Talk:American trusteeship proposal for Palestine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Anyone have good sources on how this proposal was received, and its relationship to future US proposals and future proposals of partial UN trusteeship of different parts of the region?

Jztinfinity (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the external references section there are a couple of books that discuss this issue. If you read them you'll see the article completely misrepresents what happened both in what it says and in what it omits. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG, please specify which areas you take issue with. Then rather than complaining, please roll up your sleeves and make the improvements you see fit. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to roll up my sleeves to fix the mess you made of an article I think should be deleted, but here's some pretty obvious stuff:
  • Not a single reliable source that I could find calls it the "Truman trusteeship proposal". I couldn't find a single non-wikipedia source on google that uses that term, which apparently you pulled out of thin air.
  • You forgot to mention that the State Department went ahead and made the announcement on its own initiative without getting permission from Truman, which put him in quite an embarrassing situation.
  • Somehow the article fails to mention that Truman told Weizmann not to attach any importance to Austin's statement at the UN (since he told him just one day earlier that the US supports partition), that Truman was distressed over it, and that he took personal offense over what he saw as the machinations of State Department bureaucrats.
  • While the article quotes some stuff Truman wrote in his diary, it completely fails to give any context (which is the two bullets above).
  • The article for some reason doesn't note the wide opposition to the proposal which was seen as undermining the UN both domestically in the US, and in the UN itself, most notably by UN Secretary General Tye.
  • You neglected to mention that not a single country at the UN supported it.
All this information is available in the two books in the external references section, which dedicate a grand total of 13.5 pages to this issue out of 550, and this in books dedicated to Truman's relationship with Israel. This proposal is hardly a footnote in most history books. It could prehaps be a short section in the Truman article as it illustrates problems he had with the State Department, but it certainly shouldn't have it's own article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have only put in context above which supports what you want to believe. Either way, the points you make are valid, but will need additional context added to allow people to really understand. As you know POV pushing is mostly about context, so let's add as much as we need to make it NPOV. You've done a lot of reading to come up with the above. I do not intend to contest any changes you make to the article along these lines. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply that doesn't really address any of the points made. I also like how you try to make it seem that you could add more information, but don't actually say what that is. Like I said above, I'm not going to edit this article as I think it should be deleted, but if you think reading less than 15 pages is "a lot of reading", I can see why you keep putting inaccurate stuff in articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious last sentence - clearly you do not understand the concept of politeness. Out of interest, when was the last time you added material content to an article or created a new article? IMHO, the most common type of contribution you make falls into the "time wasting" category. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that to mean you have no rebuttal to the fact the article you created with a name you made up is not only hardly notable, but is rife with NPOV violations you can't even pretend to justify. Let me guess, you'll address those issues "in due course"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have very clear rebuttals, which I am withholding for a time when other editors join this discussion. You have missed an obvious RS use of this title, and you have not understood the sources you have read. I am withholding because debating with you is not a good use of time as you have no intent to make a positive contribution to this article (or any other!) If you start contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner it would make a big difference. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. You know the answer but don't want to say. Assuming you're over 12 years old, I feel a little embarrassed for you that that's the best you could come up with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. No opposition. Any proposals to delete the redirect should be handled at WP:RFD. Aervanath (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truman trusteeship proposal → American trusteeship proposal for Palestine – No reliable sources call it the "Truman trusteeship proposal". It should be renamed to something descriptive. The current name shouldn't even be a redirect if we want to avoid something like this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not oppose the change. But please note that the proposal was delivered at a news conference by Truman - that is why it is intimately associated with him (see here), and that is why UNISPAL uses the title Truman Trusteeship Proposal. So I would oppose your removal of any redirect. Separately, you could also use the official name, which is bolded in the article text. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The official name is very long, although I wouldn't object to that being the new name.
As for the "Truman Trustee Proposal" name, can you show any reliable source using it? If not, I don't see any reason to keep the redirect.
The proposal was delivered to the UN by Warren Austin [1]. Truman had a press conference about it a week later. I don't know where you get the idea it is "intimately associated with him". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you've misread your own source. Austin and later Marshall both talked about the possibility, but did not announce the formal policy agreement. Truman did that on 25 March. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So when the source I posted above says that UN delegates "listened unbelievingly" to Austin talking about the "proposed trusteeship", he wasn't actually talking about a trusteeship proposal? That's interesting.
Still waiting for any kind of substantiation that the proposal was "intimately associated" with Truman or any reliable source that calls it the "Truman trusteeship proposal". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This wouldn't be the first time you have demonstrated that you didn't read a source properly. On your second question, see UNISPAL. I am withdrawing from this debate now - I am ambivalent with respect to your proposal. See you later alligator. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hand waving in the general direction of UNISPAL doesn't qualify as providing a reliable source to support your claim. Accusing me of not reading the source properly without providing a single quote to support your position doesn't really help your argument. If you want to withdraw (as I expected you would), you are free to do so.
It's unfortunate that you create articles with names not supported by RS and that do not correspond to the sources you yourself provide but are then unwilling to defend them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Truman trusteeship proposal" redirect[edit]

I nominated the redirect for deletion here, if anyone's interested. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American trusteeship proposal for Palestine. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_trusteeship_proposal_for_Palestine&oldid=1212375890"