Talk:Sicko/Archive 2

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

Not A Documentary

Mental Healthcare?

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

I support Turtlescrubber's first proposal (and oppose the creation of a second page). Noroton proposed using Michael Moore's last two films as a template and twice suggested the creation of a single criticism page -- all of this before the film is released. Let me reiterate that I do not agree with such preconceptions. Sicko has been well received; reviews are overwhelmingly positive. The bar for criticism should reflect this, and therefore (momentarily) be set high. If serious issues begin to emerge then we can review and incorporate more detailed information. At this point I would also like to remind users of Sicko's basic underlying premise. It is neither a critique nor a defence of foreign establishments. Rather, it is a critique of the US health-care system. The director is cherry-picking the best working parts of outside systems in the hope of having them implemented back at home. So providing extensive room for critics to argue that Cuba's system is rundown, or that the British system has been underfunded and neglected for several years, almost completely misses the point. In order filter out low quality criticism, one first has to learn and understand what the film is (and isn't) about. smb 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikitruthiness (nice name, by the way; interesting, too), I expect to start a good article just about the controversy. That will allow for the criticism already on this page to be cut back, but see below: In my view it really doesn't need to be cut back.
smb, The "bar for criticism" is something that you constantly want to set very high, smb, based on your comments throughout this discussion page. It certainly appears that you really just can't stand the fact that this movie is getting a lot of criticism. So you set up artificial, rickety little barriers to the flow of information: (a) somehow "serious issues" did not yet "begin to emerge"; (b) "all of this before the film is released" (which is wrong, the film has been on the internet and is now in a number of theaters), so criticism can't really take place before a film is released, even if critics have seen it and political commentators have seen it and even though there are more than a dozen commentaries on it, not just from film critics but from respected magazines and journalists from respected magazines and newspapers (a short list, not including film reviews: The New Republic, National Review, USA Today, The American Prospect, The Nation, Reason magazine, The New York Post, The New York Times); (c) we need to "(momentarily) set high" the bar of criticism -- why, so that people who see the movie when it first becomes widely available won't have a Wikipedia article to look at if they're curious about the details of what Moore says and what the (many) critics have said about what Moore says? (d) Moore's movie doesn't really do what everybody in the media commenting on Moore's movie says it does ("It is neither a critique nor a defence of foreign establishments. Rather, it is a critique of the US health-care system."). Actually, those who are sympathetic and unsympathetic with Moore say he denigrates the American system (a critique), holds other systems up as either perfect or close to it (a defense) and does not present a detailed proposal for change, none of which makes his movie immune from criticism. Your idea that it should be protected from criticism is without justification in any Wikipedia policy, guideline, rule or tradition.
smb, if you want to responsibly comment on the criticism of the movie, do the research I've done by reading what's out there. I read each of these yesterday and I plan to incorporate all or nearly all of them in a new article, titled something like Controversy over Sicko. It won't be a POV fork because it won't be devoted just to criticism, but to all sides of the controversy over the movie.
Turtlescrubber, you use the word "random" twice, but there's nothing random about the sources used at all. The sources are journalists from prominent publications because Wikipedia prefers to use sources that can claim to have some responsibility. I deliberately avoided blogs or extremists. What would a "nonrandom" or "organized" group of critics look like? And what would be neutral for this article in your opinion? The criticism sections have both sympathizers and those unsympathetic to Moore, and his unsympathetic critics. And we include Moore's defense of various points when we find it. And we include an extensive "Synopsis" section describing Moore's movie (a section which tends to kind of, ah, support his controversial movie). Moore sets out to make a controversial movie. Sure enough, it generates controversy which is all over the media. Wikipedia is supposed to suppress that? There's supposed to be only a tiny section of the article devoted to the controversy because ... why? Because it just isn't important? Because we're making a mountain out of a ... mountain.
Open your eyes, guys:
That's funny, none of these are right-wing publications. And yet they all say that Moore is controversial, that he gets things wrong and that it's an important part of the movie that it's controversial and gets things wrong. I think every one of them also has things to say in Moore's defense, and several have good descriptions of parts of the movie that I intend to add to the synopsis section. Not because I agree or disagree with the movie, but because the movie is important enough for readers to know what the important points are: the important points that Moore makes, and the important points that his critics make, and the important points that his defenders make, and the important points that Moore makes in his own defense. Important points from all the relevant sides, guys. It's the Wikipedian thing to do. Tolerate it. Noroton 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Holy fuck. Could you please keep your responses to under 500 words. I don't feel like responding to a senior thesis. Turtlescrubber 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm, too bad. And read the articles I linked to, as well. The new article name is Controversies over the film Sicko. Noroton 20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Great job not looking for consensus before creating the page. Good teamwork skills there. Turtlescrubber 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia guideline, rule, policy or tradition about getting consensus to create a page. Wikipedia encourages creation of articles as long as they meet Wikipedia standards. Please review Wikipedia policies. If you find one regarding getting a consensus on whether or not to create a page, please tell me about it. Noroton 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The citations I use back up my position. It does not appear to me that there's any distortion in saying you want to protect the movie by minimizing the amount of criticism in Wikipedia as much as you can. That's been the constant theme of all of your comments. I, on the other hand, as my edits and the new article show, have presented both sides. Read what has been said about Moore from responsible publications on the Internet. Just go out and do your own research and read it. My edits and the new article reflect what they say. That you want something different from that is telling. Noroton 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I just read the first two links (Kevin Drum and NPR). They don't seem to include substantial discussion of the views in Sicko, but rather about Moore...in fact Kevin Drum wrote that post before seeing the movie. I think you're bluffing. HonoreDB 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Noroton wrote: It does not appear to me that there's any distortion in saying you want to protect the movie by minimizing the amount of criticism in Wikipedia as much as you can.
That is because you are not paying due care and attention. You accused me of not being able to "stand the the fact" that Sicko "is getting a lot of criticism". Then you alleged I wanted to protect Sicko from all criticism. That is a terrible distortion of my actual position.
That's been the constant theme of all of your comments.
Demonstrable false. I have stated my legitimate concern quite plainly, on several occasions. You continue to ignore my stated objection and instead continue to misrepresent me.
I, on the other hand, as my edits and the new article show, have presented both sides.
You have also created a controversy page when a controversy page is not needed. And your justification for the page is based upon circular arguments (see most recent example below).
That you want something different from that is telling.
I simply request that the criticism section be merged back into the main article, where it currently belongs. smb 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The subject of the article is controversial (by its nature and design: Moore courted controversy by going to Cuba and by supporting the piracy, but even if he didn't, it would still be controversial) and requires that the controversy be addressed.
And yet when Turtlescrubber duly moved the piracy section over to the Sicko controversies page, you dumped it back here, explaining in you edit summary: "not essentially controversies". [1] Please explain yourself. smb 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not there was piracy seems to me to be something more than just a controversy. As with the Treasury Department investigation, it involves events connected to the subject of the film that occurred independent of whether or not there was controversy around them. It just seems to me that it belongs in the main article. Do you disagree with that? I think my arguments stand up, even about Moore courting controversy, whether or not the piracy and treasury investigation are in the main article or the controversy article. Noroton 02:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Controversies over the film Sicko?

Survey

  • Merge with Controversies over the film Sicko.Not nesessarly to be definitive, but voting can tell what current consensus is. Rodrigue 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Mergeand delete non-controversy info. Turtlescrubber 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to the request to merge the "controversies" article into this one. It would create a bloated and unwieldy article. Croctotheface 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I copied and pasted this at the merger discussion at Talk:Controversies over the film Sicko. well, never mind that now, if the discussion is going to take place here.Noroton 23:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to merge, since I'm the one that started the other article. My reasons are below. Noroton 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposed - the "controversies" article is already larger than the (film) article. Merging would completely overshadow the main article. A simple link to the "controversies" article is perfectly appropriate. Also, my unsolicited opinion is that, while the (film) article is straight-forward and encyclopedic, the "controversies" article (partially by its nature) is much less encyclopedic and necessarily allows for more leeway concerning slanted information. Just my 2¢. --Evb-wiki 14:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The contraversies page is unnessesarly long, so merging and summarizing most of it would be fine. Rodrigue 17:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and trim. Failing that, the page should be deleted. It's awful. smb 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No merge. The content directly regarding the article (the film) and referenced discussion regarding the content are nicely separated. It will otherwise be too bloated and mixed to be contained in one article. +mwtoews 22:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, the Controversies is indeed bloated, so I've changed my vote to reduce and merge.+mwtoews 03:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If someone would take a chainsaw to the Controversies article, I might change my vote too. --Evb-wiki 04:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and summarize. The controversies page is bloated. Jd2718 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Reduce controversies page down to about 10% of its current length. Clearly there was a POV agenda in creating the controversies article. Its excessive exposure of criticism would never have withstood NPOV editing in the Sicko (film) article, so an unnecessary controversies article was created in an attempt to advance the agenda and circumvent other editors' disagreement. Ward3001 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. After due consideration, I have to agree that the controversies page has both POV and bloat issues. Merging a considerably trimmed down incarnation of it into the main article is the best option. - Cyrus XIII 16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. The fact that there is a lot of content at the article does not mean it should not be merged. The controversy article is far too long, it should be trimmed and merged here. Fahrenheit 9/11 resulted in a great deal of controversy, but so far that has not been the case with this film. It was a mistake to create the controversies article before the film was even released, as it was impossible at that point to gauge just how "controversial" the film would be.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge: While there is a substantial amount of content at Controversies over the film Sicko, it could be pared down and merged with Sicko. Furthermore, various sections of the controversies can be merged in with the main body of text at Sicko, and the entire subheading, "Controversies [...]" can possibly be removed with much work. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

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

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

Discussion

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

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

Simple criticisms from some sources is not a reason to have an article about the films contraversy.And even despite the so-called contraversy, the film recieved a 90% overall rating from rotten tomatoes [2], and that does not sound like a truly hated film.

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

I also object to the creation of Controversies over the film Sicko. User:Noroton has not convincingly demonstrated the need for a separate, long-winded controversy section at this time. On Talk:Sicko it was postulated that Michael Moore is a controversial figure (several press articles were produced to support this position). In return it was pointed out that Wikipedia already has a Michael Moore controversies page and that one cannot justify starting a Sicko controversy page on the basis that the filmmaker and his work is deemed controversial by nature. Here are just a few of the preconceptions and circular arguments articulated by Noroton before Sinko was even released:
  • The controversy sections of Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11 and Roger and Me take up substantial portions of those articles (roughly a quarter of each article), and properly so. There's no reason not to expect a large one here. (19:56, 21 June 2007)
  • [Several publications] all say that Moore is controversial, that he gets things wrong and that it's an important part of the movie that it's controversial and gets things wrong. (18:51, 24 June 2007)
  • We need to describe the controversy about what it says. That means that we need to describe the criticism of what it says. (23:20, 21 June 2007)
  • He has a reputation for getting facts wrong, you know (20:43, 23 June 2007)
  • Again, the controversy surrounding the movie is an important part of the subject of the article and it will inevitably take up a good part of the article.(19:35, 21 June 2007)
  • It isn't contestable that the film is controversial. A film that generates controversy means that the controversy needs to be mentioned in the article about the film. (23:20, 21 June 2007)
  • It is not debatable that the controversy surrounding the film is an essential feature of it. (23:20, 21 June 2007)
  • I'm going to rewrite the [controversy] section and put it back in so that this Wikipedia article about a Michael Moore movie is like every other Wikipedia article about Michael Moore movies. (03:47, 22 June 2007)
  • The subject of the article is controversial (by its nature and design: Moore courted controversy by going to Cuba and by supporting the piracy, but even if he didn't, it would still be controversial) and requires that the controversy be addressed. (19:35, 21 June 2007)
Note: Noroton cites Moore's support of Piracy as one justification for a lengthy controversy section, but when user:Turtlescrubber duly moved the piracy section over to the new Controversies over the film Sicko page, Noroton dumped it back on the main Sicko (film) page, explaining in his edit summary: "not essentially controversies". [3] He also excluded information pertaining to the Treasury Department probe. This strongly indicates that Noroton is not genuinely interested in informing people; but in creating a page stacked with critical quotations so that it can be adduced against Michael Moore in a wider ideological debate (hence him/her first naming this section: "Rebuttals to the film").
I am not against hearing counter arguments. Sicko should not be protected from criticism. My argument is that (1) Michael Moore is broadly despised across one side of the political spectrum and criticism will come whether it is warranted or not. (2) We should do away with preconceptions. (3) Because Sicko has met with overwhelming praise, we should take pause in order to help create a balanced page. To this end I suggested filtering out weak and low quality information. Noroton did not agree and rushed off to find, and create, a page full of lengthy quotes (including distortions). Arguably, this is one of Moore's least controversial films. His trip to Cuba is most noteworthy. But what else is controversial? His right to free speech? His mere opinion that US health care should be socialised? I support trimming the information on this page and merging what remains with the main Sicko (film) page. Please let us hear some other views on this matter. smb 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

That's nice. But it doesn't even begin to address any of the issues raised here or on the sicko talk page. smb 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think discussions should start off with personal criticism, even if we find ourselves falling into it later, and I'm not going to respond to User:smb's personal comments, other than to say that a review of this article and of my edits at Sicko (film) shows that I'm interested in presenting a fair account of what the film is about and what people say about the film. This article shows that there is a big controversy over the movie, that there is a lot to be said about the film's politics and methods, and that there's a lot to be said in support and in opposition to the film, and in every shade of opinion in between. It touches on an important political and social topic. It seems to me it's worth having some space. Having its own article is an appropriate way to provide that space. Noroton 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This very article is the subject of some dispute, so it's not a good idea to adduce it in support of your position -- especially since you crafted it. Earlier, on Sicko's talk page, I recognised the 'good work' you had done. (01:49, 23 June 2007) But that was before the insistence upon including fallacious, low quality material (a reference to New York Post film critic Kyle Smith and his total fabrication that Moore did not check the statements of the people featured in his film). I disagree that "there is a lot to be said about the film's politics and methods". Michael Moore's overt political bent, his approach to movie making, is adequately detailed on various other pages. No need to tread the same ground here, especially at length. There is some fresh controversy and unique criticism, though it is seriously debatable how much is reactionary and how much is considered. Film critics note that Sicko may be Moore's "least antagonistic and most restrained effort to date" (quoted, Pete Vonder). The total sum of your edits do not reflect this. The reverse is true. This page can be accurately described as bloated and unnecessary. Compare: An Inconvenient Truth. This page, in contrast, serves as a raised platform for people to attack Michael Moore, not to truly inform. smb 01:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would help if we identify the real points of controversy. In my view: (1) Moore's trip to Cuba. (2) The Treasury Department probe into his trip to Cuba. (3) Moore's relaxed attitude to Piracy. The first and second are in some way linked. The third is not new since Moore expressed much the same thoughts in 2004. [4] Unless we revert to supposing everything he says and does is controversial by nature because there is always going to be people opposed to his view of the world. smb 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus reached on page merge

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

Piracy
Visit to Cuba
Resulting investigation

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

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

USC Medical Issue

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

Cuba Boat Issue

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

PETA controversy

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

My opinion: no way. There's no real PETA controversy. That is, no more of a controversy than anything else in this world that involves eating meat, wearing animal skins, or pretty much any medical procedure. PETA is against all of that, and will have a press release about it all. That might be relevant for PETA's wiki entry, but not for every other entry. It's not like there's a section under the "insulin" or "diabetes" entry that gives the PETA view, that they're against much treatment for diabetics because animal products are used, or a PETA note for every person on Wiki who is not a vegetarian. To give the PETA view for anything that they express an opinion on is to express the view that PETA is so important that their view must be included in wiki--which violates NPOV, anyway.QuizzicalBee 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It would undoubtedly give undue weight to a publicity stunt. If anything, this could be put on the PETA page in some kind of fund raising or publicity section. Turtlescrubber 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious why every corporate victim of a PETA publicity stunt has PETA's criticism polluting their article (e.g., KFC), but not the articles about left-wing causes should exclude them. Either it belongs here, or it should be scrubbed from the other articles. THF 10:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Start scrubbing. Why is PETA even relevant anymore? Turtlescrubber 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Capitalization of film name

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

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

Neutrality dispute in "reception" section

"Sicko" has received criticism in the mainstream press [5] 67.78.145.235 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Release dates

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

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

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

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

NPOV tag / unbalanced tag

convenience break 1

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

I have read wp:lead and don't understand exactly what you are trying to say. Could you please be more specific or and maybe give an example of what you are looking for on the talk page. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The Great Global Warming Swindle is not relevant to this article, and what is done in that article does not set precedent here. Putting lots of criticism in the lead makes no sense since these articles are encyclopedic, not platforms for debate. (Incidentally, I think the lead to that article is excessive and I snipped it, although I expect to be reverted.) By the way, can you quote the part of WP:LEAD that says controversies must be mentioned in the lead? Maybe I'm blind but I can't find it. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
(And indeed, you were reverted in under 90 minutes.) THF 22:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. THF 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
And there's a systematic NPOV problem in Wikipedia where left-wing polemics are consistently treated differently than right-wing polemics. THF 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 2

Take it to Conservapedia. C.m.jones 18:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL please. Are you claiming that there isn't a difference? Compare this article, where criticism is absent, with that of any right-wing book or movie. Or are you implying the WP:NPOV does not require the inclusion of any conservative views? THF 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I assert that left-wing polemics, and left-wing criticisms of right-wing polemics, are generally more accurate, hence generally better represented in Wikipedia. Debate specific inclusions and omissions rather than complaining about an overall trend, unless you can prove that it's the editing, and not the facts, that are biased. HonoreDB 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Your assertion, even if it were true (and it's not), would be utterly irrelevant: the standard for Wikipedia is WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Those standards are not adhered to in this article. THF 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Adherence to Wikipedia standards often requires giving greater length to one view than to another. Wikipedia-wide trends toward giving more text to Moore's views than to his rebutters is not necessarily evidence of bias. Only specific biased editing decisions can be used as evidence of bias. HonoreDB 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The issue here is that the points of view in question are entirely omitted. This violates WP:NPOV. THF 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Are they being deleted, or have they just never been added?
They were put in a POV-fork and then systematically deleted. THF 07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 3

The NPOV tags were inappropriately removed. The article falsely implies that reception was overwhelmingly positive, when there was extensive criticism of how misleading the movie was, and that notable (and perhaps majority) POV is entirely absent from the article.[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] THF 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm not asking for privileged treatment. I'm asking for NPOV treatment. THF 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the neutrality policy. Overall reception of the film is positive. Some people will shout loudly, but that doesn't make their views any more worthy of weight in Wikipedia. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, no. You're misunderstanding the neutrality policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). I've identified several points of view published by reliable sources that are entirely absent from this article. THF 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I agree that this seems to be an issue of undue weight. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes: there is undue weight for the praise of the movie, and zero weight for the significant view that the movie is factually inaccurate and misleading. There's no "conservative views don't count" rider to WP:NPOV. THF 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no praise in the lead. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of the controversy in the lead, despite the clear command of WP:LEAD otherwise. THF 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There's not a huge amount of praise on the page, if you examine it carefully. A few more critical views should be noted. As with others, we can summarise and correctly source these. It's not necessary to quote extensively from umpteen negative film reviews. smb 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I also contest your assertion that Sicko has received substantial criticism "for inaccuracies and rebuttal". According to a CNN expert fact check, the figures and statistics in the film are essentially accurate, but analysts concluded it was lacking in context: "Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film." [18] That seems to be by far the biggest complaint. Moore did not address evenly all sides of the issue. Comparing Sicko to The Great Global Warming Swindle is not a good idea. smb 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
CNN found enough inaccuracies that Moore threw a temper-tantrum that they dared to criticize his movie. THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Source? Bi 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Presumably this is why Moore is angry (see link) [19] We should carry on with these specific criticisms in the appropriate section below. smb 22:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 4

Ted, please point out specific bits that you believe are praise. - Keith D. Tyler 19:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1 Violation of WP:LEAD for failure to acknowledge significant controversies. THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
2 Compare the talk-page claim that "this is just a movie", with a "synopsis" that is several thousand words recounting every incident and political argument (and even much of the dialogue) of the movie, with the synopsis for any other movie article. THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
3 The POV (and false) statement of "overwhelming positive reviews" THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The statement is true. The film has gotten "overwhelming positive reviews" from film critics. That's what we mean by "positive reviews". (I'll add that to the article to make the context clear.) The conservative commentary links you provided are not film criticism pieces, they're political screeds against "government medicine", etc. They have more to do with Moore's ideas than Sicko as a film. szyslak 06:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that -- when I tried to add it, it was repeatedly deleted. THF 07:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
But can we stop the POV characterization of opinions that disagree with Michael Moore as "screeds"? (And more than one of my sources criticizing Moore for lack of accuracy comes from a film critic.) THF 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
4 The article omits the significant point of view published in several reliable sources that the movie is misleading and inaccurate, even as Moore's POV that the movie is his "strongest critique yet about the economic system of the U.S" is trumpeted (and contradicts the pooh-poohing here that this is "just a movie" and thus only movie critics views should be considered). THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope my edit to the "critical response" section has satisfied that particular concern. szyslak 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
5 The article omits the criticism of Canadian film critics that Moore (again) paints an imaginary and unrealistic picture of Canada to bash its neighbor. THF 07:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

It "is considered a standard that all users should follow." THF 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". Redacting really adds nothing to your argument. Again, it's not policy. I see no reason not to outline a few criticisms, but I also don't think the movie has been out particularly long enough to have mature criticisms and analysis of the movie. Right now, the criticism is over Moore's politics and some minor inaccuracies (like, he says 50M uninsured when it's really 44M) --David Shankbone 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As the multiple (and far from complete list of) sources I cite in convenience break 3 indicate, your characterization is inaccurate, perhaps misled by the sanitized nature of the article into thinking that there has not been comprehensive criticism of the movie and its arguments. You've given no reason why this article is so special as to merit the exception to the rule. THF 03:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As I say below, if something is a notable aspect of X, most mainstream surveys of X will mention it. If criticism of Sicko on political grounds is notable, most mainstream reviews of Sicko will mention such criticism. If they don't, then it isn't notable enough for the lead. Hornplease 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 5

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

"Should" (which is repeated twice in WP:LEAD) does not remotely mean "possibly", and you have yet to justify an exception to the guideline. I've stated repeatedly that the criticism should be in the lead, and that the article fails that guideline. In any event, the substandard lead is not the only problem with the article, which violates the policy of NPOV. Your invocation of WP:LAWYER is well within the essay of WP:KETTLE, however. THF 05:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Note also:
  • Official policy: "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."
  • Guideline: "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."
I fail to see the rationalization for treating guidelines as easily discardable without good reason, and one has yet to be provided, when it's simple enough to acknowledge the controversy in the introduction. (Of course, one first has to acknowledge the controversy in the article, which is where the severest NPOV problem is.) It is perhaps you who should be going to Wikipedia talk:Lead section and asking for exceptions for left-wing articles where you don't want to acknowledge right-wing criticism. That would seem to contradict WP:NPOV, however. THF 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If we were discussing an article such as single-payer health care or social health insurance, you'd be right on. However, as has been repeated ad nauseam, this article is about the movie, not about the health care debate. And please, remember that you are not the arbiter of neutrality regarding this subject. It's as if your viewpoint's the only one that matters, and the rest of us are stupid, liars or both. szyslak 06:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course my viewpoint isn't the only one that matters. All significant viewpoints matter, and I object to the omission of significant viewpoints in violation of NPOV. Nor am I the arbiter of neutrality: Wikipedia rules are, and there's an objective standard for determining whether they're met: are all significant points of view fairly represented? The answer is plainly no: there are very significant (and perhaps majority) points of view that are absolutely omitted, and NPOV requires their inclusion.
With respect to the "just a movie" claim, if that were really the case, then there is an NPOV violation because of the POV-pushing of Moore's views on the healthcare debate. Make up your mind: if the article is about the movie, then there's too much extraneous stuff on healthcare, and the synopsis should be dropped to a couple of sentences. If the article is about Moore's views on healthcare, then the fact that many people have pointed out that those views and arguments are factually incorrect is relevant. THF 07:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, Michael Moore, that Wikipedia POV pusher... I say we take User:Michael Moore to ArbCom. ;)
You say, "...many people have pointed out that [Moore's] views and arguments are factually incorrect". No, people have argued such. Others have argued that he did indeed get his facts right. You're right that both sides of that aspect of the debate are not portrayed equally. Why? Because they're not portrayed at all. The article says little to nothing about the debate over this film's factual accuracy or inaccuracy. That's a problem, but it's not an NPOV problem. It's a problem of completeness. This is an unfinished article. Let's finish it up.
On the thread of this debate you portray as the "just a movie" claim, what I mean is that, while the article should delve into the social debate surrounding the film, it should only do so in the context of points raised by the film itself, not in the context of points some people think the film should have made. Just because the film is about the health care debate doesn't mean the article should be, too. Similarly, the following articles are not about World War II: Saving Private Ryan, Tora! Tora! Tora! and Das Boot. They do, however, touch on facts about the war in relation to the films. Discuss the debate over Moore's claims, but don't go too far outside this article's scope. szyslak 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm pleased we're reaching a consensus. We seem to agree; the issue is one of completeness, which I happen to think is one of the prerequisites of WP:NPOV compliance in this context. (I disagree with your statement that the accuracy question is not addressed: the absence of the debate implies the POV that a documentary is factually accurate.) Other movie article examples of varying quality are The Hurricane (film), The Great Global Warming Swindle, The Passion of the Christ, Troy (film), and, perhaps most relevantly, Bowling for Columbine. Part of the problem here is that criticisms of Sicko were shunted off into a POV-fork, merged back in, and then deleted entirely. (The Fahrenheit 9/11 criticisms are to this day shunted off into a POV-fork.) THF 08:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, improvements to this article are needed, and I'm glad we agree on that point, and on where the gaps are. However, I disagree with your claim that "the absence of the debate implies the POV that a documentary is factually accurate". A non-existent portion of the article is POV? Only a claim of accuracy would imply accuracy. On the question of the late, unlamented POV fork: It was deleted because of POV and general poor quality. To put it simply, that page was not an encyclopedia article. It was a hodgepodge of complaints added by random editors, full of weasel words and other nonsense... which is one reason why I hate "controversy" and "criticism" articles. That goes for Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, Criticism of George W. Bush and a hot of other pages. A discussion of controversies would have to be rebuilt from the ground up. szyslak 08:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The very word "documentary" (objective: emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art") implies accuracy (see also PBS definition), though the efforts of people like Michael Moore are certainly changing the connotations of that word. THF 11:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Your own link shows you are talking about the word as it is defined as an adjective, not as a noun. --David Shankbone 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Let's not get into the silly argument about whether a documentary is a documentary. The Academy didn't buy it when that gun rights group petitioned to disqualify Bowling for Columbine from the Best Documentary Feature Oscar on the grounds that "it's false, so it's not a documentary". Both films are documentaries, no matter what some people say about their factual claims. szyslak 04:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC

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

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

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

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

Actually, I never suggested that the section be titled "criticism", merely that "critical views ... should be incorporated into the article under a separate heading". BFD1 15:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No matter what it's called, a criticism section is still a criticism section. When you put "criticisms", "controversies" and other possible negative aspects of a subject in their own section, it's a criticism section. szyslak 03:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right. My bad.BFD1 15:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This touches upon earlier discussions. Is it necessary to include criticism from people who accuse Michael Moore of failing to address issues that do not immediately bear upon or undermine the premise of his film? For example, the director stands accused of finding faults in only the US system while ignoring the problems with, and painting too rosy a picture of, foreign establishments. But surely that is the point. Moore purposely identifies key problems at home before highlighting and then cherry-picking the best working parts of other support systems, so every single American one day receives an excellent all-round standard of care. His narration proceeds: "When we see a good idea from another country, we grab it. If they build a better car, we drive it. If they make a better wine, we drink it." That's just one example. Too many reviewers seem to venture off into the wider ideological debate, and naturally there is no shortage of people who want to use this opportunity as a springboard for their own political views. smb 22:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Good luck watching the article 24/7, though, and especially since WP lacks any real way to deal with bad editors and admins. 74.233.157.75 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a weak argument, I agree, but that's how the right has chosen to go after the film, thus it's fair to include it in the criticism or response section. That said, I don't think the tag's important, it's more of a consideration should you go after GA or FA status. Doctor Sunshine talk 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Greetings from another third party. I've read the discusion here as well as the article itself. IMO, the lead section needs to be rewritten to reflect the entire article, including a reference to any criticism of the film. The current lead section provides an intro to the topic, but not a summary of the main points of the article, as it should. Since WP:LEAD suggests that a lead section can be as long as four paragraphs, there is no reason why criticism can't be referenced, along with every other major point in the article. The fact that WP:LEAD is a guideline and not a policy is irrelevant. I agree that this article is NPOV and that the NPOV tag should remain as long as those concerns are valid.
Additionally, I would like to make the following suggestions in good faith to the editors involved in this article:
  • Remove the reference to the IMDb rating. User ratings are not verifiable or POV.
  • The article as a whole reads very positively towards Moore and Sicko. Here's one example: "On May 19, 2007 more than 2,000 people applauded loudly after the film's first Cannes screening at the packed Grand Theatre Lumiere, the main festival auditorium." Why is this significant? Film premieres get applauded all the time.
  • The plot summary is extremely long. It needs to be condensed to highlight only the most significant elements of the film, not every last detail.
  • Two sections of this article: "Reception" and "Responses to Film" have somewhat overlapping purposes.
Happy editing! Citadel18080 02:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:Lead says, in its current incarnation, "briefly describe", and "notable controversies". If the controversy about the content of the movie, or its polemical structure is notable, then it should be mentioned in most mainstream reviews of it. Take a sample of the NYT, Tribune, Slate, and Guardian reviews, for example. Is it mentioned there? If not, probably not notable enough. Note that "brief description" is a modification of wp:lead that may not be consensus; there's a discussion on the lead talkpage where I point out that it was changed surreptitiously from "should mention any notable controversies". Feel free to satisfy either wording. Hornplease 09:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The position that only reviews from left-wing papers are notable is the very definition of a POV violation. Fortunately, nothing in WP:NPOV restricts "all points of view" to "all left-wing points of view." THF 06:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-Lawyering

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

WP:NPA, please. What makes you think I'm not a serious editor? What about the other two editors who agree that the NPOV tag is appropriate? THF 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm attacking your ideas about editing this article, not you personally. Ironic that you would cite policy to silence discussion of your transparent wikilawyering. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan Delaney and I also think the NPOV tag should be taken down. The neutrality of the article is not in question, the format is. --David Shankbone 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the POV tag with an "unbalanced" tag, since people agree that the article is unbalanced. Of course, the unbalanced nature of the article violates WP:NPOV (as the tag itself indicates), but that's neither here nor there.
Delaney repeatedly accuses me of editing in bad faith. Which is unfortunate: I've added one tag, and discussed everything else on the talk page, citing specific reliable sources and Wikipedia policies. I again request him to cease the personal attacks and work to edit collaboratively instead of trying to shut down discussion with unmerited insults like "wikilawyering" and not "serious". THF 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, criticizing a person's behavior with regards to work in the Wikipedia is not considered a personal attack. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 7

Remarkably, the tag was removed after someone systematically scoured the article of any criticism of the movie. The solution to an improper criticism section is to integrate the criticism into the rest of the article, not to delete the criticism and the NPOV tag. Again, important and well-sourced viewpoints are omitted from this article improperly. It's simply not the NPOV rule that only left-wing viewpoints count, and centrist and right-wing viewpoints critical of the left must be omitted. There are plenty of critics of the accuracy and honesty of the Moore movie; the first link in the list here is from the left-wing New York Times even. [20][21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32][33] THF 11:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The article has gotten even more unbalanced, as ten paragraphs have been added attacking Sanjay Gupta for mild criticisms of the movie, while more substantive criticisms continue to be ignored by both Moore and the article. There is no reason to remove the unbalanced tag yet. THF 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The unbalanced tag is repeatedly being removed on the ground that the article is about "the film." (Why this is a rebuttal to the extensive criticism of the film that is ignored in the article is beyond me.) Moreover, the article has extensive discussion of left-wing points of view that have nothing to do with the film. THF 12:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

References

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

Copy and paste this after the text you are referencing:

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

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

Sanjay Gupta

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

Interesting dilemma. I would say Michael Moore controversies, as the argument initially stemmed from Mr. Gupta's report. --AlexPorter 22:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The Sicko film page is best, since it's currently lacking in criticism. Perhaps we can make a note of both sides. Moore has posted a point-by-point response to Dr. Sanjay Gupta on his website. [34] smb 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing some work on it at the Gupta page. I think since the report was about the film itself, it should be on the film page, and also for the reason smb gives - it will flesh out criticism. The paragraph on the Gupta page would be a good starting point, although I'd prefer someone re-write it for the Sicko page so they don't parrot each other. --David Shankbone 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
As long as Moore's rebuttals (and they seem solid from what I've read) are included, it seems like a fair addition. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I think a fleshed out "Gupta said this" "Moore responded with this" "Gupta countered" kind of thing would give the nuance of the factual arguments and where they are lacking, and what is not responded to, etc. Sorry if that was garbled. --David Shankbone 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

That isn't the way we edit on Wikipedia, and in relation to the film, the director taking a well-known critic head on, face-to-face, is remarkable enough for inclusion. I don't think in a month we are going to look back and say "The Gupta Affair was a watershed for this film" and I can't image why we would say that about anything. The episode is more remarkable than what some two bit movie critic who has no standing on health issues thinks, and we have plenty of those on the page already.--David Shankbone 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "two-bit" movie critics should be in there either. Neither should you. Neither should anyone with good editorial sense. Wikipedia is not a trivial collection of stuff. Well, actually it very, very often is, but it should not be. C.m.jones 23:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
David Shankbone has already explained why the Gupta criticisms are not trivial. And sorry, Wikipedia editors aren't obliged to obey what you "think", the only thing that needs to be obeyed are the Wikipedia policies. Your comments will only serve to fuel some people's flaming that Wikipedia is a hotbed for left-wing hysteria. Please stop. Bi 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Schwitzer, a journalism professor at University of Minnesota who reviews health care reporting, said, "CNN doesn’t have a journalist that can stand up to Moore on a discussion about health care policy issues because it doesn’t have a journalist that has researched health policy issues in this country as much as Moore and his documentary team has."[1]

"Why didn’t the network use the precious one hour of airtime to do its own original enterprise reporting about America’s uninsured, America spending 16% of the GDP on health care, America being the only industrialized nation without some form of universal, comprehensive national health insurance, and American being one of only two countries that allows direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising?" asked Schwitzer. "Why? Because that would be hard work."[2]Nbauman 16:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Like I said, all inclusion of this has done is cover a pissing match without any real relevance to the film. C.m.jones 04:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

TV Nation

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

I suspect that this doesn't belong in this article, but maybe some article on Universal health care in general. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant as being a forerunner to the film? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUcw_foeg3Y if you want to see the story WookMuff 02:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOR. If a reliable source mentions the connection, then one might add a cited sentence on the connection1 (though not the link to the copyright violation), but it's not for individual editors to research themselves. THF 02:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, if I could properly reference it. WookMuff 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, found a fairly obvious link on michaelmoore.com [35] How should I add it? Also, here is a link for the previously linked copyrighted material FROM MichaelMoore.com [36] WookMuff 04:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

No, that would be for Sicko. It might be for Michael Moore if he described where he first came up with the idea of making movies or where his parents came up with the idea to make him. Here is an example, from the Harry Potter page. "In 1990, J. K. Rowling was on a crowded train from Manchester to London when the idea for Harry simply "popped" into her head." From the Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope page "During post-production on his previous film, American Graffiti, Lucas repeatedly discussed the concept of a "space opera" with producer Gary Kurtz." Dracula (novel) has a seven paragraph section of the background of the novel. So why is this not fit for mentioning here? WookMuff 09:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that we think this is not necessary in the article. Thanks for the suggestion, though. :) --Ryan Delaney talk 10:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of WP:NPA, let me just say Sorry. I didn't realise that you and C.m.jones owned Wikipedia. Congratulations. Oh, wait. Michael Moore thinks that the segments are relevent to Sicko, or he wouldn't host both of them in the SiCKO portion of his website as well as an interview attributing the origin of the film to these segments. WookMuff 10:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to get personal. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well there is no reason to be smarmy and smug either. WookMuff 08:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

A Query for Mr. Delaney

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

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

Sure thing. The text I reverted reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of criticism

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

Don't worry, you have plenty of standing. I just couldn't let that monstrosity of a section live and I had to put it out of it's misery. Looking through the history, it wasn't your additions that make it ridiculous but the addition of ten external links to a weasel sentence and the creation of a new controversy sub-section. Look, if you can't source something in a sentence with one, two or possibly three citations, you shouldn't be posting it at all. Let's integrate those criticisms into the appropriate section and properly cite them before putting them on the page. As a new user, you can easily use this talk page to try out some of the stuff you put in and just ask for some help. Turtlescrubber 04:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
So here is what you want to put in "The film has also been criticized for a lack of statistics. Instances are presented, but never documented for status as the "norm" or an "exception". The one statistic (unsupported number) presented (deaths of Americans without health insurance) calculates out to approximately 1 death in 2,000 people per year without health insurance.
So really, all you have to do is find where you read this at, hopefully a mainstream and reliable source and then we can do a small rewrite and add the citation. This article uses reference style formats and not external links. So if you find a good source I'll wikify the link for you. Turtlescrubber 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the whole premise of the film being criticized for a "lack of statistics" is flawed. There's no serious expectation the film would have "statistics". It's a documentary, not a research paper. It's like saying, "The film Casablanca has been criticized for not actually being filmed in Casablanca. Instead, it was shot more than 5,000 miles away at the Warner Brothers studios in Burbank, California..." szyslak 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm fascinated by the claim that Wikipedia should not have statements that are too well sourced. The appropriate response to a criticism section is to merge the criticism into the article, not to delete the criticism entirely. THF 12:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Who made that claim? I know I didn't make that claim. I haven't see anyone else make that claim. I would hope you didn't just lie to obfuscate the situation as nobody has ever erased anything from this page as being ""too well sourced". It's kinda sad that you didn't get your way for once and had to start making shit up. Here is the edit summary "removed craptacular section from page....please use the critical response section and cite your sources appropriately...criticism sections are pov magnets...Worst sourcing I have ever seen." And I stand by my claim that it is the worst sourcing I have ever seen. Anyway, here is what I said right up the page a little, "Look, if you can't source something in a sentence with one, two or possibly three citations, you shouldn't be posting it at all. Let's integrate those criticisms into the appropriate section and properly cite them before putting them on the page. Wow, an invitation to merge it into the article and nothing about it being ""too well sourced". In closing, please don't lie to misrepresent my position and put words into my mouth. I find it extremely rude. Turtlescrubber 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
To repeat: The appropriate response to a criticism section is to merge the criticism into the article, not to delete the criticism entirely. The appropriate response to a sourcing problem for an unextraordinary claim is to add an in-line tag. And why is the unbalanced tag repeatedly being removed? THF 22:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of removing the unbalanced tag? WTF mate? Why are you being so rude? Turtlescrubber 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Did I say you removed the tag? WP:KETTLE, friend. THF 11:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha, ha. I just read your bio. I can totally see where you are coming from and now understand your style of response. I won't let your obfuscations bother me in the future. You should have just pointed me there in the first place! Turtlescrubber 17:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Sicko (film) → SiCKO — According to Moore's web site[37], The glyphs on the film's title are rendered as they are on the poster —Reginmund 06:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey: Move of Sicko (film) → SiCKO

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - per reasons given. Reginmund 06:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename to SiCKO. - Our WP:MOSTM encourages the use of standard English text formatting and capitalization in trademark names. See also WP:CAPITAL#Mixed_or_non-capitalization which advises For the article title, follow the lead of outside sources and use the most common spelling and capitalization.. As an example of an outside source, they give the New York Times. The Times spells the name of this film in the standard way, as 'Sicko.' EdJohnston 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per EdJohnston. THF 17:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a non sequitur. PhRMA is a redirect to the main article. So does Phrma. No one is objecting to SiCKO redirecting to the main article; the question is what the title of the main article should be. THF 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support rename to SiCKO. We are allowed some leeway here (per WP:MOSTM#General_rules: "OxyContin or Oxycontin — editor's choice"). Also I googled 'SiCKO' (limited to where 'sicko' appeared in the title) and though more news headlines used 'Sicko' than 'SiCKO', 'the latter did come up frequently. However, virtually everywhere, the form "Sicko" heavily predominated when used in the general text of the article, no matter which form used in the headline -I think we should do this as well. To recap: I support the renaming because (1) it's accurate -that's how the film is actually titled and marketed, (2) it seems that it is acceptable to do so (or at the least unclear that we can't), and (3) many news organizations also report it that way in the title. Addendum: for text in the article, retain the lowercase "Sicko". R. Baley 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Edited to add: if this move becomes overly contentious or drawn out, I will change my vote to help bring to a close. Issue is not worth much in the way of fighting or arguing over. R. Baley 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The relevant rule in WP:MOSTM is Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment. Thus, Realtor rather than REALTOR, Adidas rather than adidas. OxyContin is a special example because the trademarked capitalization is in CamelCase. "SiCKO" is not CamelCase, so the CamelCase rule R. Baley mentions is inapplicable. THF 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename, per guideline cited above; we don't do funny spellings, because they may be changed without notice (say with a rerelease). There should of course be a redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support rename to SiCKO because that is the freakin' name of the film, and support banning the person who made the poor decision to title it as it currently is (kidding, but not completely). C.m.jones 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Rules" are just that, rules which are meant to be broken. There's a logical argument for moving it to the official title of the film, and honestly, all hell isn't going to break loose if we move a page - so, in the interest of just doing it, I'll use my shiny move button now and just do it. -- Tawker 15:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename. Not only is the MoS clear about this, and a logo is not a guide to how something is written in normal text, but Michael Moore himself writes it "Sicko":[38] ProhibitOnions (T) 19:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia Manual of Style. - Cyrus XIII 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and especially Wikipedia Manual of Style. Ground Zero | t 23:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The artwork used in stylizing a movie poster does not determine the actual name of the film. ●DanMS • Talk 05:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose silly typographical inventions of PR firms. Dragons flight 06:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion re page title

Any additional comments:
Does it make any difference? Turtlescrubber 19:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Not much :-) R. Baley 19:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Turtlescrubber 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

No, it is in fact the total OPPOSITE of iPod. If you look closely, you will notice the words "Items in full or partial uppercase". Hmm... you know what is in full or partial uppercase? SiCKO. I am sorry, does "article titles with the first letter lowercase and the second letter uppercase" apply to SiCKO? No? Well darn. I think it's pretty clear that wikipedia thinks this is not necessary for the article. Thanks for the suggestion, though. WookMuff 22:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NAME explicitly refers us to WP:MOSTM, so it's appropriate to refer to that page. But I agree that the discussion is moot: there's an explicit Wikipedia rule dealing with it, and the page is correctly titled under that rule. THF 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I just reverted my deletion of this section... the people who deal with requests for moves are apparently up to date on the naming conventions so they will deal with it. WookMuff 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It is really problematic the way that every time someone points out the Wikipedia has a rule for dealing with a situation, CM Jones accuses the editor of Wikilawyering. This is why the page does not comply with the NPOV rule, and now CM Jones seeks to have it stop complying with the WP:NAME rules. THF 22:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I just looked up wikilawyering, so I could get an exact definition (I am often justly accused of being a Rules Lawyer in RPGing) and unless the spirit of WP:NAME is to do the opposite of the letter of the rules, possibly to mess with peoples heads, then I am not a wikilawyer, so I don't mind :) WookMuff 22:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines say that is only if trade marks insinuate otherwise, but on the web site, not only is the poster art "SiCKO", but the typographical glyphs "SiCKO", thus, it is the official name. Reginmund 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That is called "poor grasp of the english language". What it means is that here at wikipedia, we try to use proper english, grammar, and punctuation, even if the trademark doesn't. WookMuff 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not the duties of the Wikipedians to correct the people's oeuvre's that we are reporting on. Two Weeks Notice is missing an apostrophe, hellogoodbye is missing a space, and if.... has a superfluous full stop in the ellipsis. Reginmund 04:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. This isn't the page to debate or change first principles, and as long as those principles are in place, the title of this page isn't changing. THF 04:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, Two Weeks Notice is actually not missing an apostrophe, unless you know something about english that we do not. Unlogged-in WookMuff at a public terminal 144.131.92.39 06:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see the section on the Two Weeks Notice page, but I disagree with this so called expert. The notice does not belong to the two weeks nor is it a contraction, so lacking contraction or possessive I can't see the need for an apostrophe. But I guess I am just a high school dropout and not a published Author so... WookMuff 07:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

cleanup-laundry tag

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

Thanks for clearing that up. I am unaware of what happens with soundtrack entries, maybe convert to footnotes? I do agree that it takes up too much space. Turtlescrubber 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the list of songs is notable at all. I'm moving it to this page if someone wants to create a different article for it, though I doubt such an article would meet WP:N standards. THF 22:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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


Another problematic edit

The following edit is also contentious. [39] This film is not a work of fiction. Shouldn't we allow editors more time to whittle down and/or improve the section before wielding an axe? smb 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I would call that borderline vandalism because of the misleading edit summary and the large amount of blanked text. I am going to do a blanket revert. Sorry, everyone else. Turtlescrubber 02:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, that edit is deleterious to the article. Good to revert it. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about WP:NOT#PLOT restricts it to a work of fiction: it applies to all "published works". The section needs an axe, not a whittling knife: it is utterly improper to recount long stretches of dialogue in a movie. The "borderline vandalism" accusation is insulting, and the edit summary was accurate. If anything, I didn't cut enough. The tag was there for a full day, and the only changes to the section were people making it longer and adding inappropriate levels of detail. THF 11:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that amount removed was necessary but I agree that with THF] assertion that WP:NOT#Plot absolutely applies and that calling an attempt to shorten the article to more acceptable levels is to be applauded. If you think you can do better, then go ahead, but don't complain about someone being bold enough to try. WookMuff 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Would it not be better to simply move the information into a 'detailed summary', 'content' or 'subject matter' section, like some other docs? smb 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
A full day, you don't say. At least tell people what you are doing in your edit summary instead of trying to pass it off, so as nobody notices. Turtlescrubber 17:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The edit summary was quite explicit that I was making an edit in response to WP:NOT#PLOT, and the fact that the article shrank by 12K of extraneous plot discussion after my edit was also quite apparent in the history. What do you think was being hidden? How do you propose to resolve the unencyclopedic problems with this article other than reverting every attempt to fix them? THF 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the specific objections to the following rough cut, which is, if anything, too modest in its cuts? THF 03:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Rough cut at proposed edit of "Synopsis section"

Sicko deals with the problems that Moore perceives in the American for-profit health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Its main message is that publicly-funded health care is a better all-round model than the present U.S. health-care system because the present system is designed to maximize profit by minimizing the care delivered to patients.

At one point in the film Moore cites a World Health Organization report: "And the United States slipped to 37 in health care around the world, just slightly ahead of Slovenia."[3]

The movie begins with the retelling of the stories of people who were denied health care, either because they did not have health insurance or because the insurance companies denied their request for coverage for a particular ailment, due to specious reasons. Some repentant former employees of insurance companies are also interviewed, and describe dubious practices of their former employers, such as considering the best doctor in their employ to be the one who could deny the most treatments.

The movie also describes the connection between lobby groups such as PhRMA, the lobbying arm of the largest drug companies in the United States and one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington D.C.[4][improper synthesis?] and Congressional politicians. Moore says that Hillary Clinton, who once championed the Clinton health care plan, is the Senate's second-highest recipient of campaign donations from the health care industry. Moore said that Clinton's friend Harvey Weinstein, whose company provided financing for the film, asked him to remove the scene but Moore refused.[5]

Moore states that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not offer free basic health care to all of its citizens, and compares the American system to those of Canada, the United Kingdom and France, which have universal health care for their citizens.

Moore then interviews those who volunteered as rescue workers after the World Trade Center September 11, 2001 attacks; these volunteers had subsequently developed physical and psychological maladies, including respiratory disease and PTSD, and were denied government funds to care for their ailments. Since the U.S. government has touted the medical care provided for the alleged enemy combatants detained at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, Moore assembles the 9/11 rescue workers and one of the people seen earlier in the movie, and any others who need medical care that they cannot get in the U.S. They sail from Miami for Cuba on three speedboats. After a journey that is mostly not shown (due to "prohibition by Homeland Security laws"), the group arrives at the entrance channel to Gitmo. Moore asks for access with a megaphone, pleading for treatment for 9/11 heroes that equals the treatment the "evildoers" are getting, but no response is given. Moore finally gives up when a siren is blown from the base. The group then moves on to Havana, where they can buy medicine for very cheap price and receives free medical treatment they would otherwise not be able to afford.[6] The volunteers are hospitalized there and receive treatment, having only to provide their names and birth date. Moore asked the doctors to provide them only the same level of care they would give to Cuban citizens.

In the film's finale, Moore provides an example of "taking care of each other, no matter the differences". When he found out that the biggest anti-Moore website, MooreWatch, would have to close because its webmaster Jim Kenefick needed the money to pay for his wife's medical treatment, he sent a cheque for US $12,000 anonymously. Moore says that he does not want the health care system to trump the first amendment. The audience is shown a "thank you" letter posted by the host, calling Moore his "Guardian Angel" (written while he was still unaware of Moore being the donor), while continuing to criticize Moore on his website. Since finding out that the anonymous donation would be shown in the movie, Kenefick has responded on his website,[7] criticising Moore for sending an anonymous cheque but then including it in his movie, saying Moore was "using" him.

Still believe it would be better to move much of this information into a different section, though if no one else agrees, I will not object to your proposal. If memory serves, when Moore says: "...and the United States slipped to 37 in health care around the world...", it was in response to Clinton's failed reforms. So it might read better if it's placed in context. Something like this:
"Moore says that Hillary Clinton, who once championed the Clinton health care plan, is the Senate's second-highest recipient of campaign donations from the health care industry. At one point in the film Moore cites a World Health Organization report: "And the United States slipped to 37 in health care around the world, just slightly ahead of Slovenia." Moore said that Clinton's friend Harvey Weinstein, whose company provided financing for the film, asked him to remove the scene but Moore refused." smb 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that modification. Might the people who criticized my edit and reverted it contribute to the discussion over the next three days while the article is protected? THF 14:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
A third request for comments. The edit was reverted and heavily criticized when I made it, but no one has identified anything materially objectionable about it or anything material that is missing from it, so I'm making it again. THF 21:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This appears to me to be an improvement over the present version, which is unnecessarily detailed and unencyclopedic. --Marvin Diode 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

July 25 deletion
I've deleted an attempt to reinsert 6K of synopsis into the article as an unencyclopedic "Anecdotes" section. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. THF 04:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fiction vs. Fact Status

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

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

It might be difficult to reconcile that belief with the quotation from Moore about piracy in the Legal controversy section. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"David Ansen of MSNBC criticized the film"

I agree with Ryan that we should avoid the passive voice, but the proposed solution in the lead violates NPOV by trivializing the criticism, by implying that it's just David Ansen, rather than a wide variety of film critics, economists, and public policy analysts who have criticized the film for its inaccuracies and misleading claims. Of course, if the article weren't so unbalanced, it would be easier to note that many many people have criticized the film. THF 03:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on how making it clear who is making the objection trivializes the objection itself. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the above user's complaint is more related to the narrowness of the statement rather than the specifics ie. that naming one commentator who disagrees to the exclusion all the other commentators who disagree. But I may be putting words into his mouth. WookMuff 08:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that could apply since the citation is only from one article on MSBC. "Has been criticized" doesn't specify who is doing the criticizing. I'm still ambivalent about putting criticism in the lead anyway; I have a strong intuition that that belongs in Universal health care and the policy debate threads, and that this article should be restricted to facts about this film. But that's another debate. --Ryan Delaney talk 09:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
By your edits it would appear there are many things about this article you are ambivalent about, such as the lack of any mention of Michael Moore being nominated for sainthood or voted sexiest man alive. A political film being criticized for its seeming bias is certainly something to be mentioned in the article, and indeed in the lead. WookMuff 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

David Ansen's criticisms of the movie are mild, and far from representative of the point of view that remains ignored. Support of Moore by a left-wing professor and a left-wing organization has been added to the article. Where's the criticism of Moore by centrist and right-wing professors, economists, and organizations? THF 11:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

CNN Controversy section

The CNN controversy section is wildly unbalanced and POV. It's ludicrous that--while no weight is given to the detailed rebuttals of Moore's inaccuracy by health-policy experts and economists--that there are ten paragraphs devoted to Moore and other left-wingers' scathing criticism of a minor tv reporter's short segment whose sin was that he only sort of agreed with the movie instead of nominating Moore for sainthood. Why aren't any of the substantive and well-sourced criticisms mentioned other than a single vague sentence in the lead and in the criticism section? It trivializes the criticism when it's only David Ansen, Kurt Loder, and Sanjay Gupta mentioned. I haven't seen a single person who knows anything about health policy approve of the film, yet Moore is lionized for his supposed expertise. THF 11:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Canonized. In case you weren't sure of the word. I know I was having trouble thinking of it directly above here when I said the same thing. :) WookMuff 11:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for "Sanjay Gupta" returns 1,390,000 results. [40] Adding "Michael Moore" to the search string produces 278,000 hits. [41] Dr Gupta's criticism that "Moore fudged the facts" is most notable. Moreover, the fallout from this "short segment" spanned four programmes. smb 17:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet the overwhelming majority of the section isn't about the programs, but about Moore's response to the programs. Again, wildly unbalanced and POV. And, again, there's a real POV problem when only the criticism of Moore in the article comes from people who agree with him. THF 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unbalanced tag

TedFrank added the unbalanced tag back into the article with the edit summary: Again, the article fails to include critical discussion of film, even as it includes extensive defenses of Michael Moore's accuracy and POV. Hence, unbalanced. Ted, I see plenty of "critical discussion", too much in fact, and I would like you to show me where it "fails" to include it, as you claim. As for "extensive defense", this article is about Moore's film, not the health care debate waged by his critics. If you see a way of solving the problem to your satisfaction, please briefly describe the solution so that I can implement the changes and remove the tag. I'm going to assume good faith on your part for now, but in my experience, these types of tags are easily abused by POV warriors. —Viriditas | Talk 12:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read the "extensive discussion", and I've asked you to briefly tell me how to fix the article so that I can remove the tag. This a reasonable request. You need to be able to defend the use of tags whenever asked. —Viriditas | Talk 12:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There's extensive discussion above of what is omitted, and why the article is unbalanced: [42] [43] [44] [45]. An entire POV-fork article was created to divert criticism of the film away from this article, and then that article was deleted into a redirect and the criticism was deleted.[46] Since I've added the unbalanced tag, a dozen paragraphs were added defending Moore's accuracy, and the omitted points of view[47][48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] remain omitted. THF 12:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask you to directly answer my simple question? I see that in addition to slapping an unbalanced tag on the article without giving me a rationale on how to remove it, you've now added "pov-statement" to a basic statement about the premise of the film. My good faith is rapidly diminishing. —Viriditas | Talk 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ted, I'll make this as painless as possible; just give me a diff to your preferred version of the article from the page history. Ok? —Viriditas | Talk 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a preferred version. The page needs a complete rewrite to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#PLOT. Even minor improvements are reverted by the page-owners without any attempt at justifying the reversion on the talk page[59], and I don't wish to spend a couple of hours writing something that will last five minutes. THF 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ted, you said there were "omitted points of view", which means there must be diffs in the article history that include those views, right? —Viriditas | Talk 13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I said "omitted," not "deleted." Though some points of view that were deleted are included in a diff cited above.[60] THF 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we're getting somewhere. Am I to understand that most of the missing viewpoints can be found in the 02:12, 1 July 2007 version of Controversies over the film Sicko, and that the merging of this information into the article would allow me to remove the unbalanced tag? —Viriditas | Talk 13:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The article would not be perfect, but it would be a step in the right direction, and I would accept the removal of the unbalanced tag if (1) those criticisms (and the criticisms identified in the reliable sources cited in my 12:43 edit above) were included and (2) the WP:NOT#PLOT problem were resolved. THF 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what the plot has to do with the unbalanced tag that you added due to a perceived lack of criticisms. And, since you just trimmed the plot down to 653 words, I'm sure you'll add the criticism you claim is missing and then remove the unbalanced tag, right? —Viriditas | Talk 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I will and did. The article needs a "Factual errors in the movie" section, the way similar articles do (and there are certainly plenty of reliable sources pointing those out), but it's in the best shape it's been since I started looking at it a week and a half ago. THF 21:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Most "factual errors in the movie" sections are composed of original research, so I wouldn't recommend it. It's best to add such errors to the relevant section. —Viriditas | Talk 00:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
resent indent. I agree that any such section should comply with WP:NOR, especially for a controversial article like this one. My point is that there are numerous verifiable reliable sources that do this accounting. What "relevant section" do you suggest integrating such information into? We'll see how well the page holds up against POV-pushing over the weekend when I'm not around. The synopsis section could use further trimming. THF 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The sections still need to be developed, so this is really in its infancy. Factual errors can be sorted by topic, as much of that information was removed from the synopsis and could be added back into new sections with sources. The synopsis needs to be entirely rewritten. Take some time to browse Category:Documentary films, paying particular attention to the B, GA, and FA-Class articles. —Viriditas | Talk 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
reset indent. This article can't contain critical discussion (or fawning discussion) of the film, THF - Wikipedia is not a discussion board. The article can, however, contain citations of relevant analysts who take a position on the movie. If the bulk of analyst quotes side with Moore because the bulk of analysts side with Moore, that's not POV - equal time need not be given to minority views. Tagger needs to provide remedy. 198.112.236.6 13:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The bulk of analysts do not side with Moore--every economist and responsible public policy analyst to comment have criticized the movie. Contrary to your claims, I have suggested a remedy: include the omitted points of view, and fix the WP:NOT#PLOT problem--I've suggested one possible edit above, and it's been ignored. THF 13:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
So edit the article with the sources you've found and then remove the tag. I suggest holding off on editing the lead until you've established that the criticisms are sufficiently notable in the body to establish consensus that it's lead-worthy. I might have some reservations about some of the sources you list. Non-SiCKO-specific philosophy about whether the government is good or bad, or whether taxation to pay for a single payer system is 'theft' will probably be reverted. 198.112.236.6 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Might you bother reading what I've asked to be accounted for, and what's been reverted, before falsely characterizing my edits? THF 14:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't characterize your edits, buddy. 198.112.236.6 14:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Then why raise the "taxation is theft" strawman, when I've cited a dozen reliable sources omitted from this article that point out the inaccuracies of Moore's movie, and not a single one makes that argument? WP:CIVIL, please. THF 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag merely states that an editor has expressed concern that the article is unbalanced. This is accurate, and thus should not be removed. Readers can decide for myself whether the extensively sourced points of view I've mentioned in this section are adequately accounted for in the article. THF 13:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how any discussion/wikipedia page can be neutral about a topic which is inherently a political topic. Any statement which criticizes, or praises the topic is in of itself not neutral. Therefore the tag should be removed, and a notice stating that universal health care, and how to fund it is a political topic should suffice. GaryLambda 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"specious reasons"

That Moore believes a reason for denying healthcare is "specious" is just his POV. This needs to be made clear, rather than stated as fact. As some of his critics have noted, at least some of the examples of people denied care in the US would have been denied care in the countries he celebrates. THF 12:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's his POV...this article is about his film (and POV), and the material in question is located in the pseudo-plot section. —Viriditas | Talk 13:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected article

I protected this article for 3 days due to the edit war over the dispute tag. Consider that if you have to edit war over the dispute tag... then it's probably safe to say that the article is disputed. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am pleasantly surprised that you protected it WITH the tag WookMuff 14:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't be. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I shouldn't be surprised that the lead obstructionist in this article isn't obstructing? Ok. WookMuff 00:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If you insist on characterizing this as "us versus them" then I guess you should think that way. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I thought that was obvious from your obstruction of "our" edits. Are you saying that you are happy for people to add relevant, well sourced criticisms of the film? If so, since when? WookMuff 11:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF please, WM. This article is hard enough to build a consensus on without personalizing it. THF 11:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, all out of good faith. WookMuff 11:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the best rule of thumb that I've run across recently. "Consider that if you have to edit war over the dispute tag... then it's probably safe to say that the article is disputed." I nominate this for official Wikipedia policy! -75.7.40.135 22:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It should be Wikipedia policy. There's no excuse to remove a tag that multiple editors have placed when those editors are defending the tag in good faith on the talk page and the concerns have not been addressed. THF 22:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone actually wrote an essay that made that very point, but I can't seem to find it... --Ryan Delaney talk 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is hilariously pathetic that someone involved in the dispute would protect it. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. It's nothing more than I'd expect here, though. C.m.jones 01:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You can submit a request for unprotection on WP:RFPP if you want to continue edit warring. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The protection was probably needed but, for future reference, it probably would have been better to go find another admin to protect the page. There seems to be some validity to the complaints that the page was protected by an admin involved in the dispute. This presents an apparent [[WP:COI|conflict of interest.
--Richard 07:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not involved in the dispute over the tag. If anything, this is a conflict out of interest. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara: "doctor"?

I just feel the need to point out that Che was not a doctor he was a medic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtman (talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this has popped up a couple of times, why doesn't somebody explain what that means, and also give a citation. Because he went to medical school and received his diploma, which is well-documented. --David Shankbone 02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, is it? The sources in the Che Guevara article assert this, but they are either official Cuban hagiography or they evidently repeat his official biography. Enrique Ros once went to the UBA to request a copy of Guevara's diploma and was told there was no such thing. (And even if it had gone missing, there would be a class photo or students and professors who recalled graduating with him, but nope.) [61] If he did graduate as a "medic" (not a doctor, more akin to a paramedic) he nonetheless later claimed to be a doctor. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Front Page is by far not a acceptable source, nor is the author of the article who wrote, "Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him." I by far don't idolize Guevara, but I'll go with Time Magazine over that claptrap. --David Shankbone 11:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Be that as it may, there is some evidence out there that Guevara lied about being a doctor, and it would be an easy enough matter to put right if he really were one. ProhibitOnions (T) 12:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on the people who claim he was not, since mainstream historical perspective claims he was. And in the article you pointed at, there is no "evidence" just a lot of conjecture. This is an issue for the Che Guevara page, and until that page comes to a consensus that he was not a doctor, this page should walk in step with it. This isn't the forum to debate whether he was a physician or not, and again, the burden of proof is on the deniers of his credentials. --David Shankbone 12:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The Che Guevara page, with extensive citation, says he "complet[ed] his education as a medic", not a doctor. So it's this page that's out of whack. THF 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

I agree that we need to merge the "Reaction", "Controversy", and "Response" sections. THF 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of HMO

Query: does the movie claim the HMO originated with Nixon, or is that an editor's interpolation? Kaiser Permanente, on which the HMO Act of 1973 was loosely based, predates Nixon by decades. THF 06:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

True. It's merely poor wording on my part, given space constraints. The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 originated with the Nixon White House, not the HMO itself.[62] I'll try to fix it. —Viriditas | Talk 10:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WHO statistic in lead

User:Viriditas placed the following edit on my talk page:

I'm guesing you haven't seen the film? The content regarding the WHO's ranking of the American health care system features prominently in the film, is covered in dozens of sources, and is discussed extensively by reliable secondary sources in direct relation to the film. I'm surprised you would consider it "advocacy". —Viriditas | Talk 09:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it this was in response to my removal in this diff: [63]. Since I think it's more appropriate to discuss this edit on the talk page of this article I'm responding here to explain this edit. I'd also like to thank him for asking me to explain this before reverting, which is a charitable showing of good faith given the acrimonious atmosphere that has surrounded this article of late.

To make myself clear, I am not particularly opposed to the inclusion of this fact and I have no real dispute about its citation here. What I am bothered by is the way in which it was presented. The old text read:

The film investigates the American for-profit health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, comparing them with the publicly-funded health care systems in other countries. Sicko criticizes the American health care system, which is ranked number 37 in the world by the World Health Organization, and is the only industrialized nation that does not offer free, basic health care to all of its citizens.

Following "Sicko criticizes the American health care system" immediately with these facts seemed to suggest to the reader that the film is right to criticize them for these reasons. It's a rhetorical tool; the thesis is stated and then followed by the evidence. I don't think the way it was originally written is perfectly neutral. That said, I don't think it would be difficult to rework the lead to include that fact if someone judges it especially important. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care if the material appears in the lead or not, and I have absolutely no interest in reverting your changes. My question about whether you had seen the film, and why you personally consider the WHO statement "advocacy" has nothing to do with this article, which is why I added the query to your talk page. The study in question is featured in the trailer, the film, and in the CNN debate with Gupta. According to Google News, this particular study is also put into the context of the film by dozens of reviewers. I was only trying to encapsulate Moore's premise, like Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Moore sees the United States as a nation in denial, so much so that we've slipped to number 37 in a World Health Organization ranking, just ahead of Slovenia. Lashing out with Swiftian scorn at a system that leaves almost 50 million Americans uninsured, he finds ample reason for outrage in scarifying stories told not only by the uninsured but by those whose insurance companies failed or betrayed them. Just as Al Gore did with global warming in "An Inconvenient Truth," he frames the health care crisis in moral and ethical terms. "Who are we?" he asks. "Is this what we've become?"[64] —Viriditas | Talk 19:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, I agree with that. Again, I'm not disputing the import of the statistic to this article. I was simply unhappy about the way it was presented. Maybe we can discuss ways to refactor it back in. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't have to go back into the lead at this time; Your version reads better anyway, so you improved it. But, a decision needs to be made about what to do with these types of studies in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Free admission to Canadian Nurses

I work at a Cineplex Entertainment theatre, and due to massive positive response, we expanded it to all health care professionals, until today. I'm going to add that info (the extension), but I can't give you a reference past this. 209.89.94.153 07:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was it edited out? It's not at all trivia. --WestJet 20:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Exposé

TedFrank believes that the term "exposé" is POV and should not be used to describe the film, or as a compromise, should be referred to as " a description of world health care systems, called an exposé of the American healthcare system by some". In fact, the term is used by a wide variety of publications, including medical, trade, industry, film, entertainment, and newspapers around the world; it is used by both Moore's supporters and critics to describe Sicko. A very small sample of these sources is posted below. —Viriditas | Talk 13:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Industry
  • Three ex-marketers become whistleblowers; Moore girds exposé. The Pharmaceutical industry is facing a fresh round of criticism as three current or former marketers have all gone public with negative things to say about Big Pharma while Michael Moore waits in the wings to do an exposé of the industry...director Michael Moore's new film, Sicko, is said to be about Big Pharma.(Brandweek, 3/21/2005, Vol. 46, Issue 12)
  • Moore is currently promoting his new film "Sicko", an exposé of America's health insurance system, which opened to great acclaim at the Cannes Film Festival. (Bookseller, 6/8/2007, Issue 5284)
  • The article reviews the exposé documentary motion picture "Sicko" which is about health care in the U.S. and was directed by Michael Moore. (British Medical Journal; 7/7/2007, Vol. 335 Issue 7609, p47-47, 1p)
Film and entertainment
  • Sicko: Michael Moore's health-care exposé (a likely Weinstein venture) (Entertainment Weekly, 3/18/2005, Issue 811)
  • Michael Moore has been laying unusually low while shooting his healthcare expose "Sicko" for the Weinstein Co., but ho surfaced briefly last week -- in print. (Variety, 4/24/2006, Vol. 402, Issue 10)
  • Michael Moore's "Sicko," the gadfly helmer's healthcare expose, is alive, well, and almost ready for release. (Variety, 6/12/2006, Vol. 403, Issue 4)
  • ...Sicko, Moore's forthcoming exposé of the American health care industry. (Cineaste, Winter2006, Vol. 32, Issue 1)
  • Earner's pleas--to Moore to raise his game in his upcoming health-care exposé Sicko and to moderate conservative colleagues to subject the likes of Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh to some comparable level of scrutiny--have a furious urgency. (Cineaste, Spring2007, Vol. 32, Issue)
  • Michael Moore, Harvey Weinstein and attorney David Boies were the center of a three-man circus Monday as they faced a packed room of cameras and reporters to officially respond to a U.S. Treasury Department investigation of Moore's trip to Cuba shown in his upcoming health-care exposé "Sicko." (Hollywood Reporter, 6/12/2007, Vol. 399, Issue 49)
  • You Tube has removed clips of Michael Moore's U.S. health-care exposé "Sicko" that appeared on the site during the weekend, two weeks before the film's June 29 opening. (Hollywood Reporter, 6/19/2007, Vol. 400, Issue 5)
  • Sicko is a beyond brilliant, nonpartisan exposé on American politics that should be mandatory for every student in America. (E! Online, Jun 26, 2007)
  • Lefty filmmaker Michael Moore remains convinced that a summer full of action-packed sequels won't prevent teens from seeing his latest documentary "Sicko," an exposé of the U.S. health-care industry. (MTV, Jun 28, 2007)
  • Michael Moore, America's portly provocateur, weighed in with the much-heralded Sicko, a frontal attack on our airing health-care system. Moore has refined and sharpened his trademark brand of harangue-plus-exposé, finding both poignancy and laughs in a topic not known for entertainment value. (Film Journal International, Jul 2007, Vol. 110, Issue 7)
  • Even though Moore's a brand name in some international markets, the medical jury is still out on whether foreign auds are eager to see an expose of U.S. health care. (Variety, July 16-22, 2007)
  • Michael Moore's controversial new documentary SiCKO opened to strong box office numbers in limited release over the weekend. The biting and sometimes humorous expose of America's health system earned weekend totals of US$4.5 Million on 441 screens, the second highest opening weekend numbers for a documentary ever, after Moore's own Fahrenheit 9/11. (Wikinews, Jul 2, 2007)
Magazines
  • He's now working on Sicko, an exposé about the health-care industry. (Time Magazine, 4/18/2005, Vol. 165, Issue 16)
Newspapers and websites
  • Moore is reportedly working on a follow-up to Fahrenheit 9/11, his record-breaking 2004 documentary, with an expose on the U.S. healthcare system. (Toronto Star, Jan 06, 2006)
  • This year, Michael Moore will re-enter the market with Sicko, his expose of the health care system. (Baltimore Sun, The (MD), Mar 05, 2006)
  • And coming soon to a screen near you: Moore's health-care expose "Sicko," (Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug 04, 2006)
  • With more high-profile documentaries to come this year, such as Michael Moore's expose of the US health service, Sicko (The Times, Jan 04, 2007)
  • Filmmaker Michael Moore has asked the Bush administration to call off an investigation of his trip to Cuba to get treatment for ailing Sept. 11 rescue workers for a segment in his upcoming health-care expose, Sicko. (Toronto Star, May 14, 2007)
  • Michael Moore is handing out fake bandages to promote his new film Sicko, an expose of the failings of the U.S. health care system. (Toronto Star, May 20, 2007)
  • Moore was at the Cannes film festival promoting his new film, Sicko, an expose of the US health system, but he spared the time to launch a few missiles at his political enemies, including US President George W. Bush. (The Australian, May 23, 2007)
  • Michael Moore's U.S. health care expose Sicko often infuriates with its glibness and its factual inconsistencies, yet it is provoking discussion in advance of its June 29 theatrical release. Moore has set the agenda for an important debate. (Toronto Star, May 25, 2007)
  • His latest, the national health-care expose "Sicko," is likely to divide audiences as much as his previous films. (Deseret Morning News, 06/29/2007)
  • This filmmaker has given Americans the idea that documentaries can be fun while bashing the U.S. elite and turning himself into a cracker-barrel philosopher; now he has come to spread the word about his latest filmed expose. Sicko is a cry of pain and a blast of gallows humor over the state of the American health care system. (The Baltimore Sun, Jun 24, 2007)
  • Michael Moore's exposé of America's healthcare ills is just the prescription to spur political debate...Of all the chubby former autoworker's exposés of corporate avarice and heartlessness, it's perhaps the saddest, and the ache lingers long after you leave the theater...The rightists hate him for all the outdated Cold War reasons, and the equally old-fashioned documentarians, whose painstaking exposés seem a bit dry in comparison, resent his entertainment value. (East Bay Express, Jun 27, 2007)
  • With "Sicko," the Michael Moore expose on the U.S. healthcare Insurance system, hitting the cineplex screens this week, right-wing conservative talk has resurrected Moore as Satan incarnate and the Democrat (sic) Party as "The Party of Michael Moore." (The Huffington Post, Jun 28, 2007)
  • Like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore's other movies, Sicko is less documentary than poke in the eye. It plays on emotions with anecdotes, stories and facts that aren't always in context, up-to-date or accurate. So it has to be taken for what it is: a provocateur's expose of the worst of the American system, coupled with an uncritical, even naive, review of his preferred alternative. The question is whether a humorous overlay can stir a serious debate about the nation's ailing health care system. (USA Today, Jun 28, 2007)
  • But that all changed on Monday when Michael Moore unspooled Sicko, his expose of the American health care system, at the Union Rescue Mission. (The Times, Jun 28, 2007)
  • With an angry expose of health care, Moore grows up (San Jose Mercury News, Jun 28, 2007)
  • Michael Moore's latest cherry bomb, "Sicko," an exposé of the U.S. health care system, opens Friday at the downtown Montpelier cinema for a run of at least three weeks. (Barre Montpelier Times Argus, Jun 28, 2007)
  • For the nitpickers who say his health-care expose "Sicko" lacks balance, Michael Moore would like to make this perfectly clear:"I AM the balance," he said in a phone interview. (Star Tribune, Jun 29, 2007)
  • Over here, maverick moviemaker Michael Moore releases his latest campaigning documentary this weekend, entitled 'Sicko'. It will soon open in Ireland. It is an expose of the inequality at the heart of the system here. (RTÉ, Jun 29, 2007)
  • "Sicko," which opens nationally today, is Moore's expose on the American health-care system. (Home News Tribune, Jun 29, 2007)
  • For Missy Hammer, this wasn't just a movie."I've lived it," she said Friday after viewing the first Grand Rapids showing of Michael Moore's film "Sicko," an expose on the health care industry. (Grand Rapids Press, Jun 30, 2007)
  • Amazingly, there is a point in "Sicko" - documentarian/local hero Michael Moore's latest, most polished exposé that few other filmmakers would have the grit or wit to conduct so effortlessly - where, even insulating for all we know about Moore's extremely leftist views, we are still left utterly stunned and outraged. (Michigan Daily, Jul 2, 2007)
  • Half comedy, half muckraking horror film, "Sicko" offers testimony from regular folks who've had ruinous encounters with cold-hearted healthcare providers as well as a Moore-led pied-piper tour of countries whose healthcare systems appear shockingly better than ours.At the center of the film, as always, is Moore. Like Bono, Spike Lee and George Clooney, he occupies that amorphous space in the pop culture given over to bold-faced names whose activism is indistinguishable from their celebrity. A walking inspiration for op-ed page pieces arguing the merits of his latest exposé, Moore has, as Clifford Odets once said of Orson Welles, "a peculiarly American audacity." (Los Angeles Times, Jul 3, 2007)
  • In Google's case, Lauren Turner, an account planner for Google, wrote on Google's health care advertising blog that "Sicko," a newly released expose of the health care industry, was one-sided and said that it failed to show the health system's positive contributions such as attention to patient care and philanthropy. (San Francisco Chronicle, Jul 05, 2007)
  • U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, makes at least one brief appearance in filmmaker Michael Moore's new movie, "Sicko," an expose of the American health care system. (Dayton Daily News, Jul 9, 2007)
  • Health-care exposé...Moore's exposé tallied $4.6 million for its opening weekend, the second-highest-opening weekend box office of all time for a documentary after Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11," about Bush administration policies. "Sicko" played to many sold-out houses. (Courier-Journal, Jul 9, 2007)
  • Last week, members of the United Nurses of Alberta gave out 150 free passes to the documentary "SiCKO" and now it's their turn to get a free look at what's being called "an entertaining expose of the American health system." (630CHED, Jul 12, 2007)
  • ...Sicko, Michael Moore's expose of the health-care industry. (The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jul 12, 2007)
  • "Sicko," the ball-capped muckraker's expose on health care, opened June 29 but has yet to come to a local theater. (Daytona Beach News-Journal, Jul 12, 2007)
  • The Powells might not make the cut for Sicko, Michael Moore's expose of the health-care industry. (The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jul 12 2007)
  • "Sicko" may be his most all-encompassing expose. It concerns a topic that affects us all, whether we're liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican, and that's health care. (Santa Cruz Sentinel, Jul 21, 2007)
  • Michael Moore's latest documentary-as-soapbox-vituperation is a damning, touching, darkly comical exposé on the United States health-care system. It is also a deeply impassioned appeal for change. Moore haters like to dismiss the man as a whack job and a lying partisan crank, but he's really an idealist. (Houston Chronicle, Jul 23, 2007)

Discussion of exposé and polemic

That's an impressive list, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a single point of view, and that expose' is a charged word. Every single one of these is by a Moore supporter. If it were worth the trouble, I could find a few dozen, including by supporters, that call it a polemic. If polemic makes it into the lede without qualification, I won't object to expose making it into the lede without qualification, but it was deleted when I added it on the same grounds that I object to expose' on. THF 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that it is a "single point of view"; many of these articles, such as MTV and USA Today are highly critical of Moore and Sicko, and even Variety expresses doubts as to the marketability of the film. Your claim that "every single one of these is by a Moore supporter" is demonstrably false. Do you think that Brandweek, British Medical Journal, Time Magazine, and the The Philadelphia Inquirer are pro-Michael Moore? Please. Perhaps you have forgotten that this article is not about Michael Moore, but concerns the film Sicko, which has received very good reviews, placing 92% on Rotten Tomatoes alone. —Viriditas | Talk 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Forgive the imprecision of using the shorthand "Moore supporter" for "supports Moore's goals of increasing government involvement in healthcare." Again, the issue is that it is a POV. A widespread POV, but a POV. The term "polemic" is even more widespread, and even more neutral, but was deleted from the Wikipedia article. I haven't seen a single supporter of the American healthcare system call the movie an expose. As the New York Times noted, Moore's anecdotes are not new and some have been known for decades. What's factual is not new, and what's new is not factual. I've expressed a willingness to compromise: equal treatment for the term "polemic." Right now, "expose" is given better treatment than "polemic," and you're asking to unbalance it further. THF 14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This USA Today piece calling it an expose' is hardly that much of a critic of Moore: "Sicko doesn't have the answer, but if it can do for health care what An Inconvenient Truth did for global warming, pass the popcorn." I really resent the mischaracterization. Let's see a real opponent of the viewpoint pushed by the movie call it an expose'. THF 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hardly a critic? "Flawed Sicko...less documentary than poke in the eye...plays on emotions with anecdotes, stories and facts that aren't always in context, up-to-date or accurate...a provocateur's expose of the worst of the American system...applies rose-colored camera lenses to health care in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba. None of these, particularly Cuba, is as idyllic as portrayed. All require higher taxes to finance and are beset by inefficiencies...The truth of the U.S. system is that it is the best in the world for those who can pay for the best it has to offer." Hardly a critic? —Viriditas | Talk 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It's written by someone who agrees with Moore that there are problems in the healthcare system, and that he's doing an expose'. Show me someone who disagrees with Moore's conclusions that calls it an expose'. I've shown you people who agree with Moore who call his movie a polemic, yet that word was deleted as POV. THF 15:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Even Humana, the healthcare benefit company that is skewered in the film, admits in a response to Sicko that "this film does not accurately depict the health benefits industry" and that the company has "long championed the need for fundamental, consumer-focused transformation of health care." Humana goes on to state that "it is unacceptable that millions of Americans lack access to quality, affordable health care coverage", and "urge the country to embrace coverage for everyone by shoring up the safety net, providing a helping hand for working families and encouraging the purchase of health care coverage."[65] So we see that Humana, a health care benefits company that serves 9 million members[66] admits that there are problems in the healthcare system and disagrees with Michael Moore. And it doesn't stop there: Aetna, one of the largest insurers in the U.S. admits that there are serious problems in the American health care industry.[67] Do they also support Michael Moore? And what about Kaiser Permanente, a leading health care provider who was also heavily criticized in the film? Kaiser Permanente openly states that "health care reform is a critical national issue";[68] In February, 2007, Kaiser's CEO wrote that he found "vast racial and ethnic disparities and inequities" in American "health status and access to health care" and recommended "moving this country down the path to an American form of universal coverage as quickly as possible."[69] Are you going to honestly tell me that Kaiser Permanente is a supporter of Michael Moore as well? —Viriditas | Talk 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The article in question is a USA Today editorial. There is no evidence that it was "written by someone who agrees with Moore." Just because someone claims there are problems in the American health care system, does not mean they agree with Moore; working health care professionals, industry insiders, and insurance, hospital, and pharmaceutical reps agree that there are problems in the American health care system, while simultaneously criticizing Sicko - examples abound from the left, the center, and the right, in articles like "'Sicko': A diagnosis in 5 parts", (The Arizona Republic) and "Local health pros diagnose 'Sicko'" (Cape Cod Times): I can provide many more examples. There is ample precedence for "America's frustration with managed care", with "polls showing health care as Americans' top domestic concern." (New York Times/CBS poll, March, 2007[70]) These concerns have been demonstrated in films like Article 99 (1992), Critical Care (1997), As Good as It Gets (1997), Damaged Care (2002), and John Q (2002),[71] so the topic has been on the forefront of debate in the U.S. (and Hollywood) well before Moore got around to tackling the issue. And, there is no relationship between the term "exposé" and POV. "Exposé" describes a type of investigative journalism; its use has no bearing on whether the reporting is accurate or biased. If you don't want to see the word used in the article, you must show, using reliable, secondary sources directly appealing to the topic, how the word "exposé" is a POV term. —Viriditas | Talk 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a single reliable, secondary source that was written prior to 2007-07-26 that argues that Sicko should not be called an "exposé". Calling the film an "exposé" is not POV; it is an approximation of the stated purpose of the film. We are merely representing the film according to a wide variety of reliable secondary sources. Please give me a single, valid reason for not calling this film an "exposé". Michael Moore is considered an exponent of exposé journalism, a modern muckracker. —Viriditas | Talk 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a single reliable, secondary source that was written prior to 2007-07-26 that argues that Sicko should not be called a "polemic." Again, I am only arguing that the lede should be balanced, and not only include POV words that extol Moore's POV. But the term "polemic" was objected to, even though it is well-sourced, more neutral than "expose", and used by both sides of the debate. THF 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I have never addressed the use of the word "polemic", only the term "exposé", which apparently you are attempting to deflect by changing the subject. Your assertion that the use of the word "exposé" makes the article unbalanced is your own personal opinion, and is not supported by any reliable source, and as such, you are not justified to remove the term from the article. Michael Moore is described in many reliable sources as a "modern muckracker", making him a leading exponent of "exposé journalism". There is nothing POV about this in any way: the two terms are not mutually exclusive. In the San Francisco Chronicle, Steven Winn writes: "Moore is often described as a polemicist or provocateur. A more telling touchstone may be the American muckrakers who flourished a century ago, in the early 1900s. Like Lincoln Steffens (who took on urban corruption), Ida Tarbell (whose target was Standard Oil) and Upton Sinclair (the depravity of slaughterhouses), Moore uses journalistic techniques in an overtly political, sledgehammer fashion. The fact that the muckrakers told people what they wanted to hear, as commentator Walter Lippman said, was "the important revelation of the whole campaign." Moore, like them, sets out to feed an appetite that's growling away and often left unsatisfied."[72] —Viriditas | Talk 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Weigh in

I think "exposé" and polemic are both neutral and accurate according to our own definitions of the terms. But given that the lead seems fine as it is, I'm not sure it's worth all this fuss. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan. --David Shankbone 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Beat me by two seconds. I agree with Ryan and David. Turtlescrubber 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the lead rewrite at the moment, but I would like to see the use of exposé and polemic in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

Earlier, I tagged three sentences with the inline weasel tag. User THF was kind enough to fix one of the tags and I think he made a great improvement to the flow of the section. I inserted these tags, not to blunt the impacts of the critics but instead to clarify and improve the readability and structure. Please see WP:WEASEL if you have any questions. Thanks.Turtlescrubber 17:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

From the manual of style: "The problem with weasel words isn't that what they state is false. Clearly that latter statement isn't; some people do say that. The problem is that truth, while obviously welcome and necessary, is not enough to constitute encyclopedic writing in and of itself. The progression of an article must also be relevant and informative, and this statement about what-some-people-say is neither. Who are these people, one might ask? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? Exactly how many is some, and why is this of any significance, anyway?". Turtlescrubber 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bozell's CNN is biased toward Moore for giving him air time argument

I propose that the phrase "CNN gave three hours and ten minutes of free publicity to Moore on its shows Larry King Live and The Situation Room," be removed from the Gupta controversy section (leaving the second part of the sentence containing an actual criticism intact).it detracts from the flow and doesn't seem to be relevant to the debate. I seriously doubt anyone will come here seeking information on how much CNN airtime the Gupta controversy consumed, or that the amount of airtime will sway anyone's evaluation of the matter. I previously made this edit but it got reverted so please comment. Ripe 22:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement is directly responsive to the sentence in the article stating that "Moore accused CNN and Gupta of being biased in favor of the drug industry because most of the sponsors for their medical coverage, including Dr. Gupta's reports, were drug companies." NPOV requires the inclusion of reliably-sourced evidence refuting Moore's claim. I'm okay with both phrases being deleted, but deleting just the second one would permit Moore's POV to be pushed. THF 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand how the 3hr10min factoid is a counterpoint; the amount of time spent covering something doesn't disprove bias. IMO the Moore quote is more relevant because he was directly involved whereas the commentator is a 3rd party, but more importantly it just doesn't seem like an important fact worthy of inclusion, whereas the fact that "L. Brent Bozell III" is of the opinion that Gupta was right & Moore "walked away from the facts" is (I suppose), and the coverage time thing just seems to obscure the debate. I wasn't (and am still not) thinking about POV, I was thinking relevance, but if something is POV it needs to be removed; NPOV is not the inclusion of all possible POV sides. cheers Ripe 11:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If CNN was biased against Moore, they wouldn't give him all that valuable free airtime with only five minutes of mild rebuttal. Read the whole Bozell piece. NPOV is the inclusion of all material points of view. Read the policy. THF 12:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with leaving that criticism in there, but I find Ted Frank's assertion that this is proof that CNN is not biased against (or for) Moore to be hysterical. The entire media machine whores itself out to whoever will bring in ratings, Moore (or Coulter) included. They could care less who they throw up there. That's why Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton always represent religion on these shows - it's not because they are Godly, but because people will watch them just to see what they'll say. Giving "valuable free air time" proves or disproves nothing, and nothing is free. Especially air time. CNN uses Moore, Moore uses CNN. Period. --David Shankbone 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing you said contradicts the fact that Bozell used that fact to rebut Moore's claim of CNN bias, and the issue is verifiability. If you have a reliable source that supports your original research, feel free to insert it, since it also contradicts Moore. THF 12:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Your reply makes no sense since I proposed no change but simply supplied a comment. And that's not really OR, it's their business model. Wouldn't be hard to find someone to back the assertion that "The media put people on their shows who people will watch, so that they can sell more advertising at a higher price." Like I said, get real. --David Shankbone 12:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Moore makes a similar point in The Corporation. [73] (see 1 min 26 sec mark). CNN can easily accommodate guests like Moore and still remain biased, dependent on advertisers (as they are) for the majority of their revenues. smb 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
And Moore's point was that CNN is being underwritten by the drug companies and thus have a financial stake in casting him in a negative light; they'll get the best of both worlds - People watching for the advertising and they'll also make the drug company underwriters happy. So, my point doesn't contradict Moore. It finds them "if they put them on the show, they clearly have no bias" logical fallacy.--David Shankbone 12:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 731

You continue to miss the point by arguing that Bozell is wrong. He may well be. But that opinion is utterly irrelevant. The issue is verifiability, and it's absolutely verifiable that Bozell rebutted Moore's claim of bias. Let readers decide for themselves. Your opinion that a verifiable point of view is incorrect is not a reason to remove it, just as I can't remove all of Moore's opinions that I think are wrong. THF 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate pile of verifiable facts and through consensus editors have every right to select what is worth including in an article. It's not POV to remove text with low information content, and such content does not need to be tolerated just because there's paucity of quality content to otherwise replace it. But I suppose that if consensus is to leave in L. Brent Bozell III's comment as an exemplar of his thought processes, fine by me. Ripe 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Just because someone said something doesn't make it a notable criticism; especially such a weak and logically fallacious "counter-point" as Bozell's. Is that really the best counterpoint to Moore? "They put him on the air, thus they have no bias?" Pretty weak, and kind of dumb. I'm not going to take it out, but if somebody else wanted to for the sheer stupidity of the argument, I wouldn't be opposed. --David Shankbone 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind if both comments come out. But Moore's false allegation should not stand unrebutted. THF 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It's your opinion that it is false, and it is not necessary to have a rebuttal, unless CNN specifically offered one. --David Shankbone 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly: it's my opinion. And my opinion doesn't count. But neither does yours. That's the whole point of WP:NPOV requiring all notable points of view. If we're going to discuss allegations of CNN bias, let's fairly represent all notable opinions, including the opinion that CNN is biased towards Moore. THF 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, but where our opinions do count is our opinions of notability of arguments and those making them. We aren't here to include every two-bit argument made. It's Moore's film and an article about it, its impact and the press coverage surrounding it, so clearly what he says regarding those things matter far more than a weak argument against him by someone who is simply a commentator. And our opinion as to the strength and notability of such things is what counts. --David Shankbone 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's an issue of weight, and Moore has plenty more weight than Bozell in this article; note that I limit Bozell's comments (which are far stronger when it comes to the quality of the movie itself) to the Gupta controversyr. But your argument is incorrect to the extent you're implying that, when it comes to discussion of controversies in the article, only Moore's point of view is relevant. That's a plain violation of WP:NPOV. THF 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That isn't what I said, and I would hope you'd be a bit better at debate than to take a comment limited to this one sentence and not mean it to apply to the whole article, which I clearly do not think it does. Let's not waste each other's time. --David Shankbone 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Since LBB's article never implies the fact is supposed to be a rebuttal to Moore's bias allegations, how about replacing the 3:10 phrase with "during the King interview Gupta denied that his reporting has been influenced by CNN's medical industry sponsors". Ripe 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That's an unusual reading of the following paragraph: Let's be blunt: Michael Moore is one ungrateful leftist hack. CNN had showered him with three hours and 10 minutes of face time (repeats included) on "Larry King Live" and "The Situation Room," helping him sell his latest socialist film, "Sicko." That kind of attention would make a conservative drool. But when CNN aired a "fact check" piece on his documentary, adding a fraction of balance, he declared jihad, promising in a letter to be CNN's "worst nightmare." That sure seems to be saying that CNN is biased towards Moore. You may disagree with that point of view, but that you or I disagree with a point of view is not a reason to excise it. The issue is verifiability. THF 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the issue is one of notability. To say that a broadcast company that efforts to attract viewers by putting on people who draw them to watch (as Michael Moore OR Ann Coulter do) shows bias is not a notable argument, but a little ridiculous. Yes, our opinion on the notability of an argument counts, and it's simply an unnotable and ridiculous counter-point to Moore saying they are biased. Here, we have two people involved: Moore and CNN. Bozell is neither party. So if he is going to make an argument, it needs to be a strong/notable one. --David Shankbone 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The whole point of FAIR is to count up the number of leftists who are on tv, and complain that they are supposedly underrepresented and that the media is supposedly biased. You may think that that argument is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is made, and we don't get to impose our editorial judgment on verified opinions we think wrong, or I'd be slicing two thirds of this article to cut all the Moore arguments I think are wrong and far more ludicrous. There's more than two opinions: Moore claims CNN is biased against him; CNN claims they are neutral; Bozell claims that CNN is biased towards Moore. All are notable, all deserve mention if we're going to cover the controversy at all. THF 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Therein lies your problem: You are giving equal weight to Bozell and Moore, when the article is about Moore and his work, so to say that you would remove his arguments because you disagree with them, when the entirety of the subject is about Moore's arguments, shows your wrong-headed thinking in this regard. Had Bozell argued that because Moore is fat it gives him little room to make any arguments related to the U.S. Health System since he clearly has a vested interest in having his higher medical costs paid for, this also wouldn't merit inclusion. Moore's conjecture as to CNN's bias, since he is a directly-involved party, is pretty worthy of inclusion. Bozell's conjecture that CNN's business model shows bias toward Moore is just dumb, and he is not a party involved in the dispute. Moore at least brings up evidence that people who underwrite Gupta's show are the ones he attacks in his ad. Bozell's argument is barely worth a mention, especially since CNN gives this kind of air time to pretty much all newsmakers. --David Shankbone 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said, LBB's article never implies the 3:10 fact is supposed to be a rebuttal to Moore's bias allegations. Ripe 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 731b

(outdent)There is a left-wing professor and a left-wing organization not involved in the Gupta dispute, and they are both quoted at length. The fact that you keep arguing that Bozell is wrong, when that is irrelevant, shows that you miss the point of WP:NPOV. If you are arguing that an argument about CNN's bias is irrelevant to an article about Sicko, that's okay, but then take out all of the arguments about CNN's bias, not just the ones you disagree with. THF 23:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it needs to be plainly stated: what is being argued is that one argument (out of three) that is posited by Bozell is unnotable and silly. Since you seem to be confused, nobody is arguing the entirety of Bozell's argument be removed, but only one of them, since it's kind of stupid. He is stating that the CNN business model is biased toward Moore because they simply put him on their shows; silly, considering Ann Coulter year-round is on CNN far more than Moore. Again, to clarify for you Ted: One argument out of three. --David Shankbone 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You never said what is wrong with the text I suggested above. "Moore said Gupta is biased due to med. industry sponsors, but Gupta denied the allegations" is much better than "Moore said Gupta is biased due to med. industry sponsors, but L. Brent Bozel III said CNN gave him 3 hours 10 minutes of free publicity." Ripe 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Because, as I have said repeatedly, the first ignores the point of view that CNN is biased in favor of Moore, and that Moore is complaining that CNN should be even more biased. THF 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
But that POV has only been proposed by a single 3rd party commentator, not by any of the principles involved in the dispute. Why is it notable? Ripe 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Brent Bozell is more notable than Gary Schwitzer, as the wikilinks show, and, as the article stands now, Bozell has 21 words of quotes, while Schwitzer has 41 words of quotes. If your problem is notability, there are other places in the article to cut. THF 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Schwitzer was evaluating a dispute by the principles, whereas Bozell's comment does not. You're... comparing apples and oranges. Ripe 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
They're both talking about a dispute by the principals, Moore and CNN. Bozell says that Moore has nothing to complain about, because CNN gave him lots of face time while only giving him mild criticism. Bozell and Schwitzer are talking about the exact same controversy, the difference being that (1) Schwitzer is less notable; (2) takes up twice as much space; and (3) is redundant of two other quoted people in the section (Moore and FAIR), while Bozell's POV is not reflected anywhere else in the section. THF 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like THF is lazy - Schwitzer is more notable in this debate than Bozell. He worked in television medical news for 14 years, with positions at CNN in Atlanta, WFAA-TV in Dallas, and WTMJ-TV in Milwaukee. He was head of the medical news unit at CNN, leading the efforts of ten staff members in Atlanta and Washington, D.C. After leaving the television news business, he has frequently been asked to write or speak on the state of medical journalism. He now runs one of the premiere health blogs. What's Bozell know about journalism and medicine, and medical journalism, outside of his partisan diatribes? Not much. --192.217.249.28 00:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"typical of the criticisms"

What I love about Bozell's piece is that it is very typical of the criticisms: They make statements that they do not back up. for instance:

Then he walked away from the facts, making the outrageous claim that communist Cuba's dismal ranking is all America's fault: "The fact that the healthcare system in an impoverished nation crippled by our decades-old blockade (including medical supplies and drugs) ranks so closely to ours is more an indictment of the American system than the Cuban system."

Bozell never actually says how this is "walking away from the facts" but just, on its face, is outrageous--as if, you know, it's obvious this it is outrageous. In his Op-Ed, he never actually says why this is outrageous, provides any evidence or data to back up such an outrageous claim. I think the Bozell piece is a great addition to the article, because it shows how the critics of the film have poorly-argued against it. Which is a shame - I would like to see some actual criticisms that, you know, dissect the film instead of just say "that's an outrageous claim" as if that alone makes it so instead of what it really is: an appeal to emotion. This has been the standard for Conservative critiques.--David Shankbone 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have cited to multiple substantive and detailed criticisms in talk-page comments above.[74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] Each time I've tried to insert them, they were reverted out. I welcome others to put them in to fix the POV problems with the article. Here are some others: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] THF 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are some additional ones: [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] THF 18:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (updated 12:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Third opinion

Someone posted a plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion to help resolve the dispute about whether the amount of CNN air time devoted to Moore is relevant. Please note that the Third Opinion proces is intended for breaking a tie in a dispute between two editors. There are three editors here, so a third opinion plea isn't really appropriate. Nevertheless, I'll say that, in my opinion, it's enough to say that the section on the Gupta controversy isn't enhanced by stating the amount of air time devoted to it. It's really irrelevant. It's enough to say that CNN aired the controversy without the distraction of the number of hours and minutes of air time. -Amatulic 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw the RFC. I agree with Amatulic. The amount of time need not be stated. Eiler7 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Does Moore's 'Sicko' truly reflect U.S. health care?"

See http://www.charlotte.com/opinion/v-print/story/216819.html and archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5QlPVuzik 74.233.157.195

Continued WP:LEAD violations

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. I've inserted language directly quoted from Reuters to do that (so that there is absolutely no question of POV-pushing), and editors keep reverting it, in violation of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV to the meaningless "generated criticism and controversy," without any justification other than personal preference for not adhering to Wikipedia policy requiring notable controversies to be described, not just vaguely alluded to. THF 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop characterizing copyedits that you don't like as policy violations. As was noted, 3 separate editors reverted you. Ripe 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't matter if ten editors took a position contrary to Wikipedia policy, and all it would take is one editor justifying the edit with respect to policy for me to accept a compromise. Nothing in Wikipedia policy states that any three editors can unilaterally decide to override Wikipedia policy without consensus. Stop arguing ad populum and tell me why you think this article, out of all articles, doesn't need to follow Wikipedia policy. THF 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:LEAD is a guideline not a policy. Ripe 20:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I think THF's argument is compelling. I won't re-revert. My original revert was over my disagreement with the LEAD guidelines, since I personally feel the lead should be a brief outline lacking specificity since the current guidelines mauled the Tompkins Square Park Police Riot lead. But...whatever. --David Shankbone 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, David. Ripe, all the difference between guideline and policy means is that WP:LEAD can be disregarded if there is a compelling reason to make an "occasional exception." Otherwise, it is "a standard that all users should follow." For a third time, I ask: is there a compelling reason to disregard WP:LEAD here? Is there alternative descriptive language other than Reuters that you would prefer? Note that the controversy is significant enough that Reuters, the news service that's afraid of using the word "terrorist" to describe Al Qaeda, feels the need to add mention of the controversy in an apposition, which would suggest all the more reason not to disregard WP:LEAD here. THF 20:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Describing the issues in the lead as "criticism and controversy" is not as you call it, "POV whitewashing" - it is an accurate summary. The quote you added from Reuters reporter Bob Tourtellotte is WP:WEASEL: "...some viewers have criticized it for a lack of a substantive comparison of the U.S. health-care system with countries like Cuba that offer universal health care". And we don't use quotes the way you are using them; instead we paraphrase, summarizing the main points of the article. The poor quote you have offered tells me nothing. The average reader will not get any information from "a lack of a substantive comparison". You need to be clear, direct, and brief in your writing. —Viriditas | Talk 21:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"generating criticism and controversy for comparing the U.S. for-profit health insurance and pharmaceutical industry with the universal and non-profit systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Cuba." is wildly inaccurate. That's not a fair description of the criticism or the controversy. THF 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What is "wildly inaccurate" and unfair about it? And, Ted, just so we are on the page, please refer to any of the sources listed in Film journals and magazines and/or any reliable entertainment industry sources listed in Category:Film magazines. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 23:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
There hasn't been controversy because it "compared" the medical systems, there has been controversy because it inaccurately compared the systems. (Yes, I know that it's just one POV, and others disagree. That's still the controversy that is absent from the lead paragraph.) The lead doesn't describe the controversy. It thus violates WP:LEAD. And unless you're going to scrub the article of all the material that doesn't come from film journals, etc., I very much resent your attempt to limit my sources to film magazines. You know perfectly well that this film is a polemic and it's not notable for its cinematography, but for its attempt to influence the political system. THF 23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you're not aware that industry sources like Variety have been highly critical of Moore? See for example Joe Leydon's film criticism on the Moore documentary, Manufacturing Dissent. Try doing some research. —Viriditas | Talk 01:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that because the lead does not represent one particular POV (coincidentally your own), it is "wildly inaccurate". It's just the opposite, Ted: the lead does not take a particular side nor should it lend undue weight to one side over another. If there is a notable Sicko-related controversy, it will surely be covered by film magazines. The current lead notes that there is criticism and controversy over the comparison made between health care systems and that is entirely accurate. If there are further points of criticism and controversy that should be added to the lead, please describe them here. The lead should be expanded, but so should the body of the article. —Viriditas | Talk 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1. No. I am saying that the article has to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It does not.
2. Nothing in WP:RS, WP:V, WP:LEAD, and WP:NPOV restricts sourcing to film magazines. This is especially true when the creator of the movie explicitly states that it was created for political purposes. I am not going to address that tendentious argument again.
3. The most notable controversy of this documentary film is whether it is accurate. There are literally dozens of reliable sources pointing out errors in the movie. The controversy is so large that Reuters feels it cannot mention the name of the movie without mentioning the controversy. That controversy has been entirely suppressed from the article. I am adding an NPOV tag until that problem is fixed. Per WP:NPOVD, please do not remove the tag. THF 01:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You have not demonstrated how the article fails to comply with policies and guidelines. I asked you to cite the crticism and controversies you feel are not being represented in a reliable film publication. I made this request for the same reason we do not cite biblical literature in the lead section of an article on Evolution, nor do we cite atheist literature in the lead section of an article on God; I don't understand why you are against citing film criticism in an article about a film. Sourcing is always restricted by three essential things: authority, accuracy, and currency. If a source does not meet those three criteria, it may be removed. In this discussion, we are focusing on authority and accuracy. I have given you an example of an authoritative film critic who has criticized Michael Moore. Now, all you have to do is find one that criticizes the film and describes the criticism and controversies you claim are missing in the lead. Finally, the most notable controversy of this documentary film is not whether or not it is accurate; the most notable controversy is the U.S. government's alleged subpoena of filmmaker Michael Moore over his trip to Cuba. Allegations of "inaccuracy" apply to every film ever made, documentary or not, and are not "notable" in any way. I will be removing the POV tag unless you can answer the questions I have asked and actively seek to resolve this dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Viriditas & support tag removal. Ripe 02:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The first policy I will point to is that you do not remove an NPOV tag unless there is a consensus to do so. See WP:NPOVD. It's not a majority vote that removes the tag, it requires unanimity.
Second, we will have a much more productive discussion if you address what I say instead of something else. My position of "An article can cite to reliable sources other than film criticism" is not logically equivalent to "An article may not cite to film criticism."
I refer back to my 1:59 comment for why the article flunks NPOV and LEAD. Over the last few weeks, I have cited over a dozen reliable sources on this talk page, who, contrary to WP:WEIGHT, are not represented in the article. When even the mild mention of the controversy by left-wing Reuters is being sanitized from the article, there is a real NPOV problem going on. THF 02:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Ted, this is an article about a film, and you need to cite reliable film sources that describe the criticism and controversy you feel are missing in the article. If you can't do that, I'm going to remove the POV tag. —Viriditas | Talk 02:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, WP:NPOVD does not permit removal of a tag while there is a dispute. And, again, I cited over a dozen reliable sources at 17:07 on August 1. THF 03:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Tag removal requires consensus, but consensus doesn't require unanimity. "ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough." Ripe 03:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Ted, WP:NPOVD doesn't say that, and NPOVD is a Wikipedia:How-to, and is neither an official policy nor a guideline. —Viriditas | Talk 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it requires consensus, but two third-party editors have also agreed that there are NPOV violations. THF 12:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

THF's intro controversy/criticism version is the better one. The criticism and controversy isn't about the comparison, it's about how the comparison was done. No one has criticized that a comparison was done as the current version implies. The criticism is about how the comparison was made. Specifically that it lacked any substance. Certainly, his travelling to cuba generated controversy and criticism and belongs in the intro. --Tbeatty 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL. "Some viewers have criticized it" is not acceptable, nor is the use of a long quote that stands outside the article in what should be a paraphrase of the article itself. The criticism, "it lacked any substance" attributed to "some viewers" is not appropriate. Furthermore, such weasel criticism amounts to undue weight, which is exactly what was removed when it was neutralized. —Viriditas | Talk 03:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a manual of style guideline. Since the reliable Source used the passive voice, it is acceptable though. However it is easy to change to active voice since it's reuters that made the report. I have changed it to active voice to support the source. It is not undue weight as it is esentially the same lenght as other criticism. Also, the news about the investigation appears to be as large as the news about the movie. --Tbeatty 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because "Reuters noted that some viewers have criticized the movie for its lack of a substantive comparison of the U.S. health-care system with other countries" implies that it's a fact that Sicko lacks a substantive comparison of the systems, which is POV. Ripe 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Fixed. --Tbeatty 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Your addition of, "Reuters noted that some viewers have criticized the movie for its lack of a substantive comparison of the U.S. health-care system with other countries" and "There is also controversy over Moore's possible violation of the United States embargo on Cuba" seems to suggest that you don't understand what weasel words are, and aren't familiar with the NPOV guideline. Some viewers have criticized the movie for many things, one of which may or may not be its "lack of substantive comparison", whatever that is supposed to mean. And what exactly is it supposed to mean? The problem still remains: who are these viewers, and why are we giving them undue weight in the lead section when we have already neutralized the lead. And, where are the reliable film sources in film publications? Please, do a little research. Read and understand the NPOV policy. Do you also think that writing "Moore's possible violation of the United States embargo" was neutral? Try reading actual, authoritative film criticism; use the best sources you can find, and add them to the body of the article. Stop using the lead to manipulate the reader and contribute something to the article. —Viriditas | Talk 04:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
First, you don't seem to understand reliable sources. It is not weasel words to use active voice and sourced criticism. In fact, it is the exact opposite of weasel words. Your concern seems to be with the Reuters article which uses the term "some viewers", in which case I suggest you contact the author. But the wikipedia sentence was active voice and reliably sourced. Please read the weasel word manual of style and learn that a) it is a guideline and b) it is superceded by a reliable source. If a reliable source doesn't follow wikipedia manual of style guidelines they still must be represented accurately. Second, the investigation of Moore is real. It's reliably sourced. It's a criticism. It's related to the film. It's pretty prominent as well. Certainly prominent enough to be mentioned in the intro as some of the major criticism of the film. Wikipedia is not a film review, it is an encyclopedia which means that criticism of the film can go beyond the simple plot. It can include the social aspects of the criticism as well. --Tbeatty 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand the WP:RS guideline, which says that "In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Most importantly, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." This is why I have asked you and THF to cite film publications. WP:RS also mandates that "claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources" which is exactly what you failed to do; such criticisms go in the criticism section - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Further, you fail to "assert facts" and instead have asserted the opinions themselves. The use of weasel words like "some viewers" cannot be verified, nor supported. It doesn't even pass WP:V. And, the actual author is not "Reuters" as you claim (which would make it an editorial) but film critic Bob Tourtellotte, so you didn't attribute correctly. Tourtellotte "is the West Coast Media Correspondent for Reuters, based in Los Angeles where he has been stationed for 14 years." Tourtellotte "covers movies and the movie industry, which he has followed for nearly a decade after covering emerging companies, technology, hotels and gambling for Reuters financial news service. Bob holds an M.A. in journalism from New York University."[95] Why is criticism by Tourtellotte being used in the lead section and being falsely attributed to Reuters? Why isn't Tourtellotte's criticism in the appropriate section per WP:MOSFILMS? Read WP:RS. Just because we can use reliable sources, doesn't make them appropriate, authoritative, accurate or timely in all secitons and in all articles. All sources are not alike, which is why WP:RS suggests using the best ones. Why are you choosing to use Tourtellotte in the lead section? You must answer these questions. Criticism belongs in the criticism section, per the WP:MOSFILMS guidelines on the reception section: "Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers." —Viriditas | Talk 12:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevant language from WP:NPOVD

It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TedFrank (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

inappropriate removal of NPOV tag

Four editors -- myself, Sarcasticidealist, David Shankbone, and Tbeatty -- agree that there is an NPOV problem with this article after an RFC. Notwithstanding this fact, Viriditas has removed the NPOV tag, though the problem has not been fixed. This is a severe violation of WP:NPOVD. I ask that he demonstrate good faith and return the tag immediately so that readers know that there is an NPOV dispute. THF 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Picking up other points

In response to THF.

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

Have you conducted research into this - can you supply details of a case study?

  • An entire POV-fork article was created to divert criticism of the film away from this article... (12:43, 17 July 2007)

It was not intended to be a diversion. The editor who started the Rebuttals to the film 'Sicko controversies' page did so with the expressed intent of including a disproportionate amount of criticism as quickly as possible. His starting point was that Michael Moore "gets things wrong" and "this Wikipedia article about a Michael Moore movie" should end up looking like "every other Wikipedia article" about a Michael Moore movie.

  • every economist and responsible public policy analyst to comment have criticized the movie. (13:36, 17 July 2007) (emphasis added)

That is prejudicial language which automatically brands 'irresponsible' every public policy analyst who failed to criticise, or perhaps even quietly agrees with, the movie (i.e. the US health-care system is fatally flawed and a well-funded socialised health-care system is the best all-round solution). If we apply that logic elsewhere, then every industrialised country in the western world must be doing something wrong and only the United States doing it right (these other countries irresponsible).

For your information, Sicko already has links to the following pages that include negative sentiment and/or criticism:

[96] (MooreWatch) [97] ("a bit of a dud") [98] ("After the early tales of the [U.S. Health Care] system's failure, Sicko becomes feeble, even inane") [99] (x2) ("naïve and maddeningly mendacious, a clumsy piece of agitprop") [100] ("You don't have to be a conservative to take issue with the way Moore apples-to-oranges so many economic comparisons in his movie") [101] (Michael Moore's Cure for What Ails Us) [102] ('Sicko': Heavily Doctored) [103] (What’s Lacking in ‘Sicko’) [104] (Where Moore's 'Sicko' becomes a no-no) [105] (x2) (Michael Moore's Shticko) [106] (Who's Really 'Sicko') [107] (Michael Moore's sickness) [108] (For Cubans, a bitter pill) [109] (My conversation with Michael Moore) [110] (CNN's response to Michael Moore)

smb 02:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that portraying "every economist and responsible public policy analyst to comment have criticized the movie." to mean "every economist and responsible public policy analyst to comment have disagreed with the movie" is a pile of crap. It means literally what it says. That they have criticized the movie. It doesn't state they they have all disagreed with everything in the film, or held up the American Health Care System as a miracle of the modern age. Just that they have criticized a movie. That is a true statement. Full stop, as we say in Australia, or period as Americans might say.
Also, whatever the reasons for creating the controversies page, the fact remains that all the stuff that disagreed with moore was moved over there, then expanded, then reintroduced and slashed right down. So whether it was created by those who are pro- or anti-Moore, doesn't change the fact that it was firmly quashed by people who are Pro-Moore. I am personally kinda pro-Moore. WookMuff 08:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC (Lead)

After examining the article, this talk page, and the relevant policies, I can come to no other conclusion than that the significant controversies that exist surrounding the movie are dramatically understated in the lead. I think the references provided by User:TedFrank amply demonstrate that there is substantial and notable controversy surrounding

  • Moore's alleged overstatement of the problems with U.S. health care
  • Moore's alleged understatement of the problems with Canadian, British, French, and Cuban health care
  • The extent to which Moore's alleged link between number of payers and quality of care is established in the movie
  • The extent to which Moore relies on anecdotal rather than statistical evidence

That this controversy comes, in general, from political commentators rather than health economists or film critics or doctors is largely irrelevant: there is significant criticism of this movie and, under the WP:LEAD guideline, that criticism should be included in the lead.

I'm quite willing to discuss this point of view, although I'd rather not get sucked in to devoting quite the time to its discussion that some of you seem to be. It's just the view of a hitherto uninvolved editor (who is, for what little it's worth, a Canadian who's very fond of his country's system of universal public health insurance, but rather wishes his government would pour more money into it). Sarcasticidealist 11:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:MOSFILMS. We don't choose a specific critic and cite them in the lead, nor do we use the lead section as a controversy section. The lead can use expansion just like the rest of the article, but the lead section is not the place for citing specific critics over others; it is the place for generalizing the article, which is exactly what it has done. —Viriditas | Talk 12:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing in WP:MOSFILMS contradicts WP:LEAD, which requires a description of a controversy; and even if MOSFILMS did conflict with LEAD, this article is about more than a film, and LEAD should apply in the case of any conflicts. THF 12:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It is your POV as to what is or is not controversial and per WP:RS there must be clearcut consensus in appropriate (such as film-related) sources that describe that controversy. The lead section is not the place for your to propose synthesized OR regarding controversy, or to pick and choose sources that promote your POV. The lead section of a film article is accurately described in WP:MOSFILMS as a of the article. If you want to cite specific critics, go ahead and do so -- in the correct section. —Viriditas | Talk 12:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, you wildly misstate guidelines, but I'm not going to play Argument Clinic. THF 12:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I've mistated nothing. What part of citing film critics are you having trouble with? —Viriditas | Talk 10:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
From WP:MOSFILMS: The second paragraph (of the lead - SI) should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced, and whether it had any lasting influence or significant impact outside the world of film. This seems very clearcut to me. Critical reaction to this movie has extended well beyond film critics, and the political discussion surrounding it certainly constitutes "significant impact outside the world of film." As to your suggestion that synthesizing critical reactions is OR, yes and no: if you look at a bunch of reviews and conclude something like "critical reaction was generally negative", that's OR because you have taken something that was not actually in your sources. However, if you say "Some critics criticized the film for being intellectually dishonest," and then cite three or four reliable third party critics who say exactly that, that is not OR, because everything you're saying is directly from your sources (it probably wouldn't be NPOV unless combined with the positive critical reaction, though). And you'd also be staying entirely within the WP:MOSFILMS guidelines. Sarcasticidealist 12:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Viriditas's view of OR is awfully one-sided, given that he repeatedly includes "Sicko opened to positive reviews" but insists that including the controversy in the lead would violate OR. (To be clear, I have no problem with the first clause, except as to the exclusion of the material required by LEAD and MOSFILMS.) THF 12:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The film has a 92% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and the consensus of the positive film criticism is found just about everywhere. We don't need to lend undue weight to what some people think is controversial or what some editors think is inaccurate, and that is exactly what has been happening. I support using the most reliable film publications (per WP:RS and per my statements in the above sections) by the most authoritative film critics to expand the article. It is a violation of WP:V to cite a specific film critic in the lead (as THF et al. have been doing) who makes weasel statements about what "some viewers" think. And, nobody has been able to explain what "a lack of a substantive comparison" actually means (it means nothing and says nothing), and why it is notable enough to be included in the lead section. The lead section doesn't need to represent minority views, nor should it, and when notable minority views are represented, they should reflect the current article and not make new claims. Can we all agree that the film is considered "polemical entertainment" (per Erica Abeel of Film Journal International) as well as an "expose"? (British Medical Journal; 7/7/2007, Vol. 335 Issue 7609, p47-47, 1p; Cineaste, Spring2007, Vol. 32, Issue; Variety, 4/24/2006, Vol. 402, Issue 1) Yes, I think we can, and I think that is the consensus of most film critics, which is why I have asked for those terms to be included in the lead. And, those three words offer more information than any other description I've seen, yet they have been actively opposed by the same editors who would prefer to stuff the lead with meaningless, uninformative statments that disinform and manipulate the reader. —Viriditas | Talk 13:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a nice personal opinion, but it contradicts existing Wikipedia guidelines WP:LEAD and WP:MOSFILMS. THF 13:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing I've written contradicts any guideline or policy. Please stop making blanket assertions without evidence. —Viriditas | Talk 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The lead clearly states that there is controversy over Moore's characterizations of both the US and foreign systems, and the controversies are clearly elaborated in the body with many critical citations per smb. We can't stuff everything into the lead. 66.30.239.222 14:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, WP:LEAD requires controversies to be described, not merely alluded to. THF 14:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The controversies are already described in the lead, and I'm the one who added them. Try again. —Viriditas | Talk 10:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we're getting somewhere now, User:Viriditas. I can identify exactly what my areas of disagreement with you are (though I obviously can't speak for User:TedFrank):
  • You believe that including a description of the criticism in the lead constitutes giving "undue weight" to criticisms of the film. I think that criticism is sufficiently widespread for that weight to be due.
  • You believe that there is no need to describe minority views in the lead. I think that enough has been written both in support of and against the film that the minority views are worthy of brief description in the lead.
  • You believe that citing an individual film critic in the lead is a violation of WP:V. I see nothing in that policy to that effect.
  • We have aforementioned disagreement on what constitutes OR.
I think that if we can hash out our disagreement on those four points, we'll be working pretty effectively towards consensus. If you are unclear on my views on any of the above four points, please let me know and I'll elaborate. If you understand my views on those four points, please explain why I'm wrong in each case. Sarcasticidealist 17:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Your involvement in this discussion began with your statement, "After examining the article, this talk page, and the relevant policies, I can come to no other conclusion than that the significant controversies that exist surrounding the movie are dramatically understated in the lead. I think the references provided by User:TedFrank amply demonstrate that there is substantial and notable controversy..." In point of fact, the criticisms you refer to consists of fourteen references offered by TedFrank,[111] none of which were published in a film journal, entertainment, or trade publication, and none of which were written by authoritative film critics. All of these so-called "criticisms" appear to be nothing more than politically-motivated attacks. Considering that there are around 156 film reviews on Rotten Tomatoes alone, this kind of "criticism" can only be described as POV pushing and has absolutely no place in the lead section of an encyclopedia article about a film. —Viriditas | Talk 01:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sarcasticidealist and THF. Controversy/criticism is significant enough to be inlcuded in the lead paragraph. --Tbeatty 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for Viriditas, but I believe that the controversy is adequately summarized in the current form such that it is currently "including a description of the criticism" and not just being alluded to. Expanding what is there to include specific points brought by a small minority of reviewers gives undue weight to those arguments and would invite the respective rebuttals which are just as prominent a part of the controversy and necessary for NPOV, then we're just moving the whole controversy into the lead. I'm not opposed to edits of the current form, but I think it needs to be held to one sentence for appropriate weight, it needs to be a summary of the controversy not a quote of a single reviewer. I think a lot of the attempts to date have been blatant POV-pushing. I might point out that editors that are affiliated with strong political ideologies may have paid attention to/sought out more criticism (or praise) of the movie and may have some sampling bias regarding the prominence of those reviews. c.f. The Passion of the Christ and The O'Reilly Factor, which have much more controversy surrounding them. Ripe 18:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to a single sentence that is a summary of the controversy. How about "Sicko opened to positive reviews, although Moore was accused by some commentators of portraying the American health care system too negatively and those of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Cuba too positively"? There's obviously lots of room to finesse the wording, but is that in the ballpark of what you'd find acceptable as a one sentence summary? Sarcasticidealist 18:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Ripe 18:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasticidealist, what authoritative film critics and/or film publications are you using to base this "summary"? —Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I really think I must be missing something: why must people and/or publications be primarily concerned with film criticism in order for their criticisms of Sicko to appear in the lead? Wouldn't it be equally appropriate for them to be primarily concerned with health policy, or primarily concerned with political discourse, or primarily concerned with journalism? If there is a policy that requires criticism of all films, regardless of topic, to come from film-related sources, then I do apologize for not having looked hard enough to find it. But right now I'm honestly a little confused by your insistence on this point. Sarcasticidealist 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This particular article is about a film. The lead section is supposed to summarize the article about the film using the best sources available. The current article does not do that. Instead, the current article is being edited to place undue weight on the 8% of negative criticism that the film has received from non-film-related sources, mostly composed of political attacks against Michael Moore that either ignore the film entirely or misdirect a discussion of the film to other topics that lie outside the film itself. This is why film reviews from reliable film publications are so important. Political agendas, POV pushers, and attack pieces are not relevant. MOSFILMS explicitly states that the lead should describe "whether critics liked the film or not (and why)"; that means film critics. Such criticism must be representative of good, reliable film criticism, as published by film, entertainment, and trade sources. Please stop using this article to promote POV, political agendas, and fringe beliefs. —Viriditas | Talk 10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Where do you get this "8%" number? Rotten Tomatoes? I think that gives undue weight to film critics, who are judges of aesthetics and entertainment quality, not of the factual accuracy of documentaries. Again, every responsible health policy economist has criticized the film's accuracy; this is not "fringe beliefs." And you're misquoting MOSFILMS, which requires information about the larger societal impact of films to be in the lead; and even if you were correct in your assessment of MOSFILMS, it would contradict LEAD. THF 10:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You think this gives undue weight to film critics? Do you expect me to seriously respond to that? I haven't misquoted MOSFILMS or contradicted LEAD. The controversy has been adequately, accurately, and neutrally represented and so have the criticims. Now, if you want to give the slightest semblance of neutrality, you will do some actual research and attempt to balance the article with both pro and con positions, paying special attention to avoiding undue weight. You will not do so, however, because your only purpose on this article is to skew it to show that "every responsible health policy economist has criticized the film's accuracy". Do you not see how your POV and tendentious editing behavior is the problem, here? —Viriditas | Talk 10:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"authoritative film critics and/or film publications"

Viriditas objects to any addition of the well-sourced criticism of Moore on the grounds that they are not "authoritative film critics and/or film publications." I have two questions:

1) There are 44 footnotes in this article. Maybe a third of them are "authoritative film critics and/or film publications." Why are you only objecting to the ones that Sarcasticidealist, Tbeatty, and I want to add, and not to the thirty that are already in the article?
2) What Wikipedia policy limits WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT to "authoritative film critics and/or film publications"? THF 02:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
You will not be able to show where I "object to any addition of the well-sourced criticism of Moore on the grounds that they are not authoritative film critics and/or film publications" because I have never said such a thing. The previous discussion was concerning the lead section, and my edit history shows that I have added equal parts pro and con to this article: can you say the same thing? —Viriditas | Talk 07:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Every single one of my edits have improved the NPOV quality of the article, which was a holy disaster a month ago. As for what you said, it was "Sarcasticidealist, what authoritative film critics and/or film publications are you using to base this "summary"? —Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)" If your objection was solely on the lead section, you never stated that, nor explained why the lead section has a different RS standard than the rest of the text, and I was not the only person who took your objections to be universal. -- THF 10:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
THF do you have any problems with Sarcasticidealist's proposed sentence as the complete lead summary of the controversy? Ripe 03:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasticidealist's edit is a step in the right direction, and I appreciate him taking the time to comment. My concern is that the suggestion is a little awkwardly phrased, and "too negatively" and "too positively" elides the real issue: that the movie is criticized as factually incorrect. "too negatively" and "too positively" makes it seem like it's merely a difference of opinion. For example, that French doctors are paid substantially less than US doctors is a fact, and many have noted that the movie falsely says otherwise; simply saying that those observers criticize the movie for depicting the French medical system "too positively", I think, doesn't quite capture the nature of the criticism. Again, Reuters, which has many many levels of copy-editing, felt the criticisms over the film's accuracy substantial enough to merit an appellation in all of its articles its most recent article referring to the film[112]; this isn't something I'm making up. THF 03:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (corrected 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC))
Please propose a specific edit, trying to take into account the other editors' feedback in this discussion.. Ripe 03:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
"Reuters ... felt the criticisms over the film's accuracy substantial enough to merit an appellation in all of its articles referring to the film". Please can you provide examples of this. Thanks. smb 17:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think User:TedFrank makes a fair point. How about "Sicko opened to positive reviews, although Moore was accused by some commentators of distorting facts to portray the American health care system too negatively and those of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Cuba too positively"? Are we moving in a good direction, here? Sarcasticidealist 08:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't use the lead section of film articles to attack the director based on POV, politically-motivated, non-film sources. Please represent the consensus of reliable film publications and add them to the reception section. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I find that an acceptable compromise, though I'd prefer "several" to "some." "Several commentators" is awkward, but there isn't a better solution that I'm immediately aware of, because the alternative tack, frequently taken by Viriditas's edits, of simply naming a single cited commentator when several express the same opinion, can be misleading, plus lead to accusations of WP:WEIGHT. THF 10:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The complete opposite of what you claim is true. Naming a single commentator is called attribution which avoids misleading the reader and placing undue weight on a single opinion. You may be interested in actually reading WP:NPOV. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Given that I cited WP:WEASEL in the 10:19 comment, I fail to see why you need to violate WP:CIVIL. Naming a single commentator falsely implies that only a single commentator made the criticism. I am okay with specific attribution if all the sources are attributed, but I presume we don't want two dozen footnotes (and I can easily find more). We are alright with "positive reviews" without listing the several dozen Rotten Tomatoes critics you used to come to that conclusion. So why is the universal opinion of responsible health policy analysts need to be treated differently? THF 10:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize, but I find it highly ironic that someone who keeps adding the POV tag to this article isn't the least bit aware of the actual NPOV policy. You have to admit, that's funny. Since you refuse to read it, I'll quote it for you. WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion....Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups....Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it...One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is...as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true...There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words... By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems...To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted...NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each...Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well." —Viriditas | Talk 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a real WP:KETTLE problem here in addition to the WP:CIVIL problem. Even as you accuse me (and apparently the other editors who agree with me) of violations of NPOV, you just quoted the language "To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups." But that's precisely what we are proposing, and precisely what you object to. THF 11:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
KETTLE and WP:CIVIL, absolutely. Look at your comments above: "Viriditas's view of OR is awfully one-sided...Viriditas objects to any addition of the well-sourced criticism of Moore...because the alternative tack, frequently taken by Viriditas's edits, of simply naming a single cited commentator when several express the same opinion, can be misleading..." Please, give it a rest. You can't address the issues, so instead, you have chosen to make me the issue. So, I'll bring you back on topic: What reliable film sources are you using to represent the "leading views"? And you are quoting the NPOV policy out of context. The quote you refer to above is preceded by "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates. A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable" and is followed later by "A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. For example, when discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view." —Viriditas | Talk 11:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
All three of V's quotes of me are taken out of context, but I don't wish to derail the discussion that's taking place. V has added nothing new to support the false claim that only film critics count, and the discussion is getting tendentious. WEASEL and NPOV and WEIGHT requires sourcing, and I've provided plenty of sourcing, including sourcing to the meta-observation that there has been widespread condemnation of the accuracy of the film. NPOV requires this point of view to be fairly reflected, and LEAD requires it to be described in the lead, and so far, neither has happened. THF 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Come on Ted, this is getting tiresome. I previously explained how WP:RS covers this: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." The lead section according to WP:MOSFILMS should reflect "a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why)", but the critical analysis goes into the reception section, where "criticism of content ought to be included if it is presented with reasonable documentation and if there is evidence of public awareness of the controversy. Responses to such criticism should likewise be presented on the same basis. The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged whatever can be said about it; the publicity is by nature citable, and omission creates the false impression that the subject matter is uncontroversial. Cite specific critics, not just "some people have criticized". It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to act as an investigator of claims, though if criticisms are addressed by others, they should as well be cited." Which also means, Ted, that if the criticisms you address are notable, you should be able to find them referenced by notable film critics in reliable film publications. It does not mean that you take 8% of the critical reviews made by political commentators and non film-critics who have attacked Michael Moore and pretend that they are equivalent to the 92% of film critics who have given the film positive reviews. And just to refresh your memory, you've been claiming this article has been POV far longer than I've been editing this page. —Viriditas | Talk 12:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) I know what the policy says. Our dispute is over the phrase "the subject at hand." You take the position that the subject is film and film only and thus only film critics count, and every other editor recognizes that the subject at hand is the factual claims made by a documentary whose director expressly states is trying to effect political change, and thus includes experts in health-care policy. And your hundreds of words on the subject fail to address the arguments made by those editors, which is why it's tendentious to keep repeating the irrelevancy that 92% of professional film critics thought that the movie was entertaining. No one disputes that most film critics thought that the movie was entertaining, but it's rather besides the point, since film critics who reviewed the movie before experts saw it had no way of knowing the factual inaccuracies that are being criticized (except in the case of the Canadian critics who knew right away that the movie was fictional), and have no reason to explore the issue. I'm well aware that the article has had POV problems well before you started editing the page. I appreciate the work you did on the synopsis, which was a large source of the POV problems. THF 12:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"No one disputes that most film critics thought that the movie was entertaining..." Not merely entertaining but also "powerful", "compelling", "accomplished", "damning", "hard-hitting", "informative", "provocative", "important" etc etc. [113] Many reviewers rated this movie because they, too, have firsthand experience with their health-care system. Their views are entirely relevant. To argue otherwise is, frankly, absurd. smb 14:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
See film criticism. Serious film critics "try to come to understand why film works, how it works, what it means, and what effects it has on people." I can quote plenty of non-film publications, including at least three articles in the British Medical Journal that contradict your professional medical assessements on every level. That's not the point. I'm not here to play the POV game. I'm here to improve an article about a film. Why are you here? —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm here to improve Wikipedia. Please stop the implicit personal attacks. THF 13:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Separately, I thought I'd take V's suggestion and check BMJ. First result, the "editor's choice" column: "Moore's rose tinted portrayal of Europe's health systems will raise a hollow laugh from anyone devilling with the detail of the NHS." THF 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I would have hoped that misrepresenting (or perhaps I should assume that you only misunderstood) a quote from an editorial would be beneath you, but apparently I was mistaken. The editorial you chose to selectively quote out of context actually supports the film: "His polemic exposes the damage to individuals and society that is caused by a system in which competing insurance companies have no reason to care what happens to unprofitable patients." The quote from the editor, "Moore's rose tinted portrayal of Europe's health systems will raise a hollow laugh from anyone devilling with the detail of the NHS" was written as as a transition into another topic altogether, in good editorial style. Ted, have you had some free time to improve this article by adding actual film criticism? No? Any particular reason you've avoided representing editorials [114] from people like Ramon Castellblanch, associate professor in the Department of Health Education at San Francisco State University [115] to the article, Ted? After all, you only want to improve Wikipedia, right? Any particular reason you aren't adding pro and con material to the article, Ted? —Viriditas | Talk 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the last personal attack from V I will respond to. I have reverted multiple inappropriate additionals of con material. The problem with the article is that it is unbalanced in favor of Moore, with several representations of Moore's point of view already included, while my additions of con material are reverted. If I were to add both pro and con material, and the con material keeps getting reverted, it would only unbalance the article further. What pro POV do you think is missing from the article? If there is a pro POV that is not already represented, I certainly won't argue against its inclusion. But it's already in there, while the con POV is not. That violates NPOV, and fixing the NPOV requires the addition of the POVs that are not adequately represented in the article, as documented below. My quote from the BMJ demonstrates that even those who agree with Moore recognize that his movie is inaccurate. THF 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks. Actual questions have been left unanswered several times, so repeating them again and again might sound like a personal attack to you. And, you keep repeating your mantra, "The problem with the article is that it is unbalanced in favor of Moore" again and again, no matter what anyone says or does. Apparently the only way to unbalance the article is lend undue weight to politically motivated attack pieces that are funded by conservative think tanks with ties to the health care industry. I'm not sure that makes much sense. —Viriditas | Talk 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV (August)

Viriditas objects to the inclusion of notable points of view because they are purportedly just "politically motivated attack pieces." This is untrue, as anyone who reads all of the sourcing I gave can verify, but it is also irrelevant even if it were true. The film itself is a politically motivated attack piece, and Moore acknowledges as much. It's not the case that only left-wing points of view qualify for inclusion under the NPOV policy. The points of view that are omitted are considerably less fringe than WBAI radio, whose point of view of the importance of the film is given a full paragraph. The way to comply with NPOV is to comply with NPOV, and include all notable points of view, and to comply with LEAD, and describe notable controversies in the lead paragraph. THF 14:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop telling me what I am supposed to be objecting to, over and over again; I will tell you what I object to: I object to your absolute refusal to use actual film criticism in an article about a film; I object to your refusal to adhere to WP:NPOV; I object to your refusal to write for the enemy and provide a balanced perspective on the most notable issues pertaining to the film; I object to your tendentious editing practices which hold the article and other editors hostage through your use of the unbalanced and POV tags, threatening to use them if we don't comply with your demands; I object to your persistent war of attrition on this article which has been non-stop for almost a month; and lastly, I object to your continuous stream of objections which claim, over and over again, that the article is somehow biased in favor of Moore because it does not lend undue weight in the lead section, or in other parts of the article. —Viriditas | Talk 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
We agree that actual film criticism should be used in a film article, and I've never said otherwise, and I've corrected your claim that this is a dispute twice now.
As for the rest, I've documented my claims, and other editors have agreed with me every single time I have sought dispute resolution through the RFC process, including once where you agreed with me and helped resolve an issue of an overlong synopsis, and including this time. The POV tags thus stay until the POV problem that multiple editors have pointed out is fixed, which we're very close to reaching consensus on: you're one of two editors who disagree, but you continue to fail to base that disagreement with reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'll ignore the war of attrition personal attack, other than to note WP:KETTLE. THF 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ted, in my opinion you have a history of actions that are not constructive, and you're quickly losing the ability to ask me to AGF with you. But all this discussion is moot if it doesn't impact the article. Propose a specific edit that resolves your tag. Sarcasticidealists' second proposed sentence has clear POV and undue weight problems. If you do not propose a specific edit in good faith & attempt to build consensus, then you are drive-by-tagging this article. Ripe 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see either POV or undue weight problems with the SI proposed sentence. We're discussing, and attempting to build consensus. What's your alternative sentence to comply with WP:LEAD and describe this notable controversy? THF 18:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It's POV because many commentators do not believe that facts were distorted or that Moore characterizes the respective systems, and their views are not represented in that summary of the controversy. It's undue weight because that proposed edit is unreasonably bloated in comparison with controversies in the lead other more controversial topics that I cited above. This whole discussion is wasted edit time because lead is a guideline and "Guidelines document techniques and conventions that have been found to usually increase the encyclopedic quality of an article, but they have no authoritative status of their own. You should often do what the guideline says, not because the guideline says it, but because advice in the guideline often happens to be good advice." per lead discussion pages, and consensus as a policy trumps it. But don't read this last point to mean that I agree with your interpretation of LEAD. I'm just telling you to stop trying to promote it to policy. My choice is the current version, which is fine as it is, or /at most/ SI's first single-sentence version. Ripe 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It's stated as an opinion of several commentators (which is unquestionably true), rather than as an unalloyed fact. When there is no consensus to violate the guideline, we should follow the guideline, and I am not the only editor who agrees that the guideline is appropriate in this circumstance. THF 20:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
If the concerns with my most recent sentence are that it doesn't represent the views of the many commentators who did not see problems, what about something like this: "Sicko opened to positive reviews and debate over its content. Several commentators accused Moore of distorting facts to portray the American health care system too negatively and those of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Cuba too positively, while others called the portrayals of the various systems fair."? I don't have sources handy for anything following "while others", but I'm sure they can be found. I'm also concerned that even if the issues identified by User:Ripe are resolved, we will not have resolved the disagreement about whether criticisms from non-film sources are acceptable in the lead. Sarcasticidealist 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You could create a template - {{Several commentators accused Moore of distorting facts}} - and add those weasel words to every Michael Moore film. Heck, you could add that template to every article on Wikipedia that links to Moore. Again, not notable nor neutral. The "facts" are seriously in question, here, so it's a dead horse out of the gate. Don't use the lead section to fight the batttle. Now, if you do some actual research (why do I have to keep saying this) you may find support for criticizing the film's "one-sided" approach, but isn't that besides the point? The film isn't about the American health care industry and all the wonderful work they do; it's about their victims, the people who slip through the cracks, the ones who are denied coverage, the disgruntled employees and the guilty physicians who feel complicit in its malaise, and the politicians who grease the wheels of the machine. Why are we criticizing a film that sets out to do exactly what it tells us it is going to do? Should we criticize a red light for not being green? A cat for not being a dog? A car for not being a boat? Film criticism has a pretty strict set of guidelines; if we go to a film that is billed as a romance, but come out of what turned out to be a zombie slasher pic instead, then we fell cheated as a viewer. Sicko doesn't cheat the audience; it gives them exactly what it sets out to deliver. So saying that "Moore is accused of distorting facts to portray the American health care system too negatively" doesn't seem to hold any weight. The film does exactly what it sets out to do, and it does it well; you can't criticize that. Now, if you want to take the film to task for this or that fact, do so in the appropriate section, but don't use the lead section to argue over the minutiae of whether some official thinks waiting room time is 55 minutes and not 70. Come on. —Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I expressed a similar opinion in response to szyslak, who popped over from an earlier RFC (20:53, 9 July 2007), and with whom I completely agree. (22:07, 9 July 2007) Viriditas advances much the same argument above. Editors should use only reliable sources that argue well within the premise and scope of the film, which is what this page is about, and disbar anything that strays off topic or uses Sicko as a platform to promote a broader political ideology. A number of TedFrank's sources fall into this trap. Nor is it good enough to criticise the film for ignoring other points of view and being totally one-sided.
  • For the nitpickers who say the health-care expose Sicko lacks balance, Michael Moore would like to make this perfectly clear: "I am the balance," he said in a phone interview. [...] "In our newsweeklies, how often will you see a 12-page advertising supplement sponsored by a health-care company? So every two or three years I come along for three hours and say, 'And now for the other side,' two hours of equal time for the thousands of hours that they have." [116]
  • The stories of the pharmaceutical companies and the health insurance companies is told. My film acts as a balance. I exist to provide balance, and I tell you, it isn't much balance. They're on every day, all day. My film is 2 hours. If for 2 hours during this entire year, people are exposed to the other side of the story, isn't that ok? It's amazing how they go after me. You asked me back there, "You're biased. You have only one side." Well, yeah, I have a bias. I have a bias on behalf of the little guy who doesn't have a say. I'm lucky enough to be able to have this bully pulpit, to be able to say the things I say, on behalf of the people who don't have a voice. The pharmaceutical companies and corporate America, they've got their voice. They own the networks and they can say whatever they want, all the time, and they do. So can we just have 2 hours for this side to have their say? I hope so, I think so. That's what I'm trying to do. [117]
Including individual cases of inept care within the health-care systems featured in Sicko would also miss the point. Socialised health-care has its own, relatively minor problems. Most cases can be boiled down to underinvestment. Sicko's director talks about these individual failings in various interviews, when pressed about them, but it is not a vital component of the film. Rather,
  • We fix it [our broken system] by taking the one thing they do right in Canada and the one thing they do right in Britain and the one thing they do right in France, and put it together and call it the American system. That's what we're good at doing; it's called the melting pot. But all we hear about is, 'oh, there's this problem with the Canadian system, there's this problem with the British system', well, yeah, so don't do the things they do wrong. [118]
Or, once again, as the narration proceeds 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." A central pillar. That still leaves plenty of room for pointed criticism, but sources of criticism must address the inductive argument of the film. So as Viriditas suggests, this would be a good time to identify and pick out notable points of criticism. smb 04:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting argument that criticism is invalid unless it "addresses the inductive argument of the film", but it's only a single POV, and NPOV requires all notable POVs to be included, not just Moore's. (If you can source it, you can certainly include that argument once the article is expanded, but otherwise it would be WP:SYN.) I have repeatedly identified notable criticism. THF 04:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 806

Separately, I object to the 14:41 claim that I have not been WFTE. Both times that I've introduced a new issue (the Cuba controversy; the claim that the movie's opening was a "dud"), I've added a response from Moore or from the Weinstein Company. The problem is that many of the Moore supporters have not been WFTE, so the article is missing the POV that there are factual errors in the movie. Over the weekend, I'll draft a proposed section on a subpage of the talk page that will be reliably sourced on both sides, and we can discuss from there. THF 22:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you consider "both sides"? The criticism section should be weighted towards the positive based on the average review; at this point it isn't, and is somewhat biased towards the negative. And the response section should only cover the most notable responses, and at present, it doesn't. For example, that article you may have noticed in the BMJ, "US health professionals demonstrate in support of Sicko", would merit inclusion. [119] I also think the response section can be greatly expanded by subtopic. —Viriditas | Talk 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Both sides would be the truthful side and Moore's side. :-) I don't disagree that there is a lot missing from the article, as I have repeatedly stated that. It's not clear to me that the demonstration was encyclopedically notable, but I won't contest its addition. Factual errors in a documentary, on the other hand, are unquestionably notable, and every Wikipedia film article involving a documentary or a true story where there is a factual controversy has a section (or, in the case of Fahrenheit 9/11, a POV-fork) documenting those factual errors. THF 22:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to also add that the article in the British Medical Journal is supported by a related article in the 2007-06-25 Time magazine article, "Health Care's War Against Sicko".[120] For some reason, these articles aren't focusing on what you call "factual errors". Why do you think that is? —Viriditas | Talk 22:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
When I read the Time article you link to, I see lots of discussion of the controversy over factual errors in the movie, albeit at a typically superficial left-leaning newsmagazine level: PhRMA went on to say "a review of America's health care system should be balanced, thoughtful and well-researched" before adding, "Unfortunately, you won't get that from Michael Moore." ... ." Health Care America, a non-profit financed in part by pharmaceutical and hospital companies, held briefings to document the the long wait-times common to government-run healthcare, such as those run by France and Cuba, and posted videos on its Web site detailing horror stories from Canada's system. "Mr. Moore is not telling the whole story. He plays fast and loose with the facts," says the group's executive director Sarah Berk. "We're here to educate the public on what he has left out." I'm alright using the Time magazine article to discuss the controversy over Moore playing fast and loose with the facts. THF 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (edited 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC))
The article represents the health care industry response to Sicko and documents their claims. The article does not, however, assert outright that Moore or Sicko are making factual errors. I'll ask again, according to that article, what are the factual errors that are made in the film? Use your own words in your brief reply, please. —Viriditas | Talk 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I said "I see lots of discussion of factual errors." I should have said "I see lots of discussion of the factual error controversy" to avoid confusion. Yes, Time did a shallow job of reporting, and should have done some investigation into whether the accusations of factual errors were true instead of just recounting he-said/she-said. (Doing so, however, would have run against the apparent Time-Warner editorial policy of celebrating Moore.) This is why I don't read Time. Again, please note the difference between a Wikipedia article statement "Moore's movie has lots of factual errors" (NPOV violation) and "Moore's movie was controversial because of contested accusations by healthcare industry representatives, health policy analysts, conservatives, and libertarians that the movie had many factual errors." (both sufficient and necessary for NPOV compliance). I'm merely asking for the latter idea to be recognized. THF 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What are the factual errors that are made in the film and why are they notable enough to be included in the lead section? FYI...all of the claims made against Moore and the film in the Time piece have been countered in many other articles. Film critics admit that Moore is selective, but all documentary films are selective, so that's a non-notable criticism. Find something notable about the film that is factually erroneous and can be found in the majority of film criticisms about the film. I've given you the "polemic entertainment" criticism, which has good sources. But you refuse to represent the film as both a polemic and an expose. Try to argue from an opinion other than your own, and you will be more successful. Write for the enemy. It should be very easy for a highly paid, professional writer like yourself to compose a simple, fifty word paragraph, condensing the most important criticism and controversy. I don't see what the problem is, here. —Viriditas | Talk 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

demonstrations issue

Incidentally, I'm not questioning that the demonstrations happened. They did, on both sides.[121] [122] I just question the encyclopedic significance of including information about forgettable demonstrations (WP:NOT), though not enough that I would object if both demonstrations for and against the movie are included. THF 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how you can equate a one time protest by a handful of protesters associated with something called "Bureaucrash" with the California Nurses Association and the Physicians for a National Health Program which was working with thousands of nurses across the states in a nationwide "Scrubs for Sicko" campaign.[123][124] At least Wikipedia knows that Bureaucrash ain't notable. —Viriditas | Talk 23:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't notable controversy

What is being discussed are "critiques" or "criticisms," not "controversy." "controversy" (from dictionary.com) is "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." or "A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." - the parties must be engaged directly with each other, and probably through multiple iterations. To qualify as "notable", I think it's minimally necessary that several prominent 3rd party news organizations have reported on the prolonged dispute. The only thing that perhaps qualifies is the Gupta/CNN issue. Everything else we're talking about is just criticism. Ripe 23:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a notable "controversy" according to Wiktionary, which doesn't require multiple iterations. I'll note that the reliable sources suggested by smb in his 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC) talk page comment show that this is an ongoing dispute between Moore supporters and opponents and that it thus qualifies even under your definition. (Separately, I hope I never hear a "Wikilawyering" accusation from you again after that effort.) THF 23:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
it was cute, wasn't it? Trying to argue the semantics of the phrasing of the problem, rather than deal with the problem... damn english, always getting in the way of reality! English has a long history of Right-Wing Bias... WookMuff 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Debate and discussion consist of iterated communication between parties. Neither hit-and-run attacks nor situations where one party does not engage or respond to the other constitute a debate or discussion that would then define controversy. One-sided communications to a 3rd party audience on a topic without engaging the other party are criticisms or critiques. We can have a separate discussion about whether the criticisms are notable for the lead, but Gupta is the only Sicko controversy. You vastly overstate the contents of smb's source - the sentence is clearly alluding to the contentiousness of national health insurance proposals, not of Sicko, and it doesn't note the existence of a prolonged public debate between notable parties regarding Sicko. Ripe 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Importance of Harry Potter to this debate

Take a look over at Harry Potter, the article about the Harry Potter series. I think it is safe to say that the Harry Potter series has gotten overwhelmingly positive reviews, is that not safe to say? It has also had its fair share of controversy from vocal minorities, such as various feminist, religious and conservative groups, that have railed against the novels. This is not mentioned in the Lead, however. Perhaps due to the sheer body of the article, the amount of information placed in the lead was deemed more important than the overly publicized but minimally important complaints. Sicko is NOT Harry Potter. It isn't a fictional movie, it isn't an unbiased documentary, it is a well planned and well constructed attack piece. Whether it is right or wrong, the movie isn't about selling tickets or making money (well, not wholy) but about informing and persuading the audience to a certain POV. The relevance of critics shouldn't just be based on movie credentials, but also on the relationship of the critics to the subject matter. If a variety of notable penguin scientists and "so-called experts" had railed against March of the Penguins for an unrealistic and distorted view of penguin society and habits, don't you think that would be in the lead? WookMuff 02:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls. —Viriditas | Talk 08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)