Talk:Christopher Castellani

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Castellani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060716133236/http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/blwc to http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/blwc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleting the paragraph on Castellani's association with the NYT's "Who Is a Bad Art Friend"
I previously deleted this entire paragraph, which was under the author's Academic and Professional Career heading, because it very simply violates Wikipedia's central tenet that "all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. The paragraph contains factual errors (Dorland was never Castellani's student, for instance) and is misleading (the resignation of three women from Grubstreet had nothing to do with Castellani keeping his position--this is a wild oversimplification of the situation and implies it was an either/or situation, which is not true). Given all these issues, plus the fact that Castellani's involvement in the whole affair was a very minor footnote and far from something worthy of an entire paragraph in his bio, makes me think this paragraph should remain deleted. Alexgor23 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Deleting all mention of the "Bad Art Friend" incident is a major change to the consensus version of the article. Do not edit-war to delete it again, but use the talk page to convince other editors of your point of view. I tried to address some of your concerns by editing the material. Given Castellani's position of influence, his eagerness to damage former GrubStreet student Dawn Dorland's career even beyond what the other Chunky Monkeys had achieved was not treated by RS as "a very minor footnote" to the story. Nor was it seen as a minor matter by GrubStreet leadership, who wrote, "We acknowledge that comments made by our Artistic Director, Christopher Castellani, have caused distrust and concern in our community." HouseOfChange (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits. I further refined the edit and hopefully, we have arrived at a place where we can both be happy with what appears. In your last edit, you made the major mistake, which was repeated in the Publisher's Weekly article, of writing that Castellani's emails were included in the original NYT article--they were not. As I noted, he is mentioned once in the article, which I think speaks to the very minor role he plays in this whole controversy. Alexgor23 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about Castellani, not about what is or isn't in one NYT article. It is extremely relevant to Castellani's career that his boss Eve Bridburg criticized him by name in a major public statment about the Bad Art Friend controversy. His email was widely quoted and discussed even if it wasn't included in the NYT story eg by WBUR and Pub Weekly. Our goal here is not to whitewash or to pillory Castellani--it is to provide a brief well-referenced account of a major event in his recent career. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again and I appreciate your point of view, thought I would argue how relevant it really is to his career. It is a minor footnote on a viral story that has faded from the public consciousness, but clearly I am not going to win that argument, so I have concentrated on editing for clarity and conciseness. For instance, the article and the lawsuits involved Dorland and Larson, whose names you omitted, making it seem as if Castellani was the focus of both. You also quoted the email, but again had no reference to who it was about. If we are going to tell this story, let's do it clearly and with care to get the facts right (Bridburg's name was misspelled in the latest edit and GrubStreet has no space--I may have made that mistake along the line). I omitted the Publisher's Weekly link for two reasons, as well. First you had it in reference to Bridburg's comments, which were not in the PW article, but were in the WBUR story. Also the PW article wrongly states that Castellani's emails were in the original NYT story, which we know is a major uncorrected error. In the interest of not spreading further misinformation, I suggest we not link to it since the WBUR story is accurate and contains all the references included in the paragraph. Alexgor23 (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestion to omit the PW story with its factual error, since WBUR suffices for the facts of these events. I commend your work to improve the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)