Talk:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379

message: What on earth is Idi Amin doing in this article??  (I´m suprised that his cannibalism isn´t mentioned, also! Lol! Absolutely relevant!) Uganda wasn´t even one of the 25 "sponsors" of resolution 3379. Absurd.
(A link to the Jewish Virtual Library (while nothing to the UN) is almost to be expectet under these circumstances, I guess; http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/30/ares30.htm) Regards, Huldra 01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may say that there is no proof, but irrelevant? Here is why this is relevant: this shows what policies the UN favored at the time, and standing ovations are another proof. The Amin's sponsorships, eating habits, etc. are indeed irrelevant and were not mentioned here. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uganda wasn´t even one of the sponsoring nations! (of the resolution) That he got standing ovation: yes, as Chairman of OAU. By 1975 "Big Daddy" Amins reputation in the world was so low that he hardly would have gotten support for a Resolution saying "2+2=4" if he had tried to pass it in the UN. That he was a racist + murderer +anti-semitic +probably completely insane; I wouldn´t disagree with any of these statements. But he just wasn´t instrumental in passing Res. 3379. We could as well have quoted something from the "Stormfront": just as irrelevant...to this article. Regards, Huldra 01:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: PS: the "Israeli response" section is still messy; I´m working to clear it up, Huldra 02:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What on earth......??

message: Ok, here is (a little belated) a summary of what has been done with this article + work that remains:
*the text has been expanded to encompass the full resolution text; it is relatively short so there is no reason why the whole text can´t be included. NOTE: I followed the text on the UN site, as the text in the Jewish Virtual Library is filled with printing errors; most insignificant, but also important mistakes. Eg. the text in JVL states that resolution 3151 was passed in 1953(!!) (it was actually passed in 1973). I mention this, so that other editors should be aware of this when they use the JVL.
*have moved quotes/response of Herzog from Zionism and racism article to this article.
*what remains to be done: I´m still not very happy with the "Background"-section; e.g. words like "ironic" and "hypocritical" simply does not sound encyclopedic to me... Also: both in this article and (especially) in  the  Resolution 4686-article there is a lot of inf. about what went on in "the corridors of power" before the resolutions were passed which could be (should be??) included. I´ll leave that to later....... (But please: don´t take this as an excuse to insert completely general inf. about anti-semitism into the article! ;-) ) Regards, Huldra 12:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The current background section (ironically :P) does not sound encyclopedic at all. Should be replaced (or NPOV'd) wth information about the context of this time, about the alliances between South Africa and Israel etc. Magabund 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: jbolden1517Talk 21:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many would think that the statement "entitled to the same group rights as other nationalities." takes us in directions we'd prefer not to go. "Group rights" were enshrined in the law of apartheid South Africa, but they have no standing in civilised nations, and precious little moral standing anywhere. PalestineRemembered 09:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe the word "established" should be changed to something a little more accurate, such as "confirmed" or "recognized." -WikiMarshall 06:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;... Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;  (1947).  I don't know how they could be seen as anything other than full legal endorsement.  jbolden1517Talk 12:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What has been done + what still needs to be done 

message: Why didn't the US veto this resolution, as with many other UN resolutions concerning Israel? The article should make this clear. Twinxor t 03:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No US veto 

message: Something I don't understand is what changed over those years to swing people around from one strong view to another?  I have to admit I'm limited in my understanding of israel/zionism issues, but it seems to me that zionism is some kind of unchanging philosophy, so why would people change their opinions of if it as racist?  Something that catches my eye is that Bush said people "forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II", which seems to me like one of those special rules (like mention the nazis and the argument is over, same with holocaust, you end up in a position where you can't argue against them without being accused of anti-semitism or fascism or something).  That kind of argument though also I guess plays into the hands of the people who would claim the US is ZOG or some other conspiracy stuff.
So what I'm asking for here is does anyone have some good sources for notable persons comments on WHY the opinion changed? Hahahahahaoh (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't so much that Zionism changed but that the politics of individual countries changed.--TM 14:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, what happened is that most of the countries that abstained on 3379 voted in favor of 46/86, the resolution that revoked 3379. Additionally, the Soviet Union and other eastern bloc/communist countries switched sides, largely (I would suspect) due to the fact that the Soviets no longer had a vested interest in maintaining close ties with the arab world, as many of their former clients (such as Egypt) had drifted out of the Soviet orbit. SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What changed over those years? 

message: This should be mentioned, as it is often cited.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for Aparteid South Africa 

message: Why aren't some of the significant immediate consequences -- such as the U.S. tourist boycott of Mexico -- mentioned?  And it sent UN-US relations into a downward spiral from which they've arguably still never fully recovered... AnonMoos (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath

message: It can't be a "civil war" since back then there were neither an Israeli nor an Arab state there.
That period is known better as the Israeli civil war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgme (talk • contribs) 11:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: War definition

message: I really don't see how going into great detail on the events of 1947-1948 improves this article.  It's of very dubious direct relevance to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, and there are other articles much more appropriate for a detailed account of 1947-1948... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and removed. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent addition of 1947-1948 details

message: Some context of Cold War and Western vs. anti-colonial politics might be useful here. Look at how Russia and the Eastern Bloc voted in 1975 versus 1991. The difference in geopolitical situation between 1975 and 1991 was vast and the impact of the collapse of the Eastern Bloc quite profound. I'd write something myself but it would probably be slated as "original research", but maybe someone more well-read than me knows some actual sources on this topic?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.119.122 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some would say that blatantly hypocritical Third-worldism and the alliance of dictatorships against democracies, opportunistically exploited by the Soviets, was most relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that the situation of the Palestinian in the occupied territories would be even more relevant ? Pluto2012 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Background" material does not at all directly relate to the Resolution or the Zionism/Racism issue. Plenty of well sourced, directly relevant background material can easily be found. I guess it would have no place in this neutral, balanced and unbiased article. Keith McClary (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background expansion? 

message: The two articles cited as describing Waldheim as a Nazi do not go as far as that.
:1 The first article states he joined the Party in 1938, but the article uses the following phrase, "but not necessarily Nazi convictions". He may have been involved in the Nazi atrocities in Greece during the war but that in itself does not make him a Nazi.
:2  The second article has several references to him. None say he was a Nazi.
:3  I could nor find in either article anything to support the notion of him "offending Jewish sensibilities".
:4  Where is the RS to support the phrase "under the guidance of Austrian Secretary General Kurt Waldheim".
:I think the reference to Kurt Waldheim should be deleted.Trahelliven (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, the General Secretary is not a dictator who would rule the GA and dictate which resolutions should pass and which should not. Talking about him is just pov-pushing and I removed it. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurt Waldheim: Was He a Nazi? 

message: UN Watch is an NGO. This article is about an UNGA resolution which is 30 years old. Only academic books written by historians or eventually political scientists can be considered WP:RS. More, the content is in contradiction with WP:NPoV : the content of the background to report here is the content of the background that can be found in reliable sources talking about this resolution. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to remark the fact that there was an automatic majority promoted by Arab states and USSR. If you find a better source, I'll add it instead of UN Watch.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can find a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE the claim should stay out of the article. Dlv999 (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Watch 

message: Hello.  I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page.  This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link.  Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
* http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Establishment+of+State+of+Israel.htm
* http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=108V0691N26Y9.82&menu=search&aspect=power&npp=50&ipp=20&profile=voting&ri=&index=.VM&term=A/RES/3379%28XXX%29
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble archiving links on the article 

message: The other article has very few references, and the other resolution is primarily notable only in that it was a revocation of this, much more famous (or infamous), resolution. There is very little content there, but whatever there is, can simply be written here. This is quite a short article anyway. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody has responded, I have gone ahead with the merger. I have removed the overly detailed section describing George Bush's speech about the resolution. The fact that Bush administration introduced it is mentioned further above. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_46/86]] into this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081030110956/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/17/herzog.obit/herzog.rip.21.1.1.mov to http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/17/herzog.obit/herzog.rip.21.1.1.mov
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130615041505/http://unispal.un.org:80/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121206052903/http://unispal.un.org:80/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121206052903/http://unispal.un.org:80/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should be  Permanent Observer status without quotes. Keith McClary (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: done. Firejuggler86 (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   "observer status" - Why the scare quotes? 

message: Keith McClary (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for Herzog quotes. 

message: Should't "Zionism is Racism" redirect to this article, instead of the Racism section of the "Zionism" article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.1.42 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: The resolution was supported by a majority of African nations and a large number of southern Asian countries, including India (a non-Muslim country and the world's largest democracy). Brazil also supported it. It is therefore misleading for the introduction to mention only Soviet-bloc, Soviet aligned countries and Muslim/Arab countries. This gives a false impression and ought to be corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kombo the mzungu (talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a triumph of "the alliance of dictatorships against democracies" and the uglier and more brutal side of Third-Worldism... AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a forum, but you know that.  By my rough count, ignoring North Africa and Sudan, if the African countries that voted 'for' had instead voted 'against', it would have been close to a tie. So it is wrong to not mention African countries. Also "Soviet-aligned" is not an objective concept and shouldn't be used without source backing. I made a change to the wording. Incidentally, in the big lists some names are in italics — why is that? Zerotalk 03:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading description of supporting countries

message: The text of the resolution refers to the 'racist regime in Zimbabwe', which is presumably referring to Rhodesia. I think for the sake clarity, a footnote should be added - I'd do it myself, but this article is extended protected. Here's what I'd write: 
'At the time this resolution was passed Zimbabwe was governed by the unrecognised state of Rhodesia.'
Thank you in advance. Kirkworld (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it even widely known as Zimbabwe in 1975?  Anyway, the legal situation was that the former British colony of Rhodesia unilaterally seceded from Britain in 1965, which was not diplomatically recognmized by other nations... AnonMoos (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true. However, I don't see why it's legal status and international recognition should be relevant. They are referring to the regime ─ just in a carefully worded manner. Kirkworld (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a footnote 

message: Text of the article has "the 90 nations who sponsored the resolution", and the table immediately following notes "88" sponsors??
Bill (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: I'd correct it if I could edit it, but under the "Legacy" section the word "worthy" is misspelled "worhty". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.133.171.120 (talk • contribs) 
: Fixed, thanks. Zerotalk 23:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo