Talk:Sicko/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

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.

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

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

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)

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:[1]

"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.'"[2]

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.[1]

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. [3]

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."[4]

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."[1]

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."[5]

  • 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."[1]
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. [6]

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)

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)

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.[7] 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,[8] although he singled out Moore and a second anonymous benefactor for praise in an earlier entry in which he appealed for a miracle.[9]

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.