Talk:Air defense identification zone

What about the 15+ other countries that maintain ADIZs?

An article on ADIZs needs to be more inclusive, as many countries other than China, Japan, & the United States each have their individual versions on an ADIZ.

The following two quotes come from "Air Defense Identification Zone [ADIZ]". globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2013-11-27.

"Japan and South Korea have ADIZs that are contiguous and do not overlap, ..."

"Norway and the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan and Canada (CADIZ) are some of the 20 countries which maintain ADIZs ..."

Peaceray (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) Merger/rename proposal

Please see Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)#Merger or rename proposal. Ansett (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for summarizing China section

The China section was getting too long and both taking over this article and duplicating material in the zone's main article. I tried to summarize the points quickly. Others undoubtably have other and better ideas. Please make suggestions here if you think that they are controversial. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is your standard for an article being "long"? The article should be as long as it takes to fully provide factual information to satisfy the curiosity of readers. Liang1a (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My standard is the American, Japan and South Korean sections. Like the American section there is a main article on China's ADIZ and therefore like the American section this should be a summary of the main points with links to other articles. This should not be an article that discusses in detail China's ADIZ but rather merely summarizes where and when and the controversy. Details are elsewhere. We should avoid duplication. Therefore I think that the specific coordinates and rules and the various back-and-forth competing quotations should all be moved from this generic article to the main article on China's ADIZ. (I have reformatted User talk:Liang1a's comment to fit Wikipedia practice.) --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted changes

I have manually reverted many of the changes made by User:Liang1a. Most of the edits User:Liang1a made were helpful but better suited for the main article on China's recently announced zone (See Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)) In general I think that this article should only summarize the controversy over China's zone (and that summary still needs work) and not get into the details of the zone or the controversy. Also it is important that we put China's zone and the controversy in context. Some of Liang1a's changes removes without explanation such context that has citations. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The China section should provide information about the nature of China's ADIZ and not about controversy over it. Maybe you want to sensationalize the controversy which is being sensatinalized by China's enemies which includes the Philippines. But most serious people would want to know what China's ADIZ is in terms of its locations, its rules and regulations, when it was established, how is it enforced, etc. and not how detestable or controversial it is.

If you on your own prejudice remove factual infomration I provided then you are being disruptive and should be banned. Liang1a (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a main article on the China ADIZ as there is on the North American ADIZ. All the details are there putting them here just duplicates information unnecessarily. The China section like the American section should be just a summary, and it is an encyclopedia summary, not a aviation website summary. As such we need to discuss technical details and its historical and political context. We must include the controversy or else we are failing in our responsibility as an encyclopedia.

Not mentioned above is the reason for removing the discussion of how the various ADIZ's differ. There were cited articles explaining how a ADIZ usually works and how China's is "unusual". This is of course helpful in an ADIZ article as it helps sketch out is and does. User:Liang1a has yet to comment upon why he removed these neutral citations and explanations.

We cannot allow this article to be censored. We must discuss fully the ADIZes, including how they differ and what controversies exist. We should not be afraid of controversies. We should not let Wikipedia be censored. (Note: I changed the formatting of User:Liang1a's comments so that it followed Wikipedia's practice. I hope no one minds). --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The material provided by I. Wanderer are all tendentious with no probative value to inform and enlighten the readers. The language used by him is also more calculated to demonize China than to provide an evenhanded elucidation of the issues. For example, using "drew ... international criticism" insinuate that the whole world is against China which is obviously not true. Other than Japan, the US, Australia, Philippines, and their allies the rest of the world simply doesn't care.

Some readers who visit one ADIZ article may not visit other ADIZ article(s). Therefore, it is not correct to assume that readers will visit the main ADIZ article after visiting this one. Therefore, there is no reason to object to the duplication of information. I hope I. Wanderer will desist in this edit war which will ultimately degrade the credibility of Wikipedia.Liang1a (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Liang1a is incorrect when he says that "sing "drew ... international criticism" insinuate that the whole world is against China". That verb "drew" only applies that there was criticism from abroad and not that a majority of countries criticized the move. Think of "drawing a card". However, we can choose a different verb. :Liang1a], what verb would you prefer? "Elicited". I am glad that Liang1a seems to agree that we need to mention the criticism, that we should not censor that.

Readers who are interested in a specific topic will in fact go to the articles that deal will that specific topic. This article is not about the Chinese zone about about zones generically. We cannot duplicate the entire Wikipedia in each other. We need to have articles on one topic. This article should not be on the Chinese ADIZ -- there is already an article on that. This article should be on ADIZes generically. We should therefore (a) talk about the general topic and the state of international laws and norms, (b) talk about how the various zones differ from one another (types of territory covered, types of aircraft, etc.), and ( c) talk oh-so-briefly about the history of the various zones, including responses and criticisms. We should leave details like coordinates to other articles for those who are interested.

The material that discusses the differences between the China zone and other zones is extremely helpful, unbiased, from well-respected and neutral sources. To call it "tendentious" and "not probative", as Liang1a does, is incorrect. It is in fact the opposite. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cited material removed

User:Liang1a has again removed cited material that added helped define what a ADIZ is and added context to the controversy about China's zone. The material called China's zone "unusual". Why does User:Liang1a do this? He needs to explain so that we can reach a WP:Consensus. Specifically he has removed these sentences:

The zones usually do not cause much controversy. However, in November 2013 Mainland China established a zone in the East China Sea that was unusual in at least three respects and that has caused countries around the world to denounce the zone. Usually a zone covers only territory that is undisputed; China's ADIZ in the East China Sea covers the Japanese-controlled, China-claimed Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands in China). Further, China's zone overlaps with other countries' zones and imposes requirements on both civilian and military aircraft regardless of destination, while other zones apply only to civilian aircraft flying into the territory of the zone's country.

--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Liang1a does this because he is biased, raging Chinese nationalist. Examples of his views can be found here http://www.network54.com/Forum/238054/page-2 and here http://www.asiawind.com/bb/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=8591551f884506b1f7b77004a69650af — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.29.3 (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not at first remove the section below. I only added an explanation to refute it. However, my addition was removed, therefore I removed the section below also.

"The zones usually do not cause much controversy. However, in November 2013 Mainland China established a zone in the East China Sea that was unusual in at least three respects and that has caused countries around the world to denounce the zone. Usually a zone covers only territory that is undisputed; China's ADIZ in the East China Sea covers the Japanese-controlled, China-claimed Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands in China).[1] Further, China's zone overlaps with other countries' zones and imposes requirements on both civilian and military aircraft regardless of destination, while other zones apply only to civilian aircraft flying into the territory of the zone's country.[2][3]"

The section above has no probative value to inform the readers but serves only to demonize China. It had already been stated in the paragraph prior to the removed section that there is no internationally accepted standard. Therefore, what is the point of calling the Chinese ADIZ "unusual" which insinuates that it is somehow unacceptable and against the norm?

Furthermore, it is factually incorrect to say that the Chinese ADIZ is unusual because it overlapped other countries' zones because it has already been pointed out that the Japanese ADIZ overlapped the Taiwan ADIZ. Liang1a (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Liang1a

It is not factual that American ADIZ only requires identification from aircrafts flying "toward" American territory.

"Any aircraft 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)."

The above is a quote taken from: http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Therefore, I'm going to delete your post where it says America only require identification from aircrafts flying "toward" American territory because it is a lie.

If you keep deleting my posts then you're the one who is starting a war. Not only are you waging a war but you are posting lies which should not be tolerated by Wikipedia. Liang1a (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The only "lie" here is taking a bullet point off a Powerpoint slide and declaring that to be the final and full word when one knows full well that the original regulations in all their detail are available and either ignoring those regulations or misrepresenting them. A PowerPoint show does not spell out every nuance. You've elsewhere quoted 14 CFR 99.11 while ignoring the fact that 99.11 is a subsection to 99.1 which is prefaced by an applicability declaration that says, among other things, that "This subpart prescribes rules for operating all aircraft (except for Department of Defense and law enforcement aircraft) in a defense area, or into, within, or out of the United States through an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) designated in subpart B" "Within this United States" means within territorial airspace and territorial airspace does not include an ADIZ. Before making an issue over "defense area" in this clause, please see section 99.3 "Definitions" which says "Defense area means any airspace of the contiguous United States that is not an ADIZ in which the control of aircraft is required for reasons of national security." A "defense area" is thus defined as "NOT an ADIZ" (in other material it is suggested with regard to a defensive area "establishment of such areas extending beyond the territorial sea has been restricted to periods of war or declared national emergency involving the outbreak of hostilities.")

If these regulations aren't clear to you, the U.S. has made its interpretation clear on other occasions. The Commander's Handbook very clearly states in "2.7.2.3 Air Defense Identification Zones in International Airspace" that "ADIZ regulations promulgated by the United States apply to aircraft bound for U.S. territorial airspace... The United States does not recognize the right of a coastal nation to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter national airspace nor does the United States apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. airspace." The FAA's webpage "Entering, Exiting and Flying in United States Airspace" says "Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ): All aircraft entering U.S. domestic airspace from points outside must provide for identification prior to entry or exit." Last but not least there are the on-the-record declarations of U.S.government spokesmen.

I understand you wish to claim an equivalency between China's declaration of an ADIZ and the U.S. ADIZ. Equivalency arguments of one sort or another are continually trotted out by PRC spokesman. But it simply is not supported by the facts here. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman was specifically asked about the U.S. statements about the U.S. ADIZ and effectively admitted their accuracy by saying "different countries have set different rules"--Brian Dell (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

From Liang1a: Brian Dell has provided the following information:""This subpart prescribes rules for operating all aircraft (except for Department of Defense and law enforcement aircraft) in a defense area, or into, within, or out of the United States through an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) designated in subpart B". You have fixated on the definition of the "defense area". You have conveniently forgotten to look to the next part which says, "into, within, or out of the United States through an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ)." Therefore, the rules do not apply ONLY to "defense areas" but also to ADIZ. So who is the liar? As to the discrepancy between what the FAA regulations say and what the Navy Handbook say, it is clearly a case of the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. FAA regulation has made a particular point about aircrafts "entering" the US. But this does not mean that ONLY aircrafts entering the US need to file flight plans. As has been made clear, ALL aircrafts flying "in or through" US ADIZ must file flight plans or be treated as enemies and be subjected to interception by fighters. "Any aircraft flying in these zones without authorization may be identified as a threat and treated as an enemy aircraft, potentially leading to interception by fighter aircraft." I know you are anxious to prove how "onerous and unusual" Chinese ADIZ regulations are. But you cannot lie about it. At least not here at Wikipedia which values truth. My suggestion is that you get your various departments together and work out a common policy before people throw that in your face. Liang1a (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that we need to keep in mind a few Wikipedia policies. First Wikipedia:Third-party sources if applied would mean that the FAA is not an appropriate source in part because the terms are not defined (what does "crossing" mean? Is it different from transiting? Etc.). Second, WP:Edit War means that threatening "to delete your post where…" as [[User:Liang1a is a violation of Wikipedia practice. Third, and most importantly, deleting cited material as Liang1a did is also a violation. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Liang1a has not cited any third-party source that contradicts the Global Security and New York Times' statement that all other ADIZes apply only to civilian aircraft and is dependent upon destination whereas China's applies to both civilian and military regardless of destination, and that therefore it is "unusual". Think that these statements do have probative value as they highlight the similarities and differences between the various ADIZes. There is a "norm". A norm is not necessarily a law but a normal practice. Historically, ADIZes have had certain characteristics. China's is "unusual" is that it doesn't follow these international norms, these international practices. China's ADIZ doesn't violate any laws but it violates international norms. So far, I do not see any justification under Wikipedia policy for Liang1a's deletions of cited material. Further Liang1a's threat of an edit war is beyond the pale. (I've reformatted Liang1a's comments so that they are more readable and fit with Wikipedia's practice.) --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

---

From Liang1a: I. Wanderer is wrong about third party sources. FAA source is precisely the kind of sources that is needed to verify what the rules are pertaining to ADIZ. It is obvious I. Wanderer has no idea what third source mean. In an argument it is necessary to quote independent third parties who are disinterested in the outcome of the argument. In case of a dispute about rules and regulations themselves such as what US ADIZ rules are, it is not only allowed but essential to go to the source of the rules or the FAA regulations. If I. Wanderer doesn't understand this then it is clear why he is making all the mistakes.Liang1a (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Liang1a, you are the one that is confused about "third party sources" I think. Let me quote from WP:Third-party sources: "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source. A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material." As you say above the FAA is "the source of the rules or the FAA regulations". That makes it a primary -- a first-party -- source. What we need is an analysis of the FAA regs that can put it in context, e.g. the New York Times and Global Security. The FAA is a primary source not a third-party source. The FAA makes news; they do not report and analyze the news.

As the discussion above indicates we need a neutral, knowledgeable third-party source here to tell us how the American ADIZ operates. One single line out of a single regulation is not enough context. All the legal terms need to be defined. Other regulations that might extend, clarify or contradict need to be taken into consideration. We cannot read the regulation ourselves and decide what it means because we are not experts and Wikipedia is not a place for such original analysis and research (WP:Original Research). We need to turn to other people, other sources. The New York Times and Global Security are two such sources. They have called the Chinese zone "unusual". They have mentioned that China's is different because it covers disputed territory, because it applies to civilian and military aircraft and because it applies to aircraft flying through the zone but not into the country's territory. We can add other third-party sources that disagree with those and that say the Chinese zone is not unusual, of course. However should also keep the other references. We should not censor analyses that we disagree with or think are bias if they are from a credible third party. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Liang1a, of course the rules apply to "ADIZ" as well as "defense areas". That's in fact my point re "defense area" (that a "defense area" is distinct from an ADIZ; I do regret not just using ellipses for "defense area" since these areas are unusual, minor elements and it obviously just created too much confusion to include them in the quote - I did not want to be accused of not disclosing every last potentially relevant element). Now what is the extent of the application of the rules that apply to ADIZ? They are restricted to aircraft that fly "into, within, or out of the United States". Now what does "United States" mean here? It means U.S. territorial space. U.S. ADIZ and U.S. territorial space are totally distinct and do not overlap. So it is that for U.S. ADIZ rules to apply to you, you have to (intend to) fly into U.S. territorial space and NOT just within the ADIZ. OK? Look, there's no grand conspiracy against you or, for that matter, with respect to how China is represented on English Wikipedia (I'll grant that moving into Wikipedia material from Chinese media sources faces initial skepticism, but this is mostly because Chinese media is controlled by the state and the Beijing government is generally hostile to a Wikipedia-style approach to disseminating knowledge.). If there's a sound argument for parsing the text in a different way it will get a fair and full hearing if it's presented cleanly and dryly as opposed to soaked in grievance. Let the seige mentality go here and approach this more methodically and we can better understand where each other is coming from.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is New York Times saying that Japan scrambled jets when Chinese military planes "flew through international airspace near Okinawa" - revealing that they had ADIZ style reaction on military jets that were passing through, although the article does not specifically mention the ADIZ. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/world/asia/japan-jets-scrambled-near-okinawa.html It might be hard to find a more detailed source in English. Wikiabcpqr (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

References

ADIZ map

Taiwan's ADIZ conflict with the mainland should be included on the map along with that of Japan and South Korea. Doyna Yar (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add comparison chart?

In the article on the East China Sea zones , I posted a suggestion for a comparison chart: "...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." One user responded comparing the East China Sea countries with the US, and another then suggested that the chart should be in the main ADIZ article (i.e., this one).

Such a chart would make it a lot easier for readers to sort out the controversies about these zones. For example the Japanese government strongly criticized China's ADIZ, while the Chinese government cited double standards on Japan's part. So, what are the actual differences between these two countries' ADIZs? A chart would make that clear at a glance. Wikiabcpqr (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Air Defense Identification Zone. 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/20150205042744/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/131204/hagel-says-chinas-way-setting-air-zone-was-not-wise to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/131204/hagel-says-chinas-way-setting-air-zone-was-not-wise
• 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

China section

I've blanked out this version of the China section until an agreement can be reached with regards to its wording. There are multiple issues at play which includes the fact that a lot of the material duplicated what was in the main article, the material relied on problematic sources, belonged better in the main article and the entire section suffered from narrative issues. Flickotown (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

ADIZ Taiwan (again)

Currently the news are full with "china invading Taiwan" aka some +50 planes being in ADIZ. But none of them specify the range.

Now I just came to wikipedia because I wanted to see the definition of ADIZ in Taiwan precisely. Could someone add the range in km (and / or miles)? Because right now I simply don't know. There is a map but that map doesn't specify the range. I want to know the exact range. Other media outlets don't provide just about ANY useful information. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)