Talk:James Traub

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholic "loyalists" quote

Since I imagine that "Foreign Policy" magazine will correct the erroneous quote, and someone may revert my edit, here is the sentence Mr. Traub wrote, as retrieved on 29 Aug 2010 from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/27/mixed_irish_blessing?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full 'By the time then-President Bill Clinton appointed [Mitchell] as an envoy [to Northern Ireland] in 1994, the Catholic "loyalists" and Protestant "unionists" had spent decades killing and maiming each other, as well as innocent civilians on both sides.'

Before trusting Mr. Traub's published work as an information source, remember that he made this incredibly basic error. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Weaponbb7 reverted my initial edit; he was concerned that the sentence was defamatory. I have removed the phrase about the quality of Traub's research, and left only the bare quotation, which by its nature, cannot be either controversial, defamatory, or unreferenced: it is a direct quote. I respectfully hope this clears things up. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOu are currently in Violation of WP:BLP and WP:NOR I have reverted again Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment on Weaponbb7's page. I will await his response before restoring the language I have been attempting to add, because I do not want to descend into an edit war with Weaponbb7, who I take to be trying to be a good wikipedian. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As i have said, WP:BLP requires high quality secondary sourcing for accusations and WP:NOR prevents original interpretations of primary sources. IF and ONLY IF a Reliable secondary source mentions such an inaccuracy should we anything to do with the article. Please note we are no here to right great wrongs. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You make a fair point about not being here to right great wrongs, Weaponbb7. To be fair to your viewpoint, I may also be giving undue weight to a single error in Mr. Traub's otherwise (for all I know) very distinguished career. Just to be clear though, if I edit the article in such a way that it merely says, "Mr. Traub has said 'X,'" with "X" being a direct quote from him, and with no commentary from me whatsoever--just the bare quote on its own, would this still count as original research? I understand your point that if I COMMENT on the quote it would be an original interpretation. But what if I just include it without comment? Thanks for responding! I look forward to working with you to reach consensus. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait until a secondary source notes it

before including it here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suppose this talk page gives more than enough mention to Mr. Traub's erroneous use of "loyalist" anyway. I'll defer to your judgment. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What person is most famous for now is 2016 article in Foreign Policy which is unmentioned.

There's a whole conversation incident upon the article It's time for the Elites to rise up against the ignorant masses. which conversation can be googled with "traub ignorant masses" and categorized under "responses to populism". Lycurgus (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]