Wikipedia

Talk:Balloon boy hoax/Archive 3

< Talk:Balloon boy hoax
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Deacon Vorbis in topic Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2019
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

In retrospect... why not?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Above in Talk:Balloon_boy_hoax#Move_.E2.80.93_RS_and_IAR_vs._BLP_concerns I asked to move the article to Balloon boy 'hoax' as a temporary measure, which was countered with 1. we generally don't put quotes in titles and 2. how would it improve the article (it wouldn't). But, seeing that 1. it is just a guideline and it would be temporary and 2. it's basically the name now (so this structure was seen as an improvement)... Why not? In retrospect, it seems like editors were just being too guideline driven and didn't want to see a simple improvement... -Pecoc (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it wasn't an improvement. We don't use scare quotes in article titles because they detract from simple, factual descriptions and are far from neutral (compare, e.g., Vince Foster "murder", "Baby killing" in the United States). Appearing in the abstract, it would have been supporting a POV accusation, not a fact that was verifiable from what information was undisputed at the time. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see them as "scare quotes" in this case. I do see the concern for "supporting a POV accusation" but I think this would depend upon the circumstance and the media coverage. Also the quotes do not support the accusation but merely state that it is widely reported as an accusation. In this case -- but not your examples -- it doesn't strike me as POV. Fair enough answers though... Thanks. -Pecoc (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Guilty plea

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone know whether or not the parents also face a monetary fine to reimburse the rescue operations ... and, if so, how much? If indeed a monetary fine were part of the plea deal, this should be added into the article. Thanks. (64.252.145.131 (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Potential of bias in lead sentence

Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

The lead sentence currently reads: "The balloon boy hoax occurred on October 15, 2009, in Fort Collins, Colorado, when the parents of a six-year-old boy, Falcon Heene, falsely claimed that he had floated away in a home-made balloon." To me, that implies that they were lying. Personally, I believe it all was an intentional hoax, but the family still claims that they truly believed the boy was inside the balloon and only plead guilty due to fear of deportation. I would suggest that the wording be changed to "reported". Ωphois 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While the story was developing, we just had their story and the sheriff's allegations, and we had to give them the benefit of the doubt. But now that they've pleaded guilty, that changes the weight due their subsequent statements to the contrary. In the sentence you quote above, however, I think we could just omit "falsely" without losing any information. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine as is. He pleaded guilty in court to perpetuating a hoax, and the editors of this article specifically waited until that moment before the article was changed to reflect it. — Hunter Kahn 20:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
But as the article points out, he claims he only plead guilty to avoid his wife's deportation. Ωphois 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The title of the article makes it clear that it was a hoax. Using the term "reported" in conjunction with the fact that it was a "hoax", I think makes it clear that the report was a hoax. However adding "falsely" is an unneeded over-specification and verges on the POV because as Ophois points out the fact of a false report was never admitted to by the parents. Add to this a few WP:BLP and WP:WEASEL considerations, not to mention WP:SYNTH, and I think the current version is a fair compromise. I also agree with postdlf 's comment and I wouldn't mind at all if we changed "reported" to "claimed" but without that overbearing and overcautious "falsely". Readers are intelligent, we don't have to spoon-feed them. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
"A false report was never admitted to by the parents"? Mayumi's confession (during the investigation stage) and both parents' "guilty" pleas don't count?
I strongly disagree that we run afoul of any BLP issues by stating that someone committed a crime to which he/she pleaded guilty. That's when the presumption of innocence rightly terminates (subsequent backpedaling in the media notwithstanding).
Note that I was among those who argued against labeling the event a "hoax" when the charges were pending. —David Levy 00:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Pleading guilty does not automatically equal guilt. Pleading guilty can come with benefits as opposed to fighting the charges, as is the case by avoiding his wife's deportation. Ωphois 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
In the eyes of the law, pleading guilty does equal guilt. Are you arguing that Wikipedia should hold itself to a different standard (whereby a guilty plea—which prevents a jury conviction—essentially is meaningless, at least when the individual later makes a contradictory claim)?
There might be some validity to this argument if we were dealing with nolo contendere pleas, but we aren't. And regarding the "benefits" of pleading guilty, how does this account for Mayumi's original, detailed confession? What "benefits" would that have provided an innocent party? —David Levy 00:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
A guilty plea should be mentioned, but it would be synthesis to say that he is guilty if he then claims that he is innocent. You can say that "he plead guilty to such-and-such" rather than "he did such-and-such". I don't believe him, but this states: "Richard Heene said his wife was simply going along with investigators, and said she and their son, Falcon, are still relatively new to the English language." And Heene also provides other reasons here. Ωphois 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to verify, you're arguing that whenever someone who has pleaded guilty to a crime (thereby avoiding conviction by a jury) subsequently claims that he/she actually is innocent, Wikipedia should not state that he/she committed the crime. Correct?
Should we also move the article back to a title that refers to an "incident" instead of a "hoax"? —David Levy 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is supposed to follow a neutral point of view, then yes.
To avoid possible bias, yes, it should probably be moved back to "incident". However, I'm not necessarily proposing that; I just brought up the lead sentence, which has already been addressed. Ωphois 01:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
NPOV ≠ equal treatment of all viewpoints. By the above standard, if someone commits an act of murder in the presence of 100 witnesses, pleads guilty, and then claims that Martians beamed down to Earth and temporarily possessed his/her body, Wikipedia mustn't state that he/she committed the crime. —David Levy 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
And you keep bringing up that he bypassed a jury. However, even if he was convicted, that does not equal guilt either. It would be reported on Wikipedia as "convicted of such-and-such". Ωphois 01:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm addressing the BLP argument raised by Dr.K.
A jury conviction is an independent determination of guilt. The Heenes confessed their guilt, thereby preventing such an independent determination from entering existence. In doing so, they terminated their legal/ethical entitlement to the presumption of innocence.
So I understand your accuracy/neutrality argument, but I see no BLP issues at all. —David Levy 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
If you noted the way I phrased the BLP concerns, I did not actually speak of BLP violations but rather of unspecified "issues". I meant to say that by characterising the claim "false" on top of calling the event a hoax was, in my opinion, overkill. Given that we are still dealing with living people, even if convicted, I thought that we should use some caution regarding the direction of our claims. I did not mean that BLP was violated but rather that we should just try to be on the "benefit of the doubt" and NPOV side as much as possible and not try to overdo the guilty bit of these people. That's all. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
As noted above, I don't perceive any BLP issues. However, I agree that it isn't necessary to include the word "falsely" in that sentence. I do prefer the "claimed" wording (particularly because we use the word "reported" in the context of media reports two sentences later). You're okay with reverting to "claimed" (without "falsely"), correct? —David Levy 03:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. Thanks for asking. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've performed the edit. —David Levy 03:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Great. Thank you very much. It was a pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See diff by User:Drmies - I do not follow the argument that these instances of the hoax being picked up in popular culture are not suitable. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree so long as the inclusion is not used for advertising the band. It appears, though, that the band already have a Wikipedia page although I'd question it's sources for notability. To sum up, if the band it notable then it is worth including.--v/r - TP 12:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
If the band is notable, it's CLEARLY worth including - it might still be worth including in other circumstances. Likewise 30 Rock (previous diff) - I'm putting the content back in for now. Anyone with an issue should bring it up here.

Tether and launch

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Given all the noise and fuss about this, has there been any discussion of whether the whole tether and launch thing was part of the hoax or they really did screw up the launch (which perhaps didn't help their hoax) Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I just read two different news stories. The first said the "missing" boy's brother released the tethers. The second said "it became untethered". [1]
There's a big difference in my mind between "it got away" and "I released it". Anyone else concur? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A hoax is a false report

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I grin (or grimace?) at the discussion above as to whether it is editorially correct to say that the incident began with a "false report". If it wasn't false, then we have to change the title to Balloon boy incident.

I also would like to see some information about any journalists who tried to verify whether the boy was really on board or not. Was the premise of the flight that they were just floating a saucer shaped balloon to "see what would happen" and that they then "discovered" that one of their children was missing?

If so, by what journalistic standard would any newspaper or TV news department think someone could be technically adept enough to create a "saucer" with a door, and yet not be careful enough to make sure his kids were all accounted for?

Also, with all the concern about child abuse these past two decades, why was all the emphasis on tracking the balloon rather than putting pressure on the parents for negligence (assuming their story was true)?

I think the slant of this article should be on how shoddy journalism has gotten. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncle ed have you ever lost your keys and thought that might be locked in your car? Did you always react in a cold rational way? The possibility that they panicked (they do seem to be emotionally high strung)is still there. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
When someone reports a lost child, the first instinct is to look for the child, not to question the claimant. That's called "assuming good faith". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Balloon Boy: The Musical

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is probably not notable enough, at least not yet. A high school senior has won a national competition to develop his musical based on the hoax. Here are two cites.

  • Educational Theatre Association
  • Claire Martin (06/16/2014). "Taking flight: "Balloon Boy: The Musical," based on 2009 Colorado hoax". The Denver Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Choor monster (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Balloon boy hoax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Balloon boy hoax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is too long and the paragraphs are too heavy

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not an editor so I won't mess with it. Just throwing it out there that a lot of this information is too much noise. Give the guy his own wiki page. He's been on tv before. A lot of it can be added to his article. I want to read about the hoax. Not his life story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:82:203:9FAC:5CB1:384B:778C:98FA (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Incident

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the first paragraph of the Incident section, "Falcon is nowhere to be seen and nobody mentions the possibility of Falcon being in the runaway balloon.[30]". But the video as described in the referenced news story has been edited misleadingly. The full length version of this video shows very clearly that they do immediately discuss the possibility of his being trapped inside the balloon with alarm. I won't attempt to change the article; I wouldn't know how to cite it. But this detail of the article as stated is clearly counterfactual, and so I would appreciate if it were corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edleob (talk • contribs) 21:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at the original research noticeboard

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have sought wider community input and have moved this discussion at the original research noticeboard. The discussion is at: OR-push at the talkpage of the Balloon boy hoax article. I will no longer participate in this discusion but you are invited to the new one at the noticeboard. Dr. K. 03:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Balloon boy hoax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

David Icke

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Incidentally, I agree with the IP re the removal of the David Icke material. It doesn't seem really relevant what exactly Heene planned to spend the money on. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The Icke material seems marginal. Dr. K. 00:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

See also Miscovich emeralds hoax?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Miscovich emeralds hoax has been added to the See Also section (and vice versa) by SamHolt6. Am I missing something? Beyond being 21st century hoaxes I don't see the relationship. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither do I. I removed it. Dr. K. 00:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Are we sure it was a hoax?

Latest comment: 6 years ago51 comments10 people in discussion

I know I'm referencing Internet Historian here, but are we sure that referring to the incident as a "hoax" in the article title is NPOV? I know no mainstream outlets have picked up on the investigative claims of some anon from New Zealand, but it is pretty well-put-together.

I have no idea what I'm talking about, though, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. --XndrK (talk | contribs) 04:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the key here is that there isn't a controversy. All the reputable sources come down on one side, so the NPOV thing is to report it as they do and not give undue weight to a fringe theory.
That could change over time, I suppose, but I bet it won't. I don't find the Internet Historian's argument very convincing. It was very much like the "Unsolved Mysteries" tv show he was parodying : It connects well enough to make a good story, but it's ultimately not all that solid. I could be wrong, but I don't think it will stir up any debate among reputable sources.
ApLundell (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The newest video does make it seem alot more plausible, though. The photos and so on... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.100.68 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Just coming here to point out this video, that provides Richard Heene's response to everything that was said with full video evidence compared alongside what the sheriff's department and others claim was said / happened in their affidavits. Seems pretty conclusive to me that it wasn't a hoax, if it really was one then he's the best liar I've ever witnessed. 20:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Expanding on the above user's comment, the newest video containing Richard Heene's allegations does provide a substantial amount of material to back up his claims which are directly coming from the investigations of the authorities regarding the case. In an edit I made recently, I added a section on the allegations that he makes in this video. Never was it stated in my edit that the allegations are true or false, only that they were made and that the video contains material that supposedly supports those claims. Furthermore, the claim that Heene is suing the county is not a matter of controversy or opinion, but a fact, and there is no reason for it to be removed. Its not exactly unbiased that users be prohibited from mentioning the existence of this video and what it contains without a proper reason. Although the majority of the media has decided the event was a hoax, as well as there having been a confession, if information is revealed that shows a possibility the confession was coerced under circumstances of foul play, it should be mentioned in the article. After all wikipedia is meant for communicating information about a topic, not confirming or challenging the status quo. I will be revising my edit to make sure it does not contain anything other than factual information on the allegations made by Heene and resubmitting it; and I hope that it is not removed without a proper explanation for why it should be removed. 2601:645:8400:2FD0:FC00:F0E5:867E:D39 (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Using Youtube as a source is a common mistake made by new users. Youtube is not a reliable source. Please see WP:RS. To make matters even worse, the unreliable source that Youtube is, is also a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Using primary sources to report on controversies, such as this one, should not be done. Also The Daily Mail is a tabloid and is not a reliable source. Its use is generally not allowed on Wikipedia. Please see WP:DAILYMAIL. Dr. K. 06:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That's understood, however the sources cited are not being used to support any sort of opinion or allegation. They are being used to simply show the existence of the videos that are on Youtube. Outright banning Youtube from wikipedia is ridiculous; and while I understand the wariness on Dailymail, again, it is simply being cited as a way to show that Richard Heene has publicly claimed innocence in the past. If you wish, another of the plethora of sources, including a link to the very video from the Oprah show in which he has done so, can be used instead of Daily Mail. Also your comment that the Daily Mail is a tabloid is a mtter of opinion, as anyone could claim a news source they dislike is a tabloid and I'm sure we can agree all news sources are biased. Furthermore, your claim that is is not allowed is also quesitonable considering many pages have linked Dailymail articles in citation depending on the context, and in the link you yourself wrote above many users oppose the prohibition of Daily Mail or any other news source due to opinions of individual users. You consider Daily Mail a unreliable source yet "notthelatimes.com" and Gawker which are used as sources on the page seem to be of no issue.

I suspect you are concerned about the addition of the information because you believe that I am trying to support the allegations made by Heene or that I am making the allegations myself. I am not, rather I am writing that there exists a video in which Richard Heene claims innocence, presents allegations of foul play, and states he is suing the county over his allegations. I fail to see how that is in any way biased or unworthy of being mentioned in an article regarding the incident. Does Wikipedia require a cable news source to report that a video exists in order for it to be mentioned in an article? You mention in the message on my talk page that I "appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions" and that I am trying to promote a "preferred version" of the page, yet that is what you are doing yourself. I am simply trying to contribute and expand an article by adding more information yet you delete it because you seem to want me to link to an article by a cable news source to prove that a video which you are being directly linked to exists. I invite you to discuss the validity of the information I have provided and the necessity of it being on the page here in the talk section rather than unilaterally remove information because it doesn't fit your personal satisfaction regarding a source. Somehow mention about a musical by a "Billy Reece" without any source is considered important enough to mention in the page but allegations of corruption in the judicial process is not. I appreciate your conrcen and hope you can be fair regarding the right of others to contribute and edit. 2601:645:8400:2FD0:FC00:F0E5:867E:D39 (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no "preferred version". I only follow the policies of Wikipedia. These policies do not allow us, under any circumstances, to use dubious sources to make allegations against living people. Using a youtube video is bad enough. Using a youtube video, as a primary source adds yet another layer of unreliability. This is further compounded by the fact that the maker of that video is an anonymous guy under the presumptuous name of "Internet Historian" who hides his face under a paper mask. It just doesn't get any more unreliable than that. In addition, The Daily Mail, unreliable and unacceptable a source as it is, also mentions that the father made these allegations while promoting his kid's rock tour. This automatically rings many bells all ringing to the tune of self-promotion. This is basically, utterly, and completely unacceptable material, especially for an encyclopædia. I see also, as I was typing my response to you, that you reverted me. Let me assure you, that if you continue along this path, of lightning-fast edit-warring, trying to add this crap into the article, you will end up WP:BLOCKed. It's sad, but that's what will happen, should you choose to keep adding this stuff to the 'pedia. Dr. K. 07:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the issue above having to do with the sources or with the information itself? If it is the former then the issue can be easily solved by linking to another source which shows the same information or simply not linking to the video at all can it not? How can the argument be resolved alternatively rather than a revert war by the spammy contributor and Dr. K's banhammer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bekeke1 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a good question, and you show promise as an editor, since you seem to understand that the sources were spammy; although, I dispute the premise of my alleged "banhammer". But you are a promising newbie editor, so I hope you will eventually discern that that's not how wiki works, i.e. that there is no "banhammer" by anyone. If you noticed, the article has been locked for IPs. I did not lock it, therefore, this means that an admin agreed with me that this info, in its current form, is unacceptable. In addition, I did not revert the edit-warring IP's last edit. Another user did that. That means that another user agreed with me that the info failed wiki standards. This demonstrates wiki cooperation, not unilateral "banhammer". Anyway, to answer your question, we cannot accuse police enforcement that they lied or that they framed someone based on these sources. If there is a reliable source, stating that the father of the balloon boy thinks that he was framed or whatever, then we can add a sentence about it, always mindful of neutral point of view, balance, due weight for the views of this person versus all the other opposing views, and the fact that our policy of the biographies of living people dictates that we cannot call people liars, framers, abusers, etc., without rock-solid evidence. Dr. K. 01:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for your answer. I'm not new to Wikipedia by any means, I used to edit a good amount a couple years ago without ever registering but thought its about time to create some sort of name. In any case I'm not interested in discussing me, you or meta about the philosophy of wikipedia, just whether or not the allegations of the father are important enough to be included in the wikipedia article. I believe it merits at least some mention on the page. Maybe not in the form originally added by the above IP, but we can't just pretend its not there. It's understandable to be skeptical that the information came from a youtube channel and not from a news source, however it is also miselading to state that youtube should always be avoided as a source of information as, depending on the context, it is used throughout wikipedia. You say that there is a need for a reliable source to state that "the father of the balloon boy thinks that he was framed or whatever"; what more reliable source is necessary han the father himself saying it from his own mouth? If I may respectfully suggest, I think the topic is being looked at in the wrong angle in the sense that you and possibly other editors believe that it is being stated that the police have in fact lied, framed abused etc. However, reading over the controversial edits it seems it was only written that the father of the boy accused the police of doing so, not that there is any evidence to prove or to show a consensus that the police did those things. If anything, I believe the fact that the father is involved in a lawsuit against the police should at a minimum be mentioned in the page. I don't how doing so would be a NPOV violation or be biased toward one side or the other. To conclude my idea, you say that we can't call people "liars, framers, abusers, etc., without rock-solid evidence", however that was not done at any time in the recent edits as far as I could see, the IP user didn't call anyone anything, rather mentioned that the FATHER has done so and is trying to take that to the courts. As for the source, it came straight out of the man's mouth on a video, I don't think we need a peer-reviewed essay to tell us what we can see and hear in right in front of us. If you could explain how that would be considered an NPOV violation, I would love to be enlightened.Bekeke1 (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I know that the father calls the police liars etc., and not some abstract authority. I should perhaps have mentioned that more specifically in my prior reply. But we cannot scrape youtube to try and find comments of the father critical or insulting to the police. If the father's insults were notable they would have been picked up by reliable sources. If they were not, we cannot introduce them to Wikipedia by scraping unreliable youtube channels using talking heads hidden by flat paper masks. That's out of the question and it would be use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs to add BLP insults, even if attributed to the father. So we go back to WP:RELIABLESOURCES. If you have any, please specify which ones. Also, using a primary source to say that the father is planning to sue the police is not encyclopedic. Per WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:NOTNEWS, until he actually does, and when he does, it gets picked up by reliable sources, it is a no go. Dr. K. 05:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

All things due considered, Dr. K, we cannot take these "news" sites/stations as full truths. They constantly berate people during investigations, and do I have to remind us of the news team that broke into an active crime scene and took evidence? Also, if we cannot take into account the large amount of bias that news stations and sites that are considered "reliable" by wikipedia, then we cannot be reliable in the creation of articles. Many stations are even more biased than random people on the internet, and regularly spice up stories with things that did not happen. Wolven1.

We are not after WP:TRUTH. We are after WP:RELIABLESOURCES. If sources are considered reliable on wiki, then that's what we follow. I know, some behave wrongly sometimes, but that does not mean that we can dismiss the rest of the sources that are reliable, or dismiss reliable sources entirely because they have made occasional mistakes. Let me put it another way: suppose the father of the balloon boy kept a youtube channel, or twitter account, or similar, and kept adding tweets, or episodes in his channel, mentioning each time a new insult to the investigators and the media. Do you think, every time he added something, we have to report it to this article, on the basis of truth? Dr. K. 21:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This is where you are unfortunately meeting resistance with your refusal to aknowlwdge the video. Simply because something might be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia or one of its users, doesn't make what they say true. Inversely, something doesn't need to be stated by a 3 letter cable news agency to be true or SIGNIFICANT . This isn't about a petty insult being written on a personal twitter account, it is a recorded public statement in which the Subject in question makes serious accusations of perjury and falsification of documents in a legal trial. That is pretty darn significant; it's not simply Heene calling the police meanies. You are being overbearingly legalistic and refusing to use common sense I determining the importance and significance of the statements made in the video. You cite the guidance essays above as if they are meant to be religiously followed sets of doctrine, when they are instead guidelines that say at the very beginning context should be taken into account and they are not rules. It is understood that you do not consider the video a reliable source, while a number of others do consider it one given the context. Why should only your voice have weight in the argument? Furthermore, unrelated to the topic at hand, do you honestly think Wikipedia would be useful or of good faith if we dont care about the things in it being true? I know there isn't a WP:COMMONSENSE but sometimes it is the most beneficial of policies. Bekeke1 (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:TRUTH. Dr. K. 06:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not arguing the truth of anything, I'm discussing only the sighinifavnce of the video to this article and the validity of it as a reference. You again refuse to acknowledge the points presented to you and support your opinion so others can see the validity of your viewpoint. Instead you choose to simply link people to essays and not discuss on the talk page. That's fine, but then don't be surprised if others disagree and add the existence of the video into the article again since you are unable to support your viewpoint. The viewpoint of others also has weight. Bekeke1 (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Copying my reply
Please don't make this about me. It isn't. I told you this before:

If you noticed, the article has been locked for IPs. I did not lock it, therefore, this means that an admin agreed with me that this info, in its current form, is unacceptable. In addition, I did not revert the edit-warring IP's last edit. Another user did that. That means that another user agreed with me that the info failed wiki standards. This demonstrates wiki cooperation, not unilateral "banhammer".

The fact is, editors agree with me here. That's why your proposed edit will be reverted and reverted again, should you choose to edit-war about it. Face it, you don't have WP:CONSENSUS for your edit. Dr. K. 06:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr. K, pardon my words, but you are being very rude. You are unwilling to discuss anything on this page that does not confirm to your strict rules, and won't even talk anymore, rather just spamming the WP truth page. This is not exemplary behavior. Wolven1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem to not want to listen to my advice. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. I have spent all this time to try to advise these new accounts, only to get insults like yours in return. I know that trying to educate new users is sometimes a thankless task, and this is the proof. However, I have so much willingness to waste my time further trying to explain why this junk cannot enter the article. If you think that I am being disruptive, please go to WP:ANI and open a report about me. If you think your source is good, go to the reliable sources noticeboard to ask their opinion. I am done here. Just a final piece of advice though. When the article protection expires, if any new accounts appear trying to add this junk into the article, they will be reverted on sight. Best. Dr. K. 02:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

°== Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2017 ==

Revert to allow the YouTube citation as Dr.K maliciously reverted allowed citations(WP:Youtube) while not even being bothered to even look at the source used as its a interview with Richard Heene HIMSELF.

The fact that the user was allowed to repeatedly target a perfectly valid source should have consequences for their laziness to not even check the source beforehand and may have also in the past removed valid citations in other articles written which may require an moderator/admin to check that this is the only occurrence of this abuse. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr.K.)

If its required you could also contact Richard Heene himself to confirm it was him in the video at this email address "Richard.Heene.inbox@gmail.com". Anon99004 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: Dr.K acted in good faith to revert the YouTube citation, as the video was deemed a possible copyright violation, which is not suitable for Wikipedia per the guideline. See also WP:COPYRIGHT. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you jd22292. The personal-attack-filled diatribe of this account conveniently ignores the fact that I have fully explained my position on the threads above. The account is also most probably a sockpuppet. Dr. K. 02:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If this kind of stuff is allowed on wikipedia and isn't considered a personal attack, I don't know why this place is considered a trusted website. You are accusing people of being duplicates, even though the video in question people are flooding from has thousands of views, and many of the supporters of the video would likely want to come here and defend it to those who do not trust it. (Wolven1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). I actually didn't know what the talk page was on Wikipedia as I was only aware of the history edits itself. However after reading your "explanations" (Personal attack removed) the Youtuber themselves for not posting their personal identity to which we know that people who are deemed to be in the "Alt Right" circle are routinely targeted by being doxed, blackmailed, threatened, fired due to complaints to the employers, etc. A quick scan of their Youtube channel would also reveal that every one of their videos so far has been factually correct and the only main issue is they don't link the sources used in the video description and require the user to Google the subject to get the relatable information. I still don't understand how you can call the video which has interviews, news articles, news recordings, testimony's, etc and still claim that its unreliable. Also please stop calling users like me sock puppets due to disagreeing with your decision as it really makes you appear to have some kind of vindictive behavior. Anon99004 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand, previously it was stated the information regarding Heene's accusations couldn't be used because it didn't meet user Dr K's standard for a reliable source, because according to him YouTube videos are not encyclopedic and because the channel publisher "wears a paper mask" ( even though the one making the accusations in question and stating legal action is Heene himself, not wearing any mask, not the channel owner). Now another user comes in and says the issue is due to copyright. What copyright? What is the intellectual property in that video that is being used in violation of copyright? Fact of the matter is a number of users have made their opinion known regarding the issue at hand, explaining why they believe the video should or should not be included in the event's article, with about a 50/50 split. Yet since the information was added and originally reverted by dr k unilaterally, Dr k has refused to argue the validity of his opinion and that of others and instead named himself the sole judge of what should and should not be on the article, citing guidance essays meant as GUIDELINES, not rules, and been unwilling to compromise to mention at least the most significant of the information into the article. He speaks of taking into consideration the discussion of others and to refer to others respectfully, yet he fails to do the same as he preaches by ignoring the arguments presented to him on the topic of the significance of the information and source and by referring to those who hold a differing opinion as sock puppets. This is not beneficial for anyone. Wikipedia is meant to be a website where people interested in a topic can get general information about it, with the more information being a positive thing, with the spirit that anyone can contribute and have their opinion heard regarding what can be done to improve the article and website. It is not meant to be a place where users singlehandedly decide what they do and don't consider important enough and wiki lawyer until they get their way. It is this type of behavior that drives away interested and well meaning new editors and I have seen it over the years using, donating, and contributing to this website.

Using our common sense and logic here, what good argument, and what benefit does the article have to gain from completely omitting the information that Richard Heene, one of the two main individuals centered on in the article, has made public, of a legal significance to the event and the legal proceedings after it? In the essay "Wikipedia: Videos as references", it is stated " It's okay to cite movies, TV programs and videos as references, as long as they meet the reliable source criteria for other sources. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context". The key word being "CONTEXT". In this context of Richard Heene making allegations of legal foul play in his trial, what source is more appropriate than Richard Heene himself making the statements himself on video? Is it being argued that his statement is invalid because it's coming out of his mouth and not that if a reporter? I understand how due to biographies of living persons, references are needed for THIRD PARTY claims, but when the living person is making a claim who exactly are we protecting them from when the information came from that living persons mouth? Furthermore, on "Wikipedia: videos as references ", it is stated "Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources." Therefore the idea that the citation is invalid because it's made Heene and not by CNN or BBC or FOX is moot. The edit that originally started this discussion only stated that Heene made X and Y allegations , and stated he is suing the county. This information relates to what he is doing and alleging, therefore a self published video is perfectly fine as a reference to an edit which states Heene did this and alleged that. It's a public statement by the main subject of this article regarding the subject of this article. It should be included in the article. Whether or not Dr K, as well intentioned as he may hopefully seem to be, personally likes the owner of the channel the video is posted on is an unrelated and moot point when the video is acceptable as a reference to the information written in the article. Bekeke1 (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read all that wall of text per WP:TLDR. But I will copy my question to another user, just above:

Let me put it another way: suppose the father of the balloon boy kept a youtube channel, or twitter account, or similar, and kept adding tweets, or episodes in his channel, mentioning each time a new insult to the investigators and the media. Do you think, every time he added something, we have to report it to this article, on the basis of truth?

Can you answer this instead? Dr. K. 06:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I did answer it above, and it's unfortunate you don't feel like reading what people try to contribute and discuss on a talk page. It doesn't show much good faith when you simply revert an informative edit, claim unreliable source and cite essays like a wiki lawyer then refuse to discuss the counterpoints presented to you by others who disagree with you. It's not helpful for anyone. Bekeke1 (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Please don't make this about me. It isn't. I told you this before:

If you noticed, the article has been locked for IPs. I did not lock it, therefore, this means that an admin agreed with me that this info, in its current form, is unacceptable. In addition, I did not revert the edit-warring IP's last edit. Another user did that. That means that another user agreed with me that the info failed wiki standards. This demonstrates wiki cooperation, not unilateral "banhammer".

The fact is, editors agree with me here. That's why your proposed edit will be reverted and reverted again, should you choose to edit-war about it. Face it, you don't have WP:CONSENSUS for your edit. Dr. K. 06:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's where you are wrong. There are some that agree with your viewpoint, and that is fine, but you fail to recognize that others don't . Just as there were users that removed the information, there were others that added it. That is also wiki cooperation. This is not "my" edit, in fact I haven't edited anything at all as I wish to discuss with others rather than simply do as I wish and ignore the rest. I know the page was locked, most likely due to the fact a revert war took place instead of the discussion going on now. However that doesn't invalidate the information or the arguments that have been presented so far. You can't take into account only those that agree with you while ignoring those that disagree and present other pings. That is not consensus. I am simply arguing the information is significant enough to be mentioned on this article, if not in its current form then we should discuss in what form it should be presented. But simply dismissing it as if it doesn't exist is unbeneficial and intellectually dishonest. Bekeke1 (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Um no. Read what the admin said when s/he locked it: (Protected "Balloon boy hoax": Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: /BLP; via RfPP ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access]. That means the admin locked it for the IPs and the new accounts because the admin agreed that the sources you defend are junk. And refrain from personal arracks about alleged intellectual dishonesty. Again, face it, you have no support for the junk source. K. 07:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Wow, this is not considered a "personal attack"? Acting very rude, and saying someone has no support? And not only is this a very obvious lie, you are trying to use an admin's power to be a heavyweight in this argument.Wolven1
I'd like to refrain you from constantly changing the subject at hand with hyperbole statements and accusing me and other legitimate users as being the same individual (which is a clear NPA) that's been done repeatedly. Anon99004 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So since we've clearly gone off topic the video itself has a compelling case against this as it points out some of the following;

Now there's plenty of more evidence that hasn't been made public such as the evidence used in the case in the video itself. (Such as I've stated before photographs, testimony, news recordings/articles)

Such as some of the following;

  • The balloon couldn't lift off the ground with the boy inside of it with a claim of only . (Mathematically proven to be false that it was indeed possible to fit the boy inside of the balloon with 15lb of spare room left)
  • The media and police reported that Richard called the news before contacting 911. (Proven false by phone records of him contacting the FAA first followed by 911. Afterwards 911 operators put him on 3 times in which Richard

contacted the news to asked for an helicopter to help)

  • The police seized their assets including all electrics had no evidence to support the claim of the hoax. (Which was under a false pretentious for the search warrant due to the lie about the order of phone calls)
  • The confession on television by Falcon Henne(which Falcon Henne later claimed an reporter asked to show him how to get into their attic for a tv show which was what he thought they meant for the question about "what about the balloon thing?")
  • Mayumi's confession (She had a poor understanding of English, the police also arranged the meeting with false pretentious so her lawyer could not be present. Her confession also has massive issues with consistency such as the fact the was supposedly only two weeks old in her confession yet Sheree Silver stated that the craft existed 8 months prior)
  • Richard Heene wouldn't allow Jim Alderden(the sheriff) to run freely for governor. (Which would give a reason for the police to target and the fact that the chairman of Larimer County Democratic Party filed a complaint against Jim Alderden for misuse of taxpayer dollars for campaign)
  • The guilty plea. (Again valid claims such as all the news outlets already stating it as a hoax, his wife Mayumi being deported if they didn't accept the deal along with the attorney in question stating that the judge of his case Jolene Blair of unethical behavior for withholding&fabricating evidence against the defense )
  • The aftermath. (Not once in any of their future interviews has their been a single lie or contradiction of their original story)
  • A clear lie is found out as police claimed that there were only 2 9v batterys and no stungun was found. (Police photographs of the case show 3 9v batterys found at the scene so its a likely possibility evidence was tampered with)
  • The police lied about the lift capacity of the aircraft. (They stated that there wasn't enough lift capacity was proven mathematically wrong both by Richard Heene himself and a 3rd party professor in the case which confirmed Richard Heenes calculations were correct.)
  • Multiple police officers also self-purged themselves for their Affidavits.
  • Police also used a polygraph on Richard Deene to attempt of getting a confession which Kevin Maul lied in their Affidavit of this polygraph test. (Stating Richard Heene purposely tried to derail the questioning due to a fake medical concern which later has evidence showing Richard Deene has a blood sugar level of 473 at the time of the test)
  • The attorney also stated that if Mayumi wasn't threatened with deportation and Richard went to court he had a very good chance being acquitted from the case.

Sources of documented evidence (Youtube is now blacklisted for this page... can't post links really?)

  • There's more but couldn't be bothered to really do the entire thing also don't know about this formatting so whoever wants to go ahead and format this can go ahead. Anon99004 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

(Also please don't try and claim TLDR for not reading this thx)

None of that matters. It's not Wikipedia's job to give equal time to fringe conspiracy theories. In fact the guidelines clearly say to not do that. ApLundell (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately the article is not about proving or disproving one side of the story or the other. It's the job of a court of law to decide on that. You're looking at this from the angle that the video proves something and that it should be written it proves something. However that's not appropriate for the article. The video SHOULD be mentioned, in the sense that Richard Heene makes these allegations publicly. That's a fact, not an opinion and not a NPOV issue. Whether or not these allegations are true in the end is not relevant to the article nor the purpose of Wikipedia. All that should be added is that Heene makes these allegations in the video, with a link to the video as the source as it is appropriate in this context. Bekeke1 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with ApLundell. As I said before, you exhibit a rather obvious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Dr. K. 15:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
in the spirit of impartiality, although Wikipedia is not in the business of supporting one side or the other, as I wrote above, I wouldn't exactly refer to the topic as a fringe conspiracy theory; if this were the case any time a defendant makes a defense in legal case it would be a "fringe conspiracy theory". Nor would I say Wikipedia doesn't deal with conspiracy theories when there are entire portals dedicated to them. Bekeke1 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The key point you miss here is that for anything to be added to Wikipedia it has to be covered by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Your youtube source is not a reliable source and, more importantly, it has not been covered by reliable sources. Because of that, it will not be added to the wiki. Everytime a youtuber or a blogger adds a video or a post to their channel or blog, we don't have to go after them and add it to Wikipedia. See WP:NOTBLOG. Dr. K. 15:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Conversely, The key point you miss here is that in this context, the video in question IS a WP:RELIABLESOURCES. I am not arguing the idea that Wikipedia should have reliable sources. I am attempting ot explain to you, and anyone else in the discussion, that 1. The information is of significance. 2 It is of sufficient significance to be included in the article. 3. It needs to be worded in such a way as to remain impartial and only mention that Heene is the one making the allegations, not Wikipedia, and 4. That the video be linked as the source for this information as it is a self-published source acceptable under "Wikipedia: Videos as references". I already explained all of this above, as a counterpoint to your idea that the video is unacceptable and it's existence should be censored from the article, however you have refused to actually comment on the points that I have made and simply continue to repeat that you believe it is not reliable enough. Under this context, it is.

Everytime a youtuber or a blogger adds a video or a post to their channel or blog, we don't have to go after them and add it to Wikipedia.

. That's agreeable, however, when a main subject of an article goes on youtube and makes public statements which accuse the prosecution and law enforcement agencies involved in the the event the article covers of foul play, and announces they are suing those entities, it is a significant piece of information related to the topic of the article and needs to be included, we can't simply pretend it doesn't exist. Bekeke1 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not a defense in a legal case.
If the statement by Heene must be included, it should be as nothing more than a brief mention like "He continued to assert his innocence in 2017.[ref]". The fact that he was interviewed by the "Internet Historian" is not an excuse to introduce Internet Historian's fringe conspiracy theory to the article. It needs to be taken seriously by third party sources. ApLundell (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a start, and I am not saying that anybody's "conspiracy theory" needs to be confirmed anywhere. I am saying that the existence of the video and the allegations Heene makes in it need to be mentioned and referenced. That can be done as simply as writing "In 2017, Richard Heene released a Youtube video in which he accuses the Larimer County Sheriff's office and the prosecution of foul play, Heene also stated a lawsuit against these agencies is underway. [ref], that is perfectly fine and is what should be included in the article, not simply blacklisting he mention of this information altogether. Bekeke1 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I recommend this source [2] to reference Heen's continued denial, as opposed to the controversal video.
ApLundell (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a good source and can also be included in reference to Heene believing he is innocent. However, it says nothing of the accusations of foul play/corruption Heene mentions in the video, which is what I believe should also be mentioned in the article. The fact that Heene believes/says he is innocent is already known and mentioned elsewhere in the article. The topic at hand is what he is stating about the legal case and the agencies involved in it; which is is mentioned in the video that is the source of all this controversy. I still don't see why the video's existence cannot be mentioned. Bekeke1 (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
You've sadi that he "released" a video. Is there a video not published by the "Internet Historian"? I thought there were just two videos, both from IH, the second including an interview?
I'm opposed to giving any credence to videos by IH, even when they include interviews with the subject. ApLundell (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Although the video is published in the channel of "internet historian", the video is a video filmed by Heene himself of him talking. The name of the channel doesn't change the content of the video and the information mentioned within. Whether Heene had posted this under the channel in question or under any other random channel doesn't change the fact that this is coming out of Heene's mouth in a public space. The first video has no place in the article as it is simply an analysis by Internet historian on the topic and doesn't have anything to do with Heene. The second video however is one in which Richard Heene brought to light significant allegations regarding his legal case. I'm sorry that you are opposed to taking into account this information because of the channel it was published on however that's simply a matter of your own bias. The focus here is the things that Heene filmed and stated, not internet historian. Bekeke1 (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This is not a self-published video.
Don't blame me if the information you want to cite is only available from non-reliable sources. ApLundell (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
How is it not a self published video, when it is literally a video of Heene's face filmed with his computer's webcam, making legal allegations? In what sense is that not self-published? The information I am arguing should be included in the article is the video itself. I don't see what source is needed to state that the video exists and the allegations were made. Lastly, I am not blaming anyone of anything, don't make this a personal thing. Bekeke1 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't published by himself. So it's not self-published.
That's what those words mean.
This is a third party source that's not an RS. ApLundell (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, you told me not to "make it personal" after you made it personal by telling me that my insistence that RS rules are followed is an example of my "personal bias".
It's not. You can't blame me because there isn't an RS for what you want to add. (or For what you have edited.) ApLundell (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the channel the video was posted on is not managed by Heene does not remove from the fact that the statements were made by Heene himself. By your logic every time any source makes a public statement on a platform managed by someone other than themselves then it is unacceptable because they did not publish it. Do you deny that Heene filmed himself making those allegations and then released them in public, even if on another person's channel? It is still a self-published source. I did not make it personal, you stated above "I'm opposed to giving any credence to videos by IH, even when they include interviews with the subject.", which is a matter of your own opinion on the channel, something irrelevant to the topic at hand; and not related to any rules. htere is no rule written anywhere that a video cannot be referenced because a channel "internet historian" made it. If we are going to pick at straws there is a source used in this very article named "notthelatimes" that has been used and as ridiculous as I may personally find it I can't simply dismiss it because of my own bias. we can argue al day about which sources you and I consider acceptable or not acceptable; it would be pointless. the best thing to do is stick to the facts and write them in the article in a neutral point of view so as to avoid supporting one "side" or the other and still contributing to the article by adding more information that readers can be informed about. Bekeke1 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about the WP:TRUTH of the video.
IH's channel is not a reliable source. It's a vlog. It is only usable to support statements about IH himself.
If the information is important and notable, it there should be notable sources that mention or discuss it. ApLundell (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Thank you very much ApLundell. Dr. K. 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Bekeke1 is right that the video with Heene in it is a reliable source. Bekeke1 never argued about the WP:TRUTH of the video. I'd like to refer to WP:ALLPRIMARY, in the video Heene can be seen and heard making those statements, therefore it's a primary source, therefore those statements he made can be mentioned in a sentence on this article with the video containing those statements as a source. Unless copyright infringement was an issue (which there is no reason to believe there is), the fact the statements were published by a random anonymous blogger is irrelevant, since the video is a primary source, which is appropriate for the sentence proposed by Bekeke1. I modified his proposed sentence, changing "released" to "appeared in":
"In 2017, Richard Heene appeared in a Youtube video in which he accuses the Larimer County Sheriff's office and the prosecution of foul play, Heene also stated a lawsuit against these agencies is underway. [ref]"
A primary source being the actual video mentioned in the sentence is appropriate in this case. Dapperedavid (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Do Your Research Before Writing the Article Why Is It So Biased Against Heene

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWhUvm8SunY&t=2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY&index=15&list=PLxwlyOUWMDL7K-x-sOHDpar0UrckC1Yrg

Save your time, other editors, this is just the old Internet Historian stuff again. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And? Being some guy you folks hate doesn't make his points and argument any less valid. His family was damaged, his life was ruined and his passion killed. You are as cold any terrorist if that's what you say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by • contribs) 19:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Internet Historian is entertainment. It's an independent youtube channel designed to be fun. It is not a reliable source.
Right or wrong, Wikipedia only includes facts from Reliable Sources.
ApLundell (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


Indeed it is a channel mainly for entertainment and documenting funny incidents and events. However, if you do watch the videos in particular, there is little entertainment or humor involved. He looks into the investigation and questions the validity of the Justice system and the detective work involved in the incident. It's only like 14 minutes of your time... In the second video he talks with the man himself, Richard Heene. Not a single trace of humor or entertainment there... Please give them a watch. This is Wikipedia after all, a site in which considering the facts before documenting a subject is THE single most important thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by • contribs) 04:15, 01 June 2018 (UTC)

I've seen them. That's not the point.
The point is that Wikipedia only includes facts from Reliable Sources. The Internet Historian does not qualify.
ApLundell (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Could the following be regarded as a reliable source? https://medium.com/@toshikotomura/remember-that-balloon-boy-hoax-here-are-the-facts-you-werent-told-deacd0aeb2a
If not can you explain why? Ninjasr (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
That is a blog post by a person who calls themselves "endless information wars".
I can't imagine why you would think that's a reliable source, but just to spell it out: No, blogs are not reliable sources.
WP:BLOGS says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.".
ApLundell (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I should have realised that, I understand
Ninjasr (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

copied section

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

User:Dr.K. I'm serious about not assuming good faith. You reverted my edits without reading them. Removing the internet historian bit was fine, but you did not give a valid reason for removing the rest of my edits which were mostly stylistic. As such, I'm reinstating them. If you don't like my stylistic edits, or my edits removing irrelevant information, you can discuss in in the talk page (here) where this particular subject has not been discussed. I'll work around the archive links you added, but at least one of them still doesn't work for me, and I will be removing the ones that don't work. HarryKernow (talk to me) 21:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi HarryKernow. It's unclear to me from your comment above whether you intend to remove the dead urls (permissible) or the entire sources to which the dead links are attached (generally impermissible). The relevant policies here are WP:DEADREF and WP:RS generally. If the source has been irretrievably down for a long period of time (several years, generally) and is exclusively an online source, then sometimes we remove them, but otherwise it doesn't matter if a particular URL does not point to an active link or if the source is behind a paywall or firewall which prevents most users from accessing it--it still counts as a reliable source. Also, for the very few sources that actually can be removed if they meet the strict standards of DEADREF, you first need to do a substantial good-faith search for replacements. I hope that information is helpful to you as you approach this problem and helps avoid any potential disputes. Also, on a side note, if you wish to ping someone, just using a straight user page link as you did above is somewhat unreliable, for technical reasons: it's better to use the user ping template (such as the one I used to ping you above) or @Dr.K.:. Let me know if you two need a WP:3O if you can't agree on the best approach here. Snow let's rap 04:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Snow Rise I only removed one? reference at the time, it didn't have a link to begin with as far as I can remember. I may have removed an AOL link that redirected to the AOL homepage, but I honestly don't remember and don't intend to touch the references as they are at the moment. HarryKernow (talk to me) 04:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC) PS: thanks for the pinging advice
Ahh, ok--duly noted! I just wanted to reference the policy/procedure for such instances, just on the off chance you weren't familiar. :) Snow let's rap 05:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible to argue significant minority opinion, supported by visual evidence

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

This is the "old internet historian stuff again". That being said, if persuaded by those videos I'm conscious of a need for robust sourcing.

I can understand wikipedia editors taking issue with a youtube source for any information. It's worth mentioning that the video at the original link cited in the first discussion post isn't valuable for any analysis given by the editor, nor for any opinions given by Heene, but for the inclusion of several pieces of evidence provided by Heene. These include videos of interrogations of Heene and his wife, videos o fthe police investigation and other videos contradicting evidence used in court, a visit by child services to his child, court documents used in evidence by the prosecutors, and affidavits. This evidence is quite plain and shocking in exposing various things; police investigators lying about the content of interviews, evidence, etc, etc. You've heard it before.

Suffice to say I am wondering how this could be presented in a verifiable manner on here, as it seems quite the oversight not to include such compelling relevant detail which it is possible to see for yourself. To respond to one of the earlier editors, of course an encyclopedia should reflect the prevailing wisdom regarding an issue. I would argue there is, now years after the event, a significant minority opinion dissenting from the idea it is a hoax within the group of people who are actually still paying attention to the event. Especially if there exist legal documents and video evidence to the contrary viewable on a public video. Where would these documents/video have to be available in order to be considered "reliable"?

I am aware this is likely to be seen as a waste of time, but having an article involving your name alleging you are a fraudster could cause serious harm to an individual, and I'm uncomfortable letting it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:8121:3e00:713f:b342:99a0:5418 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The goal isn't for us to track down evidence to support a particular conclusion. Even if the evidence itself is reliable, presenting it as support for an alternate theory would count as Original Research.
If that was allowed it would open the door to conspiracy theorists across the entire project. (How many people have found official NASA documents that they believe proves some crazy theory?)
What's needed is reliable sources presenting the alternate theory. Then we cite those. ApLundell (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not a matter of tracking down evidence to support a conclusion, it's a matter of making a properly rounded article. As it stands, the page makes it sound like the hoax allegation is a fact, when it's closer to the opposite; the current article is simply terrible. This page is close to the clearest possible example as to when that rule in question should be ignored. 149.144.23.242 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The point is to repeat what reliable sources say. Not to do our own reporting to find the WP:TRUTH.
ApLundell (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you read what I said at all? I made it clear that point has made the article awful. 14.201.206.60 (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
To be blunt, I don't think any of us really care that you feel the article is awful. What we do care about is making the best article we can following the normal policies and guidelines we do for all articles. This means we are not going to allow WP:OR in any form, especially not for the reason that some random person is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and so feels the article is awful because it doesn't reflect their world view. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Who is "us/we"? 220.245.162.163 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources have to be made. Sources that can be verified. Nothing has been provided on these fronts to suggest anything to support the stance made about the hoax. – The Grid (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
No, as that rule as made this article far worse than non-existent, it should be ignored. 14.201.206.60 (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
While WP:IAR is technically a thing, the chance you're going to convince people we should ignore our reliable sources and verifiability policies is close to zero. WP:5P5 doesn't mean we ignore WP:5P2. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
You speak about ignoring the second piller in an absolute, when the fifth means we ignore it sometimes, when it is right do to so.
One could always argue that convincing people to make a change is close to zero, which would render all discussion pointless. 220.245.162.163 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Add "Criticism" Sub-Section under Section #3 "Hoax allegations and criminal investigation" compiling disputes made against hoax allegations (Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2019)

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

I'm not requesting any existing information to be changed, but for a section to be added. The incident is definitively categorized as a hoax, but there are no alternative perspectives of the incident presented in the Wikipedia article (ie. "Criticisms of ___" section). A section listing evidence that the incident was not a hoax should be added. I have provided several such sources below.

In an interview with Erica Hill on NBC TODAY September 19, 2015, Richard Heene claims that the Balloon Boy incident was not a hoax.[1] The interviewer states Richard Heene has maintained his family's innocence ever since the incident and only plead guilty in court because "the threat of deportation of my wife was imminent."[2] Rhaphazard (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The Heene family appeared on an episode of the Oprah Winfrey Network's TV serialization "Where Are They Now" in which Richard Heene states that the incident "was never a hoax" and that they took the guilty plea in order to save his family (there was a chance their children would be taken away and his wife, Mayumi, being deported).[3] Rhaphazard (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe I have resolved this by changing the title. -Rhaphazard (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Still   Not done. It's still not clear exactly what you want to add; you need to write the exact text/refs that you want to include. However, even then, I'd likely decline this – there's already a statement that he claims it wasn't a hoax using one of the sources. I'm not sure what's gained by making it a whole section, especially when there's nothing really significant to add. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Jesus you Wikipedia goons are terrible. So much for being a reliable source... logic out the window, better to favor sources like "news" agencies that write articles about factually incorrect nonsense weekly apparently. Truth is found everywhere, YouTube just so happened to be the medium to expose it. Here's Richard Heene himself speaking with this YouTuber on the subject: ht tps://youtu.be/Axgyj7g5XZY -2600:8801:1B80:4CF0:4937:B85F:B214:2AD8 (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Deacon Vorbis Note for future record that any editor with a handful of edits on the project and advocating strenously that Henne is a victim of misunderstanding/state and media conspiracy/close-mindedness on the part of Wikipedia editors is almost certainly a sock of the same editor who is the reason this article has been permanently semi-protected in the first place. This user has created dozens upon dozens of user accounts over the last few years (and used an equal number of proxy IP accounts) to try to sneak in edits to redefine the information in the article away from reliable sources and towards Heene's perspectives as shared in conspiracy theory videos on youtube and to bombard the talk page with arguments to the same end.
Ever since I realized this sockmaster had been creating dozens of throw-away accounts for years for this purpose (after responding to an edit request as a pending changes reviewer and looking into the edit history of this article), I've been pretty convinced this editor is Heene himself, but regardless they are a deeply disruptive abuser of multiple accounts editing from a POV not supported by any RS. Anytime you see a user making an edit request conforming to these propensities, particularly if they turn hostile on being refused, check their contribs; you'll probably find they are the newest throw-away sock. If you'd like more info on their M.O./socking habits, let me know and I will get the appropriate details to you discretely, so as not thwart WP:BEANS. Snow let's rap 15:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you kidding? You're calling conspiracy now? What a fucking joke. You people don't give a damn about facts or evidence, you have a bias and you'll exclude whatever information you see fit to ensure that sticks. Fuck you Snow Rise, and fuck you other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1b80:4cf0:69d3:770d:fbf1:a196 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What a quality and level-headed reply. Sigh. – The Grid (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Where are they now: Checking in with 'Balloon Boy'". TODAY. 19 September 2015. Retrieved 5 January 2019.
  2. ^ Murray, Elizabeth (20 September 2015). "Heene family says 'balloon boy' headlines 'wasn't a hoax'". TODAY. Retrieved 5 January 2019.
  3. ^ ""Balloon Boy" Dad: "It Was Never a Hoax"". Youtube. Oprah Winfrey Network. 14 February 2014. Retrieved 5 January 2019.

Why can’t we add in the evidence suggesting that it was NOT a hoax?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

After seeing Internet Historian’s video along with another video with Robert himself showing proof that the Media and the justice system fabricated evidence, I knew that someone would be putting this in there. Indeed, someone made an attempt to add this into the Wiki page....... and then have it REJECTED. Then I decided to revert the edit and put it back in. Again, it was rejected. I can’t see any reason why this piece of information should be removed other than pure bias. Romax24245 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes yes yes! As I already posted in the section below, I think we need to put it to a vote. The evidence is not in the Hoax's favour, let alone being so favourable that a section for Robert's side is not allowed. Nate Hooper (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It's sad that policy is so strict in this case

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

As someone who just saw the two videos from the Internet Historian I can't but feel a deep sense of injustice is being committed by this Wikipedia towards that man and his family only for the purpose of defending policy and maintaining the status quo. We have other articles that deal with mass psychosis and media misattributing blame but because this was a small thing blown out of proportion nobody has the energy or the money to conduct any serious i.e. reliable as per Wiki-standards, investigation, as with so many other cases that are forgotten by the public but not by those involved.. Thus this man and his family are abandoned and any person doing research on them, to for example purchase his inventions will have a tainted picture. This is evil but perhaps necessary evil. I don't really know what to say or what to add since I'm new but perhaps that I wish that someone with more influence in the organisation would create a way for there to be a board of arbitration of sorts that can impartially judge even "non-reliable" sources as defined by WP:Policy when it is absolutely necessary. Flygande Jakob(talk) 10:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Pages like this show the issue Wikipedia has as a whole. It favors the dominant narrative and "reputable" sources, even when those sources are demonstrably incompetent, lying or corrupt. Let's not pretend the naming, tone and framing of this article wasn't influenced by the dominant media narrative of the time, pushed in part by talk show comedians. That's a reputable source, right? 213.49.234.184 (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
That's what an encyclopedia is.
It's a document where you can look up the prevailing wisdom on a variety of topics.
That's the point of it.
ApLundell (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
APLundell, I encourage you to look at Wikipedia:Truth. You are deliberately censoring a viewpoint that is contrary to the mainstream media, but is nonetheless significant due to the implications. I don't know what stake you have in ensuring that this incident continues to be portrayed as a hoax, but it seems like you are desperate to defend this one viewpoint. The sheer bias of this article is readily apparent in the title alone, since this being a hoax is only one viewpoint. The title should be "Balloon boy incident" for the sake of neutrality. Biglulu (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That link is an essay, not a statement of policy. The official Wikipedia policy is here : WP:TRUTH.
ApLundell (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm far from knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies and I'm only here in passing, but APLundell, the page you're linking is also categorized as an essay. I assume that it's likely a philosophy followed by many editors, but I've no doubt that there's definitely some if not many users disagreeing with it.
92.92.160.21 (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My request is to simply remove "hoax" from the title of the Wikipedia page. The "balloon boy hoax" is known to not be a hoax for the following reasons: Police reports, and media sources contradict first hand evidence that was gathered at the scene. [1] Mcmeme12 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not done. See WP:RM for instructions on how to propose an article title be changed. Note this will definitely be a controversial one given the article's history. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Balloon Boy".

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Recent evidence has come to light to prove that it is actually an accident. We must fix this! HistoryLegends76 (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done. Edit requests are requests to make precise, specific changes, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

2017 Interview with Richard Heene

Includes picture & video evidence suggesting the justice system conspired against him in order to get promotions & raises. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY 73.83.85.42 (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balloon_boy_hoax/Archive_3&oldid=1075504943"