Talk:2023 Chinese balloon incident

Requested move 3 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. to 2023 Chinese balloon incident — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

---

There's overwhelming support for using "Chinese" instead of "China" in the title. There's more opposition than support for removing the year from the title, and this is consistent with the naming criteria for events. There was some discussion around whether to describe it as a "Chinese spy balloon" but editors were roughly evenly divided, and even still only about 20 of the 100-or-so participants voiced an opinion on the matter, so there's no real consensus to be found there. A handful of editors offered other alternatives, such as "incidents" given some reports that there may be more than one, "airship" given that the object can maneuver, "surveillance" as a more neutral alternative to "spy", or including information about the object's transit over the US mainland to distinguish it from balloon incidents that may occur within China. These alternatives didn't get much, if any, support, but future move requests might be useful if circumstances change. In general though, there's a strong consensus for 2023 Chinese balloon incident. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 China balloon incident → ? – See the two-part proposal below for a new name. I replaced the original RM template with this new one because the original was causing a bot error EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This move proposal has two parts, so please oppose or support part 1, and oppose or support part 2. If both parts are accepted, then the title becomes Chinese balloon Incident.

• Part 1: China → Chinese. If only part 1 is accepted, then the title becomes "2023 Chinese balloon incident" The balloon "belonged to" China, so "Chinese" is the grammatically correct word. "China" would be for an event that happened in China.
• Part 2: Remove "2023". If only part 2 is accepted, then the title becomes "China balloon incident". Given that this is the only notable Chinese Balloon Incident, it's probably unnecessary to include the year, but maybe in the future, the year will be useful for historical purposes or if another incident occurs.

The void century (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support only Part 2 per rationale by The void century. Carter00000 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support part 1 and part 2: Makes sense to do both, "Chinese balloon incident" sounds way better than "2023 China balloon incident".

Rabawar (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A major problem with all of the titles used & suggested is that none of them say where this happened. I suggest Chinese balloon incident in North America. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, keeps it unambiguous Rabawar (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, although maybe make it more specific, like Chinese Balloon Incident over US and Canada. Keeps it clear in case the latin american balloon needs to be mentioned. If we decide to do both in the same article though I'd then suggest February 2023 Chinese Balloon Incidents. Arandompersonwhoishere (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Terrible suggestion. Readers can click on the article to find out more details. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 23:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Part 1 only. China ballon incident doesn't make any sense, Chinese Ballon Incident is too ambigous, 2023 Chinese balloon incident or Chinese balloon incident in North America would be my preferred options. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support 2023 Chinese balloon incident Compusolus (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Support Part 1, Oppose Part 2. "2023 Chinese balloon incident" is more grammatically correct as to not confuse future readers that the event took place in China. The year adds specificity and future-proofs the article from having to be changed again, should another similar event arise. Gothique Revival (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. 2023 China Balloon Incident just sounds awkward. Lrabe26 (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

seconded Victory to the UAW (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Support renaming to 2023 Chinese balloon incident, or similar. The articles title was deliberately vandalized this morning. I am convinced it was vandalism. The editors talk page is a minefield of complaints from other editors about his behavior, including harassment. While I was reversing the vandalism, Wikipedia would not allow me to change it back to the original name. So I chose this one instead. But I am not “married to it” as the expression goes. The article should have a title that flows better.Juneau Mike (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident? WikiHelper0830 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support move to 2023 Chinese balloon incident. It's a balloon from China, so it's a Chinese balloon, not a "China balloon". The article started with probably a bad title and has since already gone through a convoluted series of moves, including a vandalism move, and it ended up here. But I fail to see how anything else makes sense. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Chinese Americans can be born in America. So they are not "from China". Maybe their ancestors were. They are "from America"

  Chinese is an ambiguous term to denote either nationality or ethnicity.

  The balloons have nothing to do with Chinese people outside of China. Aufumy (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think readers will interpret the term "Chinese" as Chinese Americans, the Malaysian Chinese, nor the Taiwanese Chinese, but the Mainland Chinese. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Support Part 1, Oppose Part 2. "China Balloon" just sounds weird, but I don't think that we should remove the year from the title unless, and if so until, a COMMONNAME is developed. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Propose alternative – 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident. "Surveillance" seems like a bit too long of a word (which is why I'm proposing "spy balloon" instead), and it has surveillance equipment on it. Media seems to also prefer the term "Chinese spy balloon" more frequently than "Chinese balloon" or "Chinese surveillance balloon", which at least seems like the more Common Name for that part. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident Yoitsme3342 (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Support Part 1, Oppose Part 2: It's best if we keep the date, in case something like this happens again. "2023 Chinese balloon incident" makes a lot of sense, instead of the one we have now. ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 01:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Support Part 1, Oppose Part 2: I feel like a date would be somewhat nice. Also, an addition of location like "2023 Chinese Balloons Incident over the Americas" would be nice but is also clunky. If someone can figure out something more poetic then go for it. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - It's looking like 2023 Chinese balloon incident will probably be the outcome. I think we'll need an admin in that case, because there's already a redirect under the same name.

The void century (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Alternative these all are insufficient. It should be 2023 Chinese balloon over the United States incident; as there's that second balloon over Latin America; and all of the earlier pre-2023 balloon incidents, that the Pentagon have now mentioned, over various places including the US. -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  All the earlier sightings were likely US spy balloons

  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/02/pentagon-balloons-surveillance-midwest

  As shown by the 2nd balloon sighted over Alabama that people got confused and thought it was from China, but turned out to be US

  https://www.flightradar24.com/HBAL617/2f098365 Aufumy (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  You're mistaken. There was another Chinese balloon over Latin America, which was not one of the mistaken identity American balloons spotted while the first one was flying. BhamBoi (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• According to the Pentagon, there were 3 balloons during the Trump administration over the U.S., and China has acknowledged the current balloon over Latin America. So, this needs the date and the location. There have been many such incidents, and we should not be unclear about it. The Pentagon even said there have been many such balloons flown over Taiwan over the years. -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Support 1, Weak Oppose 2 - Per others for part 1. I agree it is best to include the year regarding part 2. Estar8806 (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Alternative I feel 2023 United States Chinese spy balloon incident sounds the best and is most descriptive. Jakoats02 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Alternative to 2023 Chinese spy balloon incidents or 2023 Chinese balloon sightings — Given the Pentagon's recent statement about a second balloon in Latin America, the mention of a specific country reduces the scope of the article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it is possible to determine ethnicity of a balloon by sight.

  Pentagon didn't confirm it was from China, but said they were aware of reports. Aufumy (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support 1 only. I feel the year gives it a natural flow and contextualizes the event. I also feel that "Chinese" is more grammatically correct. Herbfur (He/Him) (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support 1: I did not like "China balloon", but I was occupied with other things. This is simple common sense. I personally feel the year should be kept, but I'm seeing more RSes using "Chinese balloon incident" or just "balloon incident", which is obviously unsuitable for us. Heavy Water (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Alternative Rename to 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident (original title) or 2023 United States Chinese spy balloon incident. The word should be an adjective; "spy" should be included as it highlights why this particular balloon is notable, and also because the Pentagon called it a surveillance balloon—I don't see how the Department of Defense could be considered an unreliable source; and if needed a the country where the incident happened should also be included, lest there be another article on the second balloon in Latin America. K.H.Q. (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: the original title was 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident but the article was vandalized and someone I assume to be an administrator did not change it back to the original title but instead removed the word "spy" themself without consensus. I therefore propose that the new title should include 1) Chinese, 2) spy, and 3) balloon for all the aforementioned and following reasons . "2023" could be included since another incident like this could occur in the future (the Pentagon said previous incursions have occured). The country where the incident happened could also be included but another balloon was spotted in Latin America and in a few days' time they will have drifted far away from where they were first discovered K.H.Q. (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

    I attempted to change it back to the exact article title it had before, but that created some kind of “loop” that was not allowed, and the change was blocked. So I quickly chose a new name that would remove the obvious vandalism (I simply can’t accept that changing the word “Chinese” to “Chspy” was intended to be helpful and non-disruptive, especially considering the editors history - his apology not withstanding. In short, I agree with the original title. And for the record, I am not an admin. I was simply trying to rid Wikipedia of some vandalism. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

    My sincerest apologies. I did not realize that you were the person who renamed the article. Yes, I am aware of the error you encountered (as evident by the discussions above) and I hold your quick thinking to counter vandalism in especially high regard. K.H.Q. (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• (ec) Alternative - Chinese spy balloon incident (with or without 2023 prefix; I am Neutral to Part 2, leaning support but I Support Part 2 per my reply to Ironmatic1 below). It must be made clear that this was not some ordinary balloon flown by Chinese nationals for fun. I agree that "Chinese" should be used over "China" but the "spy" disambiguation is necessary. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 06:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Part 1, Oppose Part 2 "China balloon" needs to be changed to Chinese balloon for grammatical reasons. 2023 should remain because how else would it be identified? Ironmatic1 (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  What other Chinese spy balloon incident is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia that using disambiguation to identify this one from is needed? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 06:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Alternative I agree with some of the editors above that not only the current title but propositions 1 and 2 are insufficient here. The balloon is notable not only because it is of Chinese origin (and possibly being used for espionage), but that it is flying over the contiguous USA, as there is another balloon flying over Latin America, and the entire diplomatic incident is because of what the USA perceives as an intrusion into its territory. Therefore, the title should mention 1) the year 2023, 2) the United States, 3) China, and 4) that the subject is a balloon. How about something like: 2023 United States Chinese balloon incident or 2023 United States Chinese spy balloon incident? Spacemarine10 (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  All of Latin America belongs to the US now? I don't think specifying the US is needed here. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 06:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  "All of Latin America belongs to the US now?"
  

  Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine? Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No opinion on the change, but opposed to "United States" or "North America". By the time this discussion ends, it could be over Bermuda, or Ireland, or Morocco. Mathglot (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment , it seems that there were previous incidents with China balloons over Japan in 2019 and 2020 (the photos show the same design). Maybe we can add this information to the article and remove the year from the title. Source : here via Daniel Marín tweet.Alexcalamaro (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Alexcalamaro and think we might want to remove the date from this article name so we can focus on the general issue of Chinese weather/spy balloons on different dates. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support 2023 Chinese balloon incident - I feel that including "spy" in the title, which is an unproven claim, violates WP:NPOV. (China says weather balloon, and I'm not buying that but NPOV is policy.) The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support both. Part one per grammar, part two per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. BilledMammal (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support 2023 Chinese balloon incident, or something more specific like 2023 Chinese balloon incident in North America or 2023 United States Chinese balloon incident. Some people above have proposed alternative titles with the phrase "spy balloon". As User:The Bestagon points out, those titles aren't appropriate, at least for now, per WP:NPOV. The US government has claimed that it is a spy balloon, while the Chinese government has claimed that it is not a spy balloon, and RSs have not indicated a conclusive answer one way or the other. Wikipedia should not take sides in that disagreement. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Moot This discussion is not keeping up with events as we have another balloon outside North America now. I have boldly acted to move the title to 2023 Chinese balloon incursions. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry but it is inappropriate to do this while a RM is ongoing. You can !vote for a speedy move, but do not move the article while the RM is ongoing. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 15:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Again, "incursions" imply that the event, or events to be precise, were deliberate Chinese attacks. This violates WP:NPOV as this is not yet proven or confirmed by reliable sources. (The CNN refer to it as "the suspected spy balloon", and The Gurardian does the same. The BBC puts the word 'spy' between single quotation marks.) The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Since reverted per GhostOfDanGurney's request at WP:RM/TR. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Eejit43: It seems you've reverted to 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident, an earlier title from before the last RM. Can we please revert to 2023 China balloon incident, the title that was in place at the end of the last RM and the beginning of this RM, to keep the discussion sane? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Mx. Granger will do- that part of the move was due to the previous title being page-move vandalized. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Nevermind, looks like Silikonz beat me to it! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Eejit43 and Silikonz: Unfortunately, possibly due to a typo (later fixed) in my last comment, the page is still not at its stable title, which was 2023 China balloon incident. We should keep the article at 2023 China balloon incident until the discussion concludes. Sorry about the typo and confusion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  The page doesn't have a stable title as it has existed for less than two days and has already been moved 5 times. If we're reverting it should be to the first title of 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident which is at least grammatical. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  The page should be moved back to 2023 China balloon incident, which was the title when the RM started, until the discussion concludes. The series of moves during the RM have created confusion because many of the comments above don't apply to the other titles. This kind of confusion is exactly the reason why pages shouldn't be boldly moved when an RM is ongoing. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  This has been fixed by User:Paine Ellsworth. Thanks. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  The title with the word "China" is inaccurate because it suggests that that's where the incident happened. The titles with the word "Chinese", such as the original title are therefore better. The article is also tagged with {{current}} which states that "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses ... Feel free to improve this article ...". With such rapidly moving events, it's disruptive to have ponderous and bureaucratic discussions preventing improvement. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's a fine line between the disruption of bureaucracy and the disruption of several title changes in just a few days. So to try to balance that out with the fact that on Wikipedia there is no deadline, editors are expected to continue to work together to build consensus. That has worked pretty well in the past during this type of situation. This is not the first time template Current has straddled the top of an article page... and it won't be the last (as you well know, old timers ;>). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be ok with speedily closing this RM in favor of 2023 Chinese balloon incident, since most editors who've responded so far support that title. The appropriate thing would be to close this RM and then start a new discussion about redefining the scope of this article to the plural "incidents". I feel like that change will require some analysis of sources to come up with an appropriate name, given the constraints of WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH, and the focus of the media mainly on this one incident. The void century (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Well, move requests usually stay open at least seven days, and the vast majority of those that don't stay open at least seven days have been closed under WP:SNOW, which does not apply here. As of this present moment, 17 of 27 or 63% of !voting editors prefer using only option 1, "Chinese" instead of "China", with the corollary being that 10 of 27 or 37% prefer something else. So while "Chinese" enjoys a numerical majority, that's not a SNOW situation by a long shot. Then too, we must also remember that consensus on Wikipedia is not determined by vote count, but instead determined by the strength of the rationales that editors use to justify their opinions. Strongest are the policy-/guideline-based arguments. There has been only one editor who cited WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE, two policy-based arguments, in favor of applying both the first and second options, that is, use "Chinese" and drop the year. No other arguments include policies or guidelines to support the proposed options. Good things can still happen, and if editors work well together, they might just build a consensus for an excellent name for this article. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 22:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Of those 10, I counted 9 who proposed an alternative that includes "Chinese" in the title. The only oppose to "Chinese" I see is from the person who changed it to "Chspy". That indicates a general consensus that "Chinese" is preferred over "China". I vaguely recall a policy that says that the proposer can rescind their proposal, and I am the proposer. I would prefer if it changes to "2023 Chinese Balloon Incident" now and we continue to discuss the removal of "2023" as that's more up in the air. But if you want policy reasons, here they are:

• WP:NCE and WP:CONSIST - 2023 is the when, and Chinese Balloon Incident is the what. In this case it's missing the where, but that makes sense because the balloon was mobile. Excluding the location is consistent with other articles involving flight events, for example see American Airlines Flight 77.
• WP:NDESC - adding "spy" or "surveillance" to the title like some are suggesting wouldn't be neutral. China's government claimed it was a research balloon, and most reliable sources use the word "suspected" as a qualifier.
• WP:UNDUE - Changing to plural "incidents" would give undue weight to the other incidents, as the most notable balloon was the one flying over the US, though there might be a need for an additional parent article that covers all of China's use of surveillance balloons.
• WP:COMMONNAME - "Chinese Balloon Incident" isn't necessarily known by everyone, but it's more likely to be searched for than "China Balloon Incident".

The void century (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong support of I, neutral on II Per all the arguments above. The term "China balloon" sounds idiotic. Crusader1096 (message) 20:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The current and proposed titles are inappropriate as ungrammatical and inaccurate. We have multiple balloons now in both North and South America. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Chinese balloon incidents in the Americas to cover both? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The balloon spotted in Montana is drifting east with the prevailing winds and, if not brought down, will continue to drift east across the Atlantic and across Europe/Asia. Another balloon has been spotted and it appears that there have been balloons before. We should therefore have a general title which will be flexible enough to cover such likely developments. Chinese surveillance balloons, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no confirmation that the balloon in Latin America is from China.

Pentagon said they were "aware of reports". This is not proof.

There were also many "reports" of a 2nd Chinese spy balloon that turned out to be a US spy balloon over Alabama.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-china-spy-balloon-idUSL1N34J1WQ Aufumy (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

speedy support part 1 per grammar; neutral on part 2. DecafPotato (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support changing "China" to "Chinese", at the absolute minimum. Given that most RSes call it a spy balloon, that should really be in the title. Given that there is also one over South America, my ultimate preference is 2023 Chinese spy balloon incidents.

Unless "we" want to broaden the scope to include the incidents brought up above by Alexcalamaro, in which case I would suggest Chinese spy balloon incidents or just Chinese spy balloons, although that would probably be better off as a separate article, or as just a "Chinese spy balloons" subsection of the observation balloons page. RadiculousJ (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The broader scope would be structurally better, but it might be undue to replace this article with the wider scope. The vast majority of sources are focused specifically on the balloon that was in the US. It might make sense to keep this article scoped to the US incident, and then additionally create a wider scoped article like "Chinese surveillance balloons", that casts a wide net over the history of China using this technology, the incidents involved, and the details of the technology itself. The void century (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. RadiculousJ (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Many reports of a 2nd Chinese spy balloon turned over Alabama turned out to be a US spy balloon.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3209094/thousands-mistake-us-research-aircraft-n257th-chinese-spy-balloon

If there is a broader scope, shouldn't it talk about the Pentagon testing mass surveillance across the US? Article from 2019

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/02/pentagon-balloons-surveillance-midwest Aufumy (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

There's already Mass surveillance in the United States, so maybe you could add a section there. I don't think one guardian article would be enough to warrant an entire WP article. The void century (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support changing "China" to "Chinese". I don't care if the year is included or not, to be honest. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• 2023 Chinese balloon incident. Including the year is conventional per WP:NCEVENTS, even if there is no other "Chinese balloon incident" in history, because describing the where, when, and why makes for a clear and descriptive title without sacrificing too much concision. Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment, believe this should be snow closed to 2023 Chinese balloon incident with clear concensus (that was also the stable title before the move request). Then open a new move request for a new stable title. Thoughts? Esolo5002 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, most people agree to change it to "2023 Chinese balloon incident". ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 01:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Part 1. Oppose Part 2. Oppose the Alternative of 'spy'. 'China' just makes no sense. 2023 is the year of the incident and it's a good clue for searching, so it's better included. The spy balloon thing is only an allegation. As for now, no military devices has reported to be found on the balloon shot down, so WP:NPOV should be appllied. Wqan2 (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support changing "China" to "Chinese", because it didn't occur in China and the balloon is confirmed to be of Chinese origin. RPC7778 (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Part 1. Oppose Part 2. Support the addition of the word "spy" Chinese is more grammatically correct as it is a Chinese balloon not a balloon in China. 2023 is an important addition, agree with reasoning of Gothique Revival. "Spy" is an important addition as it explains why this balloon was meaningful or important at all, that being the fact that the State Department claimed it was a surveillance balloon. It also reflects the terminology generally being used throughout the media at the time. Even if there is some disputing about whether it was or was not a spy balloon, there seems to be good reason to think that it is and the article covers the claims of the Chinese government. 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident should work well. Even if it is somehow fully disproven that it is a surveillance balloon, it feels worth mentioning that the entire reason this instance is notable is because it was believed it was a spy balloon.Long Way to Shanghai (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Part 1: Chinese refers to ethnicity of people not just from China Chinese can refer to American Chinese. The balloon is not related to Chinese people from America or outside China, but refers more to a specific company/organization from the country China. When handling this issue with respect to how political / military decisions are being made, Blinken didn't sit down or cancel any meeting with Chinese Americans, but with politicians from China the country. Aufumy (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  For example when referring to a "Chinese restaurant" it doesn't mean a restaurant from an organization in China that is visiting America.

  Or when talking about the "Chinese community" in America, it doesn't have anything to do with relations with China.

  Chinese is too broad a word to use in this scenario. As Chinese refers to both ethnicity and nationality. So it is imprecise to use.

  In other countries for example "American" exclusively denotes nationality and not ethnicity. This is not the case for the word "Chinese". Aufumy (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree.

  Short version: "China" has other meanings too, for example "Chinatown" could refer to a place in the US. The English language is limited and Chinese is the possessive form of China, so it's grammatically correct, precise, and the common name.

  Long version: Is the ethnic group you're thinking of Han Chinese, the ethnicity making up over 90% of China? Chinese American usually means someone with Han Chinese ancestry, meaning that person or their ancestors came to America from China, which is why "Chinese American" refers to them. Chinese restaurants ostensibly cook with recipes/flavors/ingredients that originated in China. So "Chinese" still relates back to China the place in both cases. And "China" has other meanings too like "Chinatown", so that could still be confusing. We could be more verbose and say "balloon from China" but wikipedia policy asks us to be WP:CONCISE, and generally you wanna use the WP:COMMONNAME which is "Chinese" in this case. Most reliable sources use the phrase "Chinese balloon" or something similar to that, so we're supposed to use that as people are likely to search for it. The void century (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. "China balloon" has bad connotations from my perspective. The word "China" as a possessive has historically been a derogatory usage, and I want to avoid that here. The void century (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  Calling it "Chinese balloon" is also derogatory, as seen by calling covid "Chinese virus".

  In fact it is much more harmful, and some cite this terminology as being the cause of the rise of anti-Asian violence in America. Aufumy (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  "Chinese virus" is not equivalent to "Chinese balloon". "Chinese virus" is intentionally used as a way to degrade and blame China for Covid. "Chinese balloon" has a different context. The void century (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  If you even look to the comments in this page, another editor brought up covid, and his anger against China.

  Also many other editors on this page and the US media and politicians completely believe that China is spying on the US with this balloon, which is a conspiracy theory.

  If China wanted to spy on the US, why would they claim ownership of the balloon? They could have just said... its not us. When the bits and pieces are blown up, if pieces might have been found from China, China could have claimed somebody bought the parts from China.

  This balloon incident is intentionally being used by US politicians and media to degrade and blame China for doing something bad to US.

  There are many pro-war comments on social media as a result of this "China/Chinese balloon" coverage. Some suggest there could be explosives in the balloons, some suggest there is a second virus in the balloon, etc. Aufumy (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  There is no way of knowing that using an alternative term like "China", "Mainland China" or "People's Republic of China" would lead to less animosity towards Chinese Americans or China the country. That assumption is WP:original research. The void century (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  As you yourself state usually the word is one word: "Chinatown" not 2 words: "China town".

  The spacing is important. "Chinatown" is a portmanteau, a new word that does not denote the same meaning as the original 2 words together that are spaced apart.

  While Han Chinese is more precise, nobody in America says... lets eat Han Chinese food today. Aufumy (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  My point was about etymology and meaning. I think you're kind of proving my point. The void century (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  Chinese as its applied today, not in the past or the etymology of words, refers to ethnicity, not just nationality.

  Being precise means using the words as they mean today, not how language evolved over time. Aufumy (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Correct. Don't use “Chinese”, be more specific. 2001:4644:13BE:0:471F:FD06:7330:5736 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Alternative - I think both of your oppositions are not sufficient. You should include US's name also in it. I want the title should be Chinese spy balloon controversy. It is best, beacuse it is telling readers, location of incident, who sent it and when it approached to its target i.e. America. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  I support the addition of controversy as the incident is disputed and it would also include the diplomatic fallout from the balloon. But I still think 2023 is necessary, 2023 Chinese spy balloon controversy would probably be the most impartial and objective way of covering the issue and the veracity of the spy claims will be made clear by the facts within the article. 2023 is important so as to distinguish it from possible similar incidents in the future and especially since it seems similar incidents have occurred in the past. Long Way to Shanghai (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1, Oppose part 2. The balloon belongs to China, so it should be called "Chinese". No need to remove the 2023 to be specific on what year this is happening. Based on reports that similar incidents had happened before, it is better to be clear on which year this incident is happening. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note that “Chinese” doesn't imply the balloon comes from China. It is an incident between Mainland China and the USA, not Taiwan or some other Chinese operator. 2001:4644:13BE:0:471F:FD06:7330:5736 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  • 1) it's not just an incident between the US and Mainland China, it's not an incident between Canada and the US vs Mainland China.
  • 2) a lot of editors would find your conflation of Taiwan with China/Chinese to be objectionable Restflux (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose part 1. This is 100% a state behavior by the Communist China regime for military purposes and spying on U.S. nuclear facilities, among others even CCP always lies to the world (just like the unnatural coronavirus from Wuhan that has killed 1.2 million Americans). There are more and more pieces of evidence. The word “Chinese” is too vague and can result in a misunderstanding of the “people.” Uncertain on part 2. It has been confirmed that this is not the first time China sent a spy balloon into and over U.S. territory though this is the first article on Wikipedia. So adding 2023 is ok. However, without 2023, we may include all similar known actions by P.R.C. against many countries, at least including India, Taiwan, Japan, some Latin American states in recent years. Prefer “2023 China spy balloon incident”. -- Wildcursive (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

However, I also oppose the term "PRC" for the article title as most people cannot recognize it. Hiding "Guangdong" for the 2003 SARS, hiding "Wuhan" for the 2019 Coronavirus, and replacing "Xi" with "Omicron" under China's pressures, China escapes its responsibilities repeatedly and let these man-made pandemics happen again and again! We should use a clear title to let everyone know China does these. --Wildcursive (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are such an expert on coronavirus, can you please explain how thousands of Americans had coronavirus antibodies in Dec 2019, when covid was just being discovered in Wuhan? At a time when the first strain had an incubation period of 2 weeks?

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/12/01/940395651/coronavirus-was-in-u-s-weeks-earlier-than-previously-known-study-says Aufumy (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Please be aware of the WP:NPOV standard.

May also refer to a previous comment above in this discussion thread by another contributor: Again, 'incursions' imply that the event, or events to be precise, were deliberate Chinese attacks. This violates WP:NPOV as this is not yet proven or confirmed by reliable sources. (The CNN refer to it as "the suspected spy balloon", and The Gurardian does the same. The BBC puts the word 'spy' between single quotation marks.) - The ⬡ Bestagon
Cfls (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - we might be able to sidestep the China/Chinese semantic issue if we used the formal name of Mainland China. So 2023 PRC balloon incident over North America or something like that. Restflux (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Part 1, Oppose Part 2. "China balloon" does not grammatically make sense. Lack of the year of the event (2023) may cause possible, unexpected confusion/ambiguity in the future. Cfls (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support part 1 only per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support both per nom.--Redjedi23 (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Part 1. Oppose Part 2. Oppose the Alternative of 'spy'. Chinese balloon incident is the best grammatically and for form, while the year is obviously needed as this kind of event has happened before. Could also support including North America, like '2023 North American Chinese Balloon Incident' or 'over North America'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoutie (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support both. Both of these incremental changes seem reasonable based on the rationale, and further changes can follow as needed. --Bsherr (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support part 1 : I had the same idea seeing the title of the article. Maxime12346 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Part 2, the balloon isn’t a China balloon, it’s a Chinese balloon.

Oppose Part 1, the incident is too minor to lack clarification like this. Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1, oppose part 2 per the many comments above. — Czello 19:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support part 1 only (oppose part 2). The change of suffix is okay, but to remove the year makes it more unclear to the reader. For example, see 1960 U-2 incident. - Anonimski (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support 1 and leaning oppose 2. The main page currently uses "Chinese". Srnec (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support 1 - "China balloon" just sounds wrong. HarryKernow (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support ― 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident or 2023 Chinese spy balloon incidents if the other balloon over South America becomes an international issue, or if there are more surveillance balloon incidents related to China in year 2023 etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Also as a followup:

Chinese spy balloons over US during Trump admin 'discovered after' he left office: senior Biden official ― Fox News, Feb. 5, 2023

Chinese spy balloons under Trump not discovered until after Biden took office ― CNN, Feb. 6, 2023

So it now seems possible that there have been multiple "Chinese spy balloon incidents" prior to 2023, which would warrant inclusion of the year in the name of this Wikipedia article on the topic. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1 and part 2: Grammatically the correct way to distinguish their ownership and there has not been another event like this so no point to include the year. If it happens again we can revisit it. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The balloons don't belong to Chinese Americans or other Chinese people outside of China.

While it may be grammatically correct, the word "Chinese" is too vague because it defines either nationality or ethnicity.

It would be as grammatically correct to call it an "East Asian" balloon or an "Asian balloon". Doesn't make the term precise. Aufumy (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Part 1 only as per the reasons given by others above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support part 1, oppose part 2: "Chinese" is grammatically correct. As per some of the previous comments, removing the year may cause ambiguity in the future. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball that can predict future ambiguity. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 00:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support both Part 1 and Part 2 more or less per above. Grammar for #1 and per lack of clear ambiguity at present for #2. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally, I will also stand as opposed to the usage of the word "spy", "espionage", or anything of the like in the title name. We do not know it to be a surveillance device in any way and should not assume. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Part 1, not Part 2. China is ungrammatical; the year removes ambiguity. Cpotisch (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Part 1, Oppose Part 2. Δπ (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• I propose the alternative of Chinese Balloon Incident over US and Canada. Arandompersonwhoishere (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Part 1, Oppose Part 2. Because it's an active news story (other balloons could turn up over the next few years), and it's happened before, we should keep the year. Because there are two balloons, perhaps "Incidents" (plural) is correct. ShawnVW (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  the second balloon is a US spy balloon, so it would be incorrect to call that a Chinese spy ballon.

  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-04/chinese-spy-balloon-thousands-misled-by-us-research-device-viral-video Aufumy (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, I think this article is talking about how people were tracking a US balloon during the flight of the original Chinese balloon over the US. See #Flightradar. There was another, separate balloon that flew over Latin America that is not that same as the mistaken identity one during the flight of the original balloon. BhamBoi (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1 and part 2: China is ungrammatical. Date can be added if necessary in case the Chinese make this a habit. Hope we don't have to add months as well. Alandeus (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Chinese is not a precise term, because it refers to both ethnicity and nationality. The balloons are not Chinese American or Chinese Canadian.

  It would be just as grammatically correct to say Asian balloons. But it would be imprecise. Calling them Chinese balloons are also just as imprecise. Aufumy (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  What do recommend as an alternative? BhamBoi (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  You're right; they are neither. They are just Chinese. BhamBoi (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1 and part 2 Would support inclusion of the word 'spy' and making 'incident' plural. It seems like some of the other incidents will never have enough info to have a good article on their own, so it might just make sense to group them here for now by making it plural. Ike9898 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support 1, though "2023 Chinese spy balloon incident" as suggested by the IP above is probably going to be less ambiguous if some hot air balloon accident occurs in China this year, and it would be moderately more resistant to remaining WP:PTOPIC even if future events happen. Chinese, being a denonym for the PRC, makes sense to use rather than the name of the country (the balloon is of Chinese origin, and the incident did not occur over China). No comment on Option 2, since I don't have a good history of Chinese ballooning incidents more broadly. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Part 1 Part one should be changed quickly as it is currently not grammatically correct. I'm not sure about part two though, in general I think specificity is better. Flalf^Talk 15:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support both as it should be possessive, and it's the only notable event under this or a similar name. BhamBoi (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Changing to remove my support or paty 2 and oppose not having date in title, per titling of other and similar events. Keeping support on part 1. BhamBoi (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Support SNOW closing part 1 as support. BhamBoi (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1 makes sense grammatically, and having the year mentioned is helpful. Liljimbo (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1, oppose part 2: "Chinese balloon incident" sounds grammatically correct. There are unconfirmed reports that some Chinese balloons have entered or crossed the U.S. airspace before 2023, so this might be the only instance of a Chinese balloon entering the U.S. airspace in 2023. Bambobee (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, I think it is best to mention the date of the incident in the article's title. Ignore my earlier comment on opposing part 2. Bambobee (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support 1, oppose 2. I agree that "Chinese" is grammatically correct in this situation. However, the removal of 2023 might be harmful. Potentially, maybe someone was unaware this was a recent event, so 2023 would clarify Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  The issue is that Chinese refers to both nationality and ethnicity. The English language is imprecise.

  The balloon has nothing to do with Chinese Americans or other Chinese people outside of China. Aufumy (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's the best option. BhamBoi (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1 and part 2 as both parts make sense. There is no reason to include the year as there isn't any other notable enough event this could be confused with. Now, if this happens again in the future and is notable, then only in that case would it make sense to use the year in the title to differentiate between them. – Handoto (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support and Oppose USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Why are you calling it a Chinese balloon? Isn't that ray cyst. Shouldn't it be called East Asian(but don't include Japan with China because we are completely different) Balloon or Boeao23? (Balloon of East Asian Origin 2023) 240D:1A:8AF:4D00:D5A0:56DA:C57C:1A9F (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  China confirmed it was theirs. BhamBoi (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1, oppose part 2: Clearly, "Chinese" is the correct word, "China" is the incorrect word. I'm agnostic on the word "2023", but I think it's best that we leave it for now and see how things play out. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  maybe I'm reading things wrong, but aren't you topic banned from post 1992 politics @Philomathes2357:? Very Average Editor (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  China clearly the correct word for c 0 v i d but they didn't allow it Naturalthing (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support "Chinese" for grammar reasons. – Anne drew 21:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support part 1, oppose part 2 in order to disambiguate, in line with other titles such as 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Can we close part 1 through WP:SNOWBALL and still have part 2 open for discussion? Seungri400 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support part 1 and 2 My opinion is well captured above, just adding weight.

Spirarel (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Part 1 only: No comment on Part 2. Part 1 is a correction of a grammatically incorrect title. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Part 1, oppose part 2 Current year and changing to China to Chinese is the most logical. Incident occurred in the Continental U.S. and in the year 2023. --AXEdits (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support part 1 because "China" isn't an adjective; "Chinese" definitely fits better. Oppose part 2 for consistency with other articles like 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, as Seungri400 said. Strongly oppose the idea of calling it a spy balloon because that's just a theory, and presenting it, even as it is with a word like "alleged", before people even click on the article seems biased. -CopperyMarrow15 (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Part 1, Oppose Part 2 Per grammar reasons, China can be changed to Chinese. Opposing part 2 per Seungri400, it is in-line with other articles such as the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Tails Wx 02:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support part 1, Oppose part 2: Changing China to Chinese makes much more grammatical sense, but I oppose the removal of "2023" as it provides much more context and follows precedent by other articles about "current" events. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with Seungri400, following WP:SNOWBALL I think China should be switched to Chinese (part 1), and the removal of "2023" (part 2) can continue to be discussed if needed. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I also support a SNOW close of part 1, per above. DecafPotato (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't counted exact numbers, but it seems to me that there is consensus on changing China to Chinese, and although that discussion is more contentious, keeping the year in the title. Alternatives that include "spy" and "surveillance" have also been proposed. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 05:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Part 1. Oppose the Alternative of 'spy'. Per grammar. Chinese is an adjective, the balloon is of Chinese origin. It being reported as a “spy” balloon stems from state propaganda claims and lacks sufficient evidence to confirm these allegations. Andro611 (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Part 2 - The word 'spy' directly implicates the balloon as a surveillance balloon on a factual basis, which still isn't, but a mere "allegation" made by the Pentagon. Before the actual situation is proven, not using it will provide ambiguity. However I will support the use of the word 'spy' if it is factually proven to be an actual surveillance balloon. Using the word '2023' makes it seem that there were similar publicly notable incidents previously. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support 1 only per Gothique. No opinion on other proposed additions/changes as of now. ansh.666 18:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support part 1, oppose part 2, per WP:NCE. I also have a personal feeling there will be more balloons, and we already know there were apparently previous balloons from during the former guy's Presidency, so the year is actually more important than usual.. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support 1 per Gothique Revival and oppose part 2 per Locke Cole. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support 1, oppose 2: "China baloon" is gramatically incorrect, and there is a precedent for including the year of the event in articles about noteworthy events that generate a lot of press coverage, such as our article about the 2021 United States Capitol car attack. Oppose adding "spy" to the title, at least unless it becomes abundantly clear that the balloon was a military or intelligence vehicle intended to conduct clandestine reconnaissance. — SamX [talk • contribs] 05:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support 1, oppose 2: As Chinese would be grammatically correct I agree with that change but the 2nd change I disagree with as it could cause this article to get confused. FusionSub (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support 1, weak oppose 2: As has been stated before, Chinese is the more gramatically correct term, and "China balloon" implies that it was an incident that occurred in China. As for point 2, I think it's better to keep the year as it seems that the articles of many other notable events include years in the title (e.g. 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) and so it would be more consistent with other articles. - Rwpardey01 (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1, makes sense.

Oppose part 2, seems unnecessary. Waylon111 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1 - for correct grammar (Chinese is an adjective, China is a noun) and clarity ("China balloon incident", since it has two nouns, sounds like it refers to a balloon incident in China, not an incident involving a Chinese(-owned) balloon. Vultur~enwiki (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support 1 Makes more sense grammatically than "China Balloon Incident".

Support 2 There may be more balloons and it would match other similar articles as mentioned previously. Bking64 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1, oppose part 2 - having the year is good since apparently this has happened before. "China" as opposed to "Chinese" does not make any sense to me, since one is a noun and one is an adjective, that change seems obvious. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1, oppose part 2. Part 1 is fine, but Part 2 is unnecessary. Silver (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1, oppose part 2. It makes sense to keep the year for ease of searchability. "China" is just ungrammatical, as many have said above. –sootsmudge^🗨 15:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment to closer: Government, news, and third-party sources are increasingly using the term "airship" which is technically correct. E.g., "the surveillance balloon, which is technically considered an airship given its ability to maneuver...."[1] I don't know how you might want to consider this. Δπ (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think balloon should still be used, because it is the most common term known and used for this thing. All balloons do have some ability to maneuver anyway, i.e. go up and down. So airship is just a fancier term. Alandeus (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1, oppose part 2. Agree with most other commenters. Ballon is Chinese, not made of China. And the year should be kept so it is easily searchable in the future. ollyhinge11 (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support part 1, oppose part 2. The 1st one I agree with prior arguments. It is a chinese ballon made by chinese people. However part 2 I disagree. There's been use of ballons prior to this instance such as instances during WW2. I think also leaving it with the date makes it more findable and future proof as well.Chefs-kiss (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Support: We need to call it "?". Pumpkineatingme (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The question mark in the RM template is a placeholder. BhamBoi (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support part 1 and 2. wd-Ryan (Talk) 23:15, 10 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.

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</sapyup>/_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)

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)

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)

The size seems to be misstated

Under the heading "Incident: Detection" the article currently states "The balloon, which was estimated to be the size of three buses and equipped with a technology bay..." I believe that this is a mischaracterization of the description by the source. Neither of the two sources cited actually quoted the government official; rather, they paraphrased them. Other media outlets, such as CBS, state "The payload of the balloon — that is, the part under the balloon conducting the surveillance — is the size of two to three school buses, and the balloon itself is much larger, according to a U.S. official."[2]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chinese-spy-balloon-montana-flight-tracking/ (emphasis added) Indeed, this is a more sensible inference since the diameters of spherical objects are very seldom compared to the lengths of buses, whereas the balloon's long technology bay is very similar to the proportions of three buses parked end-to-end. Bricology (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added the detail on the balloon's payload size to the article. Thanks for pointing that out, it appears the balloon may be larger that previously identified. Which brings me to ... [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 13:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Size of balloon

Do we have reliable size estimates of the balloon? The only concrete information I've heard is the "U.S. official" stating that the payload was 2-3 school buses in length, a very vague statement as we don't know what exact school bus length they were referring to. I've seen an image uploaded earlier specifying the balloon's length as 27 metres but I've removed it as I couldn't find a good source for that figure. Pinging @Bambobee into this discussion. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 13:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Per school bus: "In the United States and Canada, bus bodies are restricted to a maximum width of 102 in (2.59 m) and a maximum length of 45 ft (13.7 m)." Per my person, I've always heard shorter buses called shortbuses (possibly spelled short buses). So up to about 40 metres, if you trust a mole. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

And the balloon itself being a fair bit bigger would put it right around that 60 metre ballpark I think [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 00:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we tweet and ask to us army, what is the exact length of that balloon and it's electronics --Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Missile(s)

...the balloon was downed by two F-22 fighter jets using an AIM-9X Sidewinder missile Two planes with one missile? SN54129 14:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Two planes, flying in tandem, and one of them fired the actual missile. Not difficult. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Then instead of telling me, try turning that sentence into decent fucking English pal. SN54129 16:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There should be a comma before "pal", brother. And once buddy told me it takes two jets to fire one missile, the sentence got much clearer. Same as two clowns pulling a triprope to down an enemy clown, basically. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wingman. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). kencf0618 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

If there were a T they could add "Territorial", so it could be STOP NikolaiVektovich (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Just speculation, but if the sidewinder's usual radar, infrared, and laser guidance was modified to suit the characteristics of the balloon, as a few of the technical sources suggest may have been necessary, having a second set of close-up observations was likely prudent. Δπ (talk) 21:56, 6 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)

Size comparison diagram

Osunpokeh, what is the source of the estimated size of 25 to 60 meters in diameter for the balloon envelope? Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

See the talk page discussion on size of balloon above. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 00:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying, Osunpokeh, that it is based on your own personal estimatation rather than an actual published reliable source? Isn't that a violation of the core content policy No original research? Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Balloon route image likely inaccurate

2023 Chinese Balloon route.svg, which is used in the article, seems to be inaccurate, as it is reported (by the Associated Press) in the section that the balloon entered Canada through the Northwest Territories. However, this map shows the balloon entering Canada through southern Yukon; I believe that it should be removed or remade to be more accurate. Lord ding dong (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be *too* accurate but you can open Inkscape and publish a new version of the image. It's Wikipedia after all [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 00:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Venezuelan response

Is it particurally due to include the venezualan response, particrually in the absence of other international responses? The entire section is based on one article. Spyglass1 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Quite correct, yes. I have removed it. Zaathras (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Latin American balloon did enter his airspace reportedly, so yes, it does matter. Crusader1096 (message) 01:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Then go make 2023 China balloon in Venezuela incident. It has no bearing here. Zaathras (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

By that logic, we should also just straight-up remove the section regarding the second balloon in Latin America, even though it's directly related to the incident. Crusader1096 (message) 02:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see the issue in this case in mentioning the other incident seeing as they do appear to be related. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree I am not seeing a reason why Venezuela's reaction should be mentioned. It's not a direct party to the incident so I've removed it as well Restflux (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

As stated, by virtue of having one of the balloon in its airspace, Venezuela's response is valid. I will add that this is especially WP:DUE considering that aside from Columbia, it appears to be the only Latin American country to have responded to the incident and the only country that is criticizing the US outside of China themselves. Crusader1096 (message) 05:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any official sources which say the balloon entered Venezuela's airspace. Even if it did, it still doesn't mean Venezuela's reaction shuld be mentioned in this article. As I said before, it's not a direct party to the incident so I am not seeing why its reaction should be relevant. I'm sure in due course, Russia and North Korea will be the only countries in Europe and Asia condemning the US for shooting down the balloon but that's not a reason to include their responses either. Restflux (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like if Australian response is included, Venezuelan should be included, Venezuelan more so as a balloon reportedly entered their airspace as well. DecafPotato (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I've excluded Australia's foreign minister for now, but yeah, fairness is fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the reaction of other countries to the incident isn't significant to the topic? For example, 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes#Countries includes a long list of reactions from other countries, none of which were in the earthquake. --Bsherr (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The response of Australia has now been added to the article so if Australia is to be added then I guess it makes sense Venezuela should be too. Reflecktor (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

As the Australia information has been back in the article for some time now, I'm adding Venezuela back in for consistency. --Bsherr (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Should be locked due to vandalism

Yeah MrWho that (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a noticeboard for lock requests if you wanna ask for it DarmaniLink (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup, WP:RPPI. Don't worry, I took care of it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Have a look and you will see there really has not been much vandalism, all told. This article has held up surprisingly well after being featured, and some IP contributors have helped. I don't think there is a reason to lock at this time. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Page protections aren't exactly preventative, so yeah, unless there's a tidal wave of vandalism on the article, it should remain open. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 20:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Claim of journalist influence

"[Billings] Gazette's spy balloon photos play role in White House's response to China" Mapsax (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Added [3] Nice catch! Δπ (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I mentioned this here to make sure that an article about a journalist employed by the Billings Gazette written by someone at the Billings Gazette wasn't too biased. Mapsax (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Size of the payload

According to some articles, the payload is roughly 90 feet (27.4 m), or the size of 3 buses. I'm not sure if the U.S. official that said this thinks that an average-sized bus is roughly 30 feet long.

[4]: "Substructure beneath the suspected Chinese spy balloon is roughly 90 feet."

[5]: "Pentagon officials say the belly section of the balloon that houses surveillance equipment is about 90 feet long, or equivalent to three schoolbuses."

[6]: "The Chinese balloon clocks in at around 90 feet wide, or the length of three buses, according to U.S. defense officials."

The third one states the balloon's size instead of the payload, although other sources say that the "3 buses" and the 90 feet measurement refers to the payload. Bambobee (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

We should probably avoid measuring lengths in terms of buses when reliable sources using feet or meters are available. Δπ (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a furlongs per fortnight situation, it's a commonplace American football field or Olympic-sized pool analogy for the Man in the street. Properly cited, the proverbial school bus stays as an approximate unit of measure. kencf0618 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Fields and pools are way more standardized. Even within America, school buses vary pretty wildly. Like how feet used to, before they were all 30 cm. About 90 feet is roughly 2700 cm. Converting that to inches will get you the same imperial subunits in all 40ish states. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Rudder ?

The article claims "a rudder for limited steering." Since a ballon is floating in the air it's not possible to use a rudder because it needs an incomming flow. That devaluates the source. Schrauber5 (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"The official also said that the balloon steers by rudder and is corkscrewing around to slow its progress over land, but the jet stream continues to move it on a trajectory across the U.S." — https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chinese-spy-balloon-montana-flight-tracking/ So, I guess it's okay to include, but basic physics would seem to suggest to me at least that any kind of a rudder would be completely useless, and the payload certainly didn't have the surface area to compete with that of the balloon itself, so I'm not opposed to removing any mention of rudders.

On the other hand, the technical sources claim that directed air blowers do work for manuvering surveillance balloons, so I wonder if that is what was meant? The area of those solar panels are far more than you would need for long distance radio transmissions, so (without any sources in support) I'm inclined to believe the very large solar panels were probably for air blower manuvering. Any rudders on the device were probably small vanes on the output of blowers.

If so, "steers by rudder" is likely to be technically correct but misleading without far more detail than we can possibly have until publication after recovery of the payload, so while I'm not opposed to removing the mention of rudders, I wonder if we can use other sources to explain what the officials probably meant. Δπ (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

E.g., https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/63/f9/5f/2cc9b784d16cd0/US4018406.pdf Δπ (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_China_balloon_incident&diff=1137758876&oldid=1137754948 Δπ (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

A rudder behind a screw is also working by getting the incomming flow from the screw. But then the main thing would be the propeller and not the rudder. Let's if information about the propulsion becomes available. Schrauber5 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"Alleged the balloon to be"

I've (and others have) changed this phrase to "alleged that the balloon was", which is more natural English and seems to flow better.

@Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert: is there a particular grammatical reason that the phrasing in the section header is being restored, such as here, here, and here? Subjunctive mood is (almost) never used in American English, the variety of English that this article is written in. I understand this is small pickles, but I'd like to try to understand where you're coming from. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Mostly because otherwise there was no good way to avoid "that" and "was" both being repeated in the sentence -- which isn't the end of the world, but I figured it could just as easily be avoided.

Most of my grammar restores of such wording weren't reverts of an editor addressing that grammar directly with the intent to change it back. The phrasing was repeatedly a victim of circumstance, being unintentionally reverted as a larger portion of the lede was pasted back to an earlier version for some other reason I never got a full handle on (a small spat involving Trump or sourcing, it seemed; I didn't really care). As near as I could tell, no one was targeting that grammar while replacing swaths of text. So as the greater wheels turned, I continued changing that little piece back.

That's where my mind was with it. Changing up the wording of that sentence seemed to read better to me, but I agree it is small pickles, and ultimately, I'm not going to fight it. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I've just changed it to not have the repeat and to use the more standard phrasing in front. Please let me know what you think. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually love where it landed. Thank you for being willing to work with me. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 14:56, 6 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)

international impact

Based on the edits in the article and the comments here, it seems to me that we either aren't fully aware of or don't fully understand that this incident is much more than you're usual diplomatic spat between the US and China. The fact that the incident has a military dimension because it was shot down has both connections to and implications for issues happening in other parts of the world (principally East and South East Asia) which I think is being underreported. Maybe this is a function of the sources themselves, I don't know, but either way more focus on this aspect of the incident would be good. Restflux (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's anywhere near as serious as the magnitude of the press would suggest. If it was for surveillance, being shot down would be no surprise. Even if it was just a weather balloon, only about 20% of their payloads are ever recovered,[7] so in either case losing it was not unexpected. Since the Pentagon is convinced it was able to manuver, you have to ask whether anyone could really expect anything different. I think the real question is whether the timing was intended to scuttle (or posture in advance of) Blinken's Beijing trip, and if so was it due to an anti-American faction without Xi's blessing. I can't imagine we'll ever know for sure, but we might get something later on down the road. Δπ (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this addresses the concerns I have. I was referring to the follow on effects this incident would have on the security environment in East and South East Asia. Reuters has an article which gets at that, but it's short and just one article. Restflux (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

References

archive URL

• https://web.archive.org/web/20230205171748/https://www.wyff4.com/article/south-carolina-china-balloon-pictures/42764367

replaced with:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20230204202139/https://router.infolinks.com/usync/manage?pid=3362112&wsid=0&pdom=www.wyff4.com&purl=https%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.wyff4.com%2Farticle%2F9-year-old-pennsylvania-boy-graduates-from-high-school%2F42763832

....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

S Korea & Japan

If the balloon flew over South Korea & Japan, the article should include the responses from the governments of those countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:54, 7 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)

Previous sightings

Is there any more detail available as to how the Biden administration was able to detect the incursions by previous balloons well after the incursions had happened, when the previous administration was allegedly not able to? Do we know what capability they added to detect them? Why is detecting them so difficult? Many people were able to "detect" the balloon by simply looking up at it in the sky. Why would previous incursions have been perhaps more difficult to detect than this one, which was observed by millions of people? Jake Sullivan later said that improved airspace surveillance ordered by Biden after he took office had detected the previous incursions - how? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This is covered in many articles. The US noticed, but couldn't identify the objects. They saw this one, analyzed it, and determined that the radar signature/speed/radio emissions /etc was a match for 3 previously noticed unidentified flying objects. Very Average Editor (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you link to some of the articles so we can include that information in our article? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is one example article, it describes how the Trump admin detected, but did not identify the them at the time: https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-spy-balloons-seen-during-trump-administration-classified-as-ufos-2023-2 - so Biden didn't retroactively detect the incidents, but his administration was able to retroactively identify the objects. As to my second part about the specific data used to compare the objects, I doubt we will find a RS, as both governments keep information warfare data classified. Very Average Editor (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

analyst opinion in the introduction section

It seems like most of the independent, non-US/Canada government, non-Chinese government analysts cited in the article are saying this balloon either isn't your typical weather balloon or just not a weather balloon at all. Should that get a mention in the introduction section? Restflux (talk) 18:42, 7 February 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)

Expert analysis video

This video is from commercial balloon platform manufacturer John Powell, founder of JP Aerospace, who holds the record for flying the highest altitude airship. He thinks it's not a spy photography balloon, but a telecommunications platform. He doesn't address the question of signals intelligence. Again, I'm ambivalent about including this and will leave it up to others. Δπ (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I can see nice arguments on both sides.

Including his opinion could be helpful knowing his background in aeronautics concerning these kinds of balloons. It might also give a plausible theory to a "why" we don't really have right now.

I also have issues with how there were more of these balloons both beforehand and even at the same time as this one balloon in other countries, which wouldn't really make sense if there were just a few rogue telecomms balloons. I also take concern with how they claimed it was literally a weather balloon (Their statement is: "It is a civilian airship used for research, mainly meteorological, purposes...") while, as this guy claims, it really isn't at a normal altitude or size for these kinds of balloons.

What I'm trying to say is that there's a lot of reasons to include the opinion, but also a lot of reasons the opinion is probably wrong. Nice argument (talk) 13:48, 8 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)

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.

[8] is one of hundreds of examples. Very Average Editor (talk) 16:08, 9 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)

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)

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)