Talk:Nord Stream/Sabotage
IMO, the "leaked RAND report" is an obvious forgery. It is using language and ways of formulating things that doesn't sound right to me compared to other RAND documents. No RAND document would be this brazen in assessing internal politics: "The continuing deterioration of the economic situation is highly likely to lead to a loss in the position of the Democratic Party in Congress and the Senate in the forthcoming elections to be held in November 2022. The impeachment of the President cannot be ruled out under these circumstances, which must be avoided at all costs."
And this is a too broad statement that sounds fishy: "The euro will inevitably, and most likely irreversibly, fall below the dollar. A sharp fall of euro will consequently cause its global sale. It will become a toxic currency, and all countries in the world will rapidly reduce its share in their forex reserves. This gap will be primarily filled with dollar and yaun."[sic]
I believe Europe and Germany are being shafted according to a carefully laid plan, but this document is not it.
Terje (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, the first line that irritated me was: "Thanks to our precise actions, it has been possible to block ..." [1] Curious how many were taking it as potentially serious. Rand has issued a statement on the document.[2]
- -- Sunvalley (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- This was even brought up on German RT at one point, this had some exposure in the German media realm.
- -- Sunvalley (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The recent EU inquiry, judging by convenience and press coverage, is a limited hangout I think. To some extent the reporting by Hersh might be as well. I would sort at least the EU inquiry under the new heading "suspected limited hangout." Is that ok? -- Sunvalley (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- In the future it would be wise to explain why though user:sunvalley. The lede points to possible misdirectio = The subheader doesn't mention why the report would be false. You have to give sources that discuss and explain why the EU/Die Zeit is false. I'd say the Wikipedia article has even more info on all angles, and shows that even the gatekeeper deep state actors on Wikipedia don't really know what happened here. (comparing it to the 2012_Benghazi_attack where the gag order against the CIA-ordered gun-walking supplier of the groups that attacked the compound was scrubbed for the page) I'd say add all those sources (why do bloggers have a whole subsection, but witnesses interviewed there don't for example) should be added in the future apart from our opinions. Jun (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would like to hear the opinion of other admins/editors to the exact point you just raised. Wrong to write it (the lede) like this and just leaving it as such without citation (for what Jun says is an assumption)? Because this more or less is the angle that Wikispooks has been set-up on and it the follows the established line of thinking (am I the only one to think that?). Input from somebody else please, it (the input) would have to happen at some point anyways. -- Sunvalley (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- in the meantime a meme, to help the situation ..
-- Sunvalley (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- As per style guide, Robin: 2015 (updated 2019 and 2021 as well);
Citing your sources is an essential way to help readers estimate the creditworthiness or otherwise of an article, so is highly recommended. Give priority to primary sources whose main function is the collection and presentation of data. If you are creating an article about a UK company, for example, you should include a reference to its page on Companies House. Other sources exist (such as opencorporates) for non-UK companies. Determining the reliability of a source is a highly complex matter - seek multiple sources if you are in doubt. If you can't find a source, using Template:cn to record that fact is a good way to attract other editors to try to seek one.[3]
This also implies: if you mention an angle (that a report may be a misdirection) you should mention why or how somewhere in the article. I've got nothing more to add though, as I already agreed with the statement an sich (of it maybe being a misdirection) in fact. A [citation needed] next time should be sufficient. Jun (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) PS: Don't forget to tag one of the other admins to get them to the page if still requested.
