Talk:Letter of the two sorries

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

This article is a wonderful demonstration of how a topic can be presented deeply and intelligently in a short writeup. Excellent. - DavidWBrooks 14:23, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)



Strongly question the use of the term "spy plane" in this context. Spying is by nature a covert activity; the EP-3E Incident referred to in this article concerns a clearly-marked military surveillance aircraft operating over international waters, an overt and legal activity.

  • I am in accord with the above. The Chinese did consider it to be a spy aircraft, though, didn't they? --Agamemnon2 07:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the pertinent paragraphs and took off the NPOV tag, in an effort to reduce the NPOV backlog in a small-but-significant way. Comments welcome. --Agamemnon2 07:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The EP-3 is technically a Surveillance aircraft not designed for stealth or sneaking over other country's territories. Rather than calling it a "spy plane", it'd be more accurate to call it "surveillance aircraft". Further more, I'd like to point to the defination of surveillance as "close observation of person or group", versus spying is defined as "to observe with hostile intent". -- Adeptitus 17:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion[edit]

Personally, I don't see how the article could be expanded very much. There's a need for more information at the main article, U.S.-China spy plane incident, but is there really that much more to say about the letter of apology? --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; there really is nothing much else to say. I was BOLD and removed the stub and expansion notice. Feel free to revert if you disagree. -- Where 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Considering that there is very little (or nothing) that can or should be said about this subject, and that the Hainan Island incident article is also very short, and that the two are obviously inextricably tied together, is there a reason why the two have not been merged (or at least proposed for merger) with appropriate redirects? (Asking politely before I propose it myself...) -- Pawl 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - added the merge tags to the articles.RJASE1 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles have been merged. --Nothlit 06:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would the U.S do if there was a Chinese "surveilence plane" flying 70 miles off the California coast?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Letter_of_the_two_sorries&oldid=1084072787"