Talk:James Traub

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)

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)


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

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * We should wait until a secondary source notes it

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

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)

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)