Talk:USNS Impeccable/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"I removed the following from "Operational History""

I removed the following from "Operational History" and moved it here. I did enclose "harassed" in quotes the Operational History in recognition that leaving it unquoted gave undue weight to the Pentagon's characterization of the incident.

Since the discussion page is not easily accessible I log my protest against the following strange report here. IMHO the following text is biased and has not much to do with "OperationalHistory" since just a single event is reported. In order to counterbias the report I state that one might consider the presence of a US spy ship so close to the Chineese beaches the real harassment. I expect that my comment is deleted ASAP - if possible together with the offensive text below - and I would be glad if the discussion page could be made accessible and not be cluttered with various "Project" banners etc. Sorry, I know you'll all hate me for this, but I can't let them just write this stuff here uncommented.

In response to the posting above, I would point out that the Impeccable was in undisputed international waters when the confrontation happened - not "close to Chineese (sic) beaches" as the writer said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.172.37 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems the defenders of the People's Republic are already reading the article and will be trying to edit/comment with their official version of the incident. KJGG-TW (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Direct copy of info

The following was copied directly from the New York Times, which is most certainly not the associated press:

"The incident, less than two months after the inauguration of President Obama, immediately drew comparisons to Chinese actions just weeks into the first term of President George W. Bush. In April 2001, a Chinese jet-fighter buzzed a Navy surveillance airplane in international airspace over the South China Sea, causing a midair collision that killed the Chinese pilot and resulted in the detention of the 24-member American crew for 11 days after their plane made an emergency landing on Hainan Island.

The American government also complained about aggressive Chinese behavior at sea in 2006, when one of China’s new Song-class conventional submarines remained undetected as it shadowed the American aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk off the coast of Okinawa, Japan. Although the exact details of the encounter remain the subject of debate, Navy officials said the Chinese submarine surfaced well within torpedo range of the Kitty Hawk."

Should it be removed? And some of the info seems like OR. I went ahead and removed the quotations around harassed, as it is blatantly obvious that the ship was being harassed. Ono (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

adding NPOV

don't remove until things settle down and resolved. Lucky dog (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

while this is a current event and wikipedia users/students have been warned (via the wiki current event template) that the info contained in this article is in flux and thus incomplete, I feel that adding the wiki NPOV flag to the south china seas incident of this article is warranted because of the strong emotions/tone/voice being expressed by authors writing on both sides of the coin.
At any given moment, one author will have edited this article, and given it some sort of bias. and at another moment, another author will have spinned it around or something. now here comes along some hapless student searching for info on google and comes to this wiki article, he reads whatever has been edited that second and sticks it in his homework. next minute the article has been edited again, and maybe another hapless reader/student reads it, and assumes the facts are true not accounting for any bias in the article.... etc. the neutrality of this article will be suspect until things settle down. as you can see by the article history, there is a LOT of editing going on. Lucky dog (talk)

"Reportedly"

I want to point out that usage of the word "reportedly" introduces biased wording to the article. For "reportedly" to apply here there would have a been a doubt or dispute contained in a RS. The mere suspicion of a source by the editor is not a reason to add the bias word "reportedly". What is at dispute is whether the location of the incident was in international waters or the territorial waters of China. I have simplified the wording. That the USNS Impeccable is an unarmed ship is not disputed -- "reportedly" does not apply here either. patsw (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

All sources that are RS add 'Pentagon sais ...' to all the facts. By removing that you make the reader think that the sources themselves have reported it, but they all only quote the Pentagon. Therefore: please rewrite anyone. I haven't got the time now, but I will report it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.78.111 (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Identification of the United States, the United States Department of Defense, or "The Pentagon" as the source is already in the article. Addition of "reportedly" is a bias word hinting, without giving evidence, that editor doubts the truth of the account. patsw (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The BBC, CNN, AP, and Al Jazeera are all considered reliable sources. The reader can click on the source to find out where their information came from. Meaning that it isnt required to put pentagon says after every sentence, as the source doesnt either. Thanks, Ono (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Weasle words and NPOV

I am personality shocked to see such non-NPOV used in this article. Check out these gems:

A). a Chinese intelligence collection ship challenged Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio B1). Shortly after the incident, the Impeccable radioed the Chinese crews, informing them of its intentions to leave the area B2). On March 8, 2009, the Impeccable was harassed 75 miles south of Hainan, China, while conducting surveys in international waters as recognized by the United States.

If you inverse the words, you have:

A). a Chinese survey ship radioed Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio B1). Shortly after the incident, the Impeccable challenged the Chinese crews, informing them of its intentions to leave the area B2). On March 8, 2009, the Impeccable was harassed 75 miles south of Hainan, China, while conducting intelligence collection in international waters as recognized by the United States.

You see the point here? Chinese ship challenge American ship while American ship radioed Chinese ship. And while Chinese ship collect intelligence, American ship surveys. Really they are doing the same thing. Both ship are from the navy.

Also check out all the weasel words used: harassed, aggressively maneuvered, etc etc. 24.222.96.138 (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing what was asked. I will get on removing those words right away. (Some of them are direct quotes, so I wont mess with them, but most will be changed.) Thanks, Ono (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Territorial Waters

You need to be looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters rather than the "high seas" for how close foreign vessels can approach shorelines under international laws. The EEZ isn't germaine to the issue unless the ship was fishing or drilling for oil (etc.).

Also, I PROMISE you that there are Chinese government vessels within eyesight of land outside Point Loma, Norfolk, Kings Bay, New London, San Diego and other bases. (We learn more from decoding what they say about us than what they learn by observing us). Mensch (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Regarding the PRC's claims of an "Exclusive Economic Zone"

A couple of points regarding China's claim that their actions are justified because the Impeccable was operating in the "Exclusive Economic Zone":

1) Their claim that the entire S. China Sea is their EEZ is extremely weak (based primarily on some ancient maps of dubious origin drawn to include this area as part of China). Generally marine boundaries are drawn with reference to the actual distance from a terrestrial boundary or with reference to a contiguous coastal shelf. On both these grounds, other countries, in particular the Philippines and Vietnam, have a much stronger claim to these areas, Chinese bluster about stretches of open sea being an 'integral part of Chinese territory since ancient times" aside.

2) Point #1 notwithstanding, even assuming their claim of this area as an EEZ was legitimate, that does not give them the right to interfere with foreign vessels, including warships, traversing this area. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states that, in relation to EEZ's:

Article 58
Rights and duties of other States in the exclusive economic zone
1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.
Article87
Freedom of the high seas
1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:
(a) freedom of navigation;
(b) freedom of overflight;
(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;
(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;
(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;
(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.
2. These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area.

Nothing in the Convention gives a state the right to try and keep other nations' warships out of its EEZ. See here for the full text: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm.

Please consider these points when making edits about whether the Impeccable had a right to be operating in this area. Spinner145 (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Surveillance ships have been operating inside EEZs since EEZs existed. They were deliberately set up by UNCLOS to only adress economic issues. Many many nations make claims on ocean territory that are not recognized by the USA. In all cases the response is a Freedom of Navigation sailing where the USA deliberately asserts its rights to go to that portion of the ocean. It is the policy to never ever let a claim go unchallenged. Probably the most famous claim was regarding the Gulf of Sidra claim by Libya in the 1980's. The Navy immediately sailed into the Gulf of Sidra after Khadaffi made the claim.Pacomartin (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The End of the Story

The story has come to an end when the Foreign Minister of China and Secretary of State of the US meet on 11 March as they agree on making efforts to avoid similar issues from happening again. I hope every one here can close your file and turn your attention back to your jobs and debts(if any). But lastly, I would like to remind the President and people of the US to shut their mouths when spy ship of ANY country operates 75 miles near the Pearl Habour or any other naval bases of them, i.e. be fair and no more double standard please. --Anglicaneditor (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have suggestions to improve the article, let us know. Otherwise save the lecturing.Spinner145 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be naive. Everyone has a double standard. US does & China does & Britain does. The US would not tolerate a surveillance ship 75 miles from Houston or Los Angeles. A few years ago China sailed directly into Japan's territorial waters near some lightly populated islands. They actually went directly into territorial waters (the heck with EEZ's). They said they got lost. The last time a submarine was "lost" was in WWII.Pacomartin (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the South China Sea

A lot of the information was written from the US sides with words like "confronting", "challenging," stopping, blocking, threatening, which is clearly POV terms. Somehow a US navy military ship that being close to Hainan, a surveillance ship is going to be controversial to any nation. Think about China navy being 75 miles close to Pearl Harbor or San Francisco, how would people feel about that? So be careful with this highly POV section. 97.118.116.177 (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it's important to avoid POV--words like "spying" for instance, which you inserted into the article in 3 places. (It's also inaccurate, btw.) On the other hand, how are words such as "confronting" "challenging" or "blocking" inaccurate to describe an incident in which 5 boats surround an unarmed vessel, wave flags, try to damage its equipment, throw large objects in its path and pull directly into its path as it's trying to leave? Bullying seems a better word, although I'll admit that such a word is sufficiently POV that it probably doesn't belong. Spinner145 (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no disputing the mission of the USNS Impeccable. From the point of view of the US government they are legally entitled to survey international waters. Any attempt to block that activity is "confrontational", "challenging," "stopping, blocking, threatening". Pacomartin (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This comes up in the Arabian Gulf. Many nations use a technique called baselining to extend their territorial waters. They draw a line between two points of land, and they declare that part of the Gulf (or the ocean) as a territorial sea. Then they go 12 miles from the line (instead of the land). The most famous example of baselining was the Gulf of Sidra in the 1980's.Pacomartin (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Built where?

This sequence of events needs clarification:

"... built by American Shipbuilding, Tampa, Florida. She was laid down on 15 March 1992, completed by Halter Marine Inc., Gulfport, Mississippi, in 1995.[1] She was launched 28 August 1998 ..."

How did she get from Tampa to Gulfport before she was launched?
—WWoods (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The unfinished ship was towed.Pacomartin (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the article to be more clear.Pacomartin (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Be aware this article is being targeted by Chinese government

Note the IP addresses of the edits, and their spelling/syntax. And of course, the pure drivel about China's ownership of the entire South China Sea, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean etc.
For example, 59.149.188.63 is obviously a Chinese government employee or propagandist based in Hong Kong
JLSloan (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also notice the IP addresses of some other edits, and THEIR spelling/syntax. And of course, the pure drivel about American's military complex been everywhere like the South China Sea, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean etc. For example, JLSloan is obviously a CIA government employee or propagandist based in America 24.222.96.138 (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There might be some Chinese expressing their ideas here indeed, but I can assure you that there is no Chinese on this planet claiming China's ownership of the Atlantic Ocean. Just please be aware of your offensive words. Thanks. Williamsze (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
How exactly are the words offensive? I read them, and don't take offense. I do see that he was making it comical by exaggerating their claims. Ono (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Saying anything bad about China (or Chinese goods or Chinese airlines) is prohibited!!!!
I have nothing against Chinese people, but they need to own up to the fact that their government is a paranoid dictatorship. 897634q (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually I'm not a pro-Chinese government nor I'm living in China. I'm not an international law expert either. But I wish everyone here could be aware the place where this incident happened. It is only 75 miles from Hainan Island of China but a distance over 7,000 miles to western coastal area of the United States. And indeed there are some concepts of International Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone overlaping each other, which means some water can be considered international waters as well as one country's EEZ. I don't think my edits to this article are pro-Chinese government or saying anything bad to US Navy, and I hope anyone thinks my words are sound could agree that it is difficult to conclude either side is simply RIGHT or WRONG. -- Williamsze (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be a tad extreme. I doubt that it is the Chinese government per se, but it obviously is someone in China or someone who sympathizes with the PRC. Xinhua is state sponsored media, so i guess that the statement from that news site is from the Chinese Government; I suppose the edit could, by association, be related to the Chinese government, based on that reasoning... Anyway, it is only unbiased when both sides of the story are adequately covered. Ono (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at some older versions and they sure looked like Chinese propaganda.... -- Brigham33 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This artice only reports how and why US is right. It is like US propaganda more. I just cannot imagine how the US would react if China sends a navy ship to somewhere 75 miles away from the US coast. -Anglicaneditor (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about some guy who lives a mile away from you all of sudden says YOUR street belongs to him? Think about the craziness of China's territorial claim. Noboby in Asia - even the old Chinese regime - believes the South China Sea belongs to China. This is not about some noble concept of the law of the seas or whatever, it's just a power play by a big bully and an old-fashioned land grab.Twilightxm (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I didnt want to believe that the chinese were targeting this article. Seeing the recent edits, I am completely convinced. Several people have targeted this article, changing the info to better reflect on the Chinese and reflect poorly on the Americans. Ono (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I see it too. I read somewhere they have an army of thousands monitoring the Internet and discussion boards. P.S.: I'm surprised they haven't hacked this Web site and taken it down!!!! Be vigilant. Just an old yankee (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm very vigilant against censorship from people who want just one national view dominately present on an international website. You might have noticed lately that the US view is not the common international view, and even if it is, wikipedia should post all significant other views. You can't say the Chinese view dominates here. On the contrary, and it needs to be fixed. 82.92.78.111 (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sarcasm noted and quickly forgotten. Read the edits and you'll see what I mean. Ono (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This is the most blatant example of the Chinese trying to take over a Wikipedia article I've ever seen. The edits and IP addresses speak for themselves.
TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, we need to be warned by an unregisted, IP User. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole line of reasoning is ridiculous. As far as I know, members of the Chinese Government are more than welcome to edit wikipedia. They just need to conform to the same rules as everybody else (NPOV, verifiability, etc.). I don't see the bias of this article AT ALL. If you have a problem with something that isn't conforming to the rules, point it out or fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.194.26 (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tags

I request that anyone who insists on the placement of POV tags on this article explain specifically how this article is out of compliance with the neutral point of view. With the rapid edits to this article, it would be beneficial to this article to see comments on its current form. But first off, I think everyone editing this article would do well to keep in mind that the neutral point of view is the one that honestly reports the significant opinions of reliable sources. If the reliable sources are doing littler more than regurgitate the opinions of the US Navy and the PRC, then that is the neutral way to write this article (with appropriate attribution). Many of the threads above center on vague or resolved issues, or are on issues that cannot be resolved except through original research, until new sources show up. And with regard to both existing threads and how the tags were placed on the article, simply stating that the article is POV doesn't really do any good, as it provides no guidance on how the issue can be resolved. Personally, I think the article does a pretty good job of sticking to the sources, although there could easily be a lot of quibbling over word choice. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the discussion that is happening waaay down here. i put an explanation why i felt the npov flag should be added in the "placed npov" section located waaaay up there. [User:Lucky dog|Lucky dog]] (talk)


The BBC [1] is quoting the Chinese Press as saying: "What was the ship doing? Anyone with eyes can see and our navy can see even more clearly," the China Daily quoted Vice Admiral Jin Mao, former vice-commander of the navy, as saying. "It's like a man with a criminal record wandering just outside the gate of a family home. When the host comes out to find out what he is doing there, the man complains that the host had violated his rights." This seems to me to be an agreement that the vessel was "outside the gate of the family home" - i.e. on a public highway, i.e. in international waters. Spy ships are annoying - but you've all got them so stop moaning!92.11.174.75 (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221 has made some good points. I add
  • We are not a debating forum for the validity of competing claims by the governments. The editors summarize the facts relevant to the article according to reliable sources. That's all.
  • We don't do word counts. If the Chinese account is sparser and shorter on details, then we don't limit the American account. If the Chinese account includes what it believes are the United States strategic interests in having a naval presence in the South China Sea, that might be material for another article but not this one.
  • Due weight weight has to be given to both sides, but there's a some judgment calls to be. Let's pick a few words out and discuss them.
  1. illegal It's ok to report that according to China, Chinese law was violated. China is the authority for determining what's illegal under Chinese.
  2. spying That's a word which makes of a presumption of illegality. Surveillance is a word without a bias.
  3. harassment I'm open to another word that could describe the actions of the Chinese ships which includes the sense that there was an intentional threat made to the Impeccable but no such suggestion has been made.
I also believe absent participation from the editor(s) who have added the POV tags on the talk page, they should be removed. patsw (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed several words that were controversial. "Harassed" was changed to "involved in an incident", which may or may not be better. I changed "chinese intelligence gathering ship" to "Chinese ocean surveillance ship", which is what the USNS Impeccable is. I made several other edits as well, attempting to remove POV words. thanks, Ono (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way: my reversion to before 97.118.116.177 edited the page was due mainly to the fact that he didnt discuss any of his edits on this page first. I left him a message to discuss what he wants changed before he makes them, as 24.222.96.138 did.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Onopearls (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 March 2009 UTC)
I am restoring "harassed". It is not better. A neutral point of view does not mean changing specific words to vague words. There is consensus among accounts that Impeccable was harassed. However, the Chinese would add that the harassment was justified.
As far as I know there was no live controversy over how the ships were characterized in the article. patsw (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Changed to incident. Harassed is not better, because it is disputed if they were harassed[2][3]. I changed it to incident, which is vague if said incident is well explained further in the article, as this one is. Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I viewed the following

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/china-denies-harassment-and-accuse-usa-of-violation-of-international-law/3938539109

http://www.videowired.com/video/?id=880997220

They are the same CNN report. Neither of the videos contains a denial of the harassment of the Impeccable. The text provided by the unidentified posters at video.aol and videowired point to the controversy over whether this took place in international waters or not. Again, is there a reliable source that disputes that the Impeccable was harassed? patsw (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please leave the text as it was before your edit until the dispute is resolved. patsw (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didnt get to view either, I searched "China deny's harassing the Impeccable" and those video's came up. (I cant watch videos on the computer I am on.) Try this one Ma Zhaoxu, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, said the American ship was breaking international and Chinese laws by sailing so close to China's coast. He denied China had done anything wrong and said the Pentagon's claims of harassment were "totally unacceptable to China.[4]. So could you please leave harassment out until it has been decided that that is the proper word? Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The characterization of the claims of the United States as "totally unacceptable to China" is not a specific denial that the Chinese ships did not approach the Impeccable without stating their intentions, did not maneuver as to hazard the ship, did not put wood into the water, etc. As the consensus of accounts have it, these actions by the Chinese ships are not disputed. What is a matter of dispute is if the harassing was justified because the Impeccable was not in international waters. As for the edit, you have made the edit without a consensus. You are the one who gets to wait for dispute resolution to work. patsw (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
the Pentagon's claims of harassment were "totally unacceptable to China. This obviously means that they disagree that it was harassment. The matter of dispute is if their actions were harassment. Once that has been agreed upon is when the argument about if whatever it was that they were doing was "justified". As for the edit, until there is a consensus, it should be left as neutral as a disputed article can be. You are not the one that gets to decide if it was harassment or not. I have offered my source, and will put it on the page if the need be. Thanks, Ono (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
First of all, editors dispute among themselves what constitutes an "obvious" meaning. It is original research on your part to move form "totally unacceptable" to a specific denial of consensus accounts of the actions of the ship involved. I do not believe at all that the Chinese spokesman intended to deny the consensus account of the various ships movements. Happily, we don't judge intentions here but look to the text itself.
Secondly, I think you are launching a secondary dispute here: are you disputing that Chinese ships approached the Impeccable within 25 feet without stating their intentions, did not maneuver as to hazard the ship, did not put wood into the water, etc? What reliable source has that given that account? Was the entire story made up? Were the ships never closer than 1000 feet? Were the ships which were flying Chinese flags not Chinese? patsw (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I am perfectly aware of the meaning of OR. I dont believe that it was. The statement says the Pentagon's claims of harassment were "totally unacceptable to China. or, inverted, China finds the claims of harassment totally unacceptable. And I don't believe that I was judging intentions. I read the text, and I saw it as them disputing the whole mess as harassment.
How am I launching a secondary dispute? My only edits were to words that were claimed POV. Dangerously, for example, could be seen as that. I changed it because of a complaint from a user, claiming it POV. Hence my saying that it isnt your choice to decide if it is POV or not. And where in the world are you coming up with the idea that I thought it was all made up? Or that they didnt put wood in the water? Or that the ships flying Chinese flags werent Chinese? Those are your thoughts, not mine.
I am in no way disputing the way things went down, considering I added a large portion of it to the page. (If you look, I was the first person to add the information about the incident.) If you can provide a source where the Chinese government calls it justified harassment, then I will gladly look at it. As of now, however, that is all that I could find from the Chinese that mentions anything about harassment, and they appear to be denying it. Thanks, Ono (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Onopearls, it is you, not me, who came along with the argument that Chinese denied their ships harassed the Impeccable as that was the reason for editing the article to remove it. If it is not disputed (by you, by the Chinese, etc.) that the Impeccable was harassed then the will go back. patsw (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)\
But you can up with are you disputing that Chinese ships approached the Impeccable within 25 feet without stating their intentions, did not maneuver as to hazard the ship, did not put wood into the water, etc? What reliable source has that given that account? Was the entire story made up? Were the ships never closer than 1000 feet? Were the ships which were flying Chinese flags not Chinese?. I am still saying exactly what I have said in every response to your posts. I read the chinese response as the Impeccable was not harassed. And if you would bother to read the rest of the comments here, I am not the only one that disputes the neutrality of harass, nor am I the only one that finds "involved in an incident" unbiased, and not favoring either side. Ono (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Arrived here from WP:3O. It seems to me there are legitimate concerns over the neutrality of this article. If there is a real dispute over whether the ship was being improperly harassed or not then we should avoid language that makes a judgement call one way or another. An "incident" is certainly factual and uncontroversial. "Harassment" is a much more specific claim. While it is disputed that is by definition POV. Most of the rest of this section seems fairly balanced to me - the only point I will make is the "Under international law, the U.S. military can... " section. That is not supported, and indeed to a certain extent is contradicted, by the source given for it. The source specifically states "Some legal experts say that international law..." (my emphasis). The statement as is fundamentally misrepresents the issue of international law, implying a unanimity of opinion where none exists. That is POV and needs urgent attention.
One final point: involved editors should try reading this section in its entirety since it is self evident that this has not been happening. It is littered with grammatical errors, misplaced punctuation, and attributions right at the end of quite long and complex sentences. A good copy edit needs doing and needs doing promptly. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
Crisp Muncher, as I read you comment you didn't address my issue: According to reliable sources, have or have not the Chinese denied that their ships approached the approached the Impeccable within 25 feet without stating their intentions, did not maneuver as to hazard the ship, did not put wood into the water, etc? 19:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
First off, I will clarify my comments since there was an interleaving edit to the article page which makes it unclear as to which version I was considering. I was looking at the revision timed 18:37 UTC by Spinner145, not the later revision by Willamsze. I will come to that edit in a moment.
I am not aware of any discrepancies in the account of events presented. It is their interpretation that is troublesome. The Chinese are allowed to police their territorial waters just as any other sovereign nation. The implication of "harassment" is that they were acting outside their jurisdiction and doing something other than enforcing Chinese law in Chinese territory. It is arguable whether legitimate law enforcement could amount to "harassment" but it clearly puts a negative spin on the issue. It is the implications more than the facts that cause the problems with this article. For a similar reason I do not believe the edit of Williamsze is particularly helpful in terms of the language it uses. "Spying" has an implication of subterfuge about it. If the Impeccable was in the area illegally then this would be justified but that is the point that is disputed (in the real world, not here). If they were legally present then it amounts to routine monitoring that is within the rights of the US government. Again this is not a matter of facts, it is the choice of language used that implicitly casts judgement on the merits of each side's position. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
Hi CrisMuncher, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. Just to clear up one matter related to your above comment, there is a specific legal definition of "territorial waters"--they extend 12 miles from the shore of a landmass. There is no dispute that a nation can exclude another nation's naval vessels from operating within its territorial waters. The issue here, however, is policing power within a country's Exclusive Economic Zone ("EEZ"), which is where this incident occurred (leaving aside disputes about China's claims to have an EEZ throughout the entirety of the South China Sea). I have searched and found a number of authorities (one of which I linked earlier) stating that international maritime law does not allow a country to exclude foreign vessel, including warships, from operating within its EEZ. Also see my previous post on the talk page on this question. This has been the basis of my edits. Its a legal distinction that is very germane to this dispute and so I have tried to make it clear within the context of the article. Regards,Spinner145 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I do appreciate the distinction and indeed I should have been more careful in my choice of language. I simply referred to "territorial waters" to avoid too many ifs and buts in my statement. That was probably a bad idea on reflection. However, as to whether the Chinese have the right to intervene in the EEZ, that is the very crux of the matter. The Chinese say they do whilst the Americans say they don't. We can't make a call one way or the other and have any hope that the article remain neutral. That is to ignore the compelxities of the issue and implicitly states that we know better than the US and Chinese governments. The is no universal consensus on what international law says, as evidenced by the very fact that the Chinese are saying their actions were justified. Some of the sources cited in this articel are also very careful to attribute opinions to "some" or specific experts. We can legitimately the views expressed by various experts provided those views are correctly attributed. We can't ourselves make any judgement call one way or the other - that goes to the very heart of NPOV. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank for coming back in. You are making an argument not made previously -- that to write "the Impeccable was harassed" is per se "negative" and cannot be used in the article. This is not the case in the context of contact between ships. As I mentioned before China did not deny the harassment but admitted to it, claiming it was justified by the fact that the Impeccable was not in international waters. Harassment on the streets of New York for example is to annoy or create a nuisance so as to commit as crime. Harassment on water is what ships do to each other to coerce them to move or to stay put. It's a neutral word and frankly, there is no substitute for it in this context. (As a hypothetical, if the Impeccable had been in the mutually recognized territorial waters of China, and refused a radio request to leave the area, then its harassment by the Chinese navy would have been justified) patsw (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You're still misunderstanding my point. I am not disputing whether "harass" is accurate or not. I have already said there do not appear to be any falsehoods in this article. However, being correct is not enough. The article must also be balanced. It is possible to present any subject at all in whatever light you want by being nothing but truthful, but also selective with the facts and language used. There is dispute on this page over whether "harass" is appropriate, and in my view the simple fact that there is a dispute is reason enough to avoid it. If you can't see this, imagine the case of the US Coastguard patrolling US territorial waters. If they turn back a boat containing illegal immigrants, or attempt to board and seize a boat suspected of carrying narcotics, would "harass" be a word you would use to describe such an everyday, uncontroversial law enforcement activity? I think not. The only difference here is there is a dispute over the legitimacy of the Chinese action. We should avoid using language that suggests a particular point of view even if we do not state that viewpoint explicitly. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC).


Harass

Please do not change the article until the discussion above has been resolved. Thanks, Ono (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We even have a meta-dispute: You are the editor who insists on removing "harassed". I am the editor restoring the previous text. What is your reason for removing "harassed" given that there was no denial by China that their ships approached Impeccable within 25 feet without stating their intentions, maneuvered as to hazard the ship, put wood into the water, etc.?
Harassed was in the article. The word is relevant, accurate and verifiable as it appears in hundreds of published accounts. patsw (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
SIr, I cannot say this any clearer: The Chinese offered a denial that they DID NOT harass the USNS Impeccable in the source that I gave. You may not agree that that is what it says, but it isnt my place or yours to decide that. Harass appears in several hundred source that have the pentagon as their source. The one that has the Chinese as a source denies that. Hence the "dispute". I removed dangerously as, without a source, its OR (no source next to that sentence, so I would believe that there wasnt a source that said that." And again, where are you getting that I don't believe that they didn't put wood in the water? I've never said anything even remotely similar to saying that it didnt happen. And, for the record, I removed harassed after another editor left a comment saying that it was POV. thanks, Ono (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Did the Chinese deny that they harassed USNS Impeccable?

This is no denial in this article that the Chinese ships approached Impeccable within 25 feet without stating their intentions, maneuvered as to hazard the ship, put wood into the water, etc. (For new readers, this is the Chinese news item cited, and quoted in full)
"China says U.S. naval ship breaks int'l, Chinese law". Xinhua. 2009-03-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
A denial would specify what their version of the facts are and it is not in this text. It is unsupportable to state that China is denying in this statement that they harassed Impeccable. Your guesses as to what China's version of the "black and white" are of this are your own. The inference I draw from this statement is they affirm they harassed Impeccable and that it was justified because of the location of the Impeccable at that time. I'm waiting to see if Xinhua adds anything more to the record. patsw (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Inference. That is exactly why the term "harass" is in dispute. This very well may be denial from the Chinese government. This is a portion of the article, with the statement I referred to in bold:
"Bad parallels seen in Chinese naval clash". USA Today. 2009-03-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
You infer that they affirm that they harassed the Impeccable. I can just as easily infer that they dispute that they harassed the Impeccable. Inferring is on par with guessing. Thus, we should leave it as "involved in an incident", then adequately explain what happened. Then the reader can draw what they will from the neutral texts. Thanks, Onopearls (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I would also be interested to see what law they think they were "strictly in accordance with" with here, as so far nobody has been able to point to any laws that justify such bellicosity towards ships operating outside of a country's territorial waters.Spinner145 (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to propose that the wording be changed to: On March 8, 2009, the Impeccable, while collecting data approximately 75 miles south of Hainan, was involved in an incident with several Chinese Naval ships, which The Pentagon described as harrasment. I'm starting to agree with Ono here; depending on how you defined the word "harass" it could be an apt word regardless of the Chinese intentions, or it could be interpreted as a pointed word to imply a point of view. Additionally, most of the reliable sources are essentially quoting The Pentagon when they call it harrassment. And if we are to assume the interpretation of "harass" that it infers a point of view, then the Chinese have disputed that point of view. This is what I was referring to in my first post, that this is really just a minor wording dispute. But in my opinion, if there is a possibility that some of our readers will infer a point of view (that is not explicitly supported by reliable sources) from that word, it is better to use a more neutral wording and let the reader decide for themselves based on the details. And that is why I'm suggesting the rewording. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I only mention that either inference could be drawn from the statement to make the point that the statement is not on its face a denial. So, we're down to two words: "totally unacceptable". That is not a denial.
I disagree with Someguy1221's proposal: that it was harassment is not disputed in a source that has been cited, and looking at the facts not in dispute, i.e. Chinese ships approached Impeccable within 25 feet without stating their intentions, maneuvered as to hazard the ship, put wood into the water, etc. -- it fits the definition of harassment in the context of naval encounter. It appears in media accounts often without according to the Pentagon as a qualifier.
If China really does dispute the reports of the last 48 hours, when will it get around to telling the world in a less vague manner and give their own account? A denial by China that their ships did not harass USNS Impeccable is not on the record (as of this writing). The watered-down description of this as an "incident" is vague, inaccurate, and incomplete. The description of it as "harassment" is a neutral and accurate description. patsw (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The denial of harassment is not "obvious"

A claim made by Onopearls in an edit summary:

The source obviously says he denied any wrongdoing, talking away from patsw claim that they admit to justified harassment.
  • First, I deny anything is obvious in this statement. Editors disagree about what is obvious, so this is not an argument but an assertion.
  • As I already gave in a hypothetical, if the harassment were justified there would be no wrongdoing on the part of the Chinese. These, of course, are questions of legality and morality.
  • There is no dispute as to what happened on the water. Harassment in the context of naval ships is coercion in order to move a ship or to force a ship to remain stationary. As a word it is neither right nor wrong to harass a ship, just as on land the words disperse or arrest are neither right not wrong but take on aspects of legality or illegality based upon circumstances.

A real denial would answer these questions and give the official Chinese account of the events:

  • Were the ships Chinese navy vessels operating under the command authority of the Chinese government?
  • How many ships were they and how close did they approach USNS Impeccable?
  • Did they maneuver around the ship and in front of the ship so as to risk collision?
  • Did they toss wood in the water as to create a risk of damage to Impeccable?

At the very least we ought to be able to agree what form a real denial would take, and that China has not given an account of the events, except to broadly label the American account false. patsw (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to offer anywhere where they are admitting that their ships harassed the Impeccable, and that said harassment was justified. I would be willing to bet that any source you find from the Chinese government will say that they "engaged" the Impeccable for operating within the Exclusive Economic Zone.

A real admittance would have all of the following in it:

  • A admittance of responsibility
  • Use of the word harass
  • An explanation of how said harassment was justified.
  • Most everything else mentioned above.
Either way, I will agree that they were harassed. I am just saying that I still don't believe that the Chinese believe that they were harassed. Thanks, Ono (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag removal

Well I see that the edit wars of the past few days seem to have calmed down now, and the language used seems to have been moderated a bit. I'm going to tentatively remove the POV tag now but obviously it should be put back in place if this flares up again. I'll clean up the references while I'm there since the spacing for a couple of them has gone awry in the warring. CrispMuncher (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

As the one who put up the original npov tag, i agree. Lucky dog (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Operational Tactic

were they just doing this to get the surtass to roll in her array so they could sneak something out under the ship while this was all going on? 72.0.187.239 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely--they would gain little from getting a single submarine sortie into the ocean undetected. This one in a series of incidents going back almost a decade where China has tried to exclude the US military from operating in the S. China Sea. The sea is an extremely important strategic area, and China has a number of disputed territorial claims in the area. They clearly want the United States Navy out in order to make it simpler for them to pursue their own agenda in there.Spinner145 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Who said Chinese trying to sneak a prototype sub out into the Pacific with an untrained crew? Can PLAN even sneak with its lack of training? And people are not even sure if the subs even functions properly.
And if Chinese did try to sneak a sub out into the Pacific, won't a LA class sub or P-3 plane pick it up when it reach Okinawa, like the last few times? Harrasing Impeccable seems like a waste of time, if that is the case.
And since the Chinese subs refuse to come out and play with US subs, isn't USNS Impeccable the next best thing to to listen in because it can stay just out of Chinese water with its long range Sonar? Jim101 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! There would be little advantage to this as a military exercise. It was probably meant to be a strong political statement. In a similar manner, a few years ago they sailed a submarine directly into Japanese territorial waters (near some small lightly populated islands). http://www.kuam.com/news/11834.aspx . These are political statements. BTW: in the previous incident it wasn't Japan's EEZ that the Chinese violated. It was clearly and unequivocally territorial waters.

Americans do not know of history

The name <<The SOUTH CHINA Sea>> is meant the ocean is part of China Southern region. Everything there belong to Chinese people. -MaWingshing (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an absurd position. Does India own the whole Indian Ocean? Does Britain own the whole English Channel? Naming does not imply ownership. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

The South China Sea belongs to China like Tibet belongs to China! GEEEEEEEZ. I suppose the Vietnamese, Filipinos, Malaysians, Indonesians and whoever else in the neighborhood can't set foot in the South China Sea anymore?
Technik-arts (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tibet doesn't belong to China either, so your argument is out the window. And No, the South China sea doesn't belong to China, a portion of it may, but the entire area doesnt. Thanks, Ono (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Technik-arts was being sarcastic. A portion of the South China Sea does indisputably belong to China: out to the 12-mile limit from the mainland and Hainan. Beyond that, it gets fuzzy....
—WWoods (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
When i began writing a response, he hadn't added suppose the Vietnamese, Filipinos, Malaysians, Indonesians and whoever else in the neighborhood can't set foot in the South China Sea anymore?. So it was only that first sentence, hence my not catching sarcasm (I assumed it was another chinese person using the talk page as a forum.) And it is tiresome and sometimes difficult to pick up hints of sarcasm in short phrases. Thanks, Ono (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Great logical thinking. So the Gulf of California belongs to California and the Dead Sea belongs to.. Dead People?
By the way, China's territorial claims are very recent, after the oil companies announced there were oil/gas reserves around the Paracel and Spratly Islands. (Those islands were thought to be worthless by everyone in the area, except the Vietnamese who came out periodically to collect some kind of sea bird poop). -TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversion to 07:13, March 11 2009

I reverted to page to before [[User:97.118.116.177|97.118.116.177) made highly POV edits "hunting Chinese subs, spying etc" When they have no proof that that is what it was doing. They removed several large sourced paragraphs that's info was taken from the referenced page (meaning that if it was POV, it wasnt the writer's, it was the websites.) We need to reach a consensus as to how to go forward, as we have two sides trying to get this page to reflect one government better than the other. Ono (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But I think the User:97.118.116.177 at least quoted one article from MSNBC:Officials: Ship in China spat was hunting subs, did he/she? -- Williamsze (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That may be. He also added several highly POV phrases and words. I reverted it to the lesser of two evils, but someone has changed it back. I can't revert, as I am on my blackberry right now. Can we leave it without the "spying" (no proof) and "sub hunting" (no proof) stuff? We can read through and add appropriate information that he/she added later. Ono (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering your attitude toward Chinese Xinhua, I think the MSNBC: Officials: Ship in China spat was hunting subs is an important article which from (may be) your country. I conceded not using "spying" as you requested but "sub hunting" is the original word used both in title and in paragraph 10 (In this case, the sub-hunting took place in a disputed band of water far off the Chinese coastline but...).
PS, it seems that your are deeply interesting in politics. I'm not... Since I joined Wiki, most of my edits are related to some engineering or business topics as I was majoring in engineering and doing business now. This is the first time I got involved into some politic issues in Wiki. I feel terriblly tired and I'm very curious if it is so important for our civilians to discuss these weird topics and get some conclusions? Things should be very simple, as Americans are using keyboard made in China to edit wiki while Chinese also need US to sell them Boeing A/Cs. In my opinion, this should be the Sino-US relationship in civilians view and why not let the rest to those politicians? They are such some dawdler that have nothing to do. So let the Chinese politicians fly to US on Boeing aircrafts to dispute with US diplomats wearing Chinese shirts under their exorbitant bespoke suit, OK? Finding out which vessel was doing what will contribute nothing to saving polar bears, spending times on editing wiki over this weird topic would yield nothing but exhausting carbon-dioxide, and make me looks like a crusader or some Chinese government sponsored crusader in your point of view...I hate politics... -- Williamsze (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Williamsze, the problem with the word "hunting" is that it implies a search and destroy type of mission. This is clearly not the case, as the Impeccable is unarmed. In that respect I disagree with MSNBC's characterization of the event. Nevertheless, if you read the entire context of the MSNBC article, it becomes clear that the 'hunting' was in fact only observation activities. If we include the word 'hunting' we will need to make clear that by that word we only mean 'observing'. As such, I think it is simpler to just state what that the Impeccable was there likely monitoring Chinese submarine activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinner145 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Surveillance is part of the Indications and Warnings Phase of Critical Infrastructure Protection. It is overtly conducted on the high seas outside of territorial waters. No attempt is made to conceal the activity. It is done with unarmed ships so that it sends a clear signal that it is not an agressive action. The ships do not have shoulder launched surface to air missiles, let alone built in defense systems. Ships crew is civilian. Small arms are simply present any ocean going vessel (commercial or military) to defend against piracy. However, the vessel is imposing enough and unattractive to pirates who prefer unarmed vessels, and/or ones carrying something of commercial value. The actions of the five vessels are considered illegal, unprofessional & dangerous. Cutting off ships which can't change course easily, throwing stuff in the water hoping to jam screws, attempts to damage equipment and making threatening or taunting radio calls endangers both the Navy ship and the Chinese ships.Pacomartin (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the Impeccable incident, a submerged Han-class nuclear-powered submarine of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) entered Japanese territorial waters during the early morning hours of November 10, 2004, and passed submerged at about 100 meters as it “wandered” in Japanese territorial waters for about two hours before exiting into international waters. Moving from south to north, the submarine passed through the Ishigaki Strait, which separates the islands of Ishigaki and Miyako at the southwestern edge of Japan’s Sakishima island chain. http://www.nwc.navy.mil/cnws/cmsi/documents/Dutton_Han%20Incident_06.pdf Pacomartin (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Impeccable's mission and the Chinese new sub

Associated Press reported that DOD confirmed USNS Impeccable was on a sub monotaring mission, and Federation of American Scientists reported that the new Chinese nuclear submarine was in the area when the incident happened, should we add that connection?

AP report FAS analysis on the connection between new Chinese sub and the incident

Jim101 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you are painting the lily. The ship was custom designed for monitoring submarines at the end of the cold war with the Soviet Union, and it was operating very near a major Chinese submarine base. You can look in Google Earth and see two of the submarines parked pierside at the base.

I don't know that "painting the lily" means, but if your are refering to me jumping to wild conclusions, the problem is not with me, but with Hans Kristensen of the FAS that made the judgment in the article I provided. Since FAS is a reliable source, your need some other sources that prove FAS wrong.
And further more, whatever sub Impeccable was monitoring was not on the surface when on patrol, so lookings at satellite photos seems like a waste of time. In case you haven't read closely, FAS reported a prototype Type 094 sub that has disappeared off South China Sea for a while now.
Finally, what makes anyone so sure what Chinese is doing with their subs and what they are capable of? Nobody in the west knows how many prototype subs Chinese got, just by reading NATO codename, counting them on photos and compare them to apporixmate figures does not mean it is right. Chinese did manage to hide the construction of Yuan class sub from US until they suddenly shows up from nowhere. FAS is only suggesting that a lot of Chinese prototype sub is gathering around the same area Impeccable was harrassed. Jim101 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but painting the lily does not mean jumping to wild conclusions. It's an old Shakespearean term (from King John) that just means that you are adding to the obvious. The Impeccable is a custom built ship to monitor submarine traffic. That's all the ship does, it has no other purpose. They weren't fishing. Of course, the Chinese have nuclear submarines at the base. The base is a massive multi-billion dollar installation which is carved into a mountain big enough to hold a fleet of 20 submarines and/or aircraft carriers. You can see it on Google Earth where some of the older submarines are parked pierside in the open. In contrast, there are about 15 US submarines based at Pearl Harbor. No one is going to build a base at such huge cost and use to hold ancient 20 year old boats.Pacomartin (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This island has 10 times the population of Oahu and the city of Sanya is about the same size as Honolulu. The beach outside of this base is covered with Marriot, Sheraton, Hilton, Holiday Inn hotels catering to tourists mostly from Hong Kong. The base is a huge installation that should be larger than Pearl Harbor or Okinawa in a few years. China is gearing up to be a major naval power that will rival Japan and the US. Pacomartin (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, my point is not to dispute the mission of USNS Impeccable on its mission to spy on Chinese subs, but to point out a reason why Chinese is pissed at the whole incident now, despite the fact that US have accurate Chinese sub patrol data for decades. Spying is fair game between great powers, and both US and Chinese knew it. But an incidents like this means US digged something really sensetive, besides the usual sub patrol US usually monitor. Since all the mystery is surrounding the new Chinese sub prototypes, it does deserve a mention about Chinese navy's sensetivity towards those new subs. Jim101 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Well you are correct. China has had an interest in nuclear powered submarines since the Nautilus was launched. However, only 7 were actually built before the modern age of China began: 2 Xia-class SSBN's and 5 Han SSN's. Supposedly one of the SSBN's sank immediately, and the other one is of extremely limited value. The HAN class is very They would be sensitive to ACINT to the new class of SSN's or SSBN's.

Xia (Daqingyu) Class SSBN (Type 09-2 [No. 406]): The Xia-class SSBN is a modification of the Han-class SSN, lengthened to house 12 missile tubes. China has stated that it has built two Xia-class SSBNs, each of which can carry 12 JL-1 SLBMs. The 09-2 SSBN first went on patrol in 1986. It is still unknown if the submarines are deployed armed with nuclear missiles, as China has been secretive about nuclear deployment details in order to enhance the survivability of the launch platforms. The strategic value of the 09-2 SSBN is questionable; it uses very old technology and is thus highly vulnerable to acoustic detection and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems, and has never sailed beyond China's regional waters, operating for only short periods in China's coastal waters. Also, a minimum of three SSBNs must be operational in order to have one constantly on patrol. The 09-2 has also been hindered by the low level of reliability of its nuclear power plant. Other questions remain regarding the Xia's operational status. In August 2000 the Agence France Presse quoted an annonymous Asian military expert saying, "The Xia has not been out to sea for several years and it has not fired any ballistic missiles since at least the early nineties."

Han-class SSN (Type 09-1) (No. 401-405): The Han-class SSN first entered service in 1974. China currently deploys five Han-class SSNs from the North Sea Fleet Headquarters at Qingdao. The Han-class SSNs have never sailed beyond Chinese regional waters, operating for only short periods in China's coastal waters, and their capabilities would be limited in the face of Western or Russian anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities. The Han-class SSNs are also quite noisy and thus vulnerable to detection by ASW capabilities, and have been hindered by the low level of reliability of their nuclear power plants.Pacomartin (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Really in "International Waters" Recognized by Wiki?

I just find this image in article International Waters and find out that the entire South China Sea, dispite numerous countries have dispute over sovereignty of this waters, is not International Waters. Same assumption can also be found by the image in article Exclusive Economic Zone. Seems the Impeccable is at least in "some country"'s EEZ. -- 203.82.48.185 (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

High seas highlighted in blue.
The World's EEZs, shown as a white extension of land territory

Nothing about this happening within its EEZ would give China the right to interfere with US naval operations. See my post below. Naval operations are only prohibited within a nation's territorial waters, which extend 12 miles from its shoreline, but all accounts say that this incident took place approximately 75 miles from Hainan Island. Spinner145 (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Waters can be international and inside another countries EEZ at the same time. International primarily means that you are outside of 12 nautical miles. EEZ's extend 200 nautical miles. I should add that many countries make disputed claims about bodies of water and transit zones. Mexico has claimed the Gulf of Baja has territorial waters (disputed by the USA). Italy claims their continental shelf. Every country that borders the Arab/Persian Gulf has disputed maritime claims. Iran permits ships to go through their territorial waters in Transit Lanes, but denies passage to military ships. The US deliberately sends military ships through these lanes in Freedom of Navigation runs. Argentina claims part of Antartica. However, China's claim to the entire South China Sea and the Yellow Sea is the most audacious in terms of area.Pacomartin (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Navy guys

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5875666.ece
says
"two of the Chinese ships stopped directly ahead of the Impeccable, forcing it to an emergency stop to avoid collision because the Chinese had dropped pieces of wood in the water directly in Impeccable’s path."
Q. Why did the Chinese put pieces of wood in the water?
Also
"China views almost the entire South China Sea as its territory. "
Q. I looked at the map and Vietnam sits on a huge swath of the South China Sea.... How can any nation make such an outrageous claim - to own an entire sea that is a thousand miles south of its border???
John-from So.D. (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One can assume that the wood was rather large, and, by that assumption, that the wood would probably do significant damamge to the ship if struck. One could also account the emergency stop to the fact that there were several ships stopped directly in front of them. Ono (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where these incidents took place, but China claims the Spratly and Paracel Islands and surrounding waters, and thus a big chunk of the South China Sea. Look at the "Chinese claim line" on this map.
—WWoods (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
No wonder China is hated by other countries in Asia.Zttzz (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Q: Is the Impeccable armed? Or have escort ships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.129.210 (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A: No, the USNS Impeccable was an unarmed research ship. It doesnt carry weapons, and it didnt have any escorts with it. Thanks, Ono (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a definition of unarmed? Is it accurate to describe a ship under contract with the US Navy Military Sealift Command Special Mission Program as "unarmed"?

The New York Times reporting indicates that the Impeccable is armed with small-caliber weapons.

"The Impeccable, which did not carry large-caliber weapons and was operated by civilian contractors for the Military Sealift Command" New York Times China and U.S. Clash on Naval Fracas By THOM SHANKER and MARK MAZZETTI Published: March 10, 2009 "The Impeccable, which did not carry large-caliber weapons and was operated by civilian contractors for the Military Sealift Command" J23 (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)J23

There have been several sources that says that the Impeccable was unarmed.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. I can give you plenty more if you need it. Also, your source claims that The Impeccable did not carry large-caliber weapons and was operated by civilian contractors for the Military Sealift Command. It didn't state that it carried small caliber weapons, only that it didnt carry large caliber. And really, what good is a handgun going to be against a military ship? It would stand to make several million angry Chinese, and that is about it. But no, as of now, all sources point out that the USNS Impeccable was an unarmed research vessel. Ono (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The Impeccable only has small caliber weapons consistent with any ocean going vessel. The weapons are for fighting off pirates. The crew of a surveillance ships are merchant marines, not Navy personnel. The operations center is a secure facility on board the ship. In the event of a boarding the crew simply destroys the data in special ovens in the operations center and surrenders. Diplomatic efforts would free the crew. They are instructed not to attempt to repel a boarding by a foreign military power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.29.68.97 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
As a former Navy sailor on the USNS Stalwart (T-AGOS-1), I can vouch for Merchant Marine run surveillance ships having a Military Detachment (not crew). I'm not sure if the Impeccable has a MILDET, or if they are also run by the MSC T-AGOS Project Office. As well as Maersk Line Limited, Seafarers International Union of North America & American Maritime Officers like the Stalwart was. Nothing that I have seen says anything about who runs the ship, other than Military Sealift Command. However, my experience leads me to believe that MSC doesn't completely run the show for T-AGOS vessels. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WOOD PIECES- If you look at a cross section of the ship http://www.swath.com/concept.htm you see that there are rudders that point inward from the underwater hulls. These control the ship direction. The screws don't move. A big enough chunk of wood could damage these fins and make steering unreliable. If you did enough damage the ship would be unable to steer. If you could do enough damage, one of the pontoons could begin filling with water and the ship would have to be abandoned, although I think this much damage would be difficult to achieve with wood. Trying to deliberately damage a ship in the high seas is an extremely provacative action. So is trying to force a collision.Pacomartin (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

question the last part of edit 13:21, 12 March 2009

in the article, it says:

""China's done this before, they've harassed boats that they feel have intruded into an area they claim," said Wendell Minnick of Jane's Defence Weekly.
The Impeccable's surveillance mission is focused mainly on undersea warfare. This may be of a particular interest to the Chinese government, as they operate an estimated 62 submarines, most of which are diesel electric powered, with a major submarine base on Hainan.[23]"

...are the following sentences necessary? the last paragraph appears superfluous, the Impeccable's mission has already been stated once before in the article in the section entitled "Mission". and the statement by jane's defense weekly appears to be an opinion, not a fact. overall, the article is shaping up nicely.

Lucky dog (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not just China that has done this before. The reason that the ships aren't armed is that US government does not want to provoke a deadly confrontation from surveillance. The standard procedure is simply to ask to leave the area and return to port.Pacomartin (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Latitude and Longitude

The navy really needs to publish the Latitude and Longitude of the incident. (or they already did & I missed it.) TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia you edit. See if the United States or China provides the coordinates to a reliable source, and you can add it to the article. patsw (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This article includes a map showing an 'approximate' location of the incident. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it's all I've been able to find. http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/03/incident.php

I put in the operational characteristics of LFA which includes the minimum required depth of 500 feet. The map shows the isobath of 200 meters which is not much deeper than 500 feet. It gives you an idea of how close it is possible to get near land (which is considerably further than 12 miles).Pacomartin (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

'Impeccable' coverage is pure one sided US Propaganda

The chapter about the South_China_Sea_incident seems nothing but US propaganda. Can anybody rewrite this totally one sided story full with only references only to US military and government and right wing opinion groups and lacking the Chinese reaction as described widely in the media already. (e.g. on the bbc news website). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.78.111 (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems it has been resolved now. Thanks whoever helped fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.78.111 (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be "US propaganda", as the information came from several international news agencies, including Al Jazeera, the BBC and the associated press. Unlike the PRC, the United States doesnt censor its media coverage, and, while attepmting to influence the popular media through reports, television appearances etc, they do not block anything that they feel to be particulary inflammatory from being published. So, unless you can provide proof to your baseless claims, There is no need to edit the article (especially harassed to "intercept", and surveys in international waters to "intelligence gathering". Thanks, Ono (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, why are articles about Hitler, the Holocaust, Stalin, the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot et al so ONE-SIDED? <sarcasm> We need more balance!!! Put in all the good stuff and take out half of the bad stuff so we'll have BALANCE. </sarcasm> LiverpoolJack (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont dispute that those pages are one sided. I do, however, dispute the bias on this page, considering our sources from around the world, all saying the same thing. And yes, i suppose we do need more balance; If you feel that strongly about it, then take on the task. I am sure that you will be hailed as a hero if you are capable of taking the bias out of of every article on Wikipedia. Ono (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the root of the problem - China's land grab:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/US-And-China-Face-Off-In-South-China-Sea-USNS-Impeccable-And-Chinese-Boats/Article/200903215238151?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15238151_US_And_China_Face-Off_In_South_China_Sea%2C_USNS_Impeccable_And_Chinese_Boats
"China's done this before, they've harassed boats that they feel have intruded into an area they claim," said Wendell Minnick of Jane's Defence Weekly. The real problem, said Mr Minnick, is that China's claim to an "exclusion zone" in the South China Sea does not wash with America, or its neighbours. "They want to claim an area that is way out there," he told Sky News. "It's closer to Vietnam and the Philippines than it is to China and they're having trouble convincing the rest of the world that it's theirs." LiverpoolJack (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are directing your hostility toward me, You should know that I agree with you. The US wasnt in the wrong, the chinese were. Ono (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No hostility intended towards anyone. China' territorial claim is simply "outrageous" as someone has already said. LiverpoolJack (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
one thing to say, when sources from all over the world, especsially ones like BBC and CNN all agree one somthing, that probablly accurate as they are know for neutrality. Joesolo13 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Be aware this article is being targeted by US government

Most editors here see all Chinese sources as propaganda and copy quotes from newspapers quoting the Pentagon as RS. I don't care if they are payed by the US government or not: they kill the principles of wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.78.111 (talk • contribs)

So what do you propose to do? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose to always mention the original source in your text, in the case of this chapter this is 99% Pentagon and 1% Chinese reaction. There are no independant sources, only newspapers that quote either one of both. Come to think of it, maybe we should scrap this chapter alltogether :-) Just kidding: just always mention the original source in your text. A newssite itself is not an original source if it just uses an unverified statement from another source. If you have multiple publishing the same original source, you actually just have one source. Mention that source in your text. 82.92.78.111 (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC). The previous remark was mine. I don't need to be anonymous. I've got a login now and will expand my profile soon. European1001 (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The lack of Chinese sources is the same reason theres no US governmental soruces except for gov. statments. sources like BBC, CNN, ect. are pretty neutral. the Chinese state-sponsered news sources are, by deffinition, extensions of the Chinese government, and thus can't be trusted to be neutral. Joesolo13 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

China's claim is not legitimate and shouldn't be part of article

China's claim is not recognized by any country, let alone its neighbors. It's only China that thinks the South China Sea belongs to them. If the Chinese readers think China owns the South China Sea, then use another forum to convince the world China owns the South China Sea, and leave Wikipedia alone. This is not a public relations forum for the People's Republic of China. El Sobrique (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

China's claim is part of the story and due weight needs to be given to their side of the story, without the introduction of bias. patsw (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to subscribe to the fact that the Chinese view needs to be mentioned, and would like somebody who disagrees to comment. Otherwise I will change this page according to the due weight principle. 82.92.78.111 (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

USA is very wrong, and owing apology to China for incident. QQ9i9 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The USA has been conducting surveillance in the high seas since the 1950's. International law recognizes that 75 miles from land is well outside of territorial claims. There is a policy to protect the ocean from (1) Excessive territorial sea claims; (2) Improperly drawn baselines for measuring maritime claims; and (3) Attempts to require notification or permission before foreign vessels can transit a nation's territorial sea under the right of innocent passage. It is not an incursion or an infringement on China's legal territorial claims. Surveying the open ocean for submarine activity is not a hostile act.Pacomartin (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the chinese puppets above, the chinese side SHOULD be included as it's there claim, but you have to include the fact that international law disagrees with them. also, qq9i9, it should be "owes" not "owing" Joesolo13 (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

USA is very wrong, and owing apology to China for incident.

The truth is coming to WIpideaia. QQ9i9 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I must say, the truth is pretty much biased in US's favor on Wikipedia. 24.222.96.138 (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
the truth is the truth, nothing more or less. also, things tend to be "biased" in ones side's favour when there right. no one has a right to put a boat infront of a ship when there doing nothing wrong. Joesolo13 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is full of weasel words and american propaganda

John whoever he is claims that noone should change this article without citations. So where is the citation that lists out the Chinese ships involved? I can give you plenty of citations stating the Chinese ships where fishing vessals.

http://www.france24.com/en/20090506-new-sea-incident-between-china-us-pentagon states they are fishing vessels

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5451YC20090506 says they are fishing vessels

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/05/07/2003442992 says they are fishing vessels

Whats the insistance on calling them Chinese Navy vessels? Impeccable is a United States Navy vessel, why are you trying to hide that?

And whats the insistance on calling Impeccable unarmed; are fishing vessels armed? Water cannons are listed as a non lethal weapon, on wikipedia and many other places. That hardly makes Impeccable unarmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.31.57 (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are very right, all of your sources do say that they were fishing vessels. Too bad they are all talking about the USNS Victorious, not the USNS Impeccable. I suggest you read your sources better before accusing editors of bias. Thanks, Ono (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
not to mention how easy it would be for such a secerative government to label a few ships as "fishing vessals" and use them for whatever they want. everycountry has done something similar. Joesolo13 (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Reworking the section on the South China Sea Incidents

I appreciate the contributions of 204.197.186.15, but I thought with those edits the section on the S. China Sea incidents had gotten unwieldy and unfocused. So I reworked it to give it a more logical organization while also keeping references to the article 204.197.186.15 had found. Here's how I've organized it:

1) Main heading - South China Sea incidents: first, accounts of these incidents, second the US and Chinese reactions, third the aftermath (US destroyer ordered to the region) and finally the comment that two sides activities may be related to efforts to observe the new Chinese submarines operating in the area.

2) Sub-heading 1 - both sides' defenses of their own actions and their accusations against the other. I think the key disagreement is how to interpret the UN Convention of the law of the sea, so I've tried to represent each side's POV.

3) Sub-heading 2 - I've moved the portion "standard response" to a subheading where it gives further background into US actions in relation to the South China Sea encounters.

Hopefully this makes it a more informative article. Spinner145 (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS-23). 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:

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) 13:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS-23). 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:

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) 05:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Delivery of the usns impeccable to Norfolk

I am one of the first crewman to ride on the impeccable and I am hunting delivery photos of the impeccable when we delivered it to Norfolk do the Navy Yard I found from Moss Point Mississippi 2001:5B0:2A00:4138:455D:1645:3F5C:1738 (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7936468.stm
  2. ^ http://video.aol.com/video-detail/china-denies-harassment-and-accuse-usa-of-violation-of-international-law/3938539109
  3. ^ http://www.videowired.com/video/?id=880997220
  4. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-03-10-china-usnavy_N.htm
  5. ^ http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11871098
  6. ^ http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/09/1829183.aspx
  7. ^ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-impeccable-china10-2009mar10,0,5014118.story
  8. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/09/pentagon-chinese-ships-harassed-unarmed-navy-craft-international-waters/
  9. ^ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/03/09/2009-03-09_chinese_sailors_strip_to_underwear_after.html
  10. ^ http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=43294
  11. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_china_incident_10
  12. ^ http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/09/chinese-vessels-harassed-unarmed-ship/
  13. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/4963305/Chinese-ships-harass-unarmed-US-navy-vessel.html
  14. ^ http://news.bostonherald.com/news/international/general/view/2009_03_09_Pentagon:_Chinese_vessels_harassed_unarmed_ship/srvc=home&position=recent
  15. ^ http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jLGjotiM5K34OisyYCFafERRGJ7wD96QIPI80
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USNS_Impeccable/Archive_1&oldid=1150023964"