Talk:Balloon boy hoax/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Please Keep This Story

This story is a prime example of the wretched excesses of "what passes for news" in 2009. The gross immaturity and total lack of analytical skills of our "media giants" were aggressively placed on display for the entire world. Surely it has some value in sociological or anthropological terms as we seek documentation of the new lows that "journalism" has become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.224.122 (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree this should stay...but more because it illustrates the deep, almost pathalogical desire we Americans have to be on television. I mean...what a pathetic grab for "fame" by this family. But really, the whole thing isn't SO out of the ordinary, considering what we've mostly become. (wikipedia contributors exempt, of course) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codenamemary (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Image

Does anyone have a self-taken or free image of the balloon?--TParis00ap (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

At approximately 4:14pm local time, the boy was found hiding in a box in his parent's attic over the garage. story is at [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveInAustin (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Further/Future Developments

Don't delete yet; the story's still developing -- in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, when he was asked why he hid in the attic, Falcon said "we did it for a show..." DavidOaks (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Find a source, sounds interesting.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I found a few sources on both sides, I've added them. Although I could not find your quote nor did I hear it in the video interview.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC) i have posted under this one the source of the interveiw in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI6UONWCq7A at 0:32 he says it

Added the liftcapacity of Helium

The father as constructor of the ballon must have been aware of the maximal lift capactiy of his ballon. From the fotofootage it seems impossible that the liftcapacity comes near to 20 kilo. --Neozoon 09:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, if my child disappeared, the balloon was the air, and I was told my child had crawled into it, I'd be panicking a bit too much to do the maths. :) And even if I did do the maths, I'd still be terrified that I was wrong. - Bilby (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If you built the helium craft yourself, you'd know the maths inside out, and prob have them written down. You'ld also know intuitively that the baloon could barely lift a kitten once it had lifted it's own skin.--Jaymax (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was about to work the problem, and someone beat me to it :). An episode of Mythbusters involved trying to lift a ~50 pound little girl and it required around 144,000 party-type balloons. --aloishis89 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.32.143 (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The event is notable as a watershed moment in the stupidity of the American television news. It falls below many previous levels of abject inanity. All references to the father's interest in, and possible qualifications regarding, "science" have been via statements by the mentally challenged. The amount of helium present or consumed from any onsite compressed-gas tank, he capacity of the balloon, the slackness of the envelope during flight indicating no payload, all have gone unremarked. Mydogtrouble (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Clear indication of a hoax

After the child said "we did this for the show" the mother said "no" as if she was trying to coax the child into saying something else. I wish I had a citation for the "no" response then it can be added to the article. Also, the child appeared on a morning program vomiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerofrussia2 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the "no" comes at 0:44 of the youtube video posted above (in case that section gets removed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI6UONWCq7A). --Mwn3d (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't 'a clear indication' of anything, but we should mention it in a neutral manner. The child could have been nervous/confused/etc. –xeno^talk 13:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone look at this picture of the family, with their mock expressions of...what do you call that expression anyway?... and still think it's NOT a hoax?

[2]

This Heene Hoax article should definately stay. It's one of those "War of the Worlds" media moments. the public learns how vulnerable we all are, internationally, when we give too much faith, authority and unquestioning credibility to the media. 174.21.13.141 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What we believe personally may be different than what should be in this article per WP:V, WP:OR, etc. –xeno^talk 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have just given the same reminder to someone editing a related article. It's also why I weighed in re: the article's validity on the Talk page, not the article itself. 174.21.13.141 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If these people pulled off a hoax, how are the media at fault for that? If it's a hoax, it will be the media that enables the public to find out, by exposing them. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The media are not at fault for the hoax. The media is at fault for failing to fact check before relaying "details" to the public, and other aspects of poor journalism. Looks like Wolf Blitzer was one of he few journalists on his toes. This Heene Hoax is a valid article to keep, in my vote. 174.21.13.141 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that video for the first time. The kid blew the parents' cover. They can expect a large invoice in their mail sometime soon, a greeting card from the search-and-rescue organizations. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, "the media" stated search & rescue would not charge the family for the effort. 174.21.13.141 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. They said they don't charge unless there is a crime involved. Whether this apparent hoax turns out to be a crime has yet to be determined. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 14:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Filing a false police report, missing persons report, or child abduction by wayward UFO balloon are all criminal offenses, last I checked. There might be federal/FAA consequences as well, if it's determined the balloon was intentionally let loose, due to flight departures at Denver International Airport being suspended as a precaution against a possible collision between the unmanned balloon and an aircraft. 174.21.13.141 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A video of the launch, labelled "Home video shows balloon" was posted at CNN.com, with a countdown, Mr. Heene pulling a release pin, and the balloon flying away, with Mr. Heene yelling at Mrs. Heene about her supposed failure to tie down the two tethers. The bottom of the balloon only had the silver button or little compartment it had when it landed. None of the video showed an open door. There was discussion yesterday about something having been attached with pegs, but the video just does not show it, that I can see. There was nothing visible suspended below the silver button. Where is the boy supposed to have entered? In an interview that night, Mr. Heene said that 1 million volt electrical pulses were supposed to be emitted from the balloon for one minute every 5 minutes while it was tethered, controlled by an "egg timer", to test a lateral propulsion system. Has any story yet shown the silver basket interior? Where was the million volts supposed to come from? Edison (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your link did not support the claim.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Try clicking on the link that I cited, rather than making a counterfactual accusation. Everything I stated is clearly shown in Heene's home video. Can you see the balloon? Can you hear what Heene says? Can you see anything below the balloon but the 4 foot by 1.5 foot cardboard cylinder? Edison (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR ? Just because 'everyone' might be able to see something in the embedded video does NOT mean that something meets he requirements for inclusion. The observaton must first be made by a WP:RS--Jaymax (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What if the boy meant that they make the balloon "for the show" - ie, a UFO for the psyience show? --76.14.54.237 (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The boy was directly asked "why didn't you come out of the garage;" responding "[we built the UFO] for the show" makes no sense in response to that question, even coming from a nervous six year old. Additionally, instead of immediately clarifying his comment and explaining "the show," his parents stumbled and went off on a tangent about grocery stores, obviously unable to explain his statement. Also, while the source isn't the most reliable, reports have come in that the Larimar County Sheriff's Office is officially investigating reports that the event was hoaxed. ShadowUltra (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

CNN says there's supposed to be an announcement soon. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 17:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Two Words: Lie Detector. Three more words: He'll never pass.

On a lighter note, can an admin unlock the article? Vandalism can simply be reverted without shutting editors out of WP. 174.21.9.250 (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

More meme links

• Balloon Boy - Quickest Meme Ever?
• BalloonBoy (2009)
• Balloon Boy (2009)

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Examples of hoaxes that capture widespread interest are appropriate for the encyclopedia. The great Moon hoax is an example now often cited and studied for cultural and historical purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancemoody (talk • contribs) 15:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recentism

Another example of how recentism is taking over Wikipedia. By this time next year this news incident will be largely forgotten and will seem very trivial to be included in an encyclopedia. Especially when compared with the countless of similar "bored America" gossip/sensationalist news stories from the past, from before Wikipedia was created, none of those will have articles. But anything that makes the news these days, no matter how trivial, will have a Wikipedia article. Although it can be a good thing that we're maintaining a record of popular culture. Anyways I'm going off-topic. -- œ^™ 05:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about 99% of the topics covered on WP, and would probably consider most of them trivial. This is no reason to remove them, especially not if they meet our five pillars.  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing to remove them, rather I think it's disappointing that all the news items that happened before there was a Wikipedia, will never get the same amount of coverage as recent news items. -- œ^™ 05:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I empathise there, but hopefully in time digitalization will fill that gap (once Google conquers the present and moves on to the past).  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It could be argued that incresing recentism is actually a reflection of the maturity of the encyclopaedia - more editors finding that their less current knowledge is already encapsulated. Regardless, I see recentism as a GOOD THING - I see no reason why a digital encyclopaedia shouldn't provide background and context around current events - being a news item is not in conflict with WP:V. Rather, I see the issue as the idea that notability can not be transitory - where is the harm if the encyclopaedia pulls together information on large, multi-day, developing significant news stories getting international coverage?

HOWEVER - My corrolory to all that, is there should be rigourous cleanup - if the problem is left-over chaff, then send left-over chaff for deletion. Maybe we should have an 'articles of potentially transitory notability to auto AfD in 12 months' list.--Jaymax (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Colorado balloon hoax

This article should be called Colorado balloon hoax or Falcon Heene hoax. Phoney Frank (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait for the AFD to end. –Howard the Duck 18:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all a hoax. The Henne family were eager to have a Wikipedia article. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if they did this just for wikipedia, although who knows nowadays. There may be someone in this discussion who may be connected to the family. Perhaps trying to keep that article, but who can tell anymore?Jojhutton (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that the sheriff has declared it a hoax, I am moving it to Colorado balloon hoax. Mike R (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See Article titling: "hoax" or "incident" -Leo 19:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material

NOTE: I didn't click to this being removed for WP:BLP reasons, this headnote added so others don't repeat my mistake--Jaymax (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The below is unsourced, I've removed it pending sourcing. –xeno^talk 18:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the father only called 911 after first calling the FAA, followed by KUSA (Channel 9) due to that station having a news helicopter able to track the balloon's progress. CNN has raised questions about the Heenes' publicity-seeking behavior, such as why pre-dawn television interviews with a sick Falcon were being conducted with a vomit bowl at the ready. The Heenes responded that they called the television station before 911 because they wanted the station to get their helicopter to track the flight of the UFO-shaped balloon. CNN and others have pointed out that 911 emergency services has access to their own helicopters. During the 911 call, Richard Heene interrupted the 911 dispatcher to check a call on his cell phone.

You should not have removed it, since several sources are available. The follow up CNN broadcast with Wolf Blizter speaking to the county sherriff is where it originated. 174.21.9.250 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

See the first banner on this talk page. –xeno^talk 18:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, see this:

"Before the fame-seeking backyard scientist Richard Heene phoned the police to report that his 6-year-old son, Falcon, had floated away on a homemade flying saucer Thursday morning, he called a local TV station and asked them to send a news helicopter." [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.9.250 (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, source re: statement: During the 911 call, Richard Heene interrupted the 911 dispatcher to check a call on his cell phone. [4]

So Xeno, please restore what you removed prematurely from the article. Thx 174.21.9.250 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding these sources. We must ensure we accurately represent them, however. –xeno^talk 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please restore this edit, which had been deleted. This version has sources included.

Text to restore:

Also, the father only called 911 after first calling the FAA, followed by KUSA (Channel 9) due to that station having a news helicopter able to track the balloon's progress. CNN has raised questions about the Heenes' publicity-seeking behavior, such as why pre-dawn television interviews with a sick Falcon were being conducted with a vomit bowl at the ready. The Heenes responded that they called the television station before 911 because they wanted the station to get their helicopter to track the flight of the UFO-shaped balloon. CNN and others have pointed out that 911 emergency services has access to their own helicopters. During the 911 call, Richard Heene interrupted the 911 dispatcher to check a call on his cell phone. [5] [6] 174.21.9.250 (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. After reading and re-reading the sources provided, I am not convinced that they support the statements. Tim Song (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - I moved it back - but after reviewing more closely I agree. I'm going to try and hunt down better refs so hold off reverting please.--Jaymax (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Will add some sources below. 174.21.9.250 (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The original source was a broadcast by CNN news instead of a print/online article, so I do not know how to source it. It aired Friday (10/16/09) (Wolf Blitzer’s 2nd interview of the sheriff.) During the broadcast follow up, Blitzer says to McCafferty, “What kind of family makes their sick little boy do pre-dawn t.v. interviews, while he’s sick and vomiting? And I notice they had the vomit bowl at the ready.” McCafferty says, “Yeah, I feel sorry for the little guy. For the son, NOT the father.”) Blitzer agreed.

Blitzer also discussed that the father responded, re why they called the tv station before calling 911, that he wanted the TV station’s helicopter to follow the balloon, to which another CNN legal advisor responded, “Well that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, since 911 has their own helicopters.

Here’s an itemized sourcing of what you can restore (it's basically identical to what's already been restored, with sourcing added:

The Heenes had called the FAA first, followed by a local TV station, before finally calling 911 emergency services. The sheriff said the call to the TV station, KUSA-TV, made sense because the t.v. station’s helicopter could have provided immediate assistance.[7] However, 911 also has their own helicopters. During the 911 call, Richard Heene is heard interrupting the 911 dispatcher to check a call on his cell phone. [8] 174.21.9.250 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm thinking in terms of WP:BLP - Where is the reference discussing 911 having availability of 'copters in relation to the order of calls. In any event, this might not pass muster for inclusion. Where is there mention of 'check a call on his cellphone' during the 911 call? And even if there was, again, it might not pass muster (because of the implicit suggestion that to do so would have been a 'bad thing'--Jaymax (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Producers cancel "The Show" which was in development with Heene

Producers cancel "The Show" which was in development with Heene

Please add the following edit to the article, under the section about the family:

The producer of "Wife Swap" said that it had a show in development with the Heenes before the balloon incident took place, but they have now cancelled the show.[9]

174.21.9.250 (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Added to Family Background section.--Jaymax (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jaymax. 174.21.9.250 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Gawker interview with 'co-collaborator' (sort of)

http://gawker.com/5383858/exclusive-i-helped-richard-heene-plan-a-balloon-hoax

Quite a bit here... not sure what can /should be used. eg:

And Richard said, "how much do you want to bet we could facilitate some sort of a media stunt that would be equally profound as Roswell, and we could do so with nothing more than a weather balloon and some controversy?"

--Jaymax (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest inquiring about this at WP:RS/N before putting it into the article. The fact that the "co-collaborator" sold this story to the source should really give us pause. –xeno^talk 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

He has e-mails: http://gawker.com/5383866/introductory-emails-between-richard-heene-and-robert-thomas

67.187.236.0 (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A very brief summary of the hoax claim by Robert Thomas can be added to the "Hoax" section of the article, together with disclosure that Gawker paid Thomas. A link to the Thomas & Heene emails is a must, to establish Thomas & Heene were in fact communicating about the subject of this article. The existence of the emails makes it noteworthy in the article, and allows readers to make up their mind without adding interpretation or bias.174.21.9.250 (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is verifiability. Emails are very easy to forge and the question really is if Gawker is reliable enough to check the authenticity of the emails. There are two things to question, 1) Are we sure that is Richard Heene's email address, and 2) Did the email really originate from the domain they appear to have originated from? If both are yes, than we are sure. So did Gawker verify this or not?--TParis00ap (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. This Balloon Boy nonsense should pretty much wrap up from here, esp. once the friendly, "gullible" sheriff investigates Thomas' claims, as TParis suggests. I'm signing off this article, but hope someone will update (or add a new) "Cost of Search, Rescue and Investigation" section. Ta. 174.21.9.250 (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thing we need to be concerned with is BLP issues. A claim like this is very controversial and negative, so I think we would need more than just Gawker to use it. I will be removing the statement per BLP concerns, and when we get more sources it can be put back. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Gawker is a sensationalist gossip website and is not a reliable source on BLPs or controversial issues. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the same principle applies to publications that have picked up on the Gawker report. I see that a couple have done so. If they independently confirm it, find. If not, I think it's problematic and does not constitute the "additional sources" that Wordsmith correctly points out is required.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Early indications of hoax

I note that the comments about the order of calls, and the million volts have been moved out of the 'Hoax' section to the 'Search' section. While I sort-of understand why, the early media is drenched with implications that these are suspicious - as yet I havn't found any WP:RS that say it outright.

eg: the order of the calls in this article all a gag which is strongly focussed on the 'is it a hoax' question. Is this a sufficient cite, or does interpreting a deliberate inference constitute WP:OR?

I'd like to see these things at least mentioned under the Hoax heading, as things that had many people wondering before (NB: not 100% sure if 911 call released before) the kid really gave the whole game away. Generally, the 'raising of suspicions' sequence is important.--Jaymax (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Related to the 'call sequence': http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world/balloon-boy-father-called-faa-then-9news-before-calling-9-1-1_100261757.html FAA has found no record (yet) of call from father - call came from TV station! Prob BLP sensitve though at this time.

Comment I'm bugged by the fact that STRONG EARLY suggestions of it being a hoax were all over the place in forums long before the MSM decided it was okay to comment on it (some even while the balloon was in flight). But this obvious observation constitutes WP:OR so obviously can't be included. Meanwhile, the MSM is all over when THEY finally clicked (the Blitzer interview). It will be good to include some WP:RS on this in the media section once it eventually gets some retrospective coverage. The science / physics aspect (or rather, the lack of any use of science based consideratons) in particular is STILL sorely lacking in the media, even in hindsight and retrospection.--Jaymax (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Add a Picture

This article would be more encyclopedic if there is a picture of the incident in it. ≈ Commitcharge

There was a request for a reader to contribute an image of this event, but it was removed without explanation. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Limiting biographical information

I have removed the biographical information from the article that is not directly related to the event, per the Notability guideline for Criminal Acts, which states:

The class of articles detailed in the preceding section are meant to be about the event, and not the participants. This means that biographical information about participants should be limited to that which can be linked to the event; material that establishes the notablility of the event, or which is reasonably required to explain some aspect of the event.

I left information in the family background section that is related to the event, but appearing on Wifeswap and a few other things were removed. I also removed a report of a fake 911 call previous, because it alleged domestic violence and was unsourced. If it appears in any sources, it can be re-added. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Falcon Heene discussion

One week, one month or one year from now, no one is going to even care about this story. So, why is this so worthy to put into wikipedia. Should we put any news story we happen to like on to Wikipedia? Com'on.

• The Balloon hoax is a helluva lot more newsworthy than the irrelevant video games that run once a month as a "featured" story on Wiki's front page. Before you can knock out something like this, the Wiki editors need to get a lot more serious about what is important and relevant. I expect you can find 100,000 Wiki articles that are obviously less "Wiki-worthy" than this story. C'mon indeed. Jrgilb (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • • And they should all be deleted too! Reywas92^Talk 18:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Then let's wait a week or two and decide. It is certainly currently significant. If it is revealed to be a hoax, I think it should stay, as it may be referenced by future articles. This event may be historical, in that other real-life hoaxes that occur in the future would say "Just like the 2009 'BalloonBoy' case, the family faked the _____ for fame"Jason Tracy (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll second that. Let's wait and see, at least until a week or two have passed, and determine then if this is worth deleting. It may be worth merging into something else, or at least be mentioned somewhere. It did make international news, and though it may not be news, it has become known worldwide. Jonathan (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Falcon Heene appears to be a candidate for deletion. I think that wikiworthyness may have more to do with this as a historical event rather than focusing on the boy.

• I beg to differ that it's even an "historic" event. Way too premature to make such a claim in less than 24 hrs. Kid was found unharmed...end of story. Delete, I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like it should be merged.Bachcell (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• See also Larry Walters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.59.23 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

hey, the way that the wife swap sentence is below the rest makes it seem like he was on the show two times already, like today. after the incident. also, that should just be taken out since it's got nothing to do with the incident (this isn't an article about the kid) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.12.166 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Falcon and his family were featured in two episodes of Wife Swap, the second as a returning viewer-chosen favorite.

• The kid received more news on CNN than tens of thousands of gays marching on Washington. Very important article. 128.171.47.165 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks both, and with apologies for having to semi-protect the article. If you create an account and visit WP:PERM/C, you can ask for the confirmed permission to edit the article. –xeno^talk 21:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems there was a basket and it fell off the "craft" or w/e. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4ySQ0eV_qZefmRQD9BBOOKG1

http://www.etonline.com/news/2009/10/79776/ Hopefully he was never in it at all. KevinBSB (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous: "Officials have expressed concerned that he may have fallen out during flight. Margie Martinez of the Weld County Sheriff's Office says that the door was unlocked in the balloon"

should be

"Officials have expressed concern that he may have fallen out during flight. Margie Martinez of the Weld County Sheriff's Office says that the door was unlocked in the balloon" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.172.193.92 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Brother says he saw Falcon fall out of balloon. http://www.calgaryherald.com/Giant+helium+balloon+recovered+Colorado+missing+inside/2107162/story.html KevinBSB (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Also "According to the Fort Collins Coloradoan, a local resident reported something dropping from the sky near Weld County Roads 41 or 43 and 28." from source above. Someone add this stuff? KevinBSB (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Alleged picture of boy falling from sky. http://www.theskichannel.com/news/skinews/20091015/Picture-of-falling-object-from-balloon-is-ominous-for-Fort-Collins-Heene-family —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinBSB (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be deleted cause it was stolen from me and mine was put as a redirect. shows that no one has any respect on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony1103 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You really have to read WP:OWN. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he may have a point IF this was a copy/paste merge. Copying from one article to another without attributing the contributions to the author is actually violating Wikipedia's license. That is why merging must include history merges. Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves. However, I've reviewed the old article and his contributions still exist there.--TParis00ap (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anything was merged from this article created long after this one was already well-developed. –xeno^talk 17:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts on this, (WARNING: This is my opinion!!) While this is certainly 'big' news right now, I'm of the mind that in 2 or 3 months people are going to be asking "Falcon Who?" which will quickly be followed by "Oh, yeah; wasn't..."

In 2 or 3 years people won't remember this little 'adventure' at all. Remember the Corey Delaney article? The only noteworthy thing he did recently was post a hat trick for his football (called 'soccer' in the States) club. And that wasn't even the same 'him' since this happened in New Jersey! Dr. Entropy (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So while this is currently news, I'm not sure it justifies having its own Wikipedia entry. In my opinion (again, opinion ... let's wait for consensus) this doesn't belong. Dr. Entropy (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor revision made to correct my own misspelling and corrected 'baloon' to 'balloon' in article. I must be getting tired. Dr. Entropy (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

you all are falling for it, he did this for publicity and it seems by having a page on it is adding to the publicity! 98.117.40.154 (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Map Images

I don't think the map showing the location of Colorado in the US, or the map showing the location of Fort Collins are necessary or useful to this article and should be removed. If someone wants to know where these places are they can go to the related Wiki articles or any map. What would be useful is a map showing the path the balloon took on its flight. I'm about ready to remove the maps but felt I should bring up the subject here first in case someone has a good argument for keeping them. Mantisia (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think both maps are useful to give context to the story. A map showing the path of the flight would also be useful and might replace one or both of these depending on the content of the map, but until then, this is useful information. --Crunch (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's retarded to title this article "colorado balloon incident". Do a google search based on hits and you'll see that "balloon boy" would be MUCh more appropriate. NO ONE reports it as the colorado balloon incident geez. 66.90.150.146 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)yourdaddy

See Also section / Lawn Chair Larry

I added in the see also to 'Lawn Chair Larry' when it was mentioned about three times (by oters, not me) in the AfD debate.

The section was removed once with no determinable reason (might have been a suggestion of WP:SEEALSO conflict, but there isn't any

The section has been removed again by a different editor with the suggestion that there is no relevance. To me the relevance and appropriatness is so glaringly obvious I find it difficult to put into words beyond (Helium + Balloon Flight + Human + Bizzarre = Notable Media event :: See Also)

If Wikipedia was 80 years old, there'd also be an article for 82-year-old Bradenton resident Bill Crawford - and I'd add that one too (see [http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/oct/16/bradenton-original-balloon-boy/news-breaking/) But it isn't, so there isn't.

So what's the consensus. Is there sufficient tangental connection between Lawn Chair Larry and Balloon Boy to link them via See Also?--Jaymax (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of adding Larry to the see also section.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where there's a firm connection, beyond attendant publicity. Lots of people go up in balloons. Larry's flight was real, and the kid's flight was non-existent. However, it's not worth edit-warring over. The novelty aspect is there. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting it back in (for the 3rd time). If TIME make the connection, then the connection can't be that obscure. [10] --Jaymax (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they didn't make the connection. They were discussing ballooning. That's really a different topic. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh - I give up - someone else can reinsert if there's any consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 04:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

Should there not be an Aftermath section ? There are about 9,000 news stories about this on Google at the moment with a lot of reports on the Sheriff's statement that it was indeed a hoax. The Aftermath section should examine the legal penalties awaiting Richard and Mayumi Heene, some reports say they could get 6 years plus a large fine plus have their children taken away by Social Services. I think we should have an Aftermath section examining all the legal and social problems they face. --Tovojolo (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The story is still evolving so it might a little premature for an Aftermath section. --Crunch (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoax not "Confirmed"

We can't say that the hoax was "confirmed" as no charges have been filed. It is alleged. Please be vigilant in seeing to it that we don't convict these people in Wikipedia. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A hoax is the default position, as there is nothing supporting the idea that it was a real event. As I said on Postdlf's talk page, the evidence allegedly shows that: 1) It was impossible for the balloon to launch with the boy inside, and Heene must have known this. 2) Robert Thomas and others have presented evidence that this incident was planned, tailored, and pitched to a major broadcast network days to weeks before it occurred, with documents showing an agreement to pay the Heenes for the coverage. 3) All three of the Heenes' sons knew of the hoax. 4) Charges are pending. If this isn't a hoax, we would expect some major evidence to disprove or contradict one of the four items above. We do not assume that something is real. We assume it is a hoax until it is proven otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is America. We do not assume guilty until proven innocent. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 09:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, we don't?! LOL!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.130.104 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

People do. Wikipedia and the legal system do not. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 09:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not America. This is a Wikipedia article. And this is an encyclopedia article based on facts, all of which currently point to this incident as a hoax. Do you have evidence that they point to anything else but a hoax? What do the reliable sources say? Or more to the point, what does Wikipedia say? Let's take a look at Category:Hoaxes_in_the_United_States. What do you see? Do any of these articles require anything more than what we have to classify them as a hoax? What exactly are you waiting for? Tell me, what is the strongest piece of evidence available at this moment that points to this incident as not being a hoax? There's nothing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The default position is that this is a hoax. There is no way that the balloon could have held a child, and this incident should never have reached the media. So then, why did it? There is really only one conclusion. Now, as to who perpetrated the hoax, that is another question, but you seem to be confusing the incident and the perps, whomever they may turn out to be. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the balloon could have held the child is largely irrelevant when it comes to whether the incident was a hoax. No one is claiming the balloon genuinely held the child and then he suddenly popped up in his parents attic (or whatever). The question is whether his parents genuinely believed he may have been carried by the balloon. If the parents lied about the dimensions of the balloon or its makeup that may suggest they were perpetrating a hoax however the fact that the balloon could have held a child is again, largely irrelevant as to whether the incident was a hoax Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the facts of the matter are entirely relevant. If the balloon could not have held a child, then how did this impossibility get reported to the media? You are wrongly assuming that the parents are solely responsible. According to news reports, authorities are pursuing multiple leads, including other suspects. This could possibly include the participation of a media organization, who knows? In any case, one person cannot pull this off. The incident was most assuredly a hoax, but this is separate from the question of who is responsible. You are mixing the two things, unnecessarily. Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If the parents reported what they believed to be (but not necessarily accurate) genuine dimensions and weight to the police and the police informed the media, then it is entirely plausible that the police and media would presume the balloon was capable of lifting the child. This may not be what happened here but the fact the balloon could not lift a child does not mean it was a hoax since unless someone actually had the balloon on hand to measure or were able to come up with a reliable estimate of the weight and size which would be rather difficult when it's in the air it's entirely plausible that the police would presume it capable of lifting a child and the media would follow the police lead. You seem to be applying what you know now to the situation at the time, which is a rather flawed analysis. In fact, it's hardly surprising that the media did little analysis of their own, it's not exactly uncommon they report late breaking stuff without any. If the authorities and police were treating the incident as genuine then anyone with much experience with the media wouldn't be surprised they'd just follow. So really the media don't come in to it at all rather why the authorities believed the incident to be genuine at first and this could be a hoax or it could be genuine wrong information or even simply incompetence (if they didn't bother to actual check whether the balloon could plausibly carry the boy, not apparently what happened). Anyway this is all getting rather OT. P.S. It's obviously possible someone in the media was involved in the hoax but that's neither here nor there. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The question about whether it was a hoax has been floating around since the day it occurred [11][12] but Wikipedia editors like yourself swallowed the sweet Kool-Aid with bright smiles on their faces and ignored that angle, preferring to wait until allegations arose after the family appeared on Larry King. Kudos to GroundReport for doing the job Wikipedia failed to do. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the requirement of WP:BLP and in many cases WP:OR. In fact, if you genuinely believe it is wikipedia's job to do what the media aren't doing then you have a serious misunderstanding of what wikipedia goals. If you don't like them, I suggest you don't edit wikipedia or at least not article involving living people. You also appear to be missing the point. I personally believed it was likely a hoax since perhaps 20 minutes of first hearing about it (which was after the boy had been found and after the Larry King incident) but that's irrelevant because I should not add my POV to the article. But this is not something I discussed in any way until now. My point was and remains that whether or not the balloon could lift off with the child, was largely irrelevant in itself in determining if it is a hoax, only whether (anyone) provided any knowingly incorrect information (which would imply it was a hoax) which lead authorities to believe it could. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't hide poor research and bad editing behind the claim that you are upholding a policy. Concerns about a hoax were raised from day one but were ignored. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, may I repeat we do not do original research on wikipedia. There's no ifs or buts about it. If 'concerns' are discussed in reliable secondary sources then these can usually be included in articles but when it comes to WP:BLPs however we generally require a very high standard before we mentioned speculation particular negative. This isn't hiding behind policy but reflective of the fact WP:BLP is a cornerstone policy which must be upheld at all times. Despite what some people think, wikipedia should always be behind the media never before and this is particularly the case in WP:BLPs. In any case, I'm not sure why you're complaining about this to me given that I've never edited the article and only discovered it about 6 hours ago. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever are you talking about? The two sources I listed above[13][14] were ignored by Wikipedia editors. In case you aren't aware, we use sources to write articles. There's no original research here. Please don't respond to this comment with more nonsense about OR. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Two poor quality sources is never enough for making such serious claims as allegations of a hoax in WP:BLPs. You said "you can't hide poor research" so it wasn't and still isn't really clear to me what you're talking about. If someone didn't find two obscure sources in writing a latebreaking article that hardly counts as 'poor research' in writing a wikipedia article. Excluding two sources you're aware of because they aren't sufficient according to policy clearly isn't 'poor research'. Even if it was the wrong thing to do and wasn't supported by policy, which I don't believe it was, that still wouldn't be 'poor research'. In fact it's best not to accuse editors of 'poor research' at all even if they did fail to find some good sources particularly in latebreaking events. Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

GroundReport apparently broke the story about the hoax, and their sources are impeccable. Calling Editor & Publisher a "poor source" says more about your judgment than you probably intended. Viriditas (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In this modern day and age, many media which "break stories" are often not great sources and need to be used with care in wikipedia articles. In BLPs in particular it's usually necessary to wait until other sources have followed. I'll freely admit, I've never heard of Editor & Publisher nor GroundReport before today however their articles and sites don't scream out "highly reputable sources". E&P in particular appears to be directed at media organisations more then the general public which could suggest we really need to wait for other sources to pick up their stories and GR is called "citizen journalism" which says the same thing even more strongly, particularly for BLP. Also, you don't appear to have edited the article or the talk page until today or yesterday nor can I find anyone mentioning those sources before you so I don't see any evidence anyone here even knew these obscure sources exists (although as I said, I doubt they would have been sufficient to mention speculation of a hoax in the article per WP:BLP). So I don't really know what you're complaining about when you yourself didn't even try to help. Contrary to common perceptions, wikipedia is most definitely not a newspaper and it's fine and often a good thing if we're a few days behind sources particularly in BLPs. And this seems a good a time as any to end any and all discussions about this. P.S. (EC from below) Ironically reading the E&P source they mentioned exactly what I said above, that no one in the media even bothered to question if it was possible so it's hardly surprising that they made a big fuss whether hoax or genuine mistaken belief. The E&P source also gives the boys weight as 50 pounds but most recent sources quoting the sheriff gives the weight as 17 kg or 37 pounds which shows why we have to be careful with such sources Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to hide poor research and editing behind policy enforcement. It's bullshit. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

← So the fact that the editors here didn't use an inappropriate self-published source and an obscure editorial piece out of the tens of thousands of articles that were available on this subject = poor research? Come off it. –xeno^talk 13:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's not get ahead of ourselves. If we find that a majority of reliable sources call the incident a hoax (not an "alleged" hoax), only then can we call it a hoax here. Judging the facts for ourselves and concluding that "it must be a hoax" in the article is original research. Also, since this article involves a living person, the default position is not to state that a crime has been committed without sufficient sources that say exactly that. Evil saltine (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break: "We had it tethered. It wasn’t supposed to take off," he said. "It emits a million volts on the outer skin." Yeah, sounds real. Like I said, a hoax is the default position. Viriditas (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is real. I'm saying that we can't make that judgment on our own. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Also, calling it a hoax is not the "default" position, because WP:BLP takes priority. Evil saltine (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the policies. And, I'm saying that even though there was a paucity of sources initially indicating that it might have been a hoax, most of the sources assumed the event was real, without question, and without any investigative journalism until later. That's why I keep asking (with no response) for the Campanella material to be added, because it was one of the first official sources to indicate that the facts about the boy were unknown and he was possibly not even on the balloon. The same is true with the Colorado National Guard's report to Sky News which called the initial report unsubstantiated. So we have two early sources casting doubt on the reportage, but because they are marginalized in favor of sensational news stories, they are ignored. The Hoax category has had the criteria for inclusion of "possible hoax...not intended to disparage the authenticity of the report" in place for years. Nobody has ever been concerned enough about BLP to change it. As for the default position, I believe we are running into the limits and boundaries of recentism. A good source will be skeptical, ask questions, and investigate the story, and ultimately start asking questions about a hoax. I believe it is the default position, and that we must not simply report what sources say, but sift, weigh, and analyze sources for their authoritative analysis and opinion. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Stepping back let's look at what were actually discussing here. I see JohnnyB256 made this change [15]. It was entirely appropriate. Saying that the sheriff confirmed it was a hoax/publicity stunt is at best poor writing, at worse a potential BLP violation. Instead, it is better to actual write what happened which is that the sheriff said it was a hoax or consider it a hoax and are pressing charges Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that the sheriff did actually say he could confirm it was a hoax. Despite that it's still better to present it as a statement of the sheriff rather then a statement of fact Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the balloon cannot have possibly carried a child at any time, it was a hoax from the very beginning. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That's just silly. If it was a hoax, then it was obviously a hoax from the beginning. However as I've said so many times, and this will be the last time, even if the balloon could not have carried the child doesn't imply it was a hoax. There are clearly many possibilities (many seem unlikely now, but may not have been at the time) when all parties involved could have believed the balloon may be carrying the child even if it could not have carried the child. (In fact, if the authorities had decided based on the information available it was unlikely the child could be carried we have no way of knowing how different they would have handled it.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not silly at all. Questions began to be raised immediately and they would not go away. GroundReport and Editor & Publisher covered all the bases and Wikipedia dropped the ball, choosing to blindly mimic the news frenzy. You can justify it all you want, but this is what happens when you suck the teat of the mass media. There needs to be more skepticism and less credulity. Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that on Friday, the sheriff said it wasn't a hoax. Let's let the sources be our guide, especially as regards naming of the article itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, you're arguing for wikipedia being at the "leading edge" of stories. That is not wikipedia's function. Failure to understand that fact, is the source of much of the conflict on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when is being accurate "leading edge"? I really hope you don't believe that. Viriditas (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is accurate as it stands. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The best thing we could have done would have been to avoid this whole mess by waiting a few hours or even a day or so before we even wrote an article. Excessive WP:Recentism is very often a problem and it probably was here. Sadly it's very difficult to solve since editors are reluctant to wait but one thing we can not do is to negatively speculate on living people with poor quality sources. Anyway the reason I joined this discussion one last time is because I just found out was even more silly then it seemed. The hoax speculation was first added here at October 16 02:15 UTC which was about 4 hours after the boy being found was added to the article at October 15 22:15 UTC which itself was about 2:22 hours October 15 19:52 UTC after the article was created. I don't see any evidence the hoax speculation was ever removed. In other words, this is a complaint about 4-6 hour at most. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line, a consensus of editors here believe that reliable sources have not yet confirmed it was a hoax. There are reports of speculation and accusation, all of which can be properly documented in the article if attributed, but that does not amount to confirmation. Even local news stations (hardly the paragon of journalistic quality and restraint) say "alleged" when referring to even criminal defendants standing trial until they are convicted, because being suspected, accused, or even indicted of a crime does not necessarily mean you committed it. That's skepticism, and that's WP:BLP. Postdlf (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Not yet confirmed it was a hoax"? Show me a single reliable source that says that. Questions were raised about it being a hoax right after the incident, and those sources were ignored. Questions continued to be raised after the family appeared on Larry King. Questions continued to build until authorities announced they were pressing charges. All reliable sources are now reporting that the authorities believe it is a hoax. There is nothing to "confirm" nor have you presented your special criteria for "confirming" this as a hoax. You seem to be saying that we can't call this a hoax or add hoax categories until someone is convicted of a crime. Is that true for all articles about hoaxes? I will go out on a limb and say it isn't true for any. I get it, I get it. It's only a hoax when you say it is, right? Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You said it yourself: "authorities believe it is a hoax". That is not the same statement as "it is a hoax". The sheriff on Friday said it wasn't a hoax and on Sunday he said it was a hoax. Which time did he get it right? Stick to the reliably-sourced facts, and all will be well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Two sources which questioned whether it was a hoax on the day the incident occurred were ignored. Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me where we ignored the sources? Were you here to insert them? –xeno^talk 13:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've offered them on this talk page. Have they been added to the article? Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article reports what the sources have said. What more do you want? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the GroundReport article. You've got the old CNN iReport from the father where he claims the nonsense about Mars isn't a hoax; the initial statement of skepticism on the day it occurred from the Sheriff's Office, and the questioning by CBS. I don't believe any of this is in the current article. Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have now. But we didn't ignore them before. We're looking at them, and we're determining whether these sources are accepting in light of our rigorous standards for sourcing an emerging event with strong BLP concerns. –xeno^talk 13:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

See above. They are still being ignored. Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The self-published citizen report isn't being ignored, it's being justifiably dismissed. –xeno^talk 13:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources used to write the citizen report are still valid and are covered by other RS. I thought that was obvious. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you can cite the sources used directly. Using a citizen report to bypass WP:SYNTH is inappropriate. –xeno^talk 13:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? GroundReport broke the story and I was attributing to them, rightly. I'm curious about how attribution is supposed to bypass SYNTH. Do tell. Viriditas (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Story"? They broke their opinion it was a hoax. And a citizen journalist's opinion does not meet our standards for inclusion.

Just to be clear, I hold the exact same opinion - but that doesn't change the fact that we must approach this article with a discerning eye wrt sourcing and the utmost attention to BLP concerns. –xeno^talk 13:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. You must have read a different article. The article I read was called, "Was Balloon Boy Chase a Hoax?" I see nothing stating that it was a hoax, according to them. In any case, the story repeats a quote from CNN that was covered by other networks. This quote is not in the current article. Sky News reported on Thursday, October 15 that "Eloise Campanella of Larimer County Sheriff's Department had told CNN: "The bottom of (the balloon) is contained and hasn't been breached. "So at this point we are thinking he did not fall out of it. He has to be somewhere on the ground near his home." However, many news sources reported this statement or one similar to it, but did not report the full statement, which reads, "At this point, we are thinking that he did not fall out of the balloon and is somewhere on the ground," Larimer County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Eloise Campanella told CNN. "The basket itself was not breached. It does not look like he fell out of it, but again, this is all conjecture. I'm very confident we will find him. I think it's a matter of him being a little scared," she said. "Maybe he's not ready to be found."[16] It looks like the original is contained within a CNN transcript of some kind. The Sky News source also reports that "spokesman for the Colorado National Guard earlier told Sky News the boy's brother had said he saw him fall out of the balloon but that report 'was unsubstantiated'." Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

← Finding these quotes in reliable sources is not difficult. No need to disregard our sourcing standards. –xeno^talk 14:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't disregarded anything. I've only asked why the material isn't represented in the article. Still no answer. And yes, GroundReport still broke the story. Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

They didn't break anything. They regurgitated what they saw on CNN and questioned whether it was a hoax. Can you explain why we should disregard our sourcing standards to include this? If I wrote the same thing on my blog, should it be included? –xeno^talk 14:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

GroundReport was one of the first news sources to write about a possible hoax and the Campanella quote from other RS is still not in the article. Which sourcing standards are supposed to be disregarded by adding the Campanella quote? Viriditas (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, even as you describe what your sources and other media outlets and involved persons did, you say things such as "raised questions" and "questioned." Questioning necessarily means not confirming. It has also been reported that Richard Heene has no more than a high school education. Belief that his son was in the balloon, despite the physical impossibility of flight in this case, could just as easily be explained by ignorance as by a hoax. It is almost definitely a hoax. But IS NOT confirmed.146.122.71.68 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what would confirm this incident as a hoax, and please point to other topics/articles on Wikipedia where such a confirmation process has taken place so that I can learn what it looks like. Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Vague accusations about ignored sources will fall on deaf ears. We have already told you about our policies for including information on living persons. Just because it seems that this one actually is a hoax, doesn't mean that the next one will be false, or the one after that. Our policy is to protect people who may have been unjustly accused by unreliable sources. Those sources, especially at the time, were not credible enough. We don't use citizen journalism for something as controversial as this. That's what WP:BLP is all about. BLP policy is not negotiable. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Citizen journalism isn't being used for anything. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not anymore, no. –xeno^talk 14:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that link was in the article. Who added it and when? Viriditas (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On the 16th (UTC - actually very late on the 15th in the timezone of the incident!). –xeno^talk 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Following up from Wordsmith's comment above, were the Heene's "unjustly accused" of anything in that link? Viriditas (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but above we were unjustly accused of ignoring this source =) –xeno^talk 15:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Campanella still hasn't been added, so it is still being ignored. And, I've provided RS above, including Sky News, and you found the CNN material on kptm.com. Viriditas (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why haven't you added it? –xeno^talk 15:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was obvious. I was reverted when I tried to add categories, and I was reverted when I tried to remove a seealso link (accidentally, it turns out). At this point, I confine myself to the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Then prepare your suggested edit and post it here. –xeno^talk 15:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to log out, so I don't have much time, but the suggested Campanella material would go in the "Search and discovery" section. At present, it only says, "Once the balloon touched down, it was reported that it did not appear breached." The reference for that statement is here but it looks like either the article content has changed or that statement refers to one of the embedded videos. From what I can tell this is supposed to refer to Campanella,[17] but for some reason it no longer does. Viriditas (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoax not "Confirmed" arb break

Let's get back to the subject at hand: Viriditas makes a good point - At what point may we put a Hoax category on the article? –xeno^talk 14:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer both Viriditas's point and yours: when the parents admit it was a hoax. They haven't, and they are facing criminal charges. It's a question of fundamental fairness as much as it is Wikipedia policy and BLP. I'm really surprised we're arguing this point. If it's hoax, they're guilty. We simply can't adjudge them guilty. That's not our job.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be up to the court to decide if it was a hoax or not, or the family to admit guilt. It's like accusing someone of murder or any other crime without going though the legal processes. Bidgee (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion at WP:BLP/N was to create a category: Category:Alleged hoaxes until we have either a conviction of a confession to confirm. –xeno^talk 14:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Alleged" is a verboten word to use in categories, because there's no meaningful threshold for inclusion—how many must allege, or who? Those categories are always deleted. Postdlf (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Category:Hoaxes: "This category includes notable proven hoaxes and possible hoaxes. An article's inclusion on this list is not intended to disparage the authenticity of the report, but to denote that it is in general considered, or evidenced, as having being created as a hoax, or was known to be false (or a joke) as created. Note: To forestall disputes among editors, religions and religious figures are excluded from inclusion in this category, although this may be disputed by some editors." Last major revision regarding inclusion of "notable proven hoaxes and possible hoaxes" added by User:Tempshill on 4 October 2004.[18] Viriditas (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • 1) The category shouldn't include "possible" hoaxes; 2) even if we pretend that the category description is not problematic, it would indisputably be trumped by WP:BLP in any instance; 3) even if we observed and applied that category's description here, there is not a consensus that it is yet "in general considered, or evidenced, as having been created as a hoax, or was known to be false (or a joke) as created." Seriously, Viriditas, this isn't going anywhere. It can be revisited once the story develops further. Postdlf (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Category:Potential hoaxes created, for events that sources indicate might be a hoax (not confirmed or disproven ones). If consensus develops here, i'll add it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Support I am all for this, I am surprised it was not created sooner. Although perhaps "Alleged hoaxes" might be a better name. Potential hoaxes could lead to WP:OR. Alleged or accused would require WP:RS.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure about "Potential hoaxes" ("Hey guys, let's write a fake wikipedia article" is a potential hoax). Suspected hoaxes? –xeno^talk 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think suspected hoaxes leaves room for WP:OR.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As a category, it's vague and unworkable, and it just seems like a weasel word way of saying something is or is probably a hoax, rather than attributing the accusations that it's a hoax (something a category cannot accomplish). What's the standard for determining that something is a potential hoax? Postdlf (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the key here is articles where the media has already said something is a hoax and it is in the article with reliable sources. Instead of putting these alleged or accused hoax articles in the Hoax category, this category would be for those that are not confirmed by a guilty verdict or admission of guilt. It is not meant to accuse in any way but it will need some wording to ensure that does not happen.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

YSupport with the proviso that it is only used on articles where the is significant media coverage on the possibility of it being a hoax --UltraMagnus^speak 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll just throw Alledged Hoaxes into the pool. That removes the subjectivity. If a WP:RS (say, a sherrif quoted on CNN) says it's a hoax, then 'alledged' passes an objective standard? I totally concur that BLP trumps anything in the article indicating a wiki determination of it being a hoax - and that is depite My presence here since the 15th being basically driven by seeing the balloon while it was in the air, doing some quick math, and being sure that this was going to turn into a hoax story from the moment I arrived. User:Viriditas analysis of the editor intent early and to-date is way of base. Rather, it seems to me that it is WP:BLP that thas largely been constraining reporting of suggestions of the obvious in the media --Jaymax (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The hoaxes category was used correctly according to the criteria for inclusion which has been in place since 2004. It remains unchanged at this time. The current article is completely out of date and still parrots sources from the day of the event, ignores the criticism of the media circus that ensued, and doesn't mention the displacement of major news stories, such as President Obama's town hall meeting in New Orleans. Concerns that I've raised about sources (such as at 15:46, 19 October 2009 above) remain ignored, with sources in the article still saying one thing but using sources that don't support it[19] and ignoring sources that do.[20]. The lead section attributes this sensationalism to a "mistake" (hardly, as Carl Bernstein said, "Well, let's take a look at what we're talking about: misinformation, disinformation, celebrity stuff—gossip, sensationalism and especially manufactured controversy.... Increasingly, sensationalism, gossip, manufactured controversy have become our agenda instead of the best obtainable version of the truth. We've become frivolous.") and large swaths of facts continue to go unreported here. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Respecfully, have at it - start getting the stuff that you feel is missing into the article. WP:BOLD and all. (But WP:BLP still trumps whatever the hoaxes category says if the two are in conflict, and will lead to the quick removal of other content that conflicts - I know, some of my early edits were removed because I wasn't thinking about BLP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If BLP is such a concern, why wasn't the criteria for inclusion immediately changed on Category:Hoaxes, and the categories combed for offending material? Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. But I didn't have a chance to really search through its subcategories. It's dinner time. Postdlf (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hell, if any non-Wikipedian is going to be upset about the word "hoax" being used, it will be because the word is used prominently in the lede and discussed throughout the article, not because it will be found way at the bottom in a category name. I think if you just put it in Category:Hoaxes in the United States it would not be a big deal, but I understand the need for users to debate such minutiae. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Category:Hoax allegations if "alleged hoaxes" is out? That would be a kind of holding pen for articles on hoaxes that haven't yet been proven.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

protection...

This article needs to be protection protected given the number of times it has been protected and unprotected in the last few days --UltraMagnus^speak 20:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but should be no more than semi-protection for the time being. Chuthya (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is semi-protected until the 22nd. –xeno^talk 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. There are plenty of eyes on this article to revert vandalism if it is unprotected and plenty of admins to reprotect it if it does. There has not been any edit warring between the admins that would require additional page protection.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

GeoHack Co-ordinates

Would it be relevant to add the co-ordinates of the beginning and ending of the balloon journey, a-la Geo Hack? Just asking. Sstteevvee (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say just do it--Jaymax (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I don't know how. Anybody out there who does? Sstteevvee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

Question about scope of article

Since the majority of the information now coming out about Richard Heene is more about his life and "career" and less about the "balloon incident", how much of that info really fits into this article? Like it or not (and personally, I don't), he probably will become notable enough to "deserve" his own biography here. Stan Simmons (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this is now a criminal issue, the notability guideline is at WP:N/CA. Quoting from that:

A perpetrator of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a perpetrator. Notability with regards to this is normally defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. Editors should consider creating articles on perpetrators if at least one of the following is true:

1. They are notable for something beyond the crime itself. An example is Phil Spector.
2. The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities. A good test for this (but not a necessary prerequisite) would be if the victim has an uncontested Wikipedia article that predates the alleged crime or death. Examples of perpetrators meeting this standard are John Hinckley, Jr., Mehmet Ali Ağca, Yigal Amir, André Dallaire and Gavrilo Princip.
3. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime, as above. Examples of perpetrators meeting this standard are Jeffrey Dahmer and Beverley Allitt.

Editors must take note of the stringent conditions imposed by the guidelines for biographies of living persons. In particular, editors should remember that someone accused of a crime is not considered guilty of that crime until they have been found to be so under judicial process. If such adjudication has not occurred, editors must give serious consideration into not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured, since doing so not only risks violating WP:BLP, but also may not adequately satisfy notability guidelines.

This suggests that most likely, the parents will be qualified for an article in the near future. As far as the scope of this article, the same guideline has this to say:

The class of articles detailed in the preceding section are meant to be about the event, and not the participants. This means that biographical information about participants should be limited to that which can be linked to the event; material that establishes the notablility of the event, or which is reasonably required to explain some aspect of the event. The application of this guideline will necessarily vary from article to article and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

This suggests that most biographical information, including what I have cut from the Family Background section, would belong in an article on the parents. This article should only have information directly linked to the event. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

From #3 above, both the execution of the alleged crime and the alleged motivation for it are unusual in this instance. Information about the parents' career is relevant to their motive for making and having the balloon in the first place, and their alleged intent to perpetrate the hoax for publicity. So don't go overboard in trimming information about the parents, as a lot of it is relevant to and informs the event. Postdlf (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would defer towards inclusion of anything pertaining to (1) pseudo-scientific aspirations, and/or (2) seeking TV (slash public?) exposure; as 'leading towards' the event. Separately, pointing out that it's not ONLY an article about a crime (ie: the 'event' was (debatedly) notable even before the criminal aspect was confirmed), and so WP:N/CA should probably not be interpreted restrictivly in general here.--Jaymax (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a regular at WP:BLP/N and tend to lean towards excluding info with no clear relevance established in reliable secondary sources. In this particular case however I mostly agree with Jaymax. Info on the parents or husband's alleged publicity seeking ways including appearing on Wifeswap, acting background etc belongs although should not overwhelm the article. However I'm not convinced on info with no established relevance to the incident. E.g. where the wife grew up even if it can be reliably sourced. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Unless she grew up in a commune of ballooning enthusiasts and reality TV aspirants. Postdlf (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose to add something like the following:

Richard Heene's YouTube contributions show a great interest in UFO's and the Paranormal. In a press briefing after his son resurfaced, Heene claimed that the ballon was designed to utilize the Biefield-Brown Effect. Earlier he also told the 911 dispatcher that the balloon would periodically "emit 1 million volts on it's outer skin." Reporters later found only a few 9 volt batteries and little in the way of wiring or electrical components inside the balloon. The Biefield-Brown Effect is often interpreted by UFO proponents as means of electrogravitic propulsion but has never been shown to have practical use in this capacity.

My sources will be:

For the YouTube: his youtube link For the 911 call: transcript at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,567720,00.html For the BB effect: wikipedia article For the batteries and lack of other electrical stuff: balloon tour at : http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/10/19/spellman.balloon.tour.cnn

I feel all the above is appropriate for the article but wanted to get other opinions before I put it in. Lancemoody (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of my above information would now have to threaded into various sections of the article (some of it has already been included by other editiors). Does anyone have any objections to the above material?Lancemoody (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Slight structure change?

I'm wondering if the "Helium balloon flight" and "Search and discovery" sections should simply be merged? As it is, half of the latter section is about the tracking of the balloon, which seems more appropriate for the "flight" section anyway. If they aren't merged, then that information should be moved over to the flight, and the "Search and discovery" section should include only info on the landing of the balloon and the subsequent "discovery" of Falcon in the Heene house. I'd like to hear what others think of this? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 06:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Also, the "helium balloon flight" section had included some info about how the sheriffs later discovered the balloon couldn't have carried Falcon (based on the actual dimensions). I expanded that info a bit, and looking back at it now, I'm wondering if it still belongs there, or if it should be moved to the "criminal investigation" portion of the article. Again, any thoughts on this would also be appreciated... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 06:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think the balloon and flight info should be merged with the 'search and discovery' - because there are two quite distinct, mostly unrelated sub-stories - one human, one technical. I suggest 'search and discovery' might need retitling however, to focus on the human stuff, and move truly flight related stuff into the flight section. I also wonder if the Balloon Data should be soft-separated from the flight info?--Jaymax (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happens, I think Hunter Kahn is on the right track. You need to create and maintain a narrative flow, starting with the lead section. The background works up until the fourth paragraph, which should actually be the first paragraph of the next section, title to be determined. Sandwiching technical specs in between the background and the search sections doesn't really preserve narrative. For the reader, it's best to place technical data in a floating table or box off to the side and keep the narrative going, but use the data to illustrate the narrative. Right now, there is no flow at all, and information appears all over the place, out of context and out of chronological order. It's a real mess. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaymax, your removal of the reference to Falcon's weight[21] now causes major confusion in the helium balloon flight section, where the weight is referred to without the benefit of the previous explanation since you deleted it. I don't really understand your reason for removing it (or the edit summary you used) but the weight has been referred to by the authorities, especially at their major press conference where they talked about the testing. It's an important part of the story, and without it, the material that says, "Alderden said the base of the balloon could have handled 37 pounds without breaking, but in order to go airborne with those 37 pounds inside it would have had to have been attached to a more powerful balloon" doesn't make any sense. Try to read the article with fresh eyes, as if you didn't know anything about the topic. Because of your deletion, the number 37 is no longer defined. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaymax, I'm not at all clear why you are saying the weight issue isn't important. It was important enough for the authorities to conclude that the balloon could not have launched with Falcon on board. Is there a reason you have determined on your own that this is not important enough for Wikipedia? The NYT covers it here but the original press conference discussed it in more detail. Please add it back in, as RS and the authorities find it important to this story. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Falcon's weight thing. Put it back - and it fits well in the stuff about the sheriff's investigations. What do you think of the flow of the 'Balloon Flight' section now - hopefully it portrays better why I think it (except the last 'sheriff' para) forms a solid section of it's own. Later we can add in the actual weight of the baloon when that's known, or maybe put something in now as 'over 18 lbs' - the weight of the balloon being a different issue to the fact the father lied about it.--Jaymax (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to watch or listen to the original press conference (it's online, I watched it earlier) or read the NYT article above? Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I might be confused - which weight issue - I removed something that seemed to suggest the lift capacity of the helium depended on what the balloon is constructed from. I don't dispute that the weight of the balloon (and so it's construction) is very important to both the physics AND the investigation. NYT article link above requires regn for me :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)