Talk:Nuclear negotiations between US and Iran commence in Muscat, Oman

Copy and pasted content

This article appears to have entire statements copied and pasted from this article. Unfortunately, Wikinews can't accept that. Everything you submit to our site must be your own work. I have moved the article back to the developing queue for further development.

Please see this page for exact details. Direct quotes are okay to keep. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4850979 [Passed]

Revision 4850979 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I am accepting the "numbers approximated in tonne units, instead of original kg units, for readability" note in article for now, as well as short dashes in last sentence of first paragraph. There are no known to me style guides which say no to these items. If must, the article may be revised within 24 hours. Thank you for the comprehensive report. Hope to see the April 19 update very soon. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4850979 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I am accepting the "numbers approximated in tonne units, instead of original kg units, for readability" note in article for now, as well as short dashes in last sentence of first paragraph. There are no known to me style guides which say no to these items. If must, the article may be revised within 24 hours. Thank you for the comprehensive report. Hope to see the April 19 update very soon. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Previously identified plagiarism not all addressed

This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.

For flag, see new comment below.

{{editprotected}}

There is still an unacceptable amount of plagiarized content in the published version of this article. Since it is now edit protected, only an administrator can remove the plagiarism and issue a correction. The following statements must be addressed[1]:

• "...of the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to.."
• "...up to 3.67% purity for the next 15 years..."
• "... IAEA nuclear watchdog reported that..."
• "...that he had instructions to resolve the..."
• "Araghchi had said ahead of the discussions that his country wanted a "fair agreement"" (Copied verbatim from the BBC)

As with a previous article published with copyright violations, I propose the following correction statement be posted after the plagiarism is removed:

This article previously included copyrighted material copied from a source. The content has been removed. Wikinews regrets the oversight.

—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: once an article is edit-protected, only administrators can make and sight changes. To remove plagiarism from such pages promptly, the administrator making the edit should also self-sight the change. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

i am happy to self sight after a reviewer notes on the talk page that the edit is ok. ugly approach but at least it would mean the edit is actually checked by another reviewer before being sighted. Gryllida (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

┌──────┘
The third paragraph (beginning "According to the provisions of the 2015 deal...") presents several serious problems:

• Plagiarism / close paraphrasing: The phrase "of uranium enriched up to" is repeated multiple times, verbatim from the IAEA report.
• Original analysis: The note "[numbers approximated in tonne units, instead of original kg units, for readability]" introduces unsourced interpretation, which violates WN:NPOV and WN:OR.
• Unsupported claim: The sentence "On January 5, 2020, Iran declared..." is not supported by any of the cited sources (though it is verifiable elsewhere).
• Lack of news value: The detailed uranium enrichment figures are highly technical and not covered in any of the six cited journalistic sources. They add little to the story and may mislead readers by overemphasizing technical minutiae.

Any key facts from this paragraph (e.g., enrichment caps under the JCPOA) are already addressed elsewhere in the article. Therefore, removing it would not remove any key facts.

However, the article is archived, and per WN:ARCHIVE, substantive content edits are not permitted after archival. Removing or significantly rewriting this paragraph would clearly fall under content modification and is therefore not allowed without administrative consensus.

Gryllida acknowledged the article has issues but declined to act, instead removing edit protection and requesting someone else fix the article. This has significantly disrupted the project’s workflow by placing non-admins in an untenable position: either violate archive policy by editing content, or leave known policy violations in place. This situation could have been avoided had the paragraph been properly reviewed and addressed prior to publication.

I’m willing to help fix this, but an administrator needs to either (a) initiate and implement a consensus-based correction or (b) provide a clear rationale for leaving the paragraph unchanged despite the outlined problems.

I request that another admin review the situation and take appropriate action. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to try to work on this.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Paragraph 3: Man, that uranium stuff is super crufty for a new article. Lemme think on this for a bit.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the third paragraph entirely, to address the concerns above. I have also updated the correction statement. I have not self-sighted these changes, but may if another reviewer does not. I have down-graded page protection so that a non-admin reviewer can sight, edit, or revert those changes.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 08:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The extent of the issues in this article raises broader concerns. Plagiarism was identified prior to publication, as early as April 18, 2025, but was not fully resolved for nearly a year, indicating a breakdown in both the development and review processes. Delays of this length—particularly where plagiarism is involved—are not acceptable for a news organization. Given the project’s pending closure, it is also important that unresolved issues of this nature are not left in the final, read-only record.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 08:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Develop mistakenly added

{{editprotected}} In a recent edit[2] the {{Develop}} template was added to the article, which is already published and therefore should not have the template. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Develop tag needs to go!!! BigKrow (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright, still says developing... BigKrow (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright, @Gryllida not developing anymore. Thanks. Is it broken or something???? BigKrow (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

removed develop tag. still, someone will need to sight the edit for 'add correction and revise content'. a reviewer can tag me saying it's ok, then i will sight it as currently only a sysop can sight, but i don't want to self sight without someone else checking the edit. Gryllida (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I had hoped another reviewer or admin might step in to sight these changes, to avoid this becoming a back-and-forth between User:Gryllida and myself. The remaining flagged text appears limited to formal titles and common-use phrases, as shown by the Earwig results. These do not constitute plagiarism.

In the case of plagiarism, once an administrator has rechecked the revision, it should be sighted without delay. Leaving such corrections unsighted unnecessarily extends public exposure to plagiarized content. While the project itself faces reputational harm, the original contributor and the reviewer who published the material may also face legal risk. Promptly sighting corrections is a basic editorial responsibility, and a necessary step to protect all parties involved. Even self-sighting and asking for a second opinion after-the-fact is better. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

ok Gryllida (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)