Talk:Paul Cellucci

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Paul Cellucci is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

[edit] Argeo

Ambassador Cellucci's first name is Argeo. This is verified by the Massachusetts state website, and by the fact that his name was consistently listed as Argeo Paul Cellucci on highway improvement signs. For other examples where a dropped first name is printed in Wikipedia, see Mitt Romney, F. Murray Abraham, and Calvin Coolidge. Sahasrahla 03:05, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oddly enough, whenever I post the opinion held UNIVERSALLY among Canadians, that Cellucci was an ineffective and offensive ambassador, who did more than any of his predecessors to tarnish the image of the U.S. in Canada, it mysteriously disappears.

If Cellucci can be held to public account for his failures as a Governor, he can certainly be held to account for his failures as an ambassador. Not only did he "raise our ire", but he didn't actually do anything BUT "raise our ire". That is the sum total of his actions in the public sphere.

This article probably needs NPOV cleanup. The line "Since his parting our fair Canadian borders, Celluci has penned a book called Unquiet Diplomacy, in which he denigrates the current Canadian Government." just seems sarcastic. Also, he's listed as having succeeded William Weld as both Governor of Massachusetts and Ambassador to Canada. I do not believe that Gov. Weld ever held that position. Deadmessenger 19:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More information on Cellucci in 2005

I have added some more recent information on Cellucci, including a paragraph about his comments on the case of Maher Arar, and his extraordinary rendition. Maher Arar's case was front page news in Canada on dozens of occasions. I think this means Cellucci's role in the inquiry deserves mention in the article, even if American readers don't think it is noteworthy. -- Geo Swan 17:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining NPOV Problems

GeoSwan requested that I explain the removal of that user's addition to this article ("Cellucci was extremely unpopular amongst Canadians.")[1], which I had noted as POV. For the record, the same statement had previously been removed for the same reason (POV)(see [2]. As noted in the POV article, what I meant to say was the article should seek to contain a neutral point of view (NPOV). Wikipedia policy on NPOV states: "NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"."

Here, the paragraphs regarding the ambassador's tenure as "controversial" advance the encyclopedia's purpose as describing his time as ambassador, when they are properly backed up (which I agree, they are here). When the entries attempt to speak on behalf of "feelings" of the people of Canada, it goes beyond the pale -- especially when those statements are backed up by a handful of blogs (one of which is a rant-blog called "Prime Time Chicken") and an op-ed about Canada-US policy positions, which merely implores the Canadian PM to stand-up to US policy. Regardless of how one personally feels about the former ambassador, one's general impressions about 'likeability' don't have any place in this forum. As a compromise, I would say that if there was a poll taken by a reputable organization (something like X% of Canadians believe the U.S. Ambassador has overstepped his bounds) - that's wiki-relevant, especially if it is framed in a manner that shows it's based on fact, not emotion ("extremely unpopular"). Is that fair? --Gopple 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)