Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)

Introduction

"namely airspace surrounding Chinese exclusive economic zone (EZZ) and territory Diaoyu Islands" assumes that the territory is uncontested PRC territory, but that is not the case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute . A rewording to indicate that the land is claimed by the PRC would be more accurate. Xevix (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed the name of the disputed islands in the introduction to match the current name we already have i.e. Senkaku Islands Ylinn (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Administration and Monitoring Operations

The tone of this section, in particular the use of quotes for "intercept," leans toward a pro-PRC stance. Perhaps taking a complete quote from the article would be better. Xevix (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Most references are links to the PRC Ministry of National Defense and in Chinese. There are no articles referencing the more recent rejection by Japan, the United States, and South Korea of this unilateral zone. Addition of these would add balance to the article. Xevix (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

ADIZ map

I think a map of the zone would put the situation in better perspective regarding the international concerns around the East China Sea. Doyna Yar (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added one in, it's the best and most comprehensive I could find (File:Air_Defense_Identification_Zones_Map_East_China_Sea.gif). Ansett (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doyna Yar (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've tagged this as having a Chinese rather than a global view and for POV concerns, for primarily the same reason. The article treats this as chinese creation of an Air Defense zone over their territory, not that of other countries. Ryan Vesey 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

ECSADIZoPRC is something we made up

I cannot find ECSADIZoPRC anywhere except this article. Can't we just use the ADIZ or China's ADIZ as needed? Hcobb (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found it anywhere either. Go ahead and change it. I've seen a few examples of it being referred to as ECS ADIZ. ADIZ can be used whenever it is clear that we are referring to China's ADIZ in the East China Sea, otherwise we should clarify it. Ryan Vesey 23:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly biased. To what side... that is to be determined. This page should be put on hold until an international agreement is determined. Quite frankly, a page such as this is akin to making a page on fluctuating stock prices or the value of gold... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.146.211 (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Legality

From my understanding an ADIZ is an entirely unilateral action by a state and has no internationally legal recognition. There is precedent to their declaration, however it's still unilateral. These usually just exist for a state to have some preemptive warning. However when they overlap another state's Zone there is naturally a conflict. The noninterference of the US B-52 transit may/or may not suggest the PRC's zone is targeted at particular states. As usual the Chinese seem to be playing the long game. Personally I find the timing with the Iranian interim nuclear deal conveniently suspicious.Doyna Yar (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes but the Sansha article is very similar and Wikipedia treats the Chinese creation as more or less a genuine entity. There should be some consistency to how these matters are dealt with. The reality of the entity for China does not mean that that it is internationally recognized.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this article specifically about Chinese air defense identification zone?

There are air defense identification zones of Japan and Korea in East China Sea.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

China only has one ADIZ, this one, whereas the Japanese and Korean ADIZ extends well beyond the East China Sea area. So in terms of the scope, and future scope, of the article it ought to be China, with expansion and a rename to China's ADIZ coming if China establishes or extends to other regions.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Brian Dell - This article is not about China's claim, there are many Air Defense Identification Zones in the same area as you can see from the map I uploaded. I think maybe this article should be moved to Air Defense Identification Zones (East China Sea). Japan already claimed most of this area as a ADIZ in 2010. If we want to be specific about China create a new section within the article. Ansett (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

One can argue that the article SHOULD be about zones plural but that's not what it currently IS. The article was given the name East China Sea because that's the name China gives it. What happened was that the early article drew heavily on Chinese state-controlled media and so introduced the Japanese ADIZ in order to provide a moral justification/equivalency argument for the creation of the zone. That was one reason the article got tagged as POV, above. There were two ways of balancing the article and one way was to remove content about the other ADIZ as irrelevant while the second way was to leave it in but characterize it as a background history of the area to which the Chinese ADIZ is being applied. The second route provides more information to the reader and I support it, but that doesn't mean the article has shifted its topic. For a shift to the zones, plural, in the East China Sea you should propose a name change so this can be properly discussed as such. It is not appropriate to continue to add topic-shifting content without a consensus that this is what Wikipedia wants to do. At the moment there is already an ADIZ article that deals with zones in the plural and it includes a subsection for China and considers this article the "main article" for that subsection topic. As such, we should remain consistent with that and treat this as primarily concerned with China's ADIZ.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be about China's zone, that this article's name should be changed to reflect that, and that other articles be created and renamed to reflect each individual country. So there is a Air Defense Identification Zone article already and then there can be an "Air Defense Identification Zone (China)", an ""Air Defense Identification Zone {Japan)", etc. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"control" vs "monitor"

Just what the Chinese have introduced here may be disputed without just repeating in detail the new "rules." The question is how to summarize this. New "monitoring" is not accurate in my view since monitoring is passive and does place an onus on the monitored to respond. The Chinese media says "Any airplane that fails to follow such rules will face emergency defense measures taken by the Chinese military." If you look at the statement on the Chinese Defence website that responds to the U.S. flight, it says "有效管控." This translates as "effective control." Someone changed it to "monitor" but this is not an accurate translation and it is also not consistent with the English translation appearing in the sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, three refs in the 1st paragraph do not say "control". Secondly, no link there is from Economist. If you can provide one, please provide one. Thirdly, if you translate "有效管控" into "control", that only means your Chinese is very bad. Air Defense Identification Zone only means monitoring and early-warning. If you can provide primary source translation of Chinese Defense Ministry about translating it as "control", please provide one. If not, shut up! ADIZ is not territorial airspace (China's ADIZ includes her territorial airspace of Diaoyu Islands, though), how can you control? It's for "identification". Are you kidding me? Even Japan doesn't say control about its ADIZ.54.201.110.17 (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you see this link here: http://eng.mod.gov.cn/TopNews/2013-11/27/content_4476726.htm? Does it, or does it not, say "Ministry of National Defense The People's Republic of China" in the banner on the top of this webpage? Is this, or is this not, a website controlled by the Chinese government? Now what does it say, in English, after the word "effective"? Is that word "control" or is it not? Where are the sources for "monitoring and early warning"? I searched for this phrase and found a grand total of zero sources that used this terminology in the context of this ADIZ. I gave the URL for the Economist's use of "air traffic restrictions" in my edit summary. The Economist is not alone here. The Guardian says "China imposes airspace restrictions", The Diplomat says "China Imposes Restrictions on Air Space", PBS Newshour refers to "air defense restriction from China," the Columbus Dispatch says "China imposes airspace restrictions," the Financial Times says "Beijing defends flight restrictions as ‘legitimate action’." I could go on, but it should also be possible to just use logic here. If you are JUST monitoring me and warning me, what do I have to do? Nothing, of course. You warn me that I am in your zone and that's the end of it. But that's not the case with the rules here. At http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Press/2013-11/23/content_4476143.htm it says "Third, aircraft ... should follow the instructions of the administrative organ .... China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions." "Follow the instructions" is a restriction. If you want to find another term, like "control," we can talk about that, but "monitoring" is NOT all that is implied here. Note that word "will" before "adopt defensive emergency measures." This is more like instructions from air traffic control than just being tracked by air traffic control, and air traffic control has the word "control" in it. As for the Japanese ADIZ being different, yes it is! As the New York Times points out, "The Chinese also imposed requirements that other countries do not"--Brian Dell (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Merger or rename proposal

I believe this article should be merged with the main article Air Defense Identification Zone. I think there is already some doubling up between the articles. Ansett (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Rename to Air Defense Identification Zone (China). See above discussion.

reason: Already Air Defense Identification Zone (North America) and Air Defense Identification Zone (Washington DC) exist. Trim the description of China section in Air Defense Identification Zone to a summary of this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

At present I don't think there is enough material for separate articles except for U.S./Canada ADIZ and Chinese ADIZ. Because any Chinese ADIZ, either the current one in the East China Sea or a future one in the South China Sea would be in a contested maritime area there will likely be extensive media coverage of Chinese ADIZ and as a consequence enough material that I don't think articles on Chinese ADIZ should be merged into this article. This article should just summarize in the case of North American or Chinese ADIZ, with main article links available in the subsections.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC) I note that Iloilo Wanderer's comments above, in an earlier section, also imply opposition to the merger proposed here.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Merger Mztourist (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Merger It's premature. Let's give this issue some time to shake out, and the other article to be fleshed out. I can see one article on the topic in general and then one article on the China zone, plural if they set up another one. The China zone is different enough -- controversial enough -- that I can see it being notable enough to be separate but I could also see the issue dying off. See to the discussion above re re-naming. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Air Defense Identification Zone article?

I am trying to avoid an WP:Edit War over at Air Defense Identification Zone. User:Liang1a has made several changes, including adding material that simply duplicates info here, and also has deleted cited information that clarifies how China's ADIZ differs from other zones. User:Liang1a has not however ever explained his actions despite repeated requests to do so. Any advice or help would be appreciated. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

==================================================================================================================================================================

From Liang1a: If anybody is starting an Edit War it is Iloilo Wanderer. He had repeatedly deleted my posts when I had provided full references. He is also posting statements that are not factual. He said Chinese ADIZ is unusual because it requires all aircrafts to file flight plans flying in any direction through its ADIZ. But American ADIZ also requires ALL PLANES to file flight plans when flying IN ANY DIRECTION:

"ANY AIRCRAFTS that wishes to fly IN OR THROUGH the boundary must file either a Defense Visual Flight Rules (DVFR) flight plan or an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan BEFORE CROSSING THE ADIZ (14 CFR 99.11)."

http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Since Chinese ADIZ has the same requirements as American ADIZ, it is obviously a lie to say that the Chinese ADIZ is unusual. I would appreciate help in making AW to stop this mendacious edit war which serves to degrade the quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be a place of knowledge without sensationalization and demonization of China or any other persons or countries.

Liang1a (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nationalism and Prejudice

I. Wanderer has posted statements that have no probative value to inform the readers. He had posted statements that are only inflammatory tending to demonize China. This should be against the principle of Wikipedia which should be the enlightenment of issues objectively. Therefore, I hope he can be persuaded to put aside his obvious prejudice against China and post only facts objectively without needless sensationalization about the world is "denousing" China.Liang1a (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)