Talk:Sunrise at Campobello

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sunrise at Campobello film.jpg

Image:Sunrise at Campobello film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Resolved. Non-free use rationale added and deletion tag removed
  JGHowes ^talk - 04:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007 edits

Organizing the article in sections typical for movies is a good idea and a needed improvement, but starting the article with a section heading ("Plot") instead of a Lead is contrary to Wikipedia practice (see Film article style guidelines). Also, on my browser at least, it results in a 8 inches (203 mm) whitespace gap at the top of the article, since a section heading there makes content wait. So I've again changed this, while retaining the sections themselves, with added content.

I have a real NPOV concern, though, as presenting just one side concerning his diagnosis and deleting all mention of contrary views and cited sources is problematic in a Wikipedia article. To avoid this, the article lead does just say "paralysis" now, not polio as it once did. My last edit is done in the spirit of NPOV, with a "See also" for those who wish to delve into the medical aspects as opposed to the cinematic. JGHowes ^talk - 06:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• I basically like your edit, and appreciate your coming up with a good solution. I think the article is NPOV and certainly looks better. I was hoping someone else would make the section format look better, which you have. I just wanted to start it. I think it is good to keep the article mostly about the movie, which I think is your point too. I will take the liberty in the discussion to address the medical aspects. I have no objection to mentioning contrary views and cited sources. I'm just not aware of any currently existing, beyond the contrary views (reactions) of some people who have a hard time accepting that a so-called "fact" (that FDR had polio) they've "known" to be true for many decades may not be true. Also, the reactions of some people who are "invested" in the idea that FDR had polio, usually because they are polio survivors themselves, and may resent FDR's diagnosis being questioned. The paper was published and fairly widely publicized in 2003. Others have had their opportunity to publish a rebuttal, and nobody has done so to date. The authors (including myself) had no ax to grind, no predetermined conclusions, and were not seeking publicity. We're just a group of doctors, neurologists, epidemiologists, and statisticians who painstakingly tracked down the evidence and analyzed the data, which nobody had done before, because nobody had questioned the diagnosis. FDR's doctors were probably not even aware of GBS, which had been first described in 1916, and the medical record does not mention any consideration of GBS, so it is understandable they may have jumped to the conclusion that FDR had polio. I have not seen the movie (SAC), but don't most movies tend to fictionalize much dialog and plot? For example, when Dr. Keen examined FDR, he actually diagnosed "a clot of blood from a sudden congestion - settled in the lower spinal cord" (Gallagher, FDR's Splendid Deception). Is that mentioned in the movie? Of course, we'll probably never know for sure if FDR had polio or GBS, and in a sense it should not matter too much, except to those interested in historical accuracy and the history of diseases. And because it's interesting how the questionable diagnosis went unquestioned for so many decades. The main point is that FDR "overcame his physical limitations through grit and determination", as the article states. Dagoldman (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thx so much, Dagoldman, for your comment. I'm glad we have collaborated to improve the article considerably and it does harmonize well with the article Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness. Sunrise is near B-class now, methinks, probably just needing a little more elaboration in the Reception aspect, e.g., box office receipts, critics' reviews, etc. I had read the article Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness awhile ago (while doing some major edits to Eleanor Roosevelt) and would suggest that some of the published peer-reviews be cited in that article as additional references, or better yet, any mainstream news media articles reporting this GBS vs. Polio analysis. I don't think it's too widely known, so the first time most people hear that FDR may not have been a polio victim is Wikipedia, which could account for the REDFLAG reaction in certain quarters. Too bad NY Presby. Hospital didn't perform a spinal tap on FDR or, if they did, I suppose the results were not preserved? JGHowes ^talk - 13:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. A spinal tap was not performed. It would have given the answer. Leucocytes are increased and total protein normal in CSF from patients with polio. The reverse occurs in GBS. There aren't any published peer-reviews to my knowledge. Either 1) nobody cares, 2) nobody knows, or 3) nobody can refute. I don't think it's "nobody cares", because researchers love to publish articles refuting other published findings. We did our best to publicize the findings, including sending reprints to the FDR biographers, but publicity is low. There were a fair number of mainstream news articles. For (a brief) period it was one of the top news stories on yahoo news. It was on national network news. The news articles pretty uniformly presented the findings, interviewed the paper author, and then asked a neurologist or polio survivor their opinion. The opinion responses were mostly skeptical, and tended to be rather general or pejorative, such as "that's a stretch" or "amateur historians trying to rewrite history", without stating concrete objections. Your suggestion to expand the illness article by including some of the media responses is not a bad idea, but I'm too busy with my work (programming medical data software) to get into that, and I don't think any of the responses were substantive enough to merit much of a response anyway. I agree the paper and the conclusion that FDR probably did not have polio are not widely known. On google, 9 of the top 10 hits on "roosevelt polio" don't mention GBS. I think that's one thing so wonderful about wikipedia. Findings backed by scholarly research, that would otherwise quickly fade away, at least have a chance to be accepted or debunked, which is the way the scientific process is supposed to work. If the idea ever does get generally accepted, I think it will be largely attributable to the exposure in wikipedia. Dagoldman (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)