Talk:2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Denmark Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Russia Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sweden Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Germany Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Poland Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Business Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

While no investigation has concluded (obviously) speculation on the possible culprit has been varied but seems to be mostly focused on Russia, given their recent "technical" excuse for cutting gas; and the USA, given Biden's comments back in February: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." Obviously this is all speculation bordering conspiracy theory however in my opinion there should be a section for it to both provision for future developments and to isolate speculation instead of having it sprkinled around the article. 79.22.52.226 (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps start with the classic "International reactions" section? Gaxtrope (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia has stated that the area of damage occurred in the US controlled zone. I suggest this should be added. Source: <^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4479:C801:2B00:F5F0:99E8:14D:D32B (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately yet unsurprisingly an edit war is in the brewing over the tweet by Sikorski thanking the US for blowing up the pipeline. Although twitter is no source for news it is certainly a source for personal statements attributed to the person in question, and in my opinion the statement is notable enough to be included on this page, especially since a similar statement by an ukrainian official blaming russia is also on the page. The statement itself doesn't become any more or less true when the BBC writes a short article about it. So in my opinion it makes no sense to include an unproven comment by one official yet disregard a comment by another equally notable politician simply because one was reported by the BBC while the other one wasn't (at time for writing).

Everyone right now can only speculate on who or what caused the leak, so either we allow all speculation by notable officials or no speculation, there's no other way the page can be unbiased, and it will also cause annoying edit wars unless properly settled in the talk page 82.54.152.174 (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorski's statement was taken out of context. He was blaming the US for being responsible for pushing the Russians into making the decision to sabotage the pipeline, or something of the sort, since he later openly blamed Russian sabotage for the leak.

If you're worried about being unbiased then maybe consider the line about "many blaming America for the attacks", when no such accusations have been made, and the al jazeera source it quotes doesn't mention anything of the sort 24.87.144.248 (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't blaming the US for being responsible for pushing the Russians. He was blaming the US for lifting sanctions and allowing the pipeline to go ahead in the first place. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about this. I have updated the article from the Dziennik Gazeta Prawna source. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorski made no such claim. Shellenberger took Sikorski out of context. As I wrote in my edit summary: Michael Shellenberger is not a Forbes staff writer, so according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Forbes piece is not a reliable source for this claim. I have deleted the claim for a third time, and the next time I will file a complaint to the administrator noticeboard. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That the statement was out of context is your opinion. You can't know what he actually meant beyond the exact words that he said. If the forbes article is the problem i can provide at least 4 different sources in International press citing the claim and interpreting it as blaming (or rather thanking) the US for the attack. But to me it makes a lot more sense to direct quote the statement without comment rather than the interpretation someone else made on the press.

Tl;dr if the problem is the source (forbes) say so and i shall provide as many alternative sources as you desire. If the problem is you don't like the statement then it's a whole different issue. 82.54.152.174 (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that are no reliable sources "interpreting" the statement as you claim. IntrepidContributor (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Nord Stream AG, the operator of Nord Stream, said that it was impossible to estimate when the infrastructure has been repaired." should this be "Nord Stream AG ... said that it is impossible to estimate when the infrastructure will be repaired"? 2607:FEA8:FF01:78AF:9824:C4F0:910F:B9F7 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks.  Done — N2e (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using MarineTraffic the locations of the leaks have been marked with red dots (one southeast of Bornholm, two northeast), would it be possible to use Wikipedias map widget to make an illustrative map of where they have occurred? You can get Latitude/Longitude by selecting each and clicking "vessel details". 31.44.228.51 (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if the widget allows for marking the radius of shipping no-go due to the (temporary) hazard?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note that those locations or not marked by MarineTraffic. Instead, Denmark has dropped beacons at each of the leaks to warn ships. These beacons have active transponders which are shown on MarineTraffic like the transponders of any other ship. SmilingBoy (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

adding the following to the Speculation as to potential perpetrators section:

Some people, Journalists, such as Ron Paul. Tim Pool and Mark Steyn have claimed that the attack may have been sabotage against the Russians by the US Government and/or NATO based on a speech made by President Joe Biden back in Febuary 2022 when he said that "we have means" when asked about how the Nord Stream pipelines would be shut down as they are under control of the German and Russian governments as part of an attempt of removing leverage on the side of Russia as people across Europe protest the sanctions against Russia due to the looming energy price hyperinflation. 130.95.254.148 (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to add references to this claim as per the
  vague attribution in the beginning of this statement. 31.44.228.51 (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Why is there no mention of alleged US involvement in the sabotage along with the allegations against Russia( which makes no sense) and Ukraine 130.95.254.148 (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because i think Wikipedia’s editorial board is a biased, woke organization. Their main goal is to protect agendas from the Biden administration. Most of Trump supporters are being labeled as “ conspiracist” , so go figure. It is a shame on wikipedia’s editorial board, and i will not donate to its wicked cause anymore, not even a penny. I encourage others to stop donations until they change . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.70.183 (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have an "editorial board". And

talk pages are not a forum for expressing your opinions on topics that are irrelevant to the article. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Because there is no official "editorial board", it doesn't change the fact that each moderator can be politically biased, and that it can influence their decisions on which content - or interpretation of events should be kept on the website. Denying that fact is just dishonesty.

I for one, do agree that Russians declarations of american involvement should be recorded as HISTORICAL fact, and not ignored just because right now the trend is to demonise Russia at all costs.

The point here is not take side with Russia or confirm Russia's declaration : it is just to kep a record of it, as an historical event, no matter how wrong or unbelievable you judge those claims to be. 2A01:CB18:B58:8400:214A:3F16:A0D9:2CA2 (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current text does an adequate job, for now, of covering speculation on possible cause of the leaks. As the situation develops and more feces get flung around, I'm sure this will be expanded accordingly. Theheezy (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ADD the following line to the section "Speculation as to potential perpetrators" with the following link to a CREDIBLE SOURCE:

A former Polish Defense Minister, Radek Sikorski, has attributed to the United States the sabotage of two pipelines. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2022/09/27/us-blew-up-russian-gas-pipelines-nord-stream-1--2-says-former-polish-defense-minister/?sh=5c79d8bf312e 80.98.208.110 (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The Forbes article is written by a "contributor", and such articles are generally considered unreliable. See

undue to me. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

And the three word tweet was misinterpreted. This Spectator article describes it as setting off conspiracy theorists. IntrepidContributor (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am going to correct a small grammar mistake. Thatoneguy84 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Polyamorph (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The leaks are located at 55° 32,10'N - 015° 41,90'E, 5° 33,40'N - 015° 47,30'E, 54° 52,60'N - 015° 24,60'E (see https://dma.dk/safety-at-sea/navigational-information/nautical-information at those coordinates). Maybe a small map with those locations marked could be included, I don't have the technical capabilities to do so though. Watertrainer22 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wiki drawn maps could be inspired by the official 2019 maps from the Environmental impact assessment . TGCP (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that the gas is leaking, but should it be named as sabotage or incident? Theklan (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could be renamed an "incident" for now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• support for "incident"
  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• oppose incident a gas leak is an incident, to remove specifity is not to the benefit of the readers 77.13.51.177 (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• wait for RS Too early for name change just yet, let's keep it on the radar and think about possible naming suggestions for now. Theheezy (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found some random online comments on the line of "let's hope someone doesn't set the leaks on fire", or on the contrary suggesting that it should be set on fire to limit greenhouse gas emissions (methane->CO2). Looks like this was done in some cases, at least on land, any solid source about the feasibility, pro/cons or similar? 176.247.168.56 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainty is too high, says government. Experts are divided. TGCP (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Both pipelines" is misleading when referring to both Nord Stream 1 and 2. "Both pipeline pairs" would be better.

This is important as it makes a big difference whether there's two leaks on one pipeline or one leak on each of the two pipelines in a pair. 81.191.195.245 (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The statement is "Thank you, USA." not "thank you, USA". Please change. 77.13.51.177 (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stated in the article Nord Stream, please add to the article about the leaks: /The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines happened as the Baltic Pipe was being opened for natural gas to come in from the North Sea through Denmark to Poland.^[2][3][4]/ 77.13.51.177 (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

that is simply wrong, see the respective articles. 77.13.51.177 (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

There are two different AGs:

OLD: "Both pipeline pairs were built for the purposes of transporting natural gas from Russia to Germany and are majority owned by Russian state-owned gas company Gazprom through the Swiss-based consortium Nord Stream AG."

NEW: "Both pipeline pairs were built for the purposes of transporting natural gas from Russia to Germany and are majority owned by Russian state-owned gas company Gazprom through the Swiss-based consortium Nord Stream AG and Nord Stream 2 AG." 77.13.51.177 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such accusations are so intensely moronic they are on the level of blaming Jews for the Holocaust. They are fringe disinformation not supported by any government except Ukraine. Perhaps those sources attempting to further this "theory" should be placed under quarantine as reliable on all matters related to this wider conflict? The Telegraph etc.Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they make no logical sense, however the western media (not surprisingly) are pointing towards Russia. Maybe the best approach here is to include different sources/speculations since there are no concrete evidences so far. Rictyc (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The speculation about Russia being responsible is not dumb. If Russia announced they were pulling out of the pipelines permanently, there would be economic punishment according to the agreement between the parties. Now instead of having to pay fines, they can collect on insurance for the damage. This allows Russia to stop selling gas to Europe and redirect it to other sources like India, China, etc.

This isn't my own speculation, you'll find this information repeated in numerous reputable sources. I'm just summarizing here to make a point that "why would Russia wreck their own pipes?" is not a valid argument.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that a source making such arguments can no longer be considered reputable because they are plainly false and should be considered disinformation. Nordstream 2 has been sabotaged. There is no agreement or "economic punishment" involved, it is not operational and up until now its the EU which is refusing to open it. It would be good to reevalue some of these sources and their reliability on matters related to this conflict.Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For fun, I looked for sources in the article saying any of the things in the above discussion. All I found was a clearly attributed opinion to a Ukrainian presidential advisor. Perhaps you all have sources which you forgot to add or propose for addition? 213.233.108.109 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they are not logical claims. Tankpiggy18 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia’s foreign ministry has said that the pipelines were in a zone controlled by US intelligence services which should be included in the article ^[5] 2001:4479:C801:2B00:F5F0:99E8:14D:D32B (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Please add the table:

77.13.51.177 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Sinucep (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the table of leaks shouldn't Danmark be changed to Denmark? 174.47.95.30 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you very much! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't mention the accusations of Russian involvement, yet mentions out of the blue:

On 29 September, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed accusations of Russian sabotage as "predictable, stupid and absurd".

Either the above should be removed, or the accusations against Russia should be mentioned in the lead. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The see also section refers to an explosion on the

I've removed that link. Kleinpecan (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 31.44.228.51 (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First time poster, long time reader of the Talk section. Hope it's okay to add a discussion topic.

I've read the allegations on the live page that the US Navy is one of the suspected perpetrators of the explosions. I understand that both the Russian and US allegations are circumstantial. My concern is that the plausibility of the claims for US involvement doesn't meet the threshold to be published in the main article.

Considering established facts regarding subsurface capabilities and experience of such operations, modus operandi, the diplomatic repercussions, constant Scandinavian naval presence and intelligence gathering in the area, it would be reasonable to demand a radical allegation to require solid evidence from multiple independent sources for it to be included in the article. As to not start conspiracy theories.

Please chime in 2A00:801:2D0:870F:0:0:AD9C:70C5 (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section on supposed US involvement has been removed by Daydreamers, as it relied on a questionable source. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blaming Russia for this incident is akin to blaming the CIA or "the Jews" for 9-11. However, Wiki activism is dangerously moving this encyclopedia in this direction, leveraging the traditional "reliability" of West-based sources and their "wartime reporting". Media in NATO countries is actively self-censoring and pushing nonsensical narratives therefore we direly need coverage from media outside western Europe. There is plenty of discussion and speculation on US involvement and this needs to be reflected here ASAP being its the only real plausible scenario. Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]