Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Tone of article

This article reads too "gossipy" for my taste. Anyone agree Antares33712 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Tried to rectify it. Dalliance 18:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of edits to Kathleen Battle

[129.74.18.183 (Talk)] You are simply whitewashing this. You have taken my structure, and my positive comments, kept both, and removed the negative facts -- widely known -- to produce a write-up that is just a whitewash. Even my contribution of the New Year's Day concert, on which she sang for 9 minutes, has been left in with the 9-minute qualifier removed, leading to a distorted picture for Wikipedia readers. You have turned the 2-prong conductor point, a true and quite neutral fact in her ascendancy, as Battle herself would tell you, into a generic puffed-up laundry list of big names, none of whom was as vital as the two first mentioned. You have misspelled one of the names. You have used the wrong tense. Finally, you have removed another contributor's external link that documented Battle's firing at the Met. Are you her publicist?

====================================

Response:

Mr. Powell:

Call it what you will. However, to quote Wikipedia discussion of guidelines: "Controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

I 'edited' your point about the conductors, because it was a fact that she worked with many other important and esteemed conductors. She has, indeed stated, and if you want to quote her, you can, something to the effect that James Levine has been the cornerstone of her career acting as mentor, collaborator, and friend. However, your point was not quite neutral. Her ascendancy has a lot to do with a voice that many were attracted to and hard work -- which were recognized by the many stages, conductors, venues, recordings, and reviews of the same.

If I misspelled one of the names, I appreciate you catching it and correcting it.

Regarding the external link "about the firing," this was clearly not an unbiased examination of the firing. It is a fact that she was dismissed from the Met. But much of the information in that article was, as one person mentioned, gossipy, and went against the guidelines I quoted above.

Finally both you and I know this article is not of the calibre that would be found in any reputable biography. Often it arches towards gossip and negatively. period. A reputable biography should include a discography, people with whom she worked, voice teachers, the artists own words, highlights (which, in Kathleen Battle's case are numerous), etc. For example...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas

Or look up Leontyne Price, Dawn Upshaw, etc.

Her firing

Why does this article not discuss her firing at the Met? It was kind of important. Dave Foster 08:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Her firing by the Met in 1994 was an extremely important event -- sadly, it seems to have hurt her career significantly (note her artistic highlights mentioned are all pre-1994). So it doesn't make sense to completely ignore it. The key is to source this with a good article that covers the facts of the Met firing in an objective way. This probably isn't appropriate (too one-sided, in my opinion), but it does show how a mainstream magazine covered this when it happened. And if that's not catty enough, try this from Vanity Fair in 1994. Rickterp 06:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The article now mentions her firing but someone has added unsourced commentary suggesting that James Levine opposed the firing, and the even more attenuated assertion that Peter Gelb who recently assumed control of the Met would have handled it differently. I think the first might be interesting if citation could be provided, but the second is completely irrelevant, given that Gelb came on the scene a decade later. Anyone disagree? NickInBigD (Hey!) 19:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Gelb comment is somewhat irrelevant, although it does seem to justify Battle to some extent in the eyes of the opera world. Her career has never really recovered after the Met firing. I definitely think sources need to be found for those comments if they are going to stay on the page. The prior information on the firing that is cited, I found good sources for and can varify as accurate.Nrswanson 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so someone has added a 2006 citation to the notion that Gelb would have handled the situation differently. I still believe the commentary is irrelevant and is not NPOV. Rather someone is simply using the musings of a different administrator a decade later. It's like throwing into a discussion of Vietnam a comment by George Bush that he would have handled it differently. Interesting, but somewhat off topic. I am still in favor of removing. NickInBigD (Hey!) 05:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the Gelb comment is irrelevant IF the Volpe perspective is also removed. By accepting Volpe's assessment of the situation assumes that his perspective is the only valid and correct one. So by offering the Gelb's perspective also has experience working in the demanding, collaborative world of Opera production, we, the reader, get a more balanced view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.74.18.183 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 July 2007.
That makes no sense at all. Volpe is the one that FIRED her - an historical fact. How can you insist that Gelb's view must be reflected, if Volpe's is? Gelb had nothing to do with the Met at the time. NickInBigD (Hey!) 00:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that it is ok to state that Volpe made the decision to fire her. Nothing in my comments suggests that there is anything wrong with that. What I mention is Volpe's assessment, assertions that justified his reason for firing her. In his autobiography, Volpe states, "After what she's put us through, I have no other choice" in speaking to his wife who didn't agree with his decision either. Volpe also stated, "[I] also wondered whether it was partly prompted by my desire to establish my authority at the Met. Perhaps it was." Including the differing view of Gelb -- a highly respected and effective producer and manager of various recordings, events, etc. -- would indicate that Volpe's decision was not the "only choice." Gelb's qualifications and experience and esteem make his views on this particular matter valid. (It is highly different than George Bush speaking of Vietnam, as George Bush, on the other hand has not been effective and cannot speak of how to manage a war effectively.) Gelb can speak of working with and managing world class, demanding artists effectively. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.74.18.183 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 July 2007.
I think that the user with IP address 129.74.18.183 is selectively cherry-picking the facts. If one were to read Volpe's autobiography, his wife's opposition was not based on the merits of Battle's behavior, but out of her concern that Battle was so popular a star that the Met might have been damaged by such a firing. This user also is illogical. Why does Gelb's view have anything to do with the facts? He wasn't an eyewitness, merely an after-the-fact commentator. Why stop there? Why not quote Larry King or Kelly Ripa or Saddam Hussein? I think this person is no other than [drum roll, please] . . . Kathleen Battle!!! Come out, come out, wherever you are!Violetta71 05:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm Kathleen Battle. Riiiiight. Obviously opinions on Kathleen Battle vary, and we as humans see things differently. I would argue that you have a selective perspective. You may not agree that Peter Gelb's opinion is appropriate or valid, and that's ok. We live in a country where we can disagree. However, I see no similarity between Gelb and Saddam or Ripa. Sorry. [User:129.74.18.183|129.74.18.183]] (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.18.183 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It also makes some slight mention of her mental state at the time - I don't get what's being inferred here. as a result or cause of her firing? I heard Volpe on NPR say he'd had complaints from cast and crew about her, including that she didn't want people staring at her mouth while she sang. I can't find the source at the moment, but really this article skirts around her firing and ignores the fact that she's had no operatic roles since then. Wellesradio 20:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Wellesradio

I also don't get what is being suggested. Wikipedia bios don't seem to want that sort of information. That sort of detail seems more of interest to those intersted in gossip and speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.74.18.183 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 July 2007.

I have decided to add a neutrality tag, on account of the POV problem with this particular section.

In its current state, the section gives two sides of the situation, but substantiates only one, i.e., that which may be favourable to Ms. Battle. Either there should be both positive and negative specifics, or none at all, only generalities. Moreover, there is no mention of how extraordinarily rare it is for a musician - especially of Ms. Battle's calibre - to be dismissed for non-artistic reasons.

In the articles citation index, sources with high-quality information that might be perceived as critical of Ms. Battle are present, but overly general -- no personal quotations. The New York Times citation, for instance, is a tag / stub, not a full available reference. This Wikipedia article, however, has several 'supportive' quotations, but no critical ones, giving an impression of subtle bias. Facts and comment don't seem to match.

I’d like to rectify this, principally by finding some higher-quality material (not just People Magazine articles that I remember); but looking at the page history makes me worry about reversions. In the meantime I think it is both logical and fair to note that there is an NPOV problem.

Comments?

Pufferfyshe 21:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pufferyfyshe -- I think your points are fair. And I appreciate you thoughtrful commentary. I can see your subtle bias point. You may be aware, after sifting through the history, that this article has often had a strong (not subtle) negative bias. My only comment is about how "axtraordinarily rare it is for a musician to be dismissed." It is indeed. And what does that suggest? Does it mean that Kathleen Battle's behavior was, in and of itself, untolerable and unprofessional, as some assert? In his book, Volpe said "Teresa Stratas...was always right....She said, Joe the set absorbs too much sound. Can't we get rid of all this black velvet." (which he did) and "Her throat dried up as she walked from the dressing room to the stage...After Teresa complained, I had the system extended to the dressing rooms. It was a distance of about seventy feet, but you don't argue with Teresa. The next time she came in, she said, 'I'm glad you finally got it right.'"

-- On the other hand --

"It wasn't just [Kathy's] dragging of the tempo, it was the breathiness, the crooning, the lack of musicle discipline...After the third performance of [Elisire], Kathy complained again, I can't continue, she told me. 'Everything is too fast.' I wasn't sympathetic -- she only wanted to draw more attention to herself."

The point that I am trying to make is that we tend to only hear the gossipy side, one sided view and those voices seem to be more aggressive. When Volpe was on the Charlie Rose show, the guest interviewer brought up that Gelb indicated he would have handled it differently (search google videos using Volpe as a search term), Volpe brushed the statement aside stating it wasn't appropriate for Gelb to have stated that. So it's ok to criticise Kathleen Battle publicly. But it's not ok to question Volpe publicly?

  • BOLD EDITING: This conversation has gone on forever. Did anyone look at the "article" supposedly supporting the statement that she was viewed by others as "gracious"? It doesn't say that anywhere. At best, it simply says she's a "professional liberated woman." I've deleted these comments which are unsupported and have POV problems, and have edited the firing section merely to reflect the public statements by Volpe and Battle at the time -- both of which are substantiated by the NY Times article already cited in this section. NickInBigD (Hey!) 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 ::::: Gelb is the currently the General Manager of the Met. And he has been asked his views on the matter. So obviously, his opinion matters to some, though not the present company. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE is what a person, i.e., Volpe, says is not the bible. And there are other perspectives. And that Volpe's perspective clearly is not a NPOV. It is obviously valid to report his perspective. But it is even more important, for the sake of integrity, to represent the other side of the story. And it is clear to me that you do not have much positive to say about Kathleen Battle. But that is not the only perspective. Which is the 'correct' perspective is obviously debatable. You'll note that in my edits, I've tried to help offer both sides. And give them as much equal weight as possible. That seems to adhere to wikipedia standards. Hrannar 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • UNDID EDITS BY 129.74.18.183: This user went back into the article and re-added all of the stuff about what Gelb says he would have done if he had run the Met at the time of Battle's firing. As covered extensively above, this is irrelevant to the factual events of what actually occurred. I've reverted the edits to my version of 9/27/07 which strictly track the statements made by the parties involved at the time. Adding anything else is simply an attempt to favor one party in the dispute over the other. I've also changed the caption from the ambigous "difficulties" to what it was before - a section on her "Firing from the Metropolitan Opera". No matter what euphemisms one may want to employ to sugar coat it, that is in fact what happened. NickInBigD (Hey!) 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • REDO EDITS: Actually, someone had gone in and even though someone earlier talked about lack of NPOV, went in and did a clearly negatively biased account. So, per wikipedia standards, tried to balance that. We all know that there are often three sides to the truth: side a, side b, and somewhere in between. Hrannar 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • UNDID EDITS AGAIN & PLEASE SIGN YOUR DISCUSSION COMMENTS: I've once again undone the attempted additions. First, the citation provided nowhere supports anything regarding what Levine's view of the firing was. Without a citation, any assertion of his point of view is unsupported and inappropriate. As to Gelb's point of view, again he was not there at the time and only came to the met over a decade later. Neutral point of view does not require that you reflect opinions of people commenting on a situation more than ten years later. It does require that you reflect the two sides of the actual participants to the event - which the present discussion does. It gives Volpe's statement and it gives Battles statement. That IS balanced. By repeatedly inserting the Gelb discussion, it is the Battle "sympathizers" who are attempting to skew the discussion. NickInBigD (Hey!) 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • REDID EDITS: First of all, and most importantly, NPOV means just that: Neutral, and not one-sided, unilateral. This section, as you see fit to present, would CLEARLY be unilateral, painting Kathleen Battle in the picture that one group of people, you included, want to see. Per wikipedia guidelines, that is not ok. To rectify that, I am presenting BOTH sides. (not just the positive. And not just the negative.)Has less to do with being a so called "Battle 'sympathizer'" as you state, and more to do with someone who simpathizes with seeing a balanced view of any event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.18.183 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I AM ASKING AN ADMIN FROM THE BIO PROJECT TO WEIGH IN and have reverted for the third time your attempts to add extraneous, non-contemporaneous commentary in order to slant the issue of Ms. Battle's firing. NickInBigD (Hey!) 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I AM GRATEFUL. I feel that the reverts tended to 'remove' the alternate perspective which also exists, what you call extraneous. So I am grateful to have the third party weigh in. You will notice that they felt is was sufficiently balanced, but they did include ways to better word the comments. Wonderful!!! I'll respect the biography projects observation that he feels the Gelb comment is irrelevant. I disagree, but that's ok. We live in America :-) Hrannar 19:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just discovered this and I must say it's very difficult to read unsigned comments. Regarding the edit war, I think we need a cooling off period. Perhaps it would help if this page is protected from anonymous IP editing? -- Kleinzach 00:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That might be a good start. I agree that it has been difficult to tell who, or how many others, have been in this conversation. As you see, I've also reached out for some intervention or assistance; you may know of a more prompt way of achieving that so any help would be appreciated. NickInBigD (Hey!) 00:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I am 129.74.18.183. I have just figured out how to sign the comments. And to sign in properly. Please forgive the anonymous editing. It wasn't intentional. I could see that my IP address was noted, so you can trace them back to me. I just didn't know how to sign. Thank you, Kleinzach. Your assistance is appreciated! Hrannar 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment from a disinterested party who's just seen this via a notice at the Opera Project Talk page. I think you all need a cooling off period. There have been so many reverts and counter reverts that people are inadvertantly putting back stuff they actually didn't want in the article and vice-versa. As it is now, the discussion about the firing seems reasonably balanced, but why not make the source explicit in the article. Perhaps that would help. For example instead of the current:

"Metropolitan Opera Artistic Director James Levine advised against the firing at the time [12] Volpe also reflects years later in his book, "[I've] wondered whether it was partly prompted by my desire to establish my authority at the Met. Perhaps it was." [13]

Why not say put something like:

"In his 2006 memoirs, Volpe wrote that James Levine had advised against the firing at the time [12] and went on to write, "[I've] wondered whether it was partly prompted by my desire to establish my authority at the Met. Perhaps it was." [13]

In general the referencing and referencing format needs a lot of improvement. This is especially important when writing on contentious issues in biographies of living persons and also eliminates a lot of confusion. First of all, the references need to explicitly described. For example the current note [2] should be cited as:

"Battle, Kathleen." Contemporary Musicians. Ed. Michael L. LaBlanc. Vol. 6. Gale Group, Inc., 1992. Reprinted on eNotes.com. 2006. [1] accessed 5 Oct, 2007

not simply described as "Highly Referenced Biography, Enotes.com" as it is now. Ditto all the references which consist simply of a URL to a page on answers.com. That page has several articles, ranging from The Columbia Encyclopedia to The Concise Grove Dictionary of Music to a mirror of an old version of the Wikipedia article (!!!) You need to state the full bibliographic information for the exact one you used in addition to the URL where it was reprinted. You have to be very careful about answers.com, as it often has mirrors of Wikipedia articles, and also bach-cantatas.com which is edited by readers. For what it's worth, I think the Gelb comment is irrelevant. If anything, it belongs either in an article about him or about Volpe. Besides, he didn't say how he would have handled it differently. For all we know, he might have fired her and taken out a full-page ad in all US newspapers to detail his reasons. Just joking, but you see what I mean. Best wishes to you all. Voceditenore 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! I appreciate you weighing in; glad that efforts to make it balanced have not been lost. I've taken it to heart your ideas and used the suggested wording about Levine's comments and Volpe's additional rationale for firing; and your stating the Gelb comment is irrelevant. When I have time, I'll try to clean up the references. Hrannar 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment from a another disinterested party: I agree with Voceditenore above. The best way to approach such disputes is to pay careful attention to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Ultimately this should come down to finding reliable sources from neutral parties, and using those sources to determine proper WP:WEIGHT, especially of contentious issues. BLP gives additional priorities concerning privacy and contentious material. While it looks like you've already pursued multiple forums to help settle these disputes, don't overlook WP:BLP/N. --Ronz 19:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Thank you. These are also very helpful and provide overall guidance. Thanks for taking the time to help out with this. Hrannar 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)