Talk:Sicko

Does a blogsite deserve such prominence?

The article's subsection moorewatch has more than a paragraph of counterclaims and accusations, some details of which aren't really even about the film. A brief mention in the film might be enough to warrant one or two lines of response, but not this much. As discussed before in archive1 blogs aren't reliable sources, per WP:RS. Also discussed in another archive: how moorewatch encouraged its readers to get involved with this article. PrBeacon (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Banned in Cuba?

According to The Guardian (based on Wikileaks info), the film was banned in Cuba:[1]

“ Cuba banned Michael Moore's 2007 documentary, Sicko, because it painted such a "mythically" favourable picture of Cuba's healthcare system that the authorities feared it could lead to a "popular backlash", according to US diplomats in Havana. ”

Kelly ^hi! 03:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it wasn't banned in Cuba[2]. It was aired on national television. But, there are multiple false news stories, so we have to present this in a careful balanced manner, and have to avoid any single source. --Rob (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Moore has addressed the issue ---> here.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminiscent of Fahrenheit 9/11 eliciting pro Bush responses from Iranian moviegoers. The source had sufficient motive not to tell the truth. Wikispan (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So, now, what's always seemed obvious, has been confirmed by The Gaurdian. Obvously the film was shown throughout Cuba, and the reference is in there now. --Rob (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a non-issue, unencyclopedic, and trivial. It shouldn't even be in the article. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain your opinion. An official diplomatic cable of the US seems more important than much of the comments about the film. --Rob (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the importance. Someone said something about the film not being shown in Cuba which later turned out to be false. Why is this in the article? Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just somebody saying the film wasn't shown. It's somebody in the US government saying the film was banned because the "regime knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash". That's a pretty serious criticism and claim. It's certainly more notable than most of the other critiques of the film, that we do include. The film deals mainly with the US, and also with Cuba. So, the official reactions from those governments seems important. If anything, we should show more about the American, Cuban, and maybe other countries, official reactions/responses to the film. --Rob (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The claim is neither serious nor important. It adds nothing to the article except a link to WikiLeaks. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The highest ranking official from the US official in Cuba, is a notable person. His serious comments on Cuba, relative to a film comparing the US and Cuba, are notable. The fact they're noted in a notable publications makes them notable. I think if you compare the importance of this, relative to other comments/reactions to the film, it ranks pretty high. --Rob (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Importance in terms of this article, not the person. It's not important unless we are very briefly noting the release history, in which case a simple sentence noting the release is sufficient, in the release section. That's it. And it is not important to mention any official in this regard, or even mention or link to WikiLeaks. All that matters in this context is the release history, nothing else. And for the record, I see you've been involved in editing articles related to WikiLeaks. For people who don't know, there are a group of editors going from article to article, adding mention of WikiLeaks cables as if they demand encyclopedic attention. And, this obviously, does not. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yah, it's a big conspiracy, which you exposed! In the case of this article, my first edit was to actually to remove it, since the sources were initially unclear. In the one other article with a wikileak connection, I made a clarification (to avoid a BLP violation). I have not added a mention of Wikileaks to any article which had not previously had one (though I have reverted a removal). So, please don't lie and attack me. Try to stick to the topic. If all that was going on was the film was released, than I wouldn't write one sentence, we could just list where it was (or wasn't released). This is actually a notable incident, that does not normally happen to films. It's actually much more important, than things like what a couple think tanks think. If there's been any notable responses by officials from other countries mentioned in the film, we should also be mentioning those. --Rob (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication that anything about this so-called "incident" is notable at all. For our purposes, the only thing important here, is fleshing out the release section. There are a number of editors going from article to article, adding information about WikiLeaks as if it were important, and this seems to be the case here. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Pew Poll

The inclusion of the lack of personal freedom reported in [the survey http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brlatinamericara/300.php?nid=&id=&pnt=300&lb=brla] used to support Moore's citation of Cuban's support in their healthcare service should stay in. It isn't so much an attack on Moore's views on Cuba or his support for the Cuban healthcare system as it is a balanced presentation of findings from the survey (I'd also add that the personal freedom issue is the main focus of the article judging from the title).Sleetman (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

One-man rule is not the issue. Housing is not the issue. Transportation is not the issue. The Gallup poll covers all of these things, but Michael Moore does not. The only section relevant to Sicko―and the single result that Moore adduced to support his film―is the conclusion of the survey in relation to health care. Sicko does not advance the view that Fidel Castro is a swell guy and that Cuban's are happy with every other aspect of their daily lives. Wikispan (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, aside from using a source whose main findings were about the lack of personal freedom in Cuba...that's an acontextual understanding of why he's talking about healthcare. If he's talking about how healthcare in Cuba commands such a great level of support among the Cuban people, it obviously begs the question of what point he's trying to prove. Fortunately, as Moore answers, it goes much more than proving the alleged superiority of Cuba's healthcare system over the US's, but into broader issues such as life expectancy and infant mortality rate (http://sickothemovie.com/checkup/) which are indexes for a nation's quality of life. So in essence what Moore is implying is that Cuba's quality of life is higher than that of the US's...which is fine. But of course they aren't the only indexes for measuring quality of life as the personal freedom topic in the survey that moore quotes shows. Sleetman (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think Moore is implying that, in fact that sounds like Original Research unless you can link a valid source claiming that Moore implies that. What Moore is saying is that in Cuba the health service is free and works better for citizens. If we were to extrapolate something from that, I’d actually say that Moore is implying that in a country where the quality of life is LOWER than in the US the health service is better. But of course that would be Original Research too, so I think that leaving that survey out is the only sensible solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.67.138.7 (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Did they sail?

Not that is too relevant, but the article reads "appear to sail from Miami to Cuba"; as I recall, they were motor boats, not sail boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.193.14 (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

healthcare

I live in New Zealand and we have a pime minister John Key elected for his second term (three years again)He is National and made his money as a foreing exchange dealer in a Newyork. On his agenda here is to privatise healthcare and to sell of publick assets. Tonight for the the first time I saw your doco "Sicko". New Zealand has a similar model to the UK Canada France etc and it works well, as in the countries mentioned above.I don't want our healthcare system privatised because the moneymen in the middle creame it. For instance, a freind of mine visited his son in the US (he had travel insurance ) he developed ependonituos there and had to have to have it removed, the bill was $140,000 . If that would have happend here, nothing $. I have been following the healthcare debate in the US and my personal opinion is, Your litigation is the cause of extravegant costs in healthcare, and it seems to be seeping into our country as well because the Lawyers create all these grey areas that they can argue about for years (read $thousands }They saying here is "if it happens in America it will be here soon" Regards Knut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.253.235 (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

México, The Ángel of Independence.

Walt!!!! The Ángel of Independence on Reforma street, México city, is showbiz in the film, when they are talking about France!!!! Big mistare.