Jump to content

Talk:List of high-altitude object events in 2023

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lake Michigan event

[edit]

I removed the Lake Michigan event because it hasn't been confirmed that an airborne object was detected. The page is currently displaying misinformation. EuroNewsLive or whatever made that up. The actual press release from NORAD mentions no such object.

https://twitter.com/NORADCommand/status/1624841997847613447?t=No5lpsASepKJxGCNdY3fhA&s=19 DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 19:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When I started this page, I called the it a list of notable events, so I did not foresee anyone adding events that didn't already have a page. However, I see that some of the ones added could have a page (i.e. could pass notability threshold) but incentivising stubs just to justify adding here probably isn't a good thing either. Anyway, that's a long way to say I decided not to delete the non notable ones, but support you removing this one just now. We don't need to rush to add anything, we can wait to see if it becomes in scope, I think. CT55555(talk) 20:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not made up, but may be the same anomaly earlier identified in Montana. No object is specified over Lake Michigan at this time; just a grounding due to "potential contact", so overall that makes sense. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert yeah. it looks like the situation is developing rapidly, so we'll have to wait and see. I appreciate your maintenance of this page. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 19:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other event (NOTAM), Canada has just closed airspace near Tobermory, Ontario. The place is close to Lake Michigan. Related? Zarateman (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New article for Lake Huron

[edit]

Should we create a new article for the Lake Huron object? It was shot down and there are rumors of a Pentagon press briefing in ~40 mins 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral, but if it turns out to be aliens, please don't write disparaging things about them, I wouldn't want our new rulers to start off with a bad feeling. CT55555(talk) 21:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok lol 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's avoid Twitter

[edit]

I have removed a number of Twitter cites; let's not rely on Twitter. There is plenty of coverage in the mainstream press and in the official statements (i.e., from NORAD, NORTHCOM, White House, DOD). I would prefer we don't cite to the Twitter accounts of members of Congress. Neutralitytalk 21:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the Montana object without the tweet, I have to keep that 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. At all. The Montana object is in the major wire services: Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-faa-closes-some-airspace-montana-defense-department-activities-2023-02-12/) and AFP (https://www.barrons.com/news/radar-anomaly-detected-but-no-object-found-over-montana-us-military-9819b43d). Neutralitytalk 21:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about the fact that it wasn't a radar anomaly. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reporting on this other than a congressman's tweet? Neutralitytalk 21:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DinoSoupCanada: Please don't misrepresent what NORCOM says by using someone's tweet as a basis for claiming that NORCOM said something that hasn't been confirmed in another source, i.e., "NORTHCOM advised Matt Rosendale that there was in fact an object". No. Rosendale claimed that NORCOM advised him. Sundayclose (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Several U.S. Officials have confirmed that the “UFO” that was shot down by F-16s over Lake Huron earlier today was the the same “Object” that was Detected and Tracked over Northern Montana last night and Northern Illinois this morning.

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1624888925503324161 soibangla (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

soibangla Does this mean that 2023 Montana object detection should be moved to 2023 Lake Huron object shootdown? Neutralitytalk 21:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not based on a tweet, certainly, but I think we need to slow down and consider our approach to all this soibangla (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New column proposal : outcome

[edit]

I think a color coded field indicating the outcome could be useful. The column could be labeled outcome or something similar.

Red= shot down Yellow= not identified/ resolved Green= identified as harmless and remaining airborne 2A02:8108:94C0:16D4:69CE:F48B:DD49:FC90 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems like a good idea. CT55555(talk) 22:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sighting in Rostov, Russia

[edit]

Russia Says It Shot Down a UFO, January 3, 2023: https://www.newsweek.com/russia-rostov-ufo-object-rostov-drone-1771582 Bruno H Vieira (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek is a depreciated source, so we should not use that. CT55555(talk) 23:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSWEEK suggests it is usable on a case-by-case basis;; though the NW article suggests/implies it was some sort of Ukrainian aircraft instead of one of these incidents on this list. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair. But I would say that quoting Russia about what it claims to have shot is a topic that the Russian government is known to be unreliable on, I'm thinking of their ongoing use of military force in Syria and Ukraine. CT55555(talk) 06:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also found on UK's "Mirror" here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-shoots-down-ball-ufo-28893846
(it appears that the "ball" shape tracks with recent shoot downs) Kches16414 (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maps needed

[edit]

I think each of these incidents, aside from having a representative image, should also have a map and air track. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrams of objects

[edit]

Also, aside from photos, a diagram of what the object looked like would be useful; as photos may be of post-shootdown/crashed objects -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller image?

[edit]

Is there a way to make the image smaller so that the columns of text aren't wrapped so much? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Good suggestion. Done. CT55555(talk) 06:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Please do not add any images until we have one of the five objects that came after the Chinese spy balloon. A floating image on the right and an almost-empty column is a huge waste of space that crams the table even more. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a strange way to frame things. When I started the article, there was only three incidents, and only short summarises and the formatting was fine when one had an image.
then people made longer and longer summaries, despite this being a list. To delete the images and then say "please don't add them" feels like WP:OWNERSHIP. CT55555(talk) 06:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not directed to anyone in particular, I was merely advising editors against re-adding images at this time, for reasons I outlined. I don't know what the state of the article was when the images were added, and I don't know who is the cause of the crammed table, but neither point is relevant. I'm also not seeing the WP:OWN concern. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the floating image on the right creating so much empty space is very distracting. Images are supposed to supplement text, not dominate it. Any images should go in a gallery at the bottom if we have enough of them. Sundayclose (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My perception is that the typical encyclopaedia user doesn't know what a "high altitude object" or a weather balloon looks like. I did not see it as a distraction, but a deliberate and effective inclusion to graphically convey what we are talking about. I believe that the photograph of the very balloon in question does indeed supplement the text.
Distraction means to divert attention to a different thing, but it is the actual thing being discussed, so I don't agree.
When I look at the Stonehenge article, my eyes are first drawn to the image of Stonehenge. Is that distracting me from the content on Stonehenge? No. It is the content on Stonehenge. Likewise for the images that were recent deleted. CT55555(talk) 15:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a distraction because it diverts attention from the text, excessively. As I said, images supplement text, they don't dominate it. This is not the Stonehenge article; it's a list. If I wanted to take the time, I could selectively name dozens of lists that don't make such use of images. Cherry-picking articles that suit our preferences is not a reasonable argument for image placement. But since you mentioned Stonehenge, images in that article do not create huge amounts of empty space. We have a disagreement, so we now wait for consensus. I haven't argued that we have no images, just that we should be judicious in where they are placed. Sundayclose (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stonehenge is not comparable, this is a list, not an article. If readers would like to see what the Chinese spy balloon looks like, they can click on the link to 2023 Chinese balloon incident. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 February 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus against moving the article now. Consensus might emerge in the future if reliable sources start to settle on a name for these events. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of high-altitude object events in 2023 → ? – "List of high-altitude object events in 2023" is not a particularly searchable name, and limits the scope of this article to a list of high-altitude object events, without regard for commentary or background. 2023 high-altitude object incidents could work as a general title, but I'd like to get better suggestions first. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (as the editor who started the article under a slightly different name) I agree people probably don't land on this article from a search, but probably from a link from the individual event pages, and I think that is OK, but I also remain open minded to supporting any improvement. CT55555(talk) 02:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait on any move. I think time may prove a valuable tool in knowing what to call these incidents as a set. This is the best we've got right now, and the proposed title isn't any more searchable than the standing title, though both are accurate at this time. 2023 high-altitude object events could work if the supporting text grows a bit, and the table is just a portion of the article but not like 70% of it. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2023 North American UFO incidents? Bremps! 19:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some are in South America, some in Asia. The commonality here is altitude, not continent. CT55555(talk) 19:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are incorrect. I am not saying that UFOs are aliens. I am saying that there are many UFO sightings unrelated to the items on this list that are not anything related to the current content of this list. There have been a large number of such sightings related to rocket launches from January and February, those not extraterrestrial intelligences (not aliens). Then there are the evergreen sightings of secret military aircraft. And various incidences with drone hoaxes. And mysterious lights over snow covered fields that end up with patterns in the snow. And sightings of Mars, Venus, Northern Lights, meteors, ETC. If you want to use "UFO" you are greatly expanding the scope of the article. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
”UFO” is definitely a term being used quite often in current media coverage of these events [1].- LuckyLouie (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"UFO" is definitely a term used for alot of other things besides these particular balloon-like things. If you rename it to "UFO" you will need to add many more items to the list. There have been many different UFOs covered in the press before the first Chinese "weather" balloon ever came up in the news. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The title is fine as it is. Maybe the "events" can be dropped (List of high-altitude objects in 2023), but just my idea. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without events is it possible that someone could start adding every space-craft and object that just exists up high? CT55555(talk) 00:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait on moving. As Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert points out above we should really wait and see if any sort of name for these events as a whole gains traction with WP:RS before considering a move here. Planetberaure (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for 2023 high-altitude object events per Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert but otherwise wait for a better title. Booyahhayoob (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map is wrong for Huron object

[edit]

The map labels the Huron object as being "Lake Huron, Michigan". But the point on the map is over Lake Michigan. And it's in the wrong place, even the wrong country, because the object was shot down over Lake Huron, Canada. The shootdown of the Chinese balloon over SC has SC marked, which means the standard is where it was shot down, not where it was first detected. JM2023 (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, what's the correct GPS? CT55555(talk) 03:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I've fixed it, having picked a GPS that is right on the border. CT55555(talk) 04:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ostric3 (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC) It seems that the point,if you zoom in, is over the American side.[reply]
Reuters say it happened above the border. There is no no-mans-land between the countries, the border is not a millimetre wide, so every point on a map will fall on one side of a border. Also, do we really think that the exact GPS is known of an object that tens of thousands of feet high is known exactly and it happened to be exactly on an infinity small border? Probably not. That is why the map caption says "approximate". If someone does know the exact GPS, tell me and I will speedily update it. Until then, saying it is wrong without saying what you think it should be, is less than helpful. CT55555(talk) 20:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made that statement because I was under the impression that the point represented where on land the object came to rest, in Canadian waters. If it's to represent the place on land corresponding to the place in the air where it was shot down, I definitely agree with you that a exact point probably isn't reasonable. Ostric3 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per the caption "Approximate location where objects were shot down". I think where they were in the sky is more relevant to readers than where they landed. CT55555(talk) 20:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova and Ukraine

[edit]

Moldova closed its airspace because of a “balloon-like object”: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moldova-has-temporarily-closed-its-airspace-national-airliner-says-2023-02-14/, https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/romania-moldova-report-strange-objects-skies-97199725, https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/airspace-of-moldova-reopened-national-civil-1642998.html (possibly merits its own article

Ukraine shot down a Russian reconnaissance balloon over Dnipropetrovsk oblast: https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/02/12/ukraine-downs-aerial-reconnaissance-vehicle-balloons-in-dnipropetrovsk-oblast/, https://news.yahoo.com/russians-launch-reconnaissance-balloons-situation-133309557.html (Could be added into timeline of the war phase 4 article and mentioned here) Canadian Owl (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Moldova one. I wonder if the Ukraine one is a drone, i.e. is it high altitude? I did not add it due to that uncertainty. CT55555(talk) 20:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I combined the Moldova one with the one above. CT55555(talk) 20:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the addition of 2023 Romania and Moldova high-altitude objects, the scope of this list is no longer exclusive to North America. The intro and lead image/map should be updated accordingly, no? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the map, I an update it if it needs it, but it is a map of those that got shot down, so therefore I think it remains accurate? If we map a map of all, it would seem very difficult because then we would not be mapping GPS points, but routes, which are unknown. CT55555(talk) 15:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the lead and caption CT55555(talk) 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Understood. I see you've updated the lead, so thanks. Since the map is N. America-specific, do you think it'd be helpful to have subsections under "Background and events" for "North America" and "Asia and Europe"? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that could be one solution. I think another would be a lead rewrite. Just now it is very North America centric (i.e. out of date). I am happy to go over the lead and re-write it, am happy for you to create new sub sections. I have a slight preference for the rewrite, as with list articles, I lead towards brevity slightly, but I don't have a strong feeling. I'll wait to see what you (and others) say before taking any action. CT55555(talk) 15:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a subsection for N. America (and moved the map there). Feel free to revert or add subsections for other regions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America

[edit]

It is improper to refer to the balloon over the United States as the "2023 Chinese Balloon Incident" and have the balloon over Latin America as the "2023 Latin America Balloon Incident". One is referring to the origin of the balloon and one is referring to the location the balloon is over. Should both articles refer to the location of the balloons or the owners of the balloons? Esb5415 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong article to discuss this. Instead you should be bringing this up at talk:2023 Chinese balloon incident. Perhaps you should start a WP:Requested move on the subject -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thank you. I'm not the best at navigating Wikipedia's policies or talk pages, so I appreciate the links. Esb5415 (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

User:Sundayclose reverted the photo that I added to the lead (see diff) and asked me to obtain consensus to add a photo. A large sized photo (that I added soon after starting this list) was deleted in an earlier version after consensus was that it as too large, created too much white space, and distracted readers.

My analysis is that this photo, in the context of there being more of a lead now, does not create any of these issues, so I had considered adding it only a benefit and not controversial. Nonetheless, seeking consensus to re-add it. CT55555(talk) 13:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Latin America"

[edit]

So, there was that incident in Uruguay [2]; -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source only states that lights in the sky were being investigated. Not enough for Wikipedia to state that it is an object. Sundayclose (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intromissing

[edit]

The intro section is repeatedly being removed. This is not congruent with the usual practise of Wikipedia article layouts. It also makes the TOC the first thing on the page in some skins. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted a fix, does that work? CT55555(talk) 15:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good effort! - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St Petersberg

[edit]

https://news.yahoo.com/airspace-over-st-petersburg-closed-093424999.html 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out this was a identified as a drone and probably part of Ukraine's war effort, see https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/russia-shuts-down-st-petersburg-airport-due-to-airspace-intruding-drone/ - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mentioned anti gravity

[edit]

i recall news had anti-gravity objects shootdown Baratiiman (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine UAPs?

[edit]

Would this study qualify as (WP) "reliable source"?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.11215

》Conclusions

The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts a study of UAP. We used two meteor stations installed in Kyiv and in the Vinarivka village in the south of the Kyiv region. Observations were performed with colour video cameras in the daytime sky. A special observation technique had developed for detecting and evaluating UAP characteristics. There are two types of UAP, conventionally called Cosmics, and Phantoms. Cosmics are luminous objects, brighter than the background of the sky. Phantoms are dark objects, with contrast from several to about 50 per cent. We observed a broad range of UAPs everywhere. We state a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear. Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected, moving at speeds from 3 to 15 degrees per second. Some bright objects exhibit regular brightness variability in the range of 10 -20 Hz. Two-site observations of UAPs at a base of 120 km with two synchronised cameras allowed the detection of a variable object, at an altitude of 1170 km. It flashes for one hundredth of a second at an average of 20 Hz. Phantom shows the colur characteristics inherent in an object with zero albedos. We see an object because it shields radiation due to Rayleigh scattering. An object contrast made it possible to estimate the distance using colorimetric methods. Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 -12 km. We estimate their size from 3 to 12 meters and speeds up to 15 km/s.《

and continuation:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.17085

》Conclusions

The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts a study of UAP. We used two meteor stations installed in Kyiv and in the Vinarivka village in the south of the Kyiv region. Observations were performed with color video cameras in the daytime sky. A special observation technique had developed for detecting and evaluating UAP characteristics. There are two types of UAP, conventionally called Cosmics, and Phantoms. Cosmics are luminous objects, brighter than the background of the sky. Phantoms are dark objects, with contrast from several to about 50 per cent. Two-site observations of UAPs at a base of 120 km with two synchronized cameras allowed the detection of two variable objects, at an altitude of 620 and 1130 km, moving at a speed of 256 and 78 km/s. Light curves of objects show a variability of about 10 Hz. Colorimetric analysis showed that the objects are dark: B -V = 1.35, V -R = 0.23. We demonstrate the properties of several phantoms that were observed in Kyiv and the Kyiv region in 2018-2022. Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 -14 km. We estimate their size from 20 to about of 100 meters and speeds up to 30 km/s. Color properties of bright flying objects indicate that objects are perceived as very dark. Albedo less than 0.01 would seem to make them practically black bodies, not reflecting electromagnetic radiation. We can assume that a bright flying object, once in the troposphere, will be visible as a phantom. All we can say about phantoms is to repeat the famous quote: "Coming from the part of space, that lies outside Earth and its atmosphere. Means belonging or relating to the Universe".《

ELI5:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E2ZSlLH0TzE

Foerdi (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balloons over Taiwan

[edit]

Various reliable sources reporting detection of Chinese balloons over Taiwan in December 2023 and into 2024. Should these incidents be included, and should the list name be modified to 2023–2024? Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_high-altitude_object_events_in_2023&oldid=1208243455"