Talk:2023 Chinese balloon incident/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Biden isn't that authoritive on the facts

I don't think Biden's statement of "Balloon carrying two rail boxes of spy equipment", ;should be in the lead section. Because Biden is honestly just not a good source for facts. I am not against him (I pity him) but he has a habit of repeatedly making terrible factual errors. Just last week, he said that Putin is going to lose in the war "in Iraq", and such embarassing factual slip-ups is typical of him. Biden now claims that the Chinese spy balloon was carrying “two rail road boxes full of spy equipment". However the only person saying this, is Biden. I still don't see the Pentagon or other agencies making such statements or confirming it as a fact. Logically a spy balloon isn't effective when it's gigantic. Biden also alleges that president Xi didn't even know such a balloon was flying over the states. I just feel like Biden irresponsibly blurted something while emotionally mocking Xi, and was maybe exaggerating. And given his lack of reliability on factual claims, his statements shouldn't be so trusted on its factuality and surely there must be better sources than him to go describe the dimensions of the balloon professionally for the lead.ArrowSake (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• The lead is a summary of the article. New content and quotes generally do not belong there. This quote doesn't belong in the lead. Fettlemap (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't aware that new quotes generally do not belong in Lead. But I agree with that too. To be precise, I don't think Biden's statement can be taken professionally when he is obviously just making a casual taunt at Xi at same time, while saying xi wasn't aware of the balloon. I don't deny that the payload is likely big. But is it 100 percent spy equipment or 20 percent? I doubt it was precisely two railcar boxes of just spy gear alone. So I propose that instead of relying on Biden for the facts, we can easily just use what the US officials say instead. Proposed replacement text can include;US officials described the balloon as having multiple antennas that were likely capable of collecting and geolocating communications, and was equipped with solar panels big enough to produce the "requisite power to operate multiple active intelligence collection sensors".” [1]ArrowSake (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That is a much better summary of the article. Fettlemap (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead already contains similar information about equipment onboard capable of intelligence collection. The details are described extensively in the body. Which sentence are you replacing exactly? Vacosea (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vacosea: Nice to see you join this thread, as it's the more recent edits that largely undid and replaced your edit [2] [3] and is presently, the third sentence in the lead. U.S. president Biden later described the balloon as carrying two railroad cars' equivalent of spy equipment; his government said the balloon had a propeller for maneuverability.[3][4]. But as explained above, I just don't think Biden is a quality source to rely for facts especially when he was speaking too casually and was making a emotional spurn at Xi. And if we are to quote Biden on something, it should be on his political opinion for historical purposes, but not to rely on him primarily to tell readers the facts. There's a fine difference there. And maybe my above proposed replacement text is too heavy on details "for a lead", and not really a "summary". So I wouldn't mind having your earlier edit restored, but with additional relevant factoids. Proposed replacement text for third sentence in article's lead; Based on preliminary findings, U.S. officials said that the balloon carried intelligence gathering equipment but didn’t appear to transmit intelligence back to China.[4] US officials didn’t clarify if the reason for the balloon not transmitting data to China was primarily a malfunction or countermeasures by the US. [5]ArrowSake (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Speculations usually do not need to be mentioned in the lead unless they are critical. As for additional factoids, it is difficult to draw the line whether Biden's "box cars", findings of a propeller, leaked information about the power source, or any other information from the body should be mentioned or not. A sentence about this length can follow after the existing one on FBI lab in Virginia: Based on preliminary findings, U.S. officials said that the balloon carried intelligence gathering equipment but didn’t appear to transmit information back to China. Vacosea (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Edits

@Vacosea: you have made a large number of edits on this article. First I reverted them as they appeared too complicated to be all in one edit. The second time I reverted them as I am unclear why some items are be re-summarized in a manner totally different from what they were originally and other edits you appear to be removing sources. This all looks suspicious and I request more explanation here on this talk page. I dont see anything on this talk page that discusses a removal of sources, that is highly unusual. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Here [6] you asked me to make edits again individually, which I did, with summary for each.[7][8][9][10] You reverted all of them.[11] "Unusual" is not a valid reason. You have repeatedly accused me of removing sources. Yet you refuse to say which ones. Your behavior is quite strange. Vacosea (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because you do them one by one doesnt mean we will agree. Your edit summaries must match your edits and do not remove sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't just throw accusations around. Vacosea (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I got no intention to join your edit war and haven't read all the edits that are disputed by you two. But if I may include my take, as I explained in my thread above, it's better to not rely on Biden's casual foot-in-mouth blurted statements, but instead stick to the more professional and 'careful' statements made by the US intelligence for stating hard facts in lead. And I think there's just too many issues with the following edit (at 4th sentence in lead) saying, U.S. president Biden later described the balloon as carrying two railroad cars' equivalent of spy equipment. And that there are plenty of better sources available, and better quality edits to replace that. And I agree with one particular change, by I assume was originally from Vacosea, that is much more appropriate for wiki that replaces that edit and states, Following a preliminary analysis of the debris in June, U.S. officials stated that the balloon carried intelligence gathering equipment but does not appear to have sent information back to China. But I don't have that strong a bad feeling about the current article and it seems acceptable enough after a skim read. But note that it could still be improved. I let you two to continue discussing and hope you'll consider that particular part I raised. Cheers! ArrowSake (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought I would never see the day. Here an editor (ArrowSake) arrogates to himself what the President of the United States can or cannot say. The source is the BBC, quoting what the man himself said. You are welcome to qualify the statement on the article if you don’t like what he says and if you have reliable sources to assert that what the man says is false, but please refrain from eliminating WP:RS with straight quotes.XavierItzm (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Biden's long quote about box cars and Xi is in the section on United States reaction. The balloon's specific characteristics also have their own section. The discussion was about the first paragraph, whether to include or exclude details such as Biden's exact words, the balloon's propeller, power source, etc. Vacosea (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I’ll agree that there are many technical and non-technical details regarding the balloon. Having said this, the Presidential summary indicating that it consisted of two railroad car’s worth of stuff is an easy-to-understand metric for readers of any reading level, so it is a most appropriate summarization for the lead; it’s got little or nothing to do with “reactions”, though additional “reaction” context can be provided there, if so desired. The fact that this was a propelled vehicle is also critical to understanding the episode and there is no reason to bury the lede.XavierItzm (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I love the president comment. First is that it is DUE (said by the man who ordered the shoot down) and second because it is so absurd (obviously there were not two boxcars). I think we should keep the comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If it's "absurd" and obviously not having exactly two boxcars, then readers can be mislead by an unprofessional comment. Especially when they don't know much about Biden and his tendency to make such inaccurate foot in mouth comments. But I do agree as the president, his words have weight but they should be for the most important political speeches as a president rather than obviously sarcastic toned factual claims. But if we can include Biden's unserious joke statement of 2 railroad cars, then his more important and serious relevant presidential statements like declaring that "it wasn't a major breach, and that it is his belief that the Chinese leadership wasn't even aware of the balloon." That is actually much more due weight and deserving Biden quote that takes only a few words, yet missing in the lead.ArrowSake (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes: it is a great comment. Politicians usually (but not always) have an uncanny ability to communicate abstract concepts in such a way that even children can understand them. This is why the quote belongs in the lede: the ship was carrying two truckloads of spy equipment.XavierItzm (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Sarcasm may be a great approach for matters unrelated to editing an encyclopedia. Vacosea (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Reports of balloon not spying is dowplayed, exhibiting bias?

Even after the Pentagon said the balloon isn't collecting or transmissing, out of 100+ "spy" reference, not one says it's not spying. All I see is a foot note almost in the end? At least it's in the end not berried in the middle? After the downed balloon was collected and conclusion like this announced by the Pentagon should play some importance? Here are additional source is it okay to add them to the end? Not accusing POV just thinking maybe some intellectual honesty? I don't care if I get banned, I'm just asking questions maybe this is why WP is a joke? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66062562 https://abcnews.go.com/US/chinese-spy-balloon-american-made-parts-transmit-data/story?id=100476856 https://www.reuters.com/world/chinese-spy-balloon-did-not-collect-information-over-us-pentagon-2023-06-29/ https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/29/politics/china-surveillance-balloon-pentagon-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/16/china-spy-balloons-biden-addresses-nation-on-shootdowns-of-aerial-phenomena.html https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-30/chinese-spy-balloon-did-not-collect-information-on-us-pentagon/102545066 https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/06/29/dod-chinese-spy-balloon-did-not-collect-transmit-data-over-the-us/ Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There was a piece from CNN or the Wall Street Journal citing a few anonymous officials that intelligence was collected, but most sources as you have pointed out deny that. Vacosea (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bobby fletcher: Yes, that isn't right. I had a look at the intro today and it just gives strong impression that the balloon was definitely spying. Especially with President Biden oddish remark saying it had loads of spy gear. It's only at the very bottom paragraph of the entire article, does it ever mention that Gen. Mark Milley, telling CBS that "the balloon wasn't spying". And "the intelligence high-confidence assessment – [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon." Biden's unprofessional comment claiming it had rail car boxes full of spy gear, seems rather silly. Given that nowadays high quality and high confidence official assessment have recently been made public that the balloon was not spying and ultimately it didn't collect information because its sensors weren't even turned on when flying over the Continental United states. But such crucial facts however is unfortunately buried deep down the article where most readers generally don't reach, despite it's probably the only sentence in the entire article that actually matters the most.ArrowSake (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The article contains obfuscatory, crufty language in the "Detection" section, describing conditions at length that are not applicable to the actual balloon payload. And the whole "size of a schoolbus" or size of insert-other-large-object, implying a large volume of equipment as opposed to flat solar arrays making up most of the payload is disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

In an interview aired on CBS News Sunday Morning on Sep 17, 2023, Mark Milley told David Martin that the balloon was not spying and it was a high confidence assessment by the United States Intelligence Community that there was no intelligence collection and transmission by the balloon. Supermann (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yea, right, and if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you. --rogerd (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't live in NYC, so the Brooklyn Bridge isn't yours to sell to begin with. Even if you do live in NYC, it's still not up to you to sell it. I didn't know active admins could be this biased. Supermann (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)nnn

@Supermann: First of all, "selling the Brooklyn Bridge" is a common idiom in American culture, see Brooklyn Bridge#Culture. It's a joke. Secondly, this is a talk page, so I think there is a little more latitude given to express your views. Chill out. --rogerd (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am obviously not American enough to be aware of such idiom. Still it seems to be a bad idiom targeting gullible outlander. Anyways, Urban Dictionary has given some unique definition for the bridge.... Supermann (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Supermann: US are now considering a leading theory that in the end, it may had just been a weather balloon where when it's very high up in the air, the winds can just blow it off course. But they leapt too quickly to politicising when the facts were sparse. General Miley himself stated that the "balloon had been headed toward Hawaii, but the winds at 60,000 feet apparently took over" and "those winds are very high.""The particular motor on that aircraft can't go against those winds at that altitude."[12] Also it never made sense in the first place to have such a large visible balloon for spying purposes. But given the political atmosphere, people were keen to speculate but 7 months later, we have a clearer picture and why it's important to not mislead but place that FINAL ASSESSMENT in the lead because frankly, it's prob the most important and only info that actually matters in the entire article, where it's based on high confidence assesments. I see you added that info today at the very bottom of the article but would suggest it's major enough to add it in to the article's leading intro too.ArrowSake (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@ArrowSake someone already fixed it. It's unfortunate that Milley still called it a spy balloon. Supermann (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Supermann I added it to the lede. But was removed by those who don't want it to be mentioned. And that just makes it even more ridiculous. Calling it a spy balloon but also saying it didn't spy. Obviously they are trying to walk back on their claims and too embarrassing to admit it wasn't acting like a spy Balloon. He said "spy balloon" only after he was directly asked on the spot to admit if it was a spy Balloon or not and it was only himself saying it and not the high confidence assesment concluding that. So aDded context on why he said that. ArrowSake (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@ArrowSake we should FOIA that high confidence assessment from the govt. Supermann (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Supermann Yes, we really should. But they made public; enough details to confirm the Balloon didn't collect any intelligence. I don't take them at their words but don't see why they would fib about that. But since you are here, can you rely to the below thread and share if you think it's important enough to be mentioned in the lead. I propose to add in this following info into the lead and like your feedback on it. (On September 17, 2023, seven months after the incident, in an interview with "CBS News Sunday Morning", Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had stated that it was a high confidence assessment from the intelligence community, that found with high certainty that there was "no intelligence collection by that balloon", however Milley would still claim it as a spy balloon nonetheless but that it was likely blown off course by strong winds.[13] ArrowSake (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

That's why i want to see those FOIA'd documents sometime down the road and see where they and how often they used the term "spy balloon" in written assessments. I think the CBSNews interview on 9/17 could belong to the lead, together with the 6/29 press conference. But I somehow had put them in the bottom. Observation balloon - Wikipedia Supermann (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree, this article is biased and subject of regular and very busy editing to downplay the spying allegations. The allegations are still present regardless whatever evidence is released or not. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)