Talk:Starlink

Strong technical source

This article published on 3 June—before the 4 June launch—has a good deal of information on the constellation, how the orbit raises are done, where the sats are ending up, etc. Will be a good source for improving the article. Evaluating SpaceX’s Starlink Push by Danny Lentz, 3 June 2020.

Starlink user terminals list

I think a list of all available user terminals, with their technical specifications and hardware capabilities would be very good for the topic, could be either in this article on in a separate one 2800:A4:303:4900:352F:E10A:A3CA:B9B0 (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Starlink Service being extended to Major Airline, United Airlines

United Airlines is moving to Starlink vs GeoStationary based Onboard WIFI Solutions such as ViaSat. Gabriel Stangl (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Logo

[1]https://uspto.report/TM/98242270/mark

This is the logo for Starlink that is used at my local Best Buy. Is it correct?

- AAEexecutive (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. It does't seem like they are really consistent with branding. If you go to the page for Starlink on Twitter, it uses that logo, but on the Starlink website it varies from that logo to text that says "STARLINK" with the SpaceX logo on top of that. This branding is confusing. Snoowastaken (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

WSJ content

@Horse Eye's Back You should follow WP:BRD and discuss when someone reverts your addition. The reason it was removed is because it directly goes against previous well reported facts that Starlink was not activated in Taiwan because of a breakdown in communications between Taiwan and SpaceX. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-06/musk-ultimatum-imperils-taiwan-s-push-to-war-proof-its-internet

The Taiwanese and SpaceX began exploratory talks about the satellite supply chain in 2019, but in early 2022, the cordial tenor of those talks changed. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., as SpaceX is formally known, and its representatives in Taiwan began urging government officials to change a law that requires any telecommunications joint venture to have local majority ownership of at least 51%, according to two officials who took part in the meetings. That insistence made Taiwan wary, they said.

SpaceX, which owns and operates Starlink, pushed for 100%, arguing Musk wanted to own the company outright because that’s how he does business around the world, the people said, asking not to be identified because the discussions were private. Indeed in China, Tesla Inc.’s most important market outside of the US, the electric carmaker wholly owns its factory in Shanghai, an anomaly in a country where other foreign automakers must have local partners.

The lobbying also came with an ultimatum: Unless Taiwan agreed to change its ownership rules, the island would get no deal at all.

SpaceX didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment over a period of weeks. Wu Tsung-tsong, minister of the island’s National Science and Technology Council, which leads Taiwan’s science, technology and space development, said Taiwan so far doesn’t “plan to amend the rules,” although he added SpaceX would be welcome if there were a mutual compromise. While talks have now broken down — SpaceX officials haven’t spoken to Taiwanese government officials since September — Taiwan’s vulnerability, along with Musk’s significant financial stakes in China, are still playing high on many people’s minds.

If you want to add that WSJ content back in you need to include that information in how the wikitext is written. I'll be removing the content again, don't add it back in until you at least discuss this topic. Ergzay (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

How does the content contradict the previous reporting? Be specific Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the content you added asserts that Taiwan did not receive Starlink because Russia demanded that they not deliver it. Ergzay (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok now you're engaging in edit warring, and where did you get the idea "You do not have to follow BRD"? That is utter nonsense. And yes it says exactly what I just said. "The Journal reported that Putin had asked Musk to avoid activating his Starlink satellite system over Taiwan, to appease Chinese Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping." i.e. that Taiwan doesn't have Starlink because Putin demanded it. Ergzay (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Taiwan doesn't have Starlink because Putin demanded it, all it says is that Putin made the ask. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It implies it to the reader, which is sufficient for a need to reword it. It also re-states it uncritically without mention to previous reporting. Ergzay (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It does not imply it. The article does not mention that previous reporting as relevent, it does not appear to be so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a side point but the WSJ made several other errors in addition to this one in the reporting of that article, including repeating the conspiracy that Starlink removed service from Ukraine. So it would make sense that they failed to report previous information that they are simply unaware of.

As to the point however it is definitely related. They both deal with the fact that Starlink is not available in Taiwan. Ergzay (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Its not related unless the sources say it is, I don't see any which do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Eh? Sources don't need to say that content is related. Editors are those who sort information from sources into articles. Where in WP:SYNTH does it specify that sources need to say content is related? Ergzay (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not what is going on here though. We're talking about you adding this content. Ergzay (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes... Me adding content which doesn't violate policy or guineline in any way apparenty, you just don't like it. Remember that even if it did disagree with earlier sources that would not be grounds to remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:Balance. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Ergzay (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

And you get from there to removing it entirely how? Even if it does contradict the other sources that isn't grounds for removal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting confused with us doubling up between here and Elon Musk. Let's resolve that one first, then once that's resolved, we can discuss which version of the WSJ story is appropriate for the Starlink article. That original content was written in the context of the article being about Elon Musk.

I'm going to stop responding here for the moment until that one is resolved. If you want, you can add the content back in here temporarily. Ergzay (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

They're seperate discussions and this is the more developed one, this isn't making any sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You also didn't reword it, you removed it entirely... Again[2]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to reword it, that is yours as the person adding the content. That's how Wikipedia has always worked. You can't unload content onto Wikipedia and say "you fix it". Ergzay (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't violate any wikipedia policy or guideline, why would it need to be fixed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I got that idea about BRD from WP:BRD, specifically the opening "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You didn't read far enough, it's one of many optional strategies but you still must seek consensus. Alternatives are listed at the end. You need to follow one of them. Ergzay (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I am here on the talk page seeking consenus, that doesn't change the fact that you do not have to follow BRD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You can bring in additional people to this discussion if you prefer, for example. Ergzay (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In the context of Starlink (i.e. this article), I find the contested edit not WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC as evidenced by its opening paragraph: "The Wall Street Journal reported in October 2024 that Musk had been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other high ranking Russian government officials since late 2022, discussing personal topics, business and geopolitical matters". Lklundin (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lklundin: What about that is evidence that this context is not encyclopedic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Havent read the discussion, but have you seen Putin Asked Musk to Block Starlink Over Taiwan As Favor to Xi: Report - Business Insider Taiwan does not have official Starlink access because its laws require satellite services to be provided through a joint venture with a local operator that maintains majority ownership. The New York Times reported that SpaceX was unwilling to accept such an arrangement, and the self-governed island is thus creating its own low-earth orbit satellite network. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

BI is not a consenus reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no consensus on its unreliability either. Ergzay (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That means that it has no use here, either in the article or in evaluating reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There's plenty of other sources saying basically the same thing. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/04/asia/taiwan-starlink-intl-hnk/index.html

But Taiwan does not have access to Starlink because SpaceX insisted on having majority ownership over a proposed joint venture, a demand incompatible with local Taiwanese laws. This was part of the reason Taiwan developed its own technology.

Ergzay (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

How does that quote contradict the WSJ's reporting? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

BI is often biased, and I can't read the article due to paywall, but the quote you provided is consistent with Bloomberg. (Sorry that is also Paywalled, but it's the source many other articles use.) Foonix0 (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)