Talk:2023 Chinese balloon incident/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

China admits its involvement. Its participation is not merely "alleged"

China admits the balloon is theirs, so "alleged" can be removed next to China's name. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64515033 Knowledgeable human (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That the balloon is Chinese is a fact, no one disputes it. What's alleged is that the balloon is used for surveillance. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The balloon is clearly for surveillance of some sort. The only dispute whether this is for military or scientific purposes but using the word surveillance seems adequately general to cover both. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think most people would consider meteorological research to be under the general understanding of "surveillance" (though it technically is). BrokenSegue 21:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

the military identified the package as spy, not a weather balloon

We don't need "alleged", there isn't going to be a trial and this isn't a BLP. It's enough to say Pentagon officials "stated that" to make it clear who's saying what about the balloon. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not a BLP, but it's an unproven and disputed situation where we still need to follow WP:NPOV. To paraphrase a comment I left elsewhere on this talk: short of an independent investigation of the balloon or an admission on China's part (ala the 1960 U-2 incident) these are all allegations, so Wikipedia should neutrally state and dually attribute the disputed facts. Neither government's statements should be taken at their face value. — Goszei (talk) 01:31 — Goszei (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say to take the statements at face value. I said to attribute the statements to who said them. As long as you do that, you don't need the word "alleged". It's redundant, and it's not like the Pentagon is saying "it's an alleged spy balloon", so why are we adding that word? Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Pentagon's claim can hardly be considered credibly neutral anyways, considering their position. 142.157.250.127 (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, anonymous IP who is using this talk page to let everyone know what you think of the Pentagon. Useless addition. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice argument, but you completely fail to identify how the pentagon is not being "credibly neutral" within this context, whatever that may mean.

Even if there were a bias, it doesn't necessarily mean it makes a claim not credible. The information of a source may not be influenced by existing bias enough to lose credibility, or the credibility of a claim may still be valid in lieu of bias. For instance, Ukraine is biased against Russia due to the ongoing invasion, but that doesn't mean Ukraine's claims of war crimes aren't credible. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources for more information.

But OK, let's say there's enough bias to take the pentagon's claims with scrutiny. In this situation there is nothing to disprove any claims or allegations made so far, and the claims and allegations its made so far are backed up by reliable sources. China and its supporters have refuted the allegations and claims, but as far as I'm aware, the CCP and news sources in China aren't currently reliable sources. I doubt its supporters are either.

If you're willing to provide good proof and sources proving the Pentagon is not a valid source of information within the context of this incident, we'll happily consider using other sources and editing our article to be more accurate.

Basically: Don't just say how it's biased and isn't credible, show how it's biased and isn't credible. Do that, and we'll make changes. Nice argument (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That's rich coming from the new account. Who said that Chinese sources are inherently unreliable? Plenty of China articles on Wikipedia would be incomplete if all the Chinese sources are taken out. And the US government aren't bastions of honesty. Remember Iraq's so called WMDs? Or the 2001 anthrax attacks who were totally done by al-Qaeda and not a rogue US scientist?118.208.98.219 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice argument, but your argument contains multiple fallacies.

I thought it would just be better to list all of them instead of including them in the "Nice argument" sentence.

1. Just because I'm a new account doesn't necessarily mean I'm not credible. This is also funny given how you don't even have an account. Ad hominem.

2. I said they're inherently unreliable, and I'm sure many would agree. Chinese sources are inherently unreliable due to provable usage of misinformation and disinformation by the CCP, as well as mass censorship of criticism of the CCP inherently making sources biased to the point of incredibility. This doesn't mean they aren't still usable for like as statements from the Chinese government and Chinese culture. I already linked what I needed to, and I don't see you with any receipts. Burden of proof.

3. I never stated the US was a "bastion of honesty", I stated there was nothing proving bias to point of incredulity nor anything proving a lack of credibility, and that several credible and reputable sources are backing up everything they say here. Red herring + strawman.

4. "Remember Iraq's so called WMDs? Or the 2001 anthrax attacks who were totally done by al-Qaeda and not a rogue US scientist?" Aren't these just flat out conspiracy theories? And even if they were demonstrably true (good luck with that), how does that the US government's actions well over 20 years ago damage their credibility regarding this specific incident? The federal government was under the control of a completely different administration, set of executive branch directors, and legislators at the time. It literally wouldn't be incorrect to say the government at the time you describe was entirely different from the one we have currently. Even if that weren't the case, it doesn't change the fact that this situation has nothing to do with those situations what-so-ever. Red herring + ad hominem. Nice argument (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with #1 and #2 totally, and partially with #3, but stating that Iraq's WMDs were a lie is a conspiracy theory now? The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 16:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice argument. I looked into it a bit more and yes, both those claims are indeed not conspiracy theories, I need to remember to do my research for future reference. I admit my mistakes there and I'll remove and/or edit offending sections of 4, but not entirely remove it.

Section 4's general point is "how does it affect the government's credibility here and now," not to spread false information to support my point. Nice argument (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2023 (2023 (UTC)

International law analysis video

This video from the LegalEagle (YouTuber) channel is very informative and authorative as it primarily features former Marine JAG Spencer Gwartney, but I'm reluctant to include it because it's long and very satirical throughout, and Gwartney isn't named in it. I'll leave the decision to others. For what it's worth, it comes to the conclusion that the downing was permitted under internal law. Δπ (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice argument. I doubt there was much debate over if it were against international law to begin with because (while I'm not exactly a lawyer) I'm pretty sure Chinese aircraft aren't really allowed in United States airspace without permission, manned or unmanned.

The real question is if we should actually add a section about such concerns, because that doesn't seem all too pertinent to existing concerns most people reading this article have. Everyone is more worried about the idea of China spying on foreign countries with what looks like weather balloons than they are the idea that shooting said balloons is against international law.

Also, I doubt that could be used as a reliable source given neither of them have a background in international law. They base their claims in actual law research they did and LegalEagle is a lawyer but LegalEagle isn't necessarily qualified enough to be considered a "reliable source" in this situation (considering his field isn't international law). Admittedly though, might just be me. I am a bit new to Wikipedia. Nice argument (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

it's a WP:SPS – and yeah, they don't qualify as a "subject-matter expert" as while they do have a background in law, it's not international law. DecafPotato (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Surveillance vs Spy

We need to come to an agreement as to whether “spy balloon” or “surveillance balloon” is more appropriate. I personally am leaning towards surveillance for now, but would like to hear everyone’s thoughts. Swyix (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Support "Surveillance": Even though some people say it's a spy balloon, I agree that "surveillance" would be a better name. ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 20:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Support "Spy": Reading is simpler and therefore clearer with fewer syllables, meaning the writing is better. Simplicity is the hallmark of elegance. Polysyllables are ultimately tiring and tend towards gobbledygook.

The two words are synonyms in this case therefore the simpler, more direct, and more recognisable one is better. Why complicate and muck up such a simple idea?

Note: neither of the editors above, Swyix nor MasterWolf, have so far provided any argument for preferring "surveillance". O'Dea (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

How is "Surveillance" overly complicated? Its 3 syllables. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Support surveillance, as it describes both espionage and weather tracking, the two options given in RSes. DecafPotato (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If we are talking about the so called wikipedia, a branch of the western services, they don't need any proof... because everything they say is true... in some imaginary extraordinary parallel universe of theirs... China is not exceptional like them, then it is espionage balloon, otherwise it would be a runaway weather balloon... 188.120.100.28 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

.... Read Wikipedia:SOAPBOX Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Support "Surveillance": Surveillance doesn't imply that its a spy balloon but also doesn't omit it while also allowing for their meteorological claim. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

While you're linguistically not wrong, the word "surveillance" has come be be interpreted as "spying" in recent times. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 06:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

My argument for “surveillance balloon” is that it has a broader meaning. While I do not trust the PRC at all, their official story is that it is a rouge weather balloon. Until we are 100% certain that it is a spy balloon, I believe it would be prudent to refer to it more generally. Swyix (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

My argument for “surveillance balloon” is that it has a broader meaning. While I do not trust the PRC at all, their official story is that it is a rouge weather balloon. Until we are 100% certain that it is a spy balloon, I believe it would be prudent to refer to it more generally. Swyix (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think either are necessarily appropriate, both are assumptions of the balloon's intent when we do not know if it is a spy or surveillance balloon. Just "Chinese balloon" suits the purpose fine. UnapolMaker (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment we could call them observation, instead of surveillance or spy, it would cover all the cases of what these balloons are meant to observe, spy on, surveil, monitor, etc. As to do anything, they need to observe it. -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Without knowledge of its actual payload, it could have easily been doing more than observing, i.e. wardriving on a military scale. Very Average Editor (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's rather far away for wardriving, you'd only be observing what networks popped up without proper access to the wifi. Or observing what signals leaked out. -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, but I will note that without obstructed line of sight, 2.4ghz radios can make connections several miles long without breaking various domestic transmission power regulations. The military radio network uses much more power than a home wifi router, and wavelengths much more conducive to long distance communications. Stratospheric distance isn't a problem. Very Average Editor (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Plausibility size, weight

diameter=25m Volume=4/3 pi r^3 = 8180 m^3
pressure @ 18000m = 65hPa
8180 m^3 *65/1013* 1.25 kg/m^3 = 656 kg buoyancy
d=30m V=14000m^3 = 1133 kg buoyancy
d=27.8 V=11250m^3 = 910 kg buoyancy
Result: A diameter of 28m @ altitude of 18000m fits together with total debris weight of 900kg Schrauber5 (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

1.25kg/m^3 is air density at sea level. At 18000m it should be a lot lower. Using 0.116 instead of 1.25kg/m^3 d=25m=61kg d=30m=105kg d=61.6m=910kg Erqua (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Erqua: do you think General VanHerck's 2,000+ lbs. estimate was a similar error? I find 100kg far more plausible for the payload now that we have those Navy photographs. Δπ (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Erqua: 1.25 is and should be density at sea level. Altitude correction is done by pressure ratio 65(pressure @18000m)/1013 (pressure at 0m).

My calculation is total buoyancy, so total mass (including balloon), not payload. I checked this because I thought it's too heavy, but its a big balloon. Schrauber5 (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone read the April 2022 article Reuters wrote about?

http://jcdz.cbpt.cnki.net/WKE/WebPublication/paperDigest.aspx?paperID=c26a2604-a3af-4f39-9dc0-0f58dd3f44e9

Download stalls for me. Google Translate of the abstract suggests it has more details than the Reuters article on it reported. Δπ (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a subscription is required? The PDF download link leads to a login page in Chinese. --Bsherr (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried IE and saw the entire issue is only 12 RMB ($1.77 USD), but I haven't figured out how to pay yet, and I'm not sure I can. Δπ (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

multiple other balloon operations

the BBC just published an article saying that the balloons seen over the Americas are part of a wider surveillance fleet [Chinese balloon part of worldwide fleet, US officials say - BBC News] . I'm not sure how accurate this is but if it turns out to be true then we should probably add a section to the article to show this. Roboprince (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Mind as well add a conspiracy theories tab because this is going to be a gold mine. 24.238.88.14 (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

? 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

While this article may be a gold mine for unreliable people to shout out conspiracy theories, I believe that it may be best to keep the conspiracies to the talk page if they have to stay. FusionSub (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

the point of this article is to provide accurate information for anyone wanting to gain information on the topic, adding a section on conspiracy theories may end up confusing people and therefore destroy the original aim of the article. Roboprince (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: senior U.S. State Department official have said that the balloon "was capable of conducting signals intelligence collection operations" and was part of a fleet that had flown over "more than 40 countries across five continents." 76.190.213.189 (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That's funny because I feel like the same thing came over radio news today when I was driving home from work, but I was rather preoccupied at the time. Can you please link a source or two, if you have them? The other "40" was the U.S. briefing 40 countries about it yesterday, and that's already present here, so I wasn't sure if it was just a convolution of that. But if there's something citeable regarding this claim, I'll add it to the article. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Found a few sources from PBS and another from Business Insider I'll read up more before making any edits to the article. PaulRKil (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look around but do you have a source you can link? PaulRKil (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@PaulRKil: Here's a source, from CNN:

"On Thursday, officials revealed that they believe the spy balloons the US has discovered are part of a large fleet that is conducting surveillance operations globally on behalf of China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army. So far, the US has traced the balloons to 40 countries across five continents, officials said."

Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

First aircraft shot down in "Lower 48"

I removed this claim from the article, since it is not true and not in the sources provided. Several Japanese Fu-Go balloon bombs were shot down in the continental united states during WWII.XavierGreen (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That fact about the Fu-Go balloons is true: at least 4 were shot down by the USAF over the lower 48. I have added a cited footnote to that article which attests to this. — Goszei (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That weapon's article doesn't consider it an aircraft; does any article? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It isn't true because training and weapons research shoots down many aircraft in the Lower 48. Loads of QF-4s have been shot down in military reservations. And ofcourse, shooting down drones, such as people in their backyards with shotguns -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

The latter statement is from an American official. kencf0618 (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• these. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

"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)

2023 balloon incidents

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

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)

Moved to Template talk:2023 high-altitude object incidents § Inclusion of 2023 Latin America balloon incident (section redirect)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 [2] but it was reverted by another user. What does everyone else think? Restflux (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I see it was added back. Bsherr (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

See this article [7] Restflux (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

History of spy balloons section

Extended content

@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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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. 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) 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) 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 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. 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) 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) 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 " 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) The latest source is 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) @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) 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) @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) @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) @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) The information isn't tangential when it has been central to program. Multiple articles have reported it [11] [12] and this Politico article [13] says that COLDSTAR was first used for drug trafficking before transitioning to military or more military-related usages. We can write the material so that it gives more emphasis to the military objectives of COLDSTAR, but cutting the law enforcement one out would give the reader a distorted representation of what the program has actually been about.Restflux (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC) 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) 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) @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) 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 [14] so there's nothing more for me to comment as it relates to that issue. Restflux (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) What do you have in mind? Restflux (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC) References

original research?

Extended content

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. 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. 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) Looking at that second reference, [15] 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) 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 [16] 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. 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. Knilrats (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC) 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) Well, again, what do you have in mind? Restflux (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Do you mean stratosat, airship, aerostat, high-altitude balloon, observation balloon, History of military ballooning? -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) References

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There does not appear to be sufficient consensus to merge these articles at this point, and the discussion has gone on for nearly two weeks. Allowing it to continue will not result in a different outcome, and having the tag at the top of these articles notifying readers of this discussion is distracting and no longer helpful.

---

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 2023 spy balloon incidents, all same event N4 (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed name is misspelled. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

The ones in Alaska and the Yukon aren't even Chinese Lord ding dong (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

Alaska and Yukon were cylindrical, probably not balloons 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support Maybe there should be a 2023 Chinese balloon incidents page or something, but these others don't need their own pages. Reywas92^Talk 05:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Provisional oppose until/unless the new UFOs are confirmed to be Chinese. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

•Oppose, the other balloons aren't even confirmed to be Chinese, I'd delete the other articles before merging them. Rockin (Talk) 17:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

•Oppose for now per DinoSoupCanada (talk · contribs) and Rainclaw7 (talk · contribs). We still don't have reliable information about the nature of those objects. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Schrauber5 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support merge under a more suitable title in a week or so Edmund Patrick – confer 20:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• Oppose - WP:TOOSOON. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

I second this suggestion. – Anne drew 03:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

• Wait. As stated before in this discussion, WP:TOOSOON. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose due to article length 78.36.163.169 (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• Oppose for procedural reasons but Support with a better name change DarmaniLink (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Wait - this situation is still developing; it's too early to know if these are connected. -MJ (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

•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)

• Oppose—especially with that weird proposed rename. Compusolus (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

•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)

•Partial support I think the 2023 Alaska high-altitude object, 2023 Yukon high-altitude object and 2023 Montana high-altitude object are similar enough to merge into an article about February 2023 unidentified flying objects over North America]. I do not think they are closely related enough to the 2023 Chinese balloon incident to merge them with that one. Although the Chinese baloon incident did inform the U.S. response to the others, and thus should be mentioned in the article about the others, it is different enough that it should have a separate article. Also, the originally proposed title is obviously a joke. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

•Agree with and Support the ON Unicorn's merge idea, above. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

•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)

• 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)

•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)

• 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)

• 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)

Please assume good faith, Bomberswarm2. N4 has been here a while, you can assume it was a typo of some sort. And if they were trying to be funny, we'd start with a warning, not an immediate block for writing "2023 Chinez balloobo" instead of "2023 Chinese balloons". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose "The last three that were shot down were very, very small objects" — Senator Jim Risch of Idaho

Shear, Michael D.; Demirjian, Karoun (14 February 2023). "Flying Objects Could Turn Out to Be Harmless, U.S. Says". The New York Times.

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose (for now) These have not much in common other then being similar incidents, but not definitely same incidents. I'd support a page that lists seperate incidents with their pages, but I don't think we should merge them yet because this is a developing situation and any new info can come out that they were from any other country because we don't know what country the object came from yet, at least that is what I think. Thanks, Michigander901 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Soft oppose I think this event is significant enough to warrant its own article but I think the three events that the US said were not chinese events should be mentioned as a subsequent reaction to this event but if it is later on determined these shootdowns were overreaction or a knee-jerk reaction to mass delusions and widespread observation of previously unnoticed high altitude objects (see: Seattle windshield pitting epidemic) these events should be merged into this article. PaulRKil (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge discussion closure

A loose necktie (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Inspector General Hui Ma

Is his view that the Chinese military planned and deployed the balloon important enough to be included in the introduction? Seems to me that it is as it not only directly contradicts what the Chinese foreign ministry said about the balloon being a civilian airship, but also because the view is coming from the military itself as Hui Ma is a member of the People's Liberation Army. Restflux (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

given the lack of objections, I've added this information into the introduction Restflux (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The cited link does not cover what's being said, nor can I find any other source for it. Vacosea (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Project Genetrix

For comments about its inclusion in the background section, if any. Vacosea (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

@Osunpokeh replaced the Billings photo of the balloon with a cropped image of the selfie released today. I have mixed feelings. On one hand, the new one details the balloon more, however, I can't get over the giant-ass wing in front. Let's establish a consensus over the two (as well as a tertiary photo showcasing the balloon on the day of downing).

• 
  Image I - Billings, Montana
• 
  Image II - USAF Selfie
• 
  Image III - Over Myrtle Beach, just before shootdown

Crusader1096 (message) 01:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I like the new image. I don't mind the airplane wing, and it provides a lot of detail on the instruments. SWinxy (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the U-2 wing really plays into the gravity of the situation here instead of being a nuisiance — plus, this is '' by far'' the closest-up photo of the balloon we will probably ever get. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 08:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I also believe that the cropped U-2 photo should be used in the infobox for the reasons stated above. It's the best image of the balloon in the public domain, and the wing/U-2 shadow add to the image. On the other two, the one on the right is brighter and higher quality than the one on the left. If we only want to use one of the two, IMO we should use the former (although it could use a crop). Rainclaw7 (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

As for the latter two, I don't think one image is necessarily better than the other. On one hand, the one on the right is brighter and shows the payload in more detail. However, the other image is larger and shows more details of the surface. It also has some significance because it was taken when the balloon was first spotted by civilians. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The one with the U-2 wing and shadow are a perfect methaphor for the conflict between China and America and easily gives the most detail. We should use that/and or the cropped image. Buffs (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I also prefer the cropped "selfie" photo. It is higher resolution and the wing isn't obstructing anything important. Also it's just a really cool picture. – Anne drew 16:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I do hope the U.S. releases additional images in the future. It's very unlikely this is the only picture they took of the balloon. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I support the cropped U2 photo. The detailed view of the payload outweighs the wing tip. Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Wing is not ideal but U-2 is probably the best of those available.©Geni (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Consensus to use the U-2 image appears to have emerged, so I made that change and moved the Montana image to the detection section. Rainclaw7 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Size (OR)

From the shadow of the U2 (19m long) at the selfie picture the diameter of the balloon is about 40m. The lenght of the payload is about 30m. The balloon must have thrusters to turn the solar panels to the sun. Schrauber5 (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

electric motors would seem to be much more practical WP:OR Buffs (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm no native speaker. I'm meant an electric motor with a propeller to turn a vehicle. But it seems that this word is used for ships. Schrauber5 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

No, propellers are also used on aircraft, but in this case it would be simple to simply have gyro-stabilized/gimbaled motors to turn the panels the direction they needed to face without reorienting the entire craft. No propeller is needed nor is one visible. Buffs (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hobbyist balloon?

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

That is not about this balloon, you should discuss this at the article about that balloon -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This was the article about that balloon.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you’re looking for the Yukon incident. Canadian Owl (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

U-2 Selfie

Someone's already gone ahead and inserted the picture that's been making the rounds today from this article of the balloon as seen from the cockpit of a U-2. The article doesn't mention the photo's origins or even acknowledge that the photo hasn't appeared anywhere else. I don't think there's been enough coverage for this photo to be included... there's certainly a strong possibility it's not real. Don't know if it's good to leave in there. FrontsInFront (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Going to go ahead and remove it. Had it pointed out to me that there’s no snow in the image—background appears to be San Joaquin Valley. FrontsInFront (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@FrontsInFront: I've nominated the file on FfD. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 February 22#File:U-2 pilot takes selfie with Chinese Balloon.png. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, update... the geolocation in CA that I mentioned before seems to be incorrect. Great match over Missouri near balloon's estimated path. Quite possible the image is real. Will undo my revert. While it's still a bit of a mystery as to how they got this photo (and there's no major reporting on it), I can't find anything specifically wrong with it... See: [17] FrontsInFront (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's just consolidate this discussion in the FFD. @Ixfd64:, you made the nomination. Perhaps you would be so kind as to respond to the points brought up and/or withdraw your nomination. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I tryed to find the spot at Washington, Missouri looking ~30º on Feb 3 ~21:00 UTC. Can somebody add coordinates e.g. of a river island? Schrauber5 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

DVID claims location is VA,US Schrauber5 (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Got it. The big river is the Mississippi River between Hannibal and Louisiana. The smaller river the Illinois River. With balloon in front of N39°02'21 W91°18'39 Schrauber5 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The Illinois River enters the Mississippi at Grafton, Illinois. I think it's more likely that that's the Missouri River, viz. https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B002'21.0%22N+91%C2%B018'39.0%22W/@38.9955383,-91.480162,10z/data=!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d39.0391667!4d-91.3108333?entry=ttu kencf0618 (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)