Talk:2023 Chinese balloon incident/Archive 1

"Roughly the size of 3 buses"
This sentence in this article seems to imply the technology bay is roughly the size of 3 buses, which is misleading; it is the balloon that is that size. 2601:189:8100:7090:2B7B:E06D:F502:AACF (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed per ABC reference. A09 (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Spy balloon
I may have observed it, or another, a couple days ago. Approximately 350 degrees north of Cloquet, Minnesota. Seemed rather odd, not flying/moving like a jet, nearly still. Watched it a few minutes, 4-6. Hadn't moved. I had a good reference point in the foreground. 2600:1014:B018:86BE:7CC0:A5B0:152B:CF58 (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Chinese spy balloon(?)
If this article even deserves to exist yet, the title and contents should be changed so as not to assume the balloon's purpose or country of origin. As of yet there doesn't seem to be any real evidence that the balloon is a surveillance apparatus. It could just as likely be a weather balloon that drifted off course and the Chinese didn't bother to recover it. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:D96D:A1DE:BC7A:4BD6 (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think so. It is very unlikely that it is really from China. Maybe the balloon is "made in China" but that should be it. There is not even an explanation why they think it would be from China. Pentagon has no more decency anymore. --Christian140 (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And why you don't take Pentagon as a reliable source, to be exact? They are still WP:RS per given criteria. A09 (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the section below Talk:2023_China_balloon_incident. Carter00000 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * China has claimed it Shane04040404 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2023 (closed)

 * 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. 



China confirmed that the balloon is Chinese, so the move rationalization is nil. (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 China balloon incident → 2023 United States balloon incident – Given that there is no confirmation that the balloon's purpose or country of origin is related to China, it is suggested that the name of the article be renamed to the country where the incident occurred Carter00000 (talk) 16:03, 3 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.
 * Oppose China has acknowledged that it came from their country. Only the purpose is in dispute.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It should include Chinese rather than China or United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Juneau Mike. From the NYT: “The airship is from China. It is a civilian airship used for research, mainly meteorological, purposes,” an unidentified spokesperson for the ministry said in a statement on its website.1 Support revert back to "2023 Chinese spy balloon incident". K.H.Q. (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How are you so sure that it is a spy balloon when the cited Chinese sources don't mention so, and American sources are merely speculating it at this point?  No  News  !  16:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I tried to change it back to the original title, and I support it. But, WP rejected that title. Perhaps a mod needs to do it. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yea, the error is due to technical reasons: "if the desired target page name already exists and is other than a redirect with only one edit, you will need an administrator to move the page for you, which can be requested at the technical requests section of requested moves." K.H.Q. (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Image Tagline
Heads up someone changed the image tagline to "UFO over Billings Mt 2-1-2023. 5:09pm MST. Possible weather balloon… news calling it a Chinese spy balloon!!!! Are civilians allowed to shoot these down?" Ispottedsomething (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Article Title
I would strongly urge that the name be changed to the “2023 Chinese Balloon Incident”. 2600:1015:B032:40DF:BD0C:518E:69B8:3ECB (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * see § Requested move 3 February 2023, above. DecafPotato (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Article name vandalized
A short time ago, an editor with a history of making disruptive edits removed the word "China" from the title, and replaced it with "Chspy" - whatever that means. I changed it back. We should watch to make sure that editor does not make further vandalism to the page. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You've changed it to a different title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It would not allow me to change it back to "2023 Chinese spy balloon incident", so I just removed the "Chspy" vandalism.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize for the change. I had typed the part of the change on my mobile then navigated away from the page to check the proper policy for a page move, given that I have never made such a move before. I was unaware that the action had been performed.
 * Thank you very much for helping to move the page back. Carter00000 (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now listed the move request properly as per the below section, given that the move may potentially be controversial. Carter00000 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We still need to move this from China to Chinese & perhaps add spy back into the title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Juneau Mike, Jim Michael 2, The void century. Thank you everyone for helping clean-up my mistake. Carter00000 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Flightradar
I was just checking Flightradar where the object of most interest is HBAL617. But they have posted to explain that this is not the balloon you are looking for..."The high altitude balloon currently over the United States being tracked by NORAD is not broadcasting ADS-B and is not visible on Flightradar24. The HBAL617 currently over Alabama is a US-based high-altitude research balloon, NOT the surveillance balloon."


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 19:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Latin America
Isn't there a 2nd balloon? 41.58.214.92 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not that we know of, is there any proof that you have to conform that there is a second one? ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 01:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The USDOD via NBC News has confirmed a second spy balloon is currently over Latin America.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 01:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Twice now a civilian sighting has been followed by a DOD acknowledgment. Furthermore Instances go back several years, including prior administrations, as per the DOD. Stay tuned. kencf0618 (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Costa Rica?
Well here we go again. There were reports of a UFO over Costa Rica yesterday, suspected to be a balloon.

Strange object seen above Costa Rica as China investigates spy balloon claims 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Trajectory
I have created a map that shows the probable trajectory of the balloon. I'm leaving it here for you to decide whether it will improve the article. M.Bitton (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate the map of known and clever indicator showing possible previous track.
 * Just a tiny quirk - the map is dated Feb 23 - some 20 days in the future from now. :-) DDilworth (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what date you're referring to. M.Bitton (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a nice-looking map but what are your sources to confirm: 1) a launch point deep inside central China and 2) a trajectory across Japan and Alaska? Are these personal conjecture or have they been reliably reported? O&#39;Dea (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * the map is based on the external image that was cited in the article (it's been removed since). M.Bitton (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

UTC)

Explosion?
Is there anything more about this? https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-news/billings-woman-describes-purported-explosion-she-caught-on-video?_amp=true Victor Grigas (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * From my knowledge, No footage of it hitting the ocean has been released to the public AndyBenard44 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: If it was kept aloft with helium (he), that would not explode. Helium doesn't burn. The helium would merely rise, until it escaped into space. Any explosion seen would likely have come from the Sidewinder missile when it came into contact with the balloon.Juneau Mike (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Shot down
It's been shot down, waiting for sources to cover 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Fox News has covered it. Swyix (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The Associated Press has reported:


 * Fighter jets shot down the balloon off the Carolina coast.


 * Airspace over the Carolina coastline was closed temporarily.


 * "Television footage showed a small explosion, followed by the balloon descending toward the water. U.S. military jets were seen flying in the vicinity and ships were deployed in the water to mount the recovery operation." O&#39;Dea (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Any footage of of it hitting the ground? AndyBenard44 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It didn't hit the ground; it was shot down over the Atlantic Ocean, as described in the article. That was the whole point of waiting to shoot it down until it was over the water; to avoid the risk of harm if it hit the ground. Bricology (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

So-called wikipedia
The so-called wikipedia is the prosecutor and the judge at the same time.. Where do you get the evidence that it is a spy balloon? So, with full right, it can be claimed that the so-called wikipedia is just a branch of the agency from Langley and that it is biased.188.120.102.23 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Someone doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and who doesn't control it. But then perhaps that news hasn't yet reached anons in Serbia. Bricology (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes... and because you were good, Santa left presents in your stocking... and everyone was happy and satisfied in the end. 188.120.100.28 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * please take your SOAPBOX someplace else HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The Pentagon good sir Swyix (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * As long as there is proof that it IS a spy balloon from different sources (such as news stations, news articles, etc), then it's a spy balloon, same with other articles that Wikipedia haves.
 * Also, not a choice, but I would rather stay these kind of "conspiracy theories" away from this talk page, as it's not vital info (also I think it's just wrong). ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 20:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Short of a conclusive and independent investigation of the balloon or an admission on China's part (ala the 1960 U-2 incident) these are still just allegations, so Wikipedia should simply state what claims each government is making (the media we cite is largely repeating allegations made by officials, as opposed to doing independent work). Neither government's statements should be taken at their face value, especially not before the U.S. investigation has even started. As things stand, we must acknowledge the unproven and dubious nature of the sitation. — Goszei (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

What plane?
“At around 2:30 EST, the plane was downed.” 71.212.167.111 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Any information to prove your statement (articles, news stations, etc)? ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 20:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure someone just had a brain fart while updating the article. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ground-Stops
According to MSNBC, 3 Ground-stops have been made on flights near the atlantic ocean off the carolina coast, most likley so the debris doesnt hit the airplanes AndyBenard44 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They also don't want civilian aircraft to be anywhere near an area where they plan to "go in hot."Juneau Mike (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Debris
According to MSNBC, SYMONE, The debris field is 7 Miles Wide in the Atlantic, the U.S is "Working to recover the balloon in the Atlantic ocean" AndyBenard44 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Jan 28th?
"As it turns out, US authorities were well aware of the unidentified object that had entered American airspace on Jan. 28" soibangla (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Also reported by the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/02/04/us/china-spy-balloon#:~:text=The%20spy%20balloon%20began%20its,edges%20of%20America's%20defensive%20borders. Wakecrash (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

diagram
This photo of a similar balloon over yemen suggests the wires attach to the end of the suspended structure:

https://twitter.com/mbarksalh20/status/1517599179790561280

©Geni (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Concision edits to the lead
@Normchou I'm looking for more information about your objection to my copyedit to the lead. I don't think I removed anything substantive, just extraneous detail about "prevailing westerlies" and the specific military equipment used to down the balloon. Please let me know if it is this or some other detail that you object to. Thank you! Qono (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. For instance, in your edit, you said "The American government accused the balloon of being a surveillance device"; however, from the main text and relevant sources, it is clear that both the US and Canadian governments allege this to be a spy balloon. The Chinese government's claim was also incomplete in your edit, the actual claim (again, from the main text and relevant sources) is that it is a civilian airship "mainly for meteorological research", so this does imply there are other purposes. Normchou   💬 04:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for this clarification. I submitted another edit that addresses these valid concerns. Let me know if you think there are any other issues. Qono (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation for Biden giving the order.
Is there any proof Biden gave the order to shoot it down other than a press release? I think there should be a transcript citation. There’s no proof Biden made this order. 24.238.88.14 (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * How about hearing it from Biden's own mouth? Bricology (talk) 12:27, 5 February