Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)

Introduction

"namely airspace surrounding Chinese exclusive economic zone (EZZ) and territory Diaoyu Islands" assumes that the territory is uncontested PRC territory, but that is not the case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute . A rewording to indicate that the land is claimed by the PRC would be more accurate. Xevix (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed the name of the disputed islands in the introduction to match the current name we already have i.e. Senkaku Islands Ylinn (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Chinese bias

There is a clear anti-Chinese bias in the tone and substance of this article. The entire effort by people like I. Wanderer is to demonize China. I hope Wikipedia will not be so petty but concentrate on providing an even and balanced knowledge base with the goal of enlightening the world and not to contribute to bigotry and animosity. Liang1a (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I. Wanderer is posting false and misleading facts

I wish to call attention to the fact that I. Wanderer is initiating an edit war by continuing to make false statements about:

1. US ADIZ requires only aircrafts entering American sovereign territories to file flight plan;

Liang's refutation: US ADIZ actually requires all aircrafts to file flight plan or else be assumed to be hostile. I have explained this in my post with citation.

2. Chinese ADIZ is "unusual" in including Diaoyu Island;

Liang's refutation: Japan had already included Diaoyu Island long before China included it.

3. Chinese ADIZ is "unusual" in overlapping Japanese ADIZ.

Liang's refutation: Japan's ADIZ had overlapped Taiwan's ADIZ many years ago.

If I. Wanderer persisted in posting these false statements, which are misleading and actuated by anti-Chinese bigotry, then I must immediately refute him. This will obviously degrade the credibility of Wikipedia which I hope I. Wanderer would not want to see. The solution is for I. Wanderer to come to his senses and delete his false statements himself to avoid an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liang1a (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Administration and Monitoring Operations

The tone of this section, in particular the use of quotes for "intercept," leans toward a pro-PRC stance. Perhaps taking a complete quote from the article would be better. Xevix (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Most references are links to the PRC Ministry of National Defense and in Chinese. There are no articles referencing the more recent rejection by Japan, the United States, and South Korea of this unilateral zone. Addition of these would add balance to the article. Xevix (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

ADIZ map

I think a map of the zone would put the situation in better perspective regarding the international concerns around the East China Sea. Doyna Yar (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added one in, it's the best and most comprehensive I could find (File:Air_Defense_Identification_Zones_Map_East_China_Sea.gif). Ansett (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doyna Yar (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant South Korean changes as well as the Taiwanese ADIZ should be included. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've tagged this as having a Chinese rather than a global view and for POV concerns, for primarily the same reason. The article treats this as chinese creation of an Air Defense zone over their territory, not that of other countries. Ryan Vesey 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

ECSADIZoPRC is something we made up

I cannot find ECSADIZoPRC anywhere except this article. Can't we just use the ADIZ or China's ADIZ as needed? Hcobb (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found it anywhere either. Go ahead and change it. I've seen a few examples of it being referred to as ECS ADIZ. ADIZ can be used whenever it is clear that we are referring to China's ADIZ in the East China Sea, otherwise we should clarify it. Ryan Vesey 23:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly biased. To what side... that is to be determined. This page should be put on hold until an international agreement is determined. Quite frankly, a page such as this is akin to making a page on fluctuating stock prices or the value of gold... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.146.211 (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Legality

From my understanding an ADIZ is an entirely unilateral action by a state and has no internationally legal recognition. There is precedent to their declaration, however it's still unilateral. These usually just exist for a state to have some preemptive warning. However when they overlap another state's Zone there is naturally a conflict. The noninterference of the US B-52 transit may/or may not suggest the PRC's zone is targeted at particular states. As usual the Chinese seem to be playing the long game. Personally I find the timing with the Iranian interim nuclear deal conveniently suspicious.Doyna Yar (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes but the Sansha article is very similar and Wikipedia treats the Chinese creation as more or less a genuine entity. There should be some consistency to how these matters are dealt with. The reality of the entity for China does not mean that that it is internationally recognized.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this article specifically about Chinese air defense identification zone?

There are air defense identification zones of Japan and Korea in East China Sea.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

China only has one ADIZ, this one, whereas the Japanese and Korean ADIZ extends well beyond the East China Sea area. So in terms of the scope, and future scope, of the article it ought to be China, with expansion and a rename to China's ADIZ coming if China establishes or extends to other regions.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Brian Dell - This article is not about China's claim, there are many Air Defense Identification Zones in the same area as you can see from the map I uploaded. I think maybe this article should be moved to Air Defense Identification Zones (East China Sea). Japan already claimed most of this area as a ADIZ in 2010. If we want to be specific about China create a new section within the article. Ansett (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

One can argue that the article SHOULD be about zones plural but that's not what it currently IS. The article was given the name East China Sea because that's the name China gives it. What happened was that the early article drew heavily on Chinese state-controlled media and so introduced the Japanese ADIZ in order to provide a moral justification/equivalency argument for the creation of the zone. That was one reason the article got tagged as POV, above. There were two ways of balancing the article and one way was to remove content about the other ADIZ as irrelevant while the second way was to leave it in but characterize it as a background history of the area to which the Chinese ADIZ is being applied. The second route provides more information to the reader and I support it, but that doesn't mean the article has shifted its topic. For a shift to the zones, plural, in the East China Sea you should propose a name change so this can be properly discussed as such. It is not appropriate to continue to add topic-shifting content without a consensus that this is what Wikipedia wants to do. At the moment there is already an ADIZ article that deals with zones in the plural and it includes a subsection for China and considers this article the "main article" for that subsection topic. As such, we should remain consistent with that and treat this as primarily concerned with China's ADIZ.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be about China's zone, that this article's name should be changed to reflect that, and that other articles be created and renamed to reflect each individual country. So there is a Air Defense Identification Zone article already and then there can be an "Air Defense Identification Zone (China)", an ""Air Defense Identification Zone {Japan)", etc. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"control" vs "monitor"

Just what the Chinese have introduced here may be disputed without just repeating in detail the new "rules." The question is how to summarize this. New "monitoring" is not accurate in my view since monitoring is passive and does place an onus on the monitored to respond. The Chinese media says "Any airplane that fails to follow such rules will face emergency defense measures taken by the Chinese military." If you look at the statement on the Chinese Defence website that responds to the U.S. flight, it says "有效管控." This translates as "effective control." Someone changed it to "monitor" but this is not an accurate translation and it is also not consistent with the English translation appearing in the sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, three refs in the 1st paragraph do not say "control". Secondly, no link there is from Economist. If you can provide one, please provide one. Thirdly, if you translate "有效管控" into "control", that only means your Chinese is very bad. Air Defense Identification Zone only means monitoring and early-warning. If you can provide primary source translation of Chinese Defense Ministry about translating it as "control", please provide one. If not, shut up! ADIZ is not territorial airspace (China's ADIZ includes her territorial airspace of Diaoyu Islands, though), how can you control? It's for "identification". Are you kidding me? Even Japan doesn't say control about its ADIZ.54.201.110.17 (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you see this link here: http://eng.mod.gov.cn/TopNews/2013-11/27/content_4476726.htm? Does it, or does it not, say "Ministry of National Defense The People's Republic of China" in the banner on the top of this webpage? Is this, or is this not, a website controlled by the Chinese government? Now what does it say, in English, after the word "effective"? Is that word "control" or is it not? Where are the sources for "monitoring and early warning"? I searched for this phrase and found a grand total of zero sources that used this terminology in the context of this ADIZ. I gave the URL for the Economist's use of "air traffic restrictions" in my edit summary. The Economist is not alone here. The Guardian says "China imposes airspace restrictions", The Diplomat says "China Imposes Restrictions on Air Space", PBS Newshour refers to "air defense restriction from China," the Columbus Dispatch says "China imposes airspace restrictions," the Financial Times says "Beijing defends flight restrictions as ‘legitimate action’." I could go on, but it should also be possible to just use logic here. If you are JUST monitoring me and warning me, what do I have to do? Nothing, of course. You warn me that I am in your zone and that's the end of it. But that's not the case with the rules here. At http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Press/2013-11/23/content_4476143.htm it says "Third, aircraft ... should follow the instructions of the administrative organ .... China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions." "Follow the instructions" is a restriction. If you want to find another term, like "control," we can talk about that, but "monitoring" is NOT all that is implied here. Note that word "will" before "adopt defensive emergency measures." This is more like instructions from air traffic control than just being tracked by air traffic control, and air traffic control has the word "control" in it. As for the Japanese ADIZ being different, yes it is! As the New York Times points out, "The Chinese also imposed requirements that other countries do not"--Brian Dell (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Merger or rename proposal

I believe this article should be merged with the main article Air Defense Identification Zone. I think there is already some doubling up between the articles. Ansett (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Rename to Air Defense Identification Zone (China). See above discussion.

reason: Already Air Defense Identification Zone (North America) and Air Defense Identification Zone (Washington DC) exist. Trim the description of China section in Air Defense Identification Zone to a summary of this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

At present I don't think there is enough material for separate articles except for U.S./Canada ADIZ and Chinese ADIZ. Because any Chinese ADIZ, either the current one in the East China Sea or a future one in the South China Sea would be in a contested maritime area there will likely be extensive media coverage of Chinese ADIZ and as a consequence enough material that I don't think articles on Chinese ADIZ should be merged into this article. This article should just summarize in the case of North American or Chinese ADIZ, with main article links available in the subsections.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC) I note that Iloilo Wanderer's comments above, in an earlier section, also imply opposition to the merger proposed here.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Merger Mztourist (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Merger It's premature. Let's give this issue some time to shake out, and the other article to be fleshed out. I can see one article on the topic in general and then one article on the China zone, plural if they set up another one. The China zone is different enough -- controversial enough -- that I can see it being notable enough to be separate but I could also see the issue dying off. See to the discussion above re re-naming. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Air Defense Identification Zone article?

I am trying to avoid an WP:Edit War over at Air Defense Identification Zone. User:Liang1a has made several changes, including adding material that simply duplicates info here, and also has deleted cited information that clarifies how China's ADIZ differs from other zones. User:Liang1a has not however ever explained his actions despite repeated requests to do so. Any advice or help would be appreciated. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

---

From Liang1a: If anybody is starting an Edit War it is Iloilo Wanderer. He had repeatedly deleted my posts when I had provided full references. He is also posting statements that are not factual. He said Chinese ADIZ is unusual because it requires all aircrafts to file flight plans flying in any direction through its ADIZ. But American ADIZ also requires ALL PLANES to file flight plans when flying IN ANY DIRECTION:

"ANY AIRCRAFTS that wishes to fly IN OR THROUGH the boundary must file either a Defense Visual Flight Rules (DVFR) flight plan or an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan BEFORE CROSSING THE ADIZ (14 CFR 99.11)."

http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Since Chinese ADIZ has the same requirements as American ADIZ, it is obviously a lie to say that the Chinese ADIZ is unusual. I would appreciate help in making AW to stop this mendacious edit war which serves to degrade the quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be a place of knowledge without sensationalization and demonization of China or any other persons or countries.

Liang1a (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV and articles should not be written as debates on issues. I suggest that you reword the Identification Rules section to remove comments such as "It is actually not factually correct to say that...", "The fact is..", "The truth is..." and instead provide a simple summary of the relevant US FAA requirements for the US ADIZ and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions, unless you are able to provide a WP:RS that clearly states that China's ADIZ rules are not substantially different from those of the US ADIZ. Mztourist (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As I have noted elsewhere, Liang1a, a single bullet point from a PowerPoint slide is not the final and complete word. The purpose of a Powerpoint show is to summarize, preferring the risk of oversimplification to spelling out every detail and nuance. The U.S. rules are spelled out in the regulations, and we additionally have statements from U.S. spokespersons about how those regulations are clearly different and/or are interpreted differently from China. And China has admitted to a difference on the point.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nationalism and Prejudice

I. Wanderer has posted statements that have no probative value to inform the readers. He had posted statements that are only inflammatory tending to demonize China. This should be against the principle of Wikipedia which should be the enlightenment of issues objectively. Therefore, I hope he can be persuaded to put aside his obvious prejudice against China and post only facts objectively without needless sensationalization about the world is "denousing" China.Liang1a (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Re-title article East China Sea ADIZ dispute

Now that South Korea has gotten into the act there are four states, including Taiwan, with conflicting unilateral declarations of jurisdiction over the air space in the East China Sea. Thoughts? Doyna Yar (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent addition of Patrol Operations

I removed this addition. Though it's sourced, the sources do not show any evidence. Those sites might be reliable, but not this news release. IMHO, just saying "Chinese Navy expelled foreign airplanes" is not good enough. As it's an identification zone, if the news is a fact, Chinese Navy must have identified the unknown foreign airplanes, taken photographs of them as evidence and clarified what/who they were. Without such information, I think sources are not reliable and they are improperly used. The news could be a piece of domestic propaganda. Oda Mari (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly second this on the condition that American B-52 flying over ADIZ is also removed from the article since US doesn't provide any "evidence" in the form of photos! All reliable sources or photos simply say these B-52s flown over ADIZ. But how can you prove that the photo depicting the B-52s are exactly the ones flow and how can you confirm that the airspace they were flying through was exactly inside ADIZ? Tiffany M-F Lee (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tiffany M-F Lee, don't make accusations of nationalism against other editors, as you did in this edit summary ("I strongly seconds the infamous Japanese nationalist Oda Mari"). It's considered a personal attack unless you have solid evidence to support it. Focus on content on this talk page. Repeated personal attacks may result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, the real motive of Oda Mari's edits is just another issue; I suggest you deal with her disruptive edit-warring behavior as I requested before. STSC (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While I don't think it is conformant with WP:NOR to dismiss statements from RS on the basis of an assertion that, The news could be a piece of domestic propaganda", I've just noticed that the sources all appear to be in Chinese. What bearing does that have on their use?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed this additionas it was disinformation. See this. Oda Mari (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Diaoyu Islands is NOT "administered" by Japan

Firstly it lacks international recognition. Whoever recognizes it? Japan alone says there is no dispute. But 99% countries think there is a dispute. Secondly, it is not a fact at all. Which country recognizes Japan's administration? China Coast Guard has been effectively exercising maritime law enforcement in the waters around Diaoyu Islands. Japan Coast Guard can do nothing about it.54.199.203.158 (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a biased comment. Firstly the reports on "CCG exercising effective maritime law enforcement" are basically, most if not all, from the Chinese medias only. Secondly for your reference here are some reports recognizing Japanese administration: Daily Telegraph: Japan has clashed repeatedly with its neighours in recent months over the Japanese-controlled Senkaku islands, claimed as Diaoyu in China; AFP: China ships spotted close to Japan-controlled islands The Senkaku islands, which are controlled by Japan but claimed by China; The Guardian: China imposes airspace restrictions over Japan-controlled Senkaku islands; France24: The zone covers the Tokyo-controlled Senkaku islands; Foreign Policy Initiative: ...Senkaku Islands, which are administered by the government of Japan; Arutz Sheva: The zone China recently claimed includes a hotly disputed island chain which is under Japanese control, known in Japan as Senkaku and in China as Diaoyu; NYDailyNews: The islands are currently under Japanese administrative control; ChannelNewsAsia: ...disputed islands claimed by China, which knows them as the Diaoyus, but controlled by Japan, which calls them the Senkakus; BBC: The islands are under Japan's control and Tokyo has rejected the existence of any sovereignty dispute with China; The Economist: China saw it as a provocation and sent vessels and aircraft to challenge Japan’s control of the Senkakus; SMH: Beijing ... sends planes through a region that includes the Japanese-controlled Senkaku islands -- lssrn45 | negotiate 12:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Lssrn45! I didn't bother to look them up. None of your sources recognizes Japan's "administration". You can search through the text by Ctrl + F. These are from mainstream international media (Australia, France, UK, USA, etc.) Furthermore, China Coast Guard's exercising administration over waters in Diaoyu Islands is confirmed by the Japanese media, which call it "territorial water intrusion". One piece: [1]. It says it's the 76th since Japan's "nationalization". This is a solid proof that China Coast Guard's patrol are in fact taking place and JCG can do nothing about it.54.199.179.22 (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

See http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/basic_view.html. They were placed under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, in accordance with Article III of the said treaty, and were included in the areas whose administrative rights were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, which came into force in May 1972. Clear enough? Hcobb (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Downright bullshit. So which country recognizes Japan's "administration"? Can you face my question? Treaty of San Fransisco was not signed and is never recognized by Mainland China, Taiwan, or Russia. Cairo Declaration urged Japan to give back lands it grasped illegally and it's accepted by Hirohito when he surrendered. Even USA doesn't recognize Japan's "sovereignty" over Ryukyu Islands. Based on Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration, Japan should give back Taiwan Islands as well as affiliated Diaoyu Islands to China. I cannot find any country except Japan and USA (and maybe 1 or 2 puppet country) recognizing Japan's "administration". Again, Wikipedia is NOT a place for you to promote Japan's view, which is twisted and contrived. 54.199.212.32 (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a forum for anyone to promote their personal views but instead a place to provide facts and statements made by the two (or three) sides. There are already a number of third-party reliable sources by major medias recognizing Japanese administration. Please don't simply regard all sources as "puppet of USA" and ignore the reports. lssrn45 | negotiate 07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

How about the PRC? http://www.globaltimes.cn/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Print.aspx?tabid=99&tabmoduleid=94&articleId=735265&moduleId=405&PortalID=0 The United States and Japan conducted backroom deals concerning the "power of administration" over Diaoyu Dao. If even the PRC is using the term, why shouldn't we? Hcobb (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks IP user! Your source have already stated clearly that "The Senkaku group is administered by Japan but claimed by China and Taiwan". -- lssrn45 | negotiate 23:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I am deeply worried about your literacy. Please don't give up treatment. 54.199.212.32 (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the article? lssrn45 | negotiate 07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose removing of the Patrol Operations section per WP:Not News as I find no significance in the current information. Oda Mari (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The readers should be informed how the Chinese defends the ADIZ. STSC (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Other ADIZ articles have no such section. What is the significance of the current content? Just because it was a new year's day? But as far as I know, every military forces work 365 days a year. And why there is no official report like this one? The media reports used as ref. are just saying "China did this and it was Japanese planes" without showing evidence. They might have convinced Chinese people that was a fact, but not the rest of the world. But...it's maybe a good idea to leave the section as it is, because it looks as if China does not control the zone. Oda Mari (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's relevant due to ADIZ overlap. I would suggest referencing Japanese or other non-PRC operations to specify such overlap or non-acknowledgement of China's ADIZ. Doyna Yar (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The page is specific for Air Defense Identification Zone established by China in East China Sea. Tiffany M-F Lee (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I would support adding the conflicts between Japan and China in the ADIZ (i.e. patrol operations from the 2 countries, announcements by the Foreign ministries) as the ADIZ is currently under dispute. The page is about the Chinese ADIZ but should not be limited to Chinese information only, otherwise some readers might think the Wikipedia is trying to hide the fact that Japanese fighters are also flying in the ADIZ. lssrn45 | negotiate 07:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning of Oda Mari's disruptive editing

Which version is appropriate?
This version by IP:54.199.176.255 or the version by Oda Mari?
The points are
1 Could Onodera's comment be thought as 沈黙/silence?
2 Should criticism of the Chinese news be included in the article or not?
Oda Mari (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Japanese government did in fact remained silent. Onodera said "we are aware of it and no comment". What's the difference between this and nothing is said? OK. It's fair to say "Japanese government hasn't denied".Tiffany M-F Lee (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more accurate to quote the original words from Onodera rather than adding any analysis that might be disputable. lssrn45 | talk 07:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

His edit [2] is problematic. Onodera in fact say nothing about the report. He said "I am aware of it but have no comment". So Oda's removal is not justifiable. The old content state that "Japan didn't deny it". This is accurate and appropriate to put.54.199.134.208 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary and compare the sources? The timestamp of news.sina.com is 2014年02月01日 17:24 and the timestamp of press Conference is 04:42-04:49 P.M. February 1, 2014. The press conference took place earlier than the Chinese news was published. I have no idea the Chinese news should be included in the article. Because it's out-of-date information. As the current version is a factual error, I am removing the Chinese news. Oda Mari (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

When Japan avoided to admit a Japanese aircraft had been expelled from the ADIZ, it really means they remained silent on the incident. The Sina's later report is accurate to say "Japanese Government remains silent" (日本政府保持沉默). STSC (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's your original research, namely your original synthesis and interpretation. The Chinese source does not say the airplanes belong to Japan. 但是，解放军报没有说明这些军机是属于哪一个国家. The sentence, "The Japanese government remained silent about Japanese aircraft being expelled from the ADIZ", you added is clearly synthesis. As far as I know, 沈黙/silence means "a state of not speaking". Whatever the words were, Onodera commented on it and it's not "remained silent". It's your original interpretation. Please undo your edit. Oda Mari (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If you like, the "remained silent" can be changed to "neither admit nor deny". STSC (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The source does not say so. It says 沈黙. And what about the "Japanese aircraft being expelled from the ADIZ" part? Oda Mari (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

How about: "The Japanese government did not comment (没有作出回应) whether the foreign military aircraft expelled from the ADIZ was Japanese." STSC (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No. It's still synthesis. Because there's no mention of "Japanese aircraft" in the question to Onodera in the Japanese source. As I pointed out above, the words "Japanese aircraft" cannot be found even in the Chinese source. Please read WP:SYN. Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. The events would be re-organized in the following order:

1. The Chinese expelled a foreign aircraft.

2. The Japanese did not comment on the foreign aircraft.

3. The Chinese identified the foreign aircraft as Japanese.

STSC (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The order of events are chronologically wrong.
What do you mean by "2. The Japanese did not comment on the foreign aircraft."? It is totally wrong. The Japanese did.
Why did you omit the Onodera's comment.
The chronological order should be this.

1. The Chinese expelled a foreign aircraft.
2. Onodera commented on the news. 16:42-16:49, Feb. 1
3. Gov. of JPN didn't comment on the the news. 17:24, Feb 1.
4. The Chinese identified the foreign aircraft as Japanese. Feb.2.

Onodera commented on the Chinese news at 04:42-04:49 P.M. February 1, 2014. 中国战机年初一应对外国军机 日本政府保持沉默 was published on 2014年02月01日17:24 after the Onodera's comment. If the writer of Daily sina or 北京新浪网 had known the Onodera's comment, they wouldn't have published the article. The sentence "The Japanese government did not comment on the aircraft expelled from the ADIZ" is not needed at all as Onodera, a part of the Japanese government, has already commented on it. The sentence is simply meaningless.
Additionally, the sentence "Later on 1 February, PLA Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan confirmed ..." has an error. According to the sources, the date is 2 February. Oda Mari (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the Dailynews.sina material as it is incorrect information. I have no idea its significance. STSC, please explain why it should be included in the article. And please do not use your interpretation. It's a misuse of the source. If you can provide RS with evidence, both Onodera's comment and criticism would not be needed and they can be removed from the article. But the fact is not. China did not show evidence. If you disagree with me, please bring the matter to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please do not add the Dailynews.sina material and remove the criticism again. Oda Mari (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The NTD content should be removed because:

1. The "New Year's anti-Japan drama" is original research;

2. The incident in Feb 2013 is not related to the ADIZ because the East China Sea ADIZ was not established at that time.

STSC (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand what WP:OR is. I restore the NTD content and add other source. What you do is whitewashing and pushing Chinese PoV. Please stop. Oda Mari (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh? So far, the Japanese government still has not denied that Japanese aircraft was expelled from the ADIZ. Actually, what you did is whitewashing the Japanese. Are you getting so desperate now using Falun Gong's Epoch Times to support your case? STSC (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese government showed no evidence that Japanese aircraft was expelled from the ADIZ. Only words are not good enough to convince the world. It is natural and fair to mention that there were criticism on the scramble. Oda Mari (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We are basically supposed to report the statements made in reliably published sources in a neutral manner. Points to consider that seem relevant to me are:

1. If a reliably published source reports that the Chinese government has made a statement, then making recourse to a demand for "proof" of the statement does not seem to be grounds to dispute the statement in this case.
2. Is the Falun Gung affiliated source reliable?
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oda Mari, you're reminded not to include any more UNDUE OR materials from Falun Gong's media. STSC (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese unilateral news release is unreliable

An editor Oda Mari considers only Japan Joint Chief of Staff's news release is reliable of all military aircraft meetup in Japan's ADIZ, like this one. We can disprove it by many other sources. This one, sourced from Japanese media, stated that on April 23, 2013 China sent 40+ jet fighters to East China Sea and Japan "scrambled planes to intercept". But we cannot find a corresponding press report from Japan Joint Chief of Staff. Bottomline: Japan Joint Chief of Staff selectively releases "reports" to his favor and therefore it's unreliable.

A 3rd party source also proves Japan Joint Chief of Staff's dishonesty. Taiwan media reported that after the establishment of ADIZ (East China Sea), they notice mainland China's jet fighters did intercept US's and Japan's military aircraft though their radar. "The flash points overlap in the radar screen meaning they are within 1 nm." However, we cannot find such corresponding press report(s) from Japan Joint Chief of Staff's press report since last November.

Editors can verify my claim above by going to links listed above as well as JJCS's "press report". Who is telling lies and who isn't is clear instantly.54.199.134.208 (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I could't find the sentence where Oda said "only Japan Joint Chief of Staff's news release is reliable of all military aircraft meet up", would you please show me the related reply just to clear up my mind. By the way just to remind you that your "third party source" (Ta Kung Pao) is a newspaper set up by the CCP in 1949 and has been considered as a pro-China media. It might not be suitable to use their report in this article. lssrn45 | negotiate 07:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

亲爱的香港朋友，我也是香港人，不过是新移民，广东话普通话都行，打广东话费劲，我这里就将就着写，估计您老也看得明白。我看了一下您老历来的编辑和在维基上的“贡献”，真是另我汗颜啊。就从这里您问的两个问题，就是显出您自己理解上和知识上的问题了（您尽管去投诉，看看是否人身攻击），恐怕不胜任这里的编辑要求啊。大公报引述的是台湾中通社的消息，放狗搜搜都是可以找到的。中通社不“亲中“了吧？Oda朋友的反复要求，这个页面也是明确的。别人都看得明白，为什么就你看不到？我说的阅读能力（literacy），有错么？您老应该提高一下。回复您老的问题真是有失身分。您老以后的问题我都不回答。请您老不要在follow up我的发言，谢谢！还有，你们港独招小朋友有牢狱之灾啊，连”扮民主派“的大状都不愿意出庭辩护啊。有时间多读读书，看看别人写的wiki。对维基做破坏贡献，显示出您的literacy的问题，宣扬分裂国家、煽动陆港仇恨就是您不对了。不胜任维基编辑可以不做嘛。English: The above Ta Kung Pao news is originally from Taiwan News Agency (therefore not "pro-Mainland"). Also, Ta Kung Pao was founded in 1902 instead of 1949 by CPC (Ta Kung Pao's wiki entry's information is wrong). In 1949 Ta Kung Pao only moved to Hong Kong to continue publication. Oda's request is clear from above. Please improve your literacy. 54.199.217.88 (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Firstly according to my understanding on Oda's replies in this page, he/she has been pushing for the use of sources with evidences (e.g. reports by the JCS with photos) instead of Chinese reports which included no evidence at all, in order to ensure they are reliable enough, but not saying "only JCS's news are reliable" (I'm sorry if I did misunderstood Oda though). Also thank you for reminding me that the news was from TNA, I almost missed it out. However, I would still support adding the JCS report provided by Oda into the article since the report is official and is directly related to the status of such ADIZ. JCS might not be reporting every single incident, but their information should be considered reliable. Finally I would suggest everyone to use English here and stop going off topic, Hong Kong Independence Movement is no way related with the CADIZ. Thank you. lssrn45 | talk 12:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: add comparison chart?

To aid the reader in sorting out all the controversies, how about adding a table comparing these ADIZs? For example: includes disputed territory (yes/no), discussed with neighbors before creation (yes/no), to whom applied (civilian flight, military flight, both), includes flights passing through (yes/no), how enforced (scramble jets or whatever) for each country in this region with an ADIZ. Wikiabcpqr (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The claim that US ADIZ doesn't apply to civil airplanes or air planes that don't intend to enter US territorial airspace is wrong. In fact, China's ADIZ has no difference in terms of rules. 54.199.176.255 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This comparison should belong to the main article Air Defense Identification Zone? lssrn45 | talk 08:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason I suggested it for this article is these are the controversial ones. If the US ADIZ must be also included in the chart, then yes it should belong to the main article, which actually goes into depth only about ADIZs in North America and the East China Sea. Wikiabcpqr (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have now posted this suggestion on the main article. For the moment, I'm convinced that the US needs to be included in the comparison. Wikiabcpqr (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140216065721/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201401120021 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201401120021
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131128215834/http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Press/2013-11/23/content_4476143.htm to http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Press/2013-11/23/content_4476143.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715032356/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/131130/japan-seeks-icaos-involvement-tackling-chinas-air-defe to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/131130/japan-seeks-icaos-involvement-tackling-chinas-air-defe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)