This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I agree with what Alaexis said above regading the fact that we should mention all three theories in the lead, but that more ink should be spilled regading the theory with the strongest backing. Would people be opposed to stating these three facts in the lead?
There are ongoing investigations. Who blew up the pipeline is not known for certain.
Initial speculation regarding the perpetrator surrounded Russia, the US, and Ukraine.
Per WaPo/Spiegel, findings from the investigations being carried out internationally point to the sabotage being perpetrated by group from Ukraine led by Roman Chervinsky.
Your edit was an improvement, but I disagree with such version. While saying that "It is still uncertain who carried out the blast", it specifically names the country and the person who are responsible, even though this is not clear, and definitely unproven. With regard to naming Chervinsky right in the lead, this may even violate Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_accused_of_crime. I understand he is not a public figure. Besides, as the sources say, even if it was him, he just followed orders from Zaluzhnyi (who concealed this from Zelenskiy), which is again a pure speculation. I would suggest something along the lines of the scholarly source cited just above, but rephrased to mention the latest publications/findings, i.e.
Different allegations have been made outside of the official investigations, such as Seymour Hersh's journalistic report implicating the US, a joint report from The Washington Post and Der Speigel implicating Ukraine, and reports of a Russian naval vessel in the neighborhood of the pipeline.My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I really don't think Seymour Hersh's story should be included in the lead. He is at this point in his career not a figure whose claims tend to be taken all that seriously by reliable sources, particularly not in this case. The Guardian for instance says that Hersh's story is "widely viewed as unreliable", and Der Spiegel for instance calls it a "baseless story". In our article, we also reference this Norweigan piece which appears finds multiple holes in his story as well. We should not give equal weight to baseless rubbish and to what is (according to Der Spiegel/WaPo) the majority opinion of international investigators in the West.
The findings of a Russian naval vessel near the explosion by Denmark (and verified by others) is perhaps more reasonable to include, but I still think this detail can be left for the body of the article. Der Spiegel, in their in depth August report, made a contrast between speculation about a Russian false flag by politicians like Roderich Kiesewetter vs. the opinions of intelligence agents:
Agents tend to believe there is a different, more straightforward explanation for the Russian Navy's clear presence in the Baltic last late summer: They suspect that Moscow, like the Dutch and the CIA, was not unaware of the plans to attack Nord Stream, and that the ships were there to patrol along the pipeline to protect it from the expected sabotage.
Particularly given that Ukraine apparently had plans to attack another Russian gas pipeline. Sources within the international security scene say that a sabotage squad had plans to attack and destroy the Turkstream pipelines running from Russia through the Black Sea to Turkey. A corresponding tip-off had also reached the German government together with the first warnings of an attack on the Nord Stream pipelines.
I think including this would be less unreasonable than Hersh, but it would need to come alongside description of it as a minority view or the counter about how intelligence agents believe the presence of these Russian naval vessels to be banal. That would need to be quite a detailed back and forth for a minority view, so it's better left for the article body IMO. Endwise (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, regarding BLPCRIME, we're not stating as a fact that Roman Chervinsky did anything, we're relaying what RS has reported on what investigators think is probably the case. Chervinsky is a public figure, so reporting on accusations (without stating them as fact) is perfectly in line with BLPCRIME. Endwise (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that unnamed "intelligence agents" are less trustworthy than named politicians and experts. Also that part, "They suspect that Moscow, like the Dutch and the CIA, was not unaware of the plans to attack Nord Stream, and that the ships were there to patrol along the pipeline to protect it from the expected sabotage.". This is a "theory" upon a conspiracy theory. My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
We have 3 possible options here:
Make a summary of the corresponding section(s) from the body of the page. However, mentioning only one of the unofficial "theories" (as in the current version) is not such summary.
Take a summary of all "theories" from an RS. That is what I suggested above.
Do not mention any unofficial "theories" in the lead beyond noticing that there are allegations with regard to several specific countries (as most of the sources do). That would be an easiest option, and I would agree with it. My very best wishes (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the above option 3, and to argue the complexity of summarizing the suspicions I will point out:
No one has taken responsibility for the sabotage.
To my knowledge no country has publicly stated that they concluded an investigation into who perpetrated the crime. As such, all investigations that have started must be assumed to be ongoing - with unknown progress and non-public conclusions (if any).
Much attention (especially in German media) is given to the German investigation. It is however notable that the two countries Denmark and Sweden (i.e. the two countries in which EEZs the sabotage was perpetrated) are conducting a joint investigation, but have declined to include German authorities in this joint effort. We should not speculate as to why, but it seems self-evident that this is not a positive for determining who was behind the sabotage and it further complicates an attempt to present a coherent summary of possible suspects.
The public information that can point to various suspects come from widely disparate sources. Some information are official statements directly from government agencies, a lot is from media citing unnamed "agents" typically from unnamed government (intelligence?) agencies from a wide range of countries with a more a less tangential connection to Nord Stream.
Given this complexity, I think we cannot meaningfully summarize any suspicions in the lead, other than to say something along these lines: "As of January 2024 no one has taken responsibility for the sabotage, with several theories pointing to various actors and with several government investigations ongoing". Lklundin (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I think we cannot meaningfully [and properly, neutrally] summarize any suspicions in the lead. Yes, this is precisely the problem. I tried, but could not. I also partly agree with the criticisms by Endwise of the version I tried to take from the article above. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I absolutely don't agree with that. The absence of the results of the official investigations is irrelevant: if you review the policies you won't find any references to "official investigations" there.
Multiple sources have been provided which review the main versions and it was clear already in mid-2023 that the Ukrainians-have-done-it version was dominant, and it has been getting even more weight in more recent sources. If these sources have managed to review and summarise the existing evidence, so can we. Alaexis¿question? 20:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
If you disagree and can suggest a version that briefly describes all these "theories" by summarizing content of the page and giving them proper weight (the corresponding sections are large), please do it here. But presenting only one of the "theories" as "the truth" is POV and not a proper summary of the page. This is an opinion of several contributors (see above). And no, the absence of the results of the official investigations is very much relevant, and noted by all sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I made a compromise version that provides a much higher "prominence"/weight to Ukraine. However, I would very much prefer option #3 above, i.e just not mentioning the unproved unofficial "theories" in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Another article,[1] (archived) this time from the Wall Street Journal. It again talks about the Ukrainian trail with the suspected involvement of Poland. No mention of the Russian trail. The Wikipedia article must reflect all that, and also the lede. Mhorg (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Another thing, due to the latest pejorative changes, inside the "Speculations" section we find the investigations of Western investigators on the Ukrainian trail. Which are not speculations at all, unlike everything else in the section. Can you remedy this? Mhorg (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh no, That edit produced misleading content. The official investigations by several countries produced no results, as all RS say. What we discus here are reliably published high-profile allegations with regard to several counties (now also including Poland) based on claims by unnamed "sources" which read like conspiracy theories. The explicit attribution is required in such cases. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
About this motivation by My very best wishes:[2] "WSJ is under paywall, but today's RFE/RL article says (Google translation) "Sources of The Wall Street Journal believe that such behavior may indicate Poland's involvement in the Nord Stream bombings." (this is +1 conspiracy theory)"
1) Is it acceptable for a user to call the statements by "European investigators" reported in the Wall Street Journal "conspiracy theory"? Especially when there are first class sources all over the world reporting the same things?
2) WSJ is readable, I specifically put the archive, please do not remove the parts that are precisely described in the source. Mhorg (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, just please don’t put it into the lead. It doesn’t belong there. What is wrong with putting it into the body further down? Betterkeks (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The lede must reflect the current state of the investigation, there is no point in just writing that there are three trails, because it is misleading. All first-class sources have their eyes on the Ukrainian group, and this must be in the lede. Mhorg (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
No, the article ought to record the current state. The lead is no place to get “stuck in the weeds”. Rather, the lead is meant to be “an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important content”. So summarise and abstract the most important stuff in the lead, hard, and delve into it and the rest in the body. Hypotheses of who might have done it are not important enough to be included in the lead. And you simply can’t do with credibility what you’re trying to do in the lead, because you don’t have the elbow room there for all the other hypotheses out there which you also need to cover if you go down that slippery road. Betterkeks (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The policy on due weight is really simple and it applies to the lede as well. If one version is dominant in RS then this is what should be mentioned in the lede. We do not "need" to cover all hypotheses in the lede. I think that this version of the lede by @My very best wishes is quite good. Alaexis¿question? 21:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I can’t get past the last paragraph in the lead, and wouldn’t read the rest of the article. We don’t know who did it, so just say that and be done with it. The speculation about Ukraine being involved doesn’t belong in the lead: if you want to talk about it, put it in the body further down. Then you don’t need to "balance" the lead by mentioning (MOS:DONTTEASE) further speculation in the lead. The article was much better months ago than it is now. Sorry, my two cents. Betterkeks (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with this, 100%. It is nearly impossible to properly describe these controversies in the lead because they are so murky. As this scholarly source explains [3] (September 21 2023), the sabotage was meaningless because the pipeline would not function and did not function anyway for political reasons. Hence, the sabotage was meaningless, even harmful to whoever did it. It was either an act of stupidity or a "false flag". In addition, many sources describe this as a possible action by a rogue group of Ukrainians, rather than by the Ukrainian state, yet another very strange scenario. Further, this is all based on unnamed sources, just as the claim by Seymour Hersh that has been apparently disproved. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. The introduction of the Chervinsky theory in the lead was done without discussion and should have been reverted immediately per WP:BRD while being discussed here. Alone the fact the Chervinsky theory has WP:INTEXT should be a red flag for placing it in the lead. Betterkeks: With regards to "The article was much better months ago than it is now", what do you think are its current shortcomings? Lklundin (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Lklundin First, the lead included (until a few hours ago) one hypothesis (of many) of what happened. That is fixed now, which is great.
Second, there seems to be a propensity to include conclusions before they are ready to be included. The article would be stronger if it stayed above these by summarising but keeping distance, while (possibly) offering details (maybe of some only) in a section further down from an observational perspective. Good to see the article is again heading that way.
I accept some authors wish to engage with some of the (or even all; kudos to them) hypotheses around, so let’s agree to let them … as long as it remains balanced … in an appropriate spot. Anyone that removes these "sandpits" at this point just invites them coming back elsewhere and unbalanced until they are worked back into balance at great effort.
So: we don’t KNOW its sabotage … even if someone of Jens’ calibre says it is, it looks like it, and we think it is. Theoretically it COULD have been explosives that went off unintentionally … I don’t know, the point is it’s POSSIBLE. Therefore: when introducing the term “sabotage”, let’s be careful to say it is generally accepted to be sabotage, even if that is a little wordy. Let’s err on the side of caution.
Third, there are again many small errors, errors that have been addressed in the past. Such as inconsistent spelling, style, formatting of quantities, poor English.
We don’t truly know who is responsible for the explosions and leaks, or their parts in it. So let’s be sure to say that, consistently. Let’s work with the fact that there are many opposing viewpoints here, to arrive at a Wikipedia article that celebrates this diversity instead of being just another battleground. Betterkeks (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with almost all of this. It is true that the publicly available information would allow for the explosions to be unintentional, the pipes _could_ for example have been mined (e.g. to attempt blackmail) and an e.g. radio-controlled detonator _could_ have been triggered by mistake. While entirely hypothetical, I think the public information cannot rule this out. However, the Swedish state prosecutor can well be operating with more information than the public has and they have officially called the act "major sabotage". So the article is named properly. On reflection, I think this should go in the lead. Lklundin (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
No, regarding the info from the German ("Western") investigation mentioned in the subsection Speculation there is not an official statement related to Ukraine. What there is are journalists citing "officials with knowledge of an investigation" speaking on "the condition of anonymity". Content in the article based on such unofficial sourcing is currently placed where it belongs. To my knowledge, we have still not seen a press conference from the German prosecutor where they accuse anyone (regardless of nationality), and actual, formal charges (whether or not in absentia) have to my knowledge also not been made against any named person (regardless of nationality). Lklundin (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you see the word "official" anywhere in the WP:V or WP:NPOV policies? We report what sources say, when the official investigation is complete I'm sure a lot of sources will report on it and we'll update the article. Alaexis¿question? 22:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, WP:NPOV say "Avoid stating opinions as facts". These are obviously not facts. Do the claims by anonymous people even qualify as an "opinion"? No, not really, because we can not attribute it to specific person(s) who would be responsible for their claims. This can be even an outright disinformation, especially if it comes from unnamed "intelligence source" (the "theory" published by Seymour Hersh is a great example). This is the state of the affairs right now. However, it will be a very different story when the official investigations by several countries are completed, published with all proofs and details and signed by investigators. What they find will be essentially a finding of fact. Consider the story with MH17 as an example. The amount of disinformation coming from Russia was enormous. The official investigation has resolved at least a part of it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there an explanation for why My Very Best Wishes is removing from the lede[4] what the Wall Street Journal reports? That is, the most important thing that all the journals are talking about: that European investigators are following the trail that leads to the Ukrainian sabotage group? Mhorg (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. There was never any discussion and thus no consensus for introducing this controversial change. Thus, per WP:BRD it has been removed while we discuss how to best phrase the lead. Lklundin (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
It looks like we need an RfC here. Alaexis¿question? 10:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree, it is better to involve other users to get their opinion. I would like to create the RFC myself, but I have never done it and I am afraid of making mistakes. Mhorg (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Poland
WSJ is under paywall, but RFE/RL article, which refers to WSJ, says (Google translation) "Sources of The Wall Street Journal believe that such behavior may indicate Poland's involvement in the Nord Stream bombings." This whole reference is about Poland (it is entitled "Nord Stream Probe Faces Resistance From Poland"). And if the "theory" by WSJ was correct, that indeed means that Poland has willingly dispatched a group of foreign terrorists to blow up the Russian pipeline. If true, this is an act of war. Therefore, one needs to place this to a subsection about Poland or "other countries", as I did. Please do not revert it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Please, I already wrote you once, the WSJ article is readable and the link is already on the page.[5] For me, we can also create a separate section, but the WSJ article also talks about the Ukrainian trail. It says that Poland may have collaborated with Ukraine to carry out the sabotage. So it concerns both sections. Mhorg (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for providing this link! There are two issues here. First, as this article say, these "investigators" only have "suspicions". Secondly, the article does not name any "European investigators". By remaining anonymous, these "investigators" avoid responsibility for their words. Therefore, I would trust more to statements by people who are named and whose words can be therefore properly attributed. What these named people say in the article?
In September, Stanislaw Zaryn, a senior Polish official then involved in overseeing Poland’s security services, dismissed the findings that the Andromeda crew was behind the sabotage, saying the crew had no military training and were merely tourists “looking for fun.” Around the same time, Poland’s internal security service circulated with European investigators alleged intelligence that the Andromeda had links with Russian espionage, which they alleged was behind the attack. Some investigators said they considered this to be disinformation. Zaryn, who left office following the election, said in a recent interview that any Polish involvement was unlikely as Russia was plausibly behind the sabotage.
.
I do not know who is right here, but the views by both sides should be presented, and this is not for the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
It is not for Wikipedia editors to judge what the first-class media report. These "investigators" have also been quoted by other newspapers, and we have to write this. Mhorg (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The article does not include exact quotations ("...") by the unnamed "investigators". There is nothing really to quote. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Exact quotations are never needed, what matters is what the first-class source reports. Mhorg (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Even with a WP:RS there can apparently be a need to be skeptical. How is it possible to write "European investigators" (who specifically criticize "Polish officials") without actually stating from which European country these investigators originate? From the usual unnamed agents to now investigators that are not even from a specific country, this is really at a new level of poor journalism. If anything, citing this source serves to undermine the credibility of the "European investigators" that attempt to track the "Ukrainian saboteurs". If this text is to remain as it is, a {{clarify}} to point to this glaring lack of specificity is called for. Further, this article is rated as "High‑importance" by no less than 6 WikiProjects. So we need some kind of minimum editing standard and not for example have a separate subsection that simply refers to "the yacht", since readers cannot be assumed to have read the other subsections where a named yacht is mentioned. Lklundin (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Mhorg: In citing the above-mentioned source, you somehow forgot to include the information that the official Polish position with the regards to the yacht "Andromeda" is that there is no evidence to suggest that it was used in the sabotage. In the interest of WP:NPOV I fixed that, citing a more specific source. The structure of the subsection on Poland as I left it thus makes sense: First there is Poland's official position on "Andromeda", then there is this (non-specific) reaction from "European investigators" on Poland's handling of Andromeda. The two pieces are in chronological and logical order. So if this needs to be changed, then please come up with a good justification here. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
My intention was to better explain that European investigators understood Poland's dual behaviour as something suspicious. This is well explained in the Wall Street Journal article. If information was lost in this process, I agree to restore it. Mhorg (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Lklundin do you think the text is understandable now? Mhorg (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Mhorg: Thanks for trying to improve the Poland-subsection. Based on your above explanation and especially "Poland's dual behaviour" I have to conclude that you are misreading the cited WSJ article. Zaryn's statements are perfectly clear and consistent. He is saying several things: 1) Poland's investigation has no evidence that the "Andromeda" was used for the sabotage and no evidence that its crew (regardless of their origin) had the relevant training for the sabotage. 2) Poland's investigation believes it is more likely that Russia was behind the attack. 3) Poland's investigation claims "Andromeda" had links with Russian espionage. There is nothing contradicting here. Other sources have already pointed to the possibility that the "Andromeda" was a false-flag (i.e. implicating an innocent party in the crime). This is consistent with Zaryn's statement that the Andromeda (but not necessarily its crew) had a connection with Russian espionage. It's important to understand that such involvement of an espionage agency _could_ be limited to paying someone to hire the "Andromeda" and take some people from the country to be falsely implicated sailing past some specific coordinates on some specific dates. I am not claiming this happened, I am merely explaining that it could have happened. There is already plenty of WP:RS to establish that Russia had naval assets in the area that were suitable for preparing the sabotage. So the statements from Zaryn are logical and consistent. Furthermore, Zaryn has made his statements on the record as a government official with knowledge of his country's investigation of the sabotage. It is actually rare (if not unique) that a government official goes on the record with a statement on the Nord Stream Sabotage and the Andromeda yacht. His statements are therefore notable and by themselves pertinent to the article. As such I am going to reintroduce them (along with the source for them). Now, subsequent to his statements it will then be fitting to place the reaction from the "European investigators" to Zaryn's statements and to Poland's overall (non?-)handling of the Andromeda (something which could very well disappoint investigators in another country), per the WSJ. So it is important to A) not misinterpret Zaryn's statements, and B) not see them as secondary to the reaction from the "European investigators". Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) PS. There is a lot of information in the cited WSJ article regarding the skepticism of the Polish investigation. You (and anyone else) should feel free (naturally) to quote more from it. Lklundin (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
WSJ:[6] "In September, Stanislaw Zaryn, a senior Polish official then involved in overseeing Poland's security services, dismissed the findings that the Andromeda crew was behind the sabotage, saying the crew had no military training and were merely tourists "looking for fun." Around the same time, Poland's internal security service circulated with European investigators alleged intelligence that the Andromeda had links with Russian espionage, which they alleged was behind the attack. Some investigators said they considered this to be disinformation."
From what I read here, while Zaryn said the crew were tourists 'looking fo fun', Polish security services told investigators that the crew was connected to the Russian state. So either they are tourists or they are connected to the Russian state. From what I read, the investigators understood this as suspicious behaviour by Poland. Mhorg (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Lklundin that we should follow logical and chronological order in this section. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
No, this is not what the cited Tagesschau article nor what the cited WSJ article says. What the official Polish allegation is (per the cited sources), is that the yacht "Andromeda" has links to Russian espionage - and that the crew are tourists without the training relevant for the sabotage. There is no contradiction in this. In fact, in the context of the theory presented by some WP:RS that the "Andromeda" is a false-flag, then it makes perfect sense. And all it takes is for Russian intelligence services to pay someone with links to e.g. Ukrainians that are willing to go sailing and then this someone rents the yacht and navigates it to certain pre-specified coordinates on certain dates. That someone is given a spray and told to use it on the tables inside the yacht afterwards to "disinfect" it (but actually spreading a chemical that can later be found by investigators and determined to be an explosive). Who knows what actually happened? We do not, but we cannot jump to conclusions. Lklundin (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC) PS. Per the two cited sources, it is actually only per the unnamed "European investigators" that Poland has made a non-public allegation that the "Andromeda" is connected to "Russian espionage". But given Poland's official position, that part in the WSJ article seems plausible. Lklundin (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The claim about the "false flag" should be included to the page. Yes, there is no contradiction between the "false flag" claim by Andreas Umland (see [7]) and the claims by Polish intelligence about Russian connection. Quite the opposite. In addition, this revert by Mhorg [8] is unhelpful for the reasons I explained in edit summaries, i.e. "European investigators" is not a single person; different investigators have different opinions per WSJ. The WSJ article also does not say tht they "follow the trail of ..."; this is also a duplication. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, given the available WP:RS. Done. Lklundin (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
