Talk:2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage

Energy High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Denmark High‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Mid‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Notice date: 28 September 2022. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

On 6 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Nord Stream pipelines sabotage. The result of the discussion was Procedural close.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Dubious statements related to Poland cited from a WSJ article[edit]

The subsection "Involvement of Poland" cites a WSJ article with some truly puzzling statements. The journalist's source is "European investigators" who are "working on the case".

These "European investigators" say that Warsaw has failed to "fully cooperate" on the Nord Stream sabotage investigation. This is dubious. Denmark and Sweden are two countries that are known to investigate the Nord Stream sabotage. Both of these two countries have cited national security concerns to justify their national investigations _not_ cooperate internationally. So how can Poland's same stance be a problem for these "European investigators"? This makes no sense.
How is it even possible for the journalist to actually know that their source is in fact investigators working on the case (and with non-public knowledge of Poland's investigation), without actually knowing their country of origin? This makes no sense.

This source alone (well, currently along with a Russian-language source summarizing the WSJ article) is cited to support the subsection "Involvement of Poland" where it is being implied that Poland _may_ have played a role in the sabotage. The subsection in its current form seems problematic wrt WP:VERIFY. The WSJ is in general a WP:RS but since the specific, cited WSJ-article contains these supporting statements that are clearly dubious, I am for now going to use the dubious-template on that paragrah. Maybe the subsection can be improved. Otherwise, I would be in favor of removing it altogether. Lklundin (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "European investigators" is dubious because the article did not name any specific countries the "investigators" came from. I assume they were not from Russia (Moscow is in Europe). There was a response saying that claims in WSJ article were false and that, again, "Investigations have so far failed to establish who was responsible for the pipeline blasts." [1]. ~~But I would not say the WSJ article should be removed from the page.~~ The WSJ article shows that the investigators are working and want to publish their findings ASAP. It is just that they do not have any solid evidence about anything so far, beyond knowing it was indeed a sabotage. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I do think that WSJ-source is insufficient to support the article's implication (even as a possibility) that there was "Involvement of Poland" in the sabotage, that is really an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim/possibility. So what should be removed from the page is that subsection (unless the extraordinary claim can be more convincingly supported). Lklundin (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to Poland and UK. We now have a couple of mainstream sources about Poland, but one of them is rebuttal. So whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I see with the "Involvement of Poland" is that it is supported by a single, dubious source. A second source in that subsection is also quoted, but as I read it, it directly refers to the WSJ-source so adds nothing, or no?. So what is the second of the mainstream sources about Poland? As for the "Involvement of United Kingdom" there is a WP:RS, outlandish as the claim itself may be. Lklundin (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just remove it. Welcome to restore in any form if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2024, regarding Sweden's closing of its investigation[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the last paragraph of the intro is now wrong. Sweden has now closed its investigation. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/world/europe/sweden-nord-stream-pipeline.html Therefore change this:

Three separate investigations were initiated by Denmark, Germany and Sweden.[14] As of January 2024 these investigations are ongoing and, other than to describe the explosions as sabotage,[4][5][6][7] have not yet facilitated official conclusions leaving the perpetrators unknown.[15]

to something like this:

Three separate investigations were initiated by Denmark, Germany and Sweden.[14] As of February 2024 only Sweden's investigation has been closed.[2] These investigations have described the explosions as sabotage[4][5][6][7] and have not yet facilitated official conclusions leaving the perpetrators unknown.[15]

By the way sorry for the formatting. I'm kinda new to Wikipedia and don't know how to do the formatting properly, especially on a talk page. So insert the source properly and don't just copy-paste my change. Theaxeisaxe (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Project 865[edit]

Teer is now an articel to the russian hydrographic research vessel Sibirykov. Please add. --Shipyard 061 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a draft right now, please make another request when it's promoted to the article status. Alaexis_¿question? 20:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 development[edit]

In the French press, the Ukrainian ambassador in London is designated as the operation instigator an investigation from the radio station France info designates Ukraine ambassador in London as responsible of the Nordstream gazoduc sabotage Ukulele (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to Washington Post, Trump "suggests that he knows something, but it’s more likely just part of his effort to blame Biden for the war in Ukraine".[181] - REMOVE THIS OPINION PIECE. Scubagreg72 (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]