Talk:2023 Chinese balloon incident

Sources and including assessment that it wasn't spying in the lead

Firstly an issue is many editors are treating as if the US government is an impartial source. And taking personal unprofessional opinions from officials as if it's high quality facts. However I doubt that the US intelligence community would falsely admit information, (that Balloon didn't collect data and was likely blown off-course) that contradicts the US Gov initial allegations that it was here to collect massive amounts of intel.[1] And really only the (high confidence) assessment that it wasn't spying, and not some out of context personal opinion, should be included in the lead and not buried away. If you can add in the out of context blatantly misleading casual quotation from Biden saying it had rail-car box-full loads of (spy gear) into the lead. Then I think a formal high confidence assessment from the US intelligence admitting that the balloon was likely blown off course by high winds and that it has not collected any intelligence, is noteworthy and real historic information that deserves to also be in the Lead.ArrowSake (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The lede already says all of that; 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 and American officials later disclosed that they had been tracking the balloon since it was launched from Hainan and its original destinations were likely Guam and Hawaii, but prevailing winds blew it off course and across North America. BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Check the dates. It didn't say that. That was merely a preliminary analysis in the early days when facts were still thin. A high confidence assessment 7 months after the incident, would be not a preliminary assessment but a separately new and updated and obviously a higher quality one too, which deserves full mention in the lead in comparison, given that the information is objective and formal, and not merely some personal opinion of one official. ArrowSake (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary; it already contains the important facts, and doesn't give the impression that it wasn't a spy balloon (it was). BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

That's your opinion which I disagree on. And what kind of spy balloon mission doesn't spy? If China had wanted to spy, they can spy and use more sophisticated and less obvious ways. But it was indisputably blown off course by winds and equipment wasn't even activated for any spying. seven months later, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tells "CBS News Sunday Morning" the balloon wasn't spying. "The intelligence community, their assessment – and it's a high-confidence assessment – [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon,".[2] I mean Miley can claim it's a spy balloon but it still doesn't change the fact that it had not collected any intelligence and that was not his words, but the conclusion 7 months after the incident, reached from a high confidence assessment from the intelligence community. So I propose to add in the following info into the lead as it's important enough and there's no mention of a high confidence assessment despite there should be.

On September 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.[3]

ArrowSake (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

And what kind of spy balloon mission doesn't spy? Sources agree that:

1. It was a spy balloon
2. That it was intending to spy on the United States, probably at Hawaii and Guam
3. That it blew of course and over the continental United States
4. That it didn't engage in espionage over the continental United States

It would be undue to suggest that it wasn't a spy balloon, or that it wasn't intending to spy on the United States. BilledMammal (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources didn't agree. It was Miley himself saying that "he" would say it was a spy balloon. But acknowledged that it wasn't spying. And it is speculation to claim it intended to spy when high confidence sources now agree it was never even activated for spying and it was blown off course and never collected data. Such information from the high confidence assessment should be mentioned in the lead nonetheless. I didn't even mention once in the lead that it wasn't a spy balloon. But it's obviously not acting like a spy Balloon given the assessment findings and you can't remove the assessment high certainty findings from the lead, because it's inconvenient. ArrowSake (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

And let's make one thing clear. It was Miley who said that "he" would say it's a spy Balloon, but a high confidence assessment found it didn't collect any intelligence and was blown off course. That's just the facts shown in the CBS interview and there is no reason to remove that information from the lead, just because you think that it gives the impression that it wasn't spying. (It wasn't) I have nonetheless for you, had added in that Miley himself still called it as a spy balloon in the interview but also acknowledged the high confidence assessment stating no intelligence was collected. That is the most compromise I am willing to make and you really shouldn't remove high quality and well sourced information especially when it's of the surest high confidence assessment from the intelligence community, at its most updated.ArrowSake (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Our opinion - whether it is "speculation" or not - is irrelevant. What is relevant is what reliable sources say, and they say that its intent was spying.

I've reverted; please follow WP:BRD and don't continue adding the content to the article until a consensus is worked out here. BilledMammal (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources stated that High confidence assessment indeed confirmed with high certainty that the balloon wasn't collecting any data. You don't need consensus to add in that fact to the lead. And saying it needs consensus to add in what everyone knows and do not deny, is a very high quality fact. Then such a consensus or lack of one (considering this talk page is rather slow) that agrees to censor such facts, would just not be appropriate. That info was also present in the lead and other editors have not removed it. Only you have. But if you insist, then start a RFC or whatever. But it is objective correct information that a high confidence assessment found the balloon wasn't spying and Such info cannot and really shouldn't be removed. ArrowSake (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a matter of neutrality; the article needs to make it clear that:

1. It was a spy balloon
2. It was intended to spy on the United States
3. It went off course due to wind and ended up over the continental United States
4. It did not engage in intelligence gathering over the continental United States

I believe this version does that; I don't believe your version does. I note you are now at WP:4RR; please self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you know it was a spy Balloon? Because US government claim it is from the start? That's just speculating and nonetheless it's not neutral to remove the statement that it's (a high confidence assessment) from the US intelligence community multiple times, that confirmed with high certainty that no intelligence was collected by the balloon. Not even on Hawaii or the continental USA. Exactly zero intelligence was collected and should be mentioned. ArrowSake (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The technical experts were mentioned twice. I fixed it by showing it should not have double mention in the article.[4] And tell what issues do you have with me writing this; On September 17, 2023, in an interview with CBS news, General Mark Milley, the retiring 20th US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated a high confidence assessment from the intelligence community had concluded with high certainty, that the balloon didn't collect any intelligence nor transmitted any intelligence back to China, however told the interviewer that he believed it was still a spy balloon. (I think it is very balanced and factual and summarises the interview. Whereas you keep deleting the words specifically (high confidence assessment) multiple times. Yet it seems you specifically do not want anyone to mention the words (high confidence assessment) considering you removed it many times by overwriting it with Miley's quote that doesn't mention that context. ArrowSake (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Because reliable sources, like CNN, call it a spy balloon.

Whereas you keep deleting the words specifically (high confidence assessment) multiple times. We already say, in Wikivoice, that it didn't gather intelligence over the continental United States. We don't need to add additional emphasis to that, and my concern is that the way you have worded it will give the false impression that it wasn't a spy balloon.

Again, you have reverted four times in 24 hours; you are in violation of WP:3RR. Please self revert (although obviously I have no objection to removing the redundant technical experts statement). BilledMammal (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

CNN is making Sensational news and repeating after the US government, and are NOT the intelligence community. You can't claim just because CNN said it, especially when the facts were sparse. Then that is now the ultimate proof that it's a spy Balloon. You need High quality and updated sources that claim it intended to spy on the US. So far the only real information we know is that no intelligence was collected, even in Hawaii, and it's not neutral to still claim and speculate it's a spy Balloon when we now know for sure from actual experts it wasn't spying as no intelligence was ultimately collected. ArrowSake (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

These sources are just "a senior defense official" said. How can you trust people not willing to stand up for what they are saying? 69.123.98.149 (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal Then what do you propose then? And I merely also added in extra info in the article body (lower chapter) that it's a high confidence assessment and even then, you also keep removing that too. What is wrong with adding some few extra words[5][6] that (a high confidence assessment from the intelligence community) had confirmed that the balloon wasn't actively spying. It's not false. Seems our one main issue is that your multiple reverts had removed or overwritten any mention of those terms. But unless you think the western intelligence community itself is not neutral, it is valid information to mention that (a high confidence assessment from the intelligence community) had confirmed that the balloon wasn't spying. You can add that the US general still say it's a spy balloon. I never try to remove that ever despite it's questionable. But you can't constantly overwrite and omit context words; (high confidence assessment) which I merely added in with past edits but you keep removing any mention of those specific terms. And think you are wrong to keep omitting them and that the term (High confidence assessment) should be allowed to be mentioned at least once in the entire article as why not? ArrowSake (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it's not necessary - we already say it wasn't engaged in spying, we don't need to give extraordinary emphasis to that statement and risk misleading the reader into believing it wasn't a spy balloon. What I propose is the status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if I am mistaken but in regards to the 2023 balloon incident article. Out of curiosity, how do you even count 4 reverts still? Technically you did 4 but I don't think your fourth one counts despite technically it does. But do please name the 4 reverts that I did because I am fairly sure you are mistaken.

My First edit was just that I had added in extra context info to the lead and didn't revert the previous editor by removing or changing previous info.[7] That's not a revert. You however reverted that and other info from lead, but I never added that same context back into the lead. But I did add the same context to the article body. So that could be considered a first revert despite it's a gray area at best.[8]

I also added the general info (that I proposed in talk and thought you have no issues with) to the lead that a high confidence assessment confirmed it wasn't spying but the general still calls it a spy balloon. [9] So that could be counted as two reverts at that point.

Then later I added in links and fixed typos. And also I added info stating it was (High confidence assessment) to the article body (not the lead) and did not take away any real info from previous edits. I don't think this can be considered a revert.[10] You then reverted that without reading it thoroughly, since you even re-added in the double mention of technical experts and overwritten my added info that it was a high confidence assessment. I think maybe you just didn't read that edit and maybe had accidentally reverted it and assumed I was reverting.

So I later removed the double mention of experts (as it should not be repeated)[11], and also added back in that it was (High confidence assessment that found that finding, (which you removed).[12] That could count as two more separate reverts at maximum except I later undid that reverting of the (double mention of technical experts). But still had retained the added extra words that it was a high confidence assessment that made that conclusion. I do think such words deserves to stay (as there is Zero mention of such context in the entire article and so it's just three reverts total by my count. Not 4 as you had alleged me of as I undid my fourth one of the technical experts. But you restored it later (which is fine by me).

But the current article at its present state can remain as is. If you do not want to mention the (high confidence assessment) in the lead, then I may agree to that. But I think there should be allowed to be just one mention that (a high confidence assesment) found that there was no Intel collection in the article's body, and so my third revert is not invalid to only retain that extra info and words. If you still don't agree, and somehow believe you need to remove all mentions of specifically the words - (high confidence assessment) from the article completely (as you done on your Third revert), then I suggest we don't edit war and try maybe a RFC or Third Opinion to decide whether or not the article can even be permitted to mention the words (high confidence assessment) at all. Which I really see no reason to remove and don't think your third revert was right to remove that info, but think maybe it was unintentional. ArrowSake (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think technically my fourth was a partial self-revert, and in any case you asked me to do. It was your fourth because Picklejuice23 had previously reverted some of the changes you made, that your first edit today reverted. BilledMammal (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Lmao isn't that a huge stretch? My first edit merely added extra context that does not take away any actual info that Picklejuice23 wrote.[13] And still even afterwards, my latest edits still hasn't remove his added info, that the general had told the interviewer that he thinks it's a spy balloon. I clearly had retained that info and have summarised it (retaining the info completely), but added one extra context that it was a "high confidence assessment" so to allow better context of the quality of such info stating it. [14] Nonetheless do you specifically have issues with adding in the specific words (high confidence assessment) considering you removed or written over my edits mentioning that term?ArrowSake (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: And technically it took me two separate reverts [15][16] just to completely undo your third revert. Should count as one revert and not two.

But do explain why "high confidence assessment" must not be allowed to be mentioned in the article at all? Your third revert [17] had removed my mentioning of the words- "high confidence assessment". It seems wrongful and you don't explain on your edit summary, but reply to say I did 4 reverts by later undoing that. So I self undid one more revert[18] so now that there's precisely Zero of my past day's edits remaining on that article. So there can be no more doubt here or argument where you can still accuse me of 3rr rule as I don't want to continue a trivial argument. Instead ask you to discuss it here please, or you can add it back in, if you also agree it's fine and not necessary to be censored out. But if you can't reply with good reasoning to remove it on talk. Then I have to add that context back in anyways. That's seem like a waste of time. But there's no deadlines and we can discuss this calmly.

And it's not extraordinary emphasis to say (high confidence assessment) from intelligence community made that conclusion. That's just the kind of facts that readers are entitled to know about and deserves a single mention. Having the article mention that a high confidence assessment concluded that the balloon wasn't spying, is significant and makes readers actually want to continue through the article to read more details of that report. No reason at all to omit from readers of even "the quality of the report" being rated as 'high confidence' as that's just objective facts.ArrowSake (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vacosea: If others think that the article must not even be allowed to mention the words - (High confidence assessment)[19], then I think that's wrong in my pov. But at least it's the majority consensus. But it's clear that BilledMammal and I can't agree whether or not to mention the term (High confidence assessment) in lead and in the body. You seem to frequent this article and Talk, and are experienced or skilled enough. I hope you can also give your feedback and that it's appropriate if I also request your help to start a new RFC to ask others to comment on whether it's noteworthy or valid, to mention the (High confidence) assesment from intelligence community, in the article lead and body. I ask as I don't think I know how to create a RFC, as I never made one before.

I propose to mention in the lead and also in the body that a high confidence assessment from the intelligence community found that the balloon wasn't spying. I disagree with those who constantly try to remove it. I especially think it's vital to mention of the specific words (high confidence assessment) in the article as it shows the quality of such information attained. ArrowSake (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• The article should contain the word spying in the LEAD even if it later was deemed not to be spying. The reason is there is a huge number of WP:RS that used it and the core reason for the notability of this article. I do not support terms such as 'high confidence', etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  I know there are people who really wanted proof that the balloon was spying. And upset of the September intelligence report saying that it didn't spy. But that is unfortunately just the facts. And you definitely can't write it was spying in the lead when high confidence assessment from experts, have stated the opposite. ArrowSake (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  The conservatives are pounding this article hard. It's hard for us to remove "spy balloon." But we all know why the US govt can call it a spy balloon, because the US govt has been spying all along. I am amazed that they can even tell the balloon was heading towards Guam/Hawaii. Instead of arguing with them, I would rather read this Washington Post article at Gen. Mark Milley, polarizing Joint Chiefs chairman, exits center stage - The Washington Post With all that being said, obviously we don't know China's spying capabilities. There are just not enough movies and TV shows. So I would like to be neutral. Supermann (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

They really have not given a single valid reason to revert. So far, they seem to give a logical fallacy where because past media said it was spying. Somehow that'll means that if the experts from the intelligence community now later concluded that it didn't collect any intelligence. Such facts needs to be ignored or downplayed, and removed from lead so most readers would not be aware of that fact. That doesn't seem right.

Actually media like BBC generally called it a "suspected" spy balloon.[20] The media is 100 percent relying on US officials' word anyways who also originally falsely claimed to reporters, that it was sending data back to China. But that's proven to be completely wrong 7 months later. BUT I don't see why technical experts would want to lie about discovering that the balloon's sensors weren't even switched on, from the very beginning. Or that the balloon was likely blown off-course and so wasn't deliberately sent to spy on the US as its equipment wasn't even switched on.[21] And they seem surprised by that relevation, and is why experts now firmly agree that the balloon didn't collect any data. Such info is probably the most vital info in the entire article, yet wrongfully removed from the lead.[22]

I tried to add in just 3 extra words (high confidence assessment)[23] in but other editor kept reverting it. But readers have no idea specifically where the bombshell info came from, and how reliable it is. It's why I wanted to add in that the information came from a (High confidence) assessment from experts in the intelligence community, yet it's been repeatedly removed by another editor. I didn't want to edit war despite his reverts were undoing high quality true facts, that should not be such a big deal in adding. Didn't think I would see the day when an editor can dictate what the US intelligence community can or cannot be allowed to say for Wikipedia. If the very same report had instead stated it was spying heaps, I suppose it would be too easy to add it in and not be reverted lol.ArrowSake (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Since there is a more recent assessment, it can probably replace the preliminary analysis. Vacosea (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I still have reservations about Biden's "two railroad cars" of spy equipment remark. Most of the payload size consisted of the solar panels. Is having a propeller important if everything is as large as, if not larger than, two railroad cars up there in the wind? Vacosea (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

There may be some information out there on what exactly the payload, aside from the power source, was. Whatever the balloon's mission was, common names such as "spy plane" "spy balloon" and "spy camera" are usually rephrased for clarity. Vacosea (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Your POV WP:OR about solar panels or whatever is not relevant. Biden's comments as the President of the impacted country is WP:DUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not my research or POV [24] Vacosea (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 in the United States collage submission

This article was proposed as a potential choice for the 2023 in the United States collage. You are free to participate in the collage choice discussion here: Talk:2023 in the United States#Collage submissions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

more spy baloons at 330 AM seen going over Miles City approx 11 mi NW. by self 11/27/2023

there was a line of smaller sized balloons going over Sunday Creek houses at 330 A M this morning. I have a young dog tha needed to go outside, so let her out. As I did, I was amazed to see 5 orbs seemingly connected by lengths of lit up connections, then on either side, there were two orbs, also lit up, that had much bigger lit up orbs with that were on each side of smaller 72.250.146.223 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Results of investigation

Have the final results of the investigation into the balloon not yet been released? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)