Talk:Balloon boy hoax/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2019

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

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

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

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

Reversion of edit regarding measurement

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2019

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

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

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

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

Hello. You have not watched the video. Please respond when you have done that action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Truth Speaker 2 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The video is full of video evidence of the interrogation of the wife, and richard, as well as the written reports from officers. there are SIGNIFICANT differences between the videos and written statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.202.6 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2020

I would like to add an unbiased article about untruths, deception and the unethical police investigation that took place in this case; with proof and references. SgFlaxy (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for more specific date of domestic violence investigation

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

 Done – AdamTango123 (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request - Jan 13th 2020

This request has been made before, although not well.

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

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

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

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

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

 Not done It's been discussed to death. Reliable sources are needed. Wikipedia isn't the place to publish original research to right great wrongs. We can record the righting of great wrongs provided there are reliable sources. There's no way to bypass this. Again and again, there has been nothing else stated beyond the YouTube video for sources. The article currently has statements where the family believes it's not a hoax from an interview in 2015 and last year - provided it was from an interview and reliable sources. – The Grid (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand the "no self-published" argument. That being said, Wikipedia is semi-lenient on OR depending on the context. In this case, we have a guy who had his "5 minutes of fame" if you want to call it that (which is why there are so many RS backing up the article). That being said, he was never famous before or after this event happening, thus it is unusually hard for him to grab a hold of journalists who would be considered RS's and who would also be willing to use their valuable time to write articles that would vindicate Richard, knowing that they would get little in return especially in terms of coverage. Even if he were to be vindicated, his vindication would barely scratch the surface in terms of media coverage when compared to the many stories which pointed toward his guilt. In addition, there is a ton of new evidence which has recently surfaced that has pointed toward his innocence. For this reason, I believe that it would be reasonable to bypass the "no original research" rule, and allow for direct citations to the raw documents which indicate his innocence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.145.162 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

If you understand the "no self-published" argument, you will understand there is no bypass to this. If there's new evidence through reliable resources, they can be provided on here. However, this isn't the place to be a bastion to present our own view point when it's to state the findings of fact. "Raw" materials can usually be sourced but be mindful you can only state what the materials state. – The Grid (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"Hoax"

I don't think this should be described as a hoax because there is evidence that could be debated. Internet Historian made a video and you guys just say "Anyone can upload anything to the internet." Though that is true anyone can upload anything, you do have to realize some videos require hours upon hours of research. During the video he mentions reliable sources and it would be nice to hear another side to the story. Instead you guys take your sources from over dramatized news. It shouldn't be described as hoax. Bobbillyjoe23421 (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• What should it be described as? A simple misunderstanding of whether this child was floating in the sky?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. 203.220.167.52 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It should simply be described as an incident. While it is possible to be a hox, it's directly conflicting with the requirement of neutrality to call it that in the title already. (CaveDraft (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC))

Proposal to finalise consensus on controversial addition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

Include the video

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

Elpres (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not include the video

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

Just forget it. Invalid proposal. The source you are proposing is beyond redemption. It is not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. Therefore, any discussion about it is useless. Dr. K. 04:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This barely needs to be said, but I agree with Dr.K.. Nothing to see here. — Hunter Kahn 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think forgetting it is appropriate here. The video is commentated by both a third and first party source, but that commentary is based around reliable secondary sources (e.g. video of Heene's interrogation, demonstrations of factual information like the balloon measurement, testimony and video evidence of Child Heene's (allegedly unlawful) interrogation). In my opinion, that implies that we should be letting those secondary sources speak for themselves. In any case, if you don't agree, please signify as per the proposal to be properly counted. R0tekatze (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No. This discussion continues with the same exact pitfall. Provide the secondary sources if this is anything outside of YouTube. We're not here to go by own opinions but by findings of fact - this is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. – The Grid (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Another of the five pillars is "Wikipedia has no firm rules"; if "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions" and here is not an exception, what could possibly be one? 203.220.167.52 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for verifiable sources beyond the YouTube video, for one. Do note "ignore all rules" does not mean to merely ignore everything that is laid out - I can provide a RfC for outside input. – The Grid (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what "I'm still waiting for verifiable sources beyond the YouTube video, for one," is meant to counter. What is the "everything . . . laid out" you refer to? 203.220.167.52 (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It has been proposed to ignore all rules in regards to sourcing a self-published YouTube video to be used in this article. I am seeking input on how this 5th pillar has been interpolated in the past. Several editors have noted verifiability, no original resources, neutral point of view (NPOV) in regards to the 2nd pillar. – The Grid (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• This probably doesn't need to be an RfC, but no, this is not an appropriate use of IAR, see WP:NOTIAR. Moreover, even if this was an appropriate invocation of IAR, the editor proposing the changes in question still needs to convince other editors and form a consensus in favor of their changes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

How exactly is this not an appropriate use of IAR? I read WP:NOTIAR and have no idea what there you think applies here. 203.220.167.52 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I respect The Grid, but this RfC should be closed asap as invalid. There is no way IAR can be used to weaken WP:RS. Dr. K. 02:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It's ignore all rules, not ignore all those except WP:RS. The point is to "weaken" every rule. 14.201.179.66 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The essence of IAR is to ignore a rule in cases in which adherence to the rule keeps you from improving the article. Incorporating a sketchy source on youtube is not one of those cases. TJRC (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
      • "Incorporating a sketchy source on youtube" isn't a case of adherence to a rule. If you want to argue against including the source, please make sense. 14.201.179.66 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Please go to WP:RSN and ask them about the reliabilty of the source you are proposing. There is nothing more anyone can do for you here. I don't think there will be too much to do at RSN either, but at least you would have exhausted all reasonable avenues available on Wikipedia to ascertain if your proposed source is good enough to be included in this article. As it stands currently the source is unacceptable. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Yeah, a lot of WP:ICANTHEARYOU coming from this IP. It's not worth the time trying to explain. TJRC (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
            • TJRC, I have learned over the years that for this perennial issue it is sometimes better to roll with the punches. I have given up trying to be assertive on this issue. Dr. K. 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
            • I know the source is not reliable. That should be obvious. The question is whether including it would improve the article. No one has offered the slightest indication that it would not. There does seem to be "a lot of WP:ICANTHEARYOU" but not from me, as people continue to miss the point about ignoring rules when it would improve the article, instead claiming "the source isn't good enough" when that is obviously irrelevant to the argument. 14.201.179.66 (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
              • WP:RS is a pillar of Wikipedia. IAR applies to situations where ignoring a pillar improves the encyclopedia. In this case, IAR does not apply. Accepting a source where an unknown guy appears behind a moving flat mask and presents a skewed version of the story, is out of the question on many levels, not least of which is this is a serious encyclopedia, with verifiable sources written by eponymous and serious experts not anonymous people better belonging in a masquerade party. Dr. K. 22:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
                • So "IAR does not apply" because "this is a serious encyclopedia, with verifiable sources written by eponymous and serious experts"? Is this any different to saying that we should not ignore the rule because we should obey the rule? 14.201.179.66 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
                  • This discussion is beyond the scope of the talkpage of this article. I suggest you go to the talk of WP:IAR and ask them. I also repeat my suggestion to go to RSN. My personal opinion remains that you will be wasting your time, but what do I know. Dr. K. 02:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
                    • Why is it beyond the talkpage of this article? I've never seen a Wikipedia policy that said disagreements about articles should be brought up on the talk pages of the policies involved (if there is one, point me to it), nor even seen anyone allege anything of the sort in any discussion before now. 59.102.111.252 (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
                      • Because you are talking about WP:IAR and no regular editor who has commented here thus far has agreed with your proposal to include a crappy source based on IAR. There is going to be no more discussion about including this crappy source on this talkpage because no self-respecting regular editor is going to agree with your proposal. The only course of action available to you right now is to clarify IAR, and this is not the place to do it. Don't get me wrong. This is a very long shot, but I am afraid you have no other choice available. I have to apologise, but this is my last reply to any IP that comes along and asks any further questions. I can waste some time but my time reservoir is not infinite. Thank you for your understanding. Dr. K. 01:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
                        • So because you have no sensible defense of the article, you have decided to ignore everyone who complains about it. This is again exemplified in you failing to mention any policy which supports your position of taking it to WP:IAR, much like how you failed to say if "this is a serious encyclopedia, with verifiable sources written by eponymous and serious experts" is any different to "we should not ignore the rule because we should obey the rule", presumably because there is no difference. 203.219.30.207 (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• I just say with respect to the discussion, it's stonewalling. Arguing just to argue. I've seen nothing productive for months on here. I do hope something more constructive forms of a discussion but I'm also backing away from further discussion on this as well. – The Grid (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename article from 'hoax' and add additional evidence.

It wasn't a 'hoax' it was an 'incident.' There's evidence that police coerced witnessess and applied pressure to force the guilty plea, among other things, such as the kid being confused by the question and the blatant violations of law to get a supposed 'confession' from the wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.71.3 (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Internet Historian has Balloon Boy | The Untold Story which goes into what the person could find regarding the case. The only evidence of lying he could find was by the media and police.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Transcript of infrequently publicised continuation of launch footage

The article states that during the incident "...nobody mention[ed] the possibility of Falcon being in the balloon.".
However I would not rule out the possibility that the additional footage of the launch presented at 5:04 of the IH video is not staged and the transcript (which contradicts this) should not be ignored.
At least the article should be updated to include information from this footage, some of which appears to have been originally shown in what looks like a CBS broadcast.
This evidence cannot be dismissed simply because it was published through YouTube, which is no less reliable than the ABC 7News article originally cited.
I am not suggesting the YouTube video and the opinion stated in it is evidence but the home video footage which happens to be presented within it.
This transcript shows Richard Heene doubting his son's repeated claim that Falcon is in the balloon before considering its plausibility and calling for him. Kizza7984 (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

this is not a hoax, infact a Youtuber by the name of Internet historian solved the case: watch it here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWhUvm8SunY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.167.213.109 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

can we change this already

there has been even a video made by Heene that clearly states it wasnt a hoax. specially in these times, we have been proven how corrupt our judicial system is. I think its time to see the facts and not just the sensationalism. Wikipedia should be a neutral site.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY (video im talking about)

190.218.36.15 (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)nat

Balloon Boy Hoax

It wasn’t a hoax it was an accident. The police coerced witnesses and purposefully lied to get a plea deal. The main narrative that’s on Wikipedia follows the false narrative of the police and fake news and goes directly against all factual evidence. H.R. Pickens (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The only hoax involved in this situation was the "evidence" created to prosecute Richard Heene. It is ignorant to label this as a hoax and stain someone's name when the details are being debated Romanhenry02 (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep. It seems there's a pretty strong consensus for changing it too. Not sure why it hasn't been done yet Kysier (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, its not a hoax... stop being lazy and mean.

C'mon lets give the family some modicum of peace after everything they went through and are still going through. Watch the internet historian videos and change this page. And Coats (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Tuura 8/7/20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by And Coats (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"citations are required for edits aimed at neutrality"

Oi you got a loisance for that neutrality? Nah no so much ah? Well bugger off with ye then, we don't use neutral wording in these parts withah providing citations.

I literally can not even begin to imagine what a citation for less divisive wording would even look like. That's like demanding a citation for grammatical corrections.

The overreach, gatekeeping, and feature abuse seen with this article has served to completely take the taste from my mouth about this project. I cannot see any world where I continue to donate to it knowing that the edit team consists of so many ingroup users lazily quoting precedents without bothering to consider what intent the precedent had when it was set. I'm especially astounded to see it done in the face of what is clearly massive public outcry and dissent.

You've used rules aimed a making unbiased neutral articles in order to keep this one obviously biased and polarized. I'm thoroughly disappointed with you folks. Not that this matters, since everyone who disagrees with you is "just one guy and a bunch of socks". XTYRMIN8Z (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

Change Title from Hoax to Balloon boy flight. This has been researched by popularised sources such as The Internet Historian Channel, Contact Him for research details; and a video essay and interview with Richard Heene himself, accompanied by supporting evidence. All previous media sources should be considered as biased towards the event due to the attitude at the time.

92.16.58.62 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Not a hoax.

Do your research.

Citation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY

 Not done There's a message on the top of this page addressing your concerns specifically. You will have to do your research and understand the policies here. – The Grid (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

Change the title from Hoax to Incident, as it was not a hoax. Evidence is well-known by your staff at this point, they just don't like YouTube. Facts don't care about your feelings towards a specific website, and the fact is this WAS NOT A HOAX. Change the title. 2605:B100:931:E2C:5835:AE9B:A5AE:3C43 (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that we need something more than one self-published source to base an article on. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if it wasn’t really a hoax (which I don’t doubt) I don’t see this article getting a name change. Because YouTube videos aren’t considered reliable sources and as of now, I find it incredibly unlikely that any reliable sources will look into this. Even if you go off into the flames screaming ignore all rules (which is your best bet) it will likely get reverted. That’s not to say I think that this Wikipedia article is unbiased or that balloon boy is definitely a hoax, in fact I support invoking ignore all rules to change the name, I just find it unlikely that it will get changed.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people who want this changed are people who made accounts just to edit this article, and I just don’t see that winning. Captainsnacc (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Putting a Special Section for Richard Heene's word

To simply look at things at only one perspective is not only naive but also cruel, history has shown that history is sometimes written with falsehood to serve the writer's agenda and omit anything that will threaten it.

With the above in mind we should also keep in mind that there is many innocent people that have been locked up for a crime that they do not commit and even placed in a death row, there is many example in the country of Japan. Furthermore, the media has shown their credibility is to be question.

Therefore, with this article's main sources' history it is only fair to hear the Mr.Heene's word for the readers of the article to determine themselves if this is truly a hoax or only an incident.

PS:I will not try to edit the article as I am still a newbie to edit something as big as this.

--Kucingku (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Kucingku

References

Request of rename and review.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A formal Requested move has been initiated on this article, rendering this discussion moot and irrelevant; see #Requested move 4 March 2021, below. To express your reasons why the article should or should not be moved, please participate in that discussion. TJRC (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

---

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

I agree, news outlets might be just as unreliable as YouTube videos. Who can we trust? Robo276 (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I respect that wikipedia must rely on reliable sources, but the existence and mass popularity of the youtube video clearly indicates there's significant controversy as to whether or not it was a hoax. I couldn't find any reliable sources that go into as much detail as the youtube video does about the alleged misconduct by the Sheriff's office, but this article by ABC should be more than sufficient to at least justify changing the title from "balloon boy hoax" to "ballon boy incident": https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/10-years-balloon-boy-family-denounce-idea-saucer/story?id=66604256Nodrokov (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Support This page very much violates neutrality policy There is significant evidence that Richard Heene was framed and laws were broken in trying to prosecute him. It does need to be moved and this article needs a serious review. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Support neutrality policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:A4:2648:B00:1E6:CB8:92FC:4EDA (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that including 'hoax' in the title of this article is biased and violates the neutrality policy. I also agree with renaming it to 'Accident' or 'Controversy' instead of 'Hoax'. There is significant evidence that Richard Heene was framed and the fact that the article itself is locked for editing by the public speaks volumes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.52.15 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Yeah, the title of the article is rather biased. Anything other than 'hoax' would be better fit.AZet3000 (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Support I reviewed the evidence personally. There's chance it was hoax, but it does appear that wasn't the case. At very least, "hoax" should be changed to "event" or something else more neutral. Kysier (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: i've made 2 attempts to follow recent consensus, both of which were reverted with little to no explanation. I tried to discuss it with him. That was ignored. Im not in mood to deal with someone who ignores updated info and actively pulls this sort of b/s. Feel free to talk to him, but at this point im reminded why I left wiki, and why few people consider it reliable these days. Good luck everyone, hopefully the grid will bother reading talk page n explain himself. Kysier (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kysier: The above consensus can't even be established unless there's verifiable resources to state it's not a hoax. This discussion has not progressed much at all since then. Multiple discussions have been made. Not one discussion has produced a source beyond what was stated from the Internet Historian. YouTube can't be used as a reliable source per WP:RS. Any website, news article, report, etc. that can add verifiability that it's not a hoax? This is the material that is being ignored. These discussions have been full of single purpose accounts on top of that. – The Grid (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Grid: No one has produced reliable sources stating it *is* a hoax either. The police had a serious conflict of interest here in wanting to get a conviction, and all of the cited articles just quote the police. The videos aren't reliable, but neither are the police reports. It seems a little silly to me to require a reliable source to change something that wasn't based on a reliable source in the first place. Also, since the article mostly reports on the controversy rather that showing it to be a hoax, the title should reflect this—something like "Balloon Boy Controversy" fits the current article much better than "Balloon Boy Hoax" Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not a "Hoax" Ricky U(Oficial) (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment I do want to add the cautionary note about this consenus and its level of consensus, the outcome of the above by whoever closes it will certainly discard it as it contradicts Wikipedia policy. – The Grid (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Support renaming to accident or incident. Lots of non-youtube sources exist for this from the past few years. I hate that the youtube video has killed any motivation for improving this article and fixing the non-neutral point of view. // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 13:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Support the only reason Wikipedia even calls it a hoax is that they plead guilty, and they maintain they plead guilty because they were threatening to deport the wife. It's well documented that police in America are not reliable sources. Nobody's suggesting the article be changed to assert it was all real; just move it to "balloon boy incident" and add the word "alleged" to the lede. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Hppavilion1 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Enough of the Internet Historian inspired nonsense. It was a hoax, those involved pleaded guilty, and per @The Grid: a significant level of consensus will be required considering the lengthy history of advocacy in relation to this article. I suggest anyone who wants to see it moved starts a formal move request. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No, Even if someone quotes Internet Historian here, It does not matter, there is overwhelming evidence out there and it all checks out, Are we gonna call it a hoax because a six year old blabbered something(after being in a box for two days(He also later said he said "It is for the show" as when someone asked why he climbed the attic ladder again, It was for a chinese reporter who asked him to re-enact, I mean ever since when did the news media get to decide what is true and what is not, who are they to judge, and why should we accept their opinion about anything? He has been repeating that he only plead guilty because he was threatened that his wife would be foricibly deported and he would be taken away from his children, He has been pardoned by the state governor too, Shouldnt we switch to something atleast more neutral? We are a open community that does the right thing are we not? We are not cnn/fox news to say something maliciously wrong and then intentionally stick on to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindCowboy69 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I suggest you learn what a pardon is, it's not an exoneration. Hoax is neutral, since that's what it was, and remains so to this day. FDW777 (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Hoax is definitely not neutral terminology. Its sensationalist. // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 07:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

      • since that's what it was, and remains to this day..

        Welp, That seems to be a classic case of WP:COI, I dont even want to know what prejudice you have against them, But hoax is not a neutral name, especially considering how controversial this event has been -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 14:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• @KindCowboy69: I think you mean WP:NPOV. A hoax is pretty neutral compared to saying it's a conspiracy, fake news, or propaganda. I understand people here want to right great wrongs but reliable, verifiable sources are needed. – The Grid (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Nope @The Grid: I deliberately meant to say conflict of interest, look at their argument, They are specifically focussed on declaring this a hoax for some unknown reason, additionally, hoax is not a neutral term, stuff like "incident" or "controversy" is. -- KindCowboy69 ☮

Support Come on, moving past Historian - considering Heene was pardoned and has maintained his innocence, is it not worth considering that at least the title of the article is biased? Hoax is a word that clearly carries a connotation and biases the reader, and there's a good amount of people in the comments here that find it leading enough to take issue with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.156.72 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Support I agree that this page's title violates neutrality policy and that it should be changed, even though there aren't that many reliable sources. Davidxu160801 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed due to the current move discussion below. – The Grid (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pardon

The governor of Colorado pardoned the Heenes today. I'd edit this in myself but the article is locked. 204.112.198.217 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

‘Change Balloon Boy Hoax’ title to the ‘Balloon Boy Incident’ Stuart Duggan (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The term ‘hoax’ refers to an act of deviance or deliberate fabricated incident. Looking through all of the evidence it seems that there was no malicious intent from this situation. So, many members who are against the title ‘hoax’ feel it is only appropriate to refer to it as a incident and let this family live their lives without this falsehood following them around for the rest of their days. Stuart Duggan (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done This page will not be changed without a formal requested move. FDW777 (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus that "hoax" accurately represents this incident according to reliable sources. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Balloon boy hoax → Balloon boy – I believe there is consensus to renaming the article so that it doesn't have hoax in the title. It has previously been suggested that it be renamed "Balloon boy incident", however, I believe that the title "Balloon boy" is best. Regardless of whether you personally believe it is a hoax or not, all sources refer to the event with the phrase "Balloon boy" (sometimes with quotes, sometimes preceding hoax, sometimes preceding indicident). Thus "Balloon boy" has the greatest consensus among sources (and obviously the biggest ngram hits).

Similar pages on Wikipedia do not have incident or hoax in the title, and so Balloon boy should not be any different. For examples, see the very similar Lawnchair Larry flight or the vast majority of pages in Category:Publicity stunts and Category:Hoaxes in the United States.

This proposal also implies changing the first sentence of the article, perhaps to something like: "Balloon Boy" refers to an event which occurred on October 15, 2009, when a homemade helium-filled gas balloon shaped to resemble a silver flying saucer was released into the atmosphere above Fort Collins, Colorado, by Richard and Mayumi Heene.

Balloon boy currently serves as a redirect to this article.

Please let me hear your impassioned supporting or opposing views on this idea. // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 15:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment For editors reviewing the request, there is some history to this item. Ever since a video by the Internet Historian on YouTube was released in 2017, there's been discussion about the article title. This appears to be the first discussion. Several editors have noted that the video cannot be used as a source due to it being self-published and Snow Rise made a summary about the issues raised with this RfC discussion. I understand and respect the motivation for people coming here to right a great wrong. However, it must be understood that we only report material which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources. That's where the discussion has ended in the past with no sources provided beyond the YouTube video. This proposal seems like a good step forward at least for open discussion. – The Grid (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

After the video by Internet Historian, the idea that this was a frame job has become popular as a sort of low-level meme, made more amusing by repetition. Similar to "Epstein didn't kill himself", only not nearly as popular.

But memes are just for fun, and reliable sources still refer to it as a hoax. Even when discussing the parent's pardon, the BBC still referred to the event as "Balloon Boy Hoax"[1]. I would argue that's the common name for the event. ApLundell (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your bias is showing. You clear picked and chose BBC for your point and ignored the overwealhming majority of news sources that refer to it as 'Balloon Boy' and not 'Balloon Boy Hoax'. The phrase without hoax is undoubtedly the common name. See: Guardian[2], NPR [3], NBC[4], WashPo[5], 7news [6], Reuters[7], UsaToday [8], fox40 [9], people[10], snopes[11]. Should I go on naming sources? // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 04:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hold the pepper. Guardian - "Couple behind 2009 'balloon boy' hoax in US granted pardons"; NPR - "'Balloon Boy' Parents Pardoned By Colorado Governor For 2009 Hoax" (I admit they later state it as an incident in the article); NBC - Parents convicted in 'balloon boy' hoax pardoned by Colorado governor; WashPo - "Parents of ‘Balloon Boy,’ the hoax that captivated and confused the nation, pardoned by Colorado governor"; Reuters - "'Balloon boy' parents pardoned by Colorado governor over 2009 hoax"; etc. The "balloon boy" is the nickname of the overall story. The sources you provided are describing this as a hoax. – The Grid (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The "balloon boy" is the nickname of the overall story. Exactly my point. It does not matter whether or not its a hoax, it matters that "balloon boy" is the name of the story, and not "balloon boy hoax". // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 06:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:PRECISION would be where it's more precise to use either hoax or incident. Do note it does matter for the argument you were making to ApLundell for somehow being bias. – The Grid (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:PRECISION supports renaming the title to "Balloon boy". MOS:PRECISION states that titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. Including an unnecessary word "hoax" or "incident" is thus unnecessarily precise. "Balloon boy" is precise enough to be unambiguous. And, again, it doesn't matter whether I think its a hoax or not, it matters that the sources call it "'Balloon boy'" and not "'Balloon boy hoax'", which all the sources I pointed at do (and you, yourself, agreed). //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 08:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"Balloon Boy" is an inappropriate title because Falcon Heene, "Balloon Boy", is not the topic of the article. The event itself is the topic. One can argue about whether the title should be "Balloon Boy hoax", or "Balloon Boy incident", or some other title that refers to the event itself; but it should decidedly not be the misdescriptive "Balloon Boy". TJRC (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Lollipop, I randomly clicked on one of the articles you linked to and it referred to the event, in the headline, as "'Balloon Boy' Hoax", So I don't know what you're trying to prove. Certainly not all stories give the event a name, but when they do it's invariably "Balloon Boy Hoax". (And the boy involved is invariably called "Balloon Boy", but that's not what the article is about.) ApLundell (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

All of the titles of the sources Lollipoplollipoplollipop cites for why the Wikipedia article title should not label the event "hoax" themselves label the event "hoax":

• Guardian[12]: Couple behind 2009 'balloon boy' hoax in US granted pardons
• NPR [13]: 'Balloon Boy' Parents Pardoned By Colorado Governor For 2009 Hoax
• NBC[14]: Parents convicted in 'balloon boy' hoax pardoned by Colorado governor
• WashPo[15]: Parents of ‘Balloon Boy,’ the hoax that captivated and confused the nation, pardoned by Colorado governor
• 7news [16]: Parents convicted in 'balloon boy' hoax pardoned by Colorado governor
• Reuters[17]: 'Balloon boy' parents pardoned by Colorado governor over 2009 hoax
• UsaToday [18]: 'Balloon boy' parents pardoned by Colorado governor over 2009 hoax
• fox40 [19]: Parents pardoned in 2009 ‘Balloon Boy’ hoax
• people[20]: Parents Convicted in 2009 'Balloon Boy' Hoax Pardoned by Colorado Governor
• snopes[21]: Parents Convicted in 2009 ‘Balloon Boy’ Hoax Pardoned

Most use the identical phrase, "Balloon Boy Hoax". In short, Lollipoplollipoplollipop has convinced me, but not the way they intended. TJRC (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you not see the quotations around Balloon boy in all those sources? The event is referred to as Balloon boy. As you have demonstrated, the sources call the event "'Balloon Boy'", with qutoation marks. The fact that they later call it a hoax is irrelevant to how the article should be named. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 07:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep. The quotes around the words "balloon boy" indicate that it is a nickname for the individual Falcon Heene. The unquoted word "hoax" indicates that the word "hoax" is being applied to the event; and it is the event -- not the boy -- that is the subject of the article. TJRC (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose it was a hoax. Common name includes "hoax". In ictu oculi (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Dilute oppose. I would ordinarily favor something more neutral, even if coverage does not. But in this case, there were guilty pleas admitting to the hoax, despite back-pedaling later; and then a pardon whose text in no way suggests any actual innocence. I think it's fair to use the characterization given that. Were it not for the guilty plea (or a conviction), I would favor a move to a more neutral name. (Consider "dilute" to be something less strong than a straight oppose, but stronger than a "weak oppose".)

If it were to be renamed, it should be to something like "Ballon Boy incident", since the article is about the event, not the individual. TJRC (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is not about "balloon boy", but about the wider hoax perpetrated by the parents, and the qualifier is needed to define the scope of the article. Despite the pardon (which changes nothing, since it's not an exoneration or an overturning of the original convictions) references still refer to is a hoax in 2020, for example high profile news outlets such as the BBC, Guardian, NBC and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FDW777 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with FDW777, this article is about the hoax, not the person. Some1 (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussions raised by FDW777 and ApLundell. As I stated a few days ago, the sources provided mention the event as a hoax. I've been thinking about this for a bit more but for all intents and purposes, Heene has been pardoned. Colorado wanted to move on from this. I don't know how the descriptor of this event will harm the Heenes present day, much less be a WP:BLP violation. (Do we need to oversight some of the page's history?) Even in the guidelines, WP:BLPCRIME is mentioned but they were convicted. – The Grid (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Washington Post says Polis did not absolve the couple of guilt in the incident, but he did wipe away the criminal charges from their records, so there's no BLP issues that I can see. FDW777 (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Many people have made the argument that a reliable source needs to be used to decisively prove that this event was not a hoax, but the reverse also applies. Per WP:NPOV, calling this article a "hoax" rather than a neutral term such as "incident" implies that there is overwhelming consensus that the event was indeed a hoax when there is significant evidence to the contrary, and most of the "reliable" sources used to support the "hoax" title provide little evidence that it was actually a hoax aside from personal testimonies which have claimed to be extracted under duress. Additionally, most are outdated sources. As it is this article's title is a very blatant violation of WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.64.8 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) — 216.176.64.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This needs to be unlocked

There is a video about Richard Heene in his own words with actual evidence, many of this information from the media and the police are false, blatant lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY&list=PLxwlyOUWMDL7K-x-sOHDpar0UrckC1Yrg&index=15&ab_channel=InternetHistorian%3AIncognitoMode 22:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.196.160.167 (talk)

To be blunt, we have no interest in anything the so-called "Internet Historian" says and we will not be changing the article based on that video. FDW777 (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum on archives of this talk page and the proposal has never been accepted. Anonymous, self-published Youtube videos have never been acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles, and they should be regarded with particular hesitancy when they contradict accounts published through perennially reliable sources with editorial oversight. If the arguments made by the Youtube video are picked up by Wikipedia-acceptable sources then they may be included in the article. Until that time, discussion of this issue is a non-starter. 2600:1700:68D0:6F10:8C58:A3F4:4A69:751 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly an "Anonymous, self-published Youtube video"; it was published anonymously, but the person talking in the video is Richard Heene, who is not anonymous. AwaweWiki (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Heene has protested his innocence to more reputable sources, and that's reported in this article.

We don't repeat his claims as fact, because of course we don't. Every convicted criminal has a story to explain why he's "really" innocent. It's not Wikipedia's job to play advocate for them, just to repeat what reliable sources say about them. ApLundell (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We're not interested in discussing the Internet Historian video again. It's been discussed, it can't be used. From the close of Talk:Balloon boy hoax/Archive 4#RfC about sources, There is an overwhelming consensus that the source in question does not remotely meet the project's WP:RS standard. Since that standard has not changed, and is never likely to change to the extent needed to allow the video to be used, there's nothing more to be said on the subject FDW777 (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ironic that Wikipedia's so-called claims to be impartial and unbiased goes straight out the window in cases like this. "Hoax" implies a deliberate deception of maliciousness on the part of the alleged perpetrator, and, in this case, is arguably defamatory. The video in question isn't just some guy talking into a microphone, but includes evidence including recorded depositions, and affadavit records. I agree, at the very least it should be changed to "Balloon Boy Incident". (89.241.52.147 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC))

It is not a self-published video, it is edited and published by separate entities from the main subject in the video, so it could be argued that the previous discussion was made with false presuppositions (and please avoid the continual use of "we" when describing your personal or subjective opinion, it confuses the discussion). That said, I don't see why adding the video as a source would provide much value. Wikipedia isn't the right place to start "correcting" the public record. If someone wants the issue clarified contact some journalist (tweet someone from cracked.com or something) and see if they would be interested in writing an article. Then we also get a Reputable™ source and everyone is happy. martin sandsmark (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The video is both made and published by "The Internet Historian". No other entity has editorial oversight.

It is self-published.

(As opposed to a newspaper, where an article is written by an individual writer, reviewed by an editor, and published on behalf of a corporation.)

Incidentally, Cracked.com is on the perennial sources list as "generally unreliable". ApLundell (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is real, physical evidence within media reporting, police records, and the original viral post itself. It has been confirmed as not a hoax by the Governor of Colorado himself. 47.42.96.31 (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

That is not true. The governor did not clear them of guilt.

He simply cleared their record because they had “paid the price in the eyes of the public”. ApLundell (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct. Washington Post says "Polis did not absolve the couple of guilt in the incident, but he did wipe away the criminal charges from their records". FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

The edit history for this wiki page points out that there was a consensus to change the title from “hoax” to “incident,” yet this change was reverted. I’m suggesting that this change be reinstated.

Post-incident, Richard Heene has released official videos, images, and affidavits from the investigation that prove that detectives (and the media to some extent) lied and omitted key details about the incident to further their case in both the court and the public eye.

There SHOULD be a section in this article dedicated to the many inconsistencies and discrepancies in the case, but at the very least the title should have the word “hoax” removed.

This interview is not a source, but in it Mr. Heene details video and affidavit evidence that contradicts that of the original story.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY

It would be detrimental to the Wikipedia community and its readers to not take a further look at this and help prevent the spread of misinformation and slander. 75.39.183.223 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. See the top of the page, Before posting, please be aware discussion about the Internet Historian video has been established on here several times. Please read this section on why it can't be used in the article. Thank you FDW777 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Response from FDW777 seems defensive and poorly-formed. The core edit request is suggesting that the page be re-worded with more neutral language to reflect that the family actively contests that this is a hoax.

Focusing on the source seems to be intentionally ignoring the core complaint that spawned the edit request, which has to do with non-neutral language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.42.25 (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Balloon boy hoax#Requested move 4 March 2021. We're bored of this nonsense now. The page isn't being moved, so move along. FDW777 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I‘m totally with you. Touchaws (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia articles used to mean something. It means nothing now since topical cliques started controlling the administration of certain pages. As I pointed out below, Wikipedia's claims to neutrality is conveniently dropped whenever the editing cliques don't like something. (89.241.52.147 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC))

Balloon Boy "Hoax" edit request on 27 June 2021

The labeling of this event as a hoax is very misleading. There is much more evidence in favor of the Heene family than there is against. The page does not acknowledge the fact that Richard and Mayumi Heene were pardoned. There is also substantial evidence that the Colorado police department lied many times throughout the case and Richard Heene was never caught lying. The whole basis for the case was Falcon and Mayumi's supposed confessions, neither of which were made with complete understanding of the question being asked. The following video has many clips from Richard Heene himself going over the evidence. Umbron (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Living Concrete (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021 (2)

For some reason it seems you won't accept primary evidence which is fottage of actual police corruption because it was published on the YouTube historian channel, I'm sorry but It is footage directly from the police and Richard himself, it doesn't matter if it's published on YouTube and choosing to gate keeper sources like this is ridiculous, use some common sence and actually watch the video, anyway here is a precious guardian article because there the only source you trust, you can't use your eyes: https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/24/couple-behind-2009-balloon-boy-hoax-in-us-granted-pardons

It clearly says that Richard denies it was a hoax and he was pardoned. To leave hoax in the title is abusive and actually defamation. He was pardoned. You can not know that it was a hoax, it has been wiped from his record. To claim it was definitely a hoax and leave it is the title is criminal. You can keep the page exactly the same, just change hoax to incident, you can even say he pled guilty but don't be abusive, he is a human and he was pardoned. 110.175.88.115 (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not Done. We already cover the pardon and the Heene's denial. The pardon did not absolve them of guilt, it merely ended their punishment. As for his denial ... well ... yeah. Of course. Most criminals deny their crimes. That's normal for criminals.

Anyway, we're not here to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS. We're here to repeat what reputable sources say, and the article does that. ApLundell (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

in Richard heene's own words) shows significant lying on polices part and Richard has been pardoned after this evidence surfaced. It is actually abusive to continue to call this a hoax when there is no longer an official charge of hoax on Richards record. 110.175.88.115 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

fixed edit request to reflect current article name. RudolfRed (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No, Not this one either. Consensus is very very strongly against this edit. Repeatedly using this template is borderline WP:POINT editing. ApLundell (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

IP comments

The moderators seem to not understand that although Wikipedia is supposed to compile news, it is supposed to do so in a neutral and unbiased way. The use of hoax instead of incident in the tital is not an unbiased presentation of what the news has stated. It is the moderators assertion that the news is converting a hoax and not an incident. This is therefore representative of the moderators bias and not of the news itself.

But please justify why incident is not a more accurate (as it could be a hoax or it could not be a hoax) and neutral way of defining the event as characterised by the news. It's not, its the moderators opinion seeping into there moderation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.88.115 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

We had a requested move earlier this year. Evidence was presented that references, to this day, consider this a deliberate hoax. There's no shame in believing otherwise, thousands of people believe the lies told by scammers every day. You can either start a new move request, or you can go away. I recommend the latter, since nothing has changed since the last move request. FDW777 (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Free from bias does not mean that we give equal weight to "both sides". It means we describe a thing the same way reliable sources describe it.

Wikipedia just is not the correct venue for an effort to clear Heene's name. ApLundell (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Internet Historian

Can the thread be unlocked, the case has been dropped and it doesn't show both sides. There are suspicion of corruption. Please unlock this thread! Officialkimmiek3 (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

See FAQ, then please go away. FDW777 (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Renaming of the article

I would say that despite the lack Wikipedia defined reliable sources, the clealy inflammable language used on this page should go against WP:NPOV. Qwerty8167 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say Talk:Balloon boy hoax/Archive 4#Requested move 4 March 2021 demolished that non-argument. FDW777 (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no "lack of reliable sources". There are lots of reliable sources.

There is just a lack of reliable sources that agree with you. ApLundell (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Article name

I agree that wikipedia does not have a responsibility to show “both sides” of a debate. In many situations one side of a debate has peer reviewed scientific papers and decades of evidence, and the other side has conjecture and unverifiable claims. I do not believe, however, that the case of the Balloon Boy is not one such instance.

It is important not to fetishize the idea of “truth”. There are instances where we can know something for certain, but in many cases were its one person’s word against another we cannot. Truth is often malleable. I do not believe it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to call this article “Balloon boy hoax”. When someone googles “Balloon boy” they will make a snap judgement and I think that the truth here is a lot more grey. The “reliable sources” that the moderators are citing are that of news media and the words of the American justice system. While it is true that these are often reliable sources, they have shown to be susceptible to corruption or sensationalism. Their case is based on the confession of someone not fluent in English and the words of a six year old boy.

I think it would be more healthy in a case like this to open the floor to debate by changing the name to Balloon boy incident, or a similar more neutral title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tana Turen (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

We had a move request recently. Consensus was against moving the page. The end. FDW777 (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The article title is based on the most commonly used name for the incident. The vast majority of sources refer to the incident as the "Balloon Boy Hoax". We're not here to re-litigate their conviction, or the way the media has treated them. That's not what Wikipedia is for. ApLundell (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

When you say reliable sources in previous conversations do you refer to all of the news and journalist websites placed in the refrences tab 90.206.225.173 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well we aren't referring to conspiracy theorists on Youtube. FDW777 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Somehow the news is reputable enough as if they have some special insight into the situation, meanwhile you label anything that doesn't follow the simple minded narrative that you follow where the law is perfect and uncorruptable, as a "conspiracy theory". Amazing argumentative ability you have, you truly are a shining example of the kind of minds that contribute to Wikipedia. Anything that is said on the news must be the objective truth, according to you. I suppose this is why Wikipedia is never used as a source in any writing of merit. Enjoy your hegemony over what is true or false though, being able to act in accordance to reinforce and validate with what ever you want to advocate for. 2601:742:8100:B070:B53B:C5F8:D5E3:1233 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s not up for debate anymore. The state has exonerated Richard.

Richard Heene was pardoned by the Governor of Colorado in December 2020. Allegations of a hoax have been proven false. The world needs to know about the corrupt actions of the legal system that led to Richard’s false conviction. 208.104.155.129 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This is more than just a “Youtube conspiracy theory.” The news was wrong and the state admits it. Unlock the article. 208.104.155.129 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong., Washington Post says Polis did not absolve the couple of guilt in the incident, but he did wipe away the criminal charges from their records. FDW777 (talk)

Also if you're still drinking Richard's Kool-Aid I recommend you read in full this 2019 article where his claims of innocence are comprehensively demolished. FDW777 (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

So you'll believe the unsubstantiated accounts of a freelance journalist, but not first-hand video evidence, which includes CCTV footage exposing the shadiness of the prosecution. Seriously, @FDW777…? OmenBreeze (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will believe in what reliable references say. That's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Once again we're not interested in self-confessed criminals who claim to be innocent on unreliable Youtube videos which cannot be used as a reference. FDW777 (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"self-confessed criminals" … I can tell you didn't watch the video I linked. Also, how do you account for the CCTV footage of the interrogations taking place? Ah, must've been some huge elaborate play, hmm? Pray tell why that matters less than a magazine article written by a journalist who had zero obligations to uphold editorial integrity. OmenBreeze (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no guilty men in prison. FDW777 (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This is what you're stooping to now, huh? Snarky reaction clips on YouTube? Real professional conduct, just like calling users "Kool-Aid drinkers" and "conspiracy theoriests" simply for trying to dispel an aggressively non-neutral tone in an article on a site that strives to be unbiased and encyclopaedic. That is, fact drive. And currently, you aren't even interested in acknowledging facts that might prove you were wrong about Richard Heene. You've literally just finished admitting so yourself]. OmenBreeze (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you pay more attention to the notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Balloon boy hoax, and also Talk:Balloon boy hoax/FAQ. FDW777 (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess if you claim something is reputable, it automatically becomes reputable, especially some no name journalist with no actual insight or proper research put into it. I applaud your ability to attack the character of Richard Heene in such a way that you manage to also beg the question in your Ad hominem. Wherein you assume that because he was coerced into admitting guilt, that he must be guilty, despite that being the premise of the entire counter argument, is that the admission was COERCED. I'm glad that someone like you, with such ability, is in charge of the public face of knowledge and reality. Since you have such a strong hold over it, at least you are confident. 2601:742:8100:B070:B53B:C5F8:D5E3:1233 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)