one. / How many light sopranos, like McNair, Bonney, Upshaw do you see performing FULL operas (I don't really count Ainadamar as a full opera). Before McNair's health, with much respect to her, she was moving away from classical repertoire also. And since the termination, I had not seen Jessye Norman perform a full opera at the Met either. So a person suggesting it ended her career or she doesn't perform opera, because no one will invite her is false. Evidence that it has been helpful preserving her voice can be seen by fact she is still performing at 62. / Finally what do you mean exactly by ownership issues at work? All contributors apply their understanding of the guidelines that wikipedia has brought forth. If we articulate our understandings and stick to content, I believe we can come to a fruitful discussion and article. If we let our emotions influence our views, then the discussions and article will not be as fruitful and, I suspect, less likely to fall within wikipedia guidelines. Hrannar (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Cherrypicking the people who have positive (or for reasons refuse to say negative things on record) about the subject of the article and then labeling everyone else who says less rosey things as "biased" is completely inappropriate and a violation of our policies. see: WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE-- The Red Pen of Doom  00:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember to indent. Yet more WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!? As noted above there are two types of information: that which is factual, and that which is hearsay. This is an encyclopedia and it is essential that we get the facts correct, especially in the case of a biography of a living person, in which (according to WP policy) negative information has to meet a higher standard than positive information (see WP:BURDEN). -- Klein zach  02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Micheal Walsh's statements as the reporter in a reliable source is not "hearsay". -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When you take part in these discussions it's important to present reasoned arguments not bald statements. You more you resort to the latter, the less value they have for other participants and the less notice anybody pays to them. -- Klein  zach  05:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Occationally "bald statements" are needed to be made to ensure that the conversation is taking place in reality. -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In ranking the quality of sources, citing a journalist in a major national magazine has to be near the top. All journalists necessarily report on events that they themselves did not witness and they always, to some extent, rely on interviews and others' accounts. To suggest that this somehow disqualifies them as reliable sources is really stretching. Their outsider status and detachment from the people and events involved helps to insure the reporting is objective. --Eudemis (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: The cherry picking comment, it was in response to suggesting everything about Kathleen Battle is negataive. There are other perspectives. So when people say there aren't any other views or they do not exist, that is not quite accurate. Hrannar (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Could you please present sources stating other views Hrannar. I have yet to find an independent source presenting another account of the firing. If there is one then by all means share it with us. Its all well and good to claim other views exist but until reliable evidence establishes it we can't assume it. Also, I think its unfair to say that any editor is looking to cast an entirely negative account of Battle. Most of the article is dedicated to chronicling her amazing talent and successful career. Including a more accurate presentation of the firing won't change that. Nrswanson (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment above was based on nrswansons comment "In no place has any media defended Battle and her behavior. On the contrary, the media at large has commented on her bad behavior. Walsh's recounting is actually mild in comparison to certain other media reports. There aren't any published sources depicting an opposing account. So in this case a neutral view is going to be a negative picture of Battle." That is what was stated by you in a section above. So when I shared that there were OTHER views, this caused Eudemis to suggest that I am cherry picking. When in reality, my point is just that, there are in fact other views. For example, http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608000859/Kathleen-Battle.html and http://marketing.cami.com/worddocs/worddocs27/The%20Royal%20Gazette%20Bermuda%20-%2010-4-06.pdf and http://www.cim.edu/download/dl/dlMusGeoOhBackground.pdf / If people feel the need to discuss the pesonality of a singer, writer, dancer, whatever, so be it. However assessements of a person's personality are challenging at best. Here are some published sources that in fact depict, discribe her are "gracious" and "liberated," which offer opposing perspectives, which you suggest do not exist. Hrannar (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Hrannar all of these sources have issues. http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608000859/Kathleen-Battle.html only covers her career up through 1990 and http://www.cim.edu/download/dl/dlMusGeoOhBackground.pdf / only covers her career up through 1991. They are therefore likely old publications made before the events of the 1994 Metropolitan Opera firing. Its lack of inclusion in her bio is therefore not surprising. http://marketing.cami.com/worddocs/worddocs27/The%20Royal%20Gazette%20Bermuda%20-%2010-4-06.pdf is not a source directly related to the firing but to a 2006 concert. The firing is an important event in her life and career but it isn't likely to be mentioned in every modern media publication about Battle. The evidence I am asking you to provide is a neutral source which actually discusses the 1994 firing in the way that you think it should be presented. The source should preferably be primarily about the firing, although a neutral biography of Battle that discusses the firing is ok too. Nrswanson (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those "published sources" were provided in response to your statement, "In no place has any media defended Battle and her behavior. On the contrary, the media at large has commented on her bad behavior. Walsh's recounting is actually mild in comparison to certain other media reports. There aren't any published sources depicting an opposing account. So in this case a neutral view is going to be a negative picture of Battle." If you'd like to specifically discuss the termination, we can spill considerable ink here or simply go back to the archives, non? Hrannar (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Hrannar, the sources you provided don't defend Battle. A defense would require actually discussing the 1994 Met firing and defending Battle in relation to that. None of these sources even mention it. No sources presented by yourself in the archives have dealt with it either. Based on these sources, it appears that you are advocating a biography that doesn't even discuss the incident at all. This conversation is going in circles again. My comments from above still stand. "Could you please present sources stating other views Hrannar. I have yet to find an independent source presenting another account of the firing. If there is one then by all means share it with us. Its all well and good to claim other views exist but until reliable evidence establishes it we can't assume it."Nrswanson (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think these add anything to the article, speaking only for myself, I have no issues with you citing them. As has been mentioned, the musician guide's biography covers only to 1990 and CIU's to 1991. These would not be relevant to the firing. I also think you should make clear that the favorable "gracious" quote in the latter source is from the mayor of Ms. Battle's Portsmouth, Ohio hometown and not a journalist, opera critic or Met insider. The Royal Gazette post from 2006 is from an island newspaper in Bermuda that publishes "every day except Sunday." I strongly suspect it does not have an opera critic on staff and the marketing.cami.com web page on which it is posted belongs to Columbia Artists Management, Inc.(CAMI). They collect these favorable reviews for marketing and promotional purposes. It lists Ms. Battle as being a client managed by the firm's Ronald A. Wilford and Tim Fox. http://www.cami.com/?cat=Vocal&webid=27d  It is hardly surprising the Met firing was overlooked in their "research."  I'm not suggesting that CAMI supplied the Gazette with the article for publication but the piece lists no writer. I doubt any genuine music critic would misspell "Gershwin" as this author does.--Eudemis (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nrswanson. You state, "Based on these sources, it appears that you are advocating a biography that doesn't even discuss the incident at all." Believe what you will, then. My only concern recently started with the recent addition of the phrase that suggested Kathleen Battle was reknown for leaving a wake of ill will. As mentioned, if you'd like to specifically discuss the termination, we can spill considerable ink here or simply go back to the archives. If we go back to the archives, you will see that I did not argue for, as you state, biography that doesn't discuss the incident at all. You will see that I argue for using the language of those known involved individuals, such as Volpe and Battle, not the faceless individuals who report to critics and can say anything they feel like. / Eudemis and Nrswanson- There are several who do defend the reports about Kathleen Battle's behavior. Interesting that now that I can produce them, Holland (critic), Epstein (Producer) and Teachout (critic), all involved in the music industry in some way, you suggest that it is not relevant regarding the suggestion of some that she is "difficult" since they do not deal specifically with the termination. I can sort of see that, so let's stick to the termination, then.   / So sticking with the termination and verified involved parties at the Met, we have what Volpe stated and what Battle stated. Why should we try to drum up evidence for either side? We shouldn't. We should let the language of the involved partis, not what was reported to a reporter, in vague, colorful language. This would give a balanced version that favors no one side. / That is what at least two official wikipedia moderators offered last year. (Yes I understand that Nrswanson didn't agree with them, and that is his right.) Little has changed, no new arguments have been added, on either side. / Check out the archives and I think this will be apparent. Hrannar (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar