Talk:2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

EU-NATO Task Force for Resilient Critical Infrastructure

On 11 January 2023, EU and NATO announced the creation of a joint task force on critical infrastructure protection, but the press releases [1][2] don't give any details. Maybe the task force consists of a dozen people who meet every few months, maybe it's a hundred people working full time. We don't know. It's not even clear whether this task force has a name. (The capitalisation in the EU text suggests "EU-NATO Task Force for Resilient Critical Infrastructure" is an official name, but I'm not sure.) The press statements were widely reported in international media on 11 and 12 January, but there seems to be little to no later coverage. I think we should delete that paragraph for now. We can always reinstate it when more information becomes available and we decide it has lasting relevance. Either way, I'll delete the Russian statement, because it is even less relevant than the task force and nothing new – it's what Russia always says about such things. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to include that Russia statement for the sake of balance. I don't have much faith in Russia or the U.S. being good faith actors in this situation -- with a difficult article like this my fallback to new developments is to just quote statements from various national governments out of hopes it presents as NPOV to the reader. I also don't think the sentence's removal negatively impacts the article that much either. Spudst3r (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. As far as I know, this initiative isn't even remotely related to the blasts – it has more to do with preventing EU's overreliance on foreign-controlled critical infrastructure (hidden foreign ownership, hostile takeovers, etc.). Certainly, these are not guys physically trying to prevent NS explosions ;) As such, this is rather out of the scope of this NS-focused article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting verifiable source adds to this Wiki page

For consideration in this story. Verifiable sources, requesting only neutral inclusion of the straight facts or direct quotes. Thank you. One would hope would be Wiki is a source of open truth, and not a state dept propaganda organ (thinking back to the sad media reality distortion behind 2003 Iraq). Have a nice day. . . United Nations public record of Nord Stream official testimony from Jeff Sachs and Ray McGovern summarizing allegations of the United States behind the Nord Stream attack. https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15206.doc.htm

Official statement from the Sweden investigator prosecutor, declining to share info with Germany/Denmark after their investigation, citing reasons of ‘national security’ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-shuns-formal-joint-investigation-nord-stream-leak-citing-national-2022-10-14/

Formal proposal by Russia for UN investigation into Nord Stream sabotage https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/russia-urges-un-to-launch-independent-investigation-on-nord-stream-sabotage/3100558/?amp=1

Summary article by the oldest newspaper in Finland, about possible US involvement behind the Nord Stream sabotage https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/22973-us-and-norway-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines-seymour-hersh.html

Direct quote by Victoria Nuland to Ted Cruz in a US Senate Hearing, about the ‘hunk of metal’. https://www.newsweek.com/sergei-lavrov-us-nord-stream-pipeline-attack-1778499?amp=1

Direct quote by Biden in a press conference about bringing “an end” to Nord Stream if Ukraine is invaded https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/07/biden-says-nord-stream-2-wont-go-forward-if-russia-invades-ukraine-.html

US State Dept statement by Blinken calling Nord Stream destruction a ‘tremendous opportunity’ https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-canadian-foreign-minister-melanie-joly-at-a-joint-press-availability/ Observer157 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I think much of this content is already in the article, but there could be a way to add some of this in that's missing. Notably Victoria Nuland and Blinken's comments, as those comments are relevant, sourced and notable RE: the scope of this article. Those comments have been in the discourse about as much as Biden's comment -- which we do already cover in the article. Spudst3r (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the straight quotes from Biden, Nuland, Blinken should be fair to include. Also I see a 20-year retired German official (Schindler), his quote is in the page but why not then add 27-year CIA Analyst Ray McGovern’s opinions recently spoken at the United Nations this week? Observer157 (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Observer157: You're mistaken, Gerhard Schindler retired from the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) 7 years ago (not 20 years ago). Plus, Schindler is still active in Germany's & all of EU's national security.

As for Ray McGovern, Russia invited Jeff Sachs and Ray McGovern to the UN to tell (not testify) their personal and uninformed opinions on behalf of Russia. Sachs & McGovern are political activists who are not experts in underwater gas pipelines & not experts in underwater gas pipeline explosions. Their opinions on underwater gas pipeline explosions carry as much weight as mine.

As an aside: Ray McGovern publishes regularly in Russia's state-owned Sputnik News and Russia Today (RT). Both Sputnik & RT are described as disinformation & propaganda outlets for Russia [3].) Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Additional on Hersh

I believe some, short, additional information on Hersh himself should me added to his claims in this article, as example that he is known for raising shadowy deep conspiracy-ish theories (not trying to say that I think that those would be made up, but often oddly sourced at the very least) about many things while using an extreme amount of unnamed anonymous sources. I have also read that he has been critiqued for not properly vetting those (see his wikipedia article).

I think it is crucial to add something about that, without it, some might just assume that pulitzer price = reliable, which is not really the case. I would recommend some additional research on Hershs more recent publications, as they may vastly differ in quality to his work in the 1970-80s(?), especially on things he may have claimed based on anonymous sources, which were not true / or sound somewhat far fetched? Reading his Wikipedia article may not be enough Forsen1337 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, go ahead - but only after you've applied the same criterion to the blatant propagandists who criticize him. The trouble with his article is that it's based on a single, anonymous source. That's enough to be going on with. Shtove (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The Times [4] says, Hersh, 85, who broke stories such as the mass murder of 500 civilians at My Lai in Vietnam and the torture of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, says that the “Black Op” was ordered by President Biden, and that the attack was carried out by the CIA in co-operation with Norway. They don't mention anything about "shadowy" theories. Levivich (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is Insider's framing: The claim by a discredited journalist that the US secretly blew up the Nord Stream pipeline is proving a gift to Putin: Once-celebrated journalist Seymour Hersh made unproven claims the US blew up the Nord Stream pipelines. Hersh won a Pulitzer in 1970, but his more recent work has come under sharp criticism. He has said a lot of extremely... out there... things on topics like chemical weapons in Syria, the death of Osama Bin Laden, the murder of Seth Rich, etc. We should not treat whatever Hersh says like it's a Bellingcat report or something. Endwise (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat tweeted about the article: "Genuinely embarrassing The Times is amplifying this thinly sourced garbage." Prolog (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And Bellingcat is US state funded (through National Endowment for Democracy) (at least partially), while Hersh is independent. And accusations that "Hersh has have gone off the rails" have been around since My Lai and Abu Ghraib (read what they wrote about Hersh then: most instructive), Huldra (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Eliot Higgins's educational or professional background, but he doesn't seem qualified to judge Hersh's investigation (bc founding or managing a charity is not a qualification in itself). Higgin's tweets are also non-RS – all his individual writings listed at Eliot Higgins are either self-published, published in deprecated media (Medium.com), or have had no editorial oversight. I find it strange to have such a tweet mentioned here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Regarding "shadowy conspiracies":Vox's Max Fisher wrote, "Hersh has appeared increasingly to have gone off the rails. His stories, often alleging vast and shadowy conspiracies"[5]

BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you tell us why should anyone care what a Mr Fisher writes? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hersh doesn't say that it's based on a single source. It might be, it sorts of looks like it, put Hersh has refused to confirm it when asked, so it's just an unsourced assumption - live in the current version of the page I might add.

213.184.211.18 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Forsen1337 So, you've registered a (burner) account only to try to limit the reach of Hersh's investigation? Nice try.

We on Wikipedia don't routinely discredit sources while quoting them. Otherwise we'd need to write each time, ...New York Times, which has promoted the Iraqi WMD conspiracy theory. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

* @Kashmiri:, I feel the first 2 sentences (1st paragraph) in your comment to @Forsen1337 comes across as condescending and belittling to a fellow editor. I urge you to strike through those 2 sentences (or reword them) and remind yourself of WP:CIVIL Be polite, be welcoming to newcomers, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want to quote an unreliable source at all? Thats not how wikipedia works Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hersh's blog is a fairly reliable source about Hersh's opinions, and his opinion represents a significant minority point of view (read WP:RS), not least because of Hersh's notability as an investigative journalist. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You mean as a disgraced investigative journalist. We can use what others say about Hersh's blog. But we can't use Hersh's blog at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. You clearly need to read our policies and guidelines, especially WP:BIASED. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BIASED only applies to reliable sources. Hersh's blog is not a reliable source. The question here is one of reliability not bias. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want to argue that Hersh's investigations are not reliable, you'll need to get this fringe view through WP:RSN first. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thats not how it works, the person who wants to use the source has to establish its reliability. Which will be hard given that the sources repeatedly refer to Hersh as a "disgraced investigative journalist" and none of them say that this blog post is accurate or reliable, the exact opposite in fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Hersh's blog post that he put in the blog Substake is WP:NOTRS and instead, is most likely WP:QS & WP:SPS. Wikipedia bases RS on the medium used, not on whether a person's 'investigtions are reliable' or not. And Hersh's medium, Substack, is not a reliable source.

BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Really? Above, I'm seeing Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins sourced to Twitter. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, it will be appreciated if you could quote the appropriate passage from WP:SELFPUB: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Certainly, Hersh is an expert in the field he publishes in, and his blog (and his Twitter account, etc.) is a perfectly acceptable source about his views. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I feel you're misinterpreting WP:SPS and here's what I mean.

From WP:SPS "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Hersh posted his blog post in a "social media blog" so is "largely not acceptable as a source."

So, even though Hersh's blog post does not even meet the part of SPS you copy/pasted (he's not a "subject matter expert" on the Nord Stream explosions & has no previous work in "the relevant field" of Nord Stream explosions) more importantly and to reiterate, his uncorroberated allegations in a "social media blog" which is "largely not acceptable as a source."

BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, Can you please tell me which what wiki policy says an unsubstiated blog post whose subject matter has not been verified and not been corroborated by any RS but is published in a social media blog, Substack, is a "RS?" All I can find is such a blog post is not an RS and "it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true" see: WP:UNDUE, WP:QS BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I've already communicated my view about the source, and if you don't like it, I just told you: go to WP:RSN. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who wants to use the source, you have to get consensus not the other way around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: What do you mean by "That claim came from the Hersh article itself, so adding back the citation)" [6]. If the claim isn't in the WP:RS then we can't have it on the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

RE: the Hersh article itself. Per WP:BLPSPS, it states "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." The subject of the article is Hersh, he published this story so in an article about him there is no question a link to his own work can be included on his wikipedia page.

As for the Democracy Now citation, I'm not aware of any policy stating that is not a reliable source (the way the Daily Mail has been determined as such), if it isn't then we can remove. Spudst3r (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Democracy Now! is widely cited throughout the site. I was also surprised it was removed as a non-RS.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, Seymour Hersh is over there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I see that now, you made the citation removal in both places so I got confused which article I was responding to.

For this article, the Hersh story has got enough notable coverage in the press, including formal Russia attention, that it's notable enough to be included in the article. If it's that notable, then the original published story should be included in the citations describing the article so that the viewer can read it to make up a decision for themselves. Hiding the original source does nothing to improve the article. Spudst3r (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"If it's that notable, then the original published story should be included in the citations describing the article so that the viewer can read it to make up a decision for themselves." that's not policy or guideline, you just made that shit up. Note that we can't use SPS for "claims about events not directly related to the subject" such as in this case claims by Hersh about the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Once again: we can use SPS as a source of information about Hersh's views on this incident. Much like we can use tweets as a source of Trump's views, or ministerial press conferences as a source of statements about public policy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Not if they contain "claims about events not directly related to the subject" which this one does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, You mistaken and you seem to be making the same mistake over & over, here's what I mean. Hersh's blog post is in the social media blog called Substack. From wiki at WP:SPS “social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.” So, as is clearly stated in WP:SPS, we cannot use a SPS that is in a social media blog. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@kashmiri it would be nice if you would create any rational comment in a reply to me, and not accuse me of nonsense. I have some activity on the German Wikipedia page, trying to discredit me only because I do not know Wikipedia that well / am somehow a new-ish user, is kinda weird, and does not help the discussion Forsen1337 (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

At RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Seymour Hersh. Per WP:ONUS, it should stay out until/unless there is consensus to include. Levivich (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison asked me to take a look, given that the Hersh blog is an obviously self-published non-peer reviewed thing. Yes, if reliable sources publish on an article in such a blog, we can report on it (and WP:FRINGE applies here), but it will have to be reasonable, and the amount of coverage should depend on how much coverage of the post is provided. Here, we have a report on the White House condemnation and an article on Yahoo--that is not a lot, and IMO it is not enough to warrant such an extensive paragraph (current version linked), which by its sheer size lends credibility to the discredited theory. In addition, "investigative journalist" is simply not neutral, and explaining what his status is now (not in the 1970s) would take up a paragraph--but adding "discredited" is not an unreasonable, if properly ascribed. What all this means is less is more. Again, in my opinion, one or two SHORT sentences is enough.

I just reverted User:Spudst3r, who added the Chinese response--which is not acceptable, since it's completely irrelevant, and they aren't even a party to the matter, and it cannot be argued that if they are not involved they are a neutral party. We shouldn't stoop to the level of YouTube comments. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And why are we here? Well, I was trying to verify a simple statement in the Hersh article, that he had been on the NSA's watchlist. A simple Google News search for Hersh and the NSA shows why we are here: because Hersh's claim about the pipeline is all over every fake news website still inexplicably classified by Google as "news", and here we are, running along with the rabbits. Thanks, Spudst3r. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:WORLDVIEW I think you are coming at this with a U.S. bias. The U.S. is not a party to the Nord Stream pipeline anymore than China is. The pipeline connects Russia to Germany. However both the U.S. and China have strategic interests over whether or whether not the NordStream pipeline gets built, and in stopping state-sanctioned terrorism. As a major nuclear power China's opinion about an act of international terrorism is relevant. If a major accusation comes out against a nation that other major world powers say is important enough to deserve a response, that is notable, no? We are not in the business of judging whether we agree with what major powers are saying, but to cover notable political developments as they happen. Spudst3r (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't really care much for what you think about my worldview, Spudst3r--sorry. You missed something obvious here: Hersh accused the US, so of course they're a party. No, we are not in the business of covering political developments as they happen--that's the job of the media. We are in the business of concisely summarizing some of the things they report. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You term the Chinese response irrelevant because "they are not a party"? Seriously? Will you now excise all the "International reactions" sections from across the Wikipedia wherever it came from an uninvolved government?

China has as much right to comment on this as any other country, and if the matter is of sufficient importance (keeping in mind that Wikipedia is NOTNEWS), then it can and should certainly be included. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it covered in any WP:RS? The source used the first time around (Global Times) is deprecated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri, of course China has a right to comment. China has lots of rights. China can put on a clown's nose and dance the can-can. "Sufficient importance" here applies to their reaction--which is of no importance. Why would it be? We don't include every person or country's response to every event. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce Dr Mies, an expert in international relations. You will excuse me but I'll leave your statement without a comment. Now you might like to go back to topics that you know a thing or two about. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Kashmiri There are plenty of examples of current event stories on wikipedia where the reactions of governments to a notable event are catalogued. In fact even this NordStream pipeline sabotage article is full of such reactions or announcements.

Given the near-certainty that this sabotage was the result of a conspiracy by a government-level actor, who national governments point fingers at or demand answers from is very notable information. Spudst3r (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And which of them use the Global Times as a source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is another source: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/314663

And before you say that is just the propaganda arm of the Chinese government, that doesn't matter. It's the Chinese government's response, period. Spudst3r (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Without an independent WP:RS it isn't WP:DUE, period. We have to adhere to the neutral point of view policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Is wikipedia just what western-approved media give attention to now? Are the real facts of what major governments saying not a reliable source anymore? Do you seriously believe that Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning did not make that statement? Because that's what you are implying by questioning the source. Spudst3r (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it has to have due weight in order to be included. Spokespeople make statements all the time, the vast majority have no place on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

An official statement from the 2nd largest economy is undoubtedly WP:DUE. More than condolences on some princess's death, reported all the time on Wiki. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Due weight is about what reliable sources publish: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." not how large a country's economy is. Notice how the proportional prominence of a viewpoint that is in no reliable sources is nothing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

In fairness I think WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH is relevant here.

From this discussion I don't believe you or others here actually doubt that Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning made those statements about the Hersh story from the sources I gave you. For the article to conform to a balanced WP:GLOBAL perspective, in lieu of further developments that would give more weight to the article to other facts, we should be including prominent international government reactions to the Hersh story. Spudst3r (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Also: Hershs allegations make an appearance two times in the article, both saying essentially the same, it should be reduced to only one. Still, a single sentence mentioning his past, where he has relied numerous times on unknown anonymous sources, which turned out to be claiming things which were revealed to be not true / have claimed something which is know viewed as being extremely unlikely, is still missing Forsen1337 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Certainly not a blog"

Regarding this, @Kashmiri: huh? Reuters and Al Jazeera called it a "blog post", Snopes called it variously an "article" in the intro and "blog post" in the conclusion, and Bloomberg News and The Times both call it a "report". Whatever we want to call it, it's certainly not not a blog. Endwise (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You're right @Endwise: multiple RS call it a "blog post." I've not seen the wiki policy that says editors can ignore using RS wording and instead use words the wiki editor wishes the RS had used. But that seems to be where we are on this WP:FRINGE, WP:VER, WP:SOAPBOX "blog post." Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This was a single article, not a blog, that displayed all the typical characteristics of an investigative press piece and none of a blog: it wasn't not written in the first person, it didn't chronicle author's experience or discuss author's subjective opinion, didn't address the readers directly, etc. Journalism published on Substack is still journalism, not blogging. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this position. Calling this substack published story "a blog post" is:

- not in the tenor of the writing style, which is traditional investigative reporting

- a controversial POV description that substack journalists feel strongly about, that traditional news outlets have the incentive to use to denigrate their former employees gaining financial independence through Substack.

- an inconsistent description of what Hersh blog posted/posted/published, even among the RS mentioned here.

All of this, including WP:ALLEGED, is why I went with the simple and NPOV:

American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh posted an article on Substack alleging ...

Some could argue "posted" is an unfair term relative "published". I went with the simpler "posted an article on substack" wording to split the difference and find consensus. Spudst3r (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: Calling Hersh's blog on Substack a blog post is consistent with what RS write so not "a POV"

Reuters (dated Feb 9) “White House says blog post on Nord Stream explosion 'utterly false'[7]

Reuters (dated Feb 9 - different article than above) “In a blog post….Seymour Hersh”[8]

Der Spiegel (dated Feb 9) “Seymour Hersh writes in a poorly documented blog post…” [9]

Snopes (dated Feb 10 - calls it an article & a blog post} “blog post that essentially transcribes a compelling story someone unknown to the general public told him [10]

The Times London: (dated Feb 9) behind a paywall.

Berliner Zeitung (dated Feb 14 - an interview by Fabian Scheider) Is an interview (not article) with Hersh where he is self-promoting his own WP:FRINGE blogpost. [11]

The Wire (India) (dated Feb 16 - interview by Fabian Scheilder Is an exact duplicate (copy/paste) of the exact same interview that Scheilder posted in Berliner [12]

Helsinki Times (dated Feb 16 & after Snopes found factual inaccuracies in Hersh's blogpost ) calls it an article, “writes in his article. [13] Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a blog, but same difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's a self-published source we can only use on the author's biography here. In no case can it ever be used to comment on a living person anywhere at Wikipedia. That's BLP 101. The only way we can document what it says is the exact quotes from it that are cited by secondary and third party RS. So reexamine how it's used here and clean-up/delete improper usage.

"Journalism published on Substack is still journalism, not blogging." WTF? It's no better. There is zero editorial oversight or fact-checking. Treat it like a blogging diary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh no - you've arrived from the Steele Dossier mess! Shtove (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Journalism just means reporting on what happened - I don't think it implies editorial oversight, or quality, or to some extent even correctness. Granted that there's a gray area between blogging and journalism - and that goes both ways, for clickbait-y sources like BuzzFeed - but a self-published journalist is still a journalist. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Journalism is a profession, something one can get a degree in, with codes of ethics. Reporting on what happened is just reporting on what happened, there is much more than that to journalism. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if we need to go down the rabbit hole of credentialism, but most of the well-known journalists in history (Nellie Bly, Walter Winchell, etc.) never studied journalism - most never even went to college. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure those are good examples? Walter Winchell is primarily known in hindsight for being unreliable and unethical, nobody holds him up as a shining example of what a journalist should be... The opposite in fact. Bly likewise did little actual reporting and is known more for being groundbreaking than being a good journalist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We didn't say good journalism, we said journalism. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The point stands that journalism as a profession with a code of ethics was still under development when Winchell and Bly were writing. The same is not true today. It also doesn't override the WP:RS who call it a blog, only other RS can do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Korny, Substack (just like WordPress) is a blogging platform where people (anyone and everyone) can post their blogposts with no editorial oversight and no fact-checking.

As for blogging vs. journalism. Blogging: With no editorial oversight, no fact-checking, no accountability & no responsibility a person may twist the truth or project his or her personal point of view in the article. Journalism: With editorial oversight, with fact-checking, with accountablity & with responsibility a person writes any news based on factual data and reliable sources.

Bottom-line: A non-journalist or journalist posting their blogposts on Substack are still blogging. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The definition of journalism doesn't require editorial oversight. Journalists who publish opinion pieces – like the one you referred to above in Der Spiegel – are still journalists. Journalists who publish on blogs like The Guardian Blog [14], The Guardian News Blog[15], The Guardian: Opinion[16] – are still journalists, even though they will not have editorial oversight.[17] In essence, you're pushing a view that a journalist must publish in a registered newspaper in order to be called journalist; otherwise their work cannot be termed journalism.

This is a point of view that many editors, me included, will not agree with. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

They're journalists but their opinion pieces and blog posts are not journalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: If you believe that journalism cannot use blogs and other new media, you'll need to delete Social journalism, remove "Blog" from the Journalism sidebar template, and remove all journalism-related categories and content from Blog. Basically, you'll need to rewrite large parts of journalism-related articles on Wikipedia to suit your POV. Are you up to the task? — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Social journalism (such as CNN's iReports) is generally not considered to be reliable for our purposes, we do treat that as self published. They certainly can use blogs, but again unless its a newsblog or similar what they post on that blog is not journalism... If a NYT tech journalist has a blog about baking you can't pretend that the blog posts are journalism just because the author is a journalist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: As I stated above, [18], 4 articles (not blogs) written by RS who are cited on the wiki-page call what Hersh wrote a "blog post."
Wiki editors are supposed to write what RS say, not what wiki editors wish they say.

Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online blogs. However, those blogs are WP:NOTRS if those blogs are not subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process & editoral process. Substack (like WordPress) is a blogging platform (not a news organization) where anyone can say anything they want in their blog post. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time: you're conflating PRIMARY, SELFPUB and NON-RS – by confusion or deliberately. People have been trying to explain you several times that SELFPUB may be RS, that PRIMARY may be RS, that SELFPUB ≠ PRIMARY, that there's ABOUTSELF, etc.

To say it for the nth time: Just as we can have it in an article: Donald Trump tweeted..., The FDA tweeted... (under Ivermectin), etc., so we can say, Seymour Hersh posted on Substack... as long as it complies with SPS and/or ABOUTSELF. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That wording has never been proposed. This is a discussion about whether you can characterize what was posted on Substack as a blog post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: 1) As @Valjean: explained to you above, Hersh's blog post is not about himself, so WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply here. Valjean explained, "It's a self-published source we can only use on the author's biography here. In no case can it ever be used to comment on a living person anywhere at Wikipedia. That's BLP 101. The only way we can document what it says is the exact quotes from it that are cited by secondary and third party RS. So reexamine how it's used here and clean-up/delete improper usage.[19] And, as I pointed out to you above, 4 articles by RS call Hersh's blog post a "blog post." [20]

2) And, as Valjean explained above, Hersh's blog post should be treated as a blog as far as wiki is concerned."Journalism published on Substack is still journalism, not blogging." WTF? It's no better. There is zero editorial oversight or fact-checking. Treat it like a blogging diary. [21] BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF says: "usually", not "only". I'm sort of fed up with all these manipulations. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I'm not sure if you're talking to me or if you're talking to @Valjean: since your replying to my comment that quotes Valjean. If you are talking to Valjean, you probably should have pinged Valjean since they may not see your comment any other way.

If you're talking to me, then Valjean's quotes I gave speak for themselves and explicitly explains why WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply here. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, the crux of the issue here is SPS, with its five limitations, and mentioning that policy is not "manipulations". Content at Substack is self-published content. SPS and BLP tell us it can never be used to comment on another living person anywhere at Wikipedia ("it does not involve claims about third parties"). That's BLP and SPS 101. The only way we can document what content at Substack says is the exact quotes from it that are cited by secondary and third-party RS. Without that, it has no due weight. No matter the author, there is zero editorial oversight or fact-checking. Treat it like a blogging diary. If what's written there is WP:ABOUTSELF, then, within the limits of that policy, it can be used in the author's bio here.

If an author or journalist wants to be cited here, let them publish their opinions and articles at an independent RS where fact-checking and independent editorial oversight rule. That does not happen on personal websites, and Substack accounts are just personal websites. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison:@Valjean:@Kashmiri:@Korny O'Near:@Endwise:@Spudst3r: @Horse Eye's Back: One may be annoyed as one wants about Seymour Hersh, but he has "exceptional professionalism". Please perceive: Rising INTERVIEWS SEYMOUR HERSH: Journalist DEFENDS Reporting on US DESTRUCTION of Nord Stream, The Hill, 23 February 2023 → And be aware: Hersh's "editor" was Christian Lorentzen, with whom Hersh had already worked at the London Review of Books, and he also employed "fact checkers". Best regards --91.54.23.59 (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

We demand publication in "independent" reliable sources (and YouTube is not such a source), "independent" fact-checking, and "independent" editorial oversight. All of that comes with publishing on mainstream RS, not on fringe sources or self-published sources (SPS). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It's published on The Hill TV, which uses the YT platform for video distribution. The Hill was an independent, mainstream reliable source last time I checked (see WP:THEHILL). — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Rising is a talk show, its opinion based news entertainment content. Not the same as their hard news side. Similar splits exist in almost every news channel, see MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News for examples. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Unable to edit this page

I tried to make a small grammatical edit to this page, but it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 76.190.213.189 (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

As this article is under editing restrictions per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War, only registered, extended-confirmed (EC) editors can edit directly on the article. Do share what grammatical edit that you would like to make and an EC editor will make the necessary changes. – robertsky (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask where my edits went?

I pointed out a user's incorrect use of a source earlier and the bias this allowed in the discussion. My post appears to be deleted now. Can I ask why? 202.52.36.58 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, your post was in violation of talk page guidelines. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The answer to your question is WP:PA. Your claim "I pointed out a user's incorrect use of a source" is a misleading description of what you did. You accused an editor of "lying" and "pushing an agenda". That's why your stuff was deleted and you (or rather your previous IP address) were blocked. See Special:Diff/1139937925, Special:Diff/1139937992, and User talk:202.52.36.51#February 2023. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

In case the OP (or others) are wondering: Another IP 122.150.92.52 (but presumably the same person) created another section that again contained personal attacks and didn't contribute to the improvement of the article. That section was deleted as well. Please focus on improving the article, not on particular users. See WP:AGF and WP:PA. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sachs

@Spudst3r - I undid your quote/summary of Jeffrey Sachs's statement that he had made in front of the UN Security Council, for a few reasons: (1) Per Jeffrey Sachs, he doesn't seem to be an expert in the subject of subversive operations or military capability; his quoted words thus reflected his beliefs rather than his expert knowledge. (2) If we insist on sources with editorial oversight, his speech likely didn't have an editorial oversight. (3) The meeting was called by one of the parties to the conflict (Russia) and therefore we can assume that Sachs was invited based on his opinions. I'm not sure he can be presented as an impartial expert.

Please don't get me wrong – I'm open to all explanations, including the US doing the bombing, and it's only good to have those different theories reflected in the article whenever reported by RS. But we need to steer clear of promoting the narrative of any party, and Sachs's statement unfortunately didn't fit in this.

Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I added Sach's quote to open that section of the article because I think it reflects the consensus that most people have about this crime -- namely that this sabotage is a sophisticated crime that only a handful of state actors have the resources and access to the Baltic ocean to commit -- but a better source could be found for opening the section with such a statement. AFAIK the United Nations press release is RS though. I believe it's a secondary source as they are paraphrasing his statement. I assume that if a person is able to get their testimony to a body as important as the UN Security Council, their statement is notable. Spudst3r (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, thing is I'm not really convinced about that "handful of state actors", keeping in mind that remotely manned or autonomous undersea robots/submarines are in common use by literally hundreds of commercial and scientific entities, smuggling gangs and even terrorists[22]. I can imagine that planting a timebomb or a remotely controlled charge wouldn't be beyond their capabilities.

In contrast, an operation achievable only to state actors was the 2021 Natanz blast [23].

Sachs is attempting to point at the "handful of state actors" who accessed that part of the Baltic Sea around that time. Which it seems is his personal (uninformed) opinion rather than a result of any investigation.

Re. SC meeting reports, yeah, I think we can normally use them, but contentious matters may need very strong sourcing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting citation with that Syria example. I would be extremely surprised if those "militants" mentioned in that source did not have resources given to them by other state actors though. Virtually every major combatant in the Syrian civil war is receiving some form of military assistance from other state actors. e.g. Syria itself, Russia, Turkey or the U.S.

With NordStream, details that suggest that only a handful of state actors could have done it is that the attackers planted and remotely detonated in coordination at least three separate set of explosives. (A detail not emphasized enough in the article IMO). Corporate actors face the risk of criminal liabilities that state actors just don't. Basically, any commercial actor with the resources (including the illegal ability to acquire restricted explosives) to actually pull off this sort of sabotage... likely has the lobbying power to just have a state military supply or do that dirty work for them. I don't have a source for what I said above, but I think it's where most people's heads are at. Spudst3r (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Likelihood aside, I object to Sachs's assertion that only a few state actors have such a capacity. Just like autonomous underwater vehicles are in wide commercial use, so electronic detonators with millisecond precision are commercially available and in wide use in the mining and civil engineering industries[24][25][26]. I'm quite sure it doesn't require a state actor to assemble three or four timed charges and get them a mere 100m underwater, and it doesn't require sophisticated camouflage for an inflatable speedboat to go unnoticed in the middle of a sea, as evidenced by the daily migrant crossings of the Channel or the Mediterranean.

Sure, this is speculation and perhaps OT, but this makes me not to consider Sachs an expert voice here (besides, his blog includes some factual mistakes strongly indicative of pro-Russian bias).

Re. Syria – I agree. Still, see above re. non-state capabilities. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Press releases are treated as primary sources. That is especially true in cases where the body is publishing testimony given to that body. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it's ok to use primary sources for this type of uncontroversial information. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Its ok to use a questionable primary sources for information about themselves, they can't be used for information about third parties or events in which the individual was not involved (for example Jeffrey Sachs about the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage). BTW what makes you think its uncontroversial information? It appears to be highly controversial Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

SC reports can be used as sources on what SC does (per ABOUTSELF). As here. Still, I don't think Sachs should be included primarily due to him not being a subject matter expert. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What is a SC report? It could be used as a source for the fact that Sachs was at the UN (but only on either a page about Sachs or the UN, not here), it can't be used as a source for claims he made about third parties or events he wasn't directly a part of (aka everything he spoke about) even on his own page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It can't be used as a source of reliable information about the blasts but it can be used to confirm that a meeting took place, that a Mr Sachs was among speakers, and that that Mr Sachs said so and so at the meeting. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but only on Jeffrey Sachs or a UN page. It can't be used for that here because this page isn't about either of those things. Also to be clear it can only be used for "Mr Sachs said so and so" as long as "so and so" are not claims about third parties or events in which the subject was not a participant (for example anything to do with the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: - To clarify: Jeffrey Sachs did not give "testimony." What happened is, Russia invited Sachs and Ray McGovern (two political activists) to 'tell' (not testify) the UN their personal, and uninformed, opinions on Russia's behalf. Sachs & McGovern are political activists who are not experts in underwater gas pipelines & not experts in underwater gas pipeline explosions. Their opinions on underwater gas pipeline explosions carry as much weight as mine. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't try to belittle Jeffrey Sachs by reducing him to "an activist". Huldra (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Testify can be used outside of the legal context [27]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:, yes, you are correct, "testify" can be used outside of the legal context. And under the non-legal & legal definition of "testify," Jeffrey Sachs did not testify. Sachs & McGovern 'briefed' the UN, 'addressed' the UN, 'spoke on behalf of Russia' to the UN, but did not testify to the UN. Best regards always~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"to give or afford evidence of in any manner." I would definitely say that falls under "in any manner." Testify doesn't mean its true any more than brief, or address does (of the three brief actually carries the most weight). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: that's the thing, Sachs did not "give or afford evidence." No evidence at all. Sachs & McGovern simply gave & afforded their uninformed opinions on behalf of Russia.

• Reuters writes "Russia has asked U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs, of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, to brief the Security Council." [28]
• UN press release says "Jeffrey D. Sachs, a professor at Columbia University, also briefed delegates" [29]

I'm not a wordsmith, but I do know you agree when I say we should use the words that the sources use, which in this case is 'brief' not testimony. Best regards always~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What word to use is not under discussion. That obsession is your own and is entirely tangential to whether we can use this primary source in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Words do matter - that said, I could not care any less what words anyone uses.

As for "primary source in this context": the way in which Spudst3r attempted to insert Sachs' comments are WP:OR, WP:VER, & WP:UNDUE.

Also there's the fact that Sachs is not an expert in underground gas pipelines, nor underground gas pipeline explosions. His uninformed opinions he gave on behalf of Russia to the UNSC carry as much weight as mine. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: 1.) You're mistaken, Sachs & McGovern did not "testify" to the UN. As I stated elsewhere, Russia invited both Sachs & McGovern to tell the UN their personal and uninformed opinion on behalf of Russia. Their uninformed opinions carry as much weight & are as notable as mine. [30] [31]

2.) Also, the way in which you attempted to include the non-expert opinions of Jeff Sachs & Ray McGovern are WP:OR & WP:UNDUE & WP:VER. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison if Gerhard Schindler's speculation can be quoted accusing Russia at length (which you recently added to the article), then so can Ray McGovern. Ray McGovern is a former CIA officer. Gerhard Schindler is a retired civil servant. That you disagree with Ray McGovern politics doesn't change the fact that Russia thought the testimony of a former CIA agent was notable enough to present to the UN Security Council. Both are government subject matter experts according to your own definition. Spudst3r (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: You're wrong about Gerhard Schindler. Gerhard Schindler is the former head of Germany's Federal Intelligence Service (BND) and he is still active in Germany's & all of EU's national security.

• The way you attempted to include the comments that Russia asked Jeff Sachs & Ray McGovern to make on their (Russia's) behalf, (and which are not covered by RS) is WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:UNDUE.
• RS reported Gerhard Schindler's reaction so I included what RS wrote, and it makes sense that I included what RS wrote; especially since Gerhard Schindler retired from the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) 7 years ago & he is still active in Germany's & all of EU's national security.
• Ray McGovern is a political activist who publishes regularly in Russia's state-owned Sputnik News and Russia Today (RT). Both Sputnik & RT are described as disinformation & propaganda outlets for Russia [32] McGovern retired from CIA 33 years ago, in 1990.

McGovern is not still active in US national security & hasn't been since 1990. But, he is very active in Russian state-owned media. Although, I'm pretty sure that Sputnik & RT are not reliable source as far as wiki is concerned. Best Regards~

BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is headed to a sorry state if the only sources we can cite about this sabotage are government national security officials who qualify as experts only because they are still on the "right" side of the government's they worked for. Scientists, investigational journalists and notable university professors in international relations and national security experts more broadly should qualify as experts for an article like this, provided any statements they make are given DUE coverage relative to their notability.

Gerhard Schindler and Ray McGovern are closer to being similar-level experts than you are implying. McGovern has wrote intelligence briefings for the President of the United States. Russia picked him as an expert to testify at the UN Security Council. 7 years versus 33 years retired is an arbitrary distinction. Furthermore, why is being a "political activist" disqualifying? I can play the same game for Gerhard Schindler, whose tenure in Germany created scandals RE: NSA spying that led to multiple political parties in Germany calling for his resignation. Reasonable people, and Germany's own elected politicians, can and have questioned Gerhard's impartiality and closeness to the United States security apparatus. That's a pretty relevant bias for an article like this one, which we are tasked to follow WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW.

Personally I do not see how including Gerhard Schindler's pro-U.S. speculation can be NPOV for this article, if we also exclude other intelligence expert speculation like Ray McGovern. Spudst3r (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: It sure does speak volumes when you say you can "play the same game" -- especially since your first paragraph is complaining that wiki editors have to follow wiki policies for this, and all, articles (And that means no WP:OR, no WP:VER & no WP:UNDUE).

Gerhard Schindler & Ray McGovern are nothing alike, not even close.

• Gerhard Schindler is still involved in Germany's & all of EU's national security. He retired 7 years ago and RS reported his reaction & the reaction of other former heads of BND.
• Ray McGovern is a political activist who regularly publishes on Russia state-run media Sputnik & RT. He has not been involved in US national security since 1990 and Nord Stream did not even exist in 1990. He is not an expert on Nord Stream or Nord Stream explosion so his Russian-backed opinions on Nord Stream carry as much weight as mine. He retired 33 years ago when USSR had not completely fallen & there was no such thing as Nord Stream. He prepared the Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB) for Nixon & Ford - ages & ages ago.
• One more thing, Schlinder's reaction that was reported by RS is much more relevant than say a Seymour Hersh who has no experience in Nord Stream, no experience Nord Stream explosion, no experience in any intel agency, and whose blog post is WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:AGEMATTERS, and possibly WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL.

RS have reported on Schindler's reaction. RS have not reported on McGovern's reaction. So, if you want to include the reaction of the political activist, Russian state-run media personality Ray McGovern has to say about Nord Stream, then find some RSes. And just stop with the WP:OR. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"RS have not reported on McGovern's reaction". Is that so? Both Sachs and McGovern's UN testimony are mentioned by RS (via WP:WAPO)

I'm not finding much RS covering Schindler's NordStream speculation. Or that he is still involved in Germany's national security anymore than McGovern is involved in Russia's now. I do find articles like this, stating: "Schindler, 63, came under pressure a year ago when it emerged that the BND had gone against German interests and spied on European partners at the request of the US National Security Agency."

The paragraph for Schindler as it is arguably WP:UNDUE and not WP:VER, especially relative to the Hersh development which received way more coverage by RS and led to a formal hearing at the UN Security Council. Spudst3r (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• RS wrote about & covered Gerhard Schindler's reaction here [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

You're either grabbing for straws or "playing that game" you spoke of earlier when you allege Schindler's reaction is WP:UNDUE, WP:VER

• There is no "Hersh development."

There is a "Hersh blog" that is WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL.

• RS have debunked Hersh's blog [42] [43]
• And RS at the time Hersh posted his blog, describes his blog as being fringe & playing into Russian propaganda. RS report that Hersh's blog includes details that no or other media outlets were able to verify.
• RS has no coverage of McGovern's reaction to the explosion.

BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Lol, you are joking, aren't you? no:Filter Nyheter is a RS? FYI, it does not get Press support (which every RS in Norway gets.) And the argument that the Vietnam war was over while Stoltenberg was a teenager is disingenous, at best; Stoltenberg became a member of The youth wing of the Labour Party 14 years old, around ~1973 (His father, Thorvald Stoltenberg had several Labour minister post). I don't know what Jens Stoltenberg opinion was about the Vietnam War, but that he had an opinion: that I am 100% sure of. Everybody in the The youth wing of the Labour Party (and most young people outside that party) had an opinion about the Vietnam War in the early 1970s. The no:Filter Nyheter-source should really be taken out of this article. Huldra (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Huldra: The article correctly states that Stoltenberg was a teenager (16 years old) when the Vietnam War ended, "The writer [Hersh] also links Norway's role to the fact that Jens Stoltenberg is NATO chief, and describes Stoltenberg as someone "who has cooperated with American intelligence since the Vietnam War" and has had the full confidence of the United States ever since. (Stoltenberg was not born when the Vietnam War started, was 16 when it ended and stated as AUF leader as late as 1985 that the youth party was working to withdraw Norway from NATO)."

  In America, and in Norway, a 16 year old, (and 14 year old) are "teenagers."

  So Filter Nyheter is 100% accurate in their reporting on that. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic.

Following BetsyRMadison’s activities on this talk page and edits to the sabatoge page plus all the nord stream pages, why is this biased editor allowed here? Clearly acting as a biased and tendentious editor Observer157 (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC) We can't really ban them - they have the same right to comment here as anyone else. But I'm as frustrated as you with their POV-pushing, manipulative techniques and smears bordering libel. — kashmīrī TALK 17:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC) The account's contributions are almost exclusively Russia/Ukraine/Biden related since March 2022. It had a 9 month hiatus prior to that, so is likely assigned among a panel of propagandists. Shtove (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say

Hi there,

is someone already working on including these developments?

Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?unlocked_article_code=OTBo_BTXTu3h5Kfg2QL1zGMhtwHniS0FDra3giNNgIY6bn8qWgxqpaxA8zZa0al--Ux5gpGsiwqZ6tN8Wr5idIxVrr4hFvpGBxNBVEZ09pDTULNjFxPeI2_mEkrUeyMnm-X13WCqIc9AM9Fs0kiFhcdWEvbKY-4FQfLbNzT4kwlNvib8BZmdzqH5n54UdnNBMmKq67FNGuKuEbRrQLFMXhzDK_RjilTz-9gbBRQw0UI8XkH34RYwxYQpFHdIrFQF4bY0KANNbW1cfYwNZYTetysgIN8jUURzC7QwAmFekAG_EDxqjj3OgZzviUygLtPJ-mQWFlwgsjrk5LbAJUlHxebaxl___d-aEELK6ANmOECTJpA

Kind regards, Leeel Leeeel (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Leeeel of course not, that goes against the pre-selected narrative. that's why they made it so that only "extend confirmed" users, aka people who have conformed to the prevailing ideology for enough time to be completely reformed, to edit the page.

Also lovely how the report says "it's a pro-ukraine group" but refuses to name names. sounds like someone has something to hide. after all the US government is "a pro-ukraine group" so they technically told us the truth without actually telling us. not that any of this matters anyway, wikipedia is no longer interested in truth, only in what "reliable sources" say. if the new york times says it then it's true, even if it makes no sense or is clearly not telling the full story 87.1.18.129 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Joke's on you, this has been included quite promptly, despite the lizard people controlling Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2023

Wrong year for the latest edit about the NYT article about pro Ukrainian group. It's March 2023, not 2022. Leeeel (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Lizthegrey (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request - claims by Russian Federation at UN & sourcing

Hello, I contributed what was partially undone here on 12 Feb:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage&diff=1139016784&oldid=1139011007

There is a citation of https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc15047.doc.htm which was removed. This is a press release by the UN. Another source was removed, which is a video of the discussion posted by the official UN YouTube account - permitting the video source is a different question but it's tangential to this edit request since the proposed changes rely solely on the press release.

The editor removed the press release document and then "trimmed to RS" the paragraph to the remaining source which lacks the content which was provided. This removes a significant level of detail to the claim and article. Implicit in the removal is that a UN press release is not a reliable source (unless there is another reason that can be given), I don't agree with this.

I would like the following to be changed:

A re-addition of the UN press release source and changing the following paragraph from

"At a United Nations Security Council meeting convened for the incident, Russian Federation representative Vasily Nebenzya suggested that the United States was involved in the pipeline damage. Deutsche Welle fact check concluded that the Russian claim "that an American helicopter was responsible for the gas leaks is untenable and misleading." The helicopter never flew along the pipeline and the gas leak areas were at least 9 and 30 km away, respectively, from its flight path."

To

"At a United Nations Security Council meeting convened for the incident, Russian Federation representative Vasily Nebenzya suggested that the United States was involved in the pipeline damage. Nebenzya referenced June 2022 NATO operations (BALTOPS) around the Baltic sea, including tests of unmanned underwater vehicles in the area, and claimed that open data showed US helicopter flight paths coincided with the gas pipelines. He added that the pipeline damage made European States dependent on United States' liquefied gas suppliers. Deutsche Welle fact check concluded that the Russian claim "that an American helicopter was responsible for the gas leaks is untenable and misleading." The helicopter never flew along the pipeline and the gas leak areas were at least 9 and 30 km away, respectively, from its flight path." Grandeth (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Patrushev

In a rather surprising turn of events, Patrushev dismissed the "Ukrainian yacht" version[44]

If the newspapers are saying with pathos that the sabotage was committed by a group of Ukrainian terrorists, one must ask whether there is one at all. Ukrainian terrorists, one has to ask the question whether there is one at all and whether it is and whether it is capable of doing so. After all, it is no secret that special units are designed for It is not a secret that special purpose units with appropriate equipment and training are meant to carry out such actions. with appropriate equipment and training. The US and Britain certainly have them. The US and Britain have them

(would add but insufficient access level) Santorini36 (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo in section “Aftermath”, subsection “Environmental impact”

The string “mectric” should become the word “metric”. Тони Стоев (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

China is with Hersh's investigation

"It's the first time the Chinese have openly backed Hersh's investigation, which blames Washington for destroying the pipelines." ... "According to Hersh, the American president doubted the willingness of Germany and the Europeans to continue to provide military and financial support to Ukraine during the winter." *China macht die USA erstmals für Anschlag auf Nord Stream verantwortlich, Berliner Zeitung, 15. March 2023, 87.170.199.139 (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Gas prices jumped 12 percent

The article states: "On 27 September 2022, European gas prices jumped 12 percent after news spread of the damaged pipelines"

Could anybody submit an angle on that subject to the article. For instance, have there been investigations into suspicious transactions or the construction of positions in equity, futures or options preceding the sabotage?77.60.121.89 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Saturation dives

To dive as deep as needed for this kind of sabotage you need decompression chambers, special dive equipment and compressors. I seriously doubt whether a small team of 6 on a small yacht can perform such a difficult and dangerous task. Unless they didn't care about themselves, but that would be contrary to the theory of ukranian terrorists which states there was a doctor on board.77.60.121.89 (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss the event, sorry. However, we can talk here about reliable sources and improvements to the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Missing quotes from Victoria Nuland and Anthony Blinken

Why is there censorship and selective reporting going on? Wiki is basically compromised. Please add in these direct quotes about the nord stream explosion by Nuland and Blinken. Quotes and sources below. …

Direct quote by Victoria Nuland to Ted Cruz in a US Senate Hearing, about the ‘hunk of metal’. https://www.newsweek.com/sergei-lavrov-us-nord-stream-pipeline-attack-1778499?amp=1

… Official US State Department statement by Blinken calling Nord Stream destruction a ‘tremendous opportunity’ https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-canadian-foreign-minister-melanie-joly-at-a-joint-press-availability/ Observer157 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You are distorting what was being said. Blinken said the following: Europe itself has taken very significant steps to both decrease demand but also look at ways to pursue the transition to renewables at the same time. And ultimately this is also a tremendous opportunity. It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. Blinken did not call the explosion a tremendous opportunity. BeŻet (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the full quote reveals a distortion? The "this" in "this is also a tremendous opportunity" is in response to nordstream going offline, no? Spudst3r (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the word "this" doesn't refer to the previous sentence in the quote? Jbohmdk (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jbohmdk How about the question Blinkin is answering? The question he was answering is precisely about the sabotage of NordStream:

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Thank you both for doing this today. On the subject of Nord Stream, Secretary and Minister, regardless of responsibility, obviously the energy supply situation in Europe is bad and only going to get worse as a result of this. I’m wondering if the two of you spoke at all today about what your two countries can do either independently or collectively to help to ease some of that pressure. And is there a heightened sense of danger in light of that if we’re talking about providing supplies – shipping supplies across the ocean, is it as simple as that or is it more complicated now as a result of these attacks?

Or just look closer at the "this" Blinken is talking about:

And ultimately this is also a tremendous opportunity. It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come, but meanwhile, we’re determined to do everything we possibly can to make sure that the consequences of all of this are not borne by citizens in our countries or, for that matter, around the world.

The context is clearly about the NordStream pipeline being sabotaged. Spudst3r (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

All of this is natural language, not maths, coding, symbols, etc. "This" obviously refers to "this whole new situation" – the guy presented the new situation, of a definitive end of Russian supply to Europe, as an opportunity for the continent. This is a pretty common corpospeak: "Markets are down, but this is also a tremendous opportunity". It's a bit naive to blow it out of proportion, seek hidden codes and messages, etc. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That may be fair. My sense is that it's best for the article to just quote this notable response in a neutral manner, which accurately presents the reaction of the U.S. to this "whole new situation" and people can make up their own minds. Spudst3r (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Photos

Any fellow Danish friends know of a source we can use to cite the picture of the actual explosion? For example, the photo found here that many other newspapers have cited? Also, there's a picture of the antenna that the Danish authorities have found recently, is there any sources others have encountered for that? Fephisto (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a news site. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The pictures of the explosion have been around a while now. The one I cited is from 4-5 months ago. Fephisto (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Note that this picture is allegedly from the Swedish investigation of the 2 explosions in their economic zone, not the 2 explosions in the Danish economic zone. So try looking for Swedish government press releases that may include that photo.Jbohmdk (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I was able to hunt for some stills this way. It turns out that the pictures of the actual damage came from a private Swedish company, so I don't think we'll be able to use it. I did find a Danish defense photo of the actual gas leak, though. However, I'm trying to find their cc licensing details. Fephisto (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggested edit: Split largest sections along current subsections

helsinkitimes

US and Norway blew up the Nord Stream Pipelines: Seymour Hersh https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/22973-us-and-norway-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines-seymour-hersh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:800C:1806:6567:14F2:B6CD:E6FD:932D (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Feb 7, 2022: During a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the Whitehouse, President Biden is asked about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: The first question first. If Germany — if Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the — the border of Ukraine again — then there will be — we — there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.

Q But how will you — how will you do that exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control?

PRESIDENT BIDEN: We will — I promise you, we’ll be able to do it. "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." When asked how, the president says, "I promise you, we will be able do that."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/07/remarks-by-president-biden-and-chancellor-scholz-of-the-federal-republic-of-germany-at-press-conference/

C-SPAN 1.21M subscribers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 81.241.224.173 (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

To ease navigation, I propose splitting up the large sections titled "Cause" and "Aftermath" by changing the subsections "Investigations" "Speculation" and "Environmental Impact" into top level sections. This would also change the subsubsections into subsections. In doing so I propose no changes to the actual contents. Naturally this would have to be done by a privileged editor due to the justified protection against adding one-sided narratives. Jbohmdk (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Investigations and Speculation refer both to the cause. I agree with having Environmental impact separately, though. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The remaining "Cause" section isn't really about the cause, merely public reactions to the event. Anyway, the large section about "Investigations", if lifted to top level, might be renamed to "Investigations of cause", if you insist on that. Jbohmdk (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. I agree with Kashmiri that the Cause section is fine as-is, and that environmental impact should be its own top-level section. Jbohmdk, please ping me when you reply to this thread. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I no longer recall what wizards or templates I used when trying to comply with the rules for protected pages, however I deliberately titled this a "suggested edit" to invite discussion to obtain a variant with consensus behind it, and I have tried to argue accordingly with very few responses besides Actualcpscm's bureaucratic complaint about procedure. Thus I would like to keep the discussion open foe now. Jbohmdk (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Jbohmdk In this case, the issue is that there is an editor who objected to your suggestion. You don't need to conjure up 20 editors who agree with you to achieve consensus, but the edit can't be implemented when there is an unresolved explicit disagreement. If I were you, I'd have pinged Kashmiri to get some feedback on your argument. The discussion is open, but using edit request templates to attract discussion is discouraged. If Kashmiri does not get back to us within a reasonable time frame, and nobody else disagrees with your suggestion, then you can re-open the request. Thanks :) Actualcpscm (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I gave rewriting the speculation a shot before. please take a look. Fephisto (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Russian tracks

https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/aussenpolitik/id_100149758/nord-stream-russia-may-have-operated-a-submarine-before-the-explosions.html

details, arguments, evidence (satellite photos) ... 62.143.251.224 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, this might be worth adding under the Russian section assuming this newspaper meets the inclusion criteria for notability. Spudst3r (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

More on this: NDR.de? KurtR (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2023

change April 12 2022 to 2023 regarding Trump’s statement 2603:6011:A804:DA4:181F:35C0:55DD:3F93 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Quoting Putin in the lead

Diff. Is quoting Putin in the lead WP:DUE? Lead should summarize body. Also in my opinion this plants a seed for the reader that Russia didn't do it, when in fact Russia is one of the suspects. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see how quoting Putin in the lede there makes sense Tristario (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I have moved it to the body. Prolog (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, in the lede should not be declarations of the countries. Mhorg (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Reordering the "Speculation" section

According to the latest news on the matter, I think it is right to give the sub-sections a new order. According to the latest sources, the fact that Russia was behind the sabotage has become among the least plausible,[45] so I think it is correct to move it to last. Mhorg (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Does this look any better? Fephisto (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That table was not bad at all. Taking care that there is no OR, for me it could be restored and expanded. Mhorg (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not know whether that table is a wiki standard, however. For now, I will proceed with changing the order of the accused countries. Mhorg (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I would completely redraft the section into sections and sub-sections based on a temporal timeline. It is confusing for the sections to be "by country". e.g. the first section could be "Initial speculations on Russian responsibility", the Hersh article could be somewhere in the Middle, then the Ukrainian responsibility article on Washington Post and finally Swedish rebuttal.Without the temporal dimension all of this is very confusing. --Qayqran (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the important thing, however, is to make the reader understand how the focus has shifted to different countries over time. Mhorg (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tristario, about this comment,[46] it was discussed here with @Qayqran and @Fephisto. In my opinion something has to be done about that section because the suspicions about Russia are reduced to a minimum. Only those Nordic public broadcasters' reports are still talking about it... the vast majority of the speculation one reads now about this case does not point to Russia and this should be reflected in the article. Mhorg (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Why exactly do we need to make a special exception for Russia when it comes to the heading? There is no leading group that is suspected to have done it, you could make that argument about the other groups too. And the speculation of the involvement of Russia is clearly not initial. So that shouldn't be the heading. Tristario (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Washington Post article, new accusations against Ukraine: "U.S. had intelligence of detailed Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream pipeline." and "Biden administration officials now privately concede there is no evidence that conclusively points to Moscow’s involvement".[47] I am increasingly convinced that that section on speculation needs to be rewritten, because spculations about Russia are now at a minimum in the public debate while it is the first to appear in our Wikipedia article. Only Ukraine and the US are mentioned in first class sources. Mhorg (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The best sources and evidence point towards Ukraine, via the German investigation. The investigation is still ongoing, but they are at the point of having people's names, DNA evidence, shell companies owned by the Ukrainian secret service, radio beacon tracking data, etc.. it's increasingly looking bad for Ukraine from a forensics POV. For latest source (June 10) see section below via WSJ. -- GreenC 03:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's don't jump to conclusions. Whatever is being reported today as "hard evidence", might be reported as incorrect next week. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a summary of yesterday's news. Whatever various media claim, we can only report on that, if relevant, as dispassionately and objectively as possible. It's not up to Wikipedia to evaluate supposed evidence, especially if relying on media pieces that form part of a propaganda war (and currently a large proportion of European and US media, wittingly or unwittingly, relay war propaganda of either side). — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Seni protected edit requst - Russian ships Sibiryakov and SB-123

Can an authenticated editor take a look at the BBC page https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65461401 and mention the presence of three Russian ships, Sibiryakov, SB-123 and one unidentified ship, all operating in in the area with their transmitters switched off. Thanks. 92.8.55.100 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks for mentioning this Tristario (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

I have seen the investigation by the Nordic public broadcasters DR, NRK, SVT, and Yle and would like to expand with more detailed information from it in the section "Involvement by Russia".

This is the information I would like to add:

"On 3 May 2023 an investigation called “Skuggkriget” (Shadow War) by the Nordic public broadcasters DR, NRK, SVT, and Yle described "highly unusual" movements by ships thought to include Russian ships such as the tugboat SB-123, naval research vessel Sibiryakov, and another unspecified ship from the naval fleet. These ships had their transmitters for the Automatic identification system (AIS) turned off, and were reported to be in the area of the explosions between June up until 22 September, 2022.

One of the investigative journalists working for DR, Niels Fastrup, spoke to an English source who wished to be anonymous and who was given the alias “James”. James is a former British royal navy communications officer who has worked with signal intelligence in his earlier career, and he has recorded radio communication between ships in both the Baltic Sea and the English Channel. This communication entails both contact between ships and their location. James used the Internet and open source intelligence like unencrypted and encrypted radio data in order to collect his data. By noticing suspicious activity in the communication and their location he could pinpoint ships and vessels which were in the area of the Nord Steam explosions sites and could thus have planted the equipment necessary for detonation. The data from this source was corroborated by satellite imagery from KSAT and Scandinavian imagery expert Tony Bauna. KSAT found 14 images that coincide with the radio data track of the vessel. In addition, high resolution optical photos of Sibirjakov from ports were found. The two vessels could, from this data, be pinpointed to being 3 km from the south explosion site and virtually precisely above the north explosion site. H.I. Sutton, a marine analyst expert, verifies the data collected by James to be credible and very suspicious activity by the concerned ships and vessels. It is important to note that this data cannot prove that Russia is behind the operations but the presence of these Russian vessels in the area during the time period, with their transmitting AIS turned off, is highly suspicious." Fredrik9999 (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The sources are the following and are hyperlinked in my text but disappeared in this request:

https://www.svtplay.se/uppdrag-granskning-skuggkriget

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-89.8/centery:46.9/zoom:8

https://www.ksat.no/ Fredrik9999 (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources you've given do not provide any information in regards to your edit request. Linking to a documentary, that is potentially lacking notability, fails WP:V. Callmemirela 🍁 21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

WSJ article on German investigation

• Pancevski, Bojan; Hinshaw, Drew; Parkinson, Joe (10 June 2023). "Nord Stream Sabotage Probe Turns to Clues Inside Poland". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-06-10.

I am impressed by the details revealed in this article about the German investigation. It's paywalled but the archive link is full. -- GreenC 03:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I have added it to the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Dutch intelligence tipped CIA on alleged Ukraine plan

Someone who has the required permissions should probably add this news article to the Speculation section. This is probably the "unnamed European intelligence agency" that The Washington Post reported (although stating it like that is probably original research). Vonkelonkel (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2023

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: Procedural close. This request may only be made by an extended-confirmed user per WP:GS/RUSUKR. (non-admin closure) {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

---

2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage → Nord Stream pipelines sabotage – There were two pipelines damaged, hence pipeline should be plural. Also possibly doesn't need year, per WP:NOYEAR.. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extended confirmed users are not allowed to participate in internal project discussions on articles related to the war. —Michael Z. 22:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2023

Please change

On 8 February 2023, American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published an article on his Substack page in which he alleged that the attack was ordered by the White House and carried out utilizing American and Norwegian assets.

To

On 8 February 2023, American Pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published an article on his Substack page in which he alleged that the attack was ordered by the White House and carried out utilizing American and Norwegian assets.

49.182.83.144 (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Is this really necessary? The Pulitzer Prize is mentioned in the second sentence of his article, if anyone wants to know more. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Investigations: Separate section Reactions in addition to subsection Speculation

As noted by HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith the Investigations subsection Speculation contains information that has no bearing on the investigations of the sabotage, trying to address this caused a revert by Mhorg. I think it would be helpful to not actually include in the Investigations section statements from people that have no actual involvement in the investigation and who are therefore merely reacting to the events. Since some of the reactions are covered by WP:RS and come from notable individuals, then I think this information should not simply be removed, but rather moved to a separate section 'Reactions' - placed in the article on the same level as the 'Investigations'. How about that? Lklundin (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This could be an interesting solution. The problem is that these reactions would then have to be separated for the different trails that the investigators are following. Isn't that a bit confusing? Mhorg (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree. The whole "Involvement of the United States" section is full of random statements by individuals with zero evidence and varying levels of reliability. Sergey Lavrov is another person who really should not be put on the same level of prominence as the legitimately compelling evidence and perspectives that either Ukraine or Russia did it. The only semi-credible person in the section is Seymour Hersh, who himself has become increasingly discredited for his use of unverifiable anonymous sources with wild tales that get disproven by OSINT weeks later. HappyWith (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, good.

I hope general agreement can be found regarding what it then means to 'have no actual involvement in the investigation'. The investigation of Seymour Hersh relies on a single anonymous source, but plenty of WP:RS take his word for having such a source. So I would expect the info related to him to remain where it is. On the other hand, former POTUS Donald Trump who no longer has access to classified information does not seem to be taken seriously for having an informed opinion on the sabotage, so I would expect the information regarding him to move to the Reactions section. Statements from people like Radek Sikorski and Mykhailo Podolyak appear to be formed entirely on already publicly available information, so should go to the Reactions section.

Secondly, a bit of thought should go into how the Reactions section is best structured, with several types of individuals and kinds of organisations of varying importance reacting from all over the World. Considering the current mix, I think anyone's WP:BOLD's approach is likely to be an improvement. Having looked around, it seems the Reactions section should be placed before sections on Cause and Aftermath. Lklundin (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, I found also articles like Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 where a Reactions section comes more towards its end. Since for this article the Reactions seem less important than the Investigations, I have gone ahead and started a Reactions section (with country subsections) towards the end of the article. Let's see how that works. Lklundin (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to improve the article but I think that now it's not clear what goes to Causes#Speculation and what goes to Reactions. Sikorski, Trump or August Hanning definitely react to the sabotage, but they are also speculating about its cause. My concern is that without a clear scope of each section editors will just add stuff randomly and lead to general chaos. Alaexis_¿question? 06:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Is it possible that it is not helpful to have a section 'Speculation' under Causes? Maybe the information under Causes should be based on supporting evidence or otherwise discovered information that actually contribute to determining the causes, whereas as other statements could go under Reactions? At any rate, clearly separating the two may not be possible, but I think not trying to will surely obscure the actual information regarding the causes. Lklundin (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• As currently written, the section "Speculation" (Speculations?) includes some factual materials, some well-sources "theories" to explain facts (some of them are probably conspiracy theories) and bare accusations, not supported by anything. The bare unsupported accusations might be included to a section "Reactions", but they should not be included as Investigations and even Speculations. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Country-specific subsections create confusion, repeated information

Looking further at the large section 'Cause' I notice that the country-specific subsections make the article difficult for editors to maintain and consequently difficult for everyone to read. All countries (and non-national entities like NGOs and the media) contributing to the investigation are pursuing the same goal, so it it unclear to me how it helps to split the investigation into national subsections (that don't clearly divide the activity). What actually happens during editing is that the exact same source for pretty much the same information is inserted more than once into the article, and the unclear division into subsections is contributing to this. This is especially clear with respect to the investigation (from now many parties) regarding the actual ruptures of the pipes. It matters less if it is a German or Swedish operated underwater drone that films a ruptured pipe. So I suggest to move information out of these national subsections (and to remove subsections that end up being empty).

This applies even more to the subsection 'Speculation' (which is in itself an unfortunate, loaded word). I also think it is unhelpful here to structure the important information regarding the possible identity of the perpetrators into subsections of nationality. Because such a structure forces the placement of a given piece of information into a box with a specific allegation. The best example is the investigation of the leads related to the yacht 'Andromeda', which reportedly involves an address in Germany, a Polish company, citizens from Ukraine and a person with a Russian passport (and maybe more).

Case in point: the Andromeda investigation has now mushroomed to include one of the Ukrainian citizens being a suspected victim of identity theft which is in turn tied to a probably fake Romanian passport, another of the Ukrainian citizens being a somewhat shady but genuinely Ukrainian businessman who was under investigation before the attacks for fraud or tax evasion, an Uzbek who was possibly a majority partner of the aforementioned businessman and an assistant to Russian officials on Crimea being tied to the Russian passport as well as to a possibly fake Ukrainian one, yet another of the Ukrainian citizens supposedly being identified as Valerii Zaluzhnyi, and finally a probably fake Bulgarian passport that was apparently used by a man that spoke fairly fluent Polish.

It seems well warranted to re-sort the speculations per group as suggested below, before this escalates even further. It is well impossible to actually sort by nation, given the many suspected fake passports involved: Of the 3-4 "Ukrainian" nationals, at present only 1-2 have been confirmed to be genuine persons of Ukrainian nationality, and neither the "Romanian" nor the "Bulgarian" national seem genuine either... so if we'd sort by-country it would be well waranted to open an "Unknown nationality" section. But all of them are tied to the Andromeda investigation only. 2A02:908:4B33:BD80:2D56:B066:827D:80E (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Assigning this information to country-specific subsections is not helpful because it spreads connected information into separate subsections and combines other pieces of information that are actually unrelated.

Luckily, the reported suspicious activity falls into well separated groups:

• information related to the Andromeda yacht
• information regarding Russian naval ships
• Seymour Hersh's information (about US and Norwegian naval ships)

Excepted is a relatively small amount of other, notable suspicious activity, e.g. these (typically anonymous) tips from intelligence services about an impending attack.

Logically, if one of the above specific three is the perpetrator, then the other two are pretty much ruled out. This speaks for placing them at the same level in the article (e.g. in the above order).

So I think it would be an improvement to reorganize the information about the suspicious activity into the above groups, each in its subsection. It would certainly make it easier for editors to determine where to insert new information. They could be placed as subsections in a new section called e.g. 'Allegations'. This would replace the subsection Speculation - and a lot of information from the 'Cause' section could go to 'Allegations'. Naturally, actual allegations regarding people/entities of specific nationality would remain in the reorganized article text. If a new, notable lead is reported, it can go into its own, new section.

Among the many cited sources, there tend to be a pretty united view regarding the actual explosions and the investigations of the seabed. So this could stay in 'Cause' which would then focus more specifically on what caused the pipelines to rupture and not who did it - which seems much more difficult to describe.

Hoping not to leave anyone interested out, I ping various recent/active editors for input. @Mhorg, My very best wishes, Endwise, Alaexis, Ânes-pur-sàng, and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: What do you think? Lklundin (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

In general I like this approach. It was me who created the subsections for each country's investigation because 1) before that it was chronological and it was even harder to understand what was going on and 2) because none of the countries doing the investigation collaborate with each other [48]. But your approach is better, it just involves much more work.

Regarding the second group, in addition to the Russian naval vessels, there were Danish, Swedish, American and German vessels in the area at the time of the sabotage, with some of them straying from their usual patrolling routes. Information.dk talks about it in some detail "Apparently, both Denmark and Sweden are patrolling according to a pattern that is far from normal. It is not a place where neither the Swedes nor the Danes usually come out. The normal picture on a completely normal day in September is that something like this doesn't happen,' he says. google-translated from this article. Therefore I would probably give a more neutral name to that subsection, until the results of the Danish and Swedish investigations are available. Alaexis_¿question? 21:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, good points. It is true, before the sabotage the area did see quite some naval activity from several countries. We could shorten the name of the subsection with that info to 'Naval ships'. Lklundin (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC) PS. There is no implied criticism of the original subsectioning, which in fact was natural given the separate, national investigations. Lklundin (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this Danish article has a lot of highly detailed info on the out-of-bounds Danish naval activity of September 22: https://www.information.dk/indland/2023/04/forsvaret-bekraefter-rusland-specialfartoej-naer-nord-streams-spraengningspunkt 02:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Speculations: Involvement of Russia

Hi, perhaps some editor can add a bit of information to this section:

In July 2023 RTL and n-tv reported that the above-mentioned yacht Andromeda believed by German investigators to have played a role in the sabotage had been rented by a company owned by a named woman originally from Uzbekistan, who holds a Russian and a Ukrainian passport, who is registered to an address in Kerch on the Russia annexed peninsula Crimea and who in June 2023 was posting to social media from Krasnodar in Russia. Commenting on these findings, member of the German Bundestag and Oberst (retired) Roderich Kiesewetter stated that "Russia was involved in this attack".[95]

I have in my Web download dump an image file that seems to be a b/w scan of a photocopy of a passport. I downloaded it on July 12 2023, I think either from Twitter comment or from a news article on the RTL/n-tv investigation.
It is an Ukrainian passport no. FV663325 of a female named Diana, family name illegible but supposedly starting with "B" (as per file name). Dark, longish hair, DOB June 8 1990, country of birth Uzbekistan.
The intriguing thing is that its date of issue is July 2019. I do not know if it can be determined where the passport was applied from; the issuing authority is "8012" but that might be the place where the application was processed rather the place where it was made.

It is certain, however, that in Kerch, Crimea, no legitimate Ukrainian passports were issued anymore in July 2019, and in fact trying to do so would have gotten you arrested and charged with serious crimes.

This passport is remarkable and would seem to warrant a more detailed mention in the above-mentioned paragraph, if it indeed is the one referred to there. Perhaps a regular editor can try to locate the source of the image so it can be linked to the Wikipedia article (I do not have a Twitter account). I would suggest trying "diana"/"diana b" + "nord stream" as search strings, and maybe + "kerch" or "krasnodar". And also try "Диана" and "Діана", I do not even remember if it was an English source, it may well have been some Ukrainian or Russian remarking on it out on Twitter.

As for how to phrase this information in the article, if there is nothing in the source that can be cited directly, perhaps add after source 95 the following: "Remarkably, the woman's Ukrainian passport has a date of issue of July 2019, meaning it could not have been legitimately issued in Kerch (or anywhere else in Russian-controlled territory)." and then simply cite the image source, plus a source for the Russian decree prohibiting the issue of Ukrainian passports in Crimea (maybe https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-crimea-russia-passports/25303107.html will do).

It is also significant that Krasnodar is the main Russian military/logistics hub at the mainland side of the Crimea Bridge supply route, and security is accordingly tight. Even being caught possessing an Ukrainian passport is likely to get you in trouble (it would get you in more trouble than it would in Kerch), and one has to expect occasional roadblocks and ID checks throughout the Krasnodar area. In that context, it is significant that unlike nearby military installations (eg Novorossiysk base) Krasnodar and its immediate surroundings have so far seen very few Ukrainian drone attacks and other activity related to pro-Ukrainian saboteurs/partisans, which indicates that security is indeed very tight there even though I found no direct reports by citeable sources.
This should be kept in mind if there is a follow-up on this woman; additional media reports might reflect on the extreme unlikelihood of a genuine pro-Ukrainian Nord Stream saboteur winding up in such a place of all places after the bombing and even posting on social media about it, and can be cited to that accord. It is surely remarkable that such a person would be in Russia at all, and it is outrageously unusual for her to be in the rear area of the Russian side of a war zone.

As an aside, in several other Nord Stream media reports I have seen throwaway references to this woman "not having an Ukrainian passport". Perhaps this is a case of lost-in-translation/transmission and originally meant "she has no GENUINE Ukrainian passport", which fit the data above.

Thanks in advance! 2A02:908:4B33:BD80:2D56:B066:827D:80E (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like a Ukrainian propaganda, no? 197.60.124.169 (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian Involvement

I just wanted to summarize WaPo's findings to date:

No conclusive evidence Russia is behind Nord Stream attack

U.S. had intelligence of detailed Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream pipeline

And now

Ukrainian military officer coordinated Nord Stream pipeline attack

The current article as written focuses heavily on pointing at Russian involvement. Given these recent new evidence, should that continue to be the case? As written, the article looks like misinformation. Fephisto (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources pointing in multiple opposing directions, then this article should reflect the apparent uncertainty. Wizmut (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hardly any sources point to the Russian trail anymore, so the article must reflect the general attitude in the world. Insisting on speculation without the support of evidence is wrong and the article must be rectified. Mhorg (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right. Articles like these grow by accretion and if we were to start writing it from scratch now it would've looked different. What changes do you propose? Alaexis_¿question? 10:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I've made an attempt here in my sandbox. I've removed a lot of the "This report said X's ship was near the area at Y date" speculations (in my opinion, many of these statements fall under SYNTH). I made the investigations part of the timeline section, attempted to condense down the speculation section to an "initial" speculations indicating the history of speculations regarding Russia or U.S. involvement and all of the reporting around the Hersh article because there was a lot of past talk page history about that, so I think it's historically important to keep that information there, and then made a more "current" section involving the recent WaPo and now Reuters reports. Fephisto (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! I think that the Speculation title doesn't really work for all the content of this section (the WP and Der Spiegel findings are based on an *investigation*), but I'm not sure what other title would work better. Alaexis_¿question? 21:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right. No idea what to try calling it though, either. Fephisto (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis: I busted out the thesaurus, how's it look now? Fephisto (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's better now, thanks! Probably, in a few months we'll see whether the version involving Chervinsky becomes the dominant one or is challenged, and also at some point all those official investigation are supposed to publish their results, then we'd have to re-work both Investigations and Analysis sections into one coherent narrative. Alaexis_¿question? 07:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2023

I think the beginning of this page is odd and aberrant. Why is the Washington Post's voice the only one provided when attributing blame? It reeks of bias, there should be multiple perspectives provided, and certainly not leaning entirely on one newspaper. Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead

I just happened to look at this page. This is a highly controversial story, with various sources making different, frequently mutually exclusive claims. Some say that journalists who published an article X fell victims of disinformation, etc. We can not rely so much on a single source in the lead. So, I just fixed it. More can be added to the lead, but then we should mention all existing hypotheses on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The majority of analyses and investigations in the various states put the Ukrainian trail. The Russian trail is no longer mentioned in the public debate about the sabotage, so this must be represented in the lede and the article in general. Your latest changes give equal visibility to a fringe point of view. Mhorg (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No, they do not. The corresponding section of this page includes subsections on Russia, Ukraine and US. The parts about Russia and Ukraine have similar size. If you want to include something, this should be about all three countries, but I doubt this is due in the lead, given that the actual perpetrators remains unknown. The Times reference currently used in the lead says: "US, Russia and even Britain have all been suspects". My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

In any case, this should be a summary of content on the page, not a single phrase arbitrary selected in the body of the page and copy-pasted to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to read the sources better. US intelligence reported the name of Ukrainian Roman Chervinsky, German investigators also named another Ukrainian affiliated with the nationalist youth organisation Sokil. The other "investigations" lead nowhere, they only say that Russian ships passed by in the previous days. Pure speculation. The whole world is talking about the Ukrainian trail, and you just wrote in the lede that all options are still open, which contrasts with what is reported in Western investigations.

I'm going to ping the other users who participated in drafting the stable version, which you just twisted.[49] Maybe they can make a positive contribution here @Alaexis @Fephisto @Wizmut Mhorg (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that WP:UNDUE is a concern, but not well-read enough on this topic to say which trail is the most prominent.

One way to be sure that only the most credited theory gets top billing is to use two or three sources for it right at the top, so MVBW has a legitimate complaint there. Wizmut (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Well, if you want to suggest including something to the lead which is a proper summary of the content of the page (I assume this should be along the lines "US, Russia and even Britain have all been suspects" as Times said), please post the suggested text here, and we can discuss it. The Chervinsky story is only described in a single small paragraph on the page, hence including him to the lead is definitely undue. This is an extremely controversial story, given that Roman Chervinsky was arrested, allegedly based on fabricated charges [50],[51]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mhorg: Given that the Danish Defence Command has made an official statement that they photographed multiple vessels suitable for mining the pipelines from the Russian Navy at the site of the sabotage four days prior to the explosions it is really not WP:NPOV to refer to Russia as a suspected perpetrator as a 'fringe point of view'. Lklundin (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we know precisely that the only investigation in the world casting suspicion on Russia is that Danish investigation, which proves nothing anyway. All it says is that there were ships present. Today is a fringe point of view, complete speculation without any evidence leading to Russia. All other investigations, especially the US and German ones, lead to the Ukrainian trail: names of persons, traces of explosives, boats, etc. are indicated. Mhorg (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Mhorg here. While Russia was cast as a suspect in the direct aftermath of the event, that theory was very quickly debunked as new information came in. Today, it makes no sense to give any prominence to those early accusations per WP:UNDUE. Being a long-standing editor you certainly know that section length does not reflect its importance but solely editors' willingness to create relevant content, which in such articles tends to be the highest as event unfolds. But today, I don't think the lead should even mention Russia as a possible perpetrator. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

These observations and their conclusions are wrong. No information in the media's use of unnamed sources has explained Russian Navy vessels presence in the area. Further, one cannot conflate these unnamed sources with an official government statement (corroborated by publicly available AIS data) regarding actual presence at the site of the sabotage. As such, it is WP:UNDUE to give prominence in the lede to the one theory put forward by the two WaPo journalists. Lklundin (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Kashmiri for your contribute. The presence of Russian ships are explained by Der Spiegel, talking about the German investigation. We have a part in article about this: "In August 2023 Der Spiegel claimed that German investigators tend to believe that the Russian Navy was near the pipeline in the days before the attack because they wanted to patrol it for protection, as Russia may have received information, as did the CIA and Dutch intelligence, on a possible sabotage plan".[52] Mhorg (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Anybody can come up with an explanation of the Russian Navy's presence at the site of the sabotage. The fact that a Spiegel article actually did so (again citing unnamed sources) does not debunk anything and claiming that it does consitutes WP:SYNTH. The objective fact is: We do not know who actually did the sabotage, and trying to deduct in this article who did perform the sabotage is WP:SYNTH. What we can do with this available information is to present the various, notable theories with their supporting sources. As such, giving one theory (from one source) prominence in the lede is WP:UNDUE. Lklundin (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The current version of the lead tells the following:

In June 2023, The Washington Post reported that the United States had intelligence of an Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream, and in November 2023 reported that Roman Chervinsky, a colonel in Ukraine's Special Operations Forces, had coordinated the Nord Stream pipeline attack

How on the Earth this is a correct summary of content on the page and in particular this section? Why this arbitrary selected article in Washington Post? Why not Times cited above? Why Chervinsky? Placing him in such misleading context in the lead can be even a BLP issue. Now, if we can not agree about it, I would post an RfC.My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

These are valid questions and as such the lede giving prominence to a single theory is not WP:BALANCED and it should not have been modified to its current state. I support that a change is needed. Lklundin (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Spiegel/WP investigation is the most recent and also the most specific. The Times article, on the other hands was published in February 2023 when less information was available. I think we can say in the lede that there were multiple suspects, but it's obvious that now the Ukrainians are the main suspects. Are there any non-Ukrainian sources that accuse Russia, or US for that matter, published after November 2023? Alaexis_¿question? 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

They must be after June 2023, i.e. after the cited publication in WaPo. Yes, of course there are many such sources. Let's just take 3 first recent RS retrieved by Google search for "2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage":

1. AlJazeera [53], September 23. However, despite official investigations in three countries, the question of who is responsible for the act of sabotage remains unanswered. Without hard evidence, many theories have emerged pointing the finger at Ukraine, Russia or the United States, all of which have denied involvement... “The identity of the perpetrators and their motives” remains the subject of ongoing investigations, Germany’s prosecution office told AFP news agency.... Danish media have reported a Russian naval vessel specialised in submarine operations, the SS-750, was photographed near the site of the blasts days before the attack.. It then includes section "Was it a false flag operation?" Experts have not ruled out a “false flag” operation by Russia, with clues deliberately placed to pin the blame on Ukraine., and "Moscow blames the US" (still blames the US!)
2. Reuters [54], September 26. So far, no one has taken responsibility for the blasts. Russia and the West have pointed fingers at each other. "Andromeda" Poland said there was no evidence to suggest that it was used as a hub for the sabotage. ... Germany, Denmark and Sweden told the U.N. Security Council on July 11 they could not say when their investigations would be concluded.
3. Guardian [55], September 26, 2023: Der Spiegel ... quoted investigators as saying the evidence all pointed at Kyiv’s involvement. There is debate, however, over whether a small crew of divers operating from a pleasure yacht would have been capable of carrying out the difficult, deep and slow dives necessary to place the explosives... A leaked US defence document, reported by the Washington Post... But the leaked US document said the planned operation had been put on hold.'

• None of these RS assert that the perpetrator was Ukraine or any other specific country. My very best wishes (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Al Jazeera article confirms my point. It does say that the perpetrator is unknown, which we also say. However then it gives much more weight to the "Ukrainian" version (7 paragraphs and a picture) than to the Russian and US ones (1 paragraph each). Alaexis_¿question? 14:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The Reuters article gives similar weight to both versions by paragraph count (7 Ukr vs 5 Rus) but in case of Russia, three paragraphs are about the lack of evidence and denials. Alaexis_¿question? 14:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian article also devotes about 3 times more space to the Ukrainians-as-perpetrators version. Also, that version is discussed in more detail, whereas in case of Russia it's only "a cluster of Russian ships, with their identifying transponders turned off, in the vicinity of the blast sites in the days before the explosions."

So it's clear that per WP:DUE we have to give much more weight to the Ukrainians-as-perpetrators version. Alaexis_¿question? 14:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This is strange logic. It matter what exactly AlJazeera said about Ukraine, not the amount of space. It did NOT say that it was the perpetrator. Quite the opposite. Whatever it said, we can include in the page and then briefly summarize in the lead. The current version is not such summary.My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Alaexis clearly demonstrated that the space devoted to the Russian trail is significantly less than the Ukrainian trail. In fact, there is hardly any mention of the Russian trail in the world media, and it is unclear why Wikipedia should do so. Mhorg (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it dedicated some space saying there is NO evidence it was Ukraine (despite official investigations in three countries, the question of who is responsible for the act of sabotage remains unanswered). It is also saying about the alleged "false flag" operation by Russia to falsely implicate Ukraine. In particular,

Experts have not ruled out a “false flag” operation by Russia, with clues deliberately placed to pin the blame on Ukraine. Andreas Umland, an analyst at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, said he sees Russia as “the most likely” culprit. Any suspected involvement by Kyiv in an attack on Europe’s energy infrastructure could threaten the support of allies, which would benefit Russia. At the same time, the destroyed pipelines could help Gazprom avoid compensation claims for undelivered gas, even though the company was reluctant to keep the taps open before the blasts. Moscow may have sought “to kill two birds with one stone”, Umland said.

That needs to be included to the body of the page and be reflected in the lead if we want include anything about the "theories" to the lead. You say: "there is hardly any mention of the Russian trail in the world media". No, as the quotations of several recent sources just above shows, this is not the case. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

After reading these sources, I do agree that the "theory" about US is mostly discounted right now (because it is based on unsubstantiated claims by Russian officials and a singe USA journalist), but Russia and Ukraine are very much at play, as described in all these sources, but especially Aljazeera (the article by Aljazeera is simply longer than others). My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you haven't proved anything, there is a huge amount of sources that only mention the Ukrainian trail and a few, a small minority that still hint at the now unlikely Russian trail. Then you would like to quote Umland, what kind of research has he shown on the case? None. Also he is a very biased Ukrainian academic, who has often sided in defence of governments following the "Dignity Revolution". For such issues, it is better for less involved actors to speak out. Mhorg (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"what kind of research has he shown on the case? None.". Said who? You? This "false flag" claim was also made by German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius [56]. Has it ever been disproved? Not according to the recent publications by Aljazeera and Reuters. My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

An NPOV lead needs to summarise the relevant sections. Singling out this theory is extremely unbalanced. It should either be deleted, or replaced with a neutral few sentences summarising the different theories. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not unbalanced to single out the theory which has the most evidence. Endwise (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It is if this is not clear from the body and from the weight of RSs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• It is not unbalanced to reflect the current state of knowledge as reflected in reliable sources. Yes there is a lot to say about Russia in the body of the article because there was a lot of initial speculation about it. But where the evidence from German, Dutch, and US intelligence points to is the sabotage likely being perpetrated by a group from Ukraine. I note that the reliable sources mentioned above by My very best wishes are from September, published prior to the additional evidence released by Speigel/WaPo in November, but still e.g. Reuters still described the Russian theory as mostly unlikely, and the Ukrainian theory as more likely but still not certain. Additionally, see e.g. how Reuters from November describes theories of Russian or US/UK involvement: Some U.S. and European officials initially suggested, without evidence, that Russia had blown up its own pipelines... Russia has repeatedly said, without providing evidence, that the West was behind the Nord Stream blasts - particularly the United States and Britain

We should descibe the current state of knowledge as reliable sources do. The most likely theory is the one we currently describe in the lead, though it is still uncertain. We can probably also mention that initial speculation also focused on Russia and to a lesser extent the US in the lead, but the Ukrainian theory described by up-to-date reliable sources as the most credible should obviously get the bulk of the weight, as required by WP:NPOV. Endwise (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, but the more recent article in WaPo, [57] is behind the paywall. I now found the article in "SPIEGEL International" (Ukrainian Special Forces Officer Allegedly Involved in Nord Stream Attack, 12.11.2023). What it says? [Unnamed Ukrainian] Security officials are describing him (Chervinsky) as the "coordinator" of the attacks, with responsibility for the logistics of the sabotage operation. ... Chervinskyi's name is circulating both in Ukrainian and international security circles in connection with the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines. ... Yes, but ... (1) Chervinskyi's name has not yet been passed on to prosecutors with Germany's Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, the Federal Criminal Police Office and the Federal Police, who have been investigating ... the Nord Stream blasts. (2) People in Western security circles say that the Ukrainian security apparatus is plagued with rivalries and infighting, and that information obtained from sources there must be handled with caution (3) In relation to another, current case, His [Chervinski] supporters are convinced that parts of the government want to retaliate against the agent because he had publicly criticized them. Based on that, this is merely an unproven allegation about the person, and should be presented as such on our pages per WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes here's the November WaPo article: https://archive.is/EYnJC

Also realised I posted the wrong link for the November Reuters article, whoops; see here: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-says-report-zelenskiys-alleged-ignorance-nord-stream-attack-is-alarming-2023-11-13/ Endwise (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

We should probably translate to English the page about Roman Chervinsky: uk:Червінський_Роман_Григорович. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

These more recent articles by WaPo and Spiegel are discussed here [58] (this is by Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft) and here [59]... My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

But it was not Chervinsky. As 2nd source/link above summarizes: According to the report, Chervinsky did not act alone nor did he plan the operation. Instead, he took orders from more senior Ukrainian officials, who ultimately reported to General Valerii Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s highest-ranking military officer, it [article in WaPo] said. Zaluzhnyi, Chervinsky and Zelensky denied everything. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

So, here is my understanding of this, just to summarize: (a) there are currently ongoing investigations by several countries with no official conclusions or results; (b) according to news reports the possible perpetrators can be Ukraine (#1) or Russia (#2), while USA is less clear (were the claims in news reports about USA disregarded as "fake news"?), and (c) both countries denied any involvement. The publications in WaPo/Spiegel do include one important detail that seems completely improbable. They say that Zelenskiy did not know, it was a conspiracy by Zaluzhny, according to the anonymous " intelligence sources". That would not be possible even in Russia. A disinformation coming from "Ukrainian security apparatus plagued with rivalries and infighting" seems more probable, especially given the previous examples of such disinformation promoted by Budanov and Yermak, e.g. in the Wagnergate case. My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. Unfortunately, the WP:NPOV issue with the lead runs deeper. Starting from this edit the last 8 weeks have seen a number of edits that in effect have made the article lose its WP:NPOV. As such a major revert per WP:BRD (respecting any useful edits, incl. e.g. a number by Betterkeks) needs to be done. An especially problematic edit is this one which uses removes no less than 10kB of sourced information and engages in WP:SYNTH in a manner suitable for reducing the WP:NPOV. Per WP:BRD I will try to bring back the original, sourced content. If during this step contributors cannot adhere to WP:BRD, then I guess we go to WP:NPOVN. Lklundin (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, a revert per WP:BRD is in order. Especially the second diff: this is a removal of well sourced important information, and I do not see a consensus for such removal on this talk page. I can see that the revert has restored a lot of removed well sourced information and produced a more "NPOV" version. Some newer info can and should be added, but it should be mostly just added to the current version, without removing other sourced info. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

As of note, the restored version does include a para that "On 11 November 2023, a joint investigation by The Washington Post and Der Spiegel was published. The report claimed that Roman Chervinsky..." and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You are proposing pejorative changes, giving extreme prominence to the Russian trail that neither investigators nor the media consider as the most likely. Open an RFC, let's hear other users' opinions. Mhorg (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No, the restored version does not do that. If anything, it overemphasizes the alleged involvement of Ukraine by saying in the lead that In June 2023, The Washington Post reported that the United States had intelligence of an Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream, and in November 2023 reported that Roman Chervinsky, a colonel in Ukraine's Special Operations Forces, had coordinated the Nord Stream pipeline attack. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, there is still an issue with the lead. The underlying problem was that in the past 8 weeks editors have engaged in WP:OR by concluding from cited sources that describe one theory that another theory (supported by its own sources) is less relevant and that the information - in spite of its supporting WP:RS - on this theory should therefore be reduced. This is a form of WP:SYNTH and as such not helpful. So we have to accept that there is no public knowledge of which theory (if any) is correct and that as such all notable and suitably sourced theories have their place here. With that settled, we can then also conclude that giving prominence to one single theory in the lead is not helpful. Lklundin (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Your understanding of the policy is incorrect. There is no OR here: no one argued based on their own investigation carried out in the Baltic Sea. Likewise, WP:SYNTH is irrelevant, nothing in the current lead is an improper synthesis of two or more sources.

The main applicable policy here is WP:DUE Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. There are at least three viewpoints as to who is the perpetrator and therefore we should consider their relative prominence.

Another relevant policy is WP:RSAGE, the newer sources are generally preferred to older ones (newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have). The results of the WP investigation were published in November 2023. u:My very best wishes has posted links to two articles which comment on this investigation ([60], [61]). While they contain denials on part of the Ukrainian government and Chervinsky himself and mention the possibility of Chervinsky being a fall guy, neither mentions the Russians-as-perps version, except for noting that Different theories have emerged pointing the finger at Ukraine, Russia or the United States. I have no problem with including a similar statement in the lead. Alaexis_¿question? 21:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course these two recent articles only mention the article in WaPo and Chervinsky. This is because they are articles about the new claim about Chervinsky, nothing else. They are not "review" articles on the overall subject of Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. Their titles are: Latest Nord Stream break: propaganda, patsy, or truth? Paper cites unnamed sources to finger senior military officer who is already in jail. and "Ukraine military officer had key role..." Unlike 3 sources I cited, which are on the overall subject of Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Now, if we want use recent scholarly sources on this subject, I found only that one: Tracing the downfall of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. It is dated September 21, 2023. This is recent enough. It makes a point that whoever did it, the sabotage was meaningless because the pipeline would not function (and did not function) anyway. It also says: Denmark, Germany, and Sweden are investigating the explosions, as the explosions happened in the EEZ of Denmark and Sweden. Swedish investigators have stated that it is difficult to identify the responsible party, but a state actor is likely to be involved, either directly or indirectly (Cooper, 2023). Different allegations have been made outside of the official investigation, such as Seymour Hersh's journalistic report implicating the US, the German newspaper Die Zeit pointing to a pro-Ukrainian group, and reports of a Russian naval vessel in the neighborhood of the pipeline. However, other possible perpetrators mentioned include Ukraine, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:SYNTH is not incorrect. The argument presented in favour of the current lead is that one theory should not be in the lead because it is now a "fringe point of view". No sources regarding this theory are however being cited to support this. What is being cited are sources in support of a competing theory. Logically, the two theories cannot both be true (but both could be false). So to argue that additional sources in support of one theory in itself diminishes the relevance of a competing theory is to draw conclusions from a set of sources that do not support that claim, i.e. WP:SYNTH, a form of WP:OR. The fallacy is essentially WP:NOTTRUTH, i.e. our sources do not allow us to conclude what truly happened. So although the truth of one theory would logically preclude the other(s), we cannot draw such conclusions here. Lklundin (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)