Balloon boy hoax was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
It's sad that policy is so strict in this case[edit]
As someone who just saw the two videos from the Internet Historian I can't but feel a deep sense of injustice is being committed by this Wikipedia towards that man and his family only for the purpose of defending policy and maintaining the status quo. We have other articles that deal with mass psychosis and media misattributing blame but because this was a small thing blown out of proportion nobody has the energy or the money to conduct any serious i.e. reliable as per Wiki-standards, investigation, as with so many other cases that are forgotten by the public but not by those involved.. Thus this man and his family are abandoned and any person doing research on them, to for example purchase his inventions will have a tainted picture. This is evil but perhaps necessary evil. I don't really know what to say or what to add since I'm new but perhaps that I wish that someone with more influence in the organisation would create a way for there to be a board of arbitration of sorts that can impartially judge even "non-reliable" sources as defined by WP:Policy when it is absolutely necessary. Flygande Jakob(talk) 10:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Pages like this show the issue Wikipedia has as a whole. It favors the dominant narrative and "reputable" sources, even when those sources are demonstrably incompetent, lying or corrupt. Let's not pretend the naming, tone and framing of this article wasn't influenced by the dominant media narrative of the time, pushed in part by talk show comedians. That's a reputable source, right? 213.49.234.184 (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
That's what an encyclopedia is.
It's a document where you can look up the prevailing wisdom on a variety of topics.
APLundell, I encourage you to look at Wikipedia:Truth. You are deliberately censoring a viewpoint that is contrary to the mainstream media, but is nonetheless significant due to the implications. I don't know what stake you have in ensuring that this incident continues to be portrayed as a hoax, but it seems like you are desperate to defend this one viewpoint. The sheer bias of this article is readily apparent in the title alone, since this being a hoax is only one viewpoint. The title should be "Balloon boy incident" for the sake of neutrality. Biglulu (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That link is an essay, not a statement of policy. The official Wikipedia policy is here : WP:TRUTH.
I'm far from knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies and I'm only here in passing, but APLundell, the page you're linking is also categorized as an essay. I assume that it's likely a philosophy followed by many editors, but I've no doubt that there's definitely some if not many users disagreeing with it.
Why can’t we add in the evidence suggesting that it was NOT a hoax?[edit]
After seeing Internet Historian’s video along with another video with Robert himself showing proof that the Media and the justice system fabricated evidence, I knew that someone would be putting this in there. Indeed, someone made an attempt to add this into the Wiki page....... and then have it REJECTED. Then I decided to revert the edit and put it back in. Again, it was rejected. I can’t see any reason why this piece of information should be removed other than pure bias. Romax24245 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes yes yes! As I already posted in the section below, I think we need to put it to a vote. The evidence is not in the Hoax's favour, let alone being so favourable that a section for Robert's side is not allowed. Nate Hooper (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
My request is to simply remove "hoax" from the title of the Wikipedia page. The "balloon boy hoax" is known to not be a hoax for the following reasons: Police reports, and media sources contradict first hand evidence that was gathered at the scene. [1]Mcmeme12 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Not done. See WP:RM for instructions on how to propose an article title be changed. Note this will definitely be a controversial one given the article's history. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2019[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Recent evidence has come to light to prove that it is actually an accident. We must fix this! HistoryLegends76 (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done. Edit requests are requests to make precise, specific changes, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2019[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I think that Richard Heene is not guilty and it is not a hoax. There is a YouTube Channel called Internet Historian who made a video about it. Please review it and respond.
If there is a specific change you want to make, please state it clearly, along with a citation to a reliable source. RudolfRed (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. You have not watched the video. Please respond when you have done that action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Truth Speaker 2 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Not done. See WP:RM for instructions on how to propose an article title be changed. Note this will definitely be a controversial one given the article's history. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Not done. See 
