![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | The contents of the United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_46/86 page were merged into United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (August 2015) |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 10, 2004 and November 10, 2018. |
See also: Talk:Zionism and racism
As far as I know there was only one UN resolution equating Zionism and racism. uriber 19:55, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
it seems to me fair for someone to add (for balance) the link to the revocation of the original resolution to the external links section at the bottom. As it is there's a link to the UN resolution but not to its subsequent (and still effective, as far as I know) revocation of that resolution. I suggest adding to the External Links:
Steverapaport 09:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
"why is the 72 to 35 vote that "established" your point considered "the majority of the people on this planet", whereas the subsequent 111 to 25 vote that revoked the point considered the opinion of nobody but "Presidents named Bush"? Because Bush forced the outcome of the vote at the UN because revocation was one of the conditions for Israeli participation in the Madrid Conference. the votes do not fairly reflect the opinions of the voting nations.
Such a collection of 111 "democracies" (by name only) shouldn't be refferred to as countries anyway, it makes it sound gross. Besides, facts are facts, so go talk to uncle Obama if you want to make it adopted again. This is Wikipedia, not a forum or a POV showoff without verifiable sources that Bush blackmailed each and every of those delgations. ACogloc 06:32, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACogloc ( talk • contribs)
I don't see the Spanish vote.
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)
Cut out: On September 12, 1972 the president of Uganda Idi Amin sent a cable to the UN secretary-general in which he approved of the Holocaust, and proposed to erect a statue to Adolf Hitler in Uganda, since it had not been erected in Germany.
On October 1, 1975 the UN had a reception welcoming Idi Amin, then the Chairman of the Organization of African Unity. He received a standing ovation before he began his speech, another standing ovation when he sat down and it was frequently interrupted by applause. He condemned the "Zionist-American conspiracy" and called for the exclusion of Israel from the UN and its "extinction". The following day the UN secretary-general and the president of the General Assembly gave a public dinner in his honor.
Ok, here is (a little belated) a summary of what has been done with this article + work that remains:
The first sentence in 'background' is firstly not written from a neutral point of view, and secondly contains factual errors. what are these "many incidents that reflect a long-standing UN condemnation of Zionism" exactly? the language is blatantly editorial and biased as mentioned above (usage of ironic and hypocritical), and these claims are factually bankrupt. First of all, it is patently wrong to say that the partition plan established the state of israel, although it was an endorsement by the international community of the establishment of a jewish state in the region. The state of israel was established by David Ben Gurion declaring it so in 1948, and the borders of the state were a result of the 1949 armistice agreement (initially). Secondly, suggesting that the resolution is 'hypocritical' ignores the fact that the general assembly that passed the partition resolution, and the general assembly that pass 3379 are not at all the same in terms of the nations involved. the international community which passed 3379 was made up of far more nations than the community which passed the partition resolution, which was essentially comprised of the imperial powers who were victors of world war 2.
i could go on.. that sentence needs to go.
The people you are responding to haven't been there in a while. I'm OK with a rewrite however the content needs to remain:
Since all suggested changes have been made, would it be appropriate to remove the "disputed neutrality" tag at the beggining of the article? If the article has been changed in such a fashion to make it no longer disputed, then the tag should be removed as it is only confusing and distracting to people who read the article for the first time.
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)
Buddy, the Security Council and the General Assembly are two different things. The U.S. has a 'veto' on the S.C. No one has a veto over G.A. resolutions. This was a G.A. resolution.--
SESmith 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
A discussion of what causes lead to this resolution being revoked is not appropriate in the WP:Lead, which should be a concise overview of the article. And since this is a discussion of the resolution, I'm not sure why the second half of Herzog's speech should be removed because of his mention of Arab anti-Semitism, since it isn't brought as a discussion of that topic, but of Israel's response. Tewfik Talk 06:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
After the Afd discussion and delrev, it was suggested that Zionism and racism allegations be merged into this article. I fully support this move because Zionism and racism allegations is a clear POV fork.-- Sefringle 00:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
This should be mentioned, as it is often cited. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 22:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Any source? User:ACogloc ( talk) 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The two articles cited as describing Waldheim as a Nazi do not go as far as that.
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)
The talk page needs a secton containg a discussion on the RS on whether Zionism is or is not a form of racism and racial discrimination. Is anyone brave enough to open up the discussion? Trahelliven ( talk) 09:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Done 24 May 2013 Trahelliven ( talk) 11:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
AnonMoos: Inserting in the article a sentence such as - Israel practises apartheid., would be pushing POV. Simply to say Israel and South Africa have been compared is the whole basis of resolution 3379. Trahelliven ( talk) 19:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
References
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.
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 II Talk to my owner:Online 14:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Should be Permanent Observer status without quotes. Keith McClary ( talk) 18:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Keith McClary ( talk) 18:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | The contents of the United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_46/86 page were merged into United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (August 2015) |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 10, 2004 and November 10, 2018. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See also: Talk:Zionism and racism
As far as I know there was only one UN resolution equating Zionism and racism. uriber 19:55, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
it seems to me fair for someone to add (for balance) the link to the revocation of the original resolution to the external links section at the bottom. As it is there's a link to the UN resolution but not to its subsequent (and still effective, as far as I know) revocation of that resolution. I suggest adding to the External Links:
Steverapaport 09:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
"why is the 72 to 35 vote that "established" your point considered "the majority of the people on this planet", whereas the subsequent 111 to 25 vote that revoked the point considered the opinion of nobody but "Presidents named Bush"? Because Bush forced the outcome of the vote at the UN because revocation was one of the conditions for Israeli participation in the Madrid Conference. the votes do not fairly reflect the opinions of the voting nations.
Such a collection of 111 "democracies" (by name only) shouldn't be refferred to as countries anyway, it makes it sound gross. Besides, facts are facts, so go talk to uncle Obama if you want to make it adopted again. This is Wikipedia, not a forum or a POV showoff without verifiable sources that Bush blackmailed each and every of those delgations. ACogloc 06:32, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACogloc ( talk • contribs)
I don't see the Spanish vote.
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)
Cut out: On September 12, 1972 the president of Uganda Idi Amin sent a cable to the UN secretary-general in which he approved of the Holocaust, and proposed to erect a statue to Adolf Hitler in Uganda, since it had not been erected in Germany.
On October 1, 1975 the UN had a reception welcoming Idi Amin, then the Chairman of the Organization of African Unity. He received a standing ovation before he began his speech, another standing ovation when he sat down and it was frequently interrupted by applause. He condemned the "Zionist-American conspiracy" and called for the exclusion of Israel from the UN and its "extinction". The following day the UN secretary-general and the president of the General Assembly gave a public dinner in his honor.
Ok, here is (a little belated) a summary of what has been done with this article + work that remains:
The first sentence in 'background' is firstly not written from a neutral point of view, and secondly contains factual errors. what are these "many incidents that reflect a long-standing UN condemnation of Zionism" exactly? the language is blatantly editorial and biased as mentioned above (usage of ironic and hypocritical), and these claims are factually bankrupt. First of all, it is patently wrong to say that the partition plan established the state of israel, although it was an endorsement by the international community of the establishment of a jewish state in the region. The state of israel was established by David Ben Gurion declaring it so in 1948, and the borders of the state were a result of the 1949 armistice agreement (initially). Secondly, suggesting that the resolution is 'hypocritical' ignores the fact that the general assembly that passed the partition resolution, and the general assembly that pass 3379 are not at all the same in terms of the nations involved. the international community which passed 3379 was made up of far more nations than the community which passed the partition resolution, which was essentially comprised of the imperial powers who were victors of world war 2.
i could go on.. that sentence needs to go.
The people you are responding to haven't been there in a while. I'm OK with a rewrite however the content needs to remain:
Since all suggested changes have been made, would it be appropriate to remove the "disputed neutrality" tag at the beggining of the article? If the article has been changed in such a fashion to make it no longer disputed, then the tag should be removed as it is only confusing and distracting to people who read the article for the first time.
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)
Buddy, the Security Council and the General Assembly are two different things. The U.S. has a 'veto' on the S.C. No one has a veto over G.A. resolutions. This was a G.A. resolution.--
SESmith 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
A discussion of what causes lead to this resolution being revoked is not appropriate in the WP:Lead, which should be a concise overview of the article. And since this is a discussion of the resolution, I'm not sure why the second half of Herzog's speech should be removed because of his mention of Arab anti-Semitism, since it isn't brought as a discussion of that topic, but of Israel's response. Tewfik Talk 06:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
After the Afd discussion and delrev, it was suggested that Zionism and racism allegations be merged into this article. I fully support this move because Zionism and racism allegations is a clear POV fork.-- Sefringle 00:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
This should be mentioned, as it is often cited. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 22:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Any source? User:ACogloc ( talk) 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The two articles cited as describing Waldheim as a Nazi do not go as far as that.
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)
The talk page needs a secton containg a discussion on the RS on whether Zionism is or is not a form of racism and racial discrimination. Is anyone brave enough to open up the discussion? Trahelliven ( talk) 09:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Done 24 May 2013 Trahelliven ( talk) 11:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
AnonMoos: Inserting in the article a sentence such as - Israel practises apartheid., would be pushing POV. Simply to say Israel and South Africa have been compared is the whole basis of resolution 3379. Trahelliven ( talk) 19:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
References
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.
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 II Talk to my owner:Online 14:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Should be Permanent Observer status without quotes. Keith McClary ( talk) 18:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Keith McClary ( talk) 18:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)