Talk:Nord Stream pipelines sabotage

Significance of national investigations

Editor Mhorg went ahead and renamed the various subsections on national investigations to include some sort of conclusion on each of these subsections. This is not helpful, but instead suitable for causing readers to miss important information in these subsections. For example, if an investigation has been closed without charges being filed, the official statements made as part of the investigation still stand. This is especially relevant with regards to the unknown perpetrators of the Nord Stream pipelines sabotage, because much of the information in the media comes from unnamed sources. So please think twice before going ahead and changing the appearance of these national investigations. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure I understood your point. I thought I would make the article more understandable by putting sections that contained the outcome of the investigation. Otherwise, I have no strong objections. Mhorg (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Expert conclusions

I remember the article mentioned diving experts talking about the possibility to carry this from a sailing yacht. I scrolled through the article and could not find those. Where are they? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Right. Several named, naval experts (incl. one naval officer) have made detailed statements casting serious doubts on the claim that the sailing yacht Andromeda was used for the sabotage. Since the allegation against Ukrainian divers hinges on the Andromeda being used for the sabotage, these statements are in the Speculation subsection related to Ukraine: Nord_Stream_pipelines_sabotage#Involvement_of_Ukraine. Strangely, over time some non-constructive edits have been made to these well-sourced statements and their placement in the article, so it may be prudent to keep an eye on this information. So thanks for asking. Lklundin (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Useless info in the lede

I am trying to shrink the lede to leave only the most important information. I think it is unnecessary to specify that the investigation was carried out by describing the explosions as “sabotage.”[1] I think it is quite clear to the reader that it was sabotage. It even says so in the title of the article. Mhorg (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is a need to shrink the article, then I do not think it is in the lede. An issue with this article is that it is quite long, yet a large amount of the information comes (via WP:RS) from unnamed sources (with one such case having been revealed as misinformation that deceived the journalist that brought the story). Contrast this with the suggestion to remove the 5-word phrase "describing the explosions as sabotage", which is attributed to a(t least one) named government official - and which has notable consequences. While we may never know who is behind the sabotage, the fact that we have a statement from a named government official that a state-actor is suspected of being behind the sabotage, then that could well mean that the sabotage was an act of war (albeit an undeclared one). So I think the contested phrase is far from being useless and that it should remain as it is. Lklundin (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see the logic in removing multiple countries launching their own investigations and the finding being likely sabotage because the word "sabotage" is in the article title. On the contrary I think barely mentioning sabotage in the lead when it's in both the article body and the title would be quite absurd. The lead exists to summarize important bits, this seems like a rather important bit. Have any other arguments to omit this part about not just one but multiple involved countries? TylerBurden (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Prior to Russia's occupation of Crimea in 2014

So the article says Die Welt reported that the results of investigations by German and foreign authorities revealed that the sabotage was allegedly planned by a Ukrainian group prior to Russia's occupation of Crimea in 2014. referenced to Nord Stream: Attack is said to have been planned ten years ago - WELT (archive.ph)

I'm looking at the translated source. It says
The attack on the two Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea is said to have been planned by a Ukrainian group before the occupation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. WELT AM SONNTAG learned this from German investigators. Accordingly, corresponding considerations did not only arise with Russia's war of aggression. This is indicated by the results of investigations by German and foreign authorities, in which intelligence information has also been incorporated.
... but then it hangs in air. The newspaper does not elaborate on who said what, and why the publication reaches such a conclusion. It just goes on with describing other details, unrelated to its intro paragraph.

This is not what the quality source should be. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this conclusion is based on the policy. They could have many reasons to withhold some information (protecting sources or smth else) but it doesn't matter, it's still a reliable source. Alaexis_¿question? 22:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If we ignore arguments above... No, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Link to Andromeda is wrong

There is a link to Andromeda, but the article is not about the much smaller yacht used in the attack. It is about a completely different ship.87.143.146.221 (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Well spotted. Guiy de Montfort: Especially when modifying high-importance articles, try to exercise some modicum of caution, so as to avoid introducing incorrect and misleading information. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)