Talk:Kathleen Battle/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

attributing statements to editors

In the "Neutrality tag" section just above this we see the following:

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

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

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

=END COPIES SECTION

'Who wrote the above statement attributed to RD232 and R2 here in this section' / It does not not seem signed properly, though it looks similar, but not identical to things they wrote on the BLP discussion page here. / This is important, because it gives the appearance that both Rd232 and R2 wrote those things here, but I am wondering if you, Eudemis, copied it and slightly changed what Rd232 with the addition of the text, "Let's try this approach to stay on topic. What in these opinions causes you to believe that there is a defamatory problem with the prior version?" Rd232 may very well have written it, so just want to clarify, whose thoughts are whose. Rd232 and R2 seem experienced enough that he would have known how to sign properly; but they could have indeed posted this, and some glitch could have happened also, to make their signatures look manually written. But just want to check they they truly did contribute those statements HERE in this talk space, versus being copied from the BLP noticeboard here and slighly modified by Eudemis. Hrannar (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

They are quotes from the discussion. You have missed a colon ":" - what follows that are their quotes.--Eudemis (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis - Thank you for clarifying that. My apologies, but the question followed immediately by quotes didn't make sense to me and appeared to be sudden additions of other contributors. Hrannar (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

The indenting generally of this discussion has been terrible. It's difficult to see who has said what. I don't think any other editors will bother to read it.--Kleinzach 08:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We do finally agree on something. I think splitting into someone else's post is a terrible idea even when you want to highlight a response to a specific statement. Checking the "Show preview" to make sure that your comments are aligned properly can be a huge help in making comments look orderly. If the discussion strays too far off topic, start a new section. I have resisted moving anyone else's comments because the positioning is really up to him or her. If a quote includes another user's chat signature, perhaps we should set it off in italics to avoid any confusion and make clear they are not making a similar entry again. If you can't easily follow the contributions when you are a part of the conversation, imagine the difficulty for an outsider unfamiliar with the topics. --Eudemis (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Can you clean up your own comments so they can be read more easily by other editors? That will help if this goes to formal mediation. You can start with your first posting to this section - the one that Hrannar misunderstood. --Kleinzach 00:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you are at least consistent. Hrannar reposted that quote; I didn't. He had also split the original. Good luck finding any post where I failed to indent. Try proofreading what you write (and click through to provided links so I don't have to reexplain everything to you). --Eudemis (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis - I did reposted that quote here. In the context of my desire to find out whether Rs232 or R2, I created this separate section in an attempt to hopefully not detract from the descussion of "defamation." But I felt it needed to be addressed. It needs to be clear who is actually contributing to a discussion on this page, it seems. / I have, and I hope you have as well, tried proofreading what we right. Let's continue to try doing that, ok? / I have also earnestly tried to read what you write and click through your links. Honestly. :-) In fact, you'll see my attempts to summarize your postition in the section above, where I nummerate your points, than invite you to correct me. I hope you will assume good will as I am assuming good will for you. Thanks so much! Hrannar (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Why, oh why?

Why are we having this discussion? Independent outside opinions were sought and obtained (14–21 April 2009). Following advice from the Noticeboard, Eudemis then rephrased a section of the article on 21 April. On 22 April Hrannar continued his/her single-minded and tendentious pursuit of cleansing the article from any criticism of Battle that (s)he disapproves. Clearly, Hrannar is acting against consensus; the approved version should be re-instated.

Also: Hrannar, could you please gather your thoughts before hitting the submit button and then editing your own contributions in an interminable string of further modifications, often under different identities (e.g. as 129.74.18.183 — a practice dimly viewed in these parts), thus clogging up the page history in a most annoying way? I recommend using an off-line editor, like Notepad or similar, to compose your contributions and hone them before submitting them to Wikipedia and the world. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael - For sake of truth, you provided this link: 129.74.18.183 / What this shows is at times, I wrote something, than I was prompted to sign in, then I almost IMMEDIATELY corrected that. / So I doubt anyone would consider that a "practice dimly viewed in these parts" ("practice" links to sock puppetry definition -- oddly manipulative, because an unexperienced person like myself would have assumed you linked to some guideline on 'practice') given that it was (1) unintentional and (2) corrected by myself, usually immediately. / However I apologize about the clogging the history in, as you say, a most annoying way. And I appreciate you letting me know. Thanks! / HOWEVER I think it is fair to point out that your comments deal only with my contributions and/or your assessements/opinions of my contributions. Eudemis has also, unintionally (I'm sure) left his comments unsigned. You can see that with, " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eudemis (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 March 2009" ; And his editing and formatting skills can use some improvement as well. / If you're going to try to make constructive comments, they will come across as more fair and helpful if they (a) don't come across as emotional "Why, Oh Why" (b) addressed only to me and (c) accusatory with statements you make about me such as "tendentious pursuit of cleansing the article." / Personal attacks are highly frowned upon. As voceditenore suggested, dialogues like this waste all our times. So please avoid the temptation to personal attack me. That behavior, it seems, to use your expression is, "dimly viewed in these/ Also it comes across as 'highly manipulative', when an editor creates a link to the word "cleansing" but it goes to the wikipedia guideline about "Disruptive Editing." / I want to make it clear, also, that I don't go into these sorts of discussions, unless users like yourself start making these accusations. / Please, 'stick to content, not personal attacks.' Hrannar (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

I fully concur with all of Michael Bednarek's points. The amount of editors' time being wasted here has reached bizarre proportions, which is why I have refrained from commenting in this latest round of "discussion". Also, Hrannar, I would appreciate it if you would stop referring to me as a "moderator". I am nothing of the sort. Voceditenore (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Voceditenore - I appreciate your clarification that you are not a moderator. And if, perhaps, it offended you, please accept my apologies. / The misunderstanding is perhaps due to the fact that you offered so much assistance and, behaved in a mediating fashion, trying to listen to concerns of both editors, than offering a possible solutions, which isn't hard to see if one looks in Archive 1, 2, and 3 (I think) of the archived talk pages. / As far as concurring with all of Bednarek's points, I only ask that you consider how unproductive and distruptive it is when another editor makes a personal attack. By concuring with them, it only encourages it. / Please do not be surprised though if your close association and frequent support of Nrswanson's views (who engaged in personal attacks, which he of course did not acknowledge) causes some concern about your ability to be neutral towards my contributions -- particularly since I found evidence of his sockpuppetry which caused his indefinite block. Hrannar (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

1. I was not "offended", I simply dislike inaccuracy. A moderator has special authority over the content or format of a discussion, which I do not have, nor does anyone else who has participated on this talk page. 2. There is no requirement that all contributions be accepted as equally valid or helpful. 3. I suggest you read this. Voceditenore (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Moderators can sometimes be informal. --Kleinzach 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that quoting someone (selectively) in a discussion and describing them as a "moderator" implies that their comments carry more weight or authority. They do not. In October 2007, the first edit war star started and was notified to the Opera Project.[1] I made the following suggestions as someone who had not previously edited the article: [2], [3], [4]. When the next edit war started in July 2008, I intervened [5] after being spuriously cited as an "authority" for the wholescale removal of a well-referenced paragraph. Following that, I began actively expanding and copy-editing the article myself. It was a mess, frankly. My subsequent attempts to reach a compromise on the talk page were no more than what any involved editors try to do. As I was now actively editing the article, it wasn't even mediation, let alone moderation. It is inaccurate and misleading to describe me in this way, either here or on the BLP Noticeboard, e.g. [6]. - Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hrannar: I realize that the version of 21 April — the one that Michael calls 'the approved version' — is not the one you would prefer, but would you be willing to accept it in order to bring this all to a close? IMO it does represent a fair compromise and does accurately record the (admittedly) nasty ('kick her while she's down' style) journalism of the incident. --Kleinzach 01:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, Hrannar controls what appears in the article as a review of his edits and deletions make clear. Speaking only for myself, if he were willing to accept it, I believe the article would represent all significant views.--Eudemis (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Eudemis - Stop with the sarcasm that boarders on a personal attacks. We all know it is distracting and poisonous to the collaborative and congeniality that creating something together can be. Hrannar (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Additional 1990s material (27 April)

The following section has just been added to the controversial 1990s section by NaySay:

"Always a combative and jittery colleague, by the 1990s, Battle's difficulties with other performers and with opera management were getting considerable press coverage. For example, in February 1994, Time magazine wrote in an article entitled "Battle Fatigue:""

"Stories about her pettiness are legion: the time in Boston she telephoned the management of the Boston Symphony Orchestra to complain that the Ritz- Carlton's room service had put peas in her pasta; the time when, feeling chilly while riding in a limo in Southern California, she used the cellular phone to call her management company in New York, which phoned the limo service, which phoned the driver, who turned the air conditioning down; the time in New York when she and Luciano Pavarotti competed to see which could arrive later for a dress rehearsal. Battle has a penchant for changing hotel suites in the middle of a stay just to vary the color of her surroundings. After her appearances at the San Francisco Opera this season, the backstage crew sported T shirts that read: I SURVIVED THE BATTLE."

It seems unfortunate that whenever we seem to be getting nearer a workable compromise, somebody comes along, once again, to knock over the applecart. I'll ask NaySay to comment. --Kleinzach 00:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They did comment (in a fashion) – much higher up the page [7]. - Voceditenore (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Voceditenore: I assume you are here for a purpose, not merely to deny being a moderator etc. Perhaps you would like to suggest an initiative to 'normalize' this page as an encyclopedia article, so it doesn't attract all these shenanigans. --Kleinzach 09:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am primarily here to request that I not be described and selectively quoted as a moderator. But since you ask... Articles about artists who are still performing, especially those whose careers have involved any degree of controversy, inevitably attract "shenanigans" both from their fans and their detractors. It's very hard to keep them stable. However, the disruption can be minimized by ensuring that the article does not appear to 'airbrush' significant events and give them an undue lack of weight, especially those which have been widely covered both in the press and in books. Even those who admire Battle's artistry accept that the Met dismissal effectively ended her operatic career.[8] That significant event did not come out of the blue via a whim of Joe Volpe and should be presented in context. Press coverage of her behaviour towards colleagues was considerable during the years leading up to the dismissal, not simply during it. Leaving out the sock-puppeting Nrswanson and the latest intervention by NaySay, at least 7 editors (including myself) have tried to point all this out over the last 2 years to no avail.

Advice about the dismissal paragraph was sought at the BLP noticeboard last week. Two outside editors gave their view that the sources were reliable by Wikipedia criteria and that provided the words "reported as" were used, there was nothing in the article that violated Biographies of Living Persons policy or the Neutral Point of View policy.[9] The amended paragraph was then added, and within hours was reduced to this, which removed even the quite innocuous material which provided a minimal context and had been present for months. Unless this kind of behaviour stops and editors accept that Neutral Point of View does not mean that all criticism and negative perceptions concerning a figure's professional life must be expunged, no matter how widely documented by reliable sources and how significant the event, this article will never be stabilized or encyclopedic. The only "initative" I can suggest is for editors to agree to this version and to stop monkeying around with it. - Voceditenore (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on several points. (Applying this general approach to certain other singers - and I am not going to name them - could be counterproductive, if not harmful.) However the idea of going back to the version of 21 April does probably offer the best chance of resolving this. I support this and I'll put it once again to Hrannar. --Kleinzach 00:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was me. Mea culpa. Why does this keep happening? (Hey I just touched down here yesterday for the first time.) People keep tinkering with the page because they happen on it, read it in disbelief (!) and wonder what is going on-- because there was ENORMOUS coverage of Ms. Battle's offstage interactions by the press for several years and everyone knows about it. She's a good singer and a very eccentric and thorny person. It's not TIME magazine's fault that she got in such trouble. All they did was report it. What is Wiki here for? to print people's press releases?? If that is the case, my suggestion--seriously--is that we as Wiki editors can the article entirely.NaySay (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Naysay- You aren't guilty of anything apart from noting what many other editors have. I laughed the first time I read it (it was even more a tribute page back then). Your interest in balancing the article is helpful. I too walked into this buzz saw only a short time ago and my initial contribution received the same warm reception yours has. Only here does quoting Time Magazine make you a character assassin. An article with an ownership problem really can't be edited. --Eudemis (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens. It's like "King of Hearts" or something. I actually received threats because of the simple factual editing I did. Someone suggested I was *libeling* this lady!!! My goodness, and guess what?? CARUSO SMOKED!! Maybe you can't compare Ms. Battle with a diva like Callas, but no one is burning the warts off in the Callas article. Is it because she's dead? Or because she was a towering personality who could care less? Having a hissy fit about pointing out Ms. Battle's well-publicised "temperament" is a great way to assure that she might ONLY be remembered as someone who was very, very, very, very nervous. And she actually had a very pretty voice. NaySay (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Version of 21 April restored/compromise to end the dispute?

I've restored the version of 21 April, as suggested (directly or indirectly) by Michael Bednarek and Voceditenore. I hope this will be accepted by all editors involved as the nearest we are likely to get to a genuine compromise. Hrannar, as the leading 'pro-Battle' editor, can you accept this? --Kleinzach 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach, in response, here are the main issues.

• 1. 'Malicious Editing and Vandalism: ' Eudemis has been a strong advocate, working with the editor nrswanson (banned sockpuppet master) to create consensus, to give Kathleen Battle a negative image. Perusing the history of contributions, found this sort of information that Eudemis (editing as 98.26.92.151) seems fit to add to the article: [10] in the awards and honors section. "Scum listing." Clearly any principled editor, moderator, administrator looking with unbiased eyes would note that this was vandalism, not merely claim that it was an "unreliable source" as Voceditenore merely states here [11] when he reverted the addition. Really, voceditenore? It's just "unreliable?" It was, in fact, an edit to smear Kathleen Battle. See
• 2. 'Reason for Termination'According to Volpe, Kathleen Battle was terminated for, "unprofessional actions" during rehearsals and for conduct trhat was "profoundly detrimental to the artistic collaboration among all the cast members" and indicated that he had "canceled all offers that have been made for the future." / He did not fire her for alleged switching hotels, allegedly calling her management to call a chauffeur, etc. so it is not relevant to the termination. It is only relevant to those who see her as "difficult." This labeling (vs letting facts speak for themselves) and moralizing behavior is clearly something that wikipedia discourages.
• 3. 'Questionable Practices of editors' Including vandalism, to support their claims, several editors have resorted to [12] (nrswanson's socketpuppetry) and [13] suspected meatpuppetry involving nrswanson and voceditenore and personal attacks and arguments ad hominem as well as intimidation and hostility towards moderator; Eudemis for example states, "Kleinbach, your involvement is neither appropriate nor welcome as "disinterested" moderator..."
• 4. 'Potentially Libelous / Do no harm'I will not repeat the arguments presented regarding potentially libelous and do no harm, but will point to the rationale, intent behind the BLP guidelines RATIONALE BEHIND BLP GUIDELINES which is not necessarily, simply "financial" which Eudemis stated. In the rationale, wikipedia board acknowledge that People sometimes make edits designed to smear others. This is difficult to identify and counteract, particularly if the malicious editor is persistent.
• 5. 'Inaccurate and Misleading Characterizations of this debate' Eudemis' first edits where applied to an article that had undergone MUCH discussion and had stood since last summer. My editing, in fact, did not change something that had been long standing or was a result of consensus, as Bednarek states. He repeated resisted discussing this before ADDING material that clearly was up for debate. See here:[14] To suggest that I editing something that was an established and well discussed version is FAR from the truth. Than he chose to add potentially libelous material without absolutely no discussion on the talk page. And from the beginning has constantly resorted to personal attacks, and frankly often misleading statements like, "Your admission, Kleinzach, to being biased on this subject is an enormous step in the right direction, your false accusation against me notwithstanding."
• 6. 'Let's be more principled about this' Stop the vandalism, personal attacks (including naysayers term, "wikikrazies"), blatant disregard for assuming good faith on an editor that does not share the same opinion, and trying to distract from the discussion of content. IMHO it weakens the validity of any argument, when it is emotionally based, versus fact based. A respected encyclopedia would not print this current version of the article as it stands today. Unfortunately, I am not the sort to recruit others to my cause, but only have the wikipedia guidelines and appeal to principled behavior and adherance BLP guidelines (which we know is higher standard than other wikipedia types of articles) adn to the spirit and rationale behind the BLP. Thanks for listening. Hrannar (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

1. I reverted the edit in question [15] without even looking at it in detail or even the section it was in. Otherwise, I would have labeled it vandalism. 2. my (falsely)[16] suspected "meatpuppery" concerning two articles entirely unrelated to this one was based on the fact that I went on holiday over the New Year 2008 at the same time Nrswanson did. 3. Once again, I suggest you read this. 4. I welcome your suggestion to stop the "blatant disregard for assuming good faith on [sic] an editor that does not share the same opinion, and trying to distract from the discussion of content." Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Voceditenore, others: I invite anyone to look at how Eudemis made the following addition: "Scum Listing on StainedApron.com for poor tipping at restaurants, 2009 [[17] (this is how it was viewed) / Then I invite anyone to look at the sentence, then the link, and do as voceditenore suggests and look at the information "without even looking at it in detail or even the section it was in" and see if one can determine that this is source is unreliable, and also, miss the fact that this is vandalism. / When you click on the page, it says, "Celebrity Tippers: The Saints and the Scum" ; then we see Kathleen Battle at the top of the "scum" column. / So if I wonder why you don't seem to be that critical of Eudemis and his contributions given that you merely say, "rmv unreliable source," please understand why a person might be suspicous. / I want to be very, very clear. I wouldn't bring these concerns and issues up, had I not sensed some what appears to be one-sided 'dislike' (your word) for my some of the things I've written including when I mistook you for a moderator when you attempted offered detailed suggestion and aid in moderating as well as negotiate consensus; yes, I understand you are not a moderator now. Also, at least 'in the Kathleen Battle discussions,' you seem somewhat oblivious to nrswanson and eudemis disruptive, vandalistic, and single-minded editing. Hrannar (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Perhaps we should get back to discussing the text itself? Nrswanson is past history (though I suppose we may see some reincarnations). It's regrettable that you (Hrannar) were blocked in the course of things, but justice was done in the end. I think you should either accept the present text, or list item by item which sentences or clauses you think should be taken out and why. For example in your item 2, you point out that "switching hotels', "calling her management to call a chauffeur" etc. may not be relevant (and might be regarded as trivia?). Perhaps other people may feel this is a reasonable point? --Kleinzach 23:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, Kleinzach. It is very encouraging that wiki team members like yourself ensure that process is followed, that editors remain civil and content focused. I have to run now, but I'll provide the specific lines tomorrow. Thanks for your asssitance -- it is greatly appreciated. Hrannar (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar