Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737

International relations: United Nations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Iran

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Background

I don't have time right now (Christmas), but if someone else does, it would be great if this article had some background on the earlier drafts of the resolution and the diplomatic negotiations that preceded its passing. There's some relevant info at Nuclear program of Iran that could be copied to this article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably get to it in the next 24.--Sharz 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly an Anti-Islamic resolution and that anti-Islamic view point should be noted as well as the pressure the Israeli lobby put on GW Bush. Too bad Bush can't see how influenced he is by Israel and the Zionist agenda. 63.40.152.137 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Man, some people really are brainwashed...Iran is evil :) Jmlk17 05:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

"Contrary to popular belief, the sponsors of the resolution were France, Germany and the United Kingdom, rather than the United States, one of the primary proponents of the resolution."

This sounds like POV to me, since the writer implies that "everybody" thinks that the USA is the major sponsor of the resolution, putting the States in a (perceived) unjusticed position. And even so, the reference the writer points to has no say in to whom was the sponsor for that. Nevertheless, even if it did, that would only "prove" to be the "official" sponsor(s), and "everybody" knows that the USA has interests and applies plenty of political pressure in these matters. ~~LtDoc~~

I moved sponsorship to be a simple statement of fact earlier in the article. Manassehkatz 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That was one of my edits here, but I'm quiet happier with the new vr. --Sharz 12:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a minor note, but is the "UN nuclear watchdog" phrase somewhat of a value-statement? I mean, you get some sort of connotation with that phrase that may or may not be true. Since the connotation can produce an emotional response that can skew or bias the reader's evaluation of the material presented, shouldn't we at least mention the organization by name before describing it as the UN nuclear watchdog? At least that way the split-second value-attribution that occurs when reading won't initialize any emotion before they read the description. rlee1185 01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New section title

New section title "Implementation" seems fine to me. --Activism1234 01:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]