Talk:Sicko/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Sicko. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 3 Created

Not sure where this was supposed to go:

Well, this article is about the film, not the debate over universal health care. For a general overview of the topic, look at Universal health care. Cheers, ⟳ausa کui ^× 01:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise all prior text preserved. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Utopia strawman

"Some Canadian journalists attending the premiere were less complimentary, objecting to the utopian depiction of the Canadian health care system..." Since Michael Moore never depicted the Canadian health care system as "utopia", nor anything closely resembling it, how might we reword this sentence to improve the section? — eon, 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether Moore depicted the Canadian system as an "utopia" is a matter of personal opinion, and not fact. The best way to avoid editor POV influencing the wording of a given passage is to emphasize the attributive nature of the information presented. In other words, make it clear that the opinion in question is that of the person named in the cited source. I did that by naming the journalist in question, Peter Howell, and by directly quoting the words that appear in his piece, "praised" (which appears three times in his article) and "flawless". What do you think? Nightscream (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That is fair. — eon, 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sicko/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this because I'm not sure about the writing style of the Synopsis and, more importantly, the NPOVness of the article. I think I might be projecting my political views on my review (oops! ;) Check your first picture, it needs author info. Also, ref # 34 needs help. It's a pretty good article though, I just want to make sure everything's fine. I'll try and be of more help sometime when I'm not so tired! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph linked to ref 34 as it appeared to be an sneaky ad for another film, and no source was provided for the interview. The entire section reads like a data dump, with partisans simply unloading whatever they could find. Unless there is some reason why Hannity's interview is notable here, and unless an actual source can be provided, it should remain deleted. Viriditas (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I made some changes to the synopsis to improve readability. Viriditas (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The material in question was not an ad, "sneaky" or otherwise, nor a "data dump", nor am I a "partisan", as I've never seen Browning's film, and do not have a personal opinion on it. "Sneaky" implies that it was somehow inserted with the intent of escaping notice. How can it be thus if it's placed in the article for everyone to read? It was an interview by Hannity of Stuart Browning, whose film disputes Moore's picture of Canadian health care, which makes it relevant to criticism of Sicko. A link to a video of the interview was indeed provided, but because that video was at some point removed from that YouTube user's page, someone removed the link without replacing it with either another version of the video or a citation tag. Please do not make such accusations toward other users unless you can show not only that the material has the sole effect of advertisement, but that you can illustrate this intent to the exclusion of other, less nefarious intents. Failing to do this could be construed as a violation of WP:Civility, WP:No Personal Attacks and WP:Assume Good Faith. Your other edits, however, were well-made, IMO. Kudos. Nightscream (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My comments addressed content, not a particular editor. This content is blatant coatracking, and the Response#Media section is out of proportion to content about the film. There is very little rhyme or reason to the Response#Media section, and it reads like an unbalanced trivia section. Except for the synopsis and the deleted scenes section there is almost nothing but POV coatracking. Furthermore, Roger Ebert is supposed to appear in the critical reaction section, not the Response#Media. The WBAI Radio reference should appear in a separate "activism" or "campaign" section, which is what it is describing. So, when you remove those two sources and place them in the correct context, you are left with seven paragraphs, all cherry picked for their negative portrayal of the film and tangential explorations into issues that have nothing to do with the film. This is a breach of NPOV and the best example of coatracking I have ever seen. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When you accuse material of being placed in the article by "partisans" with the intent of "sneaking an ad" into it, you are indeed commenting on editors, regardless of whether you name names. Are you saying that you can violate Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks as long as you do not name names? The fact is, you talked about intent, without providing evidence that either excluded other possible intents, or showed how intent was even relevant, when Wikipedia policy prescribes that we not do so. So your statement that you addressed only content is false. As for your coatracking observation, I personally don't see why "Critical reaction" and "Response" are presented as separate sections, so I removed them. That said, the material does seem to be a bit too much, and could be summarized. The Expelled article has the same problem. Nightscream (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Intothewoods29 expressed concern with reference 34. I responded here. I said that the material appeared to be a sneaky ad for another film and no source was provided for the interview. Both of my statements are valid, as the source cited does not support the statement it is allegedly referencing. When one follows the citation, the following appears: "FreeMarketCure.com, the official site of the film Uninsured in America". So this is a note, not a reference. In short, this is a surreptitious advertisement for Stuart Browning's film. The source offered does not support the statement (Hannity interviewed Stuart Browning) and Browning and his film are virtually unknown. Furthermore, there is not a single reliable source that documents the Hannity/Browning interview as a notable event. It is extremely poor form to cite and interpret primary sources such as a YouTube video of a non-neutral talk show television program. All sources must be evaluated for authority, accuracy, and currency; Hannity and Browning fail the first two and do not meet the most basic criteria for inclusion. As for the overwhelming evidence for partisan conflict on this page, I suggest you read through the talk archives, the five RfC's, the COI noticeboard discussion, and the proposed arbcom case. I also note that instead of fixing the problem, you spent your time edit warring with another editor. I stand by my original comments. See also: WP:DUCK. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment: The "Critical reaction" section is rather long — perhaps it should be broken up into sub-sections? Parts of it are also very choppy, with one- and two-sentence paragraphs; prose like that is not GA-quality, IMHO. Also, I haven't seen Sicko, but according to Template:Infobox Film, the language parameter should include multiple languages "only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films". I don't think this film is, so I've changed it accordingly. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. It was broken up into the appropriate sub-sections just last week, but Nightscream removed them for some reason. The prose is certainly atrocious, and much of it is coatracked, non-notable interpretations of primary sources and should be deleted. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Madman (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to take over the GAN review of this article, feel free to do so. Just be sure to add your name under the entry on WP:GAN and remove mine. Sorry, but I have a lot coming up, and I won't be able to devote enough time to this nom. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll help out here. I made a couple of edits that I hope reduce the POV. I also believe that the "Critical reaction" section should be broken down. More to come. Madman (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A new read-thru

I did a complete read-thru of the article and my biggest concern is that the article has the feel of many editors adding many bits of information. This is certainly understandable, given the high visibility of the subject matter, but the article would benefit from someone smoothing out the prose and structure.

My second biggest concern is that the article could be trimmer -- it's a bit flabby right now. For example, it's mentioned twice that the film received a standing ovation at Cannes. For example, is it important to say that the Austin Chronicle puts this film at 8th best for the year??

More later, Madman (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Super. Thanks. Could you please take over the review at WP:GAN? I'm incredibly busy at the moment. My apologies to those who have had to wait so long for this to pass. <:) Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note the 6th paragraph in the "Deleted scenes" heading. The last part of the sentence states: ..."that the film has been documenting in other nations within the USA." This needs clarification, as it implies there are other nations within the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.210.37 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Failed

I have not had any response in the past 10 days to this posting, so I'm failing this GA nomination. Thanks, Madman (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Medved

Why did you undo my inclusion of a review by Michael Medved.

Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.10.143 (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Cost of pharmacy goods in UK

I've just watched the film and it's not £7.10 at all, it's £6.65. Can somebody just back me up on whether that's right or not? - 92.21.151.27 (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's £6.65, repeated several times during that interview. Changed accordingly. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is my maths wrong here, the article reads

"only a fixed amount of £6.65 per item on a prescription is charged (e.g 5 items on a single perscription would cost £35.50), irrespective of cost to the NHS."

Other than the spelling mistake, which I'm about to correct, 5 * £6.65 is £33.25 not £35.50 as stated. KlickingKarl (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the above comments, it is worth pointing out that if you need to purchase a number of prescriptions you would probably buy a prepayment card which currently costs £28.25 for 3 months or £104 for a year. This fixed cost covers any amount of prescriptions in that time (eg. you could get 100 items in 3 months and would still only pay £28.25). Also, the current single item cost is now £7.20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.184.82 (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Government-sponsored vs Free

In an attempt to reduce some of the POV, I changed many instances of "free healthcare [etc]" to "government-sponsored healthcare [etc]". This was reverted. I will now change it to "publicly-funded health care", which is the wikipedia article which explains this sort of system. Thanks, Madman (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section (formerly called the News media section): Enormous

What do you think? It almost dwarfs all other content where it doesn't equal it. Make a seperate page; it's sprawling and barely understandable the way it looks now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.127.49 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of the examples in the News media section are critical of the film. It is also one of the largest sections in the article. The section is a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:Undue weight. If it is not trimmed, with pro Sicko media accounts added, it should be deleted. --Prowler08 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I made exactly the same point months ago. Dynablaster (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I trimmed and summarized the details in that section. Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, right after making the above post, I notice that the section right above the one that these posts were originally in was essentially about the same concern. Whereas Prowler and Dynablaster were concerned about the News Media section, User81.154... pointed out that the entire Criticism section was too big. So I merged these two Talk Page sections. As for the article, I did a word count, and was surprised that the first portion of the Reviews and Reaction section, which is mostly positive, was about 550 words, whereas the Criticism section, which was mostly negative, was about 250 words more than that. I condensed the entire Criticism section by summarizing all the salient critics, the details of their points of criticism, and the rebuttals by those who disagreed with them, getting rid of all those subsections in the process, but keeping every single citation. That section is now about 616 words, which is only about 51 words longer than the positive Reviews/Reaction section. Keep in mind also that the initial portion of Reviews and Reaction, while mostly positive, contains two negative reviews, and that conversely, the Criticism section, which is mostly negative, contains a couple of rebuttals and positive statements about the film. So I think it's mostly balanced now. This is the entire Diff between the way the article was before, before I addressed Prowler and Dynablaster's concerns, and now, after having addressed User81.154...'s. Let me know what you guys think. Nightscream (talk)

The Criticism section is still disproportionate to other sections, and the Reviews and reaction section deals more with the artistic value of the film than the issues raised. Although I appreciate your work, my objection still stands. --Prowler08 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please do not accuse anyone of making "false claims", as you did here. I made no false claim, I merely observed that no one seemed to object, as I had left messages on Talk Pages of the three people who commented here: You, Dynablaster, and 81.154.127.49. After two days, the only one to respond was Dynablaster, who told me on my Talk Page that the only problem he had with it was that it still mentioned Sean Hannity, though he declined to go into detail as to why he objected to this, and said he wasn't interested in contesting it further. He made no mention that anything was wrong with the section's proportion. You and 81.154.127.49 didn't respond after two days, and since your continuing edits of the article seemed to indicate that you were active, and had therefore received my message, the conclusion that I was forced to come to was that it seemed that no one had any objections. That this observation on my part was incorrect, and that maybe I should've waited a bit longer, is duly noted, but that does not make it a "false claim", which sounds like an accusation of lying, and would be a violation of WP:AGF, WP:Attack, WP:Civility, etc.

As to the section, how big do you think it should be? It's the same size as the previous section, which seems reasonable, and nowhere near the size that it was before. As for its content, I see no evidence that the Reviews section necessarily focuses on artistic merit rather than the issues, or that even the reviewers make such a distinction. Indeed, is it possible to separate the two for an issue-centered documentary like this? The specific comments quoted by Stephen Schaefer, Michael Medved, Variety, Canadian critics at Cannes, Roger Friedman and Roger Ebert all emphasize the issue, and not things like camera work, dialogue or editing. And again, since the Reviews section contains some negative comments, and the Criticism section contains a number of positive comments and rebuttals to the criticism, how is it disproportionate or non-neutral? Since Moore's films tend to be controversial, how should the article treat criticism? What would you recommend to fix it? Nightscream 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight. Your assertion about a late or lack of a response on my part is entirely incorrect. I responded here on the same day you first left a message on my talk page. Your message was left on my talk page at 07:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC) and my response here was at 16:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC). Please check the time/date stamp above. I also posted on the Sicko talk page my response before I made the edit to the article that you referenced. As to my "false claim" statement, I don't know how else to characterize it. It was, after all, a false claim. It does not necessarily attack your motives. I thought that my statements above made clear what I feel is right, but I will attempt to state them with more clarity. A simple and fair section would be one that is entitled something like "Reactions" and include balanced, substantive responses, both pro and con, from legitimate members of the media (Sean Hannity doesn't qualify), and think tanks. And just to put a sharper point on this, film reviews are not substantive reactions. It's responses to the issues raised that are important. I am busy in the real world so I really don't have time to debate this matter further. If you create a balanced section, as I have suggested, I will no longer have objections. --Prowler08 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's everyone stay cool

I think we all could use a time out here, as things are obviously getting heated up. You both obviously want the article to be improved, but it remains to be determined how that is going to be achieved. One way it is not going to be achieved is through edit-warring or through making radical changes to the articles. We need to talk this out, because a consensus version is somewhere in what we already have. If you guys will come to the table over this and not make it personal, then I think we can make good progress here. ⟳ausa کui ^× 00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, I have no problem with the notion that my prior understanding was incorrect, or having it pointed out to me that I somehow missed your first response here. I only object to the connotations carried with the phrase "false claim". A more neutral way to characterize it could be "Bolded to emphasize/clarify mistake by Nightscream." But I'll move on from that point if you will. :-)

I do not see an objective measurement by which one can judge news media and think tanks to be "substantive", and film reviews not. Nor can I see any reason beyond a personal dislike of Hannity (one which I share, mind you) to declare him a non-legitimate member of that media, any more than Kurt Loder, which someone also tried to argue some time ago. The article should include the most prominent reactions from prominent commentators and organizations. Since Hannity is a media hosts from FOX News, had criticism toward the film, and mentioned the work of Canadian filmmakers Browning and Greenberg, omitting this would be unjustifiable. But if you can provide objective criteria by which sources can be considered legitimate and substantive or not, or perhaps show us your hypothetical version of the section in the Sandbox, then please do so. If you can't, then I see no basis to maintain a dispute tag in the article, since such tags are predicated on discussion of the dispute.

Ryan, no one is edit warring or making "radical" changes. The changes I did make, I made at the behest of Prowler and the others here. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with Sean Hannity is that he is interviewing two people whose own films, Uninsured in America and Dead Meat, were released before Sicko, and so their criticism is not a direct response to the film. Michael Moore acknowledges the 'waiting time(s)' in the Canadian health care system, but argues that many Americans have an exaggerated perception of the issue. Hannity doesn't address that point at all. It just seems a low quality criticism. Dynablaster (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that no one is edit warring or making radical changes. I certainly didn't intend to accuse anyone of doing either, and I apologise if that's how I came across; but from past experience with this kind of thing, that's usually where it quickly degenerates. I'm glad to hear that we're all committed to dispute resolution. With that, on to the issues. ⟳ausa کui ^× 02:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Nightscream has been edit warring over various issues in this article for some time and appears to be POV pushing as well. I previously discussed this problem with his edits here. I support this use of the POV tag for this and other reasons. Much of the "legitimate" criticism appears in the further reading section, and has not been added to the article. However, because of POV pushers and edit warriors like Nightscream, I no longer participate in the films project, so I will not be participating in any further improvements. I just wanted to set the record straight on Nightscreams edits in case he decides to continue distorting his record on this topic. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not productive to make ad hominems like this. Disputes are resolved on merit through discussion that results in reasonable consensus, not character assassination. ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no ad hominem, but a clear recall of a past discussion that was not resolved, and found Nightscream ignoring the concerns raised then, and edit warring just as he is doing now. I'm sorry if the facts are upsetting, but there it is. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The first issue to deal with here is whether an NPOV tag should remain on the article. Now, the templates are to alert readers to a dispute that is ongoing on the talk pages. If the presence of a tag is disputed, then it's safe to say that a dispute is occurring. Only in cases where editors are blocked or banned from editing particular articles for otherwise disruptive behavior do we have precedent to remove these tags. You're right that users should not be allowed to put up tags and then refuse to discuss their viewpoints, but I don't see that occurring here. If leaving the tag up keeps him happy while we iron this out on the talk page, can you accept having it in the article in that interim period? ⟳ausa کui ^× 02:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make an ever so brief reply. As to the brouhaha over the following edit summary of mine, which was "Bolded since Nightscream falsely claims there are no objections," I truly don't see that as inappropriate. I only stated it since I had responded here on the same day that Nightscream posted on my talk page. As indicated above, I stated that I still had objections to the section. In light of my response, I felt that the removal of the tag was not being done in good faith. As to Sean Hannity, whether he is included or not is not overly important to me, but there is no doubt that he would never be considered an objective journalist. I just want to see a balanced article. I don't have the time to change it, but I feel that some editor should. --Prowler08 (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

We understand your concerns. It's disappointing that you don't have time to work on it, but you would have to participate in the editing process if you want to see content disputes resolved. It is not acceptable to place a dispute template on a section and then decline to work on the talk page to resolve the dispute. We'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this here, but if you want Hannity removed, you're going to have to provide a rationale for why that wins consensus from the other editors here. ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Prowler is 100% correct. Hannity does not meet the criteria for RS. It's pretty simple. I covered this in August (here) when Nighscream was edit warring previously. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, here are three points: I did not see the requirement on the NPOV page that I participate in editing the article as to whether or not a POV tag should be placed there. I don't mean that in a rude way but an article either violates NPOV or doesn't. If that is the rule, then so be it. I have participated in the discussion and replied promptly, as is shown above. As to my point about film reviews, most of the ones included here don't really substantively deal with the issues raised in the film. They appear to speak in generalities and address more of the artistic aspect of the film. Also, film reviewers are not really a qualified source when it comes to healthcare issues. And once again, the Hannity issue is not overly important to me, but as Viriditas states, he is not a reliable source. --Prowler08 (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is no rule that "requires" that you participate in talk page discussion. Wikipedia does not have firm rules in that sense. What I would say is that it is expected that you participate in resolving disputes that you are raising. I'm glad that you are here, now, to discuss this. You object to the criticism section on the ground that the criticisms do not deal with substantive issues in the film and that documentary film makers and film critics are unqualified to issue opinions on public health policy. Is that right? ⟳ausa کui ^× 04:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to run, a family member is in the hospital and an issue has arisen. There is some confusion because Nightscream deleted the previous title of my post here and then changed the section name on the article. The previous post referenced a section he later renamed. The post was titled "News media section violates WP:Undue weight and WP:NPOV." My problem is with the size of the criticism section and that legitimate and qualified media and think tanks are generally not included in the article in a way supporting Mooore's contentions. This makes the article one-sided. I must go now. --Prowler08 (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not been edit warring or POV pushing, and I refuted Viriditas' accusation to that effect, as well as the specious accusation that I was attempting to "sneak" an adverstisement for a film I had not seen and had no opinion on, right after Viriditas made it, a refutation that Viriditas was not able to rebut or invalidate. The fact is, Viriditas, that you do not know me, or any intent on my part, and unless you can establish the intent you assert to the exclusion of all other, less nefarious intents (like a sincere difference of opinion), then do so. If not, then you are indeed engaging in an ad hominem attack, which violates WP:Civility/WP:AGF. Whether you arbitrarily relabel this behavior "a clear recall" or "facts" does nothing to change this, as accusations fueled by paranoid antagonism towards anyone who disagrees with you does not constitute a "fact", any more than disagreement constitutes "edit warring". Similarly rhetorical is your assertion that I "ignored others' concerns", as I participated in the discussion here, and the discussion in question didn't last past August 23 anyway. Your accusation now that I am now edit warring is just as bizarre, since I made edits to the article to address the precise concerns that Dynablaster, Prowler and the anonIP raised right here, I acknowledged my error regarding the lack of responses prior to removing the dispute tag, and I have not contested its restoration for that very reason. If you can explain how this is "edit warring" or "POV pushing", then do so. Otherwise, stop violating WP policy with personal attacks that do nothing to improve the article or contribute to the discussion.

Prowler, I'm sorry to hear about your family member. I hope everything works out for him/her and your family. Let me see if I can respond the concerns you and Viriditas raised, even if you may not have the time to respond quickly. You state that the films by Browning and Greenberg's films were released before Sicko, and are not direct responses to the film. Who says they have to be? They are responses to the general issue of the Canadian hc system, and Americans' perception thereof, which is why Loder and Hannity brought up these films, and interviewed them. That they did this in response to Sicko is all that is needed to make them relevant to an article on that film. They do not need to be made in direct response to Sicko in order for pundits or columnists to cite them as dealing with the issues raised in Sicko.

Prowler stated that Hannity does not address a certain point that he would've liked him to. But this is not required for inclusion in a WP article. Rather, this is Prowler's personal criticism of Hannity. We do not adjudicate matters of inclusion based on personal viewpoints. We only do so based on objectively measurable issues of noteworthiness or relevance. Hannity is the #2 radio host in the country, and the host of a prominent interview show on FOX News. He is not a "journalist" at all, so whether he is an objective one is irrelevant. If he comments on something like this, and interviews other dissenters on the issue, then it would be unjustifiable not to mention it. Whether Browning is interviewed by him or Walter Cronkite is irrelevant, since the passage does not mention any original reporting by Hannity. If it did, then issues of journalism and reliability would arguably come into play. If you eliminate mention of anyone who's "not objective", you'd have to include Michael Moore himself in that regard, and anyone who had an opinion on controversial issues like this.

Prowler says that the reviews "speak in generalities and address more of the artistic aspect of the film." As I pointed out in my Dec 13 post, the comments by Stephen Schaefer, Michael Medved, Variety, Canadian critics at Cannes, Roger Friedman and Roger Ebert all emphasize the issue and not artistic aspects. Prowler also says that film reviewers are not really a qualified source when it comes to healthcare issues. True, but the article isn't about health care issues. It's about a film. Because the film is about that issue means it's going to include info from both film experts and journalists/columnists/pundits. The film is about health care, but that does not mean an article on the film is. It can only include material to the extent that it bears upon this particular film.

Prowler says media and think tanks are not included in in a way supporting Mooore's contentions. It is not the role of Wikipedia articles to support anyone's contentions, any more than it is to refute them. An article's only role is to present relevant information on its topic, and not to judge which side is "right". As long as such info is summarized in the article, the reader can form their own opinions, and the article indeed summarizes think tanks that are both pro and anti-Sicko. Viriditas mentioned that sources in the further reading section could be added to this summary. Sounds good to me. I'll try to add some of it when I get a chance. Nightscream (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, you have not been working collaboratively on this article with other editors. Since you began editing here, your edits have been repeatedly described as POV pushing, and fail to adhere to NPOV and use RS. You prefer to force your edits into this article against the wishes of other editors. This has been going on for a long time. You've been edit warring over the Hannity material since August, when you reverted me and User:E0N here:[1][2]. You also reverted multiple attempts to make the article neutral, demonstrating a misunderstanding of both RS and NPOV, and any attempts to neutralize this article have been reverted by you by with your continual addition of "criticism" sections against best editing practices, in place of directly attributing sources by type: [3] The film received a 93% approval rating from film critics, and only contains negative film reviews in proportion to its critical reception. This is also why the film criticism section is separate from the industry and pudit news response, a separation you continue to try to blur by renaming the non-film criticism section "crticism". This is the kind of POV pushing I'm talking about. Willful, deliberate, purposefull, knowing, and deceitful. Your comments above demonstrate ignorance of RS and NPOV, and they have been addressed in past threads above this one, so I will not repeat myself again. Your argument does not even address the problems with RS or NPOV; instead you claim that because "Hannity is the #2 radio host in the country and the host of a prominent interview show on FOX News" that qualifies him as a RS. Nothing could be farther from the truth. First of all, as it has been pointed out to you repeatedly, Hannity's interview is not notable, and has nothing to do with this article. Hannity's interview is a surreptitious advertisement for Stuart Browning's film, "Uninsured in America", hosted by FreeMarketCure.com. Both Browning and his film are virtually unknown. You do make the claim that "Browning criticized Moore for showing Canadians who did not experience long waits for care, to the exclusion of those who did, asserting that the nature of Canada's system is widely known, though not in the U.S." Why is this criticism notable when it already appears in the article four times, under Stossel, Loder, Fraser Institute, and the National Center for Policy Analysis respectively? Is there a significant reason you need to repeat the same claim in five separate instances? No, of course not, and this kind of nonsense would not be permitted in any other article. You are engaging in coatracking, and all but admit to it above. I would expect an administrator like yourself to be familiar with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but perhaps I expect too much. Your edits are not supported in any way and you need to stop POV pushing against the consensus on this talk page. I've restored the last good version since your latest round of POV pushing. You are welcome to discuss your proposed edits here, first. Please do not restore the Hannity material unless you can argue that it is 1) supported by reliable sources; 2) directly refers to this film 3) is a notable aspect of debate highlighted by other RS, in other words is unique and not repeated by other sources already in the aritcle; and 4) prove notability of Browning and his film. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As you two have explained it here, Nightscream's interpretation of the neutrality policy is much closer to the consensus interpretation than yours. Your (or my) opinions about whether Hannity's editorial remarks about this film are legitimate are not relevant. I think you won't find (m)any Hannity fans editing this article, but this is something that is firmly established: we do not make judgements of this kind when selecting sources. It does not matter one whit whether any of us is personally interested in Sean Hannity's opinions and that is absolutely non-negotiable. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that has a more binding, long-lasting, and firm community-wide consensus than that. With that in mind I would strongly urge you to consider that maybe Nightscream isn't as evil as you make him out to be and that maybe you should take a step back and consider negotiating more politely. ⟳ausa کui ^× 14:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to say it for the umpteenth time, Hannity is not the issue. This focus on Hannity is ridiculous and is a straw man argument. His inclusion is not important one way or the other. The main problem is the lack of a pro and con balance in the News media section. But since there seems to be an obsession with Hannity, here is a quote from WP:Rs: "Generally speaking, a board editorial from a major newspaper such as The Times of India or The New York Times would be a more useful source than, for example, a three-minute segment on a television pundit's daily program." --Prowler08 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that Ryan deleted the quote I cited. --Prowler08 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hannity is a respected source firstly. The tag should go. It's not being defended honestly, it's just gaming the system.JJJ999 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Producer

Somebody changed this edit I made when I added Meegan O'Hara as a producer. I have two sources (so far) that state Meegan O'Hara is producer, here and here the second one is a little blurry. The picture is an absolute reliable source a because it is official.--intraining ^{Jack In} 04:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And finally to seal my argument this is the credits of the film from the offical website.--intraining ^{Jack In} 04:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

trimmed response section

The response section was very long, dull and clumsy. I cut out unnecessary detail, while trying to preserve the main points of the arguments. I tried to be balanced in cutting from supporters and opponents. All sources but one are retained, but the section should read much easier now, and give a better and quicker overview over the responses. Cheers Jasy jatere (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Stossel on abortion in Cuba

I've restored the following passage:

Stossel also presented testimonials that lower Cuban infant mortality rates are due to pregnant women receiving abortions if the fetus shows any sign of problems, and that infants who die hours after birth are not recorded in mortality rates. When Moore claimed the C.I.A. corroborated his assertions, Stossel responded that the C.I.A. denied this, and that their data contradict Moore's assertion.

On the whole, I think these cuts are good for the article and remove some of the point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint nonsense. This passage, I think, needs to remain because it is a substantive criticism of the argument made in the film. It would be unfair to remove criticism of Moore's presentation of healthcare arguments in the film on the grounds that those arguments should go into healthcare related articles, because that would ban all criticism of the film except stylistic criticism.

Maybe there is some way to refactor this information so that it would disturb the flow of the article less, and I would be very happy to look into compromise revisions. ⟳ausa کui ^×

Bill Moyers Journal

This interview with Wendell Potter must be of interest. He describes the health insurance industry's plan to discredit Michael Moore and Sicko. [4] Dynablaster (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

News Media responses

Were there only negative responses in US-media on the film? Or why are there only bad critics mentioned in the article? -- Otto Normalverbraucher (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The film received plenty of praise from all quarters (even Fox News!). But it was directed by Michael Moore, so only negative commentary sticks like superglue. Dynablaster (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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:[5]

“

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[6]. 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sicko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sicko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080315093348/http://www.moorewatch.com:80/index.php/weblog/comments/mikeys_motive/ to http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/mikeys_motive/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Sicko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)