Talk:Joe Scanlan (artist)

[Untitled]
It has come to my attention that a wikipedia page has been started for me. That's great, I love wikipedia. Unfortunately it seems quite clear that sections of this page are in violation of several of Wikipedia's standards in regard to a living person's biography, most notably the long blockquote taken from an article by Coco Fusco under the heading Donelle Woolford Controversy.

The Fusco blockquote is taken from an online contemporary art magazine based in Brooklyn that publishes unchallenged opinion pieces, of which Fusco's is one. As such, the content of the blockquote, let alone the entire article, was not subject to a normal news organization's fact checking processes or standards. Consequently it is untenable on these grounds: 1] in toto, the blockquote constitutes "original research" in that neither it, nor its original article, cite any published sources (other than itself) verifying that I, as a junior professor at Yale, was threatened by my "workplace shifting in favor of artists of color." This is a subjective falsehood, one at the very least disproven by the publicly source-able demographics of the Yale University School of Art during the time I taught there. 2] The blockquote engages in pure conjecture by proposing that I experienced some sort of castration fantasy while teaching students of color at Yale. It seems hardly worth stating that this claim requires professional credentials to be made with any validity, and even then not without proper evidence. Neither are provided by the blockquote nor Fusco's original article. 3] The blockquote fails Wikipedia's verifiability standards. Neither it nor Fusco's original article verify, in any way, that my black students at Yale were taken advantage of, exploited, or felt the need to be disagreeable or insurgent, other than that Fusco believes they were. In any legitimate journalistic context, such claims could only be verified by recorded conversations or written notes from conversations by the author with my black students. Even then, they would need to be corroborated by the students themselves.

Most seriously, the blockquote's claims regarding my behavior as a professor -- that I explicitly took advantage of black students and engaged in exploitative or threatening behavior -- are grounds for inquiry by my Dean of Faculty's office and could be deemed fireable offenses. In that sense the blockquote is libelous: it is a direct, explicit, and wholly unfounded attack on my character and livelihood as a professor.

I would advise that it be removed before further action is required. Sincerely, Joe Scanlan professor, Princeton University Susandey (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

factual accuracy no longer disputed
As the subject of this page and the person who originally disputed its content, I no longer find any factual problems with it. There are certainly places where I would choose different terms, or choose different subjects to foreground, but at this time it is all factual. I really like wikipedia, so I would be happy if the disputed content header could be removed from the page. Happy 2019, JS

close connection
While I'm here I would offer that, having read through a lot of the edits, it appears that some "pro" and "con" agents have been going at this page. I assume that happens a lot with controversial topics. My only interest would be to have an "untainted" wikipedia page. How do we go about resolving the "close connection" issue? IMO the page reads rather straightforwardly at present and it appears most of the hyperbole from both sides has been removed. Happy to help in whatever way I might.