Talk:Balloon boy hoax/Archive 2

Photo

This article could really use a photo. I know Wiki's photo rules are absurdly restrictive, but can't a photo squeak through somehow?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• You are correct that Wikipedia's photo rules are absurdly restrictive. In general, we should more thoroughly embrace fair use principles.

In this specific case, the article is about a historic event. If the article were about a landmark or a celebrity (even a reclusive celebrity) then we can always hold out hope that someone will take a picture and release it under creative commons or similar license. For a historical event we can't expect someone to build a time machine and go back and photograph the event. For that reason, we have more latitude for historical events than certain other topics.

A screenshot of media coverage of this event makes total sense. It should go into a section on "Media coverage" or similar.

Johntex\^talk 00:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this would be well within even Wikipedia's "absurdly restrictive" fair use guidelines. Lampman (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Thomas

The paragraph about this man is unduly cited to an unreliable WP:SELFPUB. I'm not trying to say that Gawker.com can't be used as a "note" (I believe this would be a defensible position, but I'm not arguing it at the moment). However, the first two sentences (a good half) of the paragraph are attributed to that source, rather than to the reliable BBC. If the Gawker source is to be used as a note, it ought to be cited as such; at the moment, it is placed so that the first half of the paragraph appears to hang on it with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Perhaps the solution is as simple as rearranging the citations (so long as they remain faithfully and fairly represented); but regardless, improperly sourced BLP statements can and should be immediately removed until and unless the problem, however technically small it may be, is resolved. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed down that paragraph, only using Gawker to cite that Thomas had sold the story to them. The second half of that two-sentence paragraph is cired to the BBC. Hopefully that clears up the potential BLP vio. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, IMO. Thanks! Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit is not an improvement at all, but adds false and outdated information. There is no indication Thomas planned this event and authorities have already interviewed him. Is there anyone here who actually reads the source material before deleting and adding content? The information that was removed was poorly written by the editor who originally added it, but was far more accurate than what replaced it. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a closer look. Here's the original material (I don't know who wrote it), warts and all:

A man named Robert Thomas who worked previously with Heene on developing a proposal for a television series sold a story to Gawker.com telling of blind ambition on Heene's part and how the two had been planning a publicity stunt involving a UFO shaped weather balloon. The story includes emails between Thomas and Heene which point to the credibility of a hoax. Alderden mentioned "you've probably seen some of the e-mails and some of the things on the internet suggesting that there may be other conspirators" in reference to the story. Investigators have expressed a desire to interview Thomas.>

Here's the current version as of 06:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC):

A man named Robert Thomas sold a story to Gawker.com alleging that he had helped plan the incident. Investigators have expressed a desire to interview Thomas. According to Thomas, Heene was a fan of David Icke who was motivated by fears stemming from the 2012 phenomenon to raise money to build a bunker as a survivalist strategy for 2012. In 2008, Heene had participated in a six-part series on YouTube titled "2012 - The Best Evidence - by The Psyience Detectives."

Now, one thing at a time. First of all, active editors should be keenly aware of the changing nature of this investigation, and always pay attention to the currency of the sources. The current article says that "Investigators have expressed a desire to interview Thomas" which is properly sourced to the BBC. However, this source is dated 19 Oct. and on 20 Oct. it was reported that investigators had interviewed Thomas.[1][2] Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the text should not be inaccurate. If it is more accurate to say that A) Thomas has been interviewed than that B) investigators would like to interview him, then A is obviously preferable to B. Admittedly, I have not looked into the accuracy of A vs. B (it's a fair distance beside my point), but I'll take your word for it. The point is, now, that the bulk of the paragraph (it used to be around half, now it's the entire third and fourth sentences) is sourced to an unreliable WP:SELFPUB that makes claims about a third party. If one actually reads WP:SELFPUB (I'll take a peek at the refs if others will have a look at the policy), then one will realize that, Houston, we have a problem. The Gawker.com piece cannot be used as a stand-alone source, and any material derived solely from that source can be said to have undue weight. If Gawker is to be used as a "note", then it must be unambiguously used and cited as such--and even that's a pretty big stretch. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the information is not sourced to the Gawker site. If you had bothered to do the slightest bit of research on this subject as I've repeatedly asked you to do on your talk page (and you admit above that you still haven't done it) you would find this information everywhere, from the New York Times to Associated Press. I'm getting really frustrated by people who edit articles without understanding the material they are working with. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, on Thomas all sources cite Gawker, which is not a reliable source. However, in a sense the source is really Thomas, who wrote an article Gawker published. So the question is whether it's usable. This is complicated by the fact that Thomas' claims have been widely disseminated by the AP, Times and so forth. I'm not comfortable about using it but I'm not comfortable about ignoring it either.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Again, Thomas has been interviewed by the police, the media, and his attorney has released statements in the last 24 hours. Gawker has nothing to do with this and is not being used as a source. Does anyone do research around here? Viriditas (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Gawker most certainly is being used as a source. Go look for yourself, it is currently source 47. If we can get stronger ones in here, then by all means do so. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a note, not a source. Just because it is enclosed by a ref doesn't necessarily mean it's being used as a source. The actual source is the BBC [3] which says, "Investigators have said they want to question Robert Thomas, an associate of Mr Heene's in Denver, who provided the website Gawker.com with e-mail exchanges from several months ago in which he and Mr Heene talk about a possible balloon stunt to promote a proposed reality TV show." And as I've said many times, this is covered by most RS already, so there's no problem with the material. If you don't like the Gawker reference appearing there, simply move the note to the BBC ref and add "For the original Gawker article, see http..." This is a non-issue. Viriditas (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Indisputably reliable sources refer to the Gawker article as presenting an interview with Robert Thomas, making it a relevant and notable fact. The Gawker article is a reliable source for its own content, as long as it's not used as verification of the assertions contained within. "Thomas claimed in the article that he helped the Heenes plan the hoax" (good) versus "Thomas helped the Heenes plan the hoax" (not good). Postdlf (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous "when" needs rewrite

Article currently reads: " ... had reportedly climbed into the balloon when it became untethered and launched." The "when" confuses the sequence of events: one possible reading is that the act of climbing into the balloon happened at the time of ("when") the balloon become untethered and launched. A more accurate statement would be something like " ... reportedly climbed into the balloon, after which the balloon became untethered and launched." I'll leave this to someone else. Karl gregory jones (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Colorado balloon incident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I will review this article.

I'm concerned about the article's stability as required in WP:GACR. This article covers a recent event and is most likely going to have several major revisions in the future. That is my major concern and should be addressed; my other concerns will be listed below. --Edge3 (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please resolve the "citation needed" tags. --Edge3 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• "...the producer of Wife Swap said that a show involving the Heenes had been in development, but that the deal was now off" - When was the deal called off?--Edge3 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• I found this on flickr: [4]. This picture would be great in the article, but GACR doesn't require you to add it. --Edge3 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, that's pretty obviously a copyright violation and should not be added. All of the photographer's other photos are of Chicago. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• "it was reported that an object had detached from the balloon and fallen to the ground" - not supported by source --Edge3 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• "He also stated that, once "the high voltage timer" was switched on, the balloon "would emit one million volts every five minutes for one minute"[22] in order to "move left and right — horizontal" [23]" - Please check sourcing for this sentence; I don't thunk the information is properly cited. Also, please add a period at the end. --Edge3 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify - the CNN interview gives the timer and the minute long duration, the 911 call gives the purpose (horizontal motion) - cheers --Jaymax (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find the info anywhere in the CNN interview transcript. (the 911 call is fine) Could you please tell me where it is?--Edge3 (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

About 1/3rd way through: "Well, as we were inflating it, they were holding it to make sure, you know, it didn't get too windy. But after we had inflated it to a particular level, I went to go turn the high voltage timer on -- it's an egg timer. And it would -- it would emit one million volts every five minutes for one minute. But I thought -- I could have sworn he was standing right next to me. But I went to go pull the release lever..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Helium's lift capacity is equal to the difference between its density (0.1786 kg/m3 at STP) and that of air, about 1.0214 kg/m3 (1 ounce per cubic foot) at sea level at 32° Fahrenheit, 0° C..." - cite please --Edge3 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tidied up a bit - okay now? --Jaymax (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes--Edge3 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Fort Collins is at an elevation of about 5,000 feet" - Please cite. --Edge3 (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's from the wikilinked Fort Collins--Jaymax (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok--Edge3 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The "Search for Falcon Heene" can be renamed into a more general "Incident" section
• Try to keep the details more organized and in chronological order. For example:
  • "The balloon drifted for 60 miles (97 km), passing through Adams County and Weld County, and then it landed 90 minutes later near Keenesburg, 12 miles (19 km) northeast of Denver International Airport. Planes were rerouted around the balloon's flight path, and Denver International Airport was briefly shut down." - This can go to the Incident section mentioned above.
  • The entire paragraph beginning with "Larimer County sheriff's officials consulted a Colorado State University physics professor..." can go to the "Hoax allegations and criminal investigation" section--Edge3 (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Moved these. Is that 90 mins accurate? --Jaymax (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw it in one of the sources. --Edge3 (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 30 is only a link. Please add full citation. --Edge3 (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done--TParis00ap (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• "When the balloon finally landed, having been tracked by helicopters, the boy was not found inside the balloon. Officials expressed concern that he may have fallen out during flight. Although it was reported that it did not appear breached" - Not supported by source. --Edge3 (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• "but county sheriff Jim Alderden later said, "For all we know he may have been two blocks down the road playing on the swing in the city park." - Cite please. --Edge3 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• "Margie Martinez of the Weld County Sheriff's Office said that the door was unlocked in the balloon. A sheriff deputy reported seeing something fall from the balloon near Platteville, Colorado" - Not supported by source--Edge3 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• "The charges had not yet been released to the public. The sheriff confirmed that making a false report to authorities would result in Class 3 misdemeanor charges and expressed that this charge "hardly seems serious enough given the circumstances." - Not supported by source. --Edge3 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Refs 48 and 50 can be combined. --Edge3 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done--TParis00ap (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are simply too many sourcing issues with this article, and stability remains a huge concern. I am failing the article for now; feel free to nominate again when sourcing is cleaned up. --Edge3 (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Colorado balloon incident/GA1/Task List

Internet is capitalized

Someone made this edit to undo capitalization of Internet. I am unable to undo due to article protection (not confirmed yet), unless the heading refers to attention among several internets and not "THE Internet," it should be capitalized. See Internet_capitalization_conventions.Danthe4th (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Internet in this context is an adjective, not a noun - trying to think of another Proper Noun that also is used as an adjective... Regardless, in the title 'attention' is the noun, 'media' and 'internet' are adjectives, and so internet should NOT be capatalised (pretty sure, not certain)--Jaymax (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case it would be like saying, "CNN and Microsoft reaction." They're used as descriptors, but it's not a new form of the word to make an adjective. It's just a proper noun used as a modifier, but in a way not a true adjective. Or if you will, it's used as a possessive. It could be stated as "Media's and Internet's reaction," or "Reaction of the media and of the Internet," without changing the meaning. I think in this case it retains proper noun status.Danthe4th (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And I just realized I said reaction instead of attention through all of that. The logic is the same, but the examples would be clumsier.Danthe4th (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think (I don't know) that your examples all fail gramatically. "CNN and Microsoft reaction" is not good english, it'd have to be "CNN's and Microsoft's reaction" - why? because they're strictly nouns, not adjectives. Likewise "The Media's and the Internet's reaction" (or attention).

The heading should either be "Attenton in the Media and on the Internet", or "Media and internet attention"

However, I have a solution that should keep everyone happy... How about "Internet and media attention" :-) --Jaymax (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the order that would be fine. But I maintain that Internet is capitalized whenever talking about the Internet, rather than smaller internets. I think my examples do hold up - not in sentences maybe - because headlines don't really need to follow rules of grammar. But to make the point, change the noun in my example to employees. If you're talking about Microsoft employees, Microsoft is, by the criteria you use for Internet, an adjective modifying 'employees.' In this case, Microsoft still requires capitalization. I would actually contend that Internet is still used as a noun here, though it's disguised due to headline grammar. Whatever part of speech, it's still a proper name.Danthe4th (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - not sure I agree that internet here isn't an adjective, but I see your point re eg employees. I reversed the title regardless to avoid prolonged or repeating debate.--Jaymax (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Background issues

During his time on the show, Heene expressed his belief that humanity descended from aliens, and spoke of launching home-made flying saucers into storms.[citation needed]

Looking into this, the first part is sourced to AP, but it only says, "The Heenes twice appeared on ABC's "Wife Swap," including a March episode in which they discuss their approach to parenting and talk about their belief that they're the descendants of aliens."[5] I'm not sure if this is important for this article or not, but the source is AP for that part. The second part is based on coverage of their official Wife Swap bio, which is found here. The part about launching saucers into storms is found on their ABC bio, and is covered in many places, including [6], [7], and [8], among others. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded to this or attempted to fix the problem, I'm going to attempt it at some point today/tonight. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Family POV

The family said that they first became aware Falcon Heene was missing when, immediatly after the balloon had taken off, Falcon's brother said that he had seen the six year old climb into the basket of the balloon beforehand.

This needs to be moved to the second paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? --70.121.35.167 (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's very confusing as it is written. This should precede the second paragraph, where the family starts making calls to track the balloon. Instead, it is followed by a description of the event that already occurred, in flashback style. Viriditas (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we'd better open a vote on it. Thanks. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not confusing at all. As written, it says in the second line of the article that the family thought the kid was on the balloon. It is not necessary to go into so much detail in the lead section.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, but I'm not talking about the lead section. I'm talking about the "Incident" section which is poorly written, out of order chronologically, and very confusing. Viriditas (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You said "second paragraph." I still don't think the current version is confusing. The incident section is crystal-clear.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The text I quoted appears in the first paragraph of the "Incident" section and should appear directly before the second paragraph in that section. Currently, it starts from the moment the parents realized Falcon was missing, but then skips back in time to previous events, and then skips forward over the first event and to the call for help. There is nothing "crystal-clear" about this. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing remotely confusing was "previous day." I changed that to "ill-fated." I just don't see a problem otherwise, but maybe others do. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnny, read clearly next time. Vir said the paragraph needed to be put in the second paragraph as oppose to it being in the first paragraph. Lord. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Which I agree to becuase it jumps forth and back to what was said prior. Anyways, Vir, feel free to edit it correctly and state the reason in the edit summary, I'm sure it won't be a big bother. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

He didn't specify which section, and I still don't see anything wrong with "Incident." If he wants to edit for clarity and doesn't make it worse, then I don't see the problem, however.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the point. I think when I juggled stuff out of 'background' I was thinking of Falcon being aledged to be thought missing as the starting point for the incident, but it would be quite reasonable to start with the balloon launch. The retrospective nature of the video does make the tenses and parsing quite tricky/clumsy. --Jaymax (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still confusing. When I copy edit, I try to read an article with beginner's mind. This means pretending I've never read it before and know nothing about the topic. If it is read in this way, the paragraph is very difficult to follow. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of warrant

Is a copy of the search warrant of any value?

http://www.mynocodata.com/special_reports/heene2009.pdf 67.187.236.0 (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The search warrant and its supporting documents are the "court documents" the stories are referring to. Search warrants contain allegations by law enforcement that there is probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found at a given location. Allegations.

As for whether the search warrant should be quoted directly in the article, that's a different issue. As long as its allegations are attributed as such and are weighed properly, I don't necessarily see a problem. Postdlf (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I request that the affidavit not be used because it contains personally identifiable information (their address is on the last page).--TParis00ap (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. Stan Simmons (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NOTCENSORED, which is about potentially objectionable or offensive content, applies here. It's more a matter of WP:HARM. Still, I think we're aren't going over the line to include it. TJRC (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the warrant being linked to as an external link. It's on-point, it's relatively easily available anyway. I'm not concerned with the address being it it although, all things being equal, if a redacted version were online, I'd prefer linking to that. TJRC (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well my concern here is that several times throughout the affidavit an effort was made to hide their address. It looks like a mistake was made in not completely hiding it on the last page and I am concerned that the Heenes might file civil cases against the news organizations and maybe us. The one and only time I asked for a record of a crime from the cops (neighboors blew up fire crackers in their apartment), the cops had to black out all personally identifiable information before they could give it to me. I am not a legal expert, but I think we should avoid using it.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Balloon Saga

Might wanna add as redirect? 75.107.162.133 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Balloon-Hoax

This was added as a see also. I've removed it per WP:SEEALSO. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, because the talk page is getting a bit long (~163KiB) I've added automatic archiving with a time of ~3.5 days (88 hours). As this remains a fairly active article it's unlikely any discussion which hasn't been addressed since then remains an active issue. As it dies down, it will probably be wise to increase the archiving timing. I haven't really look at the talk page so if it doesn't cut it down enough when the bot starts archiving I would suggest reducing the time further. Nil Einne (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've increased the archive time to 7 days now. This of course means there won't be any more archiving for another ~3.5 days, if it starts to get long again just reduce it back down Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue

Does this incident really deserve a page?Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What kind of question is that? Obviously. --70.121.35.167 (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily "obviously", but it was discussed and decided in the affirmative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, obvious in the sense that the Heene family wanted this all along anyways, so why would not having one be considored? --70.121.35.167 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The AfD was no consensus. I think we're giving it a few more weeks/months to pan out a little more and become stable before having another AfD.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the Heene family wanted this article in wikipedia. That was their top priority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you must of not watching the news lately. Anything to do with their name being said and they're all over it. They are, in the sense of the word, attention whores --70.121.35.167 (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So's Madonna, and she gets an article - no, seriously - whether they WANT or DO NOT WANT a Wiki article, should carry no weight (NIL, ZADA, ZLICH, ZERO, NADA, NUFFINK) here - Their desires carry no weight, if they GET attention, it is not for Wikipedia to evaluate whether they deserved it, or manufactured it. --Jaymax (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We have a million and one school bands, people, love relations, companies and an infinite amount of other topics that want to have an article about themselves, and we don't give them those. At the same time we have an article about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - im fairly certain the both of them would have preferred not having one.

What counts here is the notability of the event. On the first side we have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE arguing that this subject is only a new media circus where the media are giving to much attention to a relatively unimportant subject. On the other side man could argue that the extensive amount of news coverage is exactly the reason that made this more or less notable, if only because this may end up as a comparison for other hoaxes (Regardless of guilt, it could be used). It is exceedingly difficult to judge the impact of this story already - it might just sink away quickly, or become a meme. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(Geeze that is a lot of indents) Well WP:NOTNEWS doesn't neccessarily apply. The coverage was certainly not routine. And as far as the question of "Who will care in 100 years?", new medical research suggests that our generation will live 100+, so in 100 years, Falcon Heene is going to logon to Wikipedia and point to this article and say to his grandkids "See, it was awesome!" (I'm kidding).--TParis00ap (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In a few months if everyone forgets about it it will be taken off, If everyone is still talking about it, it deserves to be in a encyclopedia, or heck, wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.122.117 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Tense inconsistent

Article reads: "Richard inspects the basket, then his family count down in unison "three, two, one" before releasing the cord.[27][28] Apparently believing the balloon to be tethered a few feet from the ground,[27] the family started screaming in distress when it floats off into the sky. Richard Heene, who can be seen kicking the wood frame that supported the balloon, yelled, "You didn't put the fucking tether down!"

Some inconsistent use of tense here: "inspects" and "count down" (present tense), versus "started screaming" (past tense). Shouldn't this be "starts screaming"? I'll leave this to someone else.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Media circus category?

Does wikipedia have one? If not, somebody should make one. THis should be the first member. --Rajah (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The media "assumed good faith" on the balloon flight when a family reported that a child could be on board. Don't blame the media, blame the family for crying "wolf". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Media circus" is a characterization (whether apt or not), not a description of concrete facts, so it would be ill suited for categorization. It would not likely survive CFD. Postdlf (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It would fail as NPOV violation. Obviously, since I dispute the notion that it's a "media circus" in any case, and I'm sure others would also. And the first entry? Gimme a break. Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic was a media circus. As was the trial of his child's kidnapper. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Kind of similar to a "cause célèbre" category that was deleted a couple years ago. No one could even reliably source a list of supposed causes célèbre in that article, let alone agree upon an objective category. postdlf (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Colorado

Do we really need a picture of it? It just seems kind of absurd to have a picture of where colorado is loacated in the united states. They could go to the page for Colorado for that. DurinsBane87 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a widely-available website, and not everyone knows where all the U.S. states are by heart. However, maybe someone needs to draw a little bitty silver dot on the map, to show where the balloon was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If they wanted to know where Colorado is, they could click the blue link and find out. The article on the Boston Massacre doesn't have a map to show where Boston is...DurinsBane87 (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It probably already has an illustration. Wikipedia has highly restrictive rules on illustrations, and someone decided for this article that something was better than nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Allegations against Sheriff Alderden

According to this story by the associated press [11] " Prosecutors said Tuesday they haven't decided whether to file charges against the parents accused of falsely reporting their son was in a runaway balloon, sparking a massive rescue attempt before the boy was found at the family's Fort Collins home. The father's attorney, David Lane, also announced Tuesday that a special prosecutor has been named to review his complaint concerning the sheriff investigating the couple."

What if anything should be done with this?--Hfarmer (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this [12]? "If Mayumi Heene made that confession — as alleged in a search warrant for the family's home — it may have been to keep her children from being taken away from her, or to spare them from having to testify against her husband, Richard Heene, legal experts said Monday." "The alleged statement may not be admissible in court, cautioned Karen Steinhauser, a former Denver prosecutor, if Heene wasn't warned of her rights to have a lawyer or not to speak — or if she was threatened with the loss of her children." Those are some pretty serious allegations facing the Sheriff's department. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't even allegations; it's just speculation by the "legal experts" quoted in that MSNBC story. Of course her confession may not be admissible if she wasn't informed of her rights; that's just an uncontroversial statement of U.S. law. No one has actually alleged the sheriff's department didn't inform her of her rights, or that she was threatened with the loss of her children. But the story does underscore the point that has been made repeatedly on this talk page recently—a news story reporting only that the sheriff's department has alleged that she confessed is not to be treated as conclusive proof that she was guilty, or even that she did in fact confess. It may not have been a legally valid confession under the circumstances, and she may have had other reasons for confessing. If she confessed. It's still just an allegation that she confessed, just as if the Heenes' lawyer alleged misconduct by the sheriff, it would just be allegations. postdlf (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All of that being true, why should we not include information of these allegations, making it clear that they are simply allegations? I mean, the allegation of a hoax is here, though not in the title. How do we be fair to all concerend? I would not want to do injustice to the sheriff.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you mean. What allegations do you want to include in the article that aren't already covered in it? If you mean the alleged privacy violations mentioned in this story, I think that's appropriate. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's what I'm talking about. The allegations against the sheriff made by both of the Heene's Lawyers. I will reflect on what that should look like, then add it. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Time to change the title

As both Richard and Mayumi Heene have decided to plead guilty, can we now change the title to "Colorado Balloon Hoax". I can understand the reluctance to change it before because the Heenes are entitled to the presumption of innocence BUT as they have now pleaded guilty, that presumption is gone and now there is now no legal barrier to us changing the title.

Tovojolo (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

They have not pleaded guilty yet. Wait until it really happens (most likely tomorrow). -- tariqabjotu 16:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. They've confessed; it's a hoax. I propose that a Wiki Admin change the title, to discourage the inevitable edit war and wikilawyering which always follows bold decisions like these.

I'd prefer to wait until tomorrow morning, after they actually plead guilty. The statement that they will do so was issued by Richard Heene's lawyer, as the media attributed it, not apparently a lawyer for both parents (why, I don't know). So he doesn't have true authority to speak for the mother as well. Nitpicking, perhaps, but we lose nothing by waiting one more day. Once their plea occurs, I think "Balloon boy hoax" is the most apt title for the article, given how most sources refer to it. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Postdlf. If we had to wait like a month before they officially pleaded guilty, I'd say perhaps we should go ahead and change the title. But since it's only one day, I don't see the harm in waiting. Besides, there's always the chance there will be some 13th hour decision NOT to plead guilty, then we'd be stuck and having to change the title all over again... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 18:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, no harm in waiting, though I do think the lawyer's statement is sufficient to change the title.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above, just wait until tomorrow when the guilty pleas will presumably become official. Also agree with Postdlf above that Balloon Boy hoax is the preferred title, though probably we should informally poll people here to make sure others agree. A Google News search on "Balloon Boy hoax" reveals many more hits than does a search on "Colorado balloon hoax". The latter is simply less common in the media and a far less likely search term on Wikipedia or on search engines. 5 years from now many will have forgotten that this event took place in Colorado, but the phrase "Balloon Boy" will bring back memories of the incident for most.

Also just a note that Balloon Boy hoax is currently an unprotected redirect with no substantive page history, so it is not necessary for an admin to be the one to move the page to a new title. We'll just need to fix some double-redirects presumably. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I agree with the title Balloon Boy hoax... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 22:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Balloon boy in the title is better than Colorado. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that when the plea has been entered and everythings official we should change the title to Balloon Boy Hoax.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Colorado Baloon Hoax is more neutral. There's something theatrical about "baloon boy." It brings to mind "bat boy." JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think as postdlf and Bigtimepeace point out, more people will recognize "Balloon boy hoax" than "Colorado balloon hoax"; plus it is more widely referred to as "balloon boy" than anything else, so as per WP:NAMING it makes sense to call its entry that... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The father has plead guilty. Pros and cons of moving the article now to "Balloon boy hoax", or waiting until the mother pleads guilty as well? And "Balloon boy hoax" or "Balloon Boy hoax"? postdlf (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry I made the move without seeing this comment here. I didn't realize any more discussion was needed, I thought the consensus was that we do the move once he pleads guilty. That being said, I think it's more than fair to move it now. We have a guilty plea, which I think is enough to consider this a hoax. The mother has been cooperating with police and plans to plead guilty; that wouldn't be enough for me if Richard hadn't already pleaded, but he has. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I agree with you on moving now, but I wanted to see if there were any counterarguments I hadn't thought of. Also, what about the capitalization? I think most news outlets refer to it as "Balloon boy," not "Balloon Boy." postdlf (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I also would have liked to have seen more than half a day or argument given, but let's more on. However, it should be Balloon boy, not Balloon Boy. This is a Wikipedia style issue. Also the past tense of plead, is pleaded, not plead. I've fixed the verb problem, but not the title problem. --Crunch (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• I don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other (on "Balloon Boy" versus "Balloon boy"). I guess I always thought of Balloon Boy as a proper noun, lol, since it's a nickname. But someone else can move it if the consensus is against me on that one... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Move was fine, guilty plea by Richard Heene means we can officially call this a hoax in my view and that seems to be the clear consensus here. Also agree with the above that "Balloon boy" is the preferred capitalization. I would suggest there's also a rough consensus for that (plus it's hardly likely to be controversial) so I'll go ahead and do that move right now. Further discussion is obviously welcome but for the moment the title issues seem to be resolved. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Once the parents pleaded guilty, it was officially a hoax, and the article rename was good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)