Jump to content

Talk:Balloon boy hoax

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Balloon boy scandal)
Former good article nomineeBalloon boy hoax was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 18, 2009Articles for deletionNo consensus
October 18, 2009Deletion reviewEndorsed
October 23, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
July 31, 2011Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
Current status: Former good article nominee

“Hoax”

[edit]

Backread some of the previous topics. That really does seem like bias, especially after the Heenes were officially pardoned, and there’s clear evidence of police lying on transcripts, illegally questioning children, etc. 2600:6C5E:447F:AEC2:50B9:3795:D697:FE2E (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pardoned" means the crime still happened according to official record but they waived the consequence. It doesn't mean innocence. Nothing was overturned. 174.246.129.87 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that is not true; that is "commutation".
"pardon" wipes the actual crime as well. 2601:19C:527F:A660:1C7B:D57F:1D8B:C1CD (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of neutrality in Wikipedia

[edit]

I read through the many arguments, debates, and requests on this topic and acknowledge both sides. I understand that Wikipedia should follow verified sources, and news is one. However, at the same time, many people see Wikipedia as a neutral and objective website and a foundation for their own opinions. News sources are verified, but that does not mean they are objective. They will use more powerful imagery for views at the time, and the strong word "hoax" is one.

Wikipedia does not shy away from euphemisms, and on whatever side you are on, I think you can agree that "incident" is a neutral word that still means the same thing. Wikipedia can present the sources inside the article, show the media's explanation, and the user can make their own opinion on whether he is guilty or not.

Yes, people should bother news instead, but search for balloon boy on any search engine. The first link that shows up is Wikipedia, it will display Wikipedia on the side, and most search engines trust Wikipedia as a neutral source to display to the user. Wikipedia is important, the start of any understanding of this subject, not the news. And the first step to anyone's research would be a giant title saying "Hoax."

I'm not arguing we should use Wikipedia as the start of some movement, absolutely not. I am not arguing that the title should be "Misunderstanding" - I'm saying that it should be a neutral word between both sides. "Incident". Or a common suggestion - drop it and have "Balloon Boy." It is already unique enough, and from there, the user can make their own decision.

This will probably be ignored/deleted or something, but I just want to get my opinion out. I've never seen Wikipedia as just a regurgitation of what the news says, especially with how news is now trending towards a path of less reliability for more views. With that, I'm scared some event will happen, the news writes a wrong story on it, and Wikipedia is forced to forever stick to its story. 99.7.231.127 (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen Wikipedia as just a regurgitation of what the news says - Unfortunately this is almost by definition what Wikipedia is and aims to be. Of course it's not just "news", it's supposed to be reliable sources, which may include reliable news sources. Unfortunately in this case the balloon boy incident is pretty low stakes, so I doubt any reliable news source is interested in revisiting it. I do agree that a lot of news sources are not very thorough about what & how they report, but to be honest Internet Historian is a far worse source than what's used now, even if the video is entertaining and/or informative. And what would you have, Wikipedia make up its own stories? It's really just not Wikipedia's job (the editors' jobs) to determine "truth". HarryKernow (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia shouldn't find the truth, but Wikipedia has held that they hold a Neutral Point of View. Calling the title "Balloon Boy Incident" or just "Balloon Boy" does not detract from the truth, does not suggest anything, in fact it is the literal definition of neutrality. From there on, the user can read the sources and determine whether it is a hoax or not.
Wikipedia is in no formal obligation to include the word "hoax", it is already commonly referred to as "Balloon Boy". In fact, look at the sources listed in references and few say the entire name of "Balloon Boy Hoax". There is no formal statement that the name of this incident is the full "Balloon Boy Hoax", a lot simply call the incident itself "Balloon Boy" and say it is a "Hoax". Therefore, it's their claim and not an official name for the incident.
A lot of people already pointed this out, and I doubt this will convince anyone, but Wikipedia adding the word Hoax in the title is pretty unique for this article. Going to the List of hoaxes, few of them actually have the word "Hoax" in their title. It's interesting that something that recently sparked controversy still maintains this non-regulatory stance.
Using the word Hoax forces Wikipedia to take a side when in reality it should be neutral and say the truth: The police claims it is a hoax, Richard Heene claims it is not, and here are the first hand sources. Wikipedia does not need to make up a story or use an unreliable Youtube video, but it also should not use a influenceable word in it's title. 99.7.231.127 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's guidelines, 'neutrality' is reporting on things the same way sources do. Without changing the message or tone. We don't always achieve it, but that is the type of neutrality Wikipedia strives for. 'Neutrality' does not necessarily mean presenting both sides equally or anything like that. See WP:YESBIAS.
Anyway, there's not really anything unusual or surprising happening here. Consider that it's not actually unusual for a convicted criminal to tell a good story that conflicts with all other sources. That's pretty standard and mundane. Readers can almost take it as given that if a person is convicted of a crime, the convicted person claims they shouldn't have been. That's not nearly enough to rename all crimes as "incidents".
ApLundell (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not exactly sure what you are saying here. We of course must include the media's point of view, but as you said, that does not mean we can edit the title to include their point of view. I'm only arguing about the title, the unofficial essay you linked seems to be more about the actual content. The content should absolutely include the full story the same way the media says.
The official guidelines on Naming says that, for Article Titles, opinion-based words like "Hoax" should only be used when it is more recognizable with [1], so I guess you can make the argument that the word "Hoax" is essential. I won't go into that argument as that is hard to argue, but I will say search up "Balloon Boy" and most media would refer it to 'Balloon Boy' in quotations and the word Hoax off to the side; I doubt anyone will not recognize "Balloon Boy" without the word "Hoax" 99.7.231.127 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVNAMING states, " If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."
"Hoax" mentions:
Other terms:
In this case I think media is using "hoax", and in cases they aren't they are carefully avoiding taking a "side". It seems fair for Wikipedia to continue using the current title and to mention any controversies in the text itself. HarryKernow (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, most articles including the ones you mentioned put “Balloon Boy” in quotations, inferring that the incident name is called “Balloon Boy” and their opinion of it is a hoax (Though admittedly 2/14 of your examples do put the whole “Balloon Boy Hoax”).
As you say and in the guidelines, “If a name is widely used in reliable source…and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers it may be used” I doubt that adding “Hoax” makes it more recognizable - both the news emphasizing “Balloon Boy” and the general populace see that Balloon Boy is distinct enough.
There is no official, news, or population agreed upon the name - searching only “Balloon Boy” in search engines returns many examples of news using only Balloon Boy with no concern of their incorrect naming.
If you truly think that “Balloon Boy” and “Balloon Boy Hoax” are not interchangeable and removing the word Hoax does harm the recognizability of the article, I can’t really argue that. All I can say is that compared to the examples given like Jack the Ripper and Boston Massacre, adding Hoax does not seem as vital. 75.16.180.163 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Vital" is a loaded word here. It's about choosing the best name. It's not about changing to your preferred name unless the current one is absolutely "vital". That's the wrong standard to apply here. ApLundell (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that we should generally just leave inaccuracies in any article because they're not absolutely vital to fix? //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 13:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm saying that we should use the best, most recognizable name for the article.
Presenting it as though the name should obviously be changed unless the current one is "absolutely vital" is a biased framing of the question at hand.
It's an attempt to bait people into arguing against an impossible standard. ApLundell (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most recognizable name is "Balloon Boy", outnumbering "Balloon Boy Hoax" 100 to 7 during the peak according to [2]Google Trends Data
Even during current times, in the past year it outnumbered 31 to 1 despite the Article name being "Balloon Boy hoax" 75.16.180.163 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“If a name is widely used in reliable source…and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers it may be used” -- the wording clearly supposes recognition on wide usage. Therefore proof of widespread (or overwhelmingly widespread as a quick Google search can show) use is all that is needed, not a discussion of whether it will actually be recognized. The use is the deciding factor. The policy is clear that even seemingly biased titles may be used under these circumstances.
Furthermore, with the addition of the alternative name you suggested in the lead (as per MOS:BOLDSYN) and the appropriate redirect in place, I fail to see any substantive reason to change this page's title. HarryKernow (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rules clearly state that biased Article Titles have only be used when "widely used...and therefore likely to be well recognized"
It isn't widely used, even the names in their example mostly (12/14) use "Balloon Boy" as the name of the incident and calling it a hoax, formatted as "Balloon Boy" hoax. In fact, the CNN one even says "Balloon Boy" incident was a hoax
If you say those 2 articles are enough to show it is widely used enough to justify a biased name, then I can't really argue. But with no official, media, nor population consensus, I would argue that "well recognized" rule is not met. 75.16.180.163 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence: [3]Google Trends Data
"Balloon Boy" outnumbers "Balloon Boy Hoax" 100 to 7 during the peak. 75.16.180.163 (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After November 2014, searches for "Balloon Boy" will be dominated by FNAF related content. It's better to limit it to news search or cut it off at 2014. Both these trends data lines follow your arguments. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 11:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is not "well recognized", it's "widely used", as I've explained before. Furthermore, your argument was to change the title to "Balloon boy incident", not "Balloon boy", so I fail to see the utility in comparing the two. CNN source was clear in calling it a 'hoax' and as I already linked before plenty others just call it "... hoax". And to top that all off, replacing your flawed query reveals that the "hoax" wording is more common than "incident" in all states with data (src). HarryKernow (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rule specifically states “widely used” by reliable sources AND “well recognized” by readers [1]. The recognizability is equal, if not worse, than just “Balloon Boy”, so there is no point in it. Even if we assume it is widely used by news, the second part of the exception is not satisfied.
The original did argue for just “Balloon Boy”, but the main point is that “hoax” breaks the neutrality, and it should only be broken if it is well recognizable. It should be replaced with a neutral “incident,” dropped completely, or any form of neutral title. In fact, I actually prefer just “Balloon Boy”. 75.16.180.163 (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says "is widely used and is therefore likely to be well recognized" - i.e. if it is widely used, it is well recognized. I did miss the argument for just "Balloon Boy", but 1. they did argue for the "incident" wording as well, and 2. it's not about the boy, but the event. I would much prefer "incident" over just "Balloon Boy" for that reason. Regardless, it seems to me that the "Hoax" wording is indeed common and therefore likely to be recognized, but if you want more eyes on this, I would recommend starting a discussion at WP:NPOVN (please tag me if you do). HarryKernow (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not "break neutrality" to call a hoax a hoax.
What you're really arguing is that it is not a hoax. Or that there is some serious doubt. That discussion has happened many times, and you're not bringing anything new to the table.
ApLundell (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that this is, very likely, a minor example of citogenesis. When reporters Google the Balloon Boy incident, the first result that comes up is the Wikipedia article "Balloon Boy Hoax." This is as close to an official name for the incident as they can find, so they repeat the Wikipedia title in their article (or headline). These articles, subsequently, are used within Wikipedia as justification for not changing the title.
As evidence of this, the exact words "Balloon Boy Hoax," in that order, seem to mostly appear in more recent articles. 2600:8806:6101:1700:DCA7:F9B7:8AA6:1C23 (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

[edit]

In Popular Culture: the Balloon boy hoax is mentioned in the Fallout Boy rendition of Billy Joel's Hit Single We didn't start the fire Rayven1203 (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Xan747 (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YES, IS TRUE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:FB1:15D:9BBB:7DE5:28F7:659E:A953 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

[edit]

We should change this to the Balloon Boy incident, not hoax. They were innocent and victims of malicious persecution. The guy was even pardoned. 2001:569:BD51:1600:BC27:73BB:C19A:447 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Polis did not say they were innocent when he issued the pardon. It looks like the only source for this is their own statements. Jamedeus (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See most recent move request at Talk:Balloon boy hoax/Archive 4#Requested move 4 March 2021. A formal move request is needed to overturn that consensus, not a simple edit request. FDW777 (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the reason for pardon, according to the governors’ own words, was that they were pardoned because she thought that they had they had suffered enough with no mention of any issue with the prosecution. In other words, the pardon that doesn’t even mention the prosecution can’t be used as evidence that the prosecution was malicious for obvious reasons.--67.70.101.117 (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Opening the topic of changing the wording ("Hoax" to "Incident"), discussing potential editor biases and source validity.

[edit]

Firstly: I will admit that Internet Historian, were he the source of the information provided, would be incredibly flawed. His past content doesn't indicate a non-biased perspective, and recent revelations regarding his plagirism have caused me to lose faith in him for providing the truth, but calling him the "source" here is a mistake. Internet Historian is not the source of any of the evidence he cites to make his arguement. That would likely be fabricating evidence, or show bias by direct collaboration with the Heenes in obtaining otherwise unavailable evidence, that may have in and of itself been fabricated, however, all the evidence he shows is available from other avenues. The only new content he provides is his particular arguement towards the Heenes innocence. This point is not my main point here however.

My main point is that I believe that the editors of this page have made a decision about the guilt of the Heenes, and, although they have been presented with evidence (admittedly compiled by a notably fallible secondary source), are falsely taking a request to represent the ambiguity of the situation (Changing "Hoax" to "Incident") and to abide by Wikipedia's neutrality rules as an attack on their accuracy, when it simply isn't. Just as we shouldn't be siting Internet Historian as a valid source, neither should the arguements of the news outlets that jumped on the story to take a single statement and stretched it into a story as gospel truth, nor the rulings of the US Legal System, which has been shown to be just as fallible. Analysing the evidence from an outside perspective, without either the bias of IH or the general news, it has to be admitted that there is ambiguity on whether this was a malicious hoax, or a genuine accident.

Nobody is saying that the Heenes are definitely innocent here. People are not arguing that "Hoax" be flipped entirely to "Accident". We (people arguing for the change of wording) are only frustrated that the editors of this page seem to not be listening to reasoned arguements to alter the wording to reflect the actual ambiguity of the situation. I'd argue no further information even needs to be provided, as analysing evidence from the investigation to determine guilt could in and of itself be seen as bias in the other direction.

My main point is that, just as there is ambiguity to their innocence, there is also notable ambiguity towards their guilt, and given this, I believe that using the wording "Hoax" is innapropriate, but "Accident" would not be the right term either. The only correct term, and the one I am arguing for here, is "Incident". I garauntee that doing so would likely silence this talkpage long into the future, and finally end this back-and-forth. 92.16.4.131 (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to pass judgement on the Heenes, we're here to summarize notable sources. Which news reports are, and a youtube videos is not.
We don't need to debate whether we personally think it was really a hoax or what our opinion of the Internet Historian is. We're certainly not supposed to "analyze the evidence from an outside perspective" as you've asked us to do.
As for your final thought about making one change and then everyone would be happy with the article forever.... I'm sorry, but I'm afraid there is a zero percent chance that you're right about that. ApLundell (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. You're not here to pass judgement on the Heenes, which makes your continued refusal to change a single part of the wording in the article to make the aforementioned ambiguity all the more frustrating.
Nobody here is asking you to debate what you personally believe here, nor was I, and I apologise that my wording could be misinterpreted in that way.
I did not ask you to analyse the evidence from an outside perspective in my arguement. I stated my opinion that, doing so makes it clear that the actions of the prosecution and police during this case have permanently made the waters around this case muddy, and ignoring that would be foolish; but again, the point of this article should not be about whether or not the Heene's are innocent
News is a valid secondary source here, and my intention was not to fully discredit it, but to point out that using news semi-exclusively here reflects its bias onto the article.
In truth, I do not necessarily believe the Heenes ARE innocent in all of this. I certainly used to, but recent developments regarding IH have caused me to rethink siding with his position uncritically, and the unfortunate fact is that the media did very much take a side here and that makes attempting to look back at this incident from an unbiased perspective nigh impossible. But that doesn't matter here.
As you pointed out, you're not here to pass judgement on the Heenes, which is why I (and most of the people throughout this talk page's history, hence my hyperbolic final comment in the prior post) am asking you to change the wording here. Because "Hoax" does pass judgement, and "Incident" doesn't. Even if you don't believe there is any ambiguity here, you have to admit that the ammount of people in this talk page alone who've bought up the topic should warrant you to consider it. 92.16.4.131 (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are not following ApLundell's argument closely. In truth, this is in part because they did not provide a very detailed explanation or cite to the appropriate policies of this project, but I can hardly fault them for that; this page has been trapped in a cycle of disruption and refusal to drop the WP:STICK from an ever-revolving cast of WP:MEATPUPPETS launched at it by one of the shadiest corners of YouTube conspiracy theory mongering. (True story: after I finally broke down and went to watch the original versions of the "Internet Historian" videos being proffered here, my video recommendations were filled for days with videos about how to recognize lizard people in news footage, because the YT algorithm was convinced this was the type of content I would like to see next, and after viewing the kind of "information" that channel trades in, I am not surprised or confused as to why).
But in complete sincerity, you seem a fair shade more temperate and reasonable than the majority of those weaponized YouTube viewers, so I'm going to show you the courtesy of a fulsome explanation for why your suggestion cannot be adopted here.
"which makes your continued refusal to change a single part of the wording in the article to make the aforementioned ambiguity all the more frustrating."
The problem is, there is no real ambiguity to be found in the WP:Reliable sources upon which this (and every) Wikipedia article is meant to be based. Whatever the story that the Heene parents (or really it seems mostly Richard Heene) tell of the family being the victim of a conspiracy involving some combination of police, prosecutors, other public officials, and unethical media forces, no RS supports this narrative. Presumably because the not insubstantial number of media outlets that Heene has tried to sell this perspective to have not found the claims credible and/or have discovered inconsistencies and holes in the story. Indeed, just as in the case of how the Heenes' story initially fell apart under a public spotlight, we have sources which tell us expressly about the ways in which the latter-day claims of Richard and Mayumi Heene fell apart under very gentle probing.
Now, I'm not sharing my own personal views on what I think happened, but it's entirely possible you and I may have different ideas about how compelling the existing evidence of certain sources is or what perspectives are most likely to constitute the truth. But I have great news if your primary concern is that the bias of individual editors should not dictate the content of this article: Wikipedia's policies are expressly designed to minimize that possibility. And the primary way it does that is by proscribing the personal perspectives or analysis of individual editors (known here idiomatically as WP:original research) in determining what is or is not said in the article.
Instead, the claims covered are reached by application of the WP:WEIGHT of perspectives in WP:reliable sources. And the sources that meet our criteria for RS are consistent: those whom the Heenes have convinced to revisit the story have either found no support for the Heenes' claims or they have reported exchanges which tend to cast doubt on those claims. That is the story that is summarized here; not because we believe it is the more likely take (let alone a certain one), but because our job as editors on this project is to summarize RS views, and only that.
"I stated my opinion that, doing so makes it clear that the actions of the prosecution and police during this case have permanently made the waters around this case muddy, and ignoring that would be foolish"
But you see, what you are talking about is the very definition of WP:OR. No WP:RS express such doubts or concerns, and we can't introduce them into the article just because you or any combined number of people mobilized from YouTube think that. Bring us an RS that supports that narrative and we can talk. But so long as you lack any such RS, there is nothing to be done here: our hands are tied. Now, I will tell you this candidly: when I watched the IH content, I found it comically misinformed about how plea deals in particular (and the criminal justice system in general) operate, that it was premised in very dubious Conspiratorial thinking and rhetoric, that it lacked even the slightest of substantiation for the exceptional claims it was making about other parties, that it seemed very typical of a certain kind of content/rumor/conspiracy mill channel which proliferates on YouTube, and (to borrow your language) that it very uncritically supported and amplified Richard Heenes' claims, without reference to any additional support from any subject matter expert, primary material source, or journalistic investigation.
But again, how you and I view the story, or the outlook of a particular YouTube content creator is irrelevant to the ultimate editorial call here. What matters is what the actual RS say. And when you talk about the police and prosecutors supposedly having "muddied the waters", my question is "according to whom"? Because if it's according to you, that's not good enough. If it's according to myself or ApLundell, or any other editor here, it's not good enough. If it's according the "Internet Historian", it's not good enough. We need RS support. Not least of all because there are WP:BLP issues implicit here: the public officials and media workers that Heene has essentially accused of unethical (if not outright illegal) activities in order to railroad him are actual people. We cannot willy-nilly add volume to those claims which is not consistent with the perspectives found in reliable sources, even to the extent of softening the description of the event. We do share Heene's claims themselves, as those are relevant information and supported by sourcing. The rest of what the Internet Historian videos have to offer is not so supported.
"As you pointed out, you're not here to pass judgement on the Heenes, which is why I (and most of the people throughout this talk page's history, hence my hyperbolic final comment in the prior post) am asking you to change the wording here. Because "Hoax" does pass judgement, and "Incident" doesn't.
The thing is, our sources are not required to be perfectly neutral and unaligned on every issue: they very much can "pass judgment" and still be RS and still be worth summarizing here. On this project WP:Neutrality is exclusively about editors faithfully reporting what RS say, not about all RS having no perspectives or opinions themselves. Most in fact do, not least for cultural and news events.
As for "most people" on this talk page wanting the Heenes to be vindicated in its content or at least having it take on more of a tone of doubt, most (if not all) of those editors are IP and/or WP:SPA editors directed here like a missiles by YouTube comments sections (where I saw very active discussions of efforts to swamp this page and force changes consistent with the Internet Historian narrative). And while the contributions of IP and SPA editors are not verboten here, these editors do not understand this project's policies and approach to content and do not show up with sourcing which we can actually utilize. By comparison, every established, non-SPA editor who has commented here--all of whom seem to have come to this page through neutral processes and did not arrive with their perspective pre-set by YouTube content--have uniformly supported not changing the name from "hoax". And it's not because we have personal doubts about about Heene's story. Some of us may, but we're used to accepting and even advocating for content that does not match our personal views, so long as it is consistent with the information to be found in reliable sources. Again, I'm afraid our hands are tied, based on the existing sources. SnowRise let's rap 10:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balloon_boy_hoax&oldid=1250924866"