Talk:Nord Stream 2

Nord Stream 2 AG deserves its own article

Just as there are two separate articles for the pipeline and the company for Nord Stream 1, there should be a separate article on the company "Nord Stream 2 AG".

Nord Stream AG is very eager to stress its indepedence from Nord Stream 2 AG, see its own press statement of 4 march 2022.

Nord Stream 2 AG is on the brink of bankruptcy.[1]-- Bancki (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If you can find other sources to back the notability of the company up, sure. – robertsky (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Removed content

Hi, how can someone help check/review the tendentious editing, and biased censorship by robertsky? This individual has been actively removing cited/sourced content on the Nord Stream 2 and Nord Stream pages. Thanks very much. Observer157 (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles/sources removed entirely by robertsky. Can robertsky be banned from Nord Stream pages for tendentious editing?

https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15206.doc.htm

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-shuns-formal-joint-investigation-nord-stream-leak-citing-national-2022-10-14/

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/russia-urges-un-to-launch-independent-investigation-on-nord-stream-sabotage/3100558/?amp=1

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/22973-us-and-norway-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines-seymour-hersh.html

https://www.newsweek.com/sergei-lavrov-us-nord-stream-pipeline-attack-1778499?amp=1

Observer157 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/07/biden-says-nord-stream-2-wont-go-forward-if-russia-invades-ukraine-.html Observer157 (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Before accusing others of tendentious editing and censorship, examine yourself first. My edits thus far has been rather fair and neutral. I have been patient and even went a step further explaining to you the issues that your edits have on your talk page (POV, UNDUE, unsubstantiated speculations, etc.). And yet, you repeatedly attempt to write back in the contentious content, first at Nord Stream, and now here.

The content that you have introduced in the lead is already either covered in the section below or in the main article for the sabotage, 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. The gas leaks section here is meant to be an except or summary of the sabotage page (see WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for an explainer why it is done). There isn't much that you have introduced to retain in the lead section here. I had moved what can be moved down below, and I also had done the courtesy of transferring some of your content to the sabotage article. – robertsky (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Observer157: it appears the editor who may be engaging in

WP:TENDENTIOUS is yourself.

• Your comment was removed for WP:VER WP:NPOV as it misreprents what the RS says [2]
• Your comment was removed from the lede for WP:LEAD (it doesn't belong in the lede) and for WP:VER WP:NPOV as it also misreprents what the RS says[3]
• Your comment was removed for WP:UNDUE, & WP:NPOV and again misreprents what the RS says [4]
• Your comment was removed for WP:VER & WP:NPOV because it does not support what the RS said & your comment only repeats Russia's unfounded allegation. [5]

It is the business of all editors to ensure that wiki policies are being followed, @Robertsky: has correctly removed your comments that do not make the article better and they don't adhere to wiki policies. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi I am sorry but I have to push back. I am learning all this wiki rules jargon but it seems like active censorship is happening here. Wiki should be open to the truth, not be a mouthpiece for state actors. 1. The VER rule is if something is verifiable. OK. All my URLs are from excellent sources: Reuters, CNBC, Newsweek, the UN’s direct public transcript, and US State Dept’s direct public website. 2. Neutrality rule. OK. Please help me understand. Would it be kosher to include the exact quote that a public official made (which is what I did), or please explain why is this not allowed. Why is it considered not neutral if all that is inserted as text is the exact quote someone made to the press? Biden, Blinken, Nuland statements about Nord Stream should be allowed for insertion. Please explain why not? Thank you, respectfully. Observer157 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If there is censorship, we won't be communicating here. Why should I discuss with you where is the best place to write and how to go about doing it, if I want people to zip their lips in the first place?

There is a specific article for all your edits that you have made so far, and it is 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. Why there? Because that's the primary topic there, much of the relevant details are in there. There are more eyeballs on that article than here.

Once again, we don't go into the details of who's pointing fingers at whom on this article. In my opinion, there may be a need to split the article out further for some of stuff currently here. If you are not able to make edits on the sabotage page due to page protection, and your insufficient edit count and/or tenure, use the Talk page and {{edit request}} template to have another editor to look and edit your content in if they think it is presented in an acceptable manner.

Your edits is not neutral despite you bringing in reliable sources. And this is because you are trying to string different stuff together to make it seems that it is USA is behind sabotage. What we have here are: a couple of instances of high ranking USA officials being publicly loud against NS2 but no verifiable actions from them, an actual sabotage, and a unverified claim that US did it. What you are trying to present is to the effect of 'USA was beating their chest against NS2, the sabotage happened, and here's a claim saying that USA did it'. This is synthesis: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. – robertsky (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. The fact this talk thread was removed shows editors are acting in bad faith and in censorship. Please explain why it is OK to remove recently documented UN testimony from Jeff Sachs and McGovern, why it is ok to entirely remove strongly sourced news articles quoting verbatim of what Biden, Blinken, and Nuland said directly to the press? It is censorship to remove text that is just their direct quotes without zero commentary or bias, just exactly what they said. I noticed you also removed Sweden’s statement that they will not share info from their investigation due to ‘national security’. Why was this removed? You are censoring the story that is being reported within credible news reports. Observer157 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact this talk thread was removed shows editors are acting in bad faith and in censorship. The only removal in recent history of this talk page was the archival of old inactive threads. You are asking questions which I have given replies to, which I will summarise: "summary here, details at else where". – robertsky (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You are also improperly citing the ‘synthesis’ rule. I have listed sources that do imply what is happening and you are removing these sourced summary articles (Helsinki, UN testimony). So it is not ‘synthesis’ because it is within the public records now of UN testimony. Why are you removing these entirely from the Wiki page ? Observer157 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Observer157: Wiki editors are expected to engage in good faith to resolve their disputes, and must not personalise disputes. Please read WP:CIVIL & WP:DISPUTE and adhere to wiki policies. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Censorship/removal of articles on this Wiki page

Hi, I am concerned about removal/censorship of well-verifiable articles from this Wiki Page. Can we get some review here. Thanks. Links below which are being removed possibly due to tendencious editing. —— United Nations public record of recent Nord Stream testimony from Jeff Sachs and Ray McGovern summarizing allegations of the United States behind the Nord Stream attack. https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15206.doc.htm

Official statement from Sweden investigator, declining to share info with Germany/Denmark due to ‘national security’ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-shuns-formal-joint-investigation-nord-stream-leak-citing-national-2022-10-14/

Formal proposal by Russia for UN investigation https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/russia-urges-un-to-launch-independent-investigation-on-nord-stream-sabotage/3100558/?amp=1

Summary article by the oldest newspaper in Finland https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/22973-us-and-norway-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines-seymour-hersh.html

Direct quote by Victoria Nuland about the ‘hunk of metal’. https://www.newsweek.com/sergei-lavrov-us-nord-stream-pipeline-attack-1778499?amp=1

Direct quote by Biden about Nord Stream if Ukraine is invaded https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/07/biden-says-nord-stream-2-wont-go-forward-if-russia-invades-ukraine-.html

US State Dept statement calling Nord Stream destruction a ‘tremendous opportunity’ https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-canadian-foreign-minister-melanie-joly-at-a-joint-press-availability/ Observer157 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Observer157: Your attempt to include the non-expert opinions of Jeff Sachs & Ray McGovern are WP:OR & WP:UNDUE & WP:VER. Plus, the Russian government asked Sachs & McGovern to give a 'brief' (not testify to) the UN on Russia's behalf. Also, Sachs & McGovern are political activists who are not experts in underwater gas pipelines & not experts in underwater gas pipeline explosions. Their opinions on underwater gas pipeline explosions carry as much weight as mine. The answer to your other questions have already been answered on this talk page. If you don't like the answers you've been given, you can either start go to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or go to the wiki editors talk page. But please WP:DROPTHESTICK on this talk page. Thanks. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Time to call a spade a spade

When do we call a spade a spade and include the USA as the saboteurs? [6] and [7].

I mean, it's not like the USA were making money from the sabotage, is it?

oh... 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:9DAF:36C2:3BAF:6001 (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Because we should not engage in speculations on here. Your sources do not confirm that USA is the saboteurs. – robertsky (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Robertsky, just to confirm, you think the BBC, Sky News and the Polish foreign minister are speculative sources, right? 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:9DAF:36C2:3BAF:6001 (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

No. I think your statement is speculative. – robertsky (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean the statement that includes citations to the BBC, Sky News and the Polish foreign minister? Lol 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:9DAF:36C2:3BAF:6001 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Just your statement. – robertsky (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

de Jong (2023) timeline may be useful

The following academic publication may be useful. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

References