Talk:Nord Stream pipelines sabotage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cause/responsibility section?

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)

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

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

References

I just read a German language article of yesterday with quotes from Patrick Graichen, a government person. He said that for the benefit of the state nothing more can and will be said beyond that a state actor was responsible. Someone has something to hide and the government protects them? We will never know, they are intent on covering up. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:98A6:18DE:825A:9E1E (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Radek Sikorski's statement (& controversy)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

"has been repaired"?

"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)

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

Illustrative map of the locations of the leaks

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

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)

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

allegations of US involvement

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The current text is garbage, but Wikipedia on anything political is garbage so not unexpected. Virtually all sources focus on Russia, the US or Poland being behind the sabotage. Also, all sources now call it sabotage, but we have the cutesy name gas leak. 2600:1700:1111:5940:4D87:DF57:ADF:7052 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The analysis by prof. Jeffrey Sachs on Bloomberg TV https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1577023521406210048 should probably be mentioned. He has extensive geopolitical career and connections. 93.108.178.201 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022 (2)

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)

Not done: The Forbes article is written by a "contributor", and such articles are generally considered unreliable. See WP:FORBESCON. And to be honest, the fact that a politician wrote a single three-word tweet seems undue to me. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Inclusion of the Location of the Leaks/A Map

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)

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)

Possible renaming

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)

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

• support for "incident" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• support for "bombing" or "sabotage" I'm not aware of any side claiming this wasn't the deliberate result of human actors attempting to disable the pipeline. No need for euphemism on what all sides agree on. Spudst3r (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Setting it on fire

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)

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

4 pipelines in total. 2 NS1 and 2 NS2.

"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)

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

It should also be mentioned that Nord Stream 2 Line B is unscathed, still stable, and still pressurized.

https://allnewspress.com/gas-pipelines-swedish-authorities-a-total-of-four-leaks-at-nord-stream/

Warren Platts (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Radek Sikorski's statement's mis-citation

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

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

As the Baltic Pipe was being opened for natural

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./ 77.13.51.177 (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

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

References

Should accusations against Russia even be mentioned here?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Accusations against Russia come not only from Ukraine, but also Poland, and the timing with the Baltic Pipe opening is a possible signal by Russia, threatening European energy infrastructure. Former CIA Director John Brennan have explained this in a CNN interview [1]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of the statement by the Russian foreign ministry

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 2001:4479:C801:2B00:F5F0:99E8:14D:D32B (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Table of leaks

Please add the table:

List of 2002 Nord Stream leaks

Pipe	Location	Comment
Nord Stream 2 pipe A	exclusive economic zone of Danmark	discovered by a Danish F-16 interceptor response unit to the southeast of Dueodde, Bornholm
Nord Stream 2 pipe A	exclusive economic zone of Sweden	discovered on that pipeline by Swedish authorities
Nord Stream 1	exclusive economic zone of Sweden	discovered on that pipeline by Swedish authorities
Nord Stream 1	exclusive economic zone of Danmark	discovered on that pipeline by Swedish authorities

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

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

Error in Table of Leaks

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

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

Lead

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)

See also section

The see also section refers to an explosion on the Trans-Siberian Pipeline in 1983, using vague attribution ("according to some commentators"), that was "an act of sabotage by American special services against Soviet infrastructure". However, the article linked (At the Abyss) itself goes against this claim.

In addition, the accidents section of Trans-Siberian Pipeline states nothing about it. 31.44.228.51 (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Is the allegations of US involvement warranted?

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)

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)

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)

Media in the west is not censored or self-censored. Please post on reliable sources noticeboard if you want to challenge that. This talk page is for improving the article only. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Anglo-saxon media is largely just state propaganda on matters related to this conflict. It goes beyond self-censorship. In wider western media you can find a little bit more diversity of opinion.Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hardly any german Media blames Russia. State Media blame nobody directly (out of politenes). Everyone else - ranging from the (complete!) real Left, to the (german) far Right, over wokeness-preachers and other globalists and 90% of User-comments blame the West (not necessary the USA). (Some spaced out tinfoil-hats blame China,Israel and ISIS, but that makes no sence.). Even some American Nazis (found on Breitbart) admid, it might have been the USA (seems the Alt Right will go down in infighting while the true Left stands stronger and wokeness-free than before). Election Polls also show a small rise in extreme Parties, and the anti sanction Protests (from all factions) get probably much stronger.--2003:D5:8707:6F00:6901:2E47:7EA0:786A (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have found Spanish state Television discussing the two main theories which are United States and Russia are behind the attacks. Energy expert being interviewed explains that the US is more plausible and what "the markets are suspecting". This is the equivalent to the British BBC. [2]. Im sure we can find plenty of other neutral reliable sources on this topic from outside the anglosphere. Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV policy states that significant views be included in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. The Spanish energy expert (Jorge Morales de Labra) in your source says that geopolitics is outside his scope of expertise, and the anchor echos the argument found in other sources; that the negative consequences for the US would have been far worse than the supposed benefits. When we contrast this expert's view with former CIA Director John Brennan on CNN [3], we see more coverage by reliable sources for the latter [4] [5] [6]. If you know of significant views about US culpability, please list the reliable sources here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

IntrepidContributor You consider the CIA a reliable source on whether the CIA is responsible? Have we reached this level?

Anyways, we need sources other than rabidly Natoist whitewashing here. Even within the US there are plenty of voices accusing the current US administration, both on the left and right of the political spectrum, including Fox news. If you speak Spanish, this energy expert makes it clear that US has far more to gain than to lose from blowing up the gas pipes. It is the other "non-experts" and of course the anchor who attempt to rebuke him, this being a sensitive issue.

There should also be some reference to Condoleeza Rice's statements from 2014, as well as threats by the US administration against Germany in 2019 with sanctions to their companies if it proceeds with Nordstream 2. There are, again, plenty of sources, although I would go for non anglo-saxon sources for neutrality sake. Radosveta Evlog2 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Radosveta Evlog2, please follow the guidance in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I don't have time to discuss politics but if you think some sources are being unjustly determined as unreliable on Wikipedia, then you can start a discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and I will comment there. In the meantime, I'm waiting for you to provide a list of reliable sources covering the claims in the way you presented them [7]. The Washington Post article you added is good, but it does not support your claim, and the NPR article looks like it was synthesised to support the claim. That is naughty and I have left a warning on your talk page.

Kleinpecan, thank you for reverting the edit but please keep to this discussion. I think it would be ok to add the Washington Post article back and mention Tucker Carlson's claims, but I agree Macgregor's remarks are undue as he was just a guest on the show and his rank of colonial doesn't make him an expert on geopolitics. He was a tankman in the army so his military experience is not even relevant to this subject. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Blowing up one unfortunate, quickly retracted tweet of Polish ex-minister into a long spin about supposed US involvement is unwarranted - making this single incident in a more substantive section than the speculation about Russian involvement is akin to blatant partisanship. Neutrality in WP is not giving voice to every musing ever expressed by whatever second rate media (Asia Times thinks Estonia might have an interest in blowing the thing up - can that be taken as serious? should it be given same mindspace as Russia?)Stauffen (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Stauffen: I agree with you on the suitability of the tweet. However, you deleted too much! An important context of this is what Biden and Scholz said in that press conference, and it must be addressed. Remove the tweet by all means, but find a way of doing that without turfing that context. Betterkeks (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Motives for sabotage

Maybe there can be added a section with motives for sabotage from the EU, US or Russia. 2A02:A451:2DAE:1:34DE:B9AE:9F8B:ACE2 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Is the US responsible?

Radosveta Evlog2, please stop restoring this text until you gain consensus for its inclusion or find better sources: Special:Diff/1113731072/1113733807.

1. Tucker Carlson: What really happened to the Nord Stream pipeline? – transcript of a Tucker Carlson Tonight episode. Not reliable: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Fox News (talk shows).
2. Former advisor to head of Pentagon claims US or UK attacked Nord Stream pipelines – while this source might be reliable, I do not think that the personal opinion of a retired US Army colonel with a long history of promoting pro-Russian claims deserves to be featured so prominently in the article, or to be in the article at all. Moreover, unlike Radosław Sikorski's tweet, which received significant coverage in reliable sources, this only seems to be covered in the Euro Weekly News article. In other words, it's undue.
3. Watch: On February 7, 2022, US President Joe Biden threatened to 'end' the Nord Stream 2 pipeline – again, I'm not sure how due this article is. It seems to try to juxtapose Joe Biden's speech and the gas leaks to guide the reader to the conclusion that the US is responsible, without ever explicitly stating as such, so using it to support the claim might be a form of original research.
4. Biden says the Nord Stream 2 pipeline won't move ahead if Russia invades Ukraine – the article was published in February 2022, so using it to support the claim about the US sabotaging the pipelines is original research.
5. Tucker Carlson's shoddy case linking U.S. to alleged Nord Stream sabotage – same as #2: a generally reliable source (The Washington Post), but how due it is is disputable.

Kleinpecan (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Kleinpecan Please honestly stop. This sounds too much like WP:JDL based on political bias. It also is either WP:GAME (purpose misconstruing of Wikipedia policy) or a total misunderstanding of them. The main sources here are the Washington Post, the NPR source as support to that source anticipating activist editors using any argument possible to delete the sources, including denial of reality.

The reliability of Fox news or Tucker Carlson is irrelevant, the Washington Post is reporting Carlson's opinion which has broadcast on national TV and has been seen by tens of millions of people (10 million views on Youtube alone). The main source here is the Washington Post, which can be supplemented by others.

And there is nothing unreliable about euronewsweekly and the fact that a well known former US government advisor is being systematically silenced by anglosaxon media makes it all the more important for his opinion to be on Wikipedia. See: WP:NOTCENSOREDRadosveta Evlog2 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Anybody who takes Carlson seriously should have his head examined. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

On EVERY subject? Is he always wrong? Nicolasconnault (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Spiegel Claim

>Spiegel reported that the United States Central Intelligence Agency had warned the German government of a possible sabotage to the pipelines "weeks ago".

To help with researching this article, does anyone happen to have a link to the Spiegel article in question (as opposed to a Reuters link talking about the article)? Fephisto (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

link here [8] 2600:1700:1111:5940:4D87:DF57:ADF:7052 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Fephisto (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

4 Pipes, 4 Bombs, 1 Mishap

The Fact, that 4 Bombs were used against 4 Pipes, and one survives because of 2 Bombs hitting the same Pipeline, does actually Speak against an insider Job - Russia should know its own Pipelines. It looks more like the Atacker wanted to hit all 4 Pipes and aimed wrong.
Also Scorching the Earth _is_ a Nato-Strategy: The Railway-Track Hof - Neuenmarkt/Wirsberg (West Germany) has concrete-Blocks next to the track, to be dumped on the Tracks in case of an Invasion, and around Hof, some roads had shafts for inserting Tank-Traps, and Bridges were designed to be blastable --2003:D5:8707:6F00:B006:39B0:B463:E8BF (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What's your source for the supposed facts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Speculation - how should statements made at UN Security Council be included?

Hi Wikipedians, I made an edit early October including the claims made respectively by the Russian & American representatives at the UN Security Council. It appears to have been undone [9] here, included is the statement "This, however, has to go, since it's nonsense sourced to primary sources". I am new to Wikipedia, so I'm curious what the reason for this removal is / whether it should be re-instated. I'll add that the comment made by the US representative which I added as well, was *not* removed. I see the primary source rules here. The section is for speculation and not for establishing concrete fact. From my view, if the purpose of that section is speculation, wouldn't the respective claims of the primary governments involved be important? The claim is made by someone who supposedly represents the Russian Federation, not just a random government representative. What are the rules for primary sources here? Grandeth (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

While primary sources should be used with care they are not prohibited and there is nothing wrong with using them. We can certainly use the claims made by the government representatives and published by UN. This does not mean we should not use secondary sources for context. Alaexis_¿question? 07:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I've undone the edit based on feedback. See WP:PRIMARYCARE - the purpose of the section is to include speculation relevant to the gas leaks. The official statements made by representatives of the primary states involved, at a meeting about this exact event, are important to be included. This does not assert everything made by each claimant is true. The statement added regarding the US representative's speculation was not removed, despite being sourced by the same material, and making the same kind of claim. If a RS provides relevant context (/ contrary evidence) it should be added to the section. Grandeth (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Seismometer/seismograph

This article confuses the terms seismometer and seismograph. The instrument is called a seismometer. A graph of a seismometer's data is called a seismograph. These terms are not interchangeable. I'd edit the article myself, but I'm not a member of wikipedia's privileged caste.Openlywhite (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

U.S. P-8 Poseidon

Shouldn't the fact that a U.S. P-8 Poseidon (submarine hunter) aircraft flew near the site of the Nord Stream pipeline on the night of the explosion, and was refueled in midair, be mentioned in this article, if only briefly? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

If the story is coming from Russia, it's probably a lie. So, no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bombs or Bernoulli's equation?

On the talk page in the Nord_Stream article, 6 October 2022, I mentioned the need for checking a possible effect of Bernoulli's equation on pipes with the thinnest walls in those pipelines. Here again, with more quotes:

1) 'Note! The piping rating must follow the pressure-temperature rating of the weakest pressure containing item in the system.' (The Engineering ToolBox [10])

2) 'Nord Stream’s operating pressure will be 210 atm. To be commissioned in 2010, the 1st line of Nord Stream will have a throughput capacity of 27.5 bcm per year. The 2nd line is projected to double Nord Stream’s throughput capacity to 55 bcm per year.' (Gazprom 2007, now Reference 2 in "Nord Stream" en.Wikipedia article, [11])

3) 'The pipelines have a constant internal diameter of 1,153 millimetres. However, Nord Stream designed the pipeline with three different design pressure sections (220, 200 and 177.5 bar) and pipe wall thicknesses (34.4, 30.9 and 26.8 mm respectively) corresponding to the gas pressure drop over the long journey from Russia to Germany. By designing each section according to the changing pressures, Nord Stream was able to save on the amount of steel used, and thus the costs of the pipes. ' (Gazprom Nord Stream Background Information, August 2016, p.2)

According to Quote (3), thinner walls make it possible to save on the amount of steel used and reduce the costs. The design is safe, if the gas flows as specified in the operation manuals. However, if the sole gas recepient closes the valve at the end of the pipeline, the "dynamic pressure" component in Bernoulli's equation equals zero. It is necessary to quickly decrease the pressure at the compressor (210 atm, qoute (2)). Otherwise the static pressure in the weaker parts of the pipe may grow to the value higher than the values allowed in the project, i.e. 200 or 177,5 bars). If this is not done, it does not mean that the pipe will burst immediately, but the value is behind the nominal value for which only pressure resistance is guranteed. (Compare also: Bernoulli's principle and Differential equation)--C. Trifle (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I can not find a source that would reliably compare seismic pulses registered at bomb explosion in the water as opposed a pipe burst in the water due to too much gas pressure inside. No data is available about the exact gas pressure measured before the leaks occured, at what point it was measured, and what water temperature was recorded at the point of the leak, and have there any remnants of explosive devices been discovered. I am afraid the compressor instruction manual has not been made available either. Without any further evidence available, I am afraid one has to finish here.--C. Trifle (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant, as the pipes were not transporting gas at the time, so gas was not moving. I think that means that dynamic pressure was low (or zero). Static pressure is constant in a stationary fluid. Only moving gas can create an increase in static pressure, similar to a train crashing into a bridge. I think you'll find that the compressor was slowly turned down (24 hours?) when the pipe was closed on 31 August 2022, for the reasons you stated.

The pressure in NS1 is relevant for estimating the amount of gas being leaked. For NS2, pressure was 105 bar, also stagnant. TGCP (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Pressure Thank you for NS2 pressure value (105 bar) but the data is insufficient. The time and place are missing. Compare with Ref. 101 "Gazprom lowers pressure in undamaged part of Nord Stream 2 pipe, Denmark says", Reuters. The photo shows a pressure gauge No P95003052. The pressure gauge indicates pressure of 95 bar. The caption under the photo says: "A pressure gauge is seen at the landfall facility of the Baltic Sea gas pipeline Nord Stream 2 in Lubmin, Germany, September 19, 2022. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch/File Photo". What we know from the photo is that - a week before the leaks - the pressure inside a part of NS2 installation on land in Lubmin was 95 bars. But we do not know if the No P95003052 pressure gauge is connected direct to the pipeline or to a part of the on-land system after some valves and components, where pressure could be different from the pressure several hundred kilometers away, where the leaks occured a week later.

Explosions Please notice also that Ref. 1, Tagesspiegel, of 29.09.2022, 22:20 Uhr, by Felix Hackenbruch, Georg Ismar, Jakob Schlandt and Sandra Lumetsberger, includes the copy of a part of the seismographic instrument recording at Bornholm. Unfortunately, the units of time are not indicated on the time axis. One can only hope they mean seconds (10, 20 ... etc), not for example miliseconds. But if you look it up for example at "Seismic Instrumentation" by Gary Gibson, p. 13 [12], you see that the frequency range of seismic phenomena extends from the order of approximately 0.0001 Hz to 10000 Hz. And the spectrum of an explosion of dynamite, for example, could be different from the spectrum of an explosion of a pipe due to too much gas pressure inside.

I am afraid that without such 'technical' details as time, place, units, etc. the article does not help sufficiently to understand what happened. C. Trifle (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not original research. The seismologists say that all incidents were explosions, with intensity far beyond earthquakes or similar. The Expressen articles talk about half a tonne of explosives (subscription required). There has not been a pipe burst anything close to this damage. TGCP (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Therefore one can avoid excessive usage of "original research" in Wikipedia by qouting reliable sources. The etymology of the word "explosion" is mentioned in the respective Wikipedia article. The basic modern meaning of the word is explained at the beginning of the article as "a rapid expansion in volume associated with an extremely vigorous outward release of energy". Wikipedia defines bomb as " an explosive weapon that uses the exothermic reaction of an explosive material to provide an extremely sudden and violent release of energy". "Using a bomb" is not the necessary condition for an explosion to occur. Certainly, "an extremely vigourous outward release of energy" can result from using an explosive weapon. However, other reasons are possible. See 2007 New York City steam explosion or Tlahuelilpan pipeline explosion. The word "to burst" can mean to break open or apart, especially because of pressure from inside, so either "burst" or "explosion" would sound good to me to describe what happened in Turkey in 2020. It seems the water broke out from inside of the water pipeline due to the damage caused by pressure and the release of energy was what I would call sudden and violent. However, it would be necessary to find some important components melted or otherwise damaged by very high temperatures, to prove that "bombs" have been used to start Nord Stream pipeline explosions, if one wants to remain in accordance with the quoted Wikipedia definition of what a bomb is, because the exothermic reaction of an explosive material seems to be mentioned there as the necessary condition.--C. Trifle (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

All of this is still original research. All you did was provide dictionary definitions, but you have to provide sources that support your hypothetical scenario. Also consider that synthesis is also against policy. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources to support the information that the Nord Stream pipelines were built using pipes of the same internal diameter but having three different wall thicknesses are given above. They are Gazprom papers published in 2007 and 2016 which give the reason for the mentioned technical detail. By the way, Gazprom articles quoted in Wikipedia are not dictionaries. Gazprom is active on international markets but I have not used their dictionary publications, if there are any available. About synthesis, please notice the explanation about routine calculations . It is simple. Numbers 220, 200 and 177.5 bar are different. The weaker pipes were used (according to Gazprom) far from the compressor. The rest are basics of fluid mechanics that are known to a plumber or to people who sometimes talk to plumbers. I only made links to other Wikipedia articles for benefit of those who don't.

However, I do not think it is now necessary to introduce the topic to this Wikipedia article . I made my remark as a speculation on this talk page at the beginning of October. At that time, no information about explosive materials in this case was available. In November the Swedish investigators published information about finding what was reported as traces of explosives. It does not seem probable that the same pipeline could explode due to two different reasons at the same time. C. Trifle (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022 (3)

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

Both pipelines were owned and operated by Russian state-owned gas company Gazprom

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

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

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)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. – Recoil (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

Add the following to a new See also section:

• Environmental terrorism
• Environmental vandalism
• List of pipeline accidents

Add the following categories:

Category:2022 crimes in Denmark

Category:2022 in the environment

Category:Acts of sabotage

Category:Attacks on energy sector

Category:Energy in the European Union

Category:Explosions in Denmark

Category:Natural gas safety

Category:Unsolved crimes in Denmark

Category:Vandalism

94.252.17.29 (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. – Recoil (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

In the section "Involvement by other Western countries", add "On October 29, Russian Authorities accused British Navy personnel of attacking the gas pipes, however no evidence of involvement was presented along the claim. 192.36.182.4 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Better

 Done by TheArmchairSoldier. Prolog (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

Under Cause, add "On November 11, 2022, Wired reported that satellite imagery revealed that two large unidentified ships which had turned off their AIS trackers, had appeared around the site of the leaks in the days before the gas leaks were detected." 192.36.182.4 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Please change Cause in the infobox from "Likely sabotage" to "Sabotage".

Sabotage has been confirmed by the Swedish Prosecution Authority after remains of explosives have been found at the site. 192.36.182.4 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Reference in English as well 192.36.182.4 (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi! A section listing ordinary accidents of gas pipelines is not needed (there are categories). Please delete the "See also". Awayier (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

References

WP:NPOV edit requests

The article, as currently written, seems to gently editorialise in favour of Russia and against the US. Here are suggested edits to better reflect Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy:

• the final paragraph of the 'Involvement by Russia' currently contains weasel words and does not reflect the article cited, which concludes Russia is a key suspect. Suggested changes:
  • Reword the final paragraph to "In December 2022, The Washington Post affirmed that "Russia remains a key suspect" in the sabotage, but noted that a "handful of officials", unnamed in the article, expressed regret at the hasty conclusions drawn in the immediate aftermath of the incident. (source as before)"
• the section 'Involvement by the United States' unduly focuses on a single Tweet, and contains quotes that appear designed to lead the reader to draw implications adverse to the US. Suggested changes:
  • In the first paragraph, remove the sentence "However, the same Ned Price also previously stated "I want to be very clear: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward"". Its insertion is an attempt to editorialise the previous sentence, in which Price explicitly denies US involvement.
  • Swap the first and the second paragraphs. The second paragraph is much more on point, including state-level accusations and denials, rather than a long exposition of a single tweet. Consider whether the first paragraph should not be reduced even further, perhaps to a single sentence, as it is just a lengthy exposition on a single tweet that appears to run contrary to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight policy.

Thank you. 2A02:85F:E0D5:B278:E207:AED8:8645:C161 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I second this, strongly. It's not even picky, the Post article, itself verging on clickbait, has been completely distorted. Huge news like that also might well warrant more than one citation, Washington Post or not. What sounds like about the greatest twist as yet, really is just more repeating that there's still no (public) evidence. D'uh! But if there was evidence, we wouldn't call it Speculation, so it doesn't even add anything. -82.83.20.144 (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• In December 2022, The Washington Post affirmed that "Russia remains a key suspect" in the sabotage, but noted that a "handful of officials", unnamed in the article, expressed regret at the hasty conclusions drawn in the immediate aftermath of the incident. (source as before) -- This would be editorialising and providing OR commentary on the WaPo article that the article itself didn't provide. Let's just stick to presenting things as the sources we cite do. WaPo is a respected newspaper of record, so I don't think we need to second guess them and reframe their articles under the assumption that they're misleading clickbait or whatever.

In the first paragraph, remove the sentence "However, the same Ned Price also previously stated "I want to be very clear: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward"". Its insertion is an attempt to editorialise the previous sentence, in which Price explicitly denies US involvement. -- I agree with you on that, removed.

Swap the first and the second paragraphs. The second paragraph is much more on point. -- No preference on this. I think it's that way because the Polish MEP's tweet happened first chronologically, and typically we do present things chronologically, but if someone else wants to swap them around I wouldn't really care. Endwise (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Neither Russia nor any other country is a "suspect", as there's no case in any court, and no, Washington Post is not there to affirm suspects. Facts are that to-date, no government has publicly and in unambiguous terms accused any other government of the sabotage. Period. This is what our article reflects, correctly. Washington Post trying to make readers believe that an unnamed US official is a judge on this "case" solely able to determine the "suspect" – is manipulation plain and simple. For now, there're no official conclusions of any of the multiple ongoing investigations. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, but just for the record... The assertion "no government has publicly and in unambiguous terms accused any other government of the sabotage" is incorrect. In late October 2022, the Russian government proclaimed that Britain blew up the pipelines.[13][14][15] Of course, like everything else Putin and his people say, this claim should be taken with a grain of salt. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, my bad. I admit I tend to miss many news coming from the Russian government due to my selection of reading sources. Will make sure to verify my information better in the future. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Strong disagree with the first proposal. I don't like adding scare quotes and this is very clearly spinning the story, which has at its title that no conclusive evidence was found that Russia is responsible. Agree with the second proposal but I see that it's main point is already implemented. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

Pulitzer-Winning Journalist Claims US Sabotaged Nord Stream Pipeline from the behind-the-scenes dept. Seymour Hersh is a former New York Times and New Yorker reporter who won numerous awards for his investigative journalism, including a 1970 Pulitzer Prize for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War. In his first post to Substack, Hersh details the covert operation the United States conducted last year to blow up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. 46.107.115.87 (talk) 07:16, 17 February 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

change "single anonymous source" of Seymour's claims to "an undisclosed amount of sources remaining anonymous and undisclosed fact-checking" as the journalist clarified in an interview here for citation:

CITE START I have used for this story the same calibre of skilled fact-checkers as had worked with me at the New Yorker magazine. CITE END Source: https://jacobin.com/2023/02/seymour-hersh-interview-nord-stream-pipeline Hello7892347892 (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not him saying he used an additional source, that's him saying he used fact-checkers. The Jacobin article itself acknowledges that it's from a "single anonymous source", as does Hersh (implicitly) in the interview in the same paragraph you quoted from. Endwise (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Endwise:, 1.) Do you think we should be citing an interview of Hersh self-promoting his WP:VER, WP:FRINGE blog post? 2.) I notice that the same interview is cited twice in the wiki-article. Do you think we should be citing duplicate interviews of Hersh self-promoing his fringe blog post? BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Not "promo[t]ing his blog post" but "discussing his investigation" as was the case. It's always appreciated when an editor doesn't use a manipulative language. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There's also the BZ interview where he's quoted as saying "Ich habe mit den Leuten, mit denen ich gesprochen habe, sehr viel an diesem Thema gearbeitet", or roughly "I've done a lot of work on this subject with the people I've spoken to" (thanks Google Translate). 'Leuten' being specifically plural (i.e. multiple people) in German.

I lean towards @Endwise's view because the original story does only reference the one source, but I'm not sure, since such a thing would be pretty noteworthy. It could be included in a footnote or something seeing as stretching the discussion with "oh he said people here and people there" seems a bit gossip-y. Maybe 'Hersh has alluded to the existence of further sources in later interviews, but his reports have so far referenced only the original quoted source' or something qualifer-y like that. Krystoff Moholy (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2023

Add the following sentence. "A well respected journalist, Seymour Hersh, reports that the pipeline was actually destroyed by a covert operation led by the USA, although its leaders obviously deny this." D.w.chadwick (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We already do mention Hersh's substack post, and your suggestion is clearly not a neutral way to present that information. Endwise (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sir, are you a time traveller? Seymour Hersh's reputation is... Lets just say *mixed* these days. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Hersh's Report a Reliable Source?

I'm going to pre-empt the inevitable edit war that will take place in a few moments and ask, is Hersh's report on U.S. and Norwegian interference, given that it's self-published on a Substack instance, constitute WP:RSSELF, or given his notoriety as an investigative journalist, should it be allowed given that he is an "established expert?" Fephisto (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Fephisto Hersh: "the US did it". Source: "trust me bro"

US government: "we didn't do it". Source: "trust us bro"

Who do you trust more? The country that stands to gain from blowing up the pipelines or the journalist who stands to gain by exposing thier government? Both have reasons to lie, neither can give incriminating or exculpatory proof.

What we need to ask ourselves, for all parties [potentially] involved, is how much circumstantial evidence is enough to be "good enough"? Wikipedia is not a court of law, personally i believe that if all the circumstantial evidence points one way, "cui bono" logic points the same way, and and no credible evidence to the contrary is given it should be good enough.

A single source is never enough for anything, but frankly, we know it's a state actor that did it, and there's only 200 or so of those in the world, most of them don't care, few actually have the military resources to do it, two have from the start been the main suspects, one has over time come to be seen as not the likely culprit while the other is increasingly being seen as the likely culprit.

Neither of them will incriminate itself for obvious reasons and it's clear by now neither has evidence against the other, if they did they would already have provided it. We will never officially know who did it. We can either be the three wise monkeys that keep seeing hearing and saying no evil or we can stop insulting the intelligence of our readers and admit that while no country has been proven and will ever be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt it is now clear to even dimmest bulbs that either it was Russia or it was the US and there's significantly more logical and circumstantial evidence behind the US being the culprit. Not because any source has the smoking gun, but because many diverse sources have plenty of suspicious bullet fragments that seem to indicate it was them, while none have credible evidence against Russia 79.54.91.168 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• No, substack is a blog, not a reliable source. And not only is the blog not a reliable source, Hersh provides no evidence to support his allegations and NO reliable source backsup Hersh's allegations. In fact, when I read his allegations on the wiki page, at first glance, I thought I was reading Newsmax, not wiki. In my view, posting Hersh's unfounded allegations violates many of wiki's policies against.

BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I am somewhat conflicted on his journalistic quality, he may have earned a pulitzer 50 years ago, but after reading just a bit about him, I would nickname him "King of anonymous sources", see my post on this talk page Forsen1337 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Shtove (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Seymore Hersh has been accused of writing conspiracies with no facts or evidence to back up his conspiracies. For example, he's been accused of writing unfounded conspiracies against JFG, President Obama, Seth Rich, US government and Fatah al-Islam, Bin Laden's death, former Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai.

BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

His refusal to reveal his sources does not mean he has no evidence. The absence of any effort to counter that evidence makes all efforts by Wikipedia's appointed reliable sources to dismiss his claims worthless, including whatever accusations you refer to. Shtove (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

NYT and WaPo would be out of business if they didn't quote anonymous sources. 185.182.71.38 (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a contradiction in his story:

The bombs would still be planted during BALTOPS
That would be well within the range of the divers, who, operating from a Norwegian Alta class mine hunter

But there were no Norwegian Alta ships operating during BALTOPS. Fephisto (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Fephisto Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources, and i was unable to find the list in a source that wasn't a press release by the US Navy, which for obvious reasons is not a good source in this case. You wouldn't use a Chiquita press release as a source to prove banana republics are actually great 79.54.91.168 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is why we desperately need RS analysis not Hersh. If Hersh is claiming that the exercises were used as cover it's problematic if he's also saying the US or Norwegians his the ships they used in their press releases. A cover story doesn't work when anyone actually looking into the story may find evidence it's bull without having any suspicions because a ship was there which wasn't supposed to be according to the official press releases. It's also unclear why the presence of this ship would be hidden when the whole point was there was nothing surprising about it being there due to the exercises. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added to the article a reference from The Times. If they're carrying it, everyone will soon be, too, so when there is a non-paywalled RS, we might want to replace The Times with it. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd advise caution here. Hersh is a primary source, and investigative journalism, by definition, is not something for which abundant secondary sources exist. I mean, Hersh's analysis is quite convincing, but for is to be an encyclopaedia, Hersh's investigation, although quite detailed, is just one of many hypotheses. We'd need much more than one primary source to assign blame with relative certainty. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

First off, Hersh's blog is not a reliable source so certainly not a primary source. Second, since Sept 2022, there have been several reliable sources reporting on this and NO reliable source has ever accused "Presdient Biden" of orchastrating the allegations Hersh alleges. Third, Hersh provides no evidence to backup any of his allegations so his blogpost is not really "detailed" becaused detailed allegations require facts and evidence, and Hersh provides neither. To be frank, when I read his unsubstatiated blog-allegations on the wiki article page, at first I thought I had accidentally stumbled on Newsmax or some other conspiracy theory blog. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

(1) Primary sources can have a varying degree of reliability, and just because you don't think it's not reliable, it doesn't stop it from being primary. (2) Investigative journalism, by definition, brings up facts and words that have not been reported to-date; I'm sorry if it disappoints you. (3) Journalists have a legal obligation to protect their sources – again, this may be a disappointment to all those who confuse journalism with police work.

All in all, we can and should certainly report on this important voice (since it's been reported in secondary sources) while avoiding a judgement whether it's correct or not. In the meantime, pls take a look at WP:ALLEGE.

Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

while avoiding a judgement whether it's correct or not -- No. We make judgements on whether primary sources are correct or not all the time. We should report things with the same level of confidence that secondary sources do. Endwise (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Kashmiri:

(1) Yahoo! News (a real RS [16]) describes Hersh as a "a discredited journalist"

[17]

(2) Reuters (another real RS [18]) calls Hersh's medium "a blog post." [19]. In fact, the very first time anyone added Hersh’s “blog post” to this wiki article [20], Reuters was their source and the title of that Reuter's article is: "White House says blog post on Nord Stream explosion 'utterly false.'" and within that 2/8 article, Reuters wrote the WH "dismissed the blog post."

(3) Hersh's "blog post" in Substack is blog & is not a WP:RS but is WP:NOTRS and WP:QS.

(4) Hersh’s blog post is WP:AGEMATTERS whereby, his subject matter includes allegations that RS media outlets have not verified and have not corroborated' [21] [22].

(5) From wiki “social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.” Keep in mind, Hersh did not publish it in a news-blog, he published it in a social media blog where any blogger (here Hersh) can post anything they want, no matter how true or false it is.

So, given all that, I feel it is a mistake to report on his unsubstantiated allegations that he posted in a social media blog. Lastly, Editors are to be [[WP:CIVIL] and refrain from being condescending. I feel you should strike through the condesending comments in your reply to me, they are not necessary and do not help to make this article better. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sy Hersh won a Pulitzer Prize. He wrote for the New York Times and the New Yorker. He told the world about the Mai Lai massacre and torture at Abu Ghraib. He's not a blogger, and you know it. Glaukopis Athene (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hersh claims that he has been briefed by somebody who had first hand information. Perhaps Hersh is lying. Perhaps his source is lying. But then using those criteria would invalidate much of what the MSM regularly parrot.

Secondly, Hersh's article is extensive. The attention to detail is quite remarkable (he even has a piece on the diving school where the divers trained) and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to back up his claims. I would say that this is better researched than most of what passes for news nowadays on the MSM. 185.182.71.38 (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Another thing I don't understand about Hersh's piece: the headline. There are some other news sources that are all saying, "U.S. with the help of Norway," but when I read Hersh's piece, here's what I actually see (with the relevant quotations from his article):

• Norway chose the location, “The Norwegian navy was quick to find the right spot, in the shallow water a few miles off Denmark’s Bornholm Island"
• Norway chose the date, "The Norwegians also had a solution to the crucial question of when the operation should take place."
• A Norwegian naval ship went to the explosion site with the divers, "operating from a Norwegian Alta class mine hunter"
• A Norwegian plane dropped a buoy to send out the signal (Hersh is claiming that the Norwegians pulled the trigger!), "On September 26, 2022, a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane made a seemingly routine flight and dropped a sonar buoy."
• "The Norwegians may have had other interests as well. The destruction of Nord Stream—if the Americans could pull it off—would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe," and the Baltic Pipeline opened one day after the explosion.

As far as I know, if the piece is to be cited at all, it should be according to what is actually said in the article, not just the headline, and Hersh is very clearly saying "Norway with the help of the U.S.," because Hersh is saying 90% of this operation was Norwegian. I know the world hates the U.S., and especially Americans, but if a source is to be cited, the source has to actually be read. Fephisto (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Hersh's blog is not a WP:RS, he is a discredited journalist with a history of pushing conspiracy theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Granted. I'm saying that even if you accept it as a source, then you have to use what's in the source, not just the headline. Fephisto (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a response to you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

1. I don't know how people draw a conclusion that Hersh is a discredited journalist. Any facts to support this idea?

2. Although he is quoting one source with direct knowledge of the operational planning, I will not exclude that he corroborated his story from other sources. Mladovesti (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Shortened the Hersh paragraph.

At this time, RS report that the subject matter in Hersh's blog post about a living person and others include details that media outlets have not verified and have not corroborated [23] [24]. Therefore, I shortened the paragraph due to WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, WP:AGEMATTERS, and possibly WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL. Happy Friday & Best regards ~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I added it a clause about Norwegian involvement, since as @Fephisto: states above, the story alleges it to a great degree, and without it the denial from the Norwegian government is a non sequitur. As an aside, I'd like to restructure this article a bit without altering the content so it's easier to read on mobile. Folly Mox (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox:, your edit looks great! Thanks for adding that! Best regards ~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: this [25] isn't an improvement, that just isn't due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I respect keeping the paragraph short, but in an article about a crime that's already filled with extraneous information, the sentence with the allegations details are not extraneous. You are gutting one of the most interesting and informative sentences of the whole wikipedia page. The intent is deliberate. This whole Hersh thing easily justifies a paragraph of content -- for now at least. A short highly descriptive paragraph is not undue. Spudst3r (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

They are, we really just need the fact that the allegation was made. The point of an encyclopedia article isn't to be interesting and how are the conjectures of a disgraced investigative journalist informative? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Let me remind you that WP:LIBEL is an official Wikipedia policy and is enforced fairly consistently. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Along with the other wiki policies I mentioned above, Yes, WP:LIBEL is an official Wiki policy, which is all the more reason to shorten the blog-post whose subject matter is about a living person and others include details that RS outlets have not verified and have not corroborated.

2. @Horse Eye's Back: is merely quoting the RS who calls Hersh a "discredited journalist." Read it here "The claim by a discredited journalist that the US secretly blew up the Nord Stream pipeline is proving a gift to Putin" [26].

Best regards ~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This is getting off track, I've struck to simply investigative journalist. Lets get back to the issue at hand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This is already done but I just want to note here that WP:BUSINESSINSIDER is yellow at RSP and shouldn't be used to support any controversial statements about BLPs. (I have no idea if there are other RSes that say "discredited".) Levivich (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: The RS (Yahoo News) in the article calls him a "Discredited Journalist" Yahoo News source, The claim by a discredited journalist that the US secretly blew up the Nord Stream pipeline is proving a gift to Putin [27]. That's why I wrote what I wrote in my edit. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: The link you posted is a Business Insider story reprinted at Yahoo News (note the Business Insider logo above the headline). Yahoo News is not an RS, it's a news aggregator like Google News; they republish other media outlets' stories, they don't have their own newsrooms. Levivich (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: But wikipedia says Yahoo! News is a RS, here, [28], but I do see what you mean about the syndicated content it got from BI. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh! I guess I wrong and they sometimes do create their own news. That's news to me :-D Levivich (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A "disgraced investigative journalist" is your POV. It is not that of China and Russia who both took these cogent, detailed allegations seriously and want a response from the United States.

Anyways, I did make a good faith effort to shorten the paragraph while preserving detail in response to @BetsyRMadison's overly harsh edit. As a user of wikipedia I would not be happy to see this page have so little detail if I came across the Hersh part.

Btw if you guys are concerned about brevity there is a lot of other extraneously sourced tweets and reactions on this page elsewhere you could have a field day with... Spudst3r (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

But why is WP:FRINGE detail worth preserving? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I swear if there was a Wikipedia page back during the May Lai massacre, the bombings of Cambodia, the CIA spying on political dissidents or the Abu Ghraib prison scandal we'd be reading the same WP:FRINGE attacks about anonymous sources. I'm sorry but you try being a public source on a national security issue as grave as this one. The espionage charges would be life imprisonment alone. Hersh has enough pedigree and a solid enough track record on this kind of reporting to at least be listened to as notable source, as countries like China are saying. Let me remind you that Hersh's reporting was similarly dismissed and gaslighted about by officials back when he broke those stories too. Spudst3r (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Back then Hersh was a reliable reporter at the top of his game publishing in WP:RS. Its apples and oranges. Also his track record definitely isn't solid, check Seymour Hersh. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: I think you're incorrect and here's why. The RS's broke the news on May Lai massacre & Abu Ghraib and there were plenty of secondary RS's to corroborate & verify those stories. Here's original talk page for Abu Ghraib so you can see for yourself [29].

In this case, you have a blog post about a living person and others the include details that RS outlets have not verified and have not corroborated coming from a blog. I hope you can see the difference. Best regards ~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: you're mistaken. "disgraced investigative journalist" is not @Horse Eye's Back: POV. The RS that is used multiple times within the article calls Hersh a "disgraced journalist." See the article's references: "The claim by a discredited journalist that the US secretly blew up the Nord Stream pipeline is proving a gift to Putin" [30] BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Discredited", not "disgraced", and not "by RS", but by an art and culture editor[31] whose opinions about Hersh etc. carry rather little value. Please keep in mind that controversial statements about living persons should always be attributed to their author, not to the publishing house which in this case also rejects any liability[32]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Participants here may be interested to know there is a Snopes article about the recent Heresh story. Folly Mox (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Good and balanced article. Doesn't refute or confirm the Hersh story, but gives parameters to evaluating it. Spudst3r (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Very true, it tells us that we should be evaluating it as a personal blog post rather than journalism "This story, when deconstructed, is merely a pile of purported second-hand information allegedly collected by someone connected in some unknown way to deliberations of a highly secret, multi-agency task force. Such a story falls prey to the same criticisms of other more recent work published by Hersh, which has relied on similarly questionable anonymous sources. If the U.S. did conspire to destroy the Nord Stream pipeline, Hersh's reporting has not proved that case. Hersh has, instead, made a very successful blog post that essentially transcribes a compelling story someone unknown to the general public told him." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not our job to evaluate its trustworthiness when other prominent sources including western news, and other prominent political actors including China and Russia -- no matter how much you agree or disagree with their potential political grandstanding here -- are covering the allegations with seriousness. Spudst3r (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Snopes article

Do not start edit war. WP:PRESERVE does not apply so reverted edit

I Reverted 1 edit [33][34] by @Spudst3r: to the newer version: by @Folly Mox: [35]

• Spudst3r wrote it was their "attempt at WP:PRESERVE."
• Notice: WP:PRESERVE says "..should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view [NPOV] (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability [WP:VER], and No original research.". Thus, WP:PRESERVE does not apply in this situation due to WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, WP:AGEMATTERS, and possibly WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL.

Please do not start edit war. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

My edit to yours was a good faith edit in response to you gutting the entire paragraph, I reduced and compressed the point to a quick summary as a compromise because I agree, too long of a writeup is undue. That paragraph had edits from many other editors before you gutted it. The paragraph as I edited it, in response to your deletion, is still very small in relation to the whole article and not WP:UNDUE. UNDUE would be featuring the lede with this story in absence of more developments, merely having a paragraph about it is not.

NPOV: There was no POV in that writeup, every statement was attributed to Hersh in the active voice and provided the response of the U.S. and Norwegians to balance it against the claims. When I added the Hersh story originally I also included the U.S. and Norwegian responses to ensure NPOV. POV would be only telling one side of this story, at no point did that happen.

Verifiability: The discussion for citing the Hersh article itself is still ongoing for the primary source, but the story is clearly notable due to other news coverage. That small paragraph I included comes from other news sources discussing Hersh, not just the Hersh source itself. I don't see how removing the better detail of the longer paragraph improves the article. We are covering a crime: the alleged details and particulars matter. Why are we omitting the murder weapon?

E.g note that above this paragraph, we have a way longer paragraph discussing just a... tweet.. Meanwhile this is notable allegation both China and Russia are demanding answers to. Surely that deserves a short paragraph. This development is at least as notable as that tweet. Spudst3r (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: Do not start an edit war. I will briefly say this, when something (subject matter, etc) that is not reliable (not neutral WP:NPOV, not verified WP:VER. not objective, incomplete , etc.) then there is a reason to discredit it and not give it weight [WP:UNDUE]. Twice I’ve explained why the paragraph was shortened, here [36] [37] and here [38] [39]. So please read what I wrote.

If after reading them, you don't understand the wiki policies I listed, then I suggest you click on their wiki links and read them. If you still have questions about why they do apply in this situation, then you ask your question at the appropriate "Wiki Admin Notice Board" and then you can let everyone here know you've done that so we can all chime in on that Board. I do understand that wiki policies can complicated, so you wouldn't be the first, or the last, to take a question to Notice Board. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: It would help if you always linked to the diff; otherwise it's very hard to understand what you're referring to each time. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near:, In the comment of mine you are replying to, I did link to the diffs. (See 1st paragraph in my comment you're replying to [40] [41]). Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

You've now put in five Wikipedia links, and only one of them has been a diff, I think. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near:, I don't think your correct, at least I couldn't find any. But if you can point to where you feel I need to change a wiki link to a diff, I'll be happy to correct it. :) Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This last link you created, for example, is not a diff - if it were, it would have "diff" in the URL. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh my gosh @Korny O'Near: I'm so sorry! I thought those were diffs. Yikes! I will make the changes & I hope I do it correclty. Thank you for educating me on that! I really appreciate it. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure - the links look much clearer now. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

OFF TOPIC

Should we delete Hersh's blogpost? If not, how much weight should we give his one anon source? 1) Should we delete Hersh’s blogpost that is not verified or corroborated by any RS? 2) If we keep the blogpost, how much weight should we give Hersh’s source? # 1 regarding deleting it: To my knowledge, when Hersh initially posted his blog, there was no widespread coverage of it (there was only very, very, very scant coverage of it) and none by RS since the day after he posted it. On the day of and day after Hersh posted it, 4 RS wrote about it and 1 of those 4 debunked Hersh's allegations and his source’s allegations.[42] At this point, There is nothing verfied, corroborated, notable or worth mentioning from his blogpost so I feel including his blogpost is WP:NRV, WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, WP:AGEMATTERS, and possibly WP:BLPSOURCE WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL # 2 regarding his one source: Based on what RSes wrote about Hersh’s one anon source, I feel giving the source too much weight (detail) is WP:UNDUE, WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:NRV. Which why I feel that if we keep his blogpost, saying “Hersh posted a blogpost using a single anonymous source alleging…” is as much weight as wiki should give his one source. Here’s what RS said about his one source: One RS (reuters) [43] says nothing about Hersh’s source. They don’t even mention that he used any source, let alone one source. In fact, the word "source" in no where in their piece. Reuters does say the WH dismissed Hersh's allegations and “Reuters has not corroborated the [Hersh’s] report.” One RS (yahoo) [44] says Hersh used “a single unnamed source, and included no details which Insider or other media outlets were able to verify.” One RS that’s behind a paywall (times of London) [45] wrote “Hersh has quoted an an anonymous source “with direct knowledge of the operational planning.” And they write, "Hersh's more recent stories have been called into question...which were criticized for relying heavily on anonymous sources and lacking hard evidence." One RS (snopes) (WP:SNOPES) fact checked & debunked Hersh’s allegations and the source’s allegations. For reasons I stated, I feel his blogpost should be deleted. Otherwise, I feel “Hersh posted a blogpost using a single anonymous source alleging…” is all the weight wiki needs give his one source at this point. Happy Valentine's Day & Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC) What needs to be proved here is his allegations' notability, not their correctness - and I think all these sources prove that. As for additional information: we should put in whatever information readers need in order to understand the basic allegation. For example, I think any reader, hearing that there's an anonymous source behind the whole thing, would be curious to know if the alleged source is a government official, or Hersh's barber, etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC) @Korny O'Near:, I pointed out that the RS have 'proven' Hersh's allegations are not notable as evidenced by the fact there was only very, very, very scant coverage of his allegations on the day & day after he did post it and there's been no coverage by RS since the day after he posted it; thus WP:NRV, WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, WP:AGEMATTERS. Regarding source: 1) Hersh does not say if his one source is a govt official or his barber. For all we know, his source may be his barber or even his dog walker. Also, 3 of the 4 RS disagree with your position and do not give his source any weight (so nor should wiki), as one RS does not even bother to mention any source at all, one RS merely says "a single unnamed source..." and 1 RS only mentions the source to debunk the source's allegations. Like I said, since RS doesn't give the source weight, wiki shouldn't either: UNDUE Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Not sure why you are so driven to delete this information from the article. The allegation received an official response from the White House, and diplomatic comments by the Chinese and Russian governments -- that alone makes it notable for inclusion. As @Korny O'Near points out, we are not here to assess the accuracy of Hersh's claims, just their notability. There is plenty of RS to support the allegation being notable enough to cover. Spudst3r (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC) @Spudst3r: "driven" is the wrong word. It is the business of all editors to ensure that wiki policies are being followed. In this specific instance, for reasons I stated above, I feel wiki policies are not being followed. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC) But wiki policies are being followed, the story is notable. The allegation is receiving coverage in plenty of reputable sources including Der Spiegel, RFI, South China Morning Post, La Vanguardia, The Times, Berliner-zeitung. The current wording is not WP:NPOV, and for WP:VER the section on WP:SPS is satisfied because of this wide supplementary coverage. WP:UNDUE: Relative to other content including articles outright accusing other countries of having an interest in the attack, the level of detail is not UNDUE. In the same section, a paragraph about a politician's tweet still has more detail than the Hersh allegation. WP:SOAPBOX: again not applicable. We are covering the story of a crime here. The crime is a scandal, and any accusation will be seen as scandalous. Plenty of RS is covering the Hersh accusation as notable. Governments are responding to it. It's not WP:SOAPBOX. WP:FRINGE: See above RS coverage. Not fringe because of the media coverage and government responses. WP:AGEMATTERS: An ongoing concern that can only be rectified by updating the article as new developments arise. But again, see above RS coverage. I don't see in any way how the Hersh paragraph is a concern here. This article is actually ridden with other examples of what reek of recency bias from earlier media cycles, like the big paragraph on that politician's tweet or the Asia Times speculation. For an international event like this, relevant policies I would point to here are: WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH and WP:GLOBAL. The West's understanding of this sabotage cannot be the only sources we cover. If other countries say something notable, we need to cover it. Spudst3r (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC) # 2 Obviously we should keep a reference to it, seeing how widely it has been referred to. And this is presently beeing discussed -where it should be discussed-: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Seymour_Hersh, Huldra (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC) @Huldra: I feel you need to re-read my original comment where I point out that it has not been widely referred to by RS, not even close. Also, the Notice Board you linked to is discussing three completely different topics than what I am here. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC) @BetsyRMadison: Actually, I feel you are forum-shopping; the request on WP:RS/N is about the very same blog-source you want to delete here. And in addition to the sources mentioned above, we have Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reaction to it, reported by Bloomberg News, Huldra (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC) @Huldra: You're completely mistaken. The Notice Board on WP:RS/N is discussing three completely different topic questions than what I am here . Do you know what that means? It means: You're wrong, they're not the same questions. You either still have not read, or do not understand, the questions I've asked here [46] and you either have not read, or do not understand, the three questions at the WP:RS/N [47]. Best regards. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC) @BetsyRMadison: Huh, are you serious? Isn't the questions on WP:RS/N are discussing about exactly the same blog/article? Or are you referring to another blog/article? cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC) @Huldra: Yes I am serious. The three questions at the WP:RS/N are completely different than the questions I'm asking here. 100% different. Not the same. Not even close to being the same. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC) 😂 cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC) OFF TOPIC Link to wikiquote Please insert a quote to this page in this article: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.92.226 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Please insert a link to this page to this article: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage I would if i could. Perhaps some here, would rather see a nuclear holocaust than dare to help spread the truth to the people? Maybe some have no idea what a 'moral compass is? Thank you Truth is coming & it can't be stopped." Edward Snowden "[Seymour] Hersh has proven for about 40 years now that he is a trusted journalist. And when someone... sees that an act of war has been has been committed by our government against all the… well, against the Constitution, maybe not against the U.S. designed “rules based order,” but, you know, we all swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now this guy took that seriously... The question is the fallout and whether the mass media can prevent this story from sneaking into the consciousness of Americans who have been taught...over the last seven years...to hate Russia. Ray McGovern (former CIA turned Peacemaker) , Transcription of Ray’s Feb 11 Comments on Sy Hersh, on Blowing Up Nord Stream, Interviewed by Garland Nixon, February 12, 2023 https://raymcgovern.com/2023/02/12/transcription-of-rays-feb-11-comments-on-sy-hersh/ For more, relevant comments from other notable sources, see: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage#2023 70.57.91.184 (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC) As many have learned, RS simply refers to corrupted news media that goes along with the corrupt authorities - who have recently, created a war based on lies - the US proxy war with Russia, along with a very real existential threat to the all life forms on earth. The blind lead the blind. Thank you. 70.57.91.184 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Yes. The truth about what wikipedians call RS (reliable sources) is a inconvenient but very important truth. Wikipedia is a valuable resource for millions of good, honest people, but in the international arena it has become a tool of the US Information Warfare Community & their very foolish 'Master's' goals of global dominance, achieved with wars based on lies & political corruption. The fact that the wikiquotes page on this topic, has not been linked to this page is clearly a case of censorship, and mindless loyalty to misleader who have created with their lies and mass anti-russia propaganda, the biggest existential threat humanity has ever faced- with their proxy war with Russia. Their crimes against humanity are well known, but never spoken by so called RS. Eventually they'll have to answer for them. If there is a nuclear war, there will be no wikipedia, or life on the planet, so please do what you think is best. 97.64.219.134 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Berliner Zeitung as RS

@BetsyRMadison In this edit you removed the Berliner Zeitung citation by arguing they are not RS, can you cite me anything from Wikipedia making that determination? The Berliner Zeitung is a long established daily German newspaper that is 75+ years old, nothing in their wikipedia page indicates they are a discredited tabloid. Their interview with Hersh is a notable citation. If there were previous decisions on Wikipedia made about them as RS please make me aware. Cheers. Spudst3r (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: You're mistaken. Berliner Zeitung is not a wiki RS (see list of wiki RS here, [48] Also, wiki itself & wikipedia article pages are also not an RS. However, The Independent is an RS and they write that BZ is a tabloid [49]. Whether you or I think they're a tabloid or not makes no difference. They are not an RS according to wiki. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking for this list. Does exclusion from this list automatically mean not RS? It seems what's needed here is a determination of Berliner-Zeitung's status as potential RS. A sense a lot of valid RS newspapers are excluded from that list for no reason other than their status as RS having not been contested before. Spudst3r (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: I If you want to see if you can get a source on wiki's RS list, you'll have to start a discussion at the RS/N discussion board. [50] Oh, and you're welcome for me posting that list for you :) it does come in handy. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You're mistaken as to the idea behind that list. Please read WP:RSPMISSING which explains in plain language how the lack of BZ Berliner Zeitung on that list should be interpreted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: It seems you've misread RSPMISSING, which in plain language states, "If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic, or that it simply fell through the cracks. Or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, and after checking the "Search the noticeboard archives" there first. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with. So, if you want to see if you can get BZ put on the list, follow the instructions at the RS/N. Best Regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the policy does not give you grounds to remove a source or call it "not RS" before that process is completed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

What User:Kashmiri said. No less than 940 en.wikipedia pages links to it. It has never even been discussed at WP:RS/N, I assume because it is undeniable RS. If you want Berliner Zeitung to be seen as not RS; then please bring it up there, Huldra (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Huldra: You're making a very bad assumption. All of the major RS, who one may consider to be an "undeniable RS," are all listed on the wiki RS page. [51] Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Huh? to cite the link you are making "If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious." Huldra (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Huldra: Why are you misrepresenting WP:RSPMISSING? Did you not read it all? Did you stop half way through? Here's what it says in full "If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. [Meaning RS/N] That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic, or that it simply fell through the cracks. Or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, and after checking the "Search the noticeboard archives" there first. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with. Therefore, you make a very bad assumption when you said It has never even been discussed at WP:RS/N, I assume because it is undeniable RS. And notice, the major RS, who one may consider to be an "undeniable RS," are listed on the wiki RS page. So, if you want BZ on the list, follow the rules on the RS/N page and start a discussion. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Utter, utter nonsense. Wikipedia uses countless other undeniably reliable sources, for instance tens of thousands of respected peer-reviewed academic journals. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri At this point I think @BetsyRMadison is violating the WP:3RR rule, I count at least six reverts of other editor's changes on this page within 24 hours. Including those of myself, you and @Huldra. Spudst3r (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: sounds like you may also be violating WP:GAMING, edit warring, disruptive editing, & intentionally ignoring wiki policies. Before you re-added BZ citations, you knew BZ is WP:NOTRS but you re-added it anyway. And then after you re-added it, you 'warned' me not to undo your edit and you wrote "just a friendly warning that today you were in violation of the 3 revert rule by reverting my changes and those of other editors. [52] You know WP:GAMING, disruptive editing, edit warring, & intentionally ignoring wiki policies can get a person topic banned or permanently banned.

WP:RSPMISSING says "start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN) if you want to try to get Berliner Zeitung listed as an RS. A "talk page" is not a RS noticeboard. I urge you stop GAMING, stop edit warring, and stop ignoring wiki policies. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As every editor has pointed out here, absence of BZ on that list is not evidence of WP:NOTRS. That paper has over 500+ citations on Wikipedia. Do we really need to bring this newspaper to WP:RS/N over this? Spudst3r (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Reputed newspapers are regarded as reliable sources on current events, unless proven otherwise. I see no red flags with this paper that would require an RSN discussion. BetsyRMadison, you need to assume good faith, tone down your rhetoric and not personalize the argument. Additionally, you are at three reverts in the last 24 hours (consecutive edits count as one revert). Prolog (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Prolog:In 2022, Der Spiegel reported that the Berliner Zeitung had “degenerated into a kind of pro-Russian conspiracy office under its new publisher” and cited an examples. [53] If Spuds wants to add the interview with Hersh from the WP:NOTRS that he/she keeps edit warring & WP:GAMING to get in, then it's Spuds BURDEN to open a discussion at the RS/N. Best regards~

Well @Prolog: that's just it, Berliner Zeitung has not been proven to be a RS and wiki does not listed as an RS [54]. So the WP:BURDEN to prove it, is on Spudst3r, not me. So Spuds will have to follow WP:RSPMISSING policy & open a discussion at RS/N noticeboard. (This is a talk page, not a noticeboard). Also, Spuds knew Berliner Zeitung was not listed as a wiki RS before he re-added, but he re-added it anyway, and then accused others of violating 3R just so he could keep the WP:NOTRS in article for 24 hours - that's called WP:GAMING "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies in bad faith... an abuse of process, disruptive editing ... to further an edit war...If an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards or misuse administrator tools, it should not be treated the same as a good-faith mistake. Also, the Berliner Zeitung citation that Spuds has is not even an article, it's an interview with Hersh where promotes his own fringe blogpost. not article. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: Yes, you really do need to abide by WP:RSPMISSING policy guidelines and bring BZ to an WP:RP/N to discuss there whether it's an RS since it is not on the wiki list of RS [55]

WP:RSPMISSING is clear: If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source ... It could mean that the source covers a niche topic ... Or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN) ... That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.

WP:GAMING is finding loopholes to disruptively edit & edit war. When you knew BZ was not listed as a wiki RS before you re-added, and you re-added it anyway, and then you accuse others of violating 3R just so you can keep a WP:NOTRS in article for 24 hours, that's called GAMING. I would not advise any editor to GAME, or start edit wars, or intentionally ignore wiki policies. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I recommend taking @Prolog's advice here. I added this as RS because, according to WP:RSPMISSING I added it because I assumed "the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious". It also adds: " If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN),". I am not concerned about the source, and never have been. You made the revert. Start a RS/N discussion if it bothers you, as nobody else (I count 6 editors now) is seeing a problem with Berliner Zeitung as RS or presumed reliable. Spudst3r (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Please don't abbrievate "Berliner Zeitung" as "BZ". The "BZ" is a completely different Berlin newspaper. (Confusing, I know.) One pertinent difference: the BZ is a tabloid, the Berliner Zeitung isn't. 2. The 2006 Independent article is outdated and not very meaningful. The Berliner Zeitung has been sold twice more since then, David Montgomery hasn't had anything to do with it since 2009. 3. Its varied history makes it a bit difficult to assess the reliability of the Berliner Zeitung. The new owners since 2019 seem to steer it towards a more sensationalist approach, but it's still a reliable source. 4. Of course the Berliner Zeitung is not on WP:RS/P, because hardly any non-English language media are on RS/P. (For example, Le Monde isn't on RS/P either, but it's clearly a RS.) Of the roughly one hundred newspapers in Germany, only two are on RS/P, if I'm not mistaken. — In conclusion: If the Berliner Zeitung prints an interview with Hersh, we can be sure that the Berliner Zeitung quoted him correctly. (Of course, that doesn't mean that he and his anonymous source are reliable, or that the interview is relevant for our article. I don't know.) Greetings from Berlin! Chrisahn (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

In 2022, Der Spiegel reported that the Berliner Zeitung had “degenerated into a kind of pro-Russian conspiracy office under its new publisher” and cited an examples. [56]

Right now, Berliner Zeitung is not listed as a wiki RS. Also, the citation that Spudst3r wants to include is not even an article, it's an interview where Hersh is self-promoting his own fringe blogpost. WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAPBOX. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This argument about not being listed at RSP is tosh. Not appearing at RSP just means no-one has had occasion to raise it as an issue up to now. If there is disagreement over whether a source is reliable for some statement, then take that question to RSN for a resolution. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! That's what I've been telling them to do. [57], [58], [59] If they want to add an interview of Hersh self-promoting his blogpost using a source whose current status is WP:NOTRS & WP:RSPMISSING, then they need to open RS/N (as explained in RSPMISSING policy) and discuss it there. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's status is not known but presumed reliable unless it is contested. Looking at the editing, you appear to be in a minority (or at least you have been reverted), then, if you disagree, it is yourself that needs to take it to RSN and ask whether it is reliable (for some statement). Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison In 2022, Der Spiegel reported that.... What a blatant manipulation on your part. It is not reporting, but an opinion piece published in the Opinions section[60], and not of Der Spiegel as a whole but belonging to a Mr Stocker. In the classification you want to apply to Hersh, the entry is nothing more than a blog post (or "blogpost" in your incorrect spelling). Now, you're quoting someone's personal opinion published in a blog post to prove your point? — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: When you finish reading WP:UNCIVIL & WP:CIVIL; read the Collins Dictionary definition of "blogpost." "Blogpost (NOUN) - a single posting made as part of a blog.[61] (Notice: Collins Dictionary spells it as one word, not two) ;) Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: "In 2022, Der Spiegel reported that the Berliner Zeitung had degenerated [...]" No, that's incorrect. 1. It wasn't a report, it was an opinion piece. 2. It wasn't Der Spiegel's opinion, but Stöcker's opinion. 3. A few days later, Der Spiegel published a rebuttal by the Berliner Zeitung's editor-in-chief. [62] 4. Der Spiegel frequently cites the Berliner Zeitung, which indicates that Der Spiegel generally considers the Berliner Zeitung to be a reliable source. Examples: [63][64][65][66][67][68][69]. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Your links do not support your claim about Der Speigel any more than giving links of NYT reporting on something Tucker Carlson says on his show and then claiming the NYT considers Tucker Carlson's fox news show a reliable source.

• Berliner Zeitung was founded as an East German newspaper to spread propaganda for the USSR's SED political party. The new owner, Holger Friedrich, was born and raised in East Germany (a satellite state of the Soviet Union USSR.)
  
• New York Times reports that after Holger Friedrick bought the Berliner Zeitung, he finally admitted he'd been an "informant" for the Stasi (Stasi was the East Germany's security service). [70]
• NYT writes, Holger Friedrick had "been an informant for the Stasi, the feared secret police of Communist East Germany in the late 1980s." NYT goes on to say that the Stasi used informants to maintain its grip on East Germans "It was a source of terror in East Germany and of deep shame after its fall." [71]
  
• In the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung Friedrich is described as a Putin sympathizer, Holger Friedrich's "claim that Russia had rearmed, occupied Crimea and started the war in eastern Ukraine because Germany had not "taken hold of Mr. Putin's outstretched hand" in 2001 was completely absurd." [72]
  
• New York Times reports that Friedrich & his wife "timed their newspaper’s big revamp for the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall." NYT reports that Friedrich wrote an op-ed in the Berliner Zeitung and East Germans to "reimagine" (a.k.a. re-write) the brutal history of East Germany, Friedrich wrote "East Germans should wrest back control of their own narrative from the West." [73]
• In his Berliner Zeitung piece, Freiderich wrote that Germans should be "grateful" for the brutal East German leader, Egon Krenz, Friedrich wrote, "We are grateful to him.". [74] Egon Krenz was convicted of committing war crimes while he was in charge of East Germany. (Yeah, that East German war criminal is who Friedrich looks up to and wrote he is "grateful" for.)
• And of course the Der Spiegel journalist Christian Stocker gives details that Berliner Zeitung has “degenerated into a kind of pro-Russian conspiracy office under its new publisher”

BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree with some of the criticism of the Friedrichs and their ideas for the Berliner Zeitung, but most of what you write here is irrelevant. And your Tucker Carlson analogy is just nonsense. Maybe you didn't read the articles where the Spiegel quotes the Berliner Zeitung, or maybe you didn't understand what the quotes mean in this context. I don't care anymore. Your understanding of these issues seems to be quite superficial. (You even misspelled "Friedrich" in two different ways. Quite a feat.) — Chrisahn (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Resorting to hurling childish insults at the person who just debunked you is WP:UNCIVIL. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Take this to RSN or leave it alone, simple. Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thats backwards, its those who want to use the source who either need to desist or escalate to RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Not when there is a local consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, not where the source is widely accepted as reliable. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)