Talk:2023 Chinese balloon incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bomberswarm2 (talk | contribs) at 03:19, 19 February 2023 (→‎Merger proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Regrets, Research, and Surveillance

We should be on the look-out for close readings of Chinese and American statements and cite them accordingly as this situation unfolds. E.g., "regrets" are not an apology (I'm thinking of the Hainan Island incident here). Too, the MFA statement that "It is a civilian airship used for research, mainly meteorological, purposes" has some wiggle room; "...no additive intelligence value" likewise. In any case FBI counter-intelligence officers are on it. In in the meantime I'm fine with "Surveillance"; we're not writing headlines. kencf0618 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've only given examples of just statements from the Chinese side so I'm not sure how your recommendation would apply to both American and Chinese statements. Did you mean to just say "We should be on the look-out for close readings of Chinese and American statements and cite them accordingly as this situation unfolds." instead? Restflux (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter statement is from an American official. kencf0618 (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a spy balloon, let's say it

We have "spy" in the name of over 40 references used in this article, as that is what RS calls it. We have repeatedly removed that for "surveillance" while no sources call it that.

[1] is one of hundreds of examples. Very Average Editor (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that its still disputed and per WP:NPOV we aren't supposed to take sides of a dispute. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't disputed. We have over 40 reliable sources in the article that use that word. We say what reliable sources say, and the overwhelming majority say it is a spy balloon. Can you find many that say otherwise? Can you find one RS saying it's definitely a weather balloon? There isn't a dispute, only a denial. Which we also have covered. Very Average Editor (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those sources state that china was accused of sending a spy balloon while others give weight to that china claimed otherwise.
What you are asking me to do is to prove a negative which is an inherently fallacious argument.
Many RS *don't* say that its a spy balloon and just refer to it as the china/chinese balloon.
I don't like west taiwan at all and my personal opinion is that its very likely a spy balloon but the fact of the matter is that its still disputed and many new (as in, published today, on 2/13/2023) sources reflect this uncertainty by saying the US *claims* it was a spy balloon or making no adjectival notice of that in the title, and mentioning what the US says later in the article.
We aren't supposed to take sides. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China Daily article

@Restflux: Concerning this removal, could you explain it? The statement is being offered not as a factual assertion about the balloon incident itself, but as a factual assertion about China's reaction in its state media. That's informative, isn't it? Bsherr (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was added back. Bsherr (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsherr: No i don't believe that the material is informative. As I tried to say in my edit comment, the state media and the spokesperson are representatives of the same entity (the Communist Party of China) in the same official capacity and on this occasion, they are saying the same thing. The spokesperson says the balloon wasn't used for spying and the takedown was unacceptable, points which are essentially regurgitated by the state media as lies propagated by the US and a blatant provocation. Restflux (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's informative. Yes, they both represent the same entity, but it's sort of one rung below an official statement by the foreign ministry. The CCP uses Chinese media and op-eds to put out some of their more hawkish and conspiratorial views, while maintaining a sort of "plausible deniability". I think it gives an idea of what Chinese citizens consuming state media are fed. In this case, a lot of Chinese people feel that the balloon is "revenge" for American freedom of navigation flights over South China Sea, and that the shootdown is American political theatre ahead of the Blinken visit, opinions reflected in the China Daily piece, but would never be "officially" released. Meeepmep (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not seeing what the difference between the two are. The state media simply follows what the foreign ministry says, as is the case with this incident where the main talking points by the PRC/CPC foreign ministry (it was a civilian airship, the shootdown was illegal, response for FONOPS) are regurgitated by the state media. Even if it is generally the case that the state media is more "encompassing" (i.e. hawkish and conspiratorial) in the position that it takes vis-a-vis the foreign ministry, that doesn't seem to be the case here where the main points in the state media articles have already been officially released via the CPC spokespersons. Restflux (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which official came out and said that the balloon is response to FONOPS and the shootdown was political provocation for the Blinken visit? Meeepmep (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See this article [2] Restflux (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They shot down an unidentified high altitude object over Alaska...

What was it? An alien spacecraft or some spying vessel? What do sources say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:903F:F480:5044:F26E:C46C:FD60 (talk • contribs)

The military isn't saying yet, but it was downed over ice, so hopefully time will tell. I have a feeling this is going to be a bad time for balloons over Alaska, which given certain stated strategies, there might be a sudden abundance of them. Sidewinder missiles cost about $400,000. Simple weather balloons typically cost under $500 including payload and inflation. Δπ (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll know soon enough —debris have already been recovered, and too we've apparently used the Beijing-Washington hotline for the first time here. Not that the Chinese bothered to pick up...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64605447
kencf0618 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its another one, it’s another one, it’s another one ….

So said every rapper ever. This time over Canada. So number four.


We’re reaching the point of substantial revision of the main space item. 41.58.196.182 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Montana airspace closed. wd-Ryan (Talk) 01:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose merge 2023 Chinese balloon incident, 2023 Alaska high-altitude object, 2023 Yukon high-altitude object and 2023 Montana high-altitude object into 2023 Chinez balloobo, all same event N4 (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The proposed name is misspelled. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – Of course, one should wait a week or two to see if more balloons appear, but I can easily see this as a greater trend of an example of Chinese espionage. Besides the other articles being too small, they all need the surrounding context.
Of course, do get that title corrected. Info2Learn (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (with better rename). This is obviously a closely related set of incidents linked to a common newsworthy event. I would suggest a name such as 2023 Chinese balloon incursions covering the multiple US, Canadian, and South American incidents. Keavon (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No! The high-altitude objects are not balloons! They are silver and cylindrical and nothing has been confirmed 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ones in Alaska and the Yukon aren't even Chinese Lord ding dong (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it's doubtful the one that China is shooting down today would be their own, either. Information is changing by the day; merging all of this would be pre-mature and a massive leap of faith. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with better rename - Not sure what's up with the proposed article title, but otherwise, I agree with Keavon's stance. Love of Corey (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose First off, target name is misspelled. Second, the objects are not confirmed to be balloons and specifically the Alaskan one has a description that would not match that of a balloon. Just because they involve objects in the air near the same time doesn't mean they're related.
• I would support a merge between high-altitude articles, because those are related, but the Chinese balloon has nothing to do with this. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alaska and Yukon were cylindrical, probably not balloons 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. Agree with DinoSoup. The other three objects have not been described as balloons or clearly linked to China by any official source or reliable secondary source. They might be in the future, but they aren't the same thing right now. Rainclaw7 (talk)
• Oppose (for now). ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the target location. What is that? "Chinez balloobu" ?? What language is that supposed to be? And where's the evidence that all these are Chinese, instead of North Korean or Russian? Only the one shot down on the East Coast is acknowledged as Chinese, and these other three have different appearances than that one. Instead one might want to start a list of 2023 high-altitude objects impinging on North American airspace; article for these 4 (so far) incidents, and maybe some point later in the year there might be a merge -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Maybe there should be a 2023 Chinese balloon incidents page or something, but these others don't need their own pages. Reywas92Talk 05:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional oppose until/unless the new UFOs are confirmed to be Chinese. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There's not nearly enough information to be sure that all of these instances are related, so it would be nothing short of foolish for the articles to be combined. Ludicrous (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now, there's not much information. I like how @DinoSoupCanada mentioned that the Alaskan flying object has a description that would not match that of a balloon. I suggest we wait to see if these recent objects are related to the (main) Chinese balloon incident. Evan224 (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC
• I agree with 65.92.244.151 that we should have a page to collect all the high-altitude object incursion incidents, but as the situation is still developing I would vote neutral for merging all the articles but perhaps merge 2023 Montana radar incident into 2023 Chinese balloon incident since it seems to ultimately be a false positive that isn't notable on its own. MSG17 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, at least for the Canadian event, as it has a separate level of significance, being the only time it has happened in Canada.-- Earl Andrew - talk 15:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete Neither of the incidents in question likely pass GNG/EVENT. If they cannot be confirmed as Chinese in origin which would work for a merge, and nothing comes to light within a reasonable period of time that gives them a credible claim to long term significance, I would encourage they be sent to AfD. No need to rush. But if we don't have considerably more by the end of the week than what is known now, then yeah. Just because something happens and gets a bunch of short-term news coverage, does not make it notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge as not related. Support deletion of Montana article, oppose deletion of Alaska and Yukon article. There seems to be a lot more coverage on the Alaska and Yukon incidents to make them notable, whereas the Montana incident is not notable at all.71.125.36.50 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Schrauber5 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. These are each unique incidents that are being analyzed separately, and the original article is already huge. There is currently no need to merge all of these events to 2023 Chinez balloobo, to this article, or anywhere else for that matter. As time goes on and more information becomes known, perhaps the need for an umbrella article will reveal itself, but as it stands we haven't yet been given the powers of Amy Adams in Arrival, so List of high-altitude object events in 2023 is a better container at this time, in addition to the template that has been created. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose to a point In my opinion, these articles should stay separate. However, it wouldn't hurt to also make a list compiling all of these Chinese balloon incident articles. CY223 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with better rename - Name is misspelled and not all objects are even balloons or confirmed to be Chinese; I propose 2023 North American high-altitude object incidents or 2023 North American airspace violations or something similar instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BanditTheManedWolf (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge under a more suitable title in a week or so Edmund Patrick – confer 20:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support/Rename/Merge - It seems there's quite a lot of these balloons/objects floating around up there conman33 (. . .talk) 21:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - WP:TOOSOON. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 22:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with better rename, They all seem similar and I would put it under something like "2023 North American High Altitude Objects" or something else BanditTheManedWolf gave. The proposed title in the original comment is unacceptable. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge under a more suitable title in a week or so to see if the incidents can be attributed to Chinese spying. Even if they are not, they are similar as shoot downs of high altitude objects and are likely to be linked by most readers in some way. A proliferation of articles on similar incidents seems wasteful and would be difficult to follow and keep track of, in my opinion. Donner60 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This feels like rushing. While WP:RAPID is about deletion, the same principles apply. I started List of high-altitude object events in 2023 to help navigate between the event articles. CT55555(talk) 01:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to a point. Keep the first Chinese balloon page on its own, and merge the rest into a list page about these kinds of incidents this year that still includes the original but offers short-ish descriptions on the more minor ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4timesSpeed (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second this suggestion. – Anne drew 03:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and support this course of action. It makes sense to merge the rest into a single article at this point, but the Chinese Balloon is an independent event at this time. Skipple ☎ 04:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. As stated before in this discussion, WP:TOOSOON. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. Each incident has its own extensive set of facts that cannot be accurately conveyed and summarized in a subsection of another incident's wiki. Hard concept for some to grasp but they are all noteworthy invents in and of themselves. Ispottedsomething (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. It has not yet been proven that the Alaska, Yukon, and Montana airborne objects were Chinese. It is possible they were (see Wikipedia:Too soon), but until we are certain, keep the articles separate. Drdr150 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. There's simply not enough information to conclude that these incidents are even connected at all. I could support adding a section mentioning articles that compare the incidents. Catalyzzt (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.'
1) proposed title is misspelled
2) so far, describing all objects as "Chinese balloons" is POV and possibly incorrect. Our articles on the Alaska and Lake Huroh objects sound like they have very different physical descriptions- are they even certainly known to be balloons? Vultur~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. We don't know that they are linked. Now there is a general article covering them. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE There is now a list article; List of high-altitude object events in 2023 -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now as above, it's very likely there will be more of these, better to look at consolidating them once we're sure what we're dealing with. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to article length 78.36.163.169 (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Yukon, Lake Huron (was Montana) and Alaska articles into list article List of high-altitude object events in 2023. The Chinese balloon incident is a separate event, but the other three can be covered together. Natg 19 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for procedural reasons but Support with a better name change DarmaniLink (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - this situation is still developing; it's too early to know if these are connected. -MJ (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•Oppose. There is already an article List of high-altitude object events in 2023 that talks about the Alaska, Yukon, and Montana high-altitude objects. Oddballslover (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—especially with that weird proposed rename. Compusolus (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is merged, so to say, in the List of high-altitude object events in 2023 already. Otherwise, the great amount of information of each of the events may become too blended. Alandeus (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - 2023 Alaska high-altitude object, 2023 Yukon high-altitude object and 2023 Montana high-altitude object aren't Chinese, according to the BBC -- hence, no reason to merge into the name "2023 Chinez balloobo" or whatever that was supposed to mean. - Gtgamer79 (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Each event deserves it's own page, there isn't enough information at this time to link these events and the proposed title is misspelled. --BicycleNerd (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We need separate pages for each object until they are confirmed to be the same thing. — Omegatron (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The name "object" doesn't say anything to you? As of now, the "objects" are not Chinese, nor are they even balloons at all. There is also a list that has been already created, so no reason to merges these into a unrelated article. ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 17:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Until these objects are confirmed to be the same thing, they should be kept separate. Further, until they are confirmed to have been _balloons_ they should be referred to as _objects_. There were almost certainly photographs taken of these objects before the okay was given to shoot the objects down. These objects should remain being called objects until such photographs showing them to be balloons are made public. Without such photographic evidence, choosing to call the objects "balloons" would be akin to using "unverified sourcing" — DZKriz (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but there could be better linking between the articles because they are related in the sense of being part of a common story. Perhaps in the side box? 2604:CA00:1FB:AA26:0:0:A61:19E2 (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. Firstly, the name for the proposal is mispelled. Secondly, the Alaska balloon incident seems to have been a regular balloon released by a group of people, with the technology to track it. Sahapamowe (talk!) 18:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Permanently Ban N4 for trolling & Support without troll name\Delete , this article and all the other ones are in serious danger of breaching WP:LASTING, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Been less than a month, virtually all of these individual events have been forgotten and left the media. I doubt any single one of these articles paasses the criteria, they might if all combined, but right now, not even close. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article should probably be changes to "2023 Chinese Balloon incidents"

There has been multiple high-altitude flying vessels that have crossed over north america in this month. There is more incidents happening every day, so it should probably be changed to that. Just a thought. Jennytacular (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it hasn't yet been confirmed that the objects are indeed Chinese. So changing the title to that would be premature at this point. Compusolus (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We now have List of high-altitude object events in 2023 to cover the multiple instances. This should be renamed to indicate it isn't about the Latin American balloon, balloon in Russia, balloon in China, or other balloon incidents -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 Alaska, Yukon, and Montana high-altitude object pages.

I believe that all of this pages should be merged but if that doesn't happen I would like to see a part of this page talk about the objects in Alaska, Yukon, and Montana. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The US has warplanes with a service ceiling high enough to have reached the balloon

In the flight path section, it states that "The balloon was flying at an altitude of 60,000 feet (18,000 m)" and then claims that "The U-2S high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft used to surveil the balloon is the only operational U.S. military plane with a comparable maximum service ceiling".

However the McDonnell-Douglas F-15C Eagle has a service ceiling of 65,000 ft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Specifications_(F-15C) - with a fleet of over 100 in the US military: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/10/27/air-force-to-replace-kadena-f-15-squadrons-with-rotational-fighters Pinus jeffreyi (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Previous Chinese use of spy balloons" section

Do we need a separate article that expands on the information in this section? Just as I suspected, this incident involves many more countries than just the US/Canada and China, and if there is a section in the article which elaborates on the international dimension of this incident, this one would be it. I am seeing a lot in the news that discusses that international angle of the incident, especially how it's connected to a wider surveillance program undertaken by the People's Liberation Army, but that coverage unfortunately does not seem to be reflected in this section. Restflux (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's enough information about it to write an entire article, then it needs an article.
If there isn't enough information about it to write a whole article, then it doesn't need an article DarmaniLink (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"2023 Montana object detection"

FYI, the primary topic and naming of 2023 Montana object detection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion; as that title is strongly linked to the topic of this article, you may wish to participate. See Talk:2023 Montana object detection for the discussion -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 balloon incidents

2023 balloon incidents {{disambiguation}} .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect grammar on “detection” paragraph.

Hello, small note but on this line: “intercontinental ballistic missiles are operated, raising suspicions that the balloon had been launched to surveil said nuclear installations. A meteorological researcher calculated” the word “surveil” should be replaced with “survey”. Please correct me if I am Wrong. Thank you 2605:A601:A731:3B00:EDA1:5F71:109A:B71A (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong and you're welcome. There's a common theme of sight between them, but "surveil" is its own verb. To "survey" a site could be to watch it, but more commonly conveys looking at it like a surveyor oversees the land (or perhaps how a pollster pries into the people there). With "surveil", there's no such doubt about what some have suspected all along: Semidentified spying object. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting consensus/discussion on inclusion of Latin America balloon section link on template

The template talk page is unlikely to get much traffic of its own, but please see my discussion here, and post any input at that location (not here). It would be nice to see input from experienced editors, because we are at an impasse regarding interpretation of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines. Thank you. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other connected discussions

I think the Latin American balloon should be split off into the list article, and the redirect repointed there. Then this article would also need renaming, as it would only cover 1 of the 2 Chinese balloons of 2023. Like 2023 North American balloon incident or somesuch (matching "Latin American" from the redirect). If that happens, then the template would change afterwards. [This comment concerns the content of this article, which would then affect the template, and not the template itself if there is no change in the status quo] -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.–China tensions

@Knilrats:/@Kuipernet: Please stop removing large chunks of relevant content from the U.S.-China tensions section as you've repeatedly done with these. [3] [4] [5] [6]. Restflux (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, the paragraph in question is far from a NPOV summary of China–United States relations and is throwing in things unrelated to the article to seemingly project an anti-Chinese sentiment.
Your paragraph in question:
The balloon incident followed previous Chinese government actions targeting the U.S., including the [[Chinese espionage in the United States|Chinese theft of the designs]] for the [[F-35]] about fifteen years earlier and successful Chinese government-sponsored [[Office of Personnel Management data breach|cyberattacks targeting the Office of Personnel Management]] security clearance files (2015), the [[Anthem medical data breach|healthcare company Anthem]] (2015), and the [[Marriott International]] system (2018).<ref name="CompIntensifies" /> In 2022, the U.S. and its allies imposed stringent additional [[export control]]s on the sale of "foundational technologies" (including [[Semiconductor device fabrication|advanced semiconductor chips]] and related technology) to China, with the aim of inhibiting any Chinese military buildup.
You seem to be in tit-for-tat deleting other relevant sections that are indeed closely connected to the 2023 balloon incident as reported by https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a38005873/pentagon-balloons-strattolite/ Knilrats (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't my paragraph as I didn't write that. If you really want to know who did, then I suggest you through the edit log to find out who the author is. That said, I restored it because as I explained to you before in one my edits, the incidents are of same nature and this balloon incident appears to be part of that broader pattern of operations. There's nothing anti-Chinese about the paragraph as it's about the Chinese government so your claims about projection appears to be a figment of your imagination. Restflux (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of WP:Balance, and WP:UNDUE. Anthem Medical Data Breach or Chinese Theft of Designs is only "of the same nature" if pushing an anti-Chinese narrative. There is no consensus on what the balloon was doing. On the other hand, the sections you deleted point to actual history between both the U.S. and China in developing stratospheric balloons, where the U.S. admits readily the military nature, and the Chinese has a nearly identical design which is claimed for scientific purposes only. These are each facts as described by either side, and the reader can then draw their own less-biased conclusions. Knilrats (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are of the same nature because they are actions which originate from either the US/Chinese government and cause tensions in their bilateral relations. It's not about who is good or bad, right or wrong. That's just you imagining things. Restflux (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give my opinion as a third party, be it welcome or not, these things do seem to be WP:UNDUE for an article about the balloon incident. Including it in this article implies these things are related. That being said, I think its due for China–United States relations with greater detail and nuance. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More Chinese views in the introduction section

It looks me that the introduction section does not adequately capture the totality of the Chinese perspective regarding this event. Currently, the only perspective that we have is that of the Chinese government, but that fails to take into account the perspectives of other Chinese officials and figures prior to this incident - the history of those perspectives are well documented in article, particularly in the Technology used by China section. I tried to add some of what they've had to say into the introduction section [7] but it was reverted by another user. What does everyone else think? Restflux (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I reverted that, it was by mistake (probably a version conflict). My apologies. Please go ahead and add it back. Knilrats (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of spy balloons section

@Knilrats:/@Kuipernet: you have made a number of edits to this section which I find to be problematic.

Paragraph #1: In 2019, the U.S. Department of Defense increased investment in the military use of balloons under its COLD STAR (Covert Long Dwell Stratospheric Architecture) program. The Pentagon was reportedly incorporating high-altitude balloons into the military kill chain with a focus on hypersonic weapons, complementing Space Development Agency commercial satellite megaconstellations. Balloons could be preferred as a platform for their low cost, lower altitude, and less predictable trajectories compared with satellites.'

Like paragraph 2, this paragraph does not belong in this article as it goes into too much detail about US balloons when the article is about a balloon that came from China. In addition, sentence one is missing the important contextual information that the program was undertaken to combat drug trafficking while sentence two and everything onwards has nothing to do with spying/surveillance/espionage. I made edits to reflect these points, but you reverted them. [8] [9].

Paragraph #2:In 2022, World View Enterprises was working with the U.S. Army Pacific Command to "operationalize the stratosphere" with balloons having persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. These modern balloons are large, having a volume "the size of a college football stadium". Made of a polyethylene plastic, they do not create a heat signature and are hard to detect from the ground. A few months later, the Chinese Academy of Sciences publicly disclosed a balloon of identical appearance to World View, but instead claimed they were for scientific purposes.

Like paragraph 1, this paragraph does not belong in this article as it goes into too much detail about US balloons when the article is about a balloon that came from China. This also applies to sentence one, two and three. In addition sentence four is factually incorrect as neither article makes reference to World View Enterprises and say that CAS said the balloons were used for scientific purposes. Restflux (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only wrote part of that but believe it adds important context to the article. if you agree a "History of spy balloons" section is merited at all, then the most recent history between U.S. and China on stratospheric spy balloons seems most relevant. If you read the cited articles, it's very clear ISR and other purposes claimed for Chinese balloon are publicly part of the recent U.S. program, that China appears to have in many ways cloned.
Still good to get other's opinions on this and agree it could be shortened up. Knilrats (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur it could be shortened; but mostly concur that the section on the History of spy balloons section is a useful part of the article on the Chinese balloon incident. The section should stay. Okay to clean it up or reduce excessive detail that can be covered in the separate article listed at the top of the section. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input @N2e, I made an attempt at shortening w/ Special:Permalink/1139496661. Probably more can be improved. It looks like @Restflux prefers to revert that edit while we continue the discussion. Knilrats (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except your sources don't say China has cloned the types of ISR balloon the US has. That's the problem, as I pointed out. Even if it did, going into that much detail about US balloons isn't warranted here given how it is an article about a balloon from China. It's a red herring at best and false equivalence at worst.
Are you going to reply to the specific points I have made or are you going to continue obfuscating? Restflux (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
World View is representative of the state of the art in publically known U.S. surveillance/spy balloons and is relevant in the history of spy balloons brief for that reason. I agree the Chinese balloon is not a clone, the language there is "a balloon of identical appearance". Are you saying this implies too much association between the two? Would "of the same style" be better? Or no comparisons at all? The Chinese Academy of Sciences balloon represented the state of the art of publicly known stratospheric balloons in China prior to this whole "incident", so in that sense is also relevant in brief here (along with its reference) Knilrats (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about this as a replacement for what you just removed 2hr ago? (Also note you reverted other authors improvements as well). The fact World View worked with US Army Pacific Command seems especially relevant to this article. I personally like the operationalize the stratosphere quote as that neatly summarizes the goals as seen by the U.S. and the general "balloon race" situation in 2022. The 2023 incident didn't happen in vacuum. (Sorry pun unavoidable :)
In 2022, the company World View Enterprises was working with the U.S. Army Pacific Command to "operationalize the stratosphere" using balloons with persistent surveillance capabilities. These large balloons have a volume "the size of a college football stadium" and are made of a polyethylene plastic yielding minimal heat signature and making them hard to detect.[1][2] Later in 2022, the Chinese Academy of Sciences publicly disclosed a stratospheric balloon of even larger scale, but instead claimed it was for scientific purposes. Knilrats (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are you not reading my comments, you are also mixing up facts with opinion. Discussing US balloons especially at the level of detail that you are proposing doesn't make sense on this article when no US balloon was involved in the incident and the balloon was from China. Had the US say deployed a balloon to counter the Chinese one, then the edits you are proposing would be warranted, but that's not what happened in reality. The other issue is that your claims of representativeness and association are just your own and aren't backed up by the sources. As an example, you say Chinese balloon is "a balloon of identical appearance" to the World View Enterprise one, but as I've already pointed out, your sources do not make any reference to World View Enterprises at all.
Can you address the points I've raised concerning your proposed first paragraph? Restflux (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add COLDSTAR or the CAS, but I think they're all relevant good sources. COLDSTAR is a military program as clearly discussed in [3] not drug trafficking, are you referring to the sentence later on in that article: "Closer to home, Southern Command has suggested using balloon technology to counter drug smuggling through surveillance."? Article is talking there about TRIPPWIRE, an entirely different program.
Regarding paragraph 2, the edit does not call the Chinese Academy of Sciences "a clone" or "identical in appearance" (see commit you just reverted), it says,
Later in 2022, the Chinese Academy of Sciences publicly disclosed a stratospheric balloon of similar design and even larger scale, but claimed it was for scientific purposes.[4]
Do you have a suggestion for an alternative? I asked this earlier, and it's also fine if we have no relationship at all.. These are each the state-of-art spy balloon programs from U.S. & China in 2022 and we don't have to draw comparisons, this is just the spy balloon history section.
I would hope to also include the shortening improvements that you reverted. Can you reply above to N2e about that? Thanks and Cheers, Knilrats (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about creation of a main article about the history of spy balloons? Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't the sources, it's how you are using them. The Politico source describes COLDSTAR as "a project designed to locate drug traffickers "[5] so why are you insisting on keeping this information out? In the same vein, the politico source doesn't say anything about the Space Development Agency, so why are you insisting on keeping the misattributed information [the second sentence of paragraph 1] in?
For the CAS material, once again you are not reading what I have said. It doesnt matter if the edits uses specific words and phrases like "clone" or "identitical in appearance." The point is the sources you are using do not say anything about World View Enterprises or say that CAS said the balloons were used for scientific purposes. Restflux (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latest source is [6] which goes into detail on the COLD STAR military program.
Direct quotes:
COLD STAR will "refine hypersonic and long-range fires kill chains to counter time-sensitive targets," per the Department of Defense’s budget documents for the fiscal year 2022.
The Pentagon’s efforts to operationalize the stratosphere begin with the classified program COLD STAR (COvert Long Dwell STratospheric ARchitecture), a spy balloon that can lurk undetected in enemy airspace. COLD STAR’s balloon has autonomous navigation, high fidelity sensors, and on-board AI.
Earlier Politico source also talks plenty about COLD STAR military applications,
"The Pentagon is conducting demonstrations to evaluate how to incorporate high-altitude balloons and commercial satellites in an attack, known as the “kill chain.”
“They can be trucks for any number of platforms, whether it be communication and datalink nodes, ISR, tracking air and missile threats, or even various weapons — and without the predictable orbits of satellites,” Karako said"
For "augmenting satellites in tracking missiles. " (which is presently managed by SDA which is part of Space Force, for reference)
I'm not sure why the drug smuggling application needs to be included. This section should focus on high-altitude stratospheric balloons for military and surveillance purposes -- because that's what this 2023 incident is about.
I will re-arrange the sources to make this clear. Knilrats (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: as the editor who first introduced the COLDSTAR material into the article[10], can you comment on the discussion above? Restflux (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful. Please see the latest edit as this hopefully addresses all concerns in this thread. Knilrats (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Restflux: I added a brief paragraph on the COLDSTAR program to add context to the situation. I agree that we don't need specific info on that program. All we need to document is that both China and America are currently investing in military programs using dirigibles to spy on each other as part of an overall escalation of tensions between the nations. I felt it worth adding because a lot of mainstream sources on this subject have been propagandistic in tone and failing to document the basic historical context. Thankfully we're now seeing some mainstream articles we can use which provide more complex analysis and suggest this episode is as much about "optics" as it is actual security (e.g.). SFB 23:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: Can you comment on my suggestion on the need to note how the program was undertaken to combat drug trafficking? I don't know if you deliberately omitted that short, general description your write-up, but either way not having it in gives incomplete context to both the program and the wider topics/issues associated with it. Restflux (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Restflux: I feel the info on use of balloons to follow the drug trade is tangential. Both the Politico and Popular Mechanics articles make clear that the long-term program value of this program is monitoring other states. Indeed, that is the reason why this is funded as a military project by the Pentagon rather than the Drug Enforcement Administration or United States Border Patrol. The drug trade applications are secondary to military ones, which is clearly indicated the funding structure and easily inferred in sources such as this. Defence Department balloon-based inter-state spying is a long-term thing across many countries and is completely ordinary, but has increased in short-term relevance, and I think that's the only context worth focusing on in the background section. SFB 02:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a proposed sentence on the drug smuggling for you @Restflux. Please improve it rather than reverting everything we agree on. Everything else you mention seems to have been addressed. If not, please explain with respect to current version. Thank you. Knilrats (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose and get consensus your changes here on the talk page BEFORE putting it into the article. Doing it the other way around (as you've repeatedly done) sends the improper message that you've already got consensus for your proposed changes. Restflux (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Restflux, I see you've only ever edited this one page on Wikipedia, so I can understand you might think nuking is the solution, but it isn't. Please try to refine only the parts you think need improvements, not wholesale reverts. Our best bet with this is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Also see WP:REVERT. Please take this edit Special:Permalink/1140024763 and either explain what sentences are wrong or missing. You can either make the change or comment here. I have tried to include all your updates as well. Knilrats (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You telling me to read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is pure projection when you're the one who is being reverted and pushing disputed content before you've got consensus for them. You are the one who wants to add information, not me, so you're the one who needs to get approval for the changes. I've already told you the information that I want added in [11] so there's nothing more for me to comment as it relates to that issue. Restflux (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Restflux, sincerely please read those links. I am not reverting anything you've added, including what you just referred to -- it's been in all revisions for days and still is.
I haven't heard any specific concerns here from you w.r.t. what you reverted. Knilrats (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read those links. The problem is you aren't following the instructions. You are the one who wants to add information, you are the one being reverted so you are the one who needs to get approval for the changes. You can't be reverting anything I've added because, unlike you, I haven't been adding information. I've laid out my concerns throughout this entire discussion, including in my opening comment which started this discussion section. So if you still haven't heard what they are, then that really is your problem. Restflux (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why not create a main article for COLDSTAR, which could go in-depth about all of this? Then we don't have to fight about what can or can't be said about the program in this article, etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have in mind? Restflux (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference popmech was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Hitchens, Theresa (July 28, 2022). "Way up in the air: World View looks to expand customer base for its 'Stratollite' balloon". Archived from the original on February 16, 2023. Retrieved February 15, 2023.
  3. ^ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a38005873/pentagon-balloons-strattolite/
  4. ^ "AIR Lofts Heavy Payload Balloon into Near-space Height----Chinese Academy of Sciences". english.cas.cn.
  5. ^ "U.S. military's newest weapon against China and Russia: Hot air". Politico.
  6. ^ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a38005873/pentagon-balloons-strattolite/

original research?

It seems like the following paragraph

In 2019, the U.S. Department of Defense increased investment in the military use of balloons under its COLD STAR (Covert Long Dwell Stratospheric Architecture) program.[1][2][3] The Pentagon was reportedly incorporating high-altitude balloons into the military kill chain with a focus on hypersonic weapons, complementing Space Development Agency commercial satellite megaconstellations. Balloons could be preferred as a platform for their low cost, lower altitude, and less predictable trajectories compared with satellites.[1]

constitutes original research. None of the sources used make reference to the balloon incident as they [the articles] were written before it happened, unlike the ones used in nearly all the other paragraphs in the "background" subsection. Thoughts? Restflux (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that second reference, [12] it says at the very beginning,
Editor’s note: China’s use of spy balloons over the U.S. has recently made global headlines, but few realize that the U.S. is developing stealthy surveillance and intelligence-gathering balloons of its own. Below, we review the history of spy balloons, from their first use in WWII to their current technological capabilities and development in the U.S. This article was originally published on November 11, 2021. Knilrats (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, a history section giving well known context isn't OR.

Also please note the paragraph you give here is outdated and lacks many simplifications you've reverted. The corresponding sentences were updated [13] to,

In 2019, the U.S. Department of Defense increased investment in high-altitude balloons with COLD STAR (Covert Long Dwell Stratospheric Architecture), a spy balloon that can lurk undetected in enemy airspace.[2] The balloons have autonomous navigation, high fidelity sensors, and on-board AI that can be incorporated into the military kill chain as a complement to satellite-based systems.[1][4]

Knilrats (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would be cool to see a main article on the topic. :) Are there enough sources to expand the content into its own article? Just wondering, thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, what do you have in mind? Restflux (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Hudson, Lee (July 5, 2022). "U.S. military's newest weapon against China and Russia: Hot air". Politico. Archived from the original on February 4, 2023. Retrieved February 6, 2023.
  2. ^ a b Hambling, David (November 11, 2021). "Why These Badass Balloons Are the Pentagon's New Secret Weapon". Popular Mechanics. Archived from the original on February 6, 2023. Retrieved February 6, 2023.
  3. ^ Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Estimates Archived December 20, 2022, at the Wayback Machine. United States Department of Defense. Retrieved February 6, 2023.
  4. ^ Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Estimates Archived December 20, 2022, at the Wayback Machine. United States Department of Defense. Retrieved February 6, 2023.

Hobbyist balloon?

Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade claims their missing balloon was shot down.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Chinese_balloon_incident&oldid=1140234852"