Talk:Sicko

Summarizing the "Emotional Appeals and Anecdotes vs. Facts and Statistics" criticisms

I halfway agree with the editor who deleted my comment in Responses, but I think we need something there so that people don't keep adding stuff like "Some people have noticed that Moore's putting out an entertaining movie rather than an academic paper shows that his intent is to deceive." As a further note, attacks of this nature should not be characterized as descriptions of factual inaccuracies. Moore's movie doesn't contain many disputable facts.HonoreDB 18:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Being pulled from movie theaters

The opening night of this film, which was the 29th, I believe. I could find the movie times at my local theater. However, a day after, I could only find the movie playing in two theaters within 100 miles. Coincidence? I don't think so. The powers that be are obviously slipping some cash to theaters to not show the documentary. I think that speaks the power and truth of this film.

Not A Documentary

Although this film presents fact-- & identifies itself as a documentary in its marketing campaign-- it shouldn't be identified as such here. Webster's two-word definition of documentary pertaining to documentary film is "factual, objective." Even a documentary on the Holocaust will present Hitler's psycological background/motivations & Germany's devestated economy during the rise of the Nazi party, whereas this film doesn't even address economic forces at work in current US healthcare, especially HMOs. Of course, it's not a mockumentary like Blair Witch Project or Borat but should fall into the realm of political propaganda.

It takes a perspective, but it is still a documentary. Just like an op-ed piece in a major newspaper. --NYCJosh 21:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your correlation to a news paper article here. A newspaper article is not a documentary, and does not pose itself as one. This film portrays itself as a Documentary ("factual, objective.") but it is actually based on fiction. It by definition more closely resembles a mockumentary. While it is not a mockumentary in the way the film Borat was ( A film done in the documentary style that does not portray itself as being factual. ) but is more like the mockumentary made for the purpose of promoting the film The Blair Witch Project. ( A film done in the documentary style portraying itself as a factual account.) In this mini-mockumentary titled Curse of the Blair Witch, the filmmaker seeks to fool the viewer into believing that the events from 1785 to 1941 about a woman "Elly Kedward" in Blair Township located in North Central Maryland as true historical events. When in reality all of the events were fictitious.--Macindan 07:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on fiction? Please document your alleged instances of fabrication. - aluxeterna 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While the film does not meet that definition of a documentary, it does meet this one from PBS.

"Refers to film or video that explores a subject in a way the public expects to be factual and accurate. Documentaries may be balanced by including various viewpoints, or they may be subjective, offering the viewpoint and impressions of one producer."JoeCarson 12:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction: The film is a well-done, polished documentary based on the world we're living in, which couldn't be fiction. And a newspaper article is a documentary, but doesn't pose itself as one, because it's common sense. It's common sense, because it's a document. The events in the film were not fictitious, there were no actors in the film. Like I said, it was just a very well done documentary, that seemed like it was "staged". - Unsigned

-

It's clearly not a documentary, it is in fact propaganda, which isn't a dirty word necessarily. It is not objective, but aims to persuade people to a political point of view. That's propagana. - AbstractClass 23:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, can we now go and replace "radio show" with "propaganda" in every right-wing host's radio show, er, propoganda? C.m.jones 09:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate Micheal Moore, I think his faux naivete represents everything wrong with American liberalism, I think his methods are exploitive of his interview subjects, and he largely relies on anecdotal evidence to his detrement. That being said, this film is unquestionably a documentary. The opposite of documentary being fiction, defined as "an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation." Moore's film uses a a completely factual, objective basis i.e. the patient and corporate interviews for drawing subjective inferences, ie. there are no imaginary events or things depicted. You could argue that his conclusions are imaginary or invented but this has no connection to the objective basis those conclusions are reasoned from, which is the defining characteristic of a documentary. This does not make the film propaganda nor does it preclude it the from being a documentary, just because the film is not made in same mold as Ken Burn's documentary. At worst it makes the film a piece of creative nonfiction. Even more importantly the attempt to label this work a fiction and/or propaganda is damaging to the english language in a way I cannot emphasize enough. Words such as "documentary" or "propaganda" are labels, they are descriptive. They are by definition objective assesments and should remain so. When a person attempts to to characterize Moore's film as fiction they inject their own subjective beliefs as to what is and is not objectively true into the defition of "fiction." This is awful because it distorts the meaning of both the word "fiction" and "documentary" rendering them of less use in the future. And this action is all the more meaningless because the english language already has a phrase for expressing the sentiment people are actually trying to express when they attempt to label Moore's film "propaganda": its a BAD documentary. Another situation it is done all the time is with the word "christian." "Christian" objectively defines whether a certain religious adherent subscribes to a particular set of doctrinal and theological beliefs wholly distinct from those of Islam, Hinduism, etc. And yet a self-righteous christian will refer derisively to a fellow parishoner as "not a christian" when they mean to say that person is simply a "bad christian." Gardiangel 17:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mental Healthcare?

I thought I read somewhere on wikipedia that this documentary would be more specifically about the mental healthcare system, something like that. Maybe it was on the Michael Moore page. EDIT: Yep it was the Michael Moore page. "Sicko (filming): Moore is currently working on a film about the American healthcare system from the viewpoint of mental healthcare (...)" 139.142.225.191 17:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Heather

I think what they're implying is that the current system is insane...it's a little joke. It's a lot like The Corporation analyzing the corporate world as if it were a human being.

There's was one man who was having mental problems. He would constantly grind his teeth cause he was scared and traumatized.he tryed to go get his teeth fixed but they denied him.--Hitamaru 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There should a be a wikifilm category for films that are filmed in a _documentary style_ but are not necessarily factual to the point of being called a documentary. This would not be a catagory limited to this film alone, for example "Jarhead" is often argued to be filmed in a documentary style. 130.108.228.78 15:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Anonymous

Controversy section

There is a bias problem in the controversy page. It claims that Micheal Moore is over 750 lbs yet it doesn't cite the source. It also says that many have argued that an obese man cannot right a film criticising healthcare but it doesn't say who said that. Additionally, it does not offer any defenses of the film like you see in most controversy pages. Oh, and don't try to say no one has defended it. Micheal Moore does have fans and at least one would probably defend it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorie the Moron (talk • contribs)

• For future reference, any outlandish claims that don't cite any source (or a poor unreliable source) can just be removed per WP:BLP. You don't even have to discuss it here, just cite WP:BLP in the edit summary. - Crockspot 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

New controversies section deleted by Turtlescrubber, citing original research. There was no original research, it referenced an existing Wikipedia article on the Cuban health care system and summarized its applicability to the claims made in the movie. Putting it back in unless somebody can explain otherwise. QuilaBird 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not against a controversies section. However, the section put in by Quilabird cant use wikipedia as a citation. I am sorry but the paragraph was unsourced. This article will need to have good sourcing because of its controversial nature. Feel free to source it and put it back in. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 15:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you prefer I duplicate the eight sources listed in the applicable part of the article on Cuban health care, or should I just pick one? I cited that article for economy, the counterpoint to one small part of the movie doesn't need to itself be a major portion of the entire article.QuilaBird 15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

While information should be sourced, it is best to place a citation tag on it and allow editors time to add a citation than delete it without allowing time for editors to respond.--Gloriamarie 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I oppose a long-winded controversy section. If the criticism is concise, then yes, otherwise it is better off here smb 18:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

News item

Fox News mentions that there may be a showing of Sicko at the upcoming Cannes Film Festival. - Crockspot 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

More news on Cuba issue

• Copy of govt. letter sent to Moore announcing probe
• Feds Probe Moore's Film Trip to Cuba (AP)

Short on time at the moment, if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll format these up and add them to the article later. - Crockspot 21:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly the 1st amendment would protect Mr. MM. I mean if he needs to go to Cuba to produce a piece of art that expresses free thoughts, a mere embargo law cannot trample his constitutional rights, not even in civili(non-criminal) cases.

Otherwise local press here in Hungary reports Mr. Moore has made kind of horcruxes, that is he arranged to have several copies of Sicko hidden in many distant locations, so that american agencies will not be able to consfiscate and destroy the movie before it is shown to the public. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

The Hollywood Reporter citations

• Moore faces investigation over 'Sicko' Cuba trip
• Moore blasts Bush over film-trip probe

Hope we have a neutral editor maintaining this article. I have a feeling this film will be the target of some POV edits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• • There are a number of excellent editors, such as Crockspot, already watching the article to be sure it remains encyclopedic and NPOV. Just add it to your own watchlist and become one of them. Edison 01:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

TIME Magazine interview

Just out today. - Crockspot 16:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Kluger, Jeffrey (2007-05-17). "Moore in The E.R." TIME Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-17.

name

The movie's name is "Sicko" not "SiCKO" right? The only place I see the latter spelling is on the poster. If so, we should probably use "Sicko" throughout the article. — brighterorange (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the name on the poster be assumed to be right? I think the article should be moved to SiCKO (with a redirect from Sicko). My two cents. PseudoEdit 02:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if the capitalization is just stylized, or the intended title. Danielsan1701 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSTM, the article should use "Sicko". For reference, it seems that most news organizations are also choosing to render the title in accordance with the conventions of standard English.[1] The only instances I see of "SiCKO" are press releases or closesly based off them. Croctotheface 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As of this writing, there are even instances of the title being written in standard English on michaelmoore.com. - Cyrus XIII 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The spelling "SiCKO" is a reference to the health care lobby PhRMA

cuba

It has emerged that in the film Michael Moore accompanies a number of rescue workers injured in the World Trade Center attacks of 2001 to Cuba to receive medical treatments, but did not address the local poverty of that country that seemed strangely omitted.

Confusing sentence. The movie did not address something that was also omitted. Is it possible to address something while omitting it? Do we need an enyclopedia telling us something is "strange", can't we the readers judge that ourselves? Many would argue that the "local poverty" of Cuba is largely due to the Blockade imposed upon the country and the potential imports of the outside world by the US government. Poverty in Cuba is not unique when compared to other Latin American countries.

The film touches briefly on Cuba's health care system costing significantly less to administer via ample preventative care, and makes the case that if Cuba is able to afford universal health care with their limited resources, the wealthier US should be able to 142.161.178.64 01:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Moore vs Thompson

I think I'll add a section on the Moore vs Fred Thompson controversy. OK? TheDeciderDecides 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't followed this one much. Would it be more appropriate for one of the other MM articles, like Michael Moore controversies? You could have a header with just a brief sentence or three here, with a link to the main article, where the full story is. Just a suggestion. Something else to consider, to call it a "controversy", you usually need a reliable source characterizing it as a controversy. That probably wouldn't be hard to find in this case. - Crockspot 00:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read up on it first and then comment? It is directly related to Sicko and incidents and issues related to the movie so it would go here. I look forward to your thoughts. TheDeciderDecides 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

English Expression

This article needs to be cleaned up just a little. The quality of english expression in some parts is sub-standard. There are many glaring grammatical errors that result in an article that falls short of being encyclopaedic in it's quality.

I'll take your word for it that it's directly related. I don't object to a section, but the article is about the movie, so it shouldn't be so large a section that it overwhelms the article. You seem to be aware of NPOV, OR, and all that, so knock yourself out. If you aren't up on reftags and citation templates, just stick in inline urls for cites, and I'll format them up into good footnotes when you are done. - Crockspot 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot, Cuba & MooreWatch

The plot section is somewhat misleading. The visit to Cuba is actually a relatively small part of the film. Roughly the first half of the film discusses the US health system, particularly HMOs providing substandard care and denying treatment. The second half features visits to Canada, the UK, France and Cuba to compare their medical systems to that of the US. The visit to Cuba is actually a relatively small part of the film, but it is given precedence in the current article. 142.161.178.64 01:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you. The plot section is all out of shape. The focus should now be on getting more of the main story down -- and not side issues that have attracted most press coverage. smb 01:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In which case the focus of this plot section on Jim Kenefick (who happens to be, well, me) is also out of proportion as it is barely 72 seconds of the film. Stark23x 22:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant paragraph that JimK deleted from the main page:

"The film includes what Moore hopes is an example of generosity of spirit. When the director found out that the Web site moorewatch.com would have to close because webmaster Jim Kenefick needed money to pay his sick wife's medical bills, he sent an anonymous check for US$12,000.[2]"

I really don't see what the big problem is. Any so-called 'gotcha moment' is offset by the free publicity your website receives. And you remain perfectly free, as Moore says, to run him "into the ground". Consider the alternative: Moore didn't send you the money; MooreWatch.com is not frequently updated, or worse, closed down; and Moore ignores you altogether. If we pinch the paragraph, removing the word "anonymous ", would that be okay with you? Or should we tackle the matter later, once the page is expanded and balanced? smb 09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant section has been removed by another user. However, as it attracted media attention, could we add Mr Kenefick's reaction in the reception section?

Thank you. I did not remove any text from the page and would not do so: I don't approve of people editing their own entries, we're too close to the event to be objective. Speaking of non-objectivity, I object to the tone of smb's comments here. I'm not interested in a fight or to be insulted - I'd like an accurate portrayal of events, nothing more, nothing less. My point was quite simple: If the Cuba thing should be scaled back due to it only being a "side issue" then why on earth does the article spend more than even a single sentence on me? I'm 72 seconds of the film. See the point? It was even a smaller portion of the film than the Cuba thing. Also, I'd love to point to my posted explanation of the scene, but I don't have the foggiest idea how to format a citation properly. Again, I also don't think it's exactly proper for me to be editing data about myself. Stark23x 12:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct -- it was a different user who removed the above information from the main page. You did, however, make one deletion on this page and so I took it upon myself to restore the text. [3] Sorry for the confusion. Moving forward, what is it about my tone that displeases you exactly? If you have been insulted, as you seem to suggest, then please point out where. I wasn't recommending that we cut out anything at this time; rather, that we take a small pause and wait for the other sections to be expanded before adding additional detail to relatively minor scenes (the original info was concise, and I still think it can be reinserted minor one or two words). And I'm sure your blog will be properly sourced at some point. smb 14:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to be absolutely clear - I did not actually remove ANY information whatsoever from the Sicko entry. I did start an edit, then I canceled it without saving as I felt strange about editing my own information. As for what I objected to, smb - it's plain to see from the entry to which I objected what your attitude toward me is, and I'm not going to ruin everyone else's day by engaging in some ridiculous back-and-forth. Let me worry about what publicity and traffic comes to my site...this isn't the place for that discussion. This is about being accurate and fair with the amount of space devoted to events in the film. The issue of time on screen vs. space devoted in Wikipedia was raised, and I think I made a valid point that my segment was far too short to have more than a sentence devoted to it. Stark23x 07:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take a few moments to try and consider matters from a Wikipedia point of view. You share your personal interpretation of this one scene on your website and then you subsequently encourage Moore Watchers to come visit here and "clean up" the page as it relates to yourself and the information you have supplied. A number of links are then dumped here (twice), and the original information is deleted in its entirety. [4] Accuracy is important, we all can agree. You question Moore's motive for sending the money and feel that he was acting solely out of self interest -- this is his "gotcha moment", as you put it. But weighing up the advantages and disadvantages -- such as the raised awareness of your site, which is hostile to Moore in the extreme -- I don't entirely accept your point. If you remain unhappy then you need to voice your concerns here on the talk page, until, we hope, consensus is reached. That is what this very space is for. smb 17:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

anonymous check?

I'm confused on the use of "anonymous" here. If the whole world knows about it, how can it be anonymous. In addition, not sure how neutral the "American Bafoon(sic)" part is. Is this a title that is from something, a title used by Jim Kenefick or a personal attack against him? Also, I think if wanting to stay neutral truly is a part of wikipedia that a link to Jim Kenefick's site may be in order. I do not think this needs to turn into a flame war, but the link to his side of the story is of note.
If anything, the story is of note due to Moore's claims that it was "generosity of spirit" that led him to this, but there is evidence otherwise. --Suddud 06:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Should have done research first it appears that this (the anonymity) was brought up in an edit and removed, although I hardly feel this check was anonymous in the true sense of the word. If the anonymity was only due to a hopeful big reveal for the movie. I know it is technically anonymous, but with the ulterior motive anonymous seams to have an incorrect connotation of selflessness in this case. It was hardly a selfless act once used in a film as a "gotcha" moment.

Suddud, at this point the page is in danger of turning into another advert for Moore watchers. The plot section needs expanding and I'm sure it will be over the next few weeks (when the film is officially released), but for the time being, please resist from turning the page into a Kenefick vs. Moore sideshow. smb 15:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree about not making it a "Kenefick vs. Moore sideshow." That's why I wanted to lower the total word count devoted to the dumb incident in the first place. A huge reaction on Wikipedia only serves to inflame, not inform. I have plenty of sideshow going on at the site...I don't want to leave behind a mess in Wikipedia as well. Stark23x 13:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct title

I just saw this movie and the title card reads SiCKO. Shouldn't it be changed accordingly? - Throw 00:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Torrent

This movie has been released as a torrent (it is suspected by Michael Moore) - should this be noted?

If it's speculation, no. A Wikinews item has been introduced. That should be enough. smb 09:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikinews item looks good. Why would Moore pirate his own film? He's spent more than two years on it, now that he's about to reap the fruit of his labor he released it for free? It's a silly thought. - Throw 14:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As a very speculative note, he may be more interested in people actually viewing the movie rather than just cashing in. Actually, how much he cashes in may depend on what agreement he has with the distributors, and this availability is likely to increase public awareness of his movie. Then again, it's all speculation...

Who suspects that it's released by Michael Moore? A particular news agency, or is this just more speculation/rumour/original research? --Oscarthecat 07:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell its pure speculation. Turtlescrubber 13:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A very good quality dvdrip has been released on the internet, unusual as it isnt in cinemas yet, maybe this should be added to teh main page

Moorewatch

This is not linkspam. Moorewatch is actually mentioned in the movie. A few links regarding moorewatch.com that may be helpful in adding more detail.

   (removed linkspam promoting personal website)

Great going pizzachicken! Turtlescrubber 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pizzachicken 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi - there was just a general link to moorewatch on the article, seemed more relevant to the Michael Moore article itself. If there's SiCKO specific content on there, how about adding it as a ref? --Oscarthecat 19:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying adding those links to the main article. I initially put these links here in the talk page and someone (obviously with a liberal bias) deleted it on the basis of linkspam, which it isn't. Nice going, TurtleScrubber. Won't even allow relevant material on the talk page. Ha! Anyway, I'm not sure what could be added, I just wanted to this here on the talk page for discussion. Pizzachicken 19:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

At least give a reason why these should be included! Four links with absolutely no commentary. How are these supposed to contribute to the article? Why should we give your page more traffic? And keep your personal attacks to yourself and be civil or we can end this conversation right now. Turtlescrubber 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the moorewatch link from ext links section again. Suggest adding as a ref, if there's information on there pertinent to this article. --Oscarthecat 18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a better proposal. We need only a short sentence referencing JimK's dissatisfaction, even though his blog is not a reliable source. smb 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Moore never actually gives the Moorewatch site address or gives the name. He also never says the owners name as well. I do not think a link to the site is needed at this time. If a controversy is added in the future then you could add in the JimK complaints.Djarum0 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact you can read Jim Kenefik's name on the check that Moore sent him, for about a couple of seconds.

Movie leaked online

Should this be noted on the page? --(trogga) 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried that but it was removed. I don't understand; it's not hard to verify, just go on any torrent site, it's there and the comments in said sites prove it's the real deal. If you can't reference "illegal" sites, what are you suppose to do? They're the authoritative source for this info anyway. PanicAttack 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's acknowledged already. Observe the Wikinews item. smb 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than add a link to a lawbreaking website, just ref an article in the mainstream press which mentions the piracy. Edison 01:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reuters story. - Crockspot 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the best one yet, no question about it. Turtlescrubber 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I found it on Drudge. :) - Crockspot 01:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well he does know his sources. ;) Turtlescrubber 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here it is formatted, if somebody want's to c/p it into the article. - Crockspot 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

<ref name="youtubepirated">{{cite news | last =Goldstein | first =Gregg | title =Pirated "Sicko" surfaces on YouTube | publisher =Reuters | date =2007-06-18 | url =http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN1834856020070618?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&pageNumber=1 | accessdate = 2007-06-18 }}</ref>

Piracy

For those who think it is not notable to have a section of the early leak on the internet, think about the last time you can remember a film was pirated before the theatrical release.And if the problem is confirmation, reliable sources such as CNET [5] and Reuters [6] have talked about it, so this has to be considered notable,which is why I hope noone reverts it. Rodrigue 03:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's really not notable. Films get leaked onto bittorrent etc. No point speculating whether Moore uploaded it, without sources saying so. --Oscarthecat 06:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not just another pirated film, this was pirated before it was released in theatres.That is one of the rarest forms of piracy.And it may have something to do with the copy in Canada, not that he personally wanted to ruin his profits by uploading it himself, obviously.

My friends brothers girlfriends cousins neighbor (not me of course) who downloads movies says that the majority of good pirate sites have movies show up often before their official release dates. "Rarest form of piracy" isn't accurate, more appropriate would be to state that it is rarely so easily available (free/open torrent sites) before the release. --Suddud (Talk) 05:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This may actually turn into a real investigation where the person who leaked it could bet in serious legal truble, and even alot of fame. Rodrigue 15:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidently there were a number of DVD screeners sent out, and they each had a watermark. If it was in DVD form, its not hard to imagine how it made it to the web. I imagine that this will be a none-issue in a week anyway with the release of the film. The amount of piracy will be small compared to the box office take. I think in this instance I actually think that the pirate copies will help the film. If there ever was an argument for simultaneous DVD release, this may be it. Nodekeeper 13:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why Wikinews isn't the cite for this piracy, and Reuters is? We do original research and I verified the film was leaked as well as giving information on it which could expand the article. --Brianmc 13:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OR and look at the section on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I would assume that wikinews (like wikipedia) constitutes a tertiary source. Also, there are only two lines in total in your wikinews article that address the piracy issue. If my interpretation of the policy is wrong (which it might be) please let me know and show me the relevant overriding policy. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Whas it really just DVD screeners ? Because they are pirated all the time, but you never see films pirated before the theatrical release very often.So either in this case they were sent out before the film opened, or perhaps there was a telecine of the reel he stored in Canada. Rodrigue 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe hostel 2 was pirated by dvd screeners. There are a lot of similarities between the two happenings. Turtlescrubber 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But were they sent out and pirated before the theatrical release?? because this couldn't have been the dvd screeners, they aren't sent out before the theatrical release, they just sent before the retail dvds. Rodrigue 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, your probably right. However, if you search dvd screener hostel you will get a ton of hits. However, there are other articles on the web denoting an inside job (not a screener). I think your right on this one. Turtlescrubber 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the second film in only a month to be pirated before the theatrical release,The first one was Hostel 2.And both came from Lions Gate Entertainment. Rodrigue 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• So this is interesting, the Reuters story says Moore isn't upset about this, but the Hollywood Reporter story is saying that he IS upset about it? I haven't read the reporter source yet to confirm this, but that's what someone edited into the section. Do we have conflicting sources? How do we resolve that? Or do we just mention the conflicting reports? - Crockspot 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• • The Hollywood Reporter implies Moore is upset by stating "but for Moore, even piracy has its limits", but the quote that follows is speculation about the source of the leak and Moore says that the Weinstein brothers, who own the distribution company, are upset. I think the original statement is a POV statement aimed at accusing Moore of hypocrisy. If not for the Weinstein's company's reaction, I think Moore would actually be quite pleased with the free publicity. Cuvtixo 05:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttals to the film

This section is much too large. At this time, the main page contains approximately 1653 words. The rebuttal section is made up of 635 words. Over one-third of a page about a documentary film is dedicated to critics who attack it! Nowhere else on Wikipedia can I find such an example, "Rebuttals to the film" [7] If users cannot summarise these criticisms adequately, then large-scale deletions will be made. Please may I hear other views on this. smb 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am just happy that the user who inserted that section has adequately sourced the section he put in and it isn't some ranting tirade. Seriously, good job. However, I do agree that it takes up too much of the page considering the movie hasn't been released yet and a sufficient cross-section of reviews are not yet available. Hopefully, once more information is available then the article will take a more balanced tone. I would agree that summarizing these section would be a good temporary move and then possibly restoring or better integrating the text when more media reviews have been put in. So yeah, summarize and then revise in a week or two. I could see the (future) possibility of a separate article branch based on reception. Turtlescrubber 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspected this would happen. The page just becomes a sounding board for people to express their alternative opinions. The Health care in Cuba page already includes pointed criticism. That should be our guide. Cuba is a comparatively small part of Sicko but I bet you this page will end up with more counter-argument than the main Health care in Cuba page itself. There is really no need to repeat the same charges here, or include substantial quotes from people who question why Moore didn't make a different political film to the one he did. The "Description of other nations' health-care systems" regurgitates information on the same page, and the "Overreliance on anecdotes" section likewise rings hollow. One example. It says of Kyle Smith, a New York Post film critic:

"Concerning the description in the film that one woman gave about her experience with a health insurer, Smith writes: 'There is no way to know whether this claim is true because Moore's style is to present whatever information he likes without checking it.'"

Honestly, what kind of circular nonsense is that? There is absolutely no justification for this section as it stands at the present time. smb 01:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right, in that there may be a lot of undue weight in this section. That is why scaling it back would be a good idea, at least until the average editor/reader gets a chance to see the movie. Personally, I haven't seen it (and I will wait till it comes out in theaters) and until then it is hard to make accurate decisions on what the article should contain. I would support a minimalist position in an attempt to have a non-biased article. I would support an effort to take out some of the information but especially to take out headers and integrate the "rebutal" section into reception. Keeping the gist but without any superfluous text. Turtlescrubber 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In line with policy, I am pasting below the section that has been removed from the main page. (If you would like to comment on its nature, please post below.) smb 14:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Rebuttals to the film

Description of Cuban health-care system

Kyle Smith, a New York Post film critic, said in his blog at the newspaper that although Moore was distrustful of health insurers and U.S. politicians, he passes on assertions from the Cuban government, an authoritarian dictatorship, without any skepticism. Moore asserts that he asked Cuban officials to give his group exactly the same care that a Cuban would receive, "and that’s exactly what they got". According to Smith:

"You can’t film anywhere in Castro’s Alcatraz without government say-so, meaning the whole scene was as phony as what happens when [New York Times restaurant critic] Frank Bruni walks into a four-star restaurant, [...] Moore solemnly reports Cuba’s official health statistics, which are of course a fiction dreamed up by El Presidente, because Moore's motto is to trust no authority figure from cringing corporate spokesman on up to Washington windbags. Except dictators. Dictators, he’ll take your word for it."

I wonder where Smith gets his erroneous information. I visited Cuba four years ago as part of a "witness for peace" educational visit and I collected 26 hours of video footage during the 12 day stay. I shot video in government buildings (illegal in the US), hospitals, public places, schools, sporting events and any other places I wanted. The one place that I was denied access was the US Interests Section of the Embassy Office (the closest equivelant of a US embassy). I never had to ask for permission anywhere else and was never stopped, or denied access to continue filming. Months later I attempted to film some architectural detail in a post office in Chicago and was quickly stopped and told that it was a federal offense.

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review wrote in his syndicated column that Moore whitewashes the health-care system in Cuba, where aspirin and Pepto-Bismol can be rare, and a black market exists for them. "According to a report in the Canadian National Post: 'Hospitals are falling apart, surgeons lack basic supplies and must reuse latex gloves. Patients must buy their sutures on the black market and provide bed sheets and food for extended hospital stays.'"

Description of other nations' health-care systems

Smith also criticizes Moore for presenting health care systems in Canada, Britain and France with a similar uncritical attitude, although there are significant criticisms of those systems within their own countries.

Peter Howell, in The Toronto Star, wrote: "While justifiably demonstrating the evils of an American system where dollars are the major determinant of the quality of medicare care [...] Sicko makes it seem as if Canada's socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo." Howell wrote that he and other Canadian journalists criticized Moore for inaccurately contending that Canadians only had to wait for minutes for health care, rather than much longer waiting periods.

Overreliance on anecdotes

TIME film critic Richard Corliss, in a generally positive description of the movie, wrote: "The upside of this populist documentary is that there are no policy wonks, crunching numbers and reducing patients' anguish to sterile statistics. The downside: There are no policy wonks, crunching numbers and saying soberly how much a national health care plan would cost U.S. citizens. In a 2hr. movie, Moore could have taken a couple mins. [sic] to tote up the expected tab."

Smith makes a more pointed criticism of Moore for using anecdotes without the perspective of statistics and for not attempting to check the accuracy of the statements of the people featured and interviewed in the film. Concerning the description in the film that one woman gave about her experience with a health insurer, Smith writes: "There is no way to know whether this claim is true because Moore’s style is to present whatever information he likes without checking it." Smith noted that Moore told Entertainment Weekly "absolutely not", when asked whether he felt any need to get the other side of the story by asking the insurance companies for their explanation of what happened in individual cases. Smith said that Moore's lack of fact checking has resulted in stupendous inaccuracies in his other documentaries as well. "So, over time, his work rusts out from within as the facts eat away at it."

In the Entertainment Weekly interview, Moore was asked: "Don't you have an obligation to at least give the insurance companies the chance to say no to you? Don't you owe them a call?" He replied: "Absolutely not. They already have their forum. It's called the nightly news. Their story is told over and over again. You never hear the other side."

---

• Well, I'm the one that added the section and here's my reasoning:

The movie is a controversial documentary and should not be compared to movies that aren't. It cannot only be addressed as a work of art (although it must be addressed that way, too); it must also be addressed as a polemical argument. Therefore its argument must be described and, where that argument has produced significant opposing arguments in the public square, they need to be pointed out. As Wikipedians, we need to describe the polemical side of this movie in order to do it justice. Once we do that, we need to maintain a neutral point of view by presenting arguments which have specifically been made against it. We can certainly link to Wikipedia articles about Cuban health care, etc. (and should), but in some form we need to mention here in this article that Moore's critics have said the Cuban (and other) health care systems have their own flaws and have accused Moore of whitewashing them. That could be summarized more briefly than I did (I tend to write long -- sorry).

The subject of the article is controversial (by its nature and design: Moore courted controversy by going to Cuba and by supporting the piracy, but even if he didn't, it would still be controversial) and requires that the controversy be addressed. Not many documentaries result in this much response, so it is only natural that more space be devoted to the response in the Wikipedia article. Describing the political criticism can't be done in less than a section, given how important the controversy is in terms of understanding the movie (and it may well require its own article, although that will need to be crafted in an NPOV way). I can understand that the section shouldn't overwhelm the article and may already be too long. I can fix that. But as more gets written, more will need to be added. My thinking in writing this up was that I'd be going back to it and shortening what's here now as more was added.

I completely disagree that the section should be combined with "reception". Reception should address the film overall and with particular regard to it as a work of art, and will necessarily touch on the politics. As I said above, you need to respect the work as a polemical argument and you need to address the polemical argument separately and adequately. Some (most?) readers will be coming to the article to try to better understand the controversies over the movie anyway. We do our job better as an encyclopedia by organizing the article with a rebuttals section.

I propose (incorporating the points made above by other editors) to cut down the language (mostly the long quotes, but rewriting as well). If, as expected, more magazine articles, newspaper articles, syndicated columns, etc. come up that comment on the argument of the movie, if they say something new or more significant than what we have here already, I will (or anyone obviously can, and I welcome it) incorporate them as well. Published statements in defense of Moore's film in reply to the criticism, including from him, should be in this article as well (we have some of that already). If it gets too long, we summarize this part of the article in a three-paragraph section and create a new NPOV article that has critiques and defenses. Does this sound reasonable?

Again, the controversy surrounding the movie is an important part of the subject of the article and it will inevitably take up a good part of the article. I'm happy to do the work of cutting down the size of the section, but we need the section. Noroton 19:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: The Controversy sections of Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11 and Roger and Me take up substantial portions of those articles (roughly a quarter of each article), and properly so. There's no reason not to expect a large one here. A movie that creates a big controversy needs a substantial controversy section, although not necessarily as big, proportionally, as the one I wrote. Noroton 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't entirely accept the proposition that a documentary film is naturally controversial because it does not tackle or touch upon issues that other political commentators and social critics would have liked to see its filmmaker address. Michael Moore knows full well that foreign health care systems are not flawless. The principle point of spotlighting only the good is so that Americans demand, and hopefully one day receive, the very best treatment. As he says in the film: "When we see a good idea from another country, we grab it. If they build a better car, we drive it. If they make a better wine, we drink it." Sicko does not set itself up as an impartial and studious examination of every issue surrounding the health care debate. Its director has gone on the record saying his work is meant to challenge and counterbalance popular mainstream opinion (which he obviously feels is slanted in the opposite direction). He also believes that humour is a powerful weapon. That does not immune his work from valid criticism; only that it is important to filter the chaff from the wheat, otherwise we end up with users inserting additional information that rebuts the viewpoint that was meant to oppose the original standpoint, and pretty quickly the page loses its meaning. Concision is key. smb 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A point-by-point response:

I don't entirely accept the proposition that a documentary film is naturally controversial because it does not tackle or touch upon issues that other political commentators and social critics would have liked to see its filmmaker address. That's a mischaracterization of what I said. It isn't contestable that the film is controversial. A film that generates controversy means that the controversy needs to be mentioned in the article about the film. A film that addresses public policy and generates a lot of controversy should in order to describe it fairly, have an adequate description of that controversy in Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting something unique in Wikipedia coverage: Wikipedia articles on Gore's documentary and the Michael Moore documentaries I mentioned earlier all have significant "Criticisms" sections. You seem to imply here that there is no difference in debating the issue of health care and critiques that specifically say Moore mischaracterized the problems and the solutions. There is a difference, and we need to describe the second category here (although there's an overlap, it can be minimized).

Sicko does not set itself up as an impartial and studious examination of every issue surrounding the health care debate. Again, you're framing the discussion in a biased way: I said nothing about "every issue" or "impartiality." As long as the documentary is perceived as something that tries to get at the truth it can be criticized by those who believe it hasn't lived up to that perception. Frankly, you're characterizing the worthiness of the debate over the film. What were supposed to be doing in this Wikipedia article is more basic than that: We must describe all essential features of the film. It is not debatable that the controversy surrounding the film is an essential feature of it. It is a documentary that has something to say. We need to describe what the film says (we do, and I think that section should be expanded). We need to describe the controversy about what it says. That means that we need to describe the criticism of what it says. This is not really an option in an NPOV article about a controversial subject, which is why these sections exist in Wikipedia articles about Michael Moore's other films.

That does not immune [immunize?] his work from valid criticism; only that it is important to filter the chaff from the wheat, otherwise we end up with users inserting additional information that rebuts the viewpoint that was meant to oppose the original standpoint, and pretty quickly the page loses its meaning. Well, this seems contrary to what you've just said in the immediately preceding comments. You say "valid" criticism, but if all of the criticism were INvalid, it would still be worth reporting. The section, as reporting, should report on a fair sample of the main criticisms, valid or not, fair or not. If Moore has a response, that needs to be in there too (I've already done that where I've found it). I suppose criticisms that seem to make more sense are what we'd all find more valuable, overall, but the first priority has to be to present the most prominent criticisms, whatever their validity.

Concision is key. No, fairness is key. Concision is nice. "The Wikimedia projects as a community have certain foundation issues that are essentially beyond debate. ... These issues include: 1. NPOV as the guiding editorial principle" This is not a paper encyclopedia and we can spawn a "Controversies about Sicko" article if needed or edit out improper additions -- and impoper edits are inevitable anyway. You can't describe Moore's polemical film without presenting the criticism it generates about the way the film presents the issue.

Overall, your comment doesn't address the proposal I made. Care to comment on it? Noroton 23:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Noroton wrote: That's a mischaracterization of what I said.

Actually, I did not mean to imply that is what you had said. I initially started replying to one specific point (reproduced below) before removing it from my reply and instead providing a more general answer:

"We can certainly link to Wikipedia articles about Cuban health care, etc. (and should), but in some form we need to mention here in this article that Moore's critics have said the Cuban (and other) health care systems have their own flaws and have accused Moore of whitewashing them."

To readdress this point, I do not agree that we need to include criticisms from people who accuse Moore of failing to tackle issues that do not immediately bear upon, or undermine the premise, of his film. We should also be wary of commentary from people who will use this film as a platform to attack Cuba. If it's legitimate and relevant to the film, then yes. Otherwise as Wikipedians we don't necessarily need to include it.

Noroton wrote: Well, this seems contrary to what you've just said in the immediately preceding comments. You say "valid" criticism, but if all of the criticism were INvalid, it would still be worth reporting. The section, as reporting, should report on a fair sample of the main criticisms, valid or not, fair or not.

I disagree with this. Michael Moore is broadly hated across one side of the political spectrum. Criticism will come in buckets whether it is warranted or not. If we were suddenly compelled to include invalid criticism then Wikipedia would be headed straight for the rocks. You have already suggested a separate criticism page as a possibility. I think you are getting ahead of yourself, and would only support this measure if there are enough serious issues with the film.

Noroton wrote: No, fairness [not concision] is key. Concision is nice. [...] This is not a paper encyclopedia and we can spawn a "Controversies about Sicko" article if needed...

If needed. But please don't start a race to fill up the main page with as much non notable, low quality criticism as possible just so you can go ahead and propose a "Sicko Controversies" page. smb 03:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? We're over-arguing this, and we're largely arguing over emphasis and getting nowhere with it. Better to argue specifics. Your objections are essentially that the section is too long, not that it exist at all, and after I've asked you twice, you won't comment on what I propose to do. I'm going to rewrite the section and put it back in so that this Wikipedia article about a Michael Moore movie is like every other Wikipedia article about Michael Moore movies. If you don't like it, make specific criticisms and edits on the article page. Noroton 03:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I did comment, both above and below. If I do not respond to a specific point then you may interpret that as general agreement. The biggest concern at this point is that criticism be truly informative, pertinent and also concise -- and at present that is not the case. There is another trap we should be careful to avoid falling into. While it is true that Michael Moore's last two films have lengthy criticisms sections, we should not automatically believe ahead of time that this page is going to end up looking the same way. Each film has to be considered separately. I'm not intending to make and meaningful contribution until after the film is widely released, but a couple of points regarding Kyle Smith's critique won't wait:

"Moore solemnly reports Cuba's official health statistics, which are of course a fiction [...] because Moore's motto is to trust no authority figure from cringing corporate spokesman on up to Washington windbags."

This is a non sequitur. Kyle asserts that Cuba's health statistics are "a fiction" because Moore doesn't trust corporate spokespeople or Washington windbags.

"Smith makes a more pointed criticism of Moore for using anecdotes without the perspective of statistics and for not attempting to check the accuracy of the statements of the people featured and interviewed in the film. Concerning the description in the film that one woman gave about her experience with a health insurer, Smith writes: 'There is no way to know whether this claim is true because Moore's style is to present whatever information he likes without checking it.'"

How does Kyle Smith know that Moore (or a member of his research staff) did not attempt to check the accuracy of the statements reported in the film? Smith is making a very serious criticism -- one that appears to be based on nothing more than speculation. smb 16:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(redent) You may wish to review WP:NPOV. We are required to present the major sides of controversial aspects of the subjects of Wikipedia articles. We are not required to censor out what we don't believe to be true. I've been striving to present a very fair account of what the criticism of this film actually IS. To that end, I've included Moore's defense, where I've found it and sympathetic comments mixed with the criticism. In your comments so far, I haven't seen a comparable commitment to get beyond partisanship.

You're characterization of Smith's "non sequitor" is false. He didn't make the point you said he made. Smith said that Moore takes a supercritical attitude toward PR people and Washington "windbags" (and he says that in a rather sympathetic way to Moore, at least in that part of the sentence -- kinda like he supports Moore in that part, isn't it?), and then says Moore does not take a similarly critical attitude toward a Communist dictatorship. Feel free to contend that Communist dictatorships don't lie. Feel free to think that the evidence is in your favor rather than against you. But that presumption is, shall we say, rather widespread. So much so that it constitutes a major element of responsible opinion -- which is precisely what Wikipedia articles must reflect. If you can find some major element of responsible opinion that indicates Communist dictatorships are generally trustworthy, or even that the Cuban dictatorship doesn't lie about health statistics, I invite you to add it. But be concise. Please also note that Moore himself said he wasn't supporting the Cuban dictatorship, as noted in this section of the article. I moved that sentence there from the Synopsis section.

How does Kyle Smith know that Moore (or a member of his research staff) did not attempt to check the accuracy of the statements reported in the film? Well, in the original wording which you cut and pasted above, I explained that in the sentences immediately following the one you just quoted. Here, take another look (boldface added to make it crystal clear):

Smith noted that Moore told Entertainment Weekly "absolutely not", when asked whether he felt any need to get the other side of the story by asking the insurance companies for their explanation of what happened in individual cases. Smith said that Moore's lack of fact checking has resulted in stupendous inaccuracies in his other documentaries as well. "So, over time, his work rusts out from within as the facts eat away at it."

In the Entertainment Weekly interview, Moore was asked: "Don't you have an obligation to at least give the insurance companies the chance to say no to you? Don't you owe them a call?" He replied: "Absolutely not. They already have their forum. It's called the nightly news. Their story is told over and over again. You never hear the other side."

Will any criticism of Moore's film be acceptable to you in this article? Noroton 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

break for the sake of easier editing

Noroton wrote: You may wish to review WP:NPOV. We are required to present the major sides of controversial aspects of the subjects of Wikipedia articles. We are not required to censor out what we don't believe to be true.

Yes, thankyou. But we must also be careful not to manufacture controversy where no real controversy exists. It also says all views must be significant. Smiths critique is a blast. [8]

Noroton wrote: You're characterization of Smith's "non sequitor" is false. He didn't make the point you said he made.

Upon closer inspection I agree. The quotation is made tricky because of the unhelpful placement of the first and second ellipsis.

smb wrote: How does Kyle Smith know that Moore (or a member of his research staff) did not attempt to check the accuracy of the statements reported in the film?

Noroton wrote: Well, in the original wording which you cut and pasted above, I explained that in the sentences immediately following the one you just quoted.

And here is the Entertainment Weekly question immediately preceding the one cited in support of Kyle Smith:

Q: You don't go banging on doors in this movie. Did you even try to get an interview with the insurance companies?

A: No. I had no intention of doing that, so it was funny to watch the insurance companies make all these preparations for [my health-care film]. All these internal memos and training sessions in the companies for how to handle Michael Moore....

Q: Don't you have an obligation to at least give the insurance companies the chance to say no to you? Don't you owe them a call?

A: Absolutely not. They already have their forum. It's called the nightly news. Their story is told over and over again. You never hear the other side.

Both questions relate to the opportunity (or lack thereof) handed to employees of the insurance industry to appear, and present the side of the story, in the film. It does not say anything about post-production research or fact-checking.

Noroton wrote: Will any criticism of Moore's film be acceptable to you in this article?

No. I want it all removed by tomorrow, or I'm burning homes! :) smb 20:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Smith's piece represents a significant section of opinion, similar to a lot of the criticism Moore has gotten in the past. I don't know how you can say it isn't significant. The New York Post is one of the largest newspapers in the U.S. Being a "blast" makes it, if anything, more representative.

"manufactured controversy"??? Even A.O. Scott's mostly positive review said Moore courts controversy and gets it. Everyone agrees with that, why don't you? It isn't disputable that there is a controversy and a big one. If you'd like, I can provide quotes in the article saying that there's a controversy.

I don't understand what you find important in the quote you have from Entertainment Weekly. He says outright that he didn't go to the insurance companies for comment, not that he gave them a chance and they refused. That's in the plain language of the interview. So he heard they were concerned and he giggles over it in the magazine interview. Where is the evidence of his taking care to be fair? Noroton 21:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to make things clearer because this is important. Here is the only section in dispute (in italics):

--[Quote on]--

Smith criticizes Moore for using anecdotes without attempting to check the accuracy of the statements of the people featured and interviewed in the film. Concerning the description in the film that one woman gave about her experience with a health insurer, Smith writes: "There is no way to know whether this claim is true because Moore’s style is to present whatever information he likes without checking it." Smith noted that Moore told Entertainment Weekly "absolutely not", when asked whether he felt any need to get the insurance company's side of the story. [9] In the Entertainment Weekly interview, Moore was asked: "Don't you have an obligation to at least give the insurance companies the chance to say no to you? Don't you owe them a call?" He replied: "Absolutely not. They already have their forum. It's called the nightly news. Their story is told over and over again. You never hear the other side." [10]

--[Quote off]--

The first part is completely unambiguous. Kyle Smith is criticising filmmaker Michael Moore for including anecdotes without ever attempting to verify their accuracy. Smith writes of one such lady who purportedly experienced distress because she had failed to declare an old yeast infection: "There is no way to know whether this claim is true because Moore's style is to present whatever information he likes without checking it." Now this could potentially generate even more controversy if it is true. Has the film director left himself wide-open to serious attack. Did his staff not even bother to do any research into these individual stories? The obvious question arises: where did Kyle Smith get his information from and is it true?

Fortunately, Smith provides the answer. In the very next sentence, he alerts his blog readers to an Entertainment Weekly interview in which Moore snaps "absolutely not" when asked whether he felt any need to solicit the insurance industries side of the story. A longer quote from Entertainment Weekly immediately follows. The exact question put to Moore is this: "Don't you have an obligation to at least give the insurance companies the chance to say no to you? Don't you owe them a call?" And Moore replies flatly: "Absolutely not. They already have their forum. It's called the nightly news. Their story is told over and over again. You never hear the other side."

All of that sounds clear-cut, that is until we examine the Entertainment Weekly interview in more detail. [11] The first thing we find is that the question is actually a follow-up to the one put seconds earlier. Here they both are together:

--[Quote on]--

You don't go banging on doors in this movie. Did you even try to get an interview with the insurance companies?

No. I had no intention of doing that, so it was funny to watch the insurance companies make all these preparations for [my health-care film]. All these internal memos and training sessions in the companies for how to handle Michael Moore: Get him talking about any Detroit sports team or compliment him on how much weight he's lost recently. [Laughs] The frightening thing about that is they clearly knew what they were talking about. I was up at 5 a.m. the other night watching the Pistons play the Bulls.

Don't you have an obligation to at least give the insurance companies the chance to say no to you? Don't you owe them a call?

Absolutely not. They already have their forum. It's called the nightly news. Their story is told over and over again. You never hear the other side.

--[Quote off]--

As I hinted above, the questioner is basically asking the filmmaker why he did not get up to his usual tricks in this movie, knocking on doors and ambushing company directors. Note: This question relates to Michael Moore's on screen approach, hence the first question: You don't go banging on doors in this movie. And the follow-up, directly related to the first: Don't you have an obligation to at least give the insurance companies the chance to say no to you? To further prove the point, on the very next page of the Entertainment Weekly interview is a picture that depicts the filmmakers confrontation nature, with the words: "KINDER, GENTLER?" [12]

Moore clearly did not give employees of the insurance industry the opportunity to appear and defend their practices in his film (they have their own platform). The question and answer session does not mention anything about production fact-checking or vetting. Kyle Smith is using a quote out of context in order to support his claim that Moore failed to "check the accuracy of the statements of the people featured and interviewed in the film." And as such he has created his own controversy. smb 23:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You have done a lot of good work here, btw. It's just that last Smith criticism. It's bad. Just because the filmmaker didn't point a camera in some startled spokesperson's face doesn't necessarily mean his staff failed to do the background checks. There is a good amount of information on the page, with the likelihood of more to come. I'd like to see that last criticism removed, and eventually replaced, but I'll wait to hear your and other views on the matter. smb 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(redent) OK, now I get you. I was a reporter. When I hear "interview" it doesn't mean on-camera interview. In fact, although I wasn't a broadcast reporter, when they say "interview" it meanas either on camera or off camera, recorded or not recorded. I see nothing in what you show -- nothing whatever -- that implies the ET interview is referring only to on-camera interviews. It is highly likely that the reporter and editors of a magazine that does reporting would see it my way, and in fact, what's reasonable is to look at the plain language of what was said. The plain meaning of interview is clear, and if you want that particular interpretation, I think you ought to do more research and see what Moore and his critics say in order to prove your point. You find it unbelievable that Moore would not ask the insurance companies for their response to the accusations against them. I don't, largely based on his quote about them having the evening news in which to get their side out.

I haven't seen the movie, have you? Perhaps it's clear one way or the other in the film whether Moore reports anything that the insurance companies say about the anecdotes he delivers. In any event, you don't have enough there to support your claim and the onus is on you to find more support for it. Frankly, it would surprise me at this point if there's more support for it out there. Noroton 02:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Noroton wrote: I see nothing in what you show -- nothing whatever -- that implies the ET interview is referring only to on-camera interviews

It's right there, on page 2, in the preceding question.

Q: "You don't go banging on doors in this movie. Did you even try to get an interview with the insurance companies?" (emphasis mine)

A: "No. I had no intention of doing that, so it was funny to watch the insurance companies make all these preparations for [my health-care film]. All these internal memos and training sessions in the companies for how to handle Michael Moore: Get him talking about any Detroit sports team or compliment him on how much weight he's lost recently..."

Q: "Don't you have an obligation to at least give the insurance companies the chance to say no to you? Don't you owe them a call?"

A: "Absolutely not. They already have their forum. It's called the nightly news. Their story is told over and over again. You never hear the other side." [13]

The questioner is clearly referring to Moore's on-camera antics. In other interviews too, Moore mentions that the insurance industry was alerted early on to his forthcoming documentary. ([14] 36:00 minute mark) Internal memorandums were circulated (and leaked) advising industry staff what to do if he showed up on their door with a camera crew. Look at the question. Look at Moore's answer. It fits perfectly.

Noroton wrote: It is highly likely that the reporter and editors of a magazine that does reporting would see it my way, and in fact, what's reasonable is to look at the plain language of what was said.

I absolutely agree. Words convey meaning, and the meaning is clear. Moore is not acknowledging, as Kyle Smith would have his readers believe, that he failed "to check the accuracy of the statements of the people featured and interviewed in the film." Such a question was never asked in the ET interview. Smith is taking an answer to a different question and twisting it to make it appear as though Moore wasn't interested in fact-checking.

Noroton wrote: I haven't seen the movie, have you? Perhaps it's clear one way or the other in the film whether Moore reports anything that the insurance companies say about the anecdotes he delivers.

Yes, I have seen the movie. (Please do not frown; I fully intend to see it again when it hits the big screen.) Moore adopts a different strategy in this film, ignoring his 'foe' completely, depriving them of airtime. He focuses on the main problems before highlighting and then cherry-picking the best working parts of other health-care systems. It is not a deep examination of all the issues.

Noroton wrote: In any event, you don't have enough there to support your claim and the onus is on you to find more support for it. Frankly, it would surprise me at this point if there's more support for it out there.

In any logical sense, you are arguing backwards. From a policy standpoint, the issue is harder to settle. At this time I simply ask that you reconsider. smb 04:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Response: Please keep your eye out for anything that confirms either of our positions. I will, too. It seems impossible, given all that's getting written about this movie, that the topic won't come up again, and if Moore did check out the U.S. anecdote stories with insurance companies (or in some other reliable way), I'm sure he and his publicity people will get it out there. We both want this article to be accurate. Noroton 16:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Right here (at the 36:00 minute mark). Michael Moore provides the same kind of answer to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!

AG: "So what do they say? How do they [the insurance industry] say to deal with you in these memos?"

MM: "Don't run, don't flea, don't put your hand over the camera."

Michael Moore obviously took the Entertainment Weekly question exactly the same way.

ET: "You don't go banging on doors in this movie. Did you even try to get an interview with the insurance companies?"

MM: "No. I had no intention of doing that, so it was funny to watch the insurance companies make all these preparations for [my health-care film]. All these internal memos and training sessions in the companies for how to handle Michael Moore...

ET: "Don't you have an obligation to at least give the insurance companies the chance to say no to you? Don't you owe them a call?"

MM: "Absolutely not. They already have their forum. It's called the nightly news."

These questions relate to Moore's trademark ambush style of interviewing (a thread that runs through the ET interview, as illustrated by this picture). In the end, Moore decided not to give the insurance people any airtime whatsoever, since they already have their platform ("the nightly news"). There is nothing remotely difficult about this. The last judgment on the main page by New York Post film critic Kyle Smith is bogus. It should be removed otherwise we risk filling up the main page with low quality criticism. smb 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(redent) I'm sorry, I just don't see anything here that says or even implies Moore checked the stories out. In order to hold your view, you need to interpret what he means by "interview" here. I went to the Web site, didn't listen to the interview but looked at the long, long, long transcript (not all of it) and read what you posted here, and everything I see leads me to think he didn't check it out. He has a reputation for getting facts wrong, you know. Getting the other side and giving them a chance to comment is a journalistic discipline that some in journalism don't follow (local TV news is awful about it) and I have no reason to believe that Moore follows it. As I say, if he checked it out, that will come out in the publicity or the interviews because he's been challenged on it and it's in his interest to get that information out if he did the fact checking. Noroton 20:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out which sentence(s) you're referring to when you say The last judgment on the main page by New York Post film critic Kyle Smith is bogus. It should be removed otherwise we risk filling up the main page with low quality criticism. Please clarify. Noroton 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Noroton wrote: I just don't see anything here that says or even implies Moore checked the stories out.

You have created your own confusion. I have not presented anything here that was meant to show that Moore checked the stories out.

Noroton wrote: In order to hold your view, you need to interpret what he means by "interview" here.

No, please stop arguing backwards. You have included weak, nay, fallacious criticism on the main page. It is your job to explain this edit. I have gone out of my way (for longer than is necessary) to explain the original error. I can only use plain English. As your responses show, you have not given careful consideration to what it is I have had to say.

Noroton wrote: I went to the Web site, didn't listen to the interview but looked at the long, long, long transcript (not all of it) and read what you posted here, and everything I see leads me to think he didn't check it out.

See, this is precisely what I am talking about. The Democracy Now! transcript wasn't intended to support the contention that Moore (or a member of his staff) looked into the individual stories of the people featured in his film -- it was adduced to show you that his original answer (which Kyle Smith uses as evidence against him) does not support the original accusation that he did not investigate these stories.

The question and answer, in both instances, touches on a different topic. That is Michael Moore's decision not to confront, and allow insurance industry managers a chance to have their say, on camera. Smith has taken this out of context to mean that Moore didn't attempt to check the accuracy of the anecdotes in his film with health insurers. To my knowledge Moore hasn't been asked about individual background checks, and Smith has not shown that he has.

Noroton wrote: He has a reputation for getting facts wrong, you know.

Don't poison the well. Your statement is irrelevant to the point currently under discussion. At present this section serves to misinform. I will now proceed to remove one piece of low quality criticism from the main page. smb 22:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Noroton wrote: I can't figure out which sentence(s) you're referring to when you say The last judgment on the main page by New York Post film critic Kyle Smith is bogus. It should be removed otherwise we risk filling up the main page with low quality criticism. Please clarify.

Give me strength. I have been attempting to clarify for the last two days. The section in dispute was reproduced by me just above and below the line break (see, 23:46, 22 June 2007). smb 22:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

MPAA Rating

I'm still a bit of a noob, but can't the MPAA Rating section be absorbed into the infobox? Can someone please make this edit, since I don't know how those boxes work? TimD 05:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Fallacies" section

Turtlescrubber removed this section, calling it "original research". I'm not so sure. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the accuracy -- is that really what the film says, or is it (as I think I've heard elsewhere) that the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than other advanced countries (I've heard that a lot elsewhere). According to the World Factbook, the U.S. ranks 180th out of 221 countries, meaning that 40 countries have better infant-mortality rates than we do. Here's the language (another point: I don't think we need a long list here):

Film's fallacies

The film claims the United States has the worst infant mortality rate in the Western world. However, Croatia, Belarus, Slovakia, Estonia, the Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Hungary, Chile, Latvia, Macedonia, Russia, Barbados, Uruguay, Argentina, Aruba, Jamaica, Panama, the British Virgin Islands, Antigua and Barbuda, Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, El Salvador (which Moore falsely claims has a lower infant mortality rate), the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Belize, Honduras, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Peru and Bolivia all have higher infant mortality rates.

Noroton 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. Do you seriously think that this should be in the article. First of all, it is completely unsourced. Did he say that? I don't know. Do you? Did he say western countries? Did he say advanced countries? Does Aruba qualify as an advanced Western country? Or an advanced country? Or a Western country?(by the way the answer to those questions is no and it applies to all the other countries in the list). I mean trinidad and tobago and bolivia for gods sake! A link to the world factbook is original research. The title itself is pov to the max. I really can't believe that you brought this to the talk page as it makes me seriously doubt your motives on this page. Turtlescrubber 17:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be serious, turn off the emotion spigot, or at least turn it lower, and take a little more care in how you respond. And take another look at what I actually said. If I choose to be careful and polite in my wording, you might look on that as a better alternative to the opposite. Sourcing for whatever is in the movie is generally to simply say it was in the movie itself. How would that be sourced? I do wonder if he said exactly that, as a matter of fact, but if he did say something like it, then by putting the paragraph here someone else who knows might tell us, and the footnote points to a good source involving no leaps of original research. The editor appears to have thought Moore meant the Western Hemisphere (where those countries the editor lists are located). I think you have plenty of information to get a good handle on my motives, given my edits to all parts of the article. You might want to re-examine your reactions to those who disagree with you. In a controversial article it's better to apply emotional restraint several steps before you otherwise might, because edit warring and the like are so easy and waste so much time. Noroton 20:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

When did "Croatia, Belarus, Slovakia, Estonia,Hungary and others relocate to the Western Hemisphere? What is with the lecture? There was little emotion in my response and I have done no edit warring. You don't choose to be careful and polite in your wording as you are the one who called me out by name and who contends that the paragraph in question is not original research. I think by moving this non-salvageable paragraph to the talk page there is a much higher chance of edit warring and pov pushing. It's almost like moving vandalism to the talk page for discussion. Turtlescrubber 20:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I didn't catch the cool temperament of your response. And you're right, I should have looked harder at the list. Interesting point on me calling you out by name. I didn't realize how that might be taken but I can see what you mean, so I apologize for that. You might want to take notice of the fact that I didn't actually disagree with taking the paragraph out. It seems to me that if a Wikipedia article reports that someone said somethng (and if he in fact said it), then simply pointing out that a reliable source contradicts it is not original research, but I'll look over WP:OR again. It's something I think could be done best in a line or two, not a section. By the way, I didn't say you were edit warring, I said your language ("vandalism" for instance) could provoke it in someone else. I probably could have been clearer in the way I wrote that. Sorry again. Noroton 21:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over WP:OR again. It seems to me that this section (the last two paragraphs) show that it wasn't original research. Noroton 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will apologize if my response was out of hand. I certainly didn't mean it that way but some things don't translate well into text. However, I don't understand what you mean when you say that this isn't original research. I don't see how anything is contradicted. But really, this should have been removed and it is a mess of original research/pov. Turtlescrubber 23:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In the film, Moore states "The United States has the worst infant mortality rate in the Western world" and adds that the U.S. is worse than El Salvador. The Western world is not defined, but it's typically assumed to be any democracy in the world. East v. West comes from Eastern European communism v. Western European democracy. It's not a hemispherical claim, nor does it truly have directional boundaries. Wikitruthiness 13:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this the same claim where he says we were ranked as having only the 37th best health care system? Because if that's the case, from the articles I've been reading about the movie, it's something like a worldwide ranking that has nothing to do with the hemisphere. If this is a different claim, then never mind. Noroton 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Any mention of infant mortality rates must take into account how those numbers come about-- the US always ranks pretty low because it includes certain infants in the rates while other countries do not. America counts as alive an infant with any sign of life at birth; most countries do not go by this measure and don't count babies under a certain weight, length, or born before a certain month of gestation. Most of these countries would count as stillbirths what America would count as infant deaths and some have been found to misreport infant deaths as stillbirths. Therefore, using infant mortality rates without giving this disclaimer is in itself misleading. This should be in the article if he does say that in the movie. From Wikipedia's article on Infant mortality: "Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality. The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMR's can be problematic for comparisons." The article linked to above particularly notes that France and some other European countries automatically count any baby born before 26 weeks as lifeless, which would certainly be news to a friend of mine born at 23 weeks and alive and well 20 years later! Therefore, if Moore does try to make this claim in Sicko, there should definitely be a section referring to these facts in either this article or the controversies article.--Gloriamarie 23:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I dispute the neutrality of the article as random criticism is taken from random people and placed on the page. The Criticism section takes up a huge section of this page and are given undue weight. This page is about Sicko and not about the eternal liberal-conservative struggle. We need to set guidelines as to what should be included and from whom. As the page now stands, there is a definite negative slant towards the film and this will only get worse as the film actually gets released. I think we should set high criteria for the inclusion of criticism and praise and then judiciously remove all info that doesn't reach standards. Another option would be to create a page for commentary on the film. Turtlescrubber 02:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you raise a good point. I think a seperate article linked to this one covering criticisms, possible inconsistencies and fallacies would be good. It would prob be best placed there. I'd do it, but I don't know how to start an article. (WikiTruthiness 14:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

I support Turtlescrubber's first proposal (and oppose the creation of a second page). Noroton proposed using Michael Moore's last two films as a template and twice suggested the creation of a single criticism page -- all of this before the film is released. Let me reiterate that I do not agree with such preconceptions. Sicko has been well received; reviews are overwhelmingly positive. The bar for criticism should reflect this, and therefore (momentarily) be set high. If serious issues begin to emerge then we can review and incorporate more detailed information. At this point I would also like to remind users of Sicko's basic underlying premise. It is neither a critique nor a defence of foreign establishments. Rather, it is a critique of the US health-care system. The director is cherry-picking the best working parts of outside systems in the hope of having them implemented back at home. So providing extensive room for critics to argue that Cuba's system is rundown, or that the British system has been underfunded and neglected for several years, almost completely misses the point. In order filter out low quality criticism, one first has to learn and understand what the film is (and isn't) about. smb 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikitruthiness (nice name, by the way; interesting, too), I expect to start a good article just about the controversy. That will allow for the criticism already on this page to be cut back, but see below: In my view it really doesn't need to be cut back.

smb, The "bar for criticism" is something that you constantly want to set very high, smb, based on your comments throughout this discussion page. It certainly appears that you really just can't stand the fact that this movie is getting a lot of criticism. So you set up artificial, rickety little barriers to the flow of information: (a) somehow "serious issues" did not yet "begin to emerge"; (b) "all of this before the film is released" (which is wrong, the film has been on the internet and is now in a number of theaters), so criticism can't really take place before a film is released, even if critics have seen it and political commentators have seen it and even though there are more than a dozen commentaries on it, not just from film critics but from respected magazines and journalists from respected magazines and newspapers (a short list, not including film reviews: The New Republic, National Review, USA Today, The American Prospect, The Nation, Reason magazine, The New York Post, The New York Times); (c) we need to "(momentarily) set high" the bar of criticism -- why, so that people who see the movie when it first becomes widely available won't have a Wikipedia article to look at if they're curious about the details of what Moore says and what the (many) critics have said about what Moore says? (d) Moore's movie doesn't really do what everybody in the media commenting on Moore's movie says it does ("It is neither a critique nor a defence of foreign establishments. Rather, it is a critique of the US health-care system."). Actually, those who are sympathetic and unsympathetic with Moore say he denigrates the American system (a critique), holds other systems up as either perfect or close to it (a defense) and does not present a detailed proposal for change, none of which makes his movie immune from criticism. Your idea that it should be protected from criticism is without justification in any Wikipedia policy, guideline, rule or tradition.

smb, if you want to responsibly comment on the criticism of the movie, do the research I've done by reading what's out there. I read each of these yesterday and I plan to incorporate all or nearly all of them in a new article, titled something like Controversy over Sicko. It won't be a POV fork because it won't be devoted just to criticism, but to all sides of the controversy over the movie.

Turtlescrubber, you use the word "random" twice, but there's nothing random about the sources used at all. The sources are journalists from prominent publications because Wikipedia prefers to use sources that can claim to have some responsibility. I deliberately avoided blogs or extremists. What would a "nonrandom" or "organized" group of critics look like? And what would be neutral for this article in your opinion? The criticism sections have both sympathizers and those unsympathetic to Moore, and his unsympathetic critics. And we include Moore's defense of various points when we find it. And we include an extensive "Synopsis" section describing Moore's movie (a section which tends to kind of, ah, support his controversial movie). Moore sets out to make a controversial movie. Sure enough, it generates controversy which is all over the media. Wikipedia is supposed to suppress that? There's supposed to be only a tiny section of the article devoted to the controversy because ... why? Because it just isn't important? Because we're making a mountain out of a ... mountain.

Open your eyes, guys:

• Kevin Drum blogging at The Washington Monthly
• National Public Radio on the movie
• Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic
• USA Today article
• another USA Today article
• David Corn in The Nation
• Ezra Klein in The American Prospect

That's funny, none of these are right-wing publications. And yet they all say that Moore is controversial, that he gets things wrong and that it's an important part of the movie that it's controversial and gets things wrong. I think every one of them also has things to say in Moore's defense, and several have good descriptions of parts of the movie that I intend to add to the synopsis section. Not because I agree or disagree with the movie, but because the movie is important enough for readers to know what the important points are: the important points that Moore makes, and the important points that his critics make, and the important points that his defenders make, and the important points that Moore makes in his own defense. Important points from all the relevant sides, guys. It's the Wikipedian thing to do. Tolerate it. Noroton 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy fuck. Could you please keep your responses to under 500 words. I don't feel like responding to a senior thesis. Turtlescrubber 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, too bad. And read the articles I linked to, as well. The new article name is Controversies over the film Sicko. Noroton 20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Great job not looking for consensus before creating the page. Good teamwork skills there. Turtlescrubber 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia guideline, rule, policy or tradition about getting consensus to create a page. Wikipedia encourages creation of articles as long as they meet Wikipedia standards. Please review Wikipedia policies. If you find one regarding getting a consensus on whether or not to create a page, please tell me about it. Noroton 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Noroton wrote: I expect to start a good article just about the controversy.

It is, at the very least, polite to hear other views on this issue. Not that you give a damn ("Mmmm, too bad").

The "bar for criticism" is something that you constantly want to set very high

That's not fair. I specifically requested that we exclude low quality criticism at this particular time because (1) the filmmaker is broadly hated across one side of the political spectrum and criticism will come whether it is warranted or not, and (2) to take pause in order to help create a balanced page. A sensible starting point. You, on the other hand, set about arguing backwards ("He has a reputation for getting facts wrong, you know"), rushing to fill up the page with as much criticism as you could find just so you can justify starting a Controversies over the film Sicko page.

It certainly appears that you really just can't stand the fact that this movie is getting a lot of criticism.

I fully expected Sicko to receive criticism. It's director proposes overturning the private health insurance industry. No small matter. What I cannot stand, is people who mistake or deliberately conflate a much wider ideological debate for criticism of the piece itself. Moore's trip to Cuba is controversial. His loose view on copyright laws is controversial -- but old news, as he expressed much the same thoughts in 2004. What else is controversial? His right to free speech? His mere opinion that US health care should be socialised? You cannot justify a Sicko controversies page on the circular assumption that the director is controversial by nature.

Your idea that it [Sicko] should be protected from criticism is without justification in any Wikipedia policy, guideline, rule or tradition.

Your blatant distortion (a whopping great straw man) is without any justification. My arguments stand on their own merit and you have not addressed seriously a single one of them. smb 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, none of these are right-wing publications. And yet they all say that Moore is controversial, that he gets things wrong and that it's an important part of the movie that it's controversial and gets things wrong.

Codswallop. We already have a Michael Moore Controversies page. You cannot reasonably justify a Sicko controversies page on the circular assumption that its director is controversial and, um, "gets things wrong", and, er, "that it's an important part of the movie that it's controversial and gets things wrong." Sigh. Am I talking to myself here or what? smb 00:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The citations I use back up my position. It does not appear to me that there's any distortion in saying you want to protect the movie by minimizing the amount of criticism in Wikipedia as much as you can. That's been the constant theme of all of your comments. I, on the other hand, as my edits and the new article show, have presented both sides. Read what has been said about Moore from responsible publications on the Internet. Just go out and do your own research and read it. My edits and the new article reflect what they say. That you want something different from that is telling. Noroton 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I just read the first two links (Kevin Drum and NPR). They don't seem to include substantial discussion of the views in Sicko, but rather about Moore...in fact Kevin Drum wrote that post before seeing the movie. I think you're bluffing. HonoreDB 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Noroton wrote: It does not appear to me that there's any distortion in saying you want to protect the movie by minimizing the amount of criticism in Wikipedia as much as you can.

That is because you are not paying due care and attention. You accused me of not being able to "stand the the fact" that Sicko "is getting a lot of criticism". Then you alleged I wanted to protect Sicko from all criticism. That is a terrible distortion of my actual position.

That's been the constant theme of all of your comments.

Demonstrable false. I have stated my legitimate concern quite plainly, on several occasions. You continue to ignore my stated objection and instead continue to misrepresent me.

I, on the other hand, as my edits and the new article show, have presented both sides.

You have also created a controversy page when a controversy page is not needed. And your justification for the page is based upon circular arguments (see most recent example below).

That you want something different from that is telling.

I simply request that the criticism section be merged back into the main article, where it currently belongs. smb 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is controversial (by its nature and design: Moore courted controversy by going to Cuba and by supporting the piracy, but even if he didn't, it would still be controversial) and requires that the controversy be addressed.

And yet when Turtlescrubber duly moved the piracy section over to the Sicko controversies page, you dumped it back here, explaining in you edit summary: "not essentially controversies". [15] Please explain yourself. smb 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not there was piracy seems to me to be something more than just a controversy. As with the Treasury Department investigation, it involves events connected to the subject of the film that occurred independent of whether or not there was controversy around them. It just seems to me that it belongs in the main article. Do you disagree with that? I think my arguments stand up, even about Moore courting controversy, whether or not the piracy and treasury investigation are in the main article or the controversy article. Noroton 02:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Commentary on Clinton?

"Hillary Clinton is accused of being a sell-out for accepting financing for her campaign from the pharmaceutical industry, even if she had tried to introduce full coverage when she had become first lady." Hillary's health care plan was not "full coverage" as in universal coverage, it was full coverage as in everyone would be required to purchase health care from existing insurers. That kind of plan is totally different from those found in the other countries profiled and was certainly not a single payer, universal health care system as Moore seems to endorse. Secondly, the "even if" clause is uncited and seems to be an editor's personal commentary. Third, since Moore's criticisms of the insurance industry not paying claims to save money would presumably still exist under Hillary's plan, which required everyone to use those same insurers for their coverage, I'm not sure I see the relevance at all of including the "even if" bit unless a defense against her inclusion is given by a reliable source.--Gloriamarie 22:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Controversies over the film Sicko?

Survey

• Merge with Controversies over the film Sicko.Not nesessarly to be definitive, but voting can tell what current consensus is. Rodrigue 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Mergeand delete non-controversy info. Turtlescrubber 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'm opposed to the request to merge the "controversies" article into this one. It would create a bloated and unwieldy article. Croctotheface 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I copied and pasted this at the merger discussion at Talk:Controversies over the film Sicko. well, never mind that now, if the discussion is going to take place here.Noroton 23:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to merge, since I'm the one that started the other article. My reasons are below. Noroton 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Opposed - the "controversies" article is already larger than the (film) article. Merging would completely overshadow the main article. A simple link to the "controversies" article is perfectly appropriate. Also, my unsolicited opinion is that, while the (film) article is straight-forward and encyclopedic, the "controversies" article (partially by its nature) is much less encyclopedic and necessarily allows for more leeway concerning slanted information. Just my 2¢. --Evb-wiki 14:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The contraversies page is unnessesarly long, so merging and summarizing most of it would be fine. Rodrigue 17:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and trim. Failing that, the page should be deleted. It's awful. smb 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• No merge. The content directly regarding the article (the film) and referenced discussion regarding the content are nicely separated. It will otherwise be too bloated and mixed to be contained in one article. +mwtoews 22:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, the Controversies is indeed bloated, so I've changed my vote to reduce and merge.+mwtoews 03:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If someone would take a chainsaw to the Controversies article, I might change my vote too. --Evb-wiki 04:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and summarize. The controversies page is bloated. Jd2718 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Reduce controversies page down to about 10% of its current length. Clearly there was a POV agenda in creating the controversies article. Its excessive exposure of criticism would never have withstood NPOV editing in the Sicko (film) article, so an unnecessary controversies article was created in an attempt to advance the agenda and circumvent other editors' disagreement. Ward3001 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. After due consideration, I have to agree that the controversies page has both POV and bloat issues. Merging a considerably trimmed down incarnation of it into the main article is the best option. - Cyrus XIII 16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. The fact that there is a lot of content at the article does not mean it should not be merged. The controversy article is far too long, it should be trimmed and merged here. Fahrenheit 9/11 resulted in a great deal of controversy, but so far that has not been the case with this film. It was a mistake to create the controversies article before the film was even released, as it was impossible at that point to gauge just how "controversial" the film would be.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Just to make it clear, Noroton has pushed the limits of WP:CANVASS as noted by his user contributions and the comments at the bottom of his talk page. I believe that he has contacted everyone who has every edited the Sicko article. Even those who were just reverting vandalism, fixing a typo, or pushing pov. Turtlescrubber 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone (or just about, I left out a vandal or two) who contributed to the story over the four days from June 22-26, I think. I intended to go back a week, but there seemed to be enough. I provided a link to WP:CANVASS in every message I left. Noroton 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Given that merge discussions are usually to be held on the proposed target page and to avoid fragmentation of the dispute in general, I have created this section. Fire away guys. - Cyrus XIII 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

---

IN THIS AREA BETWEEN THE LINES I'VE MOVED THE DISCUSSION AS IT'S TAKEN PLACE SO FAR OVER AT THE Talk:Controversies over the film Sicko PAGE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THE FLOW OF THE DISCUSSION WITHOUT GOING TO TWO DIFFERENT PAGES. As per WP:MULTI in the talk guidelines. Noroton 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple criticisms from some sources is not a reason to have an article about the films contraversy.And even despite the so-called contraversy, the film recieved a 90% overall rating from rotten tomatoes [16], and that does not sound like a truly hated film.

And if movie contraversy pages did exist, it should be for films such as The Da Vinci Code, or the passion of the christ,which were criticized for there general message being portrayed, regardless of how well they acted, or how well they portrayed the film . Rodrigue 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I also object to the creation of Controversies over the film Sicko. User:Noroton has not convincingly demonstrated the need for a separate, long-winded controversy section at this time. On Talk:Sicko it was postulated that Michael Moore is a controversial figure (several press articles were produced to support this position). In return it was pointed out that Wikipedia already has a Michael Moore controversies page and that one cannot justify starting a Sicko controversy page on the basis that the filmmaker and his work is deemed controversial by nature. Here are just a few of the preconceptions and circular arguments articulated by Noroton before Sinko was even released:

• The controversy sections of Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11 and Roger and Me take up substantial portions of those articles (roughly a quarter of each article), and properly so. There's no reason not to expect a large one here. (19:56, 21 June 2007)
• [Several publications] all say that Moore is controversial, that he gets things wrong and that it's an important part of the movie that it's controversial and gets things wrong. (18:51, 24 June 2007)
• We need to describe the controversy about what it says. That means that we need to describe the criticism of what it says. (23:20, 21 June 2007)
• He has a reputation for getting facts wrong, you know (20:43, 23 June 2007)
• Again, the controversy surrounding the movie is an important part of the subject of the article and it will inevitably take up a good part of the article.(19:35, 21 June 2007)
• It isn't contestable that the film is controversial. A film that generates controversy means that the controversy needs to be mentioned in the article about the film. (23:20, 21 June 2007)
• It is not debatable that the controversy surrounding the film is an essential feature of it. (23:20, 21 June 2007)
• I'm going to rewrite the [controversy] section and put it back in so that this Wikipedia article about a Michael Moore movie is like every other Wikipedia article about Michael Moore movies. (03:47, 22 June 2007)
• The subject of the article is controversial (by its nature and design: Moore courted controversy by going to Cuba and by supporting the piracy, but even if he didn't, it would still be controversial) and requires that the controversy be addressed. (19:35, 21 June 2007)

Note: Noroton cites Moore's support of Piracy as one justification for a lengthy controversy section, but when user:Turtlescrubber duly moved the piracy section over to the new Controversies over the film Sicko page, Noroton dumped it back on the main Sicko (film) page, explaining in his edit summary: "not essentially controversies". [17] He also excluded information pertaining to the Treasury Department probe. This strongly indicates that Noroton is not genuinely interested in informing people; but in creating a page stacked with critical quotations so that it can be adduced against Michael Moore in a wider ideological debate (hence him/her first naming this section: "Rebuttals to the film").

I am not against hearing counter arguments. Sicko should not be protected from criticism. My argument is that (1) Michael Moore is broadly despised across one side of the political spectrum and criticism will come whether it is warranted or not. (2) We should do away with preconceptions. (3) Because Sicko has met with overwhelming praise, we should take pause in order to help create a balanced page. To this end I suggested filtering out weak and low quality information. Noroton did not agree and rushed off to find, and create, a page full of lengthy quotes (including distortions). Arguably, this is one of Moore's least controversial films. His trip to Cuba is most noteworthy. But what else is controversial? His right to free speech? His mere opinion that US health care should be socialised? I support trimming the information on this page and merging what remains with the main Sicko (film) page. Please let us hear some other views on this matter. smb 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally enjoyed the quotes and information gathered on the page, and in the end there are many comments in support of him as well. I'm sure this will inevitably be merged, but personally I enjoyed it as it is.--Gloriamarie 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. But it doesn't even begin to address any of the issues raised here or on the sicko talk page. smb 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think discussions should start off with personal criticism, even if we find ourselves falling into it later, and I'm not going to respond to User:smb's personal comments, other than to say that a review of this article and of my edits at Sicko (film) shows that I'm interested in presenting a fair account of what the film is about and what people say about the film. This article shows that there is a big controversy over the movie, that there is a lot to be said about the film's politics and methods, and that there's a lot to be said in support and in opposition to the film, and in every shade of opinion in between. It touches on an important political and social topic. It seems to me it's worth having some space. Having its own article is an appropriate way to provide that space. Noroton 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This very article is the subject of some dispute, so it's not a good idea to adduce it in support of your position -- especially since you crafted it. Earlier, on Sicko's talk page, I recognised the 'good work' you had done. (01:49, 23 June 2007) But that was before the insistence upon including fallacious, low quality material (a reference to New York Post film critic Kyle Smith and his total fabrication that Moore did not check the statements of the people featured in his film). I disagree that "there is a lot to be said about the film's politics and methods". Michael Moore's overt political bent, his approach to movie making, is adequately detailed on various other pages. No need to tread the same ground here, especially at length. There is some fresh controversy and unique criticism, though it is seriously debatable how much is reactionary and how much is considered. Film critics note that Sicko may be Moore's "least antagonistic and most restrained effort to date" (quoted, Pete Vonder). The total sum of your edits do not reflect this. The reverse is true. This page can be accurately described as bloated and unnecessary. Compare: An Inconvenient Truth. This page, in contrast, serves as a raised platform for people to attack Michael Moore, not to truly inform. smb 01:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I copied this comment from Talk:Sicko (film) in order to paste it here:

I'm opposed to the request to merge the "controversies" article into this one. It would create a bloated and unwieldy article. Croctotheface 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the title "Criticisms of the film Sicko" would be more appropriate. The main article for Sicko should have a small criticisms section that links to this article for those who are interested. There are many other topics that have an article specifically geared towards criticism. How about putting all criticism related to Michael Moore in a "Criticisms of Michael Moore" article?JoeCarson 12:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

--END OF MATERIAL MOVED FROM THE CONTROVERSIES TALK PAGE --

---

I think a large amount of the information on the controversies page is just the usually partisan hackery. Michael Moore is a controversial and polarizing figure and it shows by the cherry picked quotes on the page. I may be open to a "controversy" page in the future, but as of now little actual "controversy" has been established. So, some people don't like Moore and they don't like his movie. That's fine. But the majority of commentators actually gave this movie really good reviews. When real controversies are established (more like maybe the piracy and Treasury Department Investigation)then there can be some use for this page. As it is now it should be called "Cherry picked criticisms concerning Michael Moore's Sicko." We can easily change the name and then create a "Praise of Michael Moore's Sicko" and then we can look equally like pov pushers. Anyway, a smattering of this article should be merged and the rest deleted. It is a point of view article aiming to show as many negative quotes as possible to a movie that has been very positively received. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Turtlescrubber 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New York Times film critic A. O. Scott makes an interesting point: "It has become a journalistic cliché and therefore an inevitable part of the prerelease discussion of Sicko to refer to Michael Moore as a controversial, polarizing figure. While that description is not necessarily wrong, it strikes me as self-fulfilling (since the controversy usually originates in media reports on how controversial Mr. Moore is) and trivial. Any filmmaker, politically outspoken or not, whose work is worth discussing will be argued about." In one sense, he adds, Sicko is perhaps the "least controversial" and "most tightly edited" of Moore's movies to date. Jacob Gordon says Sicko shows Moore in "unusually restrained form". It may be Moore's "least antagonistic" effort to date thinks Pete Vonder. And most other independent film critics concur. I am therefore compelled to question the dubious starting point, timing, and requirement for a Controversies over the film Sicko -- a page, incidentally, that isn't a controversy page at all, but a rather conspicuous and desperate rebuttal page. We can explicate the real controversies (and there are two or three) here on the main page, until such time a separate page becomes indispensable. But right now it is just not the case. smb 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SMB. Turtlescrubber 17:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Since, Unlike Cyrus XIII, I worry that editors who come to this discussion may not realize that it started on Talk:Controversies over the film Sicko, and since Cyrus XIII has reverted my efforts to copy that discussion here, I'm copying part of my own comments here, slightly amended:

This article shows that there is a big controversy over the movie's political points and methods, that there is a lot to be said about the film's politics and methods, and that there's a lot to be said in support and in opposition to the film, and in every shade of opinion in between. It touches on an important political and social topic. It seems to me it's worth having some space. Having its own article is an appropriate way to provide that space.

And I'll add a few more points: Many commentators indicate they believe Moore's film will influence the politics of health-care policy in the U.S. SMB and Turtlescrubber seem to think that having an article's worth of Wikipedia content on this controversy is somehow anti-Moore, even though Moore vigorously participates in this controversy in his public comments. The "hackery" said to be in the article is from respected magazines from many different political perspectives and most commentators find something to agree with and something to disagree with in Moore's arguments, as is represented in this WP:NPOV article.

Editors, take a look at Controversies over the film Sicko yourselves. The article itself the best argument one way or the other for whether it should remain or be merged. If merged, the readers will lose all but a bit of what's there. Decide whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing for Wikipedia readers. Noroton 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Response: The article advanced in support of retention is the very same article in dispute. You created it. You crafted it. It's easy to scour Rotten Tomatoes or Google News for critical opinions during the period of opening release, then proceed to slap them on a page and call it 'controversy'. A more accurate barometer for any real controversy is time (but we don't have that luxury). The page is, in my view, an unbalanced concentration of negative reactions and quotations (and it's probably only going to get longer). Perhaps Sicko will help regenerate and influence the health-care debate - we can easily make a note of that - though surely such a longstanding debate is distinguishable and stands on its own merit. We should be careful not to mistake or deliberately conflate the much broader ideological battle for criticism of an opinion piece. I am not a massive fan of long-winded criticism sections. It's true. But that applies to any person -- repeat any person - regardless of political persuasion. Criticism should always be noted, but it needs to be balanced, concise and truly informative. smb 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It would help if we identify the real points of controversy. In my view: (1) Moore's trip to Cuba. (2) The Treasury Department probe into his trip to Cuba. (3) Moore's relaxed attitude to Piracy. The first and second are in some way linked. The third is not new since Moore expressed much the same thoughts in 2004. [18] Unless we revert to supposing everything he says and does is controversial by nature because there is always going to be people opposed to his view of the world. smb 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus reached on page merge

Nine editors for and two against (one is the creator of the page and the other doesn't want to bloat the page)if the page is greatly reduced. I would say that this is a very strong consensus to merge and reduce. Some editors want to take a chainsaw to it and others want 10% left. Should we start the discussion on what to keep and what to lose while the page is still protected? My first thoughts (maybe from smb) are to keep:

Piracy

Visit to Cuba

Resulting investigation

What else should we keep? What should we lose? Turtlescrubber 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Most editors seem to agree that the piracy issue and Moore's visit to Cube constitute the actual controversies surrounding the film. I'll perform the merge with that notion in mind and suggest to thoroughly discuss potential future additions. - Cyrus XIII 16:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Should this be in the article

Does this have anything to do with the movie? Maybe it should be included on the Micheal Moore page:

When Moore found out that the website MooreWatch would have to close because webmaster Jim Kenefick needed money to pay his sick wife's medical bills, he sent an anonymous check for US $12,000. However, Jim Kenefick disputes Moore's portrayal of the event, and now claims that other donors had provided the necessary funds to maintain the website, although he singled out Moore and a second anonymous benefactor for praise in an earlier entry in which he appealed for a miracle.

68.90.180.130 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be on both pages. I believe Sicko shows Moore writing the check.JoeCarson 12:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be in the article. It's part of the summation of the movie..the idea of being good to each other even if we disagree. It sort of shows Michael making that first gesture as support for his ideas in the movie. The cheque with the Keneficks name is visible and also the Moorewatch website. Even though it takes up a small part of the movie in terms of time, it carries a lot of weight in terms of impact.

USC Medical Issue

In the movie, Moore indicates that a medical center in Los Angeles that provides poor care for patients is run by USC. This is only partially correct. It is worth noting that USC does not manage the hospital, it merely provides doctors for the hospital through its medical program. USC does not have any part in determining who is admitted to the hospital or what procedures will be performed. Wattssw 06:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cuba Boat Issue

The article right now says that Moore the rest took three speed boats to Cuba. This is not verified and when watching the movie I got the impression that the speedboats were simply a humerous element of the movie. Can we alter the language on this? Wattssw 06:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

PETA controversy

Someone may want to add something about the PETA controversy surrounding sicko. There are plenty of sources, just google PETA sicko. - AbstractClass 00:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: no way. There's no real PETA controversy. That is, no more of a controversy than anything else in this world that involves eating meat, wearing animal skins, or pretty much any medical procedure. PETA is against all of that, and will have a press release about it all. That might be relevant for PETA's wiki entry, but not for every other entry. It's not like there's a section under the "insulin" or "diabetes" entry that gives the PETA view, that they're against much treatment for diabetics because animal products are used, or a PETA note for every person on Wiki who is not a vegetarian. To give the PETA view for anything that they express an opinion on is to express the view that PETA is so important that their view must be included in wiki--which violates NPOV, anyway.QuizzicalBee 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It would undoubtedly give undue weight to a publicity stunt. If anything, this could be put on the PETA page in some kind of fund raising or publicity section. Turtlescrubber 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious why every corporate victim of a PETA publicity stunt has PETA's criticism polluting their article (e.g., KFC), but not the articles about left-wing causes should exclude them. Either it belongs here, or it should be scrubbed from the other articles. THF 10:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Start scrubbing. Why is PETA even relevant anymore? Turtlescrubber 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, leave PETA out of this. Their complaints have nothing to do with this film. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of film name

Should the film be capitalized in similar fashion to the way it is printed on the released film poster, that is as SiCKO as opposed to Sicko. I believe it should be the former of the two. 70.176.92.34 05:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:MOS-TM. - Cyrus XIII 06:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute in "reception" section

"Sicko" has received criticism in the mainstream press [19] 67.78.145.235 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Release dates

The article only includes the release date in the US. I think it would be fitting to include release dates elsewhere as well. --The monkeyhate 14:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do you know those dates? I looked on IMDB, but nothing there. Riki 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

convenience break 1

WP:LEAD requires notable controversies to be included in the lead paragraphs of the article. This is not done here. The movie has received substantial criticism for inaccuracies and rebuttal, and these facts are given short shrift in the article. The result is a one-sided article. Compare the similar polemic The Great Global Warming Swindle, where the bulk of the article consists of criticism of the film. THF 04:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read wp:lead and don't understand exactly what you are trying to say. Could you please be more specific or and maybe give an example of what you are looking for on the talk page. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle is not relevant to this article, and what is done in that article does not set precedent here. Putting lots of criticism in the lead makes no sense since these articles are encyclopedic, not platforms for debate. (Incidentally, I think the lead to that article is excessive and I snipped it, although I expect to be reverted.) By the way, can you quote the part of WP:LEAD that says controversies must be mentioned in the lead? Maybe I'm blind but I can't find it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(And indeed, you were reverted in under 90 minutes.) THF 22:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. THF 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And there's a systematic NPOV problem in Wikipedia where left-wing polemics are consistently treated differently than right-wing polemics. THF 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 2

Take it to Conservapedia. C.m.jones 18:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please. Are you claiming that there isn't a difference? Compare this article, where criticism is absent, with that of any right-wing book or movie. Or are you implying the WP:NPOV does not require the inclusion of any conservative views? THF 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I assert that left-wing polemics, and left-wing criticisms of right-wing polemics, are generally more accurate, hence generally better represented in Wikipedia. Debate specific inclusions and omissions rather than complaining about an overall trend, unless you can prove that it's the editing, and not the facts, that are biased. HonoreDB 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion, even if it were true (and it's not), would be utterly irrelevant: the standard for Wikipedia is WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Those standards are not adhered to in this article. THF 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Adherence to Wikipedia standards often requires giving greater length to one view than to another. Wikipedia-wide trends toward giving more text to Moore's views than to his rebutters is not necessarily evidence of bias. Only specific biased editing decisions can be used as evidence of bias. HonoreDB 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is that the points of view in question are entirely omitted. This violates WP:NPOV. THF 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Are they being deleted, or have they just never been added?

They were put in a POV-fork and then systematically deleted. THF 07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 3

The NPOV tags were inappropriately removed. The article falsely implies that reception was overwhelmingly positive, when there was extensive criticism of how misleading the movie was, and that notable (and perhaps majority) POV is entirely absent from the article.[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] THF 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Public reception has been overwhelmingly positive, overall. Of course there will be some negative reviews here and there, and reception of avowed right-ring publications will be negative. That does not mean it gets priviledged treatment. C.m.jones 18:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for privileged treatment. I'm asking for NPOV treatment. THF 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the neutrality policy. Overall reception of the film is positive. Some people will shout loudly, but that doesn't make their views any more worthy of weight in Wikipedia. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. You're misunderstanding the neutrality policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). I've identified several points of view published by reliable sources that are entirely absent from this article. THF 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ted, if you want the relatively few right-wing screeds to get treated with undue weight, you'll find a happy home at Conservapedia. C.m.jones 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be an issue of undue weight. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes: there is undue weight for the praise of the movie, and zero weight for the significant view that the movie is factually inaccurate and misleading. There's no "conservative views don't count" rider to WP:NPOV. THF 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no praise in the lead. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of the controversy in the lead, despite the clear command of WP:LEAD otherwise. THF 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's not a huge amount of praise on the page, if you examine it carefully. A few more critical views should be noted. As with others, we can summarise and correctly source these. It's not necessary to quote extensively from umpteen negative film reviews. smb 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I also contest your assertion that Sicko has received substantial criticism "for inaccuracies and rebuttal". According to a CNN expert fact check, the figures and statistics in the film are essentially accurate, but analysts concluded it was lacking in context: "Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film." [32] That seems to be by far the biggest complaint. Moore did not address evenly all sides of the issue. Comparing Sicko to The Great Global Warming Swindle is not a good idea. smb 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

CNN found enough inaccuracies that Moore threw a temper-tantrum that they dared to criticize his movie. THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Source? Bi 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Presumably this is why Moore is angry (see link) [33] We should carry on with these specific criticisms in the appropriate section below. smb 22:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 4

Ted, please point out specific bits that you believe are praise. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1 Violation of WP:LEAD for failure to acknowledge significant controversies. THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

2 Compare the talk-page claim that "this is just a movie", with a "synopsis" that is several thousand words recounting every incident and political argument (and even much of the dialogue) of the movie, with the synopsis for any other movie article. THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

3 The POV (and false) statement of "overwhelming positive reviews" THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement is true. The film has gotten "overwhelming positive reviews" from film critics. That's what we mean by "positive reviews". (I'll add that to the article to make the context clear.) The conservative commentary links you provided are not film criticism pieces, they're political screeds against "government medicine", etc. They have more to do with Moore's ideas than Sicko as a film. szyslak 06:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that -- when I tried to add it, it was repeatedly deleted. THF 07:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But can we stop the POV characterization of opinions that disagree with Michael Moore as "screeds"? (And more than one of my sources criticizing Moore for lack of accuracy comes from a film critic.) THF 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

4 The article omits the significant point of view published in several reliable sources that the movie is misleading and inaccurate, even as Moore's POV that the movie is his "strongest critique yet about the economic system of the U.S" is trumpeted (and contradicts the pooh-poohing here that this is "just a movie" and thus only movie critics views should be considered). THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope my edit to the "critical response" section has satisfied that particular concern. szyslak 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

5 The article omits the criticism of Canadian film critics that Moore (again) paints an imaginary and unrealistic picture of Canada to bash its neighbor. THF 07:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You are really stuck on this WP:LEAD and call it a "violation" but it's a guideline, not a policy, so violation is the wrong word. It's not policy. It's simply a guide. --David Shankbone 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It "is considered a standard that all users should follow." THF 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". Redacting really adds nothing to your argument. Again, it's not policy. I see no reason not to outline a few criticisms, but I also don't think the movie has been out particularly long enough to have mature criticisms and analysis of the movie. Right now, the criticism is over Moore's politics and some minor inaccuracies (like, he says 50M uninsured when it's really 44M) --David Shankbone 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As the multiple (and far from complete list of) sources I cite in convenience break 3 indicate, your characterization is inaccurate, perhaps misled by the sanitized nature of the article into thinking that there has not been comprehensive criticism of the movie and its arguments. You've given no reason why this article is so special as to merit the exception to the rule. THF 03:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I say below, if something is a notable aspect of X, most mainstream surveys of X will mention it. If criticism of Sicko on political grounds is notable, most mainstream reviews of Sicko will mention such criticism. If they don't, then it isn't notable enough for the lead. Hornplease 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 5

TedFrank, you're ruleslawyering. The line from WP:LEAD you've so extensively quoted is an example of what might possibly go into a good lead section. If you're so bent on your principle of "you HAVE to put criticism in the lead", I suggest you go to Wikipedia talk:Lead section and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and propose that WP:LEAD be changed from a guideline to an official policy. That way, you can see how the larger community feels about your reading of policy, outside of the narrower Sicko debate. szyslak 05:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Should" (which is repeated twice in WP:LEAD) does not remotely mean "possibly", and you have yet to justify an exception to the guideline. I've stated repeatedly that the criticism should be in the lead, and that the article fails that guideline. In any event, the substandard lead is not the only problem with the article, which violates the policy of NPOV. Your invocation of WP:LAWYER is well within the essay of WP:KETTLE, however. THF 05:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note also:

• Official policy: "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."
• Guideline: "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."

I fail to see the rationalization for treating guidelines as easily discardable without good reason, and one has yet to be provided, when it's simple enough to acknowledge the controversy in the introduction. (Of course, one first has to acknowledge the controversy in the article, which is where the severest NPOV problem is.) It is perhaps you who should be going to Wikipedia talk:Lead section and asking for exceptions for left-wing articles where you don't want to acknowledge right-wing criticism. That would seem to contradict WP:NPOV, however. THF 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If we were discussing an article such as single-payer health care or social health insurance, you'd be right on. However, as has been repeated ad nauseam, this article is about the movie, not about the health care debate. And please, remember that you are not the arbiter of neutrality regarding this subject. It's as if your viewpoint's the only one that matters, and the rest of us are stupid, liars or both. szyslak 06:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course my viewpoint isn't the only one that matters. All significant viewpoints matter, and I object to the omission of significant viewpoints in violation of NPOV. Nor am I the arbiter of neutrality: Wikipedia rules are, and there's an objective standard for determining whether they're met: are all significant points of view fairly represented? The answer is plainly no: there are very significant (and perhaps majority) points of view that are absolutely omitted, and NPOV requires their inclusion.

With respect to the "just a movie" claim, if that were really the case, then there is an NPOV violation because of the POV-pushing of Moore's views on the healthcare debate. Make up your mind: if the article is about the movie, then there's too much extraneous stuff on healthcare, and the synopsis should be dropped to a couple of sentences. If the article is about Moore's views on healthcare, then the fact that many people have pointed out that those views and arguments are factually incorrect is relevant. THF 07:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, Michael Moore, that Wikipedia POV pusher... I say we take User:Michael Moore to ArbCom. ;)

You say, "...many people have pointed out that [Moore's] views and arguments are factually incorrect". No, people have argued such. Others have argued that he did indeed get his facts right. You're right that both sides of that aspect of the debate are not portrayed equally. Why? Because they're not portrayed at all. The article says little to nothing about the debate over this film's factual accuracy or inaccuracy. That's a problem, but it's not an NPOV problem. It's a problem of completeness. This is an unfinished article. Let's finish it up.

On the thread of this debate you portray as the "just a movie" claim, what I mean is that, while the article should delve into the social debate surrounding the film, it should only do so in the context of points raised by the film itself, not in the context of points some people think the film should have made. Just because the film is about the health care debate doesn't mean the article should be, too. Similarly, the following articles are not about World War II: Saving Private Ryan, Tora! Tora! Tora! and Das Boot. They do, however, touch on facts about the war in relation to the films. Discuss the debate over Moore's claims, but don't go too far outside this article's scope. szyslak 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased we're reaching a consensus. We seem to agree; the issue is one of completeness, which I happen to think is one of the prerequisites of WP:NPOV compliance in this context. (I disagree with your statement that the accuracy question is not addressed: the absence of the debate implies the POV that a documentary is factually accurate.) Other movie article examples of varying quality are The Hurricane (film), The Great Global Warming Swindle, The Passion of the Christ, Troy (film), and, perhaps most relevantly, Bowling for Columbine. Part of the problem here is that criticisms of Sicko were shunted off into a POV-fork, merged back in, and then deleted entirely. (The Fahrenheit 9/11 criticisms are to this day shunted off into a POV-fork.) THF 08:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, improvements to this article are needed, and I'm glad we agree on that point, and on where the gaps are. However, I disagree with your claim that "the absence of the debate implies the POV that a documentary is factually accurate". A non-existent portion of the article is POV? Only a claim of accuracy would imply accuracy. On the question of the late, unlamented POV fork: It was deleted because of POV and general poor quality. To put it simply, that page was not an encyclopedia article. It was a hodgepodge of complaints added by random editors, full of weasel words and other nonsense... which is one reason why I hate "controversy" and "criticism" articles. That goes for Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, Criticism of George W. Bush and a hot of other pages. A discussion of controversies would have to be rebuilt from the ground up. szyslak 08:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The very word "documentary" (objective: emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art") implies accuracy (see also PBS definition), though the efforts of people like Michael Moore are certainly changing the connotations of that word. THF 11:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your own link shows you are talking about the word as it is defined as an adjective, not as a noun. --David Shankbone 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's not get into the silly argument about whether a documentary is a documentary. The Academy didn't buy it when that gun rights group petitioned to disqualify Bowling for Columbine from the Best Documentary Feature Oscar on the grounds that "it's false, so it's not a documentary". Both films are documentaries, no matter what some people say about their factual claims. szyslak 04:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Comment: I'm here from the RFC. Having just read the article, I couldn't find much in the way of criticism of the views expressed in the film anywhere in the article, let alone in the lead. Assuming that such critical views exist (and THF's comments above seem to demonstrate clearly that they do) they should be incorporated into the article under a separate heading and once consensus is reached on that section, it should be summarized with a sentence or two in the lead. There shouldn't be much argument on this policy, right? All views should be expressed without undue weight, I think that is understood. On the issue of whether a POV tag should remain in the article until editors have had a chance to introduce a more complete criticism section, in my opinion it should. BFD1 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also here from the RFC. I think this article absolutely should discuss criticism of the views presented in the film. However, let's keep the following points in mind:

• We should remember not to give undue weight to negative views.
• I see no bias in the section on critical response. The critics are evaluating Sicko's strengths and weaknesses as a film, not its political content. Political "balance" has nothing to do with the quality of a film. Is Saving Private Ryan a bad film because it doesn't tell the German side of the story? All films have a point of view, and there's nothing wrong with that.
• Let's remember to stay within the scope of this article, which is about the film Sicko, not about the pros and cons of universal health care.

In addition, I disagree with BFD1's suggestion that negative response to the film should be covered in a "criticism" section. See Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism in a "Criticism" section and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure. A "criticism" section would harm this article's NPOV status, not help it. szyslak 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I never suggested that the section be titled "criticism", merely that "critical views ... should be incorporated into the article under a separate heading". BFD1 15:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No matter what it's called, a criticism section is still a criticism section. When you put "criticisms", "controversies" and other possible negative aspects of a subject in their own section, it's a criticism section. szyslak 03:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. My bad.BFD1 15:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This touches upon earlier discussions. Is it necessary to include criticism from people who accuse Michael Moore of failing to address issues that do not immediately bear upon or undermine the premise of his film? For example, the director stands accused of finding faults in only the US system while ignoring the problems with, and painting too rosy a picture of, foreign establishments. But surely that is the point. Moore purposely identifies key problems at home before highlighting and then cherry-picking the best working parts of other support systems, so every single American one day receives an excellent all-round standard of care. His narration proceeds: "When we see a good idea from another country, we grab it. If they build a better car, we drive it. If they make a better wine, we drink it." That's just one example. Too many reviewers seem to venture off into the wider ideological debate, and naturally there is no shortage of people who want to use this opportunity as a springboard for their own political views. smb 22:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Good luck watching the article 24/7, though, and especially since WP lacks any real way to deal with bad editors and admins. 74.233.157.75 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a weak argument, I agree, but that's how the right has chosen to go after the film, thus it's fair to include it in the criticism or response section. That said, I don't think the tag's important, it's more of a consideration should you go after GA or FA status. Doctor Sunshine talk 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from another third party. I've read the discusion here as well as the article itself. IMO, the lead section needs to be rewritten to reflect the entire article, including a reference to any criticism of the film. The current lead section provides an intro to the topic, but not a summary of the main points of the article, as it should. Since WP:LEAD suggests that a lead section can be as long as four paragraphs, there is no reason why criticism can't be referenced, along with every other major point in the article. The fact that WP:LEAD is a guideline and not a policy is irrelevant. I agree that this article is NPOV and that the NPOV tag should remain as long as those concerns are valid.

Additionally, I would like to make the following suggestions in good faith to the editors involved in this article:

• Remove the reference to the IMDb rating. User ratings are not verifiable or POV.
• The article as a whole reads very positively towards Moore and Sicko. Here's one example: "On May 19, 2007 more than 2,000 people applauded loudly after the film's first Cannes screening at the packed Grand Theatre Lumiere, the main festival auditorium." Why is this significant? Film premieres get applauded all the time.
• The plot summary is extremely long. It needs to be condensed to highlight only the most significant elements of the film, not every last detail.
• Two sections of this article: "Reception" and "Responses to Film" have somewhat overlapping purposes.

Happy editing! Citadel18080 02:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:Lead says, in its current incarnation, "briefly describe", and "notable controversies". If the controversy about the content of the movie, or its polemical structure is notable, then it should be mentioned in most mainstream reviews of it. Take a sample of the NYT, Tribune, Slate, and Guardian reviews, for example. Is it mentioned there? If not, probably not notable enough. Note that "brief description" is a modification of wp:lead that may not be consensus; there's a discussion on the lead talkpage where I point out that it was changed surreptitiously from "should mention any notable controversies". Feel free to satisfy either wording. Hornplease 09:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-Lawyering

I think this dispute is a transparent attempt at Wikipedia:WikiLawyering a high weight to the conservative viewpoint that isn't actually related to the subject of this article but the Universal health care debate. I am not impressed, and it seems that most serious editors aren't either. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA, please. What makes you think I'm not a serious editor? What about the other two editors who agree that the NPOV tag is appropriate? THF 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm attacking your ideas about editing this article, not you personally. Ironic that you would cite policy to silence discussion of your transparent wikilawyering. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan Delaney and I also think the NPOV tag should be taken down. The neutrality of the article is not in question, the format is. --David Shankbone 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the POV tag with an "unbalanced" tag, since people agree that the article is unbalanced. Of course, the unbalanced nature of the article violates WP:NPOV (as the tag itself indicates), but that's neither here nor there.

Delaney repeatedly accuses me of editing in bad faith. Which is unfortunate: I've added one tag, and discussed everything else on the talk page, citing specific reliable sources and Wikipedia policies. I again request him to cease the personal attacks and work to edit collaboratively instead of trying to shut down discussion with unmerited insults like "wikilawyering" and not "serious". THF 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, criticizing a person's behavior with regards to work in the Wikipedia is not considered a personal attack. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 7

Remarkably, the tag was removed after someone systematically scoured the article of any criticism of the movie. The solution to an improper criticism section is to integrate the criticism into the rest of the article, not to delete the criticism and the NPOV tag. Again, important and well-sourced viewpoints are omitted from this article improperly. It's simply not the NPOV rule that only left-wing viewpoints count, and centrist and right-wing viewpoints critical of the left must be omitted. There are plenty of critics of the accuracy and honesty of the Moore movie; the first link in the list here is from the left-wing New York Times even. [34][35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46][47] THF 11:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

CM Jones has now improperly removed the unbalanced tag three times without any explanation why criticism from the NY Times, the Toronto Star, Washington Post, Business Week, the American, Cato, National Review, Weekly Standard, and MTV is being entirely disregarded in the article, despite the clear command of WP:NPOV that all significant points of view should be included. A shame administrators don't enforce the rules when left-wing editors repeatedly break them. THF 22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Sorry but I couldn't follow how to add references. I was trying to add the following: The Miller Center of Public Affairs audio recording (conversation number 450-23. "Richard Nixon - Oval Office Recordings," http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/digitalarchive/presidentialrecordings /nixon/oval?PHPSESSID=b813e56b3017d097cd176720bc10fc74

Copy and paste this after the text you are referencing:

<ref>The Miller Center of Public Affairs audio recording (conversation number 450-23. "Richard Nixon - Oval Office Recordings," Available [http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/digitalarchive/presidentialrecordings/nixon/oval?PHPSESSID=b813e56b3017d097cd176720bc10fc74 online].</ref>

C.m.jones 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanjay Gupta

Has anyone followed this story, that is documented on Gupta's page? It's pretty bit right now for this film (Google News "Gupta" and "Moore"). Should this be included on the Sicko page, or Michael Moore controversies? I think the film's page. --David Shankbone 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting dilemma. I would say Michael Moore controversies, as the argument initially stemmed from Mr. Gupta's report. --AlexPorter 22:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sicko film page is best, since it's currently lacking in criticism. Perhaps we can make a note of both sides. Moore has posted a point-by-point response to Dr. Sanjay Gupta on his website. [48] smb 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing some work on it at the Gupta page. I think since the report was about the film itself, it should be on the film page, and also for the reason smb gives - it will flesh out criticism. The paragraph on the Gupta page would be a good starting point, although I'd prefer someone re-write it for the Sicko page so they don't parrot each other. --David Shankbone 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as Moore's rebuttals (and they seem solid from what I've read) are included, it seems like a fair addition. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think a fleshed out "Gupta said this" "Moore responded with this" "Gupta countered" kind of thing would give the nuance of the factual arguments and where they are lacking, and what is not responded to, etc. Sorry if that was garbled. --David Shankbone 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointless, pointless. All that will be in the article is a he said v. he said thing, with each trading statistics and jabs. In the long run, it is just a passing current event that will be trivial next month. Have some editorial wisdom here of what is and is not really important. C.m.jones 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Here we have a respected medical professional on a major network directly disputing, to the director's face, the facts in the film. The director answers these charges point-by-point. Not only are the two people involved notable in their respected fields, but it goes to the core of the movie and the issues surrounding it. I'm surprised you don't have more editorial wisdom. --David Shankbone 17:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Give it a month and if it is still being talked about, we will see who is right. At this point, all it is is a current event, the larger import of which cannot as yet be known. C.m.jones 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the way we edit on Wikipedia, and in relation to the film, the director taking a well-known critic head on, face-to-face, is remarkable enough for inclusion. I don't think in a month we are going to look back and say "The Gupta Affair was a watershed for this film" and I can't image why we would say that about anything. The episode is more remarkable than what some two bit movie critic who has no standing on health issues thinks, and we have plenty of those on the page already.--David Shankbone 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "two-bit" movie critics should be in there either. Neither should you. Neither should anyone with good editorial sense. Wikipedia is not a trivial collection of stuff. Well, actually it very, very often is, but it should not be. C.m.jones 23:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

David Shankbone has already explained why the Gupta criticisms are not trivial. And sorry, Wikipedia editors aren't obliged to obey what you "think", the only thing that needs to be obeyed are the Wikipedia policies. Your comments will only serve to fuel some people's flaming that Wikipedia is a hotbed for left-wing hysteria. Please stop. Bi 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was actually hoping my comments would deter amateurism. C.m.jones 06:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, your comments are amateurish. You make assertions as if they are self-evident, and since you are the only one (who is arguing with established and accomplished editors), perhaps you might be on the wrong side of the editorial debate. You are taking an article on a film and applying standards that are obvious to nobody but yourself. You aren't fleshing out why these additions are "amateurish" or what, if anything, should be in an article on a film. Since you don't think a notable medical commentator and his confrontation with Moore over the very core of the film don't belong, I question your editorial sense. --David Shankbone 11:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please keep your cool! This isn't helping. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, Ryan. Thanks. --David Shankbone 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the best commentary I've seen on the Moore vs. CNN controversy. Basically, CNN should have talked about health policy rather than trading insults. I also posted this on the Gupta page.

Gary Schwitzer, a journalism professor at University of Minnesota who reviews health care reporting, said, "CNN doesn’t have a journalist that can stand up to Moore on a discussion about health care policy issues because it doesn’t have a journalist that has researched health policy issues in this country as much as Moore and his documentary team has."

"Why didn’t the network use the precious one hour of airtime to do its own original enterprise reporting about America’s uninsured, America spending 16% of the GDP on health care, America being the only industrialized nation without some form of universal, comprehensive national health insurance, and American being one of only two countries that allows direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising?" asked Schwitzer. "Why? Because that would be hard work."Nbauman 16:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Folks, it is helpful in to understand the art of encyclopedia writing as what not to include. The Gupta v. Moore thing is just not important to this article. Given that, there is one way to include it that would be very interesting. Under the section "Responses to film", begin subsections by date. There include what may be deemed the most important responses to the film by date, a sort of timeline. This is a way to include such material without making the main article body an increasingly big collection of what may amount in the long run to be trivial news stories to the overall big picture of the film. C.m.jones 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The CNN/Blitzer/Gupta affair is described on the Michael Moore page under Writings and political views. It may be a good idea to move that section onto this page, because it is still lacking in criticism. If no one raises a serious objection, I'm going to move it over to the Critical response section. smb 16:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

TV Nation

Michael Moore actually covered this issue previously, waaaaaaaay back in 95-96 on his TV show TV Nation. He did a segment contrasting the cost and quality of care between the US, Canada, and Cuba. In the segment he was using the example of a broken leg, following a person in each country through the process of treatment for the injury. Anyone have any idea where/how to add this into the article if I can properly reference it? Does anyone have any objections to it? Also, where is the + button for adding new sections? WookMuff 11:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that this doesn't belong in this article, but maybe some article on Universal health care in general. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant as being a forerunner to the film? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUcw_foeg3Y if you want to see the story WookMuff 02:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR. If a reliable source mentions the connection, then one might add a cited sentence on the connection1 (though not the link to the copyright violation), but it's not for individual editors to research themselves. THF 02:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, if I could properly reference it. WookMuff 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, found a fairly obvious link on michaelmoore.com [49] How should I add it? Also, here is a link for the previously linked copyrighted material FROM MichaelMoore.com [50] WookMuff 04:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Numerous reviewers have made the connection. However, this is trvial for the article, don't you think? C.m.jones 05:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Where Michael Moore first had the idea to make the film has no bearing on the film? WookMuff 07:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be for Michael Moore. C.m.jones 09:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be for Sicko. It might be for Michael Moore if he described where he first came up with the idea of making movies or where his parents came up with the idea to make him. Here is an example, from the Harry Potter page. "In 1990, J. K. Rowling was on a crowded train from Manchester to London when the idea for Harry simply "popped" into her head." From the Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope page "During post-production on his previous film, American Graffiti, Lucas repeatedly discussed the concept of a "space opera" with producer Gary Kurtz." Dracula (novel) has a seven paragraph section of the background of the novel. So why is this not fit for mentioning here? WookMuff 09:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that we think this is not necessary in the article. Thanks for the suggestion, though. :) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of WP:NPA, let me just say Sorry. I didn't realise that you and C.m.jones owned Wikipedia. Congratulations. Oh, wait. Michael Moore thinks that the segments are relevent to Sicko, or he wouldn't host both of them in the SiCKO portion of his website as well as an interview attributing the origin of the film to these segments. WookMuff 10:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to get personal. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a real WP:OWN problem here. I don't see why there can't be a section of the article about the history of making this movie where the TV Nation connection is mentioned. THF 11:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A Query for Mr. Delaney

I recently made an addition to the "Criticism" section of the article that provided an observation of the statistics (or, more properly, lack thereof) in the movie. You reverted this as insufficiently NPOV.

I would like to do better in the future. Please explain my error. Thank you.71.197.106.123 01:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. The text I reverted reads:

The film has also been criticized for a lack of statistics. Instances are presented, but never documented for status as the "norm" or an "exception". The one statistic (unsupported number) presented (deaths of Americans without health insurance) calculates out to approximately 1 death in 2,000 people per year without health insurance.

There are a number of problems with this. "Has been criticized" is passive voice that serves as a weasel term to avoid citation of this criticism. Who criticized the film for this? Where? What did they say, exactly? Suggesting that "someone" has criticized it is not particularly meaningful or encyclopedic. The rest of the quotation reads like advocacy, making assertions about factual inaccuracies that are exposed by this vague "has been" criticism. A better revision might look something like this:

Bob Barker criticized the film, arguing that Moore relies too heavily on anecdotal evidence rather than statistics. (citation)

--Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Somehow I don't believe you. The first entry in the "criticism" section also starts w "has been criticized" and you seem to have no problem w that.71.197.106.123 02:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That passage is cited extensively. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the claim in question is hardly extraordinary, wouldn't it be better to add a {{fact}} tag or {{who}} tag and give it a couple of days before sanitizing the article immediately? THF 02:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Delaney, About the criticism citations: You're right, I'm wrong.71.197.106.123 03:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of criticism

Second post: Delaney, Turtlescrubber seems to have deleted the whole thing. Since I have little standing, will you please take the unpleasant assignment of discussing Turtlescrubber's decision w him? Thank you.71.197.106.123 04:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, you have plenty of standing. I just couldn't let that monstrosity of a section live and I had to put it out of it's misery. Looking through the history, it wasn't your additions that make it ridiculous but the addition of ten external links to a weasel sentence and the creation of a new controversy sub-section. Look, if you can't source something in a sentence with one, two or possibly three citations, you shouldn't be posting it at all. Let's integrate those criticisms into the appropriate section and properly cite them before putting them on the page. As a new user, you can easily use this talk page to try out some of the stuff you put in and just ask for some help. Turtlescrubber 04:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So here is what you want to put in "The film has also been criticized for a lack of statistics. Instances are presented, but never documented for status as the "norm" or an "exception". The one statistic (unsupported number) presented (deaths of Americans without health insurance) calculates out to approximately 1 death in 2,000 people per year without health insurance.

So really, all you have to do is find where you read this at, hopefully a mainstream and reliable source and then we can do a small rewrite and add the citation. This article uses reference style formats and not external links. So if you find a good source I'll wikify the link for you. Turtlescrubber 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole premise of the film being criticized for a "lack of statistics" is flawed. There's no serious expectation the film would have "statistics". It's a documentary, not a research paper. It's like saying, "The film Casablanca has been criticized for not actually being filmed in Casablanca. Instead, it was shot more than 5,000 miles away at the Warner Brothers studios in Burbank, California..." szyslak 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by the claim that Wikipedia should not have statements that are too well sourced. The appropriate response to a criticism section is to merge the criticism into the article, not to delete the criticism entirely. THF 12:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Who made that claim? I know I didn't make that claim. I haven't see anyone else make that claim. I would hope you didn't just lie to obfuscate the situation as nobody has ever erased anything from this page as being ""too well sourced". It's kinda sad that you didn't get your way for once and had to start making shit up. Here is the edit summary "removed craptacular section from page....please use the critical response section and cite your sources appropriately...criticism sections are pov magnets...Worst sourcing I have ever seen." And I stand by my claim that it is the worst sourcing I have ever seen. Anyway, here is what I said right up the page a little, "Look, if you can't source something in a sentence with one, two or possibly three citations, you shouldn't be posting it at all. Let's integrate those criticisms into the appropriate section and properly cite them before putting them on the page. Wow, an invitation to merge it into the article and nothing about it being ""too well sourced". In closing, please don't lie to misrepresent my position and put words into my mouth. I find it extremely rude. Turtlescrubber 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To repeat: The appropriate response to a criticism section is to merge the criticism into the article, not to delete the criticism entirely. The appropriate response to a sourcing problem for an unextraordinary claim is to add an in-line tag. And why is the unbalanced tag repeatedly being removed? THF 22:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of removing the unbalanced tag? WTF mate? Why are you being so rude? Turtlescrubber 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Sicko (film) → SiCKO — According to Moore's web site[51], The glyphs on the film's title are rendered as they are on the poster —Reginmund 06:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey: Move of Sicko (film) → SiCKO

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - per reasons given. Reginmund 06:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose rename to SiCKO. - Our WP:MOSTM encourages the use of standard English text formatting and capitalization in trademark names. See also WP:CAPITAL#Mixed_or_non-capitalization which advises For the article title, follow the lead of outside sources and use the most common spelling and capitalization.. As an example of an outside source, they give the New York Times. The Times spells the name of this film in the standard way, as 'Sicko.' EdJohnston 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per EdJohnston. THF 17:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support rename to SiCKO. Consistent with PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America). Nbauman 18:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur. PhRMA is a redirect to the main article. So does Phrma. No one is objecting to SiCKO redirecting to the main article; the question is what the title of the main article should be. THF 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support rename to SiCKO. We are allowed some leeway here (per WP:MOSTM#General_rules: "OxyContin or Oxycontin — editor's choice"). Also I googled 'SiCKO' (limited to where 'sicko' appeared in the title) and though more news headlines used 'Sicko' than 'SiCKO', 'the latter did come up frequently. However, virtually everywhere, the form "Sicko" heavily predominated when used in the general text of the article, no matter which form used in the headline -I think we should do this as well. To recap: I support the renaming because (1) it's accurate -that's how the film is actually titled and marketed, (2) it seems that it is acceptable to do so (or at the least unclear that we can't), and (3) many news organizations also report it that way in the title. Addendum: for text in the article, retain the lowercase "Sicko". R. Baley 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Edited to add: if this move becomes overly contentious or drawn out, I will change my vote to help bring to a close. Issue is not worth much in the way of fighting or arguing over. R. Baley 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The relevant rule in WP:MOSTM is Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment. Thus, Realtor rather than REALTOR, Adidas rather than adidas. OxyContin is a special example because the trademarked capitalization is in CamelCase. "SiCKO" is not CamelCase, so the CamelCase rule R. Baley mentions is inapplicable. THF 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose rename, per guideline cited above; we don't do funny spellings, because they may be changed without notice (say with a rerelease). There should of course be a redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support rename to SiCKO because that is the freakin' name of the film, and support banning the person who made the poor decision to title it as it currently is (kidding, but not completely). C.m.jones 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and move to, My Big Fat Health Care System. Sorry, I find all this minutiae kinda disturbing. Turtlescrubber 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion re page title

Any additional comments:

Does it make any difference? Turtlescrubber 19:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not much :-) R. Baley 19:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Turtlescrubber 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid. You are all looking in the wrong place. This isn't a manual of style issue, it is a Naming Concentions issue, and it is directly addressed in this page. The Convention states: Follow standard English text formatting for article names that are trademarks. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalisation (Invader Zim)." It goes on to say "Exceptions include article titles with the first letter lowercase and the second letter uppercase, such as iPod and eBay" However, due to SiCKO's use of partial uppercase it is already disqualified. So according to Wikipedia guidelines, this discussion is moot. WookMuff 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

tHAT'S SOME OF THE FINEST wIKILAWYERING EVER SEEN. Clearly, the title is more akin to iPod than ZIM; therefore, SiCKO is the clear way in policy to rename the article. C.m.jones 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is in fact the total OPPOSITE of iPod. If you look closely, you will notice the words "Items in full or partial uppercase". Hmm... you know what is in full or partial uppercase? SiCKO. I am sorry, does "article titles with the first letter lowercase and the second letter uppercase" apply to SiCKO? No? Well darn. I think it's pretty clear that wikipedia thinks this is not necessary for the article. Thanks for the suggestion, though. WookMuff 22:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME explicitly refers us to WP:MOSTM, so it's appropriate to refer to that page. But I agree that the discussion is moot: there's an explicit Wikipedia rule dealing with it, and the page is correctly titled under that rule. THF 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted my deletion of this section... the people who deal with requests for moves are apparently up to date on the naming conventions so they will deal with it. WookMuff 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is really problematic the way that every time someone points out the Wikipedia has a rule for dealing with a situation, CM Jones accuses the editor of Wikilawyering. This is why the page does not comply with the NPOV rule, and now CM Jones seeks to have it stop complying with the WP:NAME rules. THF 22:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I just looked up wikilawyering, so I could get an exact definition (I am often justly accused of being a Rules Lawyer in RPGing) and unless the spirit of WP:NAME is to do the opposite of the letter of the rules, possibly to mess with peoples heads, then I am not a wikilawyer, so I don't mind :) WookMuff 22:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines say that is only if trade marks insinuate otherwise, but on the web site, not only is the poster art "SiCKO", but the typographical glyphs "SiCKO", thus, it is the official name. Reginmund 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That is called "poor grasp of the english language". What it means is that here at wikipedia, we try to use proper english, grammar, and punctuation, even if the trademark doesn't. WookMuff 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

cleanup-laundry tag

I added a tag that explicitly said "This article seems to contain unencyclopedic lists that may require cleanup." It was deleted because there wasn't discussion on the talk page. The lengthy soundtrack of every song that has a ten-second snippet is unencyclopedic and requires cleanup. THF 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I am unaware of what happens with soundtrack entries, maybe convert to footnotes? I do agree that it takes up too much space. Turtlescrubber 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the list of songs is notable at all. I'm moving it to this page if someone wants to create a different article for it, though I doubt such an article would meet WP:N standards. THF 22:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

===Soundtrack==- Many songs, instrumental and otherwise, exist on this film's soundtrack. They are:

• "I'm Alone Without You," Written and Performed by The Nightwatchman (aka Tom Morello)
• Aquarela do Brasil by Ary Barroso (in reference to Terry Gilliam's film, Brazil)
• "Baseball" (from the film, In the Bedroom), Written by Thomas Newman
• "Loverly Spring" (from the film, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events), Written by Thomas Newman
• "Rejected," Written by Danny Winn, Performed by Danny Winn and the Earthlings
• "Star Wars Main Title Theme," Written and Performed by John Williams (as John T. Williams)
• "Secret Pint," Written by Stuart Braithwaite, Performed by Mogwai (band)
• "Adagio for Strings," Composed by Samuel Barber, Performed by Brno Philharmonic Orchestra
• "I'll Take You There," Written by Alvertis Isbell, Performed by The Staple Singers
• "Sabre Dance," Composed by Aram Khachaturian, Performed by Brno Philharmonic Orchestra
• "The Bad Beginning" (from the film, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events), Written by Thomas Newman
• "Chez Olaf" (from the film, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events), Written by Thomas Newman
• "(I've Got a) Golden Ticket" (from the film, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory), Written by Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newley, Performed by Jack Albertson and Peter Ostrum
• "Christmas Eve Montage" (from the film, The Nightmare Before Christmas), Written by Danny Elfman
• "Street Fighting Man," Written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, Performed by The Rolling Stones
• "Lucy" (from the film, Little Children), Written by Thomas Newman
• "The Baudelaire Orphans" (from the film, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events), Written by Thomas Newman
• "L'amour est bleu," Written by Pierre Cour and André Popp, Performed by Vicky Leandros and Claude Denjean
• "Le temps des cerises," Performed by Charles Trenet
• "The 59th Street Bridge Song (Feelin' Groovy)," Written by Paul Simon, Performed by Nana Mouskouri
• "Una Musica Brutal," Written by Phillippe Mauric Cohen Solal, Eduardo Anibal Makaraoff, and Christoph Hermann Mueller, Performed by Gotan Project
• "Je t'aime... moi non plus," Written by Serge Gainsbourg, Performed by Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin
• "Beam," Written by John Powell, Performed by Hans Zimmer
• "Can't Sleep #2" (from the film, In the Bedroom), Written by Thomas Newman
• "I'll See You in C-U-B-A," Written by Irving Berlin, Performed by the Austin Lounge Lizards
• "Ice Skating" (from the film, Abandon), Written by Clint Mansell
• "Ring" (from the film, The Astronaut Farmer), Performed by Suart Matthewman
• "Don't Be Shy," Written and Performed by Cat Stevens (as Yusuf Islam)
• "Ce monde absurde," Written by Steve Barri and P.F. Sloan, Performed by Claude François

I agree that we don't need a tracklisting of the soundtrack in this article. If a soundtrack is released, give it its own article. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a little exercise in proper sourcing

Some critics would contend that George W. Bush has violated the trust of the American public in relation to warrant-less wiretapping and the war in Iraq. [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]

Now, is this sourced or what? Ten sources and almost all are from top notch media outlets. Here is what some editors keep adding to the article.

The film has been criticized extensively for not discussing the drawbacks of universal health care in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba, thus presenting a one-sided argument. [65][66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77][78]

Now, are these both adequately sourced or what? Turtlescrubber 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats nice... but does the first have anything to do with the film? WookMuff 02:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. Is the headline, "Here is a little exercise in proper sourcing" not explicit enough? I am not trying to add this to the article or anything. Turtlescrubber 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Another problematic edit

The following edit is also contentious. [79] This film is not a work of fiction. Shouldn't we allow editors more time to whittle down and/or improve the section before wielding an axe? smb 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I would call that borderline vandalism because of the misleading edit summary and the large amount of blanked text. I am going to do a blanket revert. Sorry, everyone else. Turtlescrubber 02:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fiction vs. Fact Status

It has been suggested that this article actually deals with a work of fiction and not a truth-telling documentary. This may be true, but since the film was released as a documentary, it should certainly be treated as one. If there are factual errors in the film, then let them be discussed in the article. The film should not be labeled as a work of fiction, since it was clearly not intended to be one. Even if deliberate misrepresentation of facts did occur, it should be discussed within an article on a documentary. --Bearnmyrthre 03:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, the purpose of the film was to make money for "you know who".71.197.106.123 04:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)