Talk:Kathleen Battle

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 [[1]] : 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? --Kleinzach 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

Heads-up re YouTube links

Several of these are clearly links to copy vio excerpts and as such should probably be removed, as per [2]. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those, Voceditenore. Anything that is a copyright violation should definitely be removed. Your expertise is greatly appreciated.Hrannar (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Discography Suggestion?

In taking the discography suggestion to heart, in addition to being not as representative as it could be, the formatting seems bulky. In looking for possible solutions to reduce bulkiness, but still provide useful info, we see varying formats for discographies including Carreras, Fleming, McNair, and Upshaw. We can do a general listing, separated by commas, or we can make bulletted lists; we can include entire cast or just album title and year or variations thereof, like Album Title, album content, year, conductor and, where appropropriate, accompanist or symphony. What do you folks think? Hrannar (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I'm in favour of using a standard, easy to follow, standard format for singer discographies. Perhaps Jay can make a suggestion as he is working on the Domingo one? --Kleinzach 02:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

<Jay>Ok look here.

Year	Title	Cast	Conductor, Opera House and Orchestra	Label
1972	Bellini: Norma	Plácido Domingo, Montserrat Caballé, Fiorenza Cossotto, et al	Carlo Felice Cillario (Studio) London Symphony Orchestra Ambrosian Singers	RCA Cat: 6502-2 Cat: 8650

• Donizetti: L'elisir d'amore (Katia Ricciarelli, José Carreras, Leo Nucci, Susanna Rigacci, Domenico Trimarchi, Coro della RAI di Torino, Orchestra Sinfonica Della Rai Di Torino, Claudio Scimone) CD Philips 00289 475 4422

Obviously, the frame format is much better - easy to read compared to the same I took from Carreras page. But it is also depending on yourself and the singer. if the singer just have less than 30 recordings, well, then it ok to have it without the frame. But still, if you look at the sample above, in my opinion, the second format is difficult to read. We have to take consideration that not many people know who is "Susanna Rigacci" or "Carlo Felice Cillario". Could they be the conductor or singer or is it the title of the opera? Anyway, it is your choice. I wrote Domingo's discography because I want people to know his hard work and read the list I wrote; and to make people enjoy reading, I make sure they are "user friendly". - Jay (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO using the frame would be preferable when there are more than, say, five or six main entries. I like the frame format. I'm wondering however whether it would be a good idea to have an additional column for the type of recording. In the case of Norma (above) this would presumably be 'Studio (Audio)'. I guess this would go to the left of 'Label'. What do you think? --Kleinzach 01:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Since we would adding to this, per recommendations, and the number would grow to more than five or six, why not use the frame, per your recommendation? And thanks for the suggestion about the live/studio. Many collectors are often interested in whether performance was live. Sounds good, IMHO. Hrannar (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar.

Could we add what role she portrayed on the opera CDs please.Nrswanson (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have the sources, why not. BTW, I am fixing the frame formats but have to stop for a while because you are still adding the list in Recitals, Concerts, aria and song collection. I will do it after you're done. I have fixed the format in Choral and symphonic and [[[Kathleen_Battle#Complete_operas|Complete operas]]. I also added the conductor full name, etc in both two sections. Try to avoid writing too long because it doesnt look nice for non-wide screen PCs or laptops. - Jay (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I have many of the CDs (I own almost every recording made by Battle). Would I need a source beyond the flip jacket of the CD?Nrswanson (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, for CDs that you dont have, you can browse the detail at cduniverse.com - Kathleen Battle Discography from CD Universe - Jay (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A few questions/suggestions

Recitals, concerts, aria and song collection section:

• The entries: 1989 Live In Tokyo 1988 (with Plácido Domingo, James Levine) and 1995 Battle & Domingo Live refer to the same recording (just different release/re-release dates).

Choral and symphonic section:

• The entry: André Previn: Honey and Rue; Samuel Barber: Knoxville: Summer of 1915; George Gershwin: selections from Porgy And Bess would be more aptly placed in Recitals, concerts, aria and song collection section. Both Honey and Rue and Knoxville: Summer of 1915 are song cycles (albeit orchestral ones), as opposed to the more large scale choral and symphonic works listed in this section, and the Gershwin part of the recording consists of two songs from Porgy and Bess.

General:

• I'm not sure about the center alignment of the tables. I personally find left alignment less confusing to the eye.
• With the addition of more and more recordings, this is turning into a complete discography, and makes the page quite long (currently 39 44 kilobytes). The Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends a maximum of 30 to 50 kilobytes for readability. Once this section is finished, it might be a good idea to make this a separate page, and write a summary paragraph about her recording career in this article with a link to the discography page as Jay has done for the Domingo article here

Best,Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think it is best to move the recording list into a new article. About centre or left alignment, it is up to you guys. If majority thinks left alignment is better, I will revert all including in Domingo's main page and his discography. It is best to make things standard. - Jay (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done the format adjustment and also changed the alignment to the left and will revert it at Domingo's discography too - Jay (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing Tag

Thanks nrswanson for adding the grammar editing tag! Great eye! No one is perfect. My errors, and those of other editors, no doubt are done in haste and unintentionally. It's wonderful that Wikipedia has these tools to help with these matters. Hrannar (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

The Purpose of References

Dear fellow editors, Voceditenore:

Please look at these two versions describing the same event.

• Battle's Carnegie Hall solo recital debut came on April 27, 1991; the recital was part of the Centennial Festival celebrating the 100th anniversary of Carnegie Hall. Accompanied by pianist Margo Garrett she sang arias and songs by Handel, Mozart, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Gershwin and Richard Strauss as well as several traditional spirtuals. The great contralto, Marian Anderson, who had ended her farewell tour with a recital at Carnegie Hall in April 1965, was in the audience that night as Battle dedicated Rachmaninoff's "In the Silence of the Secret Night" to her.[18] The recording of the recital earned Battle her fourth Grammy award.

• Battle's Carnegie Hall solo recital debut came on April 27, 1991; the recital was part of the Centennial Festival celebrating the 100th anniversary of Carnegie Hall. The recording of the recital earned Battle her fourth Grammy award.

Of the two version, one clearly provides much more detail. It is my understanding that the shorter version provides the pertinent details to Kathleen Battle's career. At the same time, that fascinating detail such as "The great contralto, Marian Anderson, who ended her...." can be found in the reference. Or even, perhaps, by going to the wikipedia page for this artist. (And if it isn't there, it should be added.) Aren't references included for those who want to read the details of the event? Am I misunderstanding something? I believe if this were an print biography of Kathleen Battle's life, I would suspect this sort of detail would be more than welcome. Also, I have looked at other recitalists sites, and do not see nearly the specifity provided in the more detailed version. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.Hrannar (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• The primary use of references on Wikipedia is to verify assertions and facts, not to provide extra information (although they often do that as well). I re-added the details that you removed as "extraneous verbiage" because I feel they are pertinent and provide the reader with an interesting insight into the occasion. Voceditenore (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I believe it could be written more clearly and shortened. If you want to add, in the audience was her special guest was Marian Anderson, whom Battle pointed to as an important influence, than that would perhaps offer the interesting insight you mention. Again, a sentence like ""who had ended her farewell tour with a recital at Carnegie Hall in April 1965" seems far more appropriate to Marian Anderson's own page. And since we can link there, that seems fairly common in wikipedia. If there is insight that such a sentence brings, however, maybe we can state that insight? Hrannar (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• I think the sentence is quite clearly written, and I don't think it needs shortening at all. The reason you don't see as much detail in some other singers' articles is, as I have stated before, most Wikipedia articles are works in progress. But I'm not going to get into (yet another) endless talk-page debate. If you think that removing the phrase "who had ended her farewell tour with a recital at Carnegie Hall in April 1965" is a crucial improvement to the article, please remove it.Voceditenore (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Voice Type - Operatic Soprano vs. Lyric Soprano?

There has been discussion of Kathleen Battle's voice type already. Soprano? Lyric Soprano? Soubrette? Etc. Editor nrswanson recently changed the voice from Lyric Soprano to Operatic soprano. Why this was done given the talk page discussions to which nrswanson contributed [talk page discussion on voice type] where nrswanson argued for lyric soprano is unclear. If that is in fact a more appropriate designation for her voice type, let's change it. But from what I can tell, based on discussions and documentation (from her managaement, CD data and reviews discussing her) which describe her as Lyric Soprano, that is the most widely agreed upon voice type. Than again, if there is compelling documentation to show otherwise, that's fine. But just please share, so that future editors will understand as well. Thanks. Hrannar (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• Well her onstage roles have mostly been in the soubrette repetoire (normal for a young singer but they usually branch out into more mature roles later), with an equal amount in the light lyric and lyric coloratura repetoire in her later career. However, her recordings and concert work have expanded significantly into the coloratura repetoire and in all liklihood she would have done coloratura roles if she had continued with her opera career. Ultimately it might be good to track her voice type throughout her career similar to how the Harolyn Blackwell article handels it. The important thing is that we shouldn't give multiple voice types without explaining it clearly within the context of her career. (that will take some time and research though) Operatic soprano covers all the different voice types so it makes a good general overall distinction. I personally think it is more confusing to call her a lyric soprano and lyric coloratura soprano because if a lyric is capable of coloratura roles they are just refered to as a lyric coloratura. Her recordings have been more in the coloratura repetoire (examples her baroque CD with Marsalis, her Bel Canto CD, her live from Tokyo CD with Placido Domingo, her French Arias CD, Rosina in The Barber of Seville, Zerbinetta in Ariadne auf Naxos, Cleopatra in Giulio Cesare, Oscar in Un ballo in maschera etc.) and she really hasn't recorded much of the lyric literature. Nrswanson (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is there compeling documentation to show otherwise that she is not a lyric soprano. And as you said in the earlier talk discussion, Her publicist at sony classic that produces and markets all her solo recordings describes her as a lyric soprano. For this reason I have changed her description to lyric soprano. I have also found several newspaper articles, including the New York Times, that have refered to her as a lyric soprano. / From the above paragraph, you site examples from her Opera repertoire. Am I to assume that is why you chose Operatic Soprano? As the article and facts indicate, her repertoire has always encompassed far more than Opera. In addition, Renee Fleming, Dawn Upshaw, Sylvia McNair, all are described as Soprano, not Operatic Soprano, to because they also perform a variety of repertoire, not just Opera. / In addition, I can see that you are actually THE major contributor to Harolyn Blackwell article. / In the end I am wondering in terms of her voice type and wikipedia guidelines whether it seems fair to defer to how articles and herself and management (as you suggested [talk page discussion on voice type] versus what we ourselves think. Hrannar (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• Hrannar I am not going to work with you sense you are getting hostile. But just to let you know the flip jackets in her bel canto and french arias CDs call her a lyric coloratura soprano so even sony classic isn't consistant. See Lucia Popp for another example that I didn't contribute to (because obviously anything I do is inherantly evil to Hrannar). Also one could argue that her management is a biased source sense it is not independent of the subject. You are once again quoting things that I don't necesarily believe anymore. Time and experience have made me wiser. Also this isn't what I think as there are numerous newspaper articles out there refering to her as a soubrette, lyric soprano, and lyric coloratura soprano. Nrswanson (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrannar: It's important to understand how the Fach and other voice classification systems work. Some voices may be a perfect fit for a type, but most are not. In any case singers are often tempted to extend their range by lucrative offers (etc. the famous Karajan/Freni story - "You can sing Aida. I'll keep the orchestra down for you . . ."). Anyway that's why we generally use the phrase operatic soprano in the leads - you normally can't go wrong with it! Best. --Kleinzach 00:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach. Yes, the fach system, used mostly to describe opera roles/singers, isn't infallible, since singers can sing different types of roles and differs depending on the country. At the same time, how would you describe the voice she uses when she sings a Faure chanson, Brahms or Schubert Lieder, a Stevie Wonder song, or a spiritual like Fix Me, Jesus? You can be a classicaly trained vocalist and not sing opera, as you know. If one feels that Lyric is not close enough, than Soprano would work. That is what is done for Fleming, Bonney, McNair, and Upshaw. That seems to be the standard. I just haven't seen this Operatic Soprano before on wikipedia. Hrannar (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

The voice she uses for Fauré/Schubert etc. is the same she uses for opera, though the style in spirituals is a little different. How about operatic and concert soprano? I don't think this should be a big deal. --Kleinzach 01:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach. I have not heard the term "Concert soprano" before? Is that a new voice designation? Would Soprano be incorrect, given that is is also used for Fleming, Upshaw, Bonney, and others. Can we agree on this common denominator, since that seems common? Also, I have not seen a wikipedia page, however, called "Operatic Soprano." Is it being created? I actually don't understand why, on Kathleen Battle's page, it seems certain editors wish to focus (see it as her "main" (their word) career) on the Opera-tic portion of her career. (If we are to recognize the recent discussion.) / But if we take this one step at a time, we are talking about the voice type here, if I am not mistaken. There are other singers like Fleming, Upshaw, McNair, and Bonney who perform(ed) Opera and Recital and Crossover, and editors seem to have settled with the Soprano voice type. Hrannar (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I used small 'o' and small 'c' intentionally above. Some other editors may regard me as a capitalization fanatic, but in this case it's significant. Operatic is an adjective! --Kleinzach 02:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, kleinzach. I will pay more attention to the capitalization. Hrannar (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

• See *Category:Operatic sopranos.Nrswanson (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A request to all editors - please note changes of content in comment history

For sake of openness, it is my opinion that unless minor edit, editors should be fairly clear as to what they are doing. Otherwise, history log will not provide accurate picture. For example, if you delete or add to content. An example / The repertoire categories were created today; then voceditenore edited what I had done, removing the repetition of "repertoire" because he felt they were redundant. AND, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT, HE STATED SO IN THE HISTORY, with a "removing redundant repetitions of "repertoire", fixing capitalization per MoS"; Voceditenore also, in my humble opinion, improved on the title of one of the repertoire categories, "art song, jazz, and crossover." Then, nrswanson went and edited those areas. However, one would not know this. Since I couldn't note the change, I had to research to identify what was done. The word repertoire that voceditenore removed was reinserted; the title "art song, jazz..." was changed to "concert and recital repertoire." / This was also done with the change of voice type designation lyric soprano to Operatic soprano. / Changes of content should be noted, if I am not mistaken, per wikipedia guidelines. / No harm about what was already done, but just so we can follow what is going on better, especially since we don't always agree on changes we make, noting this in history makes it easier to note what is going on with the article. Thanks so much. I will do my best, also Hrannar (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Time to remove the neutrality tag?

The editing is going ahead very well. The article is already written to a high standard. I wonder if it's time to remove the neutrality tag? Would everyone be willing to agree to this ? Hrannar? Nrswanson? --Kleinzach 10:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with its removal. I see no lack of neutrality in the article's current state, either in the Met "brouhaha" coverage or in the balance of coverage between the concert, recital, and opera aspects of her career. Obviously there are still some writing improvements to be made, especially in the Recital repertoire and Major collaborations sections, as well as some missing refs to be supplied, but the article is at a good standard now. It would be a pity to put readers off (or reduce confidence in what they're reading) with an (undeserved) neutrality tag. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the Met brouhaha paragraph, if necessary, I'd recommend removing this sentence:

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." [27]

The 'complainants' are not named and it gives a slight advantage in terms of 'air time' for the Met's side of the story. Hopefully Hrannar and Nrswanson would both be able to accept this compromise and move on? Voceditenore (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Voceditenore's suggestion is a very sensible one. . . . --Kleinzach 13:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I see nothing wrong with including that sentence, I will agree to the compromise.Nrswanson (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tags - Jay (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed the NYT sentence above. Hopefully this should be the end of it.Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've uprated it to B-class! --Kleinzach 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me to remove the tag. Not been able to get on here these past few days. Nice job, everyone. 21:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Hrannar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrannar (talk • contribs)

Excellent. I'm now taking this off my watchlist. I once encountered Miss Battle . . . (quick exit left). --Kleinzach 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Salzburg debut

I'm correcting some apparent errors re Battle's Salzburg debut. Her Salzburg debut came on July 28, 1982 as Despina in Cosi Fan Tutte.[3], not in an "All-Mozart Program". She is not listed in the Salzburg Archives as a solo recitalist at all that year. See: [4]. She did appear in one of the 1982 "Mozart Matinee" concerts. See: [5] but they were not solo recitals, and in any case, the first one took place on July 31st.

Her solo recital debut came at Salzburg in August 25, 1984 and was not an all-Mozart programme. See: [6]

I believe the error comes from this source:

• Richard LeSueur, "Kathleen Battle" Classical Artist Biographies, All Media Guide, 2008. (also reprinted on Amazon)

At one stage of the Wikipedia Kathleen Battle article it had been pasted in verbatim. None of the many other sources that I've checked mentions an "All-Mozart Program" [sic] or "All-Mozart Concert" [sic] at Salzburg in 1982. LeSueur's article is not a particularly good source. Note this whopping error in the first paragraph "Schippers who brought her to the Spoleto Festival in South Carolina to sing the Brahms Requiem in 1972", followed later by "She first appeared in Europe in 1978 at the Italian Spoleto Festival"

A general caveat to editors: This is not the first time I have found multiple errors in the All Music Guide articles. They have no bibliographies, and have minimal editorial oversight. I personally always double check information taken from them, and avoid using them if there are alternative, more authoritative sources.

I'm also correcting the current reference for the list of her Salzburg performances [7] (added 9 August) which gives a most unilluminating page saying:

Performances: from 01. January 1940 to 31. December 2007

Artist: kathleen battle

No matches were found. Please try again.

Always check the links in references to make sure they actually support the assertion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bach aria album

can it be that we are talking about different discs? the one to which i refer is titled 'the bach album'. all the performers are as you describe. it begins with 'Vernugen und Lust' (sorry, since they took away the special characters, i don't know how to do an umlaut.) from cantata 197. it concludes with 'auch mit gedampften, schwachen Stimmen'. the cover shows the soloists, with kb in a yellow something, and ip in coat and tie with his fiddle.at the top is the unmistakable yellow dgg banner.it is dgg #429 737 2. it can also be found on amazon.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry when I did a comparison in the edit history it showed a change was made to her Christmas CD and not the Bach CD. Anyway, you are right about the Bach CD.Nrswanson (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag: March 2009

After reading through the biography sections, it appears that Ms. Battle's difficulty and its impact on her career are still glossed over and that this is essentially a fluff piece written by fans. The article appears to suggest that Ms. Battle was blindsided by her firing by the capricious management at the Met. I have no doubt my edit won't survive longer than a day but it is an attempt to add clarity to the premature end of her operatic career sourced by the same Michael Walsh of Time magazine already sited in the article:

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 "(T)he cast of The Daughter of the Regiment applauded when it was told during rehearsal that Battle had been fired." -cited 18:19, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eudemis (talk • contribs) 18:19 8 March 2009

• I have moved the above comment for greater visibility. I have also signed it. Eudemis, please sign all talk page comments. The background to the current state of the article can be read in the talk page archives: Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 2. I personally have no objection to the addition of the Time magazine quotation and reference. Given that addition, I don't think the {{POV}} tag is applicable any longer. They aren't meant to be "pre-emptive strikes" in case an edit is deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point but it is not a preemptive strike. The quotations listed were the mildest to be drawn from the Time magazine piece and I thought the least objectionable to her devoted fans who have constructed the article. It describes her firing as the culmination of a career long penchant for surly behavior, not the result of an isolated incident. It mentions the wide spread support of the larger operatic community to her termination citing Ernest Fleischmann (Los Angeles Philharmonic)and Hugues Gall (Paris Opera). Adjectives used to describe her in the article included "crazy" "very, very screwed up" and "sick" and that she endlessly issued demands and ultimatums to management. I think any balanced article about Ms. Battle should minimally make clear that her own actions resulted in her firing, not age, race or creative differences with management. Even as currently edited, this piece doesn't appear balanced to me. The NY Times piece at the time of her firing included a partial list of her demands such as that other singers leave rehearsals while she was singing and giving General Manager Volpe 5 minutes to appear in her dressing room to hear her complaints. I don't think these criticisms should be the centerpiece or sole focus of the article but they are undisputed in spite of the slant the article has and certainly should be mentioned and not just as a blurb. In compromise, I've removed the tag. Eudemis Eudemis (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eudemis (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 March 2009

It is fair to say that there has been considerable discusion on the issue Eudemis is raising again. You can see it in the archives. Eudemis you make points that have been discussed back and forth. and as you suspected, the points you reraise may be viewed as not being appropriate to a wikipedia. Understanding this, why not first propose your changes here, before changing the public version that was created with much discussion, debate, and input from moderators? Can you agree to do that please? Hrannar (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

• Um... nothing was ever settled Hrannar. You are rather mis-characterizing the past discussion which never came to a definite decision. I just simply grew tired of arguing with you and so the discussion ended and you won. Eudemis, I argued a similar case which is in the archives. I agree with your above comments and support your proposed changes entirely. That's all I am going to say here. Ciao.Nrswanson (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just had another look at the article — as a whole — and I think it is excellent. I don't agree that "it is a fluff piece written by fans" (Eudemis). I think it should be nominated for GA. Hrannar's suggestion that any further changes to the Met sacking section should be proposed here first before being added to the article is sensible. As one of the former 'moderators', my understanding is that the former discussions did reach a conclusion — or as much of a conclusion as we could reasonably have hoped for in the circumstances. Battle was not the first or last singer to have a fight with an opera company and I have to wonder why her dismissal should be the focus of such extraordinary attention. The article should be about her whole career. --Kleinzach 01:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've removed the chauffeur anecdote (added by an IP) -uncited tittle-tattle. --Kleinzach 09:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Any referenced deletions that are quotes from Mr. Walsh should stay in at least as long as as his favorable ones are left in as both represent his opinion. The taking ownership of articles, as tends to happen with entries about performers, does not produce a well rounded or accurate piece. Some people will be interested in her firing from the Met and they will learn little enough about it reading the piece as it is currently. Eudemis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

1. It is Mr. Walsh's opinion and perhaps others, whether favorable or negative, regarding the termination, not an observable fact. 2. Just because it is a quote does not mean it adheres to standards of bios of living persons of do no harm. But the leaving ill will in her wake is opinion and gossipy, much like language and phrasing of the vanity fair article that lacked NPOV and journalistic ethical standards. 3. I am seeking compromise by not protesting the inclusion of the applause of the cast upon the termination announcement, since it does not use judgemental, opinionated language. 4. NPOV means showing both sides re: the termination, without favoratism to either. Adding more info to either side (favorable or negative) would end its NPOV. Hrannar (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

It appears you win these arguments by attrition noting Nrswanson's comments above. Mr. Walsh's statements about Ms. Battle's reputation are as relevant as his other comments in praise of Ms. Battle's talent. You also misconstrue my comments when you suggest that I suspected my additions were inconsistent with wikipedia standards. I expressed my concerns that Ms. Battle's ardent fans would not tolerate an accurate accounting of her dismissal. In any event, your changes create a less informative recitation of her firing and are to some extent misleading. I have restored the Walsh quote. Eudemis