Talk:Balloon boy hoax

Article titling: "hoax" or "incident"

Calling it a hoax seems premature, however true that might ultimately turn out to be, given that the sheriff's department just made the accusation, what, today? There are serious BLP concerns in claiming this was objectively a hoax until that has been admitted to or tried in court, because that claim brings with it the accusation against the parents of dishonesty, exploitation of their child, and intentional criminal misconduct. The hoax accusations can of course be documented with proper attribution to the accusers, but the article itself should be moved back to Colorado balloon incident until its status as a hoax gets resolved. Postdlf (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, leave at Colorado balloon incident. –xeno^talk 19:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree also. I personally believe that it was a hoax, but this has not been confirmed via a confession or conviction. —David Levy 20:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that there are legal implications, it's not officially a hoax until, or if, the courts say it is. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be best to call it "Colorado alleged balloon hoax" and then change it to "Colorado balloon hoax" once Richard Heene is convicted ? All the news stories coming out paint a pretty damning picture of him. Just a suggestion. --Tovojolo (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Or you could invoke the Common Names rule and call it "Balloon boy incident", and then it's covered either way. In fact, no one coming to wikipedia is likely to look for it under "Colorado"-anything. "Balloon boy", they might look for. Or the kid's name, which is already a redirect. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Titling it an "incident" does not mean it wasn't also a hoax. A hoax is a type of incident. It can be left as incident, even after it eventually may be determined to also be a hoax, prank, crime, whatever, perhaps adding 2009 to the title: 2009 Colorado balloon incident As for "balloon boy incident", that further confuses the issue and adds vagueness to it, since there have been many different incidents with boys and balloons throughout history. --Crunch (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus making it even harder to find? Are we expecting other Colorado balloon incidents in other years? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize you all wish to not call it a hoax until it has been ruled one in a court, but I just wanted to point this out for fyi Colorado Authorities: 'Balloon Boy' Flight 'Was a Stunt'. I have no intention to change your mind, just wanted to leave this source somewhere relevant and this seems like the best place.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Until or if the family admits this overtly, or is convicted, it's just an accusation. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 22:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree to changing name to include the word "hoax" (once this is verified) CapnZapp (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a hoax, but I think for the time being we should keep the existing name. In a few days it will be clear what the media are calling it, and we should call it by that name. If the media hasn't coalesced around a name within a few days, then wait longer until they do. Who knows, they may settle on a completely different name, like "The Reality TV balloon hoax" or something. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a hoax. I think most people recognize that. That is not the point. Until the exact key salient nature of the incident is determined, let's keep the title broad. This may be hoax, or crime, or something that we don't know yet. At a later time, if necessary, it can be changed to a more specific title. No one seems to be having any trouble finding the article with its current title. --Crunch (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

another redirect might be helpful, since MSNBC article said: the Larimer County Sheriff’s Department is close to charging Richard and wife Mayumi Heene in what is being billed as the “Great Balloon Hoax.” 199.214.17.91 (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It is not a matter of legality or illegality that defines it as a hoax. It is SOURCING. It is a hoax, it has been completely sourced as such. Come back when they declare it wasn't a hoax, and those comments are sourced, and you need to change the title from Hoax to Incident again. 203.171.199.85 (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

We do not have a source that it is a hoax. We have a source that the authorities said teh wife said it's a hoax. Every legitimate news source is reporting it that way: that there is an affidavit with the wife's statement. TJRC (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Internet is capitalized

Someone made this edit to undo capitalization of Internet. I am unable to undo due to article protection (not confirmed yet), unless the heading refers to attention among several internets and not "THE Internet," it should be capitalized. See Internet_capitalization_conventions.Danthe4th (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Internet in this context is an adjective, not a noun - trying to think of another Proper Noun that also is used as an adjective... Regardless, in the title 'attention' is the noun, 'media' and 'internet' are adjectives, and so internet should NOT be capatalised (pretty sure, not certain)--Jaymax (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case it would be like saying, "CNN and Microsoft reaction." They're used as descriptors, but it's not a new form of the word to make an adjective. It's just a proper noun used as a modifier, but in a way not a true adjective. Or if you will, it's used as a possessive. It could be stated as "Media's and Internet's reaction," or "Reaction of the media and of the Internet," without changing the meaning. I think in this case it retains proper noun status.Danthe4th (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And I just realized I said reaction instead of attention through all of that. The logic is the same, but the examples would be clumsier.Danthe4th (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think (I don't know) that your examples all fail gramatically. "CNN and Microsoft reaction" is not good english, it'd have to be "CNN's and Microsoft's reaction" - why? because they're strictly nouns, not adjectives. Likewise "The Media's and the Internet's reaction" (or attention).

The heading should either be "Attenton in the Media and on the Internet", or "Media and internet attention"

However, I have a solution that should keep everyone happy... How about "Internet and media attention" :-) --Jaymax (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the order that would be fine. But I maintain that Internet is capitalized whenever talking about the Internet, rather than smaller internets. I think my examples do hold up - not in sentences maybe - because headlines don't really need to follow rules of grammar. But to make the point, change the noun in my example to employees. If you're talking about Microsoft employees, Microsoft is, by the criteria you use for Internet, an adjective modifying 'employees.' In this case, Microsoft still requires capitalization. I would actually contend that Internet is still used as a noun here, though it's disguised due to headline grammar. Whatever part of speech, it's still a proper name.Danthe4th (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - not sure I agree that internet here isn't an adjective, but I see your point re eg employees. I reversed the title regardless to avoid prolonged or repeating debate.--Jaymax (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Thomas

The paragraph about this man is unduly cited to an unreliable WP:SELFPUB. I'm not trying to say that Gawker.com can't be used as a "note" (I believe this would be a defensible position, but I'm not arguing it at the moment). However, the first two sentences (a good half) of the paragraph are attributed to that source, rather than to the reliable BBC. If the Gawker source is to be used as a note, it ought to be cited as such; at the moment, it is placed so that the first half of the paragraph appears to hang on it with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Perhaps the solution is as simple as rearranging the citations (so long as they remain faithfully and fairly represented); but regardless, improperly sourced BLP statements can and should be immediately removed until and unless the problem, however technically small it may be, is resolved. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed down that paragraph, only using Gawker to cite that Thomas had sold the story to them. The second half of that two-sentence paragraph is cired to the BBC. Hopefully that clears up the potential BLP vio. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, IMO. Thanks! Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit is not an improvement at all, but adds false and outdated information. There is no indication Thomas planned this event and authorities have already interviewed him. Is there anyone here who actually reads the source material before deleting and adding content? The information that was removed was poorly written by the editor who originally added it, but was far more accurate than what replaced it. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a closer look. Here's the original material (I don't know who wrote it), warts and all:

A man named Robert Thomas who worked previously with Heene on developing a proposal for a television series sold a story to Gawker.com telling of blind ambition on Heene's part and how the two had been planning a publicity stunt involving a UFO shaped weather balloon. The story includes emails between Thomas and Heene which point to the credibility of a hoax. Alderden mentioned "you've probably seen some of the e-mails and some of the things on the internet suggesting that there may be other conspirators" in reference to the story. Investigators have expressed a desire to interview Thomas.>

Here's the current version as of 06:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC):

A man named Robert Thomas sold a story to Gawker.com alleging that he had helped plan the incident. Investigators have expressed a desire to interview Thomas. According to Thomas, Heene was a fan of David Icke who was motivated by fears stemming from the 2012 phenomenon to raise money to build a bunker as a survivalist strategy for 2012. In 2008, Heene had participated in a six-part series on YouTube titled "2012 - The Best Evidence - by The Psyience Detectives."

Now, one thing at a time. First of all, active editors should be keenly aware of the changing nature of this investigation, and always pay attention to the currency of the sources. The current article says that "Investigators have expressed a desire to interview Thomas" which is properly sourced to the BBC. However, this source is dated 19 Oct. and on 20 Oct. it was reported that investigators had interviewed Thomas.[1][2] Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the text should not be inaccurate. If it is more accurate to say that A) Thomas has been interviewed than that B) investigators would like to interview him, then A is obviously preferable to B. Admittedly, I have not looked into the accuracy of A vs. B (it's a fair distance beside my point), but I'll take your word for it. The point is, now, that the bulk of the paragraph (it used to be around half, now it's the entire third and fourth sentences) is sourced to an unreliable WP:SELFPUB that makes claims about a third party. If one actually reads WP:SELFPUB (I'll take a peek at the refs if others will have a look at the policy), then one will realize that, Houston, we have a problem. The Gawker.com piece cannot be used as a stand-alone source, and any material derived solely from that source can be said to have undue weight. If Gawker is to be used as a "note", then it must be unambiguously used and cited as such--and even that's a pretty big stretch. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the information is not sourced to the Gawker site. If you had bothered to do the slightest bit of research on this subject as I've repeatedly asked you to do on your talk page (and you admit above that you still haven't done it) you would find this information everywhere, from the New York Times to Associated Press. I'm getting really frustrated by people who edit articles without understanding the material they are working with. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, on Thomas all sources cite Gawker, which is not a reliable source. However, in a sense the source is really Thomas, who wrote an article Gawker published. So the question is whether it's usable. This is complicated by the fact that Thomas' claims have been widely disseminated by the AP, Times and so forth. I'm not comfortable about using it but I'm not comfortable about ignoring it either.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Again, Thomas has been interviewed by the police, the media, and his attorney has released statements in the last 24 hours. Gawker has nothing to do with this and is not being used as a source. Does anyone do research around here? Viriditas (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Gawker most certainly is being used as a source. Go look for yourself, it is currently source 47. If we can get stronger ones in here, then by all means do so. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a note, not a source. Just because it is enclosed by a ref doesn't necessarily mean it's being used as a source. The actual source is the BBC [3] which says, "Investigators have said they want to question Robert Thomas, an associate of Mr Heene's in Denver, who provided the website Gawker.com with e-mail exchanges from several months ago in which he and Mr Heene talk about a possible balloon stunt to promote a proposed reality TV show." And as I've said many times, this is covered by most RS already, so there's no problem with the material. If you don't like the Gawker reference appearing there, simply move the note to the BBC ref and add "For the original Gawker article, see http..." This is a non-issue. Viriditas (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Indisputably reliable sources refer to the Gawker article as presenting an interview with Robert Thomas, making it a relevant and notable fact. The Gawker article is a reliable source for its own content, as long as it's not used as verification of the assertions contained within. "Thomas claimed in the article that he helped the Heenes plan the hoax" (good) versus "Thomas helped the Heenes plan the hoax" (not good). Postdlf (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous "when" needs rewrite

Article currently reads: " ... had reportedly climbed into the balloon when it became untethered and launched." The "when" confuses the sequence of events: one possible reading is that the act of climbing into the balloon happened at the time of ("when") the balloon become untethered and launched. A more accurate statement would be something like " ... reportedly climbed into the balloon, after which the balloon became untethered and launched." I'll leave this to someone else. Karl gregory jones (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Colorado balloon incident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I will review this article.

I'm concerned about the article's stability as required in WP:GACR. This article covers a recent event and is most likely going to have several major revisions in the future. That is my major concern and should be addressed; my other concerns will be listed below. --Edge3 (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please resolve the "citation needed" tags. --Edge3 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• "...the producer of Wife Swap said that a show involving the Heenes had been in development, but that the deal was now off" - When was the deal called off?--Edge3 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• I found this on flickr: [4]. This picture would be great in the article, but GACR doesn't require you to add it. --Edge3 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, that's pretty obviously a copyright violation and should not be added. All of the photographer's other photos are of Chicago. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• "it was reported that an object had detached from the balloon and fallen to the ground" - not supported by source --Edge3 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• "He also stated that, once "the high voltage timer" was switched on, the balloon "would emit one million volts every five minutes for one minute"[22] in order to "move left and right — horizontal" [23]" - Please check sourcing for this sentence; I don't thunk the information is properly cited. Also, please add a period at the end. --Edge3 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify - the CNN interview gives the timer and the minute long duration, the 911 call gives the purpose (horizontal motion) - cheers --Jaymax (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find the info anywhere in the CNN interview transcript. (the 911 call is fine) Could you please tell me where it is?--Edge3 (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

About 1/3rd way through: "Well, as we were inflating it, they were holding it to make sure, you know, it didn't get too windy. But after we had inflated it to a particular level, I went to go turn the high voltage timer on -- it's an egg timer. And it would -- it would emit one million volts every five minutes for one minute. But I thought -- I could have sworn he was standing right next to me. But I went to go pull the release lever..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Helium's lift capacity is equal to the difference between its density (0.1786 kg/m3 at STP) and that of air, about 1.0214 kg/m3 (1 ounce per cubic foot) at sea level at 32° Fahrenheit, 0° C..." - cite please --Edge3 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tidied up a bit - okay now? --Jaymax (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes--Edge3 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Fort Collins is at an elevation of about 5,000 feet" - Please cite. --Edge3 (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's from the wikilinked Fort Collins--Jaymax (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok--Edge3 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The "Search for Falcon Heene" can be renamed into a more general "Incident" section
• Try to keep the details more organized and in chronological order. For example:
  • "The balloon drifted for 60 miles (97 km), passing through Adams County and Weld County, and then it landed 90 minutes later near Keenesburg, 12 miles (19 km) northeast of Denver International Airport. Planes were rerouted around the balloon's flight path, and Denver International Airport was briefly shut down." - This can go to the Incident section mentioned above.
  • The entire paragraph beginning with "Larimer County sheriff's officials consulted a Colorado State University physics professor..." can go to the "Hoax allegations and criminal investigation" section--Edge3 (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Moved these. Is that 90 mins accurate? --Jaymax (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw it in one of the sources. --Edge3 (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 30 is only a link. Please add full citation. --Edge3 (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done--TParis00ap (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• "When the balloon finally landed, having been tracked by helicopters, the boy was not found inside the balloon. Officials expressed concern that he may have fallen out during flight. Although it was reported that it did not appear breached" - Not supported by source. --Edge3 (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• "but county sheriff Jim Alderden later said, "For all we know he may have been two blocks down the road playing on the swing in the city park." - Cite please. --Edge3 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• "Margie Martinez of the Weld County Sheriff's Office said that the door was unlocked in the balloon. A sheriff deputy reported seeing something fall from the balloon near Platteville, Colorado" - Not supported by source--Edge3 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• "The charges had not yet been released to the public. The sheriff confirmed that making a false report to authorities would result in Class 3 misdemeanor charges and expressed that this charge "hardly seems serious enough given the circumstances." - Not supported by source. --Edge3 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Refs 48 and 50 can be combined. --Edge3 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done--TParis00ap (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are simply too many sourcing issues with this article, and stability remains a huge concern. I am failing the article for now; feel free to nominate again when sourcing is cleaned up. --Edge3 (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Colorado balloon incident/GA1/Task List

Re: Move

Colorado balloon incident → The Colorado Balloon Hoax —

Colorado balloon incident → Colorado balloon hoax —

Colorado balloon incident → Ballon Boy hoax —

Suggest move to The Colorado Balloon Hoax --70.121.35.167 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a hoax until the courts say it is. --Edge3 (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No point. The sheriff called it a hoax, it's blatantly obvious. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a court of law. Only an encyclopedia that uses reliable sources. Let me refer you all to a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama about how to refer to Obama. Is he African American or is he Bi-racial? It was determined in that case that the article would rely on the sources who refer that him as AA. I hope that we will not practice a double standard here.Jojhutton (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the PDF on the report labeled it a Hoax/Stunt on the police report by the Sherriff's Office. So... incident? I think not; and thank you Jojhutton for repeating stuff we already know. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service either right? Contary to the fact that something called WikiNews exists. LOL! --70.121.35.167 (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's right, Wikipedia, a site for building an encyclopedia, is not a news service, notwithstanding the existence of a separate site called WikiNews, which is a news service. LOL, indeed, my anonymous friend. LOL, indeed. Postdlf (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What Postdlf said --Jaymax (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

SEE BELOW!! --70.121.35.167 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Background issues

During his time on the show, Heene expressed his belief that humanity descended from aliens, and spoke of launching home-made flying saucers into storms.[citation needed]

Looking into this, the first part is sourced to AP, but it only says, "The Heenes twice appeared on ABC's "Wife Swap," including a March episode in which they discuss their approach to parenting and talk about their belief that they're the descendants of aliens."[5] I'm not sure if this is important for this article or not, but the source is AP for that part. The second part is based on coverage of their official Wife Swap bio, which is found here. The part about launching saucers into storms is found on their ABC bio, and is covered in many places, including [6], [7], and [8], among others. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded to this or attempted to fix the problem, I'm going to attempt it at some point today/tonight. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Article title

I'm thinking that it should be called Balloon boy incident. A Google news search reveals that that Balloon boy incident is used 260 times, but "Colorado balloon incident" is used only 14 times. The general Google search is 120,000 : 5,180 or about 23 to one for "balloon boy incident". Abductive (reasoning) 08:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The title is definitely going to change, but I don't think it is a good idea to keep moving it around. Let's wait for the dust to settle and then decide on a title. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As a Google search will reveal, "Balloon boy hoax" has the most hits (1,710,000 regular, 1,714 News), followed by "Balloon boy incident" then "Colorado balloon hoax", and finally "Colorado balloon incident". It seems the dust has settled, and Wikipedia has chosen the worst choice of the four. Abductive (reasoning) 08:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. that's 122 to 1. Two orders of magnitude. Abductive (reasoning) 08:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Would suggest filing a formal WP:RM. –xeno^talk 12:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Balloon boy is the most common term for the subject. There's no need for a RM. Viriditas (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So just "Balloon boy", that's it? Not Balloon boy hoax, balloon boy incident? An RM would help determine how to sort out the BLP concern from the primary name concern. –xeno^talk 14:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue has not yet settled down, and I see no pressing need to sort out a BLP concern. It's too early. When the topic dies down and more information is released, the problem will solve itself. "Balloon Boy" is the most common term, so for now, it should probably read Balloon Boy incident or just Balloon Boy. The current name is somewhat distracting. The event was neither focused on Colorado or on the balloon, but on the boy that was supposed to be inside. Viriditas (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just "Balloon Boy" is misleading as the article is about the whole incident. I would say "Balloon boy incident" for now would be a good middle ground. –xeno^talk 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Balloon Boy incident" sounds really strange. I think there's enough information to simply call it "Balloon Boy", which does, after all, refer to Falcon Heene, the center of the dispute. I also don't think it was a coincidence that a boy named "Falcon" was chosen to be the Balloon Boy, allegedly hanging on for dear life at 8,000 feet in the air; This was scripted from the beginning. As a made-for-television event, this subject should get a proper title. That Wikipedia is still treating it as a real "incident" is highly amusing. Viriditas (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that when he was born his parents named him "Falcon" in anticipation of the balloon hoax they would perpetrate six years later? I don't think "Balloon Boy" is enough for a title. "Balloon boy incident" (note capitalization) would be OK. But as you can see, opinions differ - which is why I suggested a formal WP:RM. That you would rather write this article using your own personal opinion (and BLP concerns be damned) is highly alarming. –xeno^talk 17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that at all and there is nothing "alarming" in my comments. The authorities maintain that this "incident" was a hoax, and it is commonly referred to as "Balloon Boy". Saying it is an "incident" is redundant and unnecessary. As for the script, Robert Thomas maintains that some kind of early version of a "script" exists and the authorities are probably going to use that in court. I am unaware if it says anything about the name of their son but it is something a writer would make note of during character development. Considering that Mayumi Heene was previously involved in a film-editing business in Los Angeles and Richard Heene was writing his Science Detectives series on YouTube, and their entire family was involved in reality televesion production, it is not unlikely that they would be aware of this. When the media first reported that a young boy named Falcon was flying attached to the balloon, there was commentary on the ironic nature of the name, and it actually contributed to viewer interest. Viriditas (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the overall incident, not about Falcon Heene (who lacks notability outside of the incident's context). —David Levy 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The term "Balloon Boy" has become inclusive of the overall incident in popular usage. Following it with "incident" is redundant. The term, "Balloon Boy" describes the incident and the boy. Viriditas (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't advocate that the title Balloon Boy incident be used. The title Colorado balloon incident accurately reflects the subject's nature and the article's scope, with Balloon Boy (which I regard as too ambiguous and informal) functioning as a redirect. —David Levy 18:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is informal, which is why I haven't come out arguing against "Colorado balloon incident". It works for now. But, I think a decision needs to be made about what proposed titles might be acceptable and come into play depending on future evidence (and what evidence will be allowed to change the title). This approach has actually worked before. In other words, we have a requested move-like discussion, but leave it open-ended. It's not time to change the article title, but that time may come in the future, sooner or later, I can't say. Viriditas (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Issues of Apologists and Changing the Title

Colorado balloon incident → The Colorado Balloon Hoax — All arguments so far resting on the article being 'Colorado Balloon Incident' opposed to 'Colorado Balloon Hoax' are based on "legality of it being undetermined". That these people have somehow managed to claim the current title of 'Incident' during a locked article is a terrible problem. It is NOT required that Wikipedia find the legality or illegality of a hoax, even where it can be determined, as whether or not it can be determined (especially in the title) as a hoax. The only thing that is to determine it here is SOURCING. As it is very, very well sourced that this was a hoax, the entire incident in question being a hoax, and NO argument against such an inclusion current exists or is sourced at all...why exactly is the title not changed? Even consensus should be in favour, as seeing from user comments as well, of hoax, so why has this problem even occured let alone not been fixed yet? 203.171.199.85 (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

It is required that Wikipedia not open itself up to allegations of libel etc per WP:BLP - If (however improbable) a court eventually determines that this was nota hoax, then the Heens will be well within their rights to attempt to sue all those who have publically predetermined guilt for libel. There is no problem documenting where others have described this as a hoax (eg: the sheriff) but the policy prevents Wikipedia doing so - for good, largely consensus developed reasons. If the title is changed, it will immediatly be changed back, per policy. In the meantime, there is a redirect in place - so what's the big deal? It will be changed as soon as the allegation of a hoax has a sourced, legal foundation. I think it was a hoax, you think it was a hoax, the sheriff thinks it was a hoax, virtually everyone thinks it was a hoax - the courts might yet find otherwise.--Jaymax (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as wikipedia sticks to its own policy of just using the reliable sources to build the encyclopedia, then there should not be any problem with the title if it is changed to "Hoax". Again, just as long as the sources confirm it.Jojhutton (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP is WP:POLICY, whereas WP:RS isn't - it's a guideline that informs WP:V, which is policy, so if you can show, verifiably, that it WAS a hoax, the title can be changed. At the moment, all that can be verified, is that various folk have said it's a hoax. --Jaymax (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaymax, this incident is classified as a media hoax. We've been through a lot them before. The boy was never in the balloon and the balloon could never have carried the boy, and there is good evidence that the Heene family was trying to generate publicity for their reality television show. On Wikipedia we write articles about what "various folk have said", so there's nothing different here. "Various folk" have said it's a hoax because there is no other explanation. If you have one or know of a good explanation for the event other than a hoax, I would like to hear it. Viriditas (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

At least where accusations are made that carry criminal consequences, Wikipedia articles should do nothing more than report on what those accusations are until there is an admission or a conviction. Wikipedia articles should not treat those accusations as objective fact until there is such a resolution. This isn't a hard principle to understand, and nothing is lost by this restraint because as long as there is clear attribution, the accusations will get fully covered—as accusations—reported in reliable sources. Postdlf (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. BLP trumps RS. And there has been no admission by the family that it was a hoax. We have to assume that it's possible they thought their son was on board. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We are assuming something that nobody else is assuming? Why? The article needs to based on what reliable sources are assuming, not on what Wikipedia assumes. So, which source assumes that it was possible that the parents thought their son was on board when they made the 9-1-1 call from their home? Find me one. Viriditas (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody else is assuming? The parents have not admitted to carrying out a hoax. We can't call this a hoax because the media says so. This is not only a BLP issue, but one of fundamental fairness and neutrality. "Hoax" means the parents are guilty of crimes. Until that point is reached, or until they are found guilty, we simply have to go with "incident" or some other nonjudgmental term. Don't forget that this article is linked on Google News every single time someone clicks there. We have an obligation to be fair. It is simply wrong to prejudge them, to prejudice the legal case and participate in the media circus that has already convicted them. Just because the media judged Sam Sheppard to be guilty didn't make it a fact, and it turns out he was innocent.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The authorities are calling it a hoax, not the media. The media has reported what the authorities said. We generally don't name articles after what the participants admit or don't admit or what the media thinks. In any case, my question stands. What explanation is there other than a hoax? The first people who were alerted to the incident were the media, not emergency services. During the 9-1-1 call, we hear the mother say her son is in a flying saucer and we hear the father say that the balloon was powered by a million volts. And throughout this call, their "missing" son is in the attic of their home, not in the balloon. Later, we find out that both parents are actors and have been trying to promote their reality television show, and that prior to the event Heene created plans for a media hoax and Robert Thomas published the evidence and was interviewed by authorities. Add to this the fact that the balloon could not have launched with his son inside. Now, what evidence do we have pointing to this as something other than a hoax? I'm asking an honest question. If you have sources pointing to this as anything but a hoax, please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're completely missing (or avoiding) the point. Please re-read my above last statement, because that's where the issue begins and ends. It isn't about whether we can prove alternate hypothesis (but for that, I'm sure we'll hear a defense if/when this goes to trial). I'm not interested in conjecturing, and no one is interested in how certain you are on this matter. Really, this is not a debatable principle, even notwithstanding the fact that you are the sole advocate of your position. Please drop it, because you're not persuading anyone else by repeating yourself ad nauseum, and the underlying policy is not up for debate. Postdlf (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this article about a hoax or about something else? Viriditas (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about an incident that some have alleged is a hoax. Postdlf (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. I'm really surprised we're having a conversation about something so cut and dried. All reliable sources likewise are reporting it that way. Here is a recent New York Times article.[9]. Note that it is referred to as a balloon "case" and not a balloon "hoax." Really, I just don't get the refusal to recognize that the hoax is an accusation, and that we report accusations as accusations.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an old article from the 19th, hardly recent given the changes in this case. The authorities allege that it is a hoax and the media has reported these allegations. My question concerns a comment made by User:Baseball Bugs who says that "we have to assume that it's possible they thought their son was on board". Has this possibility been covered by any RS on the subject? I would like to write about this subject from the Heene's perspective. Where can I find sources on the subject? Viriditas (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Has a reliable source determined whether they were lying when they said they thought their son was on board? That's the same issue you've been arguing about, just phrased another way. They haven't changed their story from the beginning; many sources (including this article) report what they said at the time. Postdlf (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found anything about their "story", but I'm still looking. I don't think you rephrased my question at all. Several days ago, the Heenes were going to make a major announcement at a news conference, but that was canceled and they were represented by legal counsel soon after. As for whether they were lying, the 9-1-1 transcripts were published. In them, the mother says her son was taken away in a flying saucer and the father says that the balloon "emits a million volts on the outer skin". Are either of these things true? Viriditas (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to keep it short and sweet: Wikipedia's BLP rules prohibit calling this a hoax because it means they have likely committed a criminal act, and we have no business saying such a thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the policies. But, unlike others, I don't hide behind them. Any chance you can answer my questions above? I'm trying to expand and improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not hiding behind policy, I'm obeying it, and you have to also. There has been no legal determination that a crime has been committed (the alleged hoax), therefore wikipedia cannot call it a hoax, no matter what any source calls it. What part of that do you not understand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're avoiding my questions above about content and hiding behind policy concerning legal terms. I will assume that you are doing this because you don't know enough about the topic. FYI... we do call it a hoax, and it is called a hoax in the current article. This is because some RS represent that POV. Now, to repeat my question above, which RS describe the alternative Heene explanation? I'm asking because I would like to add it. Viriditas (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(restoring indent, and it's about time!) Viriditas, nobody is "hiding behind" policies, and that is a really shocking way of referring to editors who are not only trying to observe policies, but also trying to be fair to people who have not even been accused of a crime just yet. The Times article from the 19th is two days old. So what? Do you seriously think that the Times would say, "a hoax has been committed." That's an accusation of a crime at a time when criminal charges are likely. As for your question, it is not our job to determine the facts, or to ascertain if the parents are lying. The charges against the parents are just that, charges, no matter what our personal beliefs may be. You can rest assured that my personal beliefs on this are probably the same as yours.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely what Robert Mackey wrote an hour ago in "The Lede" on the New York Times News Blog.[10] He did not accuse anyone of a committing a crime when he said "the Heene family balloon drama was exposed as a hoax" or when he described the event as the "Heene family’s stunt". But, I've never used "The Lede" as a source. In any case, my personal beliefs have little to nothing to do with this or any other discussion. I've asked several questions about the content above that have not been answered. I would like to represent the Heene perspective in the article. Can you find sources for it? Viriditas (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP TRUMPS RS. What part of that do you not understand??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How does that address my question about representing the Heene perspective in this article? Viriditas (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Heenes' statements regarding the incident are covered. You seem to be referring to responses to specific assertions that no one claims the Heenes have publicly addressed or refuted (which they're under no obligation to do). —David Levy 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Have the Heenes responded to the accusation of a hoax? I'm assuming they have, but I haven't found a source or transcript that goes into this in any detail. I did find one where the father said, "No, it's not a hoax" but that's it. Viriditas (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Heenes are obligated to publicly respond to accusations (and that their failure to do so is tantamount to concession of guilt)? —David Levy 19:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind and I'm not the slightest bit interested in playing legal word games with you, so give it a rest. I'm here to see a well-written, well-rounded article develop here. That means covering all relevant and important aspects of the story, including the polygraph they recently took (not admissible as evidence so don't try going there, this is an encyclopedia article not a court of law) the results which may be released next week. It also means covering their response to the allegations. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a sincere question, not gameplay. A simple "no, you misunderstood my point" response would have sufficed. —David Levy 00:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Until you understand that it's inappropriate for us to base our editorial content on self-formulated conclusions (no matter how logical and accurate), no response is going to satisfy you. Based upon the available information, I believe that the Heenes perpetrated a hoax, but we mustn't state this as a fact in our article. Our role is to document that numerous persons have arrived at such a conclusion, not to weigh evidence or pass judgement (including the judgement that the aforementioned sources are qualified to definitively establish guilt, effectively bypassing a court of law). —David Levy 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what is appropriate here, and I haven't received any responses to my questions about content. You may continue to discuss policy all you like, but my questions concern content. I know what our role is and how to fulfill it. Viriditas (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you truly don't appear to understand Wikipedia's role. —David Levy 18:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. I truly do understand Wikipedia's role, but you've avoided my questions about content above and turned them into a discussion about me. To recap and get back on track (the purpose of this talk page is to discuss how to improve the article) Baseball Bugs said above, we have to assume that it's possible they thought their son was on board. Now, I would like to add that POV to this article. I've asked for sources. Does anyone know where to find them? Viriditas (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Heenes have publicly maintained that they believed that Falcon was on board the balloon. What are you asking for? Independent agreement that such a belief could have been reasonable (as though it's inconceivable that someone could sincerely hold an unreasonable belief)? We certainly know that the authorities believed the claim for some time. —David Levy 19:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That section is poorly written, and I'm in the process of addressing it below in "Family POV". Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any question that has to do with "representing the Heene perspective", nor do I understand what you're driving at. You CANNOT say "it's a hoax". PERIOD. That's a BLP violation, and BLP trumps RS. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's got everything to do with it. See my reply above. You said we should assume the Heene's perspective is valid. Does the current article represent their POV, or does it favor the hoax allegations? Viriditas (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I was about to say the same thing. We're involved in a discussion of how this can't be called a hoax, and now you're shifting gears.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Read up a bit. I've been talking about this for some time and I've been replying to Baseball Bugs "shifting of gears", if you want to call it that. Viriditas (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Posting Comment - Guys! Hello??? I already started a discussion above to suggest moving this article to The Colorado Balloon Hoax as I stated above a couple of days ago. I don't think some of you are actually reading the sources, not just the news report, but the police report filed by the Sherriff's Office that labeled it in the second paragraph as a Stunt/Hoax - It doesn't matter if the court will rule it a hoax or not becuase that legal document is going to be used when they go to court anyways. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't call it a hoax until (or if) it is so proven in a court of law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter Baseball, reviewing the discussion here, it seems there is agreement to change the article. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There absolutely is not. Baseball Bugs is correct. This is not Iran. Our police don't adjudge people guilty. Our courts do.JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people are trolling this issue. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the title should be changed to Hoax --70.121.35.167 (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Open a vote on it becuase this issue is talking up half of the discussion page. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Xeno above - if you want to formalise the proposal to move the page to 'Hoax', then there is a process for handling the debate over at WP:RM (which I dodn't previously know about). Someone who thinks they can make a solid case should file it over there, and then we can all have our say in a (more) controlled manner.--Jaymax (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RM is not much different than what we are doing now except there would be a tag at the top of this discussion. It would still be conducted on this page exactly the same way.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The mother has now admitted the whole thing was a hoax, so I support a move to something with "hoax" in the name. As for those trying to use a legal argument, the only question is if they will be found guilty of any crimes, you can commit a hoax without being guilty of any crime (like those guys a few years ago who produced the "corpse" of bigfoot in a freezer). TJ Spyke 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Per above, The Colorado Balloon Hoax - a proper name, will be moved to this page anyway a few months from now. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Family POV

The family said that they first became aware Falcon Heene was missing when, immediatly after the balloon had taken off, Falcon's brother said that he had seen the six year old climb into the basket of the balloon beforehand.

This needs to be moved to the second paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? --70.121.35.167 (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's very confusing as it is written. This should precede the second paragraph, where the family starts making calls to track the balloon. Instead, it is followed by a description of the event that already occurred, in flashback style. Viriditas (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we'd better open a vote on it. Thanks. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not confusing at all. As written, it says in the second line of the article that the family thought the kid was on the balloon. It is not necessary to go into so much detail in the lead section.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, but I'm not talking about the lead section. I'm talking about the "Incident" section which is poorly written, out of order chronologically, and very confusing. Viriditas (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You said "second paragraph." I still don't think the current version is confusing. The incident section is crystal-clear.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The text I quoted appears in the first paragraph of the "Incident" section and should appear directly before the second paragraph in that section. Currently, it starts from the moment the parents realized Falcon was missing, but then skips back in time to previous events, and then skips forward over the first event and to the call for help. There is nothing "crystal-clear" about this. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing remotely confusing was "previous day." I changed that to "ill-fated." I just don't see a problem otherwise, but maybe others do. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnny, read clearly next time. Vir said the paragraph needed to be put in the second paragraph as oppose to it being in the first paragraph. Lord. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Which I agree to becuase it jumps forth and back to what was said prior. Anyways, Vir, feel free to edit it correctly and state the reason in the edit summary, I'm sure it won't be a big bother. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

He didn't specify which section, and I still don't see anything wrong with "Incident." If he wants to edit for clarity and doesn't make it worse, then I don't see the problem, however.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the point. I think when I juggled stuff out of 'background' I was thinking of Falcon being aledged to be thought missing as the starting point for the incident, but it would be quite reasonable to start with the balloon launch. The retrospective nature of the video does make the tenses and parsing quite tricky/clumsy. --Jaymax (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still confusing. When I copy edit, I try to read an article with beginner's mind. This means pretending I've never read it before and know nothing about the topic. If it is read in this way, the paragraph is very difficult to follow. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, because the talk page is getting a bit long (~163KiB) I've added automatic archiving with a time of ~3.5 days (88 hours). As this remains a fairly active article it's unlikely any discussion which hasn't been addressed since then remains an active issue. As it dies down, it will probably be wise to increase the archiving timing. I haven't really look at the talk page so if it doesn't cut it down enough when the bot starts archiving I would suggest reducing the time further. Nil Einne (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Confession

I haven't changed the title of the page yet because of all the discussion, but the mother confessed. The father still insists it was not a hoax and denies the allegations.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, the story says that law enforcement alleged in an affidavit that the mother confessed to investigators that they knew all along that the boy was hiding.

This might seem unnecessarily pedantic to a lot of people, but a mere allegation of a confession is not legally conclusive of guilt or conviction. Even a confession alleged is still just an allegation of a confession. And we're just talking about a supporting affidavit for a search warrant application; there hasn't even been an indictment yet.

Legal proceedings don't get resolved overnight. This story requires some patience to develop, and we shouldn't jump at every new story as if it confirms everything. Postdlf (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. I am rather new to BLP so I guess lesson learned.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(CNN) -- The wife of a Colorado father at the center of the "balloon boy" saga told authorities that the giant helium balloon was specifically created for a hoax to draw media attention, according to court documents released Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/23/colorado.balloon.investigation/index.html

67.187.236.0 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not overly used to working within BLP issues, but multiple WP:RS describing a sworn affidavit by the police, filed with the court, stating the mother admitted that te story was fabricated, and knowing Falcon was at home, seems to me to more than fulfill WP:BLP requirements. So I'm changing my stance - I think it's now time to change the title following a verifyable admission of it being a hoax by one of the parents.--Jaymax (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the hurry? Why not report the facts that we know and can verify, and leave off calling it a hoax (which is accusing the father of a crime) until there's a finding? BLP aside, what's wrong with being prudent and limiting the article content to what's known? TJRC (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a hoax.

DENVER (Reuters) - The mother of a Colorado boy thought to be aboard a homemade helium balloon has admitted to investigators the whole thing was a hoax, according to a court document made public on Friday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59M5J720091023 67.187.236.0 (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we understand: the authorities say the mother said it's a hoax. Everyone acknowledges that. Do you have anything new to add? TJRC (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a suggestion I made days ago to move the title to Hoax instead of incident. The mother admitted it so there for, it should be changed to Hoax. There's something new to add there. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of warrant

Is a copy of the search warrant of any value?

http://www.mynocodata.com/special_reports/heene2009.pdf 67.187.236.0 (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The search warrant and its supporting documents are the "court documents" the stories are referring to. Search warrants contain allegations by law enforcement that there is probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found at a given location. Allegations.

As for whether the search warrant should be quoted directly in the article, that's a different issue. As long as its allegations are attributed as such and are weighed properly, I don't necessarily see a problem. Postdlf (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I request that the affidavit not be used because it contains personally identifiable information (their address is on the last page).--TParis00ap (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. Stan Simmons (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NOTCENSORED, which is about potentially objectionable or offensive content, applies here. It's more a matter of WP:HARM. Still, I think we're aren't going over the line to include it. TJRC (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the warrant being linked to as an external link. It's on-point, it's relatively easily available anyway. I'm not concerned with the address being it it although, all things being equal, if a redacted version were online, I'd prefer linking to that. TJRC (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well my concern here is that several times throughout the affidavit an effort was made to hide their address. It looks like a mistake was made in not completely hiding it on the last page and I am concerned that the Heenes might file civil cases against the news organizations and maybe us. The one and only time I asked for a record of a crime from the cops (neighboors blew up fire crackers in their apartment), the cops had to black out all personally identifiable information before they could give it to me. I am not a legal expert, but I think we should avoid using it.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Balloon Saga

Might wanna add as redirect? 75.107.162.133 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Balloon-Hoax

This was added as a see also. I've removed it per WP:SEEALSO. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Move – RS and IAR vs. BLP concerns

I have only skimmed above (and have not the time at the moment to read it all the discussion) but why not rename Balloon boy hoax? It appears politically correct "legal" concerns (as if WP is going to influence a court of law in this instance) are hurting the quality of the encyclopedia, and frustrating potential contributors. If so many RS are calling it a hoax (they have the journalistic standards not us) then we shouldn't let BLP stop us from renaming. It appears time to ignore all rules. – Pecoc (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reread WP:BLP and let me know where it says that reliable sources should not be used in favor of only postitive information.Jojhutton (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how WP:IAR would not apply in this case, because concerning BLP, how would renaming not "adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States"? – Pecoc (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What reliable sources are conclusively and objectively describing it as a hoax, rather than just reporting on the allegations law enforcement is making? Postdlf (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Then this makes me think renaming to Balloon boy 'hoax' would satisfy concerns and improve the quality of the article. – Pecoc (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't put "quote marks" in article titles. JamieS93 19:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see we generally "Avoid accent-/quote-like characters" but why not ignore this to improve the quality of the encyclopedia as a temporary measure? – Pecoc (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

How exactly would that improve the quality of the encyclopedia? Postdlf (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't. The article title is just fine the way it is. No reliable source is declaring "it's a hoax". They are saying "authories say such-and-such", which is what wikipedia is doing, and should be doing. There is no "IAR" justification here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to apply WP:ILIKEIT for Balloon boy hoax? I am kidding of course.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs says that the title is "Just fine the way it is", so I guess that settles it. Perhaps he meant to say that "he thinks" its fine the way it is, rather than just affirming it with a statement of fact.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's all just calm down and have cookie:

TParis00ap has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--TParis00ap (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. You all definitely need to calm down. Why don't you put your efforts into something more productive like promoting this to GA status? I already provided a list of things to do on /GA1. --Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

While it seems odd to me that this article would approach GA so quickly, it would also help to demonstate that current event articles are NO BAD THING and can indeed be encyclopaedic. I'm a bit dissapointed that many editors have not got stuck in sorting out the issues identified in the GA review. Also, I'm on a diet. --Jaymax (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I could make some low-fat cookies. The problem with fixing some of the GA issues is that because of the type of tabloid journalism, some of the sources that supported the material at the time has been changed and no longer supports it. I fixed a couple citation issues that were simple to fix. I plan to take on Edge's comments as a project when I find the time.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Google news searches spit out more results for Balloon boy 'hoax' than Colorado balloon incident, so I think aligning it with journalist speak (RS) is an improvement. – Pecoc (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue

Does this incident really deserve a page?Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What kind of question is that? Obviously. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily "obviously", but it was discussed and decided in the affirmative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, obvious in the sense that the Heene family wanted this all along anyways, so why would not having one be considored? --70.121.35.167 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The AfD was no consensus. I think we're giving it a few more weeks/months to pan out a little more and become stable before having another AfD.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the Heene family wanted this article in wikipedia. That was their top priority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you must of not watching the news lately. Anything to do with their name being said and they're all over it. They are, in the sense of the word, attention whores --70.121.35.167 (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So's Madonna, and she gets an article - no, seriously - whether they WANT or DO NOT WANT a Wiki article, should carry no weight (NIL, ZADA, ZLICH, ZERO, NADA, NUFFINK) here - Their desires carry no weight, if they GET attention, it is not for Wikipedia to evaluate whether they deserved it, or manufactured it. --Jaymax (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We have a million and one school bands, people, love relations, companies and an infinite amount of other topics that want to have an article about themselves, and we don't give them those. At the same time we have an article about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - im fairly certain the both of them would have preferred not having one.

What counts here is the notability of the event. On the first side we have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE arguing that this subject is only a new media circus where the media are giving to much attention to a relatively unimportant subject. On the other side man could argue that the extensive amount of news coverage is exactly the reason that made this more or less notable, if only because this may end up as a comparison for other hoaxes (Regardless of guilt, it could be used). It is exceedingly difficult to judge the impact of this story already - it might just sink away quickly, or become a meme. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(Geeze that is a lot of indents) Well WP:NOTNEWS doesn't neccessarily apply. The coverage was certainly not routine. And as far as the question of "Who will care in 100 years?", new medical research suggests that our generation will live 100+, so in 100 years, Falcon Heene is going to logon to Wikipedia and point to this article and say to his grandkids "See, it was awesome!" (I'm kidding).--TParis00ap (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In a few months if everyone forgets about it it will be taken off, If everyone is still talking about it, it deserves to be in a encyclopedia, or heck, wikipedia!

Mayumi Heene says it was a Hoax

The mother of Falcon Heene Said they knew Falcon was in the residence the whole time, and they had been planning this as a publicity stunt for aproximately three weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.122.117 (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)