Talk:Air defense identification zone

What about the 15+ other countries that maintain ADIZs?

An article on ADIZs needs to be more inclusive, as many countries other than China, Japan, & the United States each have their individual versions on an ADIZ.

The following two quotes come from "Air Defense Identification Zone [ADIZ]". globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2013-11-27.

"Japan and South Korea have ADIZs that are contiguous and do not overlap, ..."

"Norway and the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan and Canada (CADIZ) are some of the 20 countries which maintain ADIZs ..."

Peaceray (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) Merger/rename proposal

Please see Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)#Merger or rename proposal. Ansett (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for summarizing China section

The China section was getting too long and both taking over this article and duplicating material in the zone's main article. I tried to summarize the points quickly. Others undoubtably have other and better ideas. Please make suggestions here if you think that they are controversial. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is your standard for an article being "long"? The article should be as long as it takes to fully provide factual information to satisfy the curiosity of readers. Liang1a (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My standard is the American, Japan and South Korean sections. Like the American section there is a main article on China's ADIZ and therefore like the American section this should be a summary of the main points with links to other articles. This should not be an article that discusses in detail China's ADIZ but rather merely summarizes where and when and the controversy. Details are elsewhere. We should avoid duplication. Therefore I think that the specific coordinates and rules and the various back-and-forth competing quotations should all be moved from this generic article to the main article on China's ADIZ. (I have reformatted User talk:Liang1a's comment to fit Wikipedia practice.) --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted changes

I have manually reverted many of the changes made by User:Liang1a. Most of the edits User:Liang1a made were helpful but better suited for the main article on China's recently announced zone (See Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)) In general I think that this article should only summarize the controversy over China's zone (and that summary still needs work) and not get into the details of the zone or the controversy. Also it is important that we put China's zone and the controversy in context. Some of Liang1a's changes removes without explanation such context that has citations. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The China section should provide information about the nature of China's ADIZ and not about controversy over it. Maybe you want to sensationalize the controversy which is being sensatinalized by China's enemies which includes the Philippines. But most serious people would want to know what China's ADIZ is in terms of its locations, its rules and regulations, when it was established, how is it enforced, etc. and not how detestable or controversial it is.

If you on your own prejudice remove factual infomration I provided then you are being disruptive and should be banned. Liang1a (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a main article on the China ADIZ as there is on the North American ADIZ. All the details are there putting them here just duplicates information unnecessarily. The China section like the American section should be just a summary, and it is an encyclopedia summary, not a aviation website summary. As such we need to discuss technical details and its historical and political context. We must include the controversy or else we are failing in our responsibility as an encyclopedia.

Not mentioned above is the reason for removing the discussion of how the various ADIZ's differ. There were cited articles explaining how a ADIZ usually works and how China's is "unusual". This is of course helpful in an ADIZ article as it helps sketch out is and does. User:Liang1a has yet to comment upon why he removed these neutral citations and explanations.

We cannot allow this article to be censored. We must discuss fully the ADIZes, including how they differ and what controversies exist. We should not be afraid of controversies. We should not let Wikipedia be censored. (Note: I changed the formatting of User:Liang1a's comments so that it followed Wikipedia's practice. I hope no one minds). --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The material provided by I. Wanderer are all tendentious with no probative value to inform and enlighten the readers. The language used by him is also more calculated to demonize China than to provide an evenhanded elucidation of the issues. For example, using "drew ... international criticism" insinuate that the whole world is against China which is obviously not true. Other than Japan, the US, Australia, Philippines, and their allies the rest of the world simply doesn't care.

Some readers who visit one ADIZ article may not visit other ADIZ article(s). Therefore, it is not correct to assume that readers will visit the main ADIZ article after visiting this one. Therefore, there is no reason to object to the duplication of information. I hope I. Wanderer will desist in this edit war which will ultimately degrade the credibility of Wikipedia.Liang1a (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cited material removed

User:Liang1a has again removed cited material that added helped define what a ADIZ is and added context to the controversy about China's zone. The material called China's zone "unusual". Why does User:Liang1a do this? He needs to explain so that we can reach a WP:Consensus. Specifically he has removed these sentences:

The zones usually do not cause much controversy. However, in November 2013 Mainland China established a zone in the East China Sea that was unusual in at least three respects and that has caused countries around the world to denounce the zone. Usually a zone covers only territory that is undisputed; China's ADIZ in the East China Sea covers the Japanese-controlled, China-claimed Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands in China). Further, China's zone overlaps with other countries' zones and imposes requirements on both civilian and military aircraft regardless of destination, while other zones apply only to civilian aircraft flying into the territory of the zone's country.

--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Liang1a does this because he is biased, raging Chinese nationalist. Examples of his views can be found here http://www.network54.com/Forum/238054/page-2 and here http://www.asiawind.com/bb/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=8591551f884506b1f7b77004a69650af — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.29.3 (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not at first remove the section below. I only added an explanation to refute it. However, my addition was removed, therefore I removed the section below also.

"The zones usually do not cause much controversy. However, in November 2013 Mainland China established a zone in the East China Sea that was unusual in at least three respects and that has caused countries around the world to denounce the zone. Usually a zone covers only territory that is undisputed; China's ADIZ in the East China Sea covers the Japanese-controlled, China-claimed Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands in China).[1] Further, China's zone overlaps with other countries' zones and imposes requirements on both civilian and military aircraft regardless of destination, while other zones apply only to civilian aircraft flying into the territory of the zone's country.[2][3]"

The section above has no probative value to inform the readers but serves only to demonize China. It had already been stated in the paragraph prior to the removed section that there is no internationally accepted standard. Therefore, what is the point of calling the Chinese ADIZ "unusual" which insinuates that it is somehow unacceptable and against the norm?

Furthermore, it is factually incorrect to say that the Chinese ADIZ is unusual because it overlapped other countries' zones because it has already been pointed out that the Japanese ADIZ overlapped the Taiwan ADIZ. Liang1a (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Liang1a

It is not factual that American ADIZ only requires identification from aircrafts flying "toward" American territory.

"Any aircraft 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)."

The above is a quote taken from: http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Therefore, I'm going to delete your post where it says America only require identification from aircrafts flying "toward" American territory because it is a lie.

If you keep deleting my posts then you're the one who is starting a war. Not only are you waging a war but you are posting lies which should not be tolerated by Wikipedia. Liang1a (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The only "lie" here is taking a bullet point off a Powerpoint slide and declaring that to be the final and full word when one knows full well that the original regulations in all their detail are available and either ignoring those regulations or misrepresenting them. A PowerPoint show does not spell out every nuance. You've elsewhere quoted 14 CFR 99.11 while ignoring the fact that 99.11 is a subsection to 99.1 which is prefaced by an applicability declaration that says, among other things, that "This subpart prescribes rules for operating all aircraft (except for Department of Defense and law enforcement aircraft) in a defense area, or into, within, or out of the United States through an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) designated in subpart B" "Within this United States" means within territorial airspace and territorial airspace does not include an ADIZ. Before making an issue over "defense area" in this clause, please see section 99.3 "Definitions" which says "Defense area means any airspace of the contiguous United States that is not an ADIZ in which the control of aircraft is required for reasons of national security." A "defense area" is thus defined as "NOT an ADIZ" (in other material it is suggested with regard to a defensive area "establishment of such areas extending beyond the territorial sea has been restricted to periods of war or declared national emergency involving the outbreak of hostilities.")

If these regulations aren't clear to you, the U.S. has made its interpretation clear on other occasions. The Commander's Handbook very clearly states in "2.7.2.3 Air Defense Identification Zones in International Airspace" that "ADIZ regulations promulgated by the United States apply to aircraft bound for U.S. territorial airspace... The United States does not recognize the right of a coastal nation to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter national airspace nor does the United States apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. airspace." The FAA's webpage "Entering, Exiting and Flying in United States Airspace" says "Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ): All aircraft entering U.S. domestic airspace from points outside must provide for identification prior to entry or exit." Last but not least there are the on-the-record declarations of U.S.government spokesmen.

I understand you wish to claim an equivalency between China's declaration of an ADIZ and the U.S. ADIZ. Equivalency arguments of one sort or another are continually trotted out by PRC spokesman. But it simply is not supported by the facts here. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman was specifically asked about the U.S. statements about the U.S. ADIZ and effectively admitted their accuracy by saying "different countries have set different rules"--Brian Dell (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that we need to keep in mind a few Wikipedia policies. First Wikipedia:Third-party sources if applied would mean that the FAA is not an appropriate source in part because the terms are not defined (what does "crossing" mean? Is it different from transiting? Etc.). Second, WP:Edit War means that threatening "to delete your post where…" as [[User:Liang1a is a violation of Wikipedia practice. Third, and most importantly, deleting cited material as Liang1a did is also a violation. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Liang1a has not cited any third-party source that contradicts the Global Security and New York Times' statement that all other ADIZes apply only to civilian aircraft and is dependent upon destination whereas China's applies to both civilian and military regardless of destination, and that therefore it is "unusual". Think that these statements do have probative value as they highlight the similarities and differences between the various ADIZes. There is a "norm". A norm is not necessarily a law but a normal practice. Historically, ADIZes have had certain characteristics. China's is "unusual" is that it doesn't follow these international norms, these international practices. China's ADIZ doesn't violate any laws but it violates international norms. So far, I do not see any justification under Wikipedia policy for Liang1a's deletions of cited material. Further Liang1a's threat of an edit war is beyond the pale. (I've reformatted Liang1a's comments so that they are more readable and fit with Wikipedia's practice.) --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)