Talk:My Son Hunter

No due weight for Newsmax and primary source

@Dswitz10734: the content you added that was sourced to Newsmax (RSP entry) and a primary YouTube source, which I removed here and here, is not just contested on the grounds of reliability, but on due weight. This is not an advert for the film, and speculative release dates and financial claims that have not been independently verified by a reliable source are not acceptable. Additionally, in the case of Newsmax, it is so thoroughly fake news to the point where simple footage from it cannot be trusted not to have been edited, taken out of context or otherwise be unreliable. — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Because we control our how we think, diversity of thought is the best diversity. I can respect your opinion of Newsmax, however I'd like to point out the clip I previously cited with the release info wasn't published by Newsmax, rather a republish by the producers on this film. But, it's reasonable to remove the speculative release date you mentioned, but I'd like to keep the crowdfund expansion because this info came directly from the producers, but as I said I'll remove the piece about release. Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, this is not my opinion of Newsmax (I don't know it that well), but I'm summarising the community's strong consensus on it, which we must all enforce even if we disagree with it. However, since you've removed this content, I'm happy to leave it there for now. I still disagree with the primary source usage but my objection would also be to the other source, mysonhunter.com, and other budget content. — Bilorv (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I've found a secondary source, [1] from The Independent (RSP), which is considered reliable the the Wikipedia community. However, this source only has the info about crowdfunding the 2.5 million, not the additional 250k. Should I add this in to replace all the info about the 250k? Until it gets sourced by a site approved by Wikipedia, should we just leave out everything about the additional $250,000? Dswitz10734 (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dswitz10734: apologies for the late response, as this accidentally got cut from my to-do list. Yes, we should include the Independent source and only the information that The Independent verifies (i.e. not the $250k). — Bilorv (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Who wrote the screenplay?

As of now, I don't see a writing credit. Does the screenwriter wish to remain anonymous? The article indicates that a script did exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.87.210 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this idea, I just checked online and the credit, which wasn't originally publicized, goes to Brian Godawa according to IMDb [2] Dswitz10734 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

IMDb is generally unreliable as it is partly user-generated (see WP:RSP). We can use this credit if there is a reference to a professional publication with editorial oversight, or if the film is released and the writer is listed in the credits. — Bilorv (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Bias

Brief Bart should not be characterized as far right media unless that statement is balanced with another statement from someone or something characterized as far left.

If that cannot be done, substitute "far right" with "conservative". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5b0:43c4:5748:99a0:37dc:86e:9b0d (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral point of view does not require us to pair up each usage of the phrase "far-right" with a usage of the phrase "far-left". But if you'd like to add a far-left viewpoint on the subject, reliably sourced, you're welcome to do so. See Breitbart News for more detail and sourcing on the characterisation as far-right. — Bilorv (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we're all aware of the simple fact that Hunter Biden engaged in business dealings with Ukrainian company Burisma, so I'm not sure why we are referring this to a conspiracy theory. It definitely signals bias in this article, and should be revised in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Googoobabycake (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This so-called "article" is a joke & should be deleted for WP:BLPSOURCES

This so-called "article" is promoting a made-up, fictional propaganda piece intent on harming the reputation of a living person who is a private citizen (not a public figure) by spreading the same conspiracies, lies, and propaganda of which NO reliable sources are attributed. Even the people on Trump's social blog admit it's a propaganda-flick "Reacting to the trailer on social media, one commentator said: “This is the worst Tarantino ripoff from the ‘90s we never got.” Another wrote: “So the story is the guy took a bunch of drugs and is the President’s son? And the conflict is what? And this goes on for two hours? S*** like this makes me miss the old studio system.”

Reasons the so-called "article" should be deleted include, but not limited to:

1. It is promoting a 2 hour propaganda video filled with contentious material about living persons that is unsourced and poorly sourced so should be removed immediately. (see: WP:BLPSOURCES.

2. There are NO reliable sources cited in this so-called "article."

3. The only sources promoting this propaganda are rightwinged conspiracy theorists and now wiki.

4. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.

Wiki should not be promoting this hit-flick that has the clear intent of harming the reputation of a NON-public figure with conspiracies, lies, and propaganda. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why, for instance, The Guardian and The Independent are not reliable here. However, you can nominate the article for deletion if you've (a) reviewed all the sources currently in the article, (b) searched for any reliable sources that could exist and (c) still conclude that the topic is non-notable. Without endorsing the writing of this article, however, I would say that notability is nothing to do with whether the film is good or contains facts in it. — Bilorv (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: My point is not about "notability" - My point is: that because the article is about a Living Person who is NOT a public figure. WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPGOSSIP wiki sets the bar much higher whereby wiki editors are to focus on: using "high-quality sources," taking special care to avoid spreading defamatory gossip that may "adversely affect a person's reputation," avoid suggesting "the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured," and "avoid spreading gossip."

1. Regarding WP:BLPSOURCES

• The Independent, (from 2021 - today) wiki says "editors advise [to use] caution for articles published after March 2016". Meaning, today, in 2022, we should use caution in using them as a source.
• The Guardian (from 2019-today) wiki writes, The Guardian is generally reliable [not high quality]. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics..

2. Regarding WP:BLPCRIME

• Wiki writes, "For individuals who are not public figures; editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." From the sources used in the article, the "fictional debut" does just that -- accuses a living person, non-public figure of committing crimes. I should note, not only has the person the fictional debut focuses on NOT been convicted, he has not been indicted or charged with any crimes either.

3. Regarding WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE

• Wiki writes, "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." So, in this article, wiki editors must take special care to avoid repeating the propaganda and conspiracy theories within the "fictional debut" vlog.

4. Regarding WP:GOSSIP

• Wiki writes, "Avoid repeating gossip." Again, from the sources within the article, the fictional debut spreads gossip, while at the same time, defames a non-public figure by accusing him of committing crimes they had not been indicted for, charged with, or convicted of.

So, for all of those reasons, I feel the article should be deleted. But, as long as it remains, I'll do my best to make sure that all wiki rules (that I'm aware of) are adhered to. Finally, I have requested the page be semi-protected due to the high degree of disruptive editing/vandalism. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Under your interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME, Hunter Biden laptop controversy shouldn't exist and Hunter Biden#Laptop controversy should be removed from that page.

Regardless, I'm not understanding how an article covering piece of media, and what's contained in said media, would be construed with BLP encyclopedic information of the individual. Skipple ☎ 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel you need to re-read my comment and then read the wiki articles that I provide in my comment. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no point deconstructing this list as you've taken RSP and other quotes out of context. No newspaper can ever be "always reliable"; "generally reliable" is the best a source can be.

If you have a concrete suggestion of what material in the article can be changed from what to what then I'm all ears, but if not then there is no point to your comments. — Bilorv (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism of the so-called 'article"

the following accounts appear to be vandalizing the so-called 'article'

2600:1700:36A0:D2C0:D3A0:8A0B:A11A:A321

2600:8804:8683:400:31d9:f264:cd90:92e4

BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding more IPs that seem to be vandalizing & being disruptive on the main page

2603:7000:6ff0:7fb0:7cfa:5e13:b99f:eb2b

2600:8800:4198:B200:6499:5AF1:8902:2C49

129.222.7.183

Wiki061995

BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge article elsewhere or AFD

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

---

I propose this should be merged. It's not really notable independent of Breitbart or whoever is the driving force behind this, and it's WP:CRYSTAL for a future film. Andre🚐 01:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Delete for the reason Andrevan mentioned. I hadn't heard of WP:CRYSTAL before now, and after learning about it, and about WP:NFF I feel deleting the article for CRYSTAL, NFF, & and not notable is the correct step to take. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, per WP:NFF, it's about films that haven't begun principal photography, which I guess this one did. So we might not have a good case at AFD under that rationale. Andre🚐 16:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep on the grounds that it has a release date mentioned, and it is funded by a film distribution company (owned by a right-wing news site, like it or not). --Maxbmogs (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, those happen not to be valid grounds. Many films that are funded and with a release date, aren't notable. And this isn't an AFD yet or a formal proposal. The policy considerations as I see it, are to do with WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, but there is a counterbalncing WP:CRYSTAL WP:NFF argument, if the film is pre-production. Andre🚐 16:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I just did a bare minimum WP:BEFORE, and I don't see any way the article wouldn't be kept. Even before the trailer it had plenty of significant coverage. I think we're stuck with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is quite a bit of coverage, but perhaps the coverage is really an aspect of a larger person or organization or phenomenon where this could be merged into. Andre🚐 16:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

To ScottishFinnishRadish - I see no significant coverage of the fictional flick Breitbart is pushing. Do you mind giving a list of reliable sources that are giving it "significant coverage" that you've seen? Thanks.

BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much you're looking for, but here we go.

Recently: The Daily Beast The Mary Sue Mother Jones Decider The Independent The Independent Wonkette

Older: The Hill Deadline Deadline Even more Deadline Vice Deseret News The Independent More The Independent

Significant coverage over time, and there's only going to be more coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many of those are RS, but thanks for the list. Perhaps we should include what Daily Beast says, "State media propagandists are hard at work promoting the flick, which is set to premiere on Sept. 7 and apparently centers on various conspiracy theories about U.S. President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Thanks again & best regards! BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The Independent is probably the least biased source there, see WP:DAILYBEAST. The Independent gives us a cinematic attempt to draw attention to scandals involving president Joe Biden and his family and the film is expected to deviate significantly from confirmed fact. My Son Hunter’s opening line, delivered by Carano’s character, reportedly disclaims: “This is not a true story, except for all the facts.” Or we leave it bare bones until the movie comes out, find the best, least biased sources reviewing or discussing it, and build from there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, if it's going to stay, then that's the best route. I like how the Independent calls the flick propaganda & lies, without using those words: film is expected to deviate significantly from confirmed fact.. Best regards! BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it says it's expected to be propaganda. That's why leaving everything but the basics out until the movie is released is a good idea. I'm certain there will be plenty of good sourcing available once it's released. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Usually I agree but in this case, there isn't really any substantial coverage outside of the typical non-rs propaganda machines, Fox, Breitbart, Newsweek, etc... or barely useable highly partisan sources on both sides which would require attribution for any statements we would summarize, which I'm personally not sure or convinced that trying to base an entire article off of these types of sources is a good thing. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

At this point saying that it is a thing that exists and providing the bare bones is fine. I'm sure it will explode worse than Recession once the movie comes out. Take a peek at the talk page archives of The Kashmir Files for how I think this is going to play out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Fiction in the lead

It appears several POV pushing accounts have taken it upon themselves to continue a pointless edit war to remove "fictional debut" from the lead despite the ample sourcing provided calling it fictional. I am opening a discussion in hopes that this will stop and a clear consensus can be formed. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, look, describing this as a "fictional debut" could be wrong, or at the very least misleading, when you don't have the directors listed in the sentence. Maxbmogs (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No, describing it as a "biographical film" is blatantly false when it is literally a work of complete fiction, as evidenced by the sources and discussions above. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And contrary to Maxbmogs assertion, this is not a biographical film. It is quite literally fiction. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Describe it as RS do - alleged life stories. A "Fictional debut" sounds odd. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Newsweek, a known portrayer of factually accurate content. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes this movie concerns real life political figures, but it is no more a biographical film than, say, Ed Wood or Bohemian Rhapsody or Saving Mr. Banks. --Maxbmogs (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Except those are largely based on the subject of the films life, as reported by the subjects themselves and reliable sources. This is just Breitbart fanfiction full of the usual conspiracy theories pushed by the far right. Presenting it as if it is anything more than fiction is incorrect. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Pickledicae is spot on! Calling it a 'biographical film' is patently false. The RS describe it as "fiction" and "fictional debut" and "alleged life stories." But even more importantly, it should be deleted due to WP:CRYSTAL as explained by @Andrevan: here [[3]] BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Also see Vice. Skipple ☎ 17:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL applies to unverifiable speculation, rumors or presumptions. This is not such a case. The movie is done and will be released in a week. You can watch the trailer. It is obviously a propaganda film but it is notable propaganda. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to have to withdraw the claim of CRYSTAL if the movie is done and going to be released in a week. Andre🚐 18:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

These "quotes from nowhere" are nonsense and don't suffice for attribution. I've reworded one and attributed another (which isn't a satisfactory resolution but it's at least coherent). Still a couple more of these in the body for someone else to tackle.

If the film purports to be factual then it's confusing to describe it as fictional. We should describe misinformation as misinformation, not fiction and not fact. — Bilorv (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The film doesn't purport to be factual, it purports to be a biopic. Not a documentary. It takes some creative license. Andre🚐 19:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

To quote The Independent, My Son Hunter’s opening line, delivered by Carano’s character, reportedly disclaims: “This is not a true story, except for all the facts.” Definitely sounds like some liberties are taken. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't describe it as a documentary. If it's a biopic then call it a biopic. We can possibly say it is about a "fictionalised version" of Biden, if that's what sources indicate, but I don't think "biopic based on a conspiracy theory" is clearly indicated by calling it "fiction". — Bilorv (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

"Trump-propelled conspiracy theory"?

The lead currently has the sentence,

"The film centers on Hunter Biden, the son of US president Joe Biden, who in 2021 'found himself at the center of a Donald Trump-propelled conspiracy theory'."

Apart from the fact that that is misinformation (or disinformation, if intentional), that "quote" appears nowhere in the source it is attributed to. 2A02:1210:8014:F600:99CA:98EF:6B5E:3490 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed it as @Drmies forgot the 3 in the ref name, which links to the sources which do indeed describe it as such. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Most of the US populace can easily do a Google search and find many verified sources that can account for the Burisma Ukrainian business dealings that Hunter Biden had engaged in. With that said, calling the situation a conspiracy theory only propels misinformation and bias, and violates Wikipedia's neutrality-driven guidelines. Googoobabycake (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Clarification of 2nd sentence

The second sentence currently says "The film centers on Hunter Biden, the son of US president Joe Biden, who was falsely accused of corruption in 2021 by Donald Trump." It's hard to tell if this refers to Joe Biden or Hunter Biden. If it's about Joe Biden, then it is correct. If it's about Hunter Biden, then shouldn't the fact that Hunter is currently being investigated by the FBI for alleged corrupt business dealings be included somewhere? Washington Post , CNN Meishern (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

They always tell you to go discuss in the talk page and then when you do it no one responds because it's just a façade so that their views are always "correct." Googoobabycake (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem here, but I don't know enough about the topic to suggest a solution. The lead has now been rewritten and it's clear that the text refers to Hunter Biden. I think the point is that the specific allegations Trump made were either unfounded or provably incorrect. To say or imply "Hunter Biden is not corrupt" is certainly something I would disagree with (it'd be difficult to find a notable U.S. politician that is not corrupt), but that's what the current wording does. — Bilorv (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

My Son Hunter page description I. First paragraph is inaccurate and biased. It states that the corruption allegations by Trump were false. We now know that the laptop is real and thus the claim neither remains false, nor is it true. Removing the word "false" is required for accuracy. 71.37.215.43 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that we don't know what the movie is going to cover specifically. Is the movie going to cover just the laptop or other allegations? (I think we can make an educated guess based on who's producing the movie) That said, making the assumption that the movie is going to cover false allegations is premature. Skipple ☎ 23:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It's covered in the sources. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm unable to find a source that details the topics the movie will be covering. The Deadline article states the movie will "primarily set in the Ukraine", but doesn't cover any of the specific details of what the movie will be covering.

I might be missing something here, but I'm not seeing that. (again, we can make assumptions based on everything we know, but I'm sure you would agree we shouldn't jump to conclusions prematurely)

Disregard, I think I am understanding now. The article doesn't actually say that's what's being depicted in the movie. While I think that a bit confusing, it does make factual sense. Skipple ☎ 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2022

Please remove this:

President's son was falsely accused of corruption in 2021 by Donald Trump.

and add this:

In 2021, Donald Trump falsely accused the president's son of corruption.

"President's son" sounds wrong without "The", and it's normally better to use the active voice instead of the passive. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done: looks like an uncontroversial wording change to me, and I agree that the latter is better. No sources needed as no facts are added or removed. Thanks for the clear description of precisely what change you were requesting. — Bilorv (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Laptop

How come the word "laptop" is never mentioned since FBI claims it did confiscate a laptop from the laptop repair shop but never clarified the outcome Simidani44 (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ctrl+F shows that it's in the introduction. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Updates

Shouldn't someone update this page? I mean, it's been four days since the movie came out and there's been fifteen reviews written so far. 98.20.146.95 (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Um, hello? Anybody there? Movie's been out for a month now... 173.187.240.5 (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

If you're willing to spend the time to write the text, you can use an edit request on the talk page (this page) for someone else to add to the article.

If you're not willing to spend the time, why do you expect somebody else to? The principle of Wikipedia is that you need to make edits without asking permission. If you don't do it yourself, it won't get done. We have a chronic shortage of volunteer labour. — Bilorv (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Reviewer opinions in the main subject headline

Not appropriate, comments about reviewers calling it "delicious" don't belong there and should be instead nested in a "release and reception" section in line with how other other movies and documentaries. The lack of information regarding this movie is not a reason to have that kind of editorial flair. 110.21.186.111 (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)