Talk:Unclaimed (2013 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skepticism[edit]

The documentary makes a rather astounding claim. Googling around there's some pause for skepticism:

http://www.macvsog.cc/john_hartly_rob.htm http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/65819558/m/9740049212001

Neither of these two links are authoritative. But it does suggest people are being duped by this.

Mindme (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd say they suggest at most that the claim is contested by some and I'm concerned that the bare refs you've added to the article are nowhere near being reliable sources. But I have no particular axe to grind and I have no objection if a skepticism section is created with reliable sources. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Shawn. The National Alliance of Families has its own entry here on wiki which I interpret as meaning this group has already met wiki's notability requirement. This may be different from a reliable source distinction (some Holocaust denial group may be notable to have an entry but not a source on the holocaust). But I agree it's a fairly weak source. There are a couple other unofficial veteran/pow groups (the macvsog group) that are skeptical the person in question is JHR. It's hard to believe vets would not be bending over backwards to confirm this was one of their own. There are a number of MIA frauds (including trying to sell bones purporting to be recovered MIA remains) and skepticism is always warranted regarding such an amazing claim. Curiously the missionary in the movie who "discovered" JHR seems to have encountered his own share of scammers all along the way [1] Mindme (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 18:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Purporting" has a negative connotation, suggesting it's a false claim, an accusation that seems to be entirely based on hearsay. I would ask you try and find a more WP:NPOV phrasing, please. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment There are a few issues here. We have an article about a film - the film could be fiction, non-fiction, or something in between. I haven't seen it, I have no idea. In any case, the article should be about the film itself, and restrain its commentary to that, given the dearth of sources. I don't think, especially given there don't seem to be good sources on either side, that the article should take a side as to whether this fellow is who he says he is. "supposed" or "claimed/claiming" would be a good word to describe this fellow instead of purported, especially given there is clear controversy around the veracity of his claims.
The bigger problem is there aren't any sources that attest to the notability of this film in general, per Wikipedia:Notability_(films), so unless editors can demonstrate that this film meets those criteria, it may be sent to AfD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hot docs film festival is itself a notable film festival. Being a selection for the film festival should lend notability? As well, the Metro weekly [2] ran an image from the film as a part of its story about the fest itself. Regarding the skepticism, I will admit my inclusion might be considered original research. Although there is skepticism about the JHR claim, there is none, so far, about the film's conclusions itself. I would imagine when this film hits the US market some might emerge. I'm happy to wait. 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    the statement "there aren't any sources that attest to the notability of this film in general, per Wikipedia:Notability_(films)" is obviously incorrect as there is this, from one Canada's highest circulation daily, referenced in the article: Barnard, Linda (25 April 2013). "Hot Docs premiere Unclaimed finds a Vietnam veteran left behind for 44 years". Toronto Star. Retrieved 25 April 2013.. Perhaps what you meant to say is that we don't yet have multiple sources, which is true, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend waiting until after the film's screening to assess its notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Erik for your help with this. Yes, I knew I jumped the gun a little on this film, with just the one WP:RS, for now. I'm optimistic I could add multiple RS before any Afd period is up and I'll continue to update the article as more coverage appears. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I am just making a general suggestion not to go to AfD just yet. I'm not seeing any coverage similar to Toronto Star at this point but would not be surprised to see more when this debuts. I'm curious to follow this myself now. :) There are guidelines at MOS:FILM#Documentaries for all to consider. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. yes, Hot docs is one of the world's biggest doc fests, covered by many major US and int'l trades, and Toronto's a major media market. I'm reasonably confident we'll see more coverage soon, but again, I could and should have waited. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not suggesting AfD either - but debuting at a film festival itself is usually not sufficient - so you did jump the gun a bit. Let's see what happens and what new sources come to light.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The national league of families has weighed in with comments on their FB page. This organization seems notable and legit (congress made their flag the official symbol). I've reflected their comments in the w/u. Mindme (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That this organization merits an article does not mean an unsubstantiated claim made on their Facebook page becomes a reliable source. The DNA claim appears to be flatly untrue, as reported by reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:USERG says we can use self-published material if the author is an established expert. Is the National League of Families considered expert in these matters? Also, what reliable sources say that the DNA claim is flatly untrue? Of the references in the article, I only see DNA mentioned in Toronto Star and Business Insider in context of DNA testing being declined. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's my point: the Toronto Star, which is Canada's largest circulation daily, refutes the claim being made in this organization's Facebook page about DNA testing. This appears to be an untrue claim with no reliable source and I've removed it per WP:CHALLENGE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think I see what you're saying. Toronto Star says, "As for DNA testing, Robertson-Holly has been adamant that it’s not necessary. She knows this man is her brother. Inexplicably, Robertson’s American wife and two children, who initially said they would like to participate in DNA testing, later abruptly declined to be involved, says Jorgensen." So is it a matter of how the National League of Families was able to do the DNA testing? It seems like the article might be referring to how DNA testing was declined for the making of this documentary, but the NLF already has a record of performing DNA testing from several years ago. So it may not be contradictory claims, perhaps? We'll learn more when the film airs. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? I've restored the Facebook claim. I really have a problem with Facebook postings as refs but WP:USERG does seem to apply here for this group. I'm gonna back off and stop watching this article. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revised version[edit]

Okay, upon closer inspection of the festival's description, the film is avowedly about a man who is either a) who he says he is or b) "a senile imposter" so we don't need the 'Skepticism' section because the film is exploring this very question. That didn't come out in the TO Star review. I'm rewriting the article accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. So, in the end, Mindme was quite right, and I had the article quite wrong, in its initial form (and I say Barnard's review rather missed the point?) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added Category:Films about con artists as well as Category:Documentary films about veterans, as the film doesn't appear to come down on one side or the other, on this point. So all must be applied. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Mindme (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found this today but can't play with sound. Does it say anything new that could be added? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References to use[edit]

I revised the article to have a neutrally-titled "Proof of identity" section that can encapsulate the debate about the validity of Robert's identity. If you can think of a better section heading, feel free to propose. Above are some articles I found available in Google News Search. Also feel free to beat me in incorporating these articles if there is anything useful to add. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is great. You've turn my stub which merely glossed over these issues into a must-read article if someone wants a thorough analysis of the pros and cons. Outstanding. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, Erik. I think you managed to encapsulate the arguments for/against. Mindme (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, this recaps most of the sources we've seen already, but one caption says, "Robertson's name appears on panel 64E, Line 8 of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as Killed In Action. But is he still living in Southeast Asia?" I think that could be a good opportunity to add a free image to the Wikipedia article if it can be procured. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've done such great work, I'd suggest you take it to WP:DYK. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another ref: Revealed: Man claiming to be Vietnam veteran Sgt John Hartley Robertson who went missing and was presumed dead 44 years earlier is 'exposed as a fraud' --Racklever (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing! Looks like it is referring to the report copied by the NLF. We can replace that Facebook reference with this and expand with more detail. I'll try to do that later today if no one else beats me to it. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I incorporated The Independent in the article body and expanded the lead section to better recap the contents of the body. I think it may be soon be necessary to re-structure the "Validity of identity" section. It will be tricky because there is a pre-release chronology, yet the blossoming consensus may be more appropriate upfront. EDIT: Not to mention, I wonder what the fallout is going to be. Are they even going to show it at the GI Film Festival anymore? Geez. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, this won't do much for Jorgensen's reputation -- Or Hot Docs, I wonder. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More good work, Erik. Mindme (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) I was just looking at this, which is an interesting compilation of factoids, though I'm not sure if the Daily Mail as a tabloid counts as a reliable source with its screaming headlines. It has neat pictures, though. The Independent seems more "trustworthy", though I am wondering if I make their report of the memo sound too exclusive, especially with the Daily Mail doing a similar (and possibly earlier) report. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erik if you're not getting paid to do this kind of work somewhere off-wiki, you darn well should be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail is like a meta analysis. When it agrees with your conclusions, it's a bit of hard nosed, shoe leather journalism. When it disagrees, it's the bloody Daily Fail. My reading of the DM and Independent is they've summarized most of the extant skeptical information available on the web. I've been documenting the various skeptical links here and here. It does not look like either UK paper actually picked up a phone and talked to any of the Vet/MIA orgs that have posted skeptical info online. But they do, at least, offer a coherent summary (with the daily mail actually doing a better job). Full disclosure if not apparent by now, I'm dubious about the film's expressed or implied premise. I wish it were true. But there have been so many scams in times past, skepticism (as opposed to cynicism) is needed. Mindme (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don Bendell seems support the daily mail's reporting of his words https://www.facebook.com/donbendell/posts/10151445377613095 Mindme (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some rather choice words Bendell has for the next film fest scheduled to show Unclaimed. [3] "essentially providing a forum for this sham documentary" Mindme (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shawn: So my friends and family tell me. :) Mindme, that makes sense about the Daily Mail. Do you think there is a quote by Bendell to include in the Wikipedia article? I was not sure which additional details would be the most salient. EDIT: I tried to comment but ran into a conflict with what you just added. Are you wanting to quote him from Facebook? I don't think this is the end of the coverage, and it may be worth going with quotes that published sources deem noteworthy. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the skeptical content you've worked in does a great job of providing balance. Adding in Bendell's words might be just minutia. Mindme (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is fresh material. Phew, I don't even know where to start. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow a journalist FINALLY picked up a phone and called the DPMO. Mindme (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
National Post offers only non-credulous Canadian take on the film Mindme (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good article. There's a strain in Canadian doc cinema where the interest seems to be in remarkable fabulists and that now seems to be what the producers are claiming. Anyway, I leave it to you guys as to when Category:Films about con artists ought to be restored. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The National Post article is great. I also saw that the Toronto Star published a follow-up. We should definitely update the identity section with details for all these. Shawn, as for the category, I am not sure if it applies here. From what I've read, it does not seem that the film explicitly discusses fraud. It is one of these odd instances where the premise of a film is completely, well... shot down... that might have been a little tasteless... :-P Anyway, let's see what we can add today. I noticed in the Star that the GI Film Festival will show it, just with a disclaimer about these revelations. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a quote from SoF about the source of the DNA (the star report keeps repeating the family did not give DNA but the DPMO says they got it from the deceased brother and one of the two sisters (only one is still alive). The star reporter keeps avoiding picking up a phone and clarifying with the DPMO office. Geez. She keeps introducing a contradiction which is easily resolved by reading the DPMO statement. It's a bit unclear in the SoF article where editorial and DPMO statement ends/begins. This site also has [4] the statement better delineated. Mindme (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Hot Docs is over I wouldn't expect the TO Star reviewer to continue on the story. She's a film reviewer not an investigative journalist and the film isn't tied to Toronto in any way. I'm kinda impressed that she's gone back and written about it again, but then, given what she reported in that first review -- the one that promoted me to start this article -- I guess she felt as if she had to. YOU guys are doing yeoman's work and I'm sure many journalists who will be following up will be making extensive use of your research. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had to giggle a bit at this https://twitter.com/briandjohnson/status/330063341059964928 I like how he only ever talks to the film maker and when other papers write about both sides of the issue he screams "knee jerk". The linked article claims the DPMO leaked the document to the Daily Mail, when it was on reddit days before the mail wrote about it and it's been freely available on the Library of Congress site since May 2009. 14:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

For those following the skepticism angle[edit]

So far 2 of a 3 part take down of the claims expressed in the film. [5] [6] Mindme (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing! A good recap of everything that has gone on. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Erik. Closing it off: [7] part 3 of 3 Mindme (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family's dna test is in[edit]

Yeah, the dude was a fraud. Though the family seems to think the uncontrolled tooth test indicates he's an american, not realizing the test needs a second control tooth, which they didn't use. Mindme (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unclaimed_(2013_film)&oldid=1204764395"