2222:(Changing "Hoax" to "Incident") and to abide by Knowledge's neutrality rules as an attack on their accuracy, when it simply isn't. Just as we shouldn't be siting Internet Historian as a valid source, neither should the arguements of the news outlets that jumped on the story to take a single statement and stretched it into a story as gospel truth, nor the rulings of the US Legal System, which has been shown to be just as fallible. Analysing the evidence from an outside perspective, without either the bias of IH or the general news, it has to be admitted that there is ambiguity on whether this was a malicious hoax, or a genuine accident.
2150:
2049:
2032:
1428:, which may include reliable news sources. Unfortunately in this case the balloon boy incident is pretty low stakes, so I doubt any reliable news source is interested in revisiting it. I do agree that a lot of news sources are not very thorough about what & how they report, but to be honest Internet Historian is a far worse source than what's used now, even if the video is entertaining and/or informative. And what would you have, Knowledge make up its own stories? It's really just not Knowledge's job (the editors' jobs) to determine "truth".
2218:
calling him the "source" here is a mistake. Internet
Historian is not the source of any of the evidence he cites to make his arguement. That would likely be fabricating evidence, or show bias by direct collaboration with the Heenes in obtaining otherwise unavailable evidence, that may have in and of itself been fabricated, however, all the evidence he shows is available from other avenues. The only new content he provides is his particular arguement towards the Heenes innocence. This point is not my main point here however.
267:
1061:
1034:
933:
736:
631:
1071:
350:
377:
1247:
954:
815:
1164:
621:
600:
1176:
2106:
1989:
232:
1294:
569:
1951:. When reporters Google the Balloon Boy incident, the first result that comes up is the Knowledge article "Balloon Boy Hoax." This is as close to an official name for the incident as they can find, so they repeat the Knowledge title in their article (or headline). These articles, subsequently, are used within Knowledge as justification for not changing the title.
288:
726:
705:
1508:, so I guess you can make the argument that the word "Hoax" is essential. I won't go into that argument as that is hard to argue, but I will say search up "Balloon Boy" and most media would refer it to 'Balloon Boy' in quotations and the word Hoax off to the side; I doubt anyone will not recognize "Balloon Boy" without the word "Hoax"
1733:âIf a name is widely used in reliable sourceâŚand is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers it may be usedâ -- the wording clearly supposes recognition on wide usage. Therefore proof of widespread (or overwhelmingly widespread as a quick Google search can show) use is all that is needed, not a discussion of whether it will
2282:
In truth, I do not necessarily believe the Heenes ARE innocent in all of this. I certainly used to, but recent developments regarding IH have caused me to rethink siding with his position uncritically, and the unfortunate fact is that the media did very much take a side here and that makes attempting
2221:
My main point is that I believe that the editors of this page have made a decision about the guilt of the Heenes, and, although they have been presented with evidence (admittedly compiled by a notably fallible secondary source), are falsely taking a request to represent the ambiguity of the situation
1501:
Sorry, not exactly sure what you are saying here. We of course must include the media's point of view, but as you said, that does not mean we can edit the title to include their point of view. I'm only arguing about the title, the unofficial essay you linked seems to be more about the actual content.
1484:
Anyway, there's not really anything unusual or surprising happening here. Consider that it's not actually unusual for a convicted criminal to tell a good story that conflicts with all other sources. That's pretty standard and mundane. Readers can almost take it as given that if a person is convicted
1446:
And
Knowledge shouldn't find the truth, but Knowledge has held that they hold a Neutral Point of View. Calling the title "Balloon Boy Incident" or just "Balloon Boy" does not detract from the truth, does not suggest anything, in fact it is the literal definition of neutrality. From there on, the user
1405:
This will probably be ignored/deleted or something, but I just want to get my opinion out. I've never seen
Knowledge as just a regurgitation of what the news says, especially with how news is now trending towards a path of less reliability for more views. With that, I'm scared some event will happen,
1393:
Knowledge does not shy away from euphemisms, and on whatever side you are on, I think you can agree that "incident" is a neutral word that still means the same thing. Knowledge can present the sources inside the article, show the media's explanation, and the user can make their own opinion on whether
2225:
Nobody is saying that the Heenes are definitely innocent here. People are not arguing that "Hoax" be flipped entirely to "Accident". We (people arguing for the change of wording) are only frustrated that the editors of this page seem to not be listening to reasoned arguements to alter the wording to
1876:
The original did argue for just âBalloon Boyâ, but the main point is that âhoaxâ breaks the neutrality, and it should only be broken if it is well recognizable. It should be replaced with a neutral âincident,â dropped completely, or any form of neutral title. In fact, I actually prefer just âBalloon
1642:
If you truly think that âBalloon Boyâ and âBalloon Boy Hoaxâ are not interchangeable and removing the word Hoax does harm the recognizability of the article, I canât really argue that. All I can say is that compared to the examples given like Jack the Ripper and Boston
Massacre, adding Hoax does not
2286:
As you pointed out, you're not here to pass judgement on the Heenes, which is why I (and most of the people throughout this talk page's history, hence my hyperbolic final comment in the prior post) am asking you to change the wording here. Because "Hoax" does pass judgement, and "Incident" doesn't.
2229:
My main point is that, just as there is ambiguity to their innocence, there is also notable ambiguity towards their guilt, and given this, I believe that using the wording "Hoax" is innapropriate, but "Accident" would not be the right term either. The only correct term, and the one I am arguing for
2192:
Also the reason for pardon, according to the governorsâ own words, was that they were pardoned because she thought that they had they had suffered enough with no mention of any issue with the prosecution. In other words, the pardon that doesnât even mention the prosecution canât be used as evidence
1461:
Using the word Hoax forces
Knowledge to take a side when in reality it should be neutral and say the truth: The police claims it is a hoax, Richard Heene claims it is not, and here are the first hand sources. Knowledge does not need to make up a story or use an unreliable Youtube video, but it also
1450:
Knowledge is in no formal obligation to include the word "hoax", it is already commonly referred to as "Balloon Boy". In fact, look at the sources listed in references and few say the entire name of "Balloon Boy Hoax". There is no formal statement that the name of this incident is the full "Balloon
2275:
I did not ask you to analyse the evidence from an outside perspective in my arguement. I stated my opinion that, doing so makes it clear that the actions of the prosecution and police during this case have permanently made the waters around this case muddy, and ignoring that would be foolish; but
1844:
The rule is not "well recognized", it's "widely used", as I've explained before. Furthermore, your argument was to change the title to "Balloon boy incident", not "Balloon boy", so I fail to see the utility in comparing the two. CNN source was clear in calling it a 'hoax' and as I already linked
1401:
I'm not arguing we should use
Knowledge as the start of some movement, absolutely not. I am not arguing that the title should be "Misunderstanding" - I'm saying that it should be a neutral word between both sides. "Incident". Or a common suggestion - drop it and have "Balloon Boy." It is already
1397:
Yes, people should bother news instead, but search for balloon boy on any search engine. The first link that shows up is
Knowledge, it will display Knowledge on the side, and most search engines trust Knowledge as a neutral source to display to the user. Knowledge is important, the start of any
2217:
Firstly: I will admit that
Internet Historian, were he the source of the information provided, would be incredibly flawed. His past content doesn't indicate a non-biased perspective, and recent revelations regarding his plagirism have caused me to lose faith in him for providing the truth, but
1389:
I read through the many arguments, debates, and requests on this topic and acknowledge both sides. I understand that
Knowledge should follow verified sources, and news is one. However, at the same time, many people see Knowledge as a neutral and objective website and a foundation for their own
1476:
According to
Knowledge's guidelines, 'neutrality' is reporting on things the same way sources do. Without changing the message or tone. We don't always achieve it, but that is the type of neutrality Knowledge strives for. 'Neutrality' does not necessarily mean presenting both sides equally or
1895:
well recognized" - i.e. if it is widely used, it is well recognized. I did miss the argument for just "Balloon Boy", but 1. they did argue for the "incident" wording as well, and 2. it's not about the boy, but the event. I would much prefer "incident" over just "Balloon Boy" for that reason.
1628:
Again, most articles including the ones you mentioned put âBalloon Boyâ in quotations, inferring that the incident name is called âBalloon Boyâ and their opinion of it is a hoax (Though admittedly 2/14 of your examples do put the whole âBalloon Boy
2226:
reflect the actual ambiguity of the situation. I'd argue no further information even needs to be provided, as analysing evidence from the investigation to determine guilt could in and of itself be seen as bias in the other direction.
1779:
If you say those 2 articles are enough to show it is widely used enough to justify a biased name, then I can't really argue. But with no official, media, nor population consensus, I would argue that "well recognized" rule is not met.
1609:
In this case I think media is using "hoax", and in cases they aren't they are carefully avoiding taking a "side". It seems fair for Knowledge to continue using the current title and to mention any controversies in the text itself.
1334:
Backread some of the previous topics. That really does seem like bias, especially after the Heenes were officially pardoned, and thereâs clear evidence of police lying on transcripts, illegally questioning children, etc.
166:
2269:
I agree. You're not here to pass judgement on the Heenes, which makes your continued refusal to change a single part of the wording in the article to make the aforementioned ambiguity all the more frustrating.
1639:
There is no official, news, or population agreed upon the name - searching only âBalloon Boyâ in search engines returns many examples of news using only Balloon Boy with no concern of their incorrect naming.
497:
903:
1525:
states, " If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as
1657:"Vital" is a loaded word here. It's about choosing the best name. It's not about changing to your preferred name unless the current one is absolutely "vital". That's the wrong standard to apply here.
2255:
As for your final thought about making one change and then everyone would be happy with the article forever.... I'm sorry, but I'm afraid there is a zero percent chance that you're right about that.
1955:
1336:
1368:
1873:. The recognizability is equal, if not worse, than just âBalloon Boyâ, so there is no point in it. Even if we assume it is widely used by news, the second part of the exception is not satisfied.
2134:
2081:
2378:
440:
1845:
before plenty others just call it "... hoax". And to top that all off, replacing your flawed query reveals that the "hoax" wording is more common than "incident" in all states with data (
2287:
Even if you don't believe there is any ambiguity here, you have to admit that the ammount of people in this talk page alone who've bought up the topic should warrant you to consider it.
1896:
Regardless, it seems to me that the "Hoax" wording is indeed common and therefore likely to be recognized, but if you want more eyes on this, I would recommend starting a discussion at
1921:
What you're really arguing is that it is not a hoax. Or that there is some serious doubt. That discussion has happened many times, and you're not bringing anything new to the table.
1101:
2403:
2279:
News is a valid secondary source here, and my intention was not to fully discredit it, but to point out that using news semi-exclusively here reflects its bias onto the article.
1636:
it may be usedâ I doubt that adding âHoaxâ makes it more recognizable - both the news emphasizing âBalloon Boyâ and the general populace see that Balloon Boy is distinct enough.
1454:
A lot of people already pointed this out, and I doubt this will convince anyone, but Knowledge adding the word Hoax in the title is pretty unique for this article. Going to the
1390:
opinions. News sources are verified, but that does not mean they are objective. They will use more powerful imagery for views at the time, and the strong word "hoax" is one.
548:
388:
2160:
that support the change you want to be made. Polis did not say they were innocent when he issued the pardon. It looks like the only source for this is their own statements.
1118:
160:
223:
1458:, few of them actually have the word "Hoax" in their title. It's interesting that something that recently sparked controversy still maintains this non-regulatory stance.
1597:
2373:
1154:
1144:
459:
2318:
1451:
Boy Hoax", a lot simply call the incident itself "Balloon Boy" and say it is a "Hoax". Therefore, it's their claim and not an official name for the incident.
553:
1823:
1819:
2398:
2358:
2328:
2248:
We don't need to debate whether we personally think it was really a hoax or what our opinion of the Internet Historian is. We're certainly not supposed to
1350:"Pardoned" means the crime still happened according to official record but they waived the consequence. It doesn't mean innocence. Nothing was overturned.
1108:
1016:
1006:
687:
677:
536:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
1671:
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that we should generally just leave inaccuracies in any article because they're not absolutely vital to fix?
92:
1765:
It isn't widely used, even the names in their example mostly (12/14) use "Balloon Boy" as the name of the incident and calling it a hoax, formatted as
1505:
The official guidelines on Naming says that, for Article Titles, opinion-based words like "Hoax" should only be used when it is more recognizable with
2388:
1690:
Presenting it as though the name should obviously be changed unless the current one is "absolutely vital" is a biased framing of the question at hand.
2272:
Nobody here is asking you to debate what you personally believe here, nor was I, and I apologise that my wording could be misinterpreted in that way.
2363:
2333:
1113:
57:
1846:
1572:
2368:
528:
2133:
We should change this to the Balloon Boy incident, not hoax. They were innocent and victims of malicious persecution. The guy was even pardoned.
1542:
2393:
2343:
1194:
792:
782:
324:
1552:
2313:
2245:
We're not here to pass judgement on the Heenes, we're here to summarize notable sources. Which news reports are, and a youtube videos is not.
2230:
here, is "Incident". I garauntee that doing so would likely silence this talkpage long into the future, and finally end this back-and-forth.
982:
653:
98:
1532:
2353:
2323:
1737:
be recognized. The use is the deciding factor. The policy is clear that even seemingly biased titles may be used under these circumstances.
1351:
2348:
2194:
1878:
1801:
1795:
1781:
1714:
1708:
1644:
1219:
1084:
1039:
403:
2016:
In Popular Culture: the Balloon boy hoax is mentioned in the Fallout Boy rendition of Billy Joel's Hit Single We didn't start the fire
1959:
1340:
2383:
1833:
1678:
1509:
1463:
1407:
1372:
1318:
1096:
478:
398:
2138:
2085:
2288:
2231:
1762:
The rules clearly state that biased Article Titles have only be used when "widely used...and therefore likely to be well recognized"
1424:- Unfortunately this is almost by definition what Knowledge is and aims to be. Of course it's not just "news", it's supposed to be
1567:
1562:
961:
938:
758:
644:
605:
397:
at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
2338:
2175:
1871:
1485:
of a crime, the convicted person claims they shouldn't have been. That's not nearly enough to rename all crimes as "incidents".
861:
394:
332:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
181:
112:
43:
1587:
1224:
1188:
1044:
867:
328:
148:
117:
33:
2213:
Re-Opening the topic of changing the wording ("Hoax" to "Incident"), discussing potential editor biases and source validity.
1398:
understanding of this subject, not the news. And the first step to anyone's research would be a giant title saying "Hoax."
1092:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
1829:
1674:
87:
827:
580:
358:
1954:
As evidence of this, the exact words "Balloon Boy Hoax," in that order, seem to mostly appear in more recent articles.
1592:
1272:
749:
710:
376:
78:
1713:
Even during current times, in the past year it outnumbered 31 to 1 despite the Article name being "Balloon Boy hoax"
2157:
2056:
2043:
1707:
The most recognizable name is "Balloon Boy", outnumbering "Balloon Boy Hoax" 100 to 7 during the peak according to
981:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
308:
231:
198:
142:
1578:
WaPo: "Parents of âBalloon Boy,â the hoax that captivated and confused the nation, pardoned by Colorado governor"
1306:
1276:
363:
271:
1577:
242:
1557:
1355:
2198:
1882:
1805:
1785:
1718:
1648:
138:
2112:
1995:
1513:
1467:
1411:
874:
537:
320:
122:
2292:
2235:
1744:) and the appropriate redirect in place, I fail to see any substantive reason to change this page's title.
2021:
1598:
Denver 7: "Ten years later: The truth comes out behind family's viral 'Balloon Boy' stunt in Fort Collins"
2283:
to look back at this incident from an unbiased perspective nigh impossible. But that doesn't matter here.
1602:
1909:
1858:
1753:
1619:
1437:
888:
754:
586:
188:
2077:
2017:
1076:
547:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
568:
2260:
1928:
1698:
1662:
1522:
1492:
1280:
174:
68:
1321:
for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
833:
757:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
652:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2165:
1948:
850:
551:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
247:
83:
1060:
1033:
1478:
1215:
884:
840:
741:
636:
154:
64:
2276:
again, the point of this article should not be about whether or not the Heene's are innocent
2183:
2064:
2039:
1904:
1853:
1748:
1614:
1432:
1406:
the news writes a wrong story on it, and Knowledge is forced to forever stick to its story.
1255:
953:
932:
244:
37:
1246:
2038:
it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
1897:
1181:
846:
544:
312:
2178:. A formal move request is needed to overturn that consensus, not a simple edit request.
1740:
Furthermore, with the addition of the alternative name you suggested in the lead (as per
1563:
Deadline: "âWife Swapâ Couple Pardoned By Colorado Governor For 2009 âBalloon Boyâ Hoax"
2256:
1924:
1694:
1658:
1568:
Vulture: "Wife Swap Couple Pardoned by Colorado Governor for 2009âs âBalloon Boyâ Hoax"
1543:
USA Today: "âBalunacyâ: Coloradoâs âballoon boyâ hoax is still a talker 10 years later"
1506:
1488:
1455:
814:
2307:
2161:
1199:
1089:
974:
970:
1547:
1537:
1687:
No. I'm saying that we should use the best, most recognizable name for the article.
1425:
304:
292:
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
1593:
CPR News: "Colorado âBalloon Boyâ Parents Pardoned, But They Donât Admit To Hoax"
1553:
NBC News: "Parents convicted in 'balloon boy' hoax pardoned by Colorado governor"
1502:
The content should absolutely include the full story the same way the media says.
2179:
2060:
1741:
1632:
As you say and in the guidelines, âIf a name is widely used in reliable sourceâŚ
1163:
1171:
1066:
978:
880:
854:
731:
649:
626:
620:
599:
1693:
It's an attempt to bait people into arguing against an impossible standard.
246:
1533:
The Guardian: "Couple behind 2009 'balloon boy' hoax in US granted pardons"
1271:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
1088:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
2296:
2264:
2239:
2202:
2187:
2169:
2142:
2089:
2068:
2025:
1963:
1932:
1913:
1886:
1862:
1837:
1809:
1789:
1757:
1722:
1702:
1682:
1666:
1652:
1623:
1517:
1496:
1471:
1441:
1415:
1376:
1359:
1344:
1588:
FOX31: "What did dad of âBalloon Boyâ tell 911 dispatchers 13 years ago?"
1202:
1603:
NY Times: "Parents of âBalloon Boyâ Are Pardoned by Coloradoâs Governor"
287:
1422:
I've never seen Knowledge as just a regurgitation of what the news says
966:
1800:"Balloon Boy" outnumbers "Balloon Boy Hoax" 100 to 7 during the peak.
1814:
After November 2014, searches for "Balloon Boy" will be dominated by
1402:
unique enough, and from there, the user can make their own decision.
303:
Per Knowledge's guidelines, self-published YouTube videos are not a
335:
about the video, this has been established on here several times.
266:
1815:
1867:
The rule specifically states âwidely usedâ by reliable sources
1447:
can read the sources and determine whether it is a hoax or not.
297:
Q1: Why can't the Internet Historian video be used as a source?
2100:
1983:
1288:
1241:
725:
704:
562:
543:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
520:
344:
307:. We understand and respect the motivation for coming here to
256:
248:
28:
15:
1947:
I want to note that this is, very likely, a minor example of
1162:
2176:
Talk:Balloon boy hoax/Archive 4#Requested move 4 March 2021
1548:
BBC News: "'Balloon boy hoax' parents pardoned in Colorado"
2193:
that the prosecution was malicious for obvious reasons.--
1573:
Reuters: "Mom admits to "Balloon Boy" hoax: court record"
1634:
and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers
1314:
1310:
1301:
490:
471:
452:
433:
277:
1826:. Both these trends data lines follow your arguments.
173:
1918:
It does not "break neutrality" to call a hoax a hoax.
1558:
CNN: "Authorities: 'Balloon boy' incident was a hoax"
311:. This is not the place to soapbox what you think is
965:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
753:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
648:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
407:
of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
1462:should not use a influenceable word in it's title.
1193:, our collaboration to improve, create, and update
2250:"analyze the evidence from an outside perspective"
2379:B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
1214:For questions about, or to make suggestions for
46:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2059:that support the change you want to be made.
362:. Please read recent comments and review the
187:
8:
2404:Knowledge articles that use American English
1818:related content. It's better to limit it to
2097:Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024
1980:Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2023
2075:
1367:"pardon" wipes the actual crime as well.
1292:
1259:, which has its own spelling conventions (
1208:To comment about this article, select the
1028:
927:
822:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
800:
699:
594:
412:
371:
389:Social sciences and society good articles
1364:that is not true; that is "commutation".
1299:Text and/or other creative content from
1956:2600:8806:6101:1700:DCA7:F9B7:8AA6:1C23
1337:2600:6C5E:447F:AEC2:50B9:3795:D697:FE2E
1030:
929:
701:
596:
566:
1421:
1369:2601:19C:527F:A660:1C7B:D57F:1D8B:C1CD
2374:Low-importance United States articles
2135:2001:569:BD51:1600:BC27:73BB:C19A:447
2082:2001:FB1:15D:9BBB:7DE5:28F7:659E:A953
1279:, this should not be changed without
7:
1538:5280: "The Balloon Boy HoaxâSolved!"
1082:This article is within the scope of
959:This article is within the scope of
747:This article is within the scope of
642:This article is within the scope of
2319:Biography articles of living people
1129:Knowledge:WikiProject United States
36:for discussing improvements to the
2399:WikiProject United States articles
2359:Low-importance Skepticism articles
2329:Low-importance Journalism articles
1385:The use of neutrality in Knowledge
1132:Template:WikiProject United States
14:
1769:. In fact, the CNN one even says
359:previous arguments being restated
2389:Low-importance Colorado articles
2174:See most recent move request at
2148:
2104:
2047:
2030:
1987:
1869:AND âwell recognizedâ by readers
1245:
1174:
1069:
1059:
1032:
991:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism
952:
931:
813:
734:
724:
703:
662:Knowledge:WikiProject Journalism
629:
619:
598:
567:
526:This article must adhere to the
375:
348:
315:. Please understand we can only
286:
265:
230:
58:Click here to start a new topic.
2364:WikiProject Skepticism articles
2334:WikiProject Journalism articles
1149:This article has been rated as
1011:This article has been rated as
994:Template:WikiProject Skepticism
787:This article has been rated as
682:This article has been rated as
665:Template:WikiProject Journalism
2369:B-Class United States articles
2297:13:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
2265:03:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
2240:02:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
868:Content (media and publishing)
585:It is of interest to multiple
393:nominee, but did not meet the
1:
2394:WikiProject Colorado articles
2344:Low-importance Media articles
1893:and is therefore likely to be
1703:16:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
1683:13:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
1667:04:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
1653:23:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
1187:This article is supported by
985:and see a list of open tasks.
804:WikiProject Media To-do List:
761:and see a list of open tasks.
656:and see a list of open tasks.
529:biographies of living persons
55:Put new text under old text.
2314:Former good article nominees
2090:05:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
1891:No, it says "is widely used
1624:01:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
1518:00:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
1497:02:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
1472:01:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
1442:22:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
1416:05:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
1377:08:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
1360:00:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
1345:05:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
2354:B-Class Skepticism articles
2324:B-Class Journalism articles
2127:to reactivate your request.
2115:has been answered. Set the
2010:to reactivate your request.
1998:has been answered. Set the
1900:(please tag me if you do).
767:Knowledge:WikiProject Media
541:must be removed immediately
510:Former good article nominee
63:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2420:
2349:WikiProject Media articles
1933:02:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
1914:23:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
1887:22:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
1155:project's importance scale
1017:project's importance scale
793:project's importance scale
770:Template:WikiProject Media
688:project's importance scale
401:. Editors may also seek a
282:Frequently asked questions
2384:B-Class Colorado articles
2252:as you've asked us to do.
2203:02:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
2188:17:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
2170:21:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
2143:20:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
2069:01:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
2026:15:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
1964:00:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
1863:11:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
1838:11:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
1810:03:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
1790:03:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
1758:05:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
1723:03:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
1307:Colorado balloon incident
1305:was copied or moved into
1170:
1148:
1085:WikiProject United States
1054:
1010:
947:
799:
786:
719:
681:
614:
593:
507:
415:
411:
355:Discussions on this page
93:Be welcoming to newcomers
22:Skip to table of contents
1830:Lollipoplollipoplollipop
1675:Lollipoplollipoplollipop
1477:anything like that. See
1225:We invite you to join us
1090:United States of America
21:
2339:B-Class Media articles
2040:"change X to Y" format
1167:
1135:United States articles
962:WikiProject Skepticism
645:WikiProject Journalism
575:This article is rated
88:avoid personal attacks
1394:he is guilty or not.
1166:
904:requests for comments
889:Alternative newspaper
498:Articles for deletion
441:Articles for deletion
395:good article criteria
224:Auto-archiving period
113:Neutral point of view
1313:. The former page's
1277:relevant style guide
1273:varieties of English
1190:WikiProject Colorado
1077:United States portal
479:Good article nominee
118:No original research
1319:provide attribution
1275:. According to the
1220:project's talk page
1103:Articles Requested!
997:Skepticism articles
668:Journalism articles
331:sources. Since the
309:right a great wrong
1824:cut it off at 2014
1797:Google Trends Data
1794:Further evidence:
1767:"Balloon Boy" hoax
1710:Google Trends Data
1195:Knowledge articles
1168:
851:Video game culture
581:content assessment
416:Article milestones
366:before commenting.
361:
319:material which is
99:dispute resolution
60:
2131:
2130:
2092:
2080:comment added by
2014:
2013:
1529:"Hoax" mentions:
1325:
1324:
1287:
1286:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1235:
1232:
1231:
1216:Colorado articles
1203:State of Colorado
1027:
1026:
1023:
1022:
926:
925:
922:
921:
918:
917:
914:
913:
885:Alternative media
750:WikiProject Media
742:Journalism portal
698:
697:
694:
693:
637:Journalism portal
561:
560:
519:
518:
515:
514:
370:
369:
356:
343:
342:
280:
255:
254:
79:Assume good faith
56:
27:
26:
2411:
2158:reliable sources
2152:
2151:
2122:
2118:
2108:
2107:
2101:
2057:reliable sources
2051:
2050:
2046:if appropriate.
2034:
2033:
2005:
2001:
1991:
1990:
1984:
1912:
1907:
1861:
1856:
1836:
1756:
1751:
1681:
1622:
1617:
1440:
1435:
1426:reliable sources
1304:
1296:
1295:
1289:
1256:American English
1252:This article is
1249:
1242:
1228:
1211:
1206:
1184:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1079:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1063:
1056:
1055:
1050:
1047:
1036:
1029:
999:
998:
995:
992:
989:
956:
949:
948:
943:
935:
928:
828:Article requests
817:
810:
809:
801:
775:
774:
771:
768:
765:
744:
739:
738:
737:
728:
721:
720:
715:
707:
700:
670:
669:
666:
663:
660:
639:
634:
633:
632:
623:
616:
615:
610:
602:
595:
578:
572:
571:
563:
549:this noticeboard
521:
508:Current status:
493:
474:
472:October 23, 2009
455:
453:October 18, 2009
436:
434:October 18, 2009
413:
383:Balloon boy hoax
379:
372:
352:
351:
345:
333:first discussion
290:
270:
269:
257:
249:
235:
234:
225:
192:
191:
177:
108:Article policies
38:Balloon boy hoax
29:
16:
2419:
2418:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2304:
2303:
2215:
2156:please provide
2149:
2120:
2116:
2105:
2099:
2055:please provide
2048:
2044:reliable source
2031:
2003:
1999:
1988:
1982:
1903:
1901:
1852:
1850:
1827:
1747:
1745:
1672:
1643:seem as vital.
1613:
1611:
1431:
1429:
1387:
1332:
1300:
1293:
1281:broad consensus
1223:
1209:
1198:
1182:Colorado portal
1180:
1175:
1173:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1109:Become a Member
1075:
1070:
1068:
1048:
1042:
996:
993:
990:
987:
986:
941:
910:
847:Media influence
772:
769:
766:
763:
762:
740:
735:
733:
713:
667:
664:
661:
658:
657:
635:
630:
628:
608:
579:on Knowledge's
576:
489:
470:
460:Deletion review
451:
432:
349:
339:
338:
337:
336:
305:reliable source
298:
283:
281:
251:
250:
245:
222:
134:
129:
128:
127:
104:
74:
12:
11:
5:
2417:
2415:
2407:
2406:
2401:
2396:
2391:
2386:
2381:
2376:
2371:
2366:
2361:
2356:
2351:
2346:
2341:
2336:
2331:
2326:
2321:
2316:
2306:
2305:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2284:
2280:
2277:
2273:
2270:
2253:
2246:
2214:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2129:
2128:
2109:
2098:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2074:YES, IS TRUE
2042:and provide a
2012:
2011:
1992:
1981:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1952:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1922:
1919:
1916:
1874:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1798:
1777:
1771:"Balloon Boy"
1763:
1738:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1711:
1691:
1688:
1640:
1637:
1630:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1600:
1595:
1590:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1575:
1570:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1550:
1545:
1540:
1535:
1527:
1503:
1486:
1482:
1459:
1456:List of hoaxes
1452:
1448:
1386:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1365:
1352:174.246.129.87
1331:
1328:
1323:
1322:
1317:now serves to
1297:
1285:
1284:
1250:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1213:
1207:
1186:
1185:
1169:
1159:
1158:
1151:Low-importance
1147:
1141:
1140:
1138:
1122:
1121:
1116:
1111:
1106:
1099:
1097:Template Usage
1093:
1081:
1080:
1064:
1052:
1051:
1049:Lowâimportance
1037:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1013:Low-importance
1009:
1003:
1002:
1000:
983:the discussion
957:
945:
944:
942:Lowâimportance
936:
924:
923:
920:
919:
916:
915:
912:
911:
909:
908:
907:
906:
899:
891:
870:
857:
836:
821:
819:
818:
806:
805:
797:
796:
789:Low-importance
785:
779:
778:
776:
773:Media articles
759:the discussion
746:
745:
729:
717:
716:
714:Lowâimportance
708:
696:
695:
692:
691:
684:Low-importance
680:
674:
673:
671:
654:the discussion
641:
640:
624:
612:
611:
609:Lowâimportance
603:
591:
590:
584:
573:
559:
558:
554:this help page
538:poorly sourced
524:
517:
516:
513:
512:
505:
504:
501:
494:
486:
485:
482:
475:
467:
466:
463:
456:
448:
447:
444:
437:
429:
428:
425:
422:
418:
417:
409:
408:
380:
368:
367:
357:often lead to
353:
341:
340:
318:
299:
296:
295:
284:
264:
263:
262:
260:
253:
252:
243:
241:
240:
237:
236:
194:
193:
131:
130:
126:
125:
120:
115:
106:
105:
103:
102:
95:
90:
81:
75:
73:
72:
61:
52:
51:
48:
47:
41:
25:
24:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2416:
2405:
2402:
2400:
2397:
2395:
2392:
2390:
2387:
2385:
2382:
2380:
2377:
2375:
2372:
2370:
2367:
2365:
2362:
2360:
2357:
2355:
2352:
2350:
2347:
2345:
2342:
2340:
2337:
2335:
2332:
2330:
2327:
2325:
2322:
2320:
2317:
2315:
2312:
2311:
2309:
2298:
2294:
2290:
2285:
2281:
2278:
2274:
2271:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2251:
2247:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2212:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2195:67.70.101.117
2191:
2190:
2189:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2159:
2155:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2126:
2123:parameter to
2114:
2110:
2103:
2102:
2096:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2028:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2009:
2006:parameter to
1997:
1993:
1986:
1985:
1979:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1950:
1946:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1923:
1920:
1917:
1915:
1911:
1908:
1906:
1899:
1894:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1879:75.16.180.163
1875:
1872:
1870:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1848:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1802:75.16.180.163
1799:
1796:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1782:75.16.180.163
1778:
1776:
1774:
1768:
1764:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1743:
1739:
1736:
1732:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1715:75.16.180.163
1712:
1709:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1645:75.16.180.163
1641:
1638:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1616:
1608:
1604:
1601:
1599:
1596:
1594:
1591:
1589:
1586:
1585:
1584:Other terms:
1583:
1579:
1576:
1574:
1571:
1569:
1566:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1556:
1554:
1551:
1549:
1546:
1544:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1531:
1530:
1528:
1524:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1504:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1487:
1483:
1480:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1460:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1436:
1434:
1427:
1423:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1384:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1329:
1327:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1303:
1298:
1291:
1290:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1257:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1243:
1226:
1221:
1217:
1204:
1201:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1183:
1172:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1126:United States
1120:
1117:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1078:
1067:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1053:
1046:
1041:
1040:United States
1038:
1035:
1031:
1018:
1014:
1008:
1005:
1004:
1001:
984:
980:
976:
975:pseudohistory
972:
971:pseudoscience
968:
964:
963:
958:
955:
951:
950:
946:
940:
937:
934:
930:
905:
901:
900:
898:
896:
892:
890:
886:
882:
879:
877:
876:
871:
869:
866:
864:
863:
858:
856:
852:
848:
845:
843:
842:
837:
835:
832:
830:
829:
824:
823:
820:
816:
812:
811:
808:
807:
803:
802:
798:
794:
790:
784:
781:
780:
777:
760:
756:
752:
751:
743:
732:
730:
727:
723:
722:
718:
712:
709:
706:
702:
689:
685:
679:
676:
675:
672:
655:
651:
647:
646:
638:
627:
625:
622:
618:
617:
613:
607:
604:
601:
597:
592:
588:
582:
574:
570:
565:
564:
556:
555:
550:
546:
542:
539:
535:
531:
530:
525:
523:
522:
511:
506:
503:Speedily kept
502:
500:
499:
495:
492:
491:July 31, 2011
488:
487:
483:
481:
480:
476:
473:
469:
468:
464:
462:
461:
457:
454:
450:
449:
445:
443:
442:
438:
435:
431:
430:
426:
423:
420:
419:
414:
410:
406:
405:
400:
396:
392:
391:
390:
384:
381:
378:
374:
373:
365:
360:
354:
347:
346:
334:
330:
326:
322:
316:
314:
310:
306:
302:
294:
293:
289:
279:
276:
273:
268:
261:
259:
258:
239:
238:
233:
229:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
200:
196:
195:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
133:
132:
124:
123:Verifiability
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
110:
109:
100:
96:
94:
91:
89:
85:
82:
80:
77:
76:
70:
66:
65:Learn to edit
62:
59:
54:
53:
50:
49:
45:
39:
35:
31:
30:
23:
20:
18:
17:
2249:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2153:
2132:
2124:
2113:edit request
2076:â Preceding
2052:
2035:
2029:
2015:
2007:
1996:edit request
1902:
1892:
1868:
1851:
1772:
1770:
1766:
1746:
1734:
1633:
1612:
1523:WP:POVNAMING
1510:99.7.231.127
1464:99.7.231.127
1430:
1408:99.7.231.127
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1333:
1326:
1302:Falcon Heene
1268:
1264:
1260:
1253:
1218:, go to our
1189:
1150:
1114:Project Talk
1102:
1083:
1012:
960:
894:
893:
873:
872:
860:
859:
839:
838:
834:Mackay Radio
826:
825:
788:
748:
683:
643:
587:WikiProjects
552:
540:
533:
527:
509:
496:
477:
458:
446:No consensus
439:
404:reassessment
402:
387:
386:
382:
300:
291:
285:
274:
227:
197:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
107:
32:This is the
2289:92.16.4.131
2232:92.16.4.131
1949:citogenesis
1905:HarryKernow
1854:HarryKernow
1820:news search
1749:HarryKernow
1742:MOS:BOLDSYN
1615:HarryKernow
1433:HarryKernow
1254:written in
1210:New section
399:renominated
161:free images
44:not a forum
2308:Categories
2117:|answered=
2018:Rayven1203
2000:|answered=
1775:was a hoax
1479:WP:YESBIAS
1212:tab above.
1197:about the
988:Skepticism
979:skepticism
939:Skepticism
881:Multimedia
855:Sound bite
659:Journalism
650:journalism
606:Journalism
484:Not listed
321:verifiable
2257:ApLundell
2154:Not done:
2053:Not done:
2036:Not done:
1925:ApLundell
1695:ApLundell
1659:ApLundell
1489:ApLundell
1311:this edit
545:libellous
329:secondary
101:if needed
84:Be polite
34:talk page
2162:Jamedeus
2078:unsigned
1898:WP:NPOVN
1773:incident
1735:actually
1526:biased."
1269:traveled
1045:Colorado
465:Endorsed
325:reliable
199:Archives
69:get help
42:This is
40:article.
1629:Hoaxâ).
1315:history
1265:defense
1153:on the
1015:on the
967:science
902:Answer
841:Cleanup
791:on the
686:on the
577:B-class
424:Process
228:66Â days
167:WPÂ refs
155:scholar
2180:FDW777
2061:Xan747
1910:(talk)
1877:Boyâ.
1859:(talk)
1754:(talk)
1620:(talk)
1438:(talk)
1330:âHoaxâ
1119:Alerts
875:Verify
583:scale.
427:Result
385:was a
317:report
139:Google
2121:|ans=
2111:This
2004:|ans=
1994:This
1309:with
1261:color
895:Other
764:Media
755:Media
711:Media
323:from
313:truth
182:JSTOR
143:books
97:Seek
2293:talk
2261:talk
2236:talk
2199:talk
2184:talk
2166:talk
2139:talk
2086:talk
2065:talk
2022:talk
1960:talk
1929:talk
1883:talk
1834:talk
1816:FNAF
1806:talk
1786:talk
1719:talk
1699:talk
1679:talk
1663:talk
1649:talk
1514:talk
1493:talk
1468:talk
1412:talk
1373:talk
1356:talk
1341:talk
1200:U.S.
977:and
862:NPOV
421:Date
327:and
278:edit
272:view
175:FENS
149:news
86:and
2119:or
2002:or
1849:).
1847:src
1822:or
1145:Low
1007:Low
783:Low
678:Low
534:BLP
364:FAQ
301:A1:
189:TWL
2310::
2295:)
2263:)
2238:)
2201:)
2186:)
2168:)
2141:)
2125:no
2088:)
2067:)
2024:)
2008:no
1962:)
1931:)
1885:)
1832:::
1828://
1808:)
1788:)
1721:)
1701:)
1677:::
1673://
1665:)
1651:)
1516:)
1495:)
1470:)
1414:)
1375:)
1358:)
1343:)
1267:,
1263:,
1222:.
1043::
973:,
969:,
887:,
883:,
853:,
849:,
226::
218:,
214:,
210:,
206:,
169:)
67:;
2291:(
2259:(
2234:(
2197:(
2182:(
2164:(
2137:(
2084:(
2063:(
2020:(
1958:(
1927:(
1881:(
1804:(
1784:(
1717:(
1697:(
1661:(
1647:(
1512:(
1491:(
1481:.
1466:(
1410:(
1371:(
1354:(
1339:(
1283:.
1227:!
1205:.
1157:.
1019:.
897::
878::
865::
844::
831::
795:.
690:.
589:.
557:.
532:(
275:¡
220:5
216:4
212:3
208:2
204:1
201::
185:¡
179:¡
171:¡
164:¡
158:¡
152:¡
146:¡
141:(
71:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.