Talk:2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage

Dubious statements related to Poland cited from a WSJ article
The subsection "Involvement of Poland" cites a WSJ article with some truly puzzling statements. The journalist's source is "European investigators" who are "working on the case". This source alone (well, currently along with a Russian-language source summarizing the WSJ article) is cited to support the subsection "Involvement of Poland" where it is being implied that Poland _may_ have played a role in the sabotage. The subsection in its current form seems problematic wrt WP:VERIFY. The WSJ is in general a WP:RS but since the specific, cited WSJ-article contains these supporting statements that are clearly dubious, I am for now going to use the dubious-template on that paragrah. Maybe the subsection can be improved. Otherwise, I would be in favor of removing it altogether. Lklundin (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * These "European investigators" say that Warsaw has failed to "fully cooperate" on the Nord Stream sabotage investigation. This is dubious. Denmark and Sweden are two countries that are known to investigate the Nord Stream sabotage. Both of these two countries have cited national security concerns to justify their national investigations _not_ cooperate internationally. So how can Poland's same stance be a problem for these "European investigators"? This makes no sense.
 * How is it even possible for the journalist to actually know that their source is in fact investigators working on the case (and with non-public knowledge of Poland's investigation), without actually knowing their country of origin? This makes no sense.
 * I agree "European investigators" is dubious because the article did not name any specific countries the "investigators" came from. I assume they were not from Russia (Moscow is in Europe). There was a response saying that claims in WSJ article were false and that, again, "Investigations have so far failed to establish who was responsible for the pipeline blasts." . But I would not say the WSJ article should be removed from the page. The WSJ article shows that the investigators are working and want to publish their findings ASAP. It is just that they do not have any solid evidence about anything so far, beyond knowing it was indeed a sabotage. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. I do think that WSJ-source is insufficient to support the article's implication (even as a possibility) that there was "Involvement of Poland" in the sabotage, that is really an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim/possibility. So what should be removed from the page is that subsection (unless the extraordinary claim can be more convincingly supported). Lklundin (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to Poland and UK. We now have a couple of mainstream sources about Poland, but one of them is rebuttal. So whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue I see with the "Involvement of Poland" is that it is supported by a single, dubious source. A second source in that subsection is also quoted, but as I read it, it directly refers to the WSJ-source so adds nothing, or no?. So what is the second of the mainstream sources about Poland? As for the "Involvement of United Kingdom" there is a WP:RS, outlandish as the claim itself may be. Lklundin (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would just remove it. Welcome to restore in any form if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2024, regarding Sweden's closing of its investigation
the last paragraph of the intro is now wrong. Sweden has now closed its investigation. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/world/europe/sweden-nord-stream-pipeline.html Therefore change this:

Three separate investigations were initiated by Denmark, Germany and Sweden.[14] As of January 2024 these investigations are ongoing and, other than to describe the explosions as sabotage,[4][5][6][7] have not yet facilitated official conclusions leaving the perpetrators unknown.[15]

to something like this:

Three separate investigations were initiated by Denmark, Germany and Sweden.[14] As of February 2024 only Sweden's investigation has been closed. These investigations have described the explosions as sabotage[4][5][6][7] and have not yet facilitated official conclusions leaving the perpetrators unknown.[15]

By the way sorry for the formatting. I'm kinda new to Wikipedia and don't know how to do the formatting properly, especially on a talk page. So insert the source properly and don't just copy-paste my change. Theaxeisaxe (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ GrayStorm(Talk&#124;Contributions) 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Link to Project 865
Teer is now an articel to the russian hydrographic research vessel Sibirykov. Please add. --Shipyard 061 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It's a draft right now, please make another request when it's promoted to the article status. Alaexis¿question? 20:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 development
In the French press, the Ukrainian ambassador in London is designated as the operation instigator an investigation from the radio station France info designates Ukraine ambassador in London as responsible of the Nordstream gazoduc sabotage Ukulele (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2024
According to Washington Post, Trump "suggests that he knows something, but it’s more likely just part of his effort to blame Biden for the war in Ukraine".[181] - REMOVE THIS OPINION PIECE. Scubagreg72 (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)