Talk:Balloon boy hoax

Proposal to finalise consensus on controversial addition

R0tekatze (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The talk archive contains a great deal of discussion regarding the addition of a video in which Richard Heene disputes the charges related to this incident. Since catchphrases like WP:CONSENSUS are being thrown around, I propose the following:

Below, I will place two headers. The first will signify a vote to include the video. The second will signify a vote not to. This should demonstrate the actual consensus figure on the proposed inclusion. For clarity, I suggest only accounts registered BEFORE this date (13th January 2020) be counted. Add your signature using four tildes.

Be sure to view the video and be fully informed prior to voting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY

The proposed addition to the article would be an additional section at the bottom, stating that Richard Heene disputes the case, making allegations of misconduct, and the video provides some scenes alleged to be taken from the case itself.

Include the video

R0tekatze (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Do not include the video

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2019

The Truth Speaker 2 (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that Richard Heene is not guilty and it is not a hoax. There is a YouTube Channel called Internet Historian who made a video about it. Please review it and respond.

If there is a specific change you want to make, please state it clearly, along with a citation to a reliable source. RudolfRed (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

i.e. The Truth Speaker 2, anyone can upload anything to Youtube, so it is not a reliable source. Look for media articles from well known outlets — IVORK _Talk 23:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. You have not watched the video. Please respond when you have done that action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Truth Speaker 2 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC) The video is full of video evidence of the interrogation of the wife, and richard, as well as the written reports from officers. there are SIGNIFICANT differences between the videos and written statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.202.6 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2019

NOT A HOAX Please, at anyone who will edit this: Watch this video or research it on your own, this incident was NOT a hoax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY 2003:DB:E3C0:4E00:4958:80C7:1A6A:7712 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the video is self-published (meaning it's not a reliable source), we can't base our article on it even though it's quite good and makes convincing arguments. Are there really no reliable sources who have made this argument? – Thjarkur (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources who have made this argument because this new evidence emerged very recently and most outlets considered "reliable sources" have no incentive to bring this to light because this wasn't front page national news. This is why I believe that we should use our discretion and change the title from "hoax" to "incident". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.145.162 (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I reached out to Richard Heene personally via email because I feel bad for him and this article is extremely defamatory and one-sided. He has maintained his innocence from day 1 and lot of new evidence has emerged that he was heavily coerced and threatened by the police into his guilty plea. I explained to him that even though this evidence exists, it can not be used as citations as they would be considered original research. We discussed possibly trying to forward the evidence to various journalists in hopes that someone would pick it up. Long story short, everyone either ignored it or refused to cover it. I understand that original research is strongly frowned upon, but it isn't 100% banned. Could we possibly add a couple sentences as an addendum and let the "original research" rule slide just for this small thing without making any drastic changes to the overall article? Or possibly allow a *really* small local journalist near Fort Collins who covers it to be used as a citation without deleting it over the "WP:FRINGE" policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.145.162 (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Request of rename and review.

First of all wikipedia shouldn't rely too much on news. Youtube video that has been requested to be review by other wikipedians relied their sources on actuall recording of the accident and the official statement of Mayumi interview. Secondly simply request of rename to Baloon boy Accident. I wish my word are taken in consideration. Firman.Nst (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for more specific date of domestic violence investigation

Under "Background" section, "A domestic violence investigation was launched at the Heenes' home in March..." should be changed to "A domestic violence investigation was launched at the Heenes' home in March 2009..." per Denver Post article dated October 18, 2009--Tobinsj (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of edit regarding measurement

Hi there! Recently, one of my edits to this page was reversed. However, I believe this action was performed in error. The source I cited was reliable under Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, as it originates with the creator of the topic of the article, and the material itself was published in a manner that satisfies Wikipedia's defination of "published". I think the editor might've been confused by the video the content was contained in, which itself is a piece of journalism. However, the specific timestamp I provided with the citation was in fact a short clip by the perpetrator of the hoax himself, Richard Heene, showing visible proof that a miscalculation occured on behalf of the authorities involved with the case, unaffected by the opinion of the creator of the video. Even if the information is inaccurate, I believe it should still be present in the article, as it provides a separate viewpoint of the situation. (I believe that in the language of my original edit, I left the factual nature of the information ambiguous.) If this source is still unreliable, I'd appreciate a slightly more in-depth explanation of my error, so I can avoid making this mistake in the future. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steets (talk • contribs) 13:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

I have just added 2 maintenance tags to this article. Seeing the rest of this talk page, it may be obvious why. A YouTube video was uploaded which changes how some of this should be picked up. While YouTube is not normally a source we should cite, we are talking about a BLP right now. These people are severely impacted by this page. I believe it would help this page's health to interweave this video into it, as it places some indisputable claims. ShindoNana ^talk? 01:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Just moved the page and made a very bare-bones draft of the additions. Will need to be reworked further, but it's 3AM here. Please discuss here before reverting back and forth. ShindoNana ^talk? 01:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There's been previous discussion about the YouTube video. – The Grid (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request - Jan 13th 2020

This request has been made before, although not well.

The video providing new evidence disputing the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY

I suggest renaming the article "Balloon Boy Incident" to reflect the disputed nature of the event. Furthermore, I then propose adding an additional section at the bottom of the article that describes the allegations of fabricated evidence, police misconduct, and misrepresented claims. Specifically:

   - Child Heene's statement that he was confused about the context of the original question alleged to suggest the hoax
   - Richard Heene's statements as to the following:
       - Being advised indirectly to plead guilty
       - Being lured under false pretences to attend a police interview
       - Being subjected to a polygraph test under duress, and the effects of sleep deprivation & high blood glucose level
   - The documented interrogation of Child Heene allegedly illegally
   - The interrogation of Wife Heene without a translator present
   - The allegation of further harrassment following Richard Heene's incarceration inside the sheriff's station

The additional information is, in my opinion, highly relevant to the event as it further expands the article, as well as providing an entirely new contextual viewpoint. Moreover, to not add the additional information might demonstrate potential bias on Wikipedia's part. Since it is in the interest of Wikipedia to appear entirely unbiased and merely present all available information, this addition should not go ignored.

R0tekatze (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)