Talk:Nord Stream pipelines sabotage

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Denmark High‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia High‑importance

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

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Mid‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ukraine Mid‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Procedural close, 6 July 2023, to Nord Stream pipelines sabotage, see discussion.
Moved, 16 August 2024, from 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage to Nord Stream pipelines sabotage, see discussion.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please add reference

Please add the following reference when citing Domjahn: https://sprengtechnik.de/sprengung-nordstream/ DaDoKa (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaDoKa: Thanks for the link! It's a WP:BLOG though, so we should be careful. And in the spirit of WP:COI, you should probably disclose that you are David Domjahn, the author of the blog.

But more importantly: In the blog comments, you provide details of your calculations regarding the amount of energy released when the high-pressure pipelines exploded. I'm pretty sure the calculations are off by a factor of about 20, and I think this undermines your claim that the explosions couldn't have been caused by shaped charges. See my comments on your blog. I'm looking forward to clearing this up!

Chrisahn (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden quote was removed

This wiki page is clearly biased and is being manipulated.

On Feb 7 2022, President Joe Biden told reporters the following: “If Russia invades [Ukraine], there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it”.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/video-biden-saying-end-nord-stream-resurfaces-after-pipeline-leak-1747005 Observer157 (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say except WP:CIR. You should be more careful before you embarrass yourself using words like "manipulated". — Chrisahn (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there in the background section. Alaexis_¿question? 12:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]