Talk:2025 United States–Iran negotiations

Iran Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

On 21 April 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from US-Iran talks to 2025 US–Iran negotiations. The result of the discussion was moved.

Title

There has been many instances of US-Iran talks; suggest adding 2025 in the title. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

331dot. You are absolutely right. I created a request to move. Lova Falk (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US-Iran talks → 2025 US-Iran negotiations – More specific by adding the year. Now we know these discussions happened this year, but ten, twenty years from now, we won't know. Adding a year before a title is very common on Wikipedia. Furthermore, "talks" sound less formal than "negotiations", and this is actually a very formal process. Lova Falk (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding the year: The current title could be referring to pre-1979 talks. Use en dash rather than hyphen to convey the meaning. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

⁠BarrelProof Please also tell what you think of the change from "talks" to negotiations. Lova Falk (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest checking whether high-quality independent reliable sources use one word or the other, and whether they discuss why they choose one word or the other. I don't have a personal opinion at this time. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject United States, WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Technology, and WikiProject Energy have been notified of this discussion. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be "Iran–United States" to maintain alphabetical order and correct use of ndash? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you could but US-Iran is simpler and honestly sounds better Yesyesmrcool (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with using the Iran–United States format for the title regardless of what results of this discussion, so it includes an en dash and has US spelled out. Yeoutie (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a rule saying alphabetical is better? I thought about this, and it was Trump who initiated the negotiations, and therefore I think US should be mentioned first. But maybe my reasoning is not very "wikipedish"? Lova Falk (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This change makes the most sense to me. Xx78900 (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is clearly negotiations at this point Yesyesmrcool (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The current title is out of sync with the article. It suggests a broad overview of Iran–United States relations, while the proposed title makes the title in line with the scope of the article. JasonMacker (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2025 negotiations given that the editor who created this page and title has a history of unencyclopedic writing and WP:CIR regarding English fluency. Borgenland (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borgenland (Off topic: I plan to copyedit language tomorrow. The editor has contributed a lot of content.) Lova Falk (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you the patience to navigate the entire load of material. And I hope you can cross check their translation of Persian-language sources, which has been a serious problem on their part. Borgenland (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Venue: Moscow

I removed Moscow as a venue for these talks in the infobox. The source was: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-foreign-minister-will-consult-iran-us-talks-during-visit-russia-2025-04-14/ Now, in the source, it says: "Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi will visit Russia this week ahead of a planned second round of talks between Tehran and Washington aimed at resolving Iran's decades-long nuclear stand-off with the West." (Bold by me.) This is probably also why Putin was mentioned as a participant in the talks (which I thought was a joke). However, Araqchi talking with Putin (if that is what he did) before talking with Witkoff, is not the same as Kremlin being a venue for the talks, and Putin participating in the talks. Before talking with each other, Witkoff and Araqchi have talked with a lot of people. They are not to be mentioned as participants in the talk. PS. I am very interested in this, and I am so grateful to the editors who put such a lot of work into this article! Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI generated?

Hi User:Baratiiman! You put up the AI tag: "It may include hallucinated information or fictitious references. Copyright violations or claims lacking verification should be removed. Additional guidance is available on the associated project page." Would you please explain which information you are doubtful of? Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Baratiiman, just to let you know I'll remove the template if you don't reply. Most of the content in this article was written by you. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

is it me or is there something terribly off with the pictures' orientation? Borgenland (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borgenland! I didn't see your comment, but I have changed the pictures. They look fine to me. Lova Falk (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, there was something off with the borders. Still looks a bit awkward IMO, or is it probably because I am used to the ones in election boxes. Borgenland (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three times Khamenei

There are two films and one picture of Khamenei in this article. That are two too many. But before removing two of them again, and see them back in the article, I would like to seek consensus. So, please, 331dot, ⁠BarrelProof, Valorrr ^{(lets chat)}, Howard, Yesyesmrcool, Yeoutie, JasonMacker, Borgenland, Baratiiman, Xx78900 weigh in if you agree that there should only be one film or picture of Khamenei. Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just the one wide pic of Khamenei will suffice. The rest contain POV captions and are of questionable writing. Borgenland (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Yeah, I agree with one video/film or picture, it shouldn't be so many. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both videos are khamenei talking about THE ARTICLE SUBJECT Baratiiman (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, one person shouldn't have 3 images/films, it should also include others. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why there needs to be (untranslated) videos of Khamenei speaking in this article. His speeches are primary sources that should be provided as an external link, not embedded in the article. I would support the videos being removed. The source for the videos should be linked to in the External links section, just as Trump's speech about the negotiations is currently provided (in the Forbes YouTube video). JasonMacker (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see evidence for the current descriptions provided for the videos. The second video is described as "Khamenei downplaying talks as non important, calling for more trade with China and Russia" yet in the video Khamenei never mentions China or Russia. Here's a rush translation of it that I just wrote:

A word about the talks in Oman. These talks are one of the, I want to make this point, tens of actionss of the foreign ministry. Meaning, the foreign ministry has tens of actions, and one of them is the negotiations in Oman which has been recently brought up. Try to avoid tying a knot between the issues of the country and these negotiations. This is my emphasis. What we did incorrectly during JCPOA (barjam) should not be repeated here. At that time, we tied everything to the success of the negotiations, meaning we made the country provisional. Well, an investor, when the country's functions are tied to the negotiations, he won't invest, that's obvious. He will say let's wait and see what happens with the negotiations. These negotiations are an action, and one of the many actions of the foreign ministry, which it is doing. The country has to also do its own actions, in various sectors, the industry sector, the agricultural sector, various sectors, service sector, cultural sector, construction sector, specific topics that have had specific descriptions, such as the issues in the southwest of the country. Follow up on these, with seriousness, as they have no connection with the current negotiations that have begun in Oman. So that's this issue. Concurrently, with respect to these negotations, don't be extreme in terms of optimism, nor be extreme in terms of pessimmism. At the end of the day, it's (just) a job, an action, that has been decided and is being carried out and the first steps have been carried out nicely. After this, it needs to be carefully continued, with clear red lines expressed. It should clear for the opposite side, it should clear for our own side, and continued. It might reach a (suitable) conclusion or it might not. We are neither very optimistic, nor are we very pessimistic. But with respect to the opposite side, we are pessimistic towards them, we don't accept them, we know what they are. But with respect to our own ability, we are optimistic. We know that we can do many things. We know many good methods. This is (evident).

I think editorialization of this speech as "downplaying talks as non-important" needs to be properly attributed to a WP:RS. As for the first video, the description is also unsourced and I haven't watched it in full as it's much longer, but the point made with this second video stands. These videos belong in the external links section. JasonMacker (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support As per Valorrr Yesyesmrcool (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

I believe with community consensus this discussion may be closed, with consensus reaching that we've decided to remove the videos, if you oppose, please reply below! Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 18:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of films/video's keeping the image.

I will be performing the removal of the video's and keeping the image, if the person wishes to discuss this, they may add to this discussion. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Skitash what is your reason you have not put it there put it here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_US%E2%80%93Iran_negotiations&diff=prev&oldid=1292313615

here ֫>

Baratiiman (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]