Talk:Sicko/Archive 3

additional sourcing for criticism

I have cited to multiple substantive and detailed criticisms in talk-page comments above.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 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: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] THF 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some additional ones: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] THF 18:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (updated 12:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

[22] [23] [24] THF 13:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been responded to above, several times, so continuing to spam your links here will only result in their removal from the talk page. We got the idea the first time around, Ted. You aren't interested in adding film criticism to an article about film. Got it. And, you aren't interested in adding balanced criticism to an article about a film. Got that too. What you seem to be obsessed with, is adding non-film related, politically motivated, attack pieces in order to drown out the actual article with noisy, negative minority viewpoints that represent less than 8% of all critical reviews. That's undue weight, Ted. —Viriditas | Talk 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is not a complete repository of reliably sourced points of view that qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, so please stop wasting people's time with the irrelevant 92% statistic. THF 14:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about an article about a film, not about Wikipedia in general, but I think you already knew that. Have you had some time to review the 156 or so articles in that repository? Surely you could find at least one pro and con to add? —Viriditas | Talk 14:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in complying with NPOV, and including all notable points of view. What notable pro point of view is omitted from this article? I'm not aware of any. THF 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were genuinely interested, you wouldn't continue answering a question with a question. The question isn't what notable pro POV is missing, the question is, how is the article biased in favor of Moore, as you are claiming, and what is preventing you from using actual film criticism to balance the bias you perceive? Answer: the article isn't biased in favor of Moore, and you are claiming that it is so you can add an undue weight of politically motivated objections. You're trying to turn this article back into the controversy article that was deleted. The way you are supposed to do it, Ted, is by subtopic. With the heart of gold that I acquired from the Wizard, I actually tried to help you, but the section I added was removed from the article by an editor who failed to understand how to best represent conflicting POV and thought that the section was merely a continuation of the plot. So, the way you go about getting what you want, Ted, is by actually writing subsections that address the subtopics in a balanced manner. It's really quite easy, so I don't know why you are on the talk page all the time complaining about bias. Now would be a good time for you to check out those film reviews...unless of course you really want me to rewrite the entire article. —Viriditas | Talk 14:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are two points of view on the controversy that I'd like to see inserted:

• "When Michael Moore makes a movie these days, all hell seems to break loose. It gets to a point where whatever message he's trying to communicate is drowned out by all the media attention, knee-jerk reactionaries, and general resentment." [25]
• "Obviously, Moore is being selective about the situations he shows us, but his point — that there is another side to this contentious issue than the one we usually hear — is difficult to ignore." [26] smb 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI...Profiles on Brian Orndorf and Kenneth Turan. Turan appears to be an established film critic, so I would go with automatic inclusion, but Orndorf is new media, so one could go either way depending on how notable Orndorf is, and how his material is used in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the inclusion of either statement as part of a larger discussion on factual errors in the movie. THF 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My edits were reverted. This is why I'm discussing on the talk page and trying to reach a consensus, rather than edit-warring. I'm working incrementally through the article: we fixed the synopsis after an RFC, we fixed the unbalanced Gupta section after another RFC, we added discussion of the Cuba controversy, we added discussion of the Canadian film critics' objections at Cannes. Now we need to fix the lead. Once we do that, we can add a more complete discussion of factual errors in the movie. I've done extensive reading, and I'm not aware of any pro POVs that are missing from the article (other than the Moore quote on Cuba that I inserted), but I don't claim to be infallible. So, again, I ask: if you're going to accuse me of omitting positive POVs, what positive POVs have I omitted? THF 15:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I commend you for avoiding an edit war, however, there is nothing stopping you from adding material to the body of the article. And the more balanced content you add to let's say, the criticism section, the more likely it is that your subsequent modification of the lead section will stick. Do you not see that? If the lead briefly summarizes the article, then how could this be a problem? The reason it's an issue is because you want the lead to attack Moore and not merely criticize the film. That's why I've given you a big hint about finding good film criticism and adding it to the relevant section, but you haven't picked up on it. The film has been criticized as polemical entertainment but it has also been acknowledged as an expose of the American health care system, but neither of those terms are acceptable to you, even though they are well sourced. Another route you can take, is to distill the criticism you want to see in the lead down to a few bullet points; this should be easy for you if the current article already contains the criticism. If it doesn't, and I assume it doesn't because you keep adding ext. links, then we're back to square one. You want to add fourteen negative, non-film links to the article, and you don't see how that's undue weight? Or do you just want to add one? Or, do you intend to balance each link with another one, and if so, where are they? There's a lot of unanswered questions here, Ted. I gave you a link to an editorial by a professor of Health education, but I don't see you adding it to the article. I haven't added it because I tend to favor film criticism that quotes experts with agendas over experts with agendas pretending to be film critics. —Viriditas | Talk 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I listed two dozen sources because several argued that the point of view was fringe, and should be omitted entirely. Do we now have agreement that this point of view is notable and should be included? Then we can proceed, though deadlines for real writing I have to do are going to unfortunately take precedence over my hobby. THF 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Pick two of the best links you think are notable and argue for their inclusion. It's even better if you can boil down your point to a specific theme that resonates throughout as many of the links you can find. That's what the NPOV policy was talking about when it referred to attributing groups. Do these links represent a particular group of people? A school of thought? A political party? If the criticism transcends these simple categorizations, than isolate something specific they all have in common. But please, don't resurrect the nebulous "lack of a substantive comparison" again. That's more like a koan. —Viriditas | Talk 15:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see productive discussion like this. To clarify, Viriditas, does this mean that you are, in principle, prepared to include a description of criticism in the lead even if the criticism in question does not come from specifically film-related sources? Sarcasticidealist 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Any notable criticism of Sicko in the lead must be covered by reliably sourced film criticism. I am confident that any criticism of Sicko written by non-film critics that Ted can distill into a bullet point or two, can easily be sourced in the film literature. Non-film critics includes those in the entertainment, trade, medical, health, pharmaceutical, and insurance industry literature. And if it those criticisms can't be found in the film literature, that should tell you something about the nature of the source and the criticism itself, and whether it actually belongs in the lead section, in the critical reception section, or even in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 16:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Any notable criticism of Sicko in the lead must be covered by reliably sourced film criticism."

I don't wish to play Argument Clinic, but this position, repeatedly stated by Viriditas (most recently today at 16:15), simply isn't supported by Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or even suggestions. Nothing in WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:RS is restricted to "film literature," and we'd have a lot easier time reaching a consensus if this point were dropped. Wikipedia articles about controversial films have never restricted themselves to film literature where there are notable reliable sources outside the film literature. See, for example, The Great Global Warming Swindle, which correctly includes extensive criticism from scientists. THF 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's supported by every sourcing policy known, and I have previously quoted the specific policies and guidelines. If we are talking about mathematics, we cite mathematicians and mathematics journals. If we are discussing films, we cite film journals and film reviews, especially in terms of criticism. The problem is that you are confusing film criticism and response. And the example you give is not only entirely unrepresentative, it's ridiculous. Try to find an actual documentary film to compare with Sicko. The Great Global Warming Swindle wasn't released as a film; it's a television show made by a television producer named Martin Durkin who apparently misrepresented every single scientist on the program, eliciting rave approvals from, well, just about nobody. Don't bring a bat'leth to a lightsaber fight. —Viriditas | Talk 23:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

cut scenes

Not shown in the final cut is a sequence from Norway, examining the health care system and the prison system, to compare it to the American system. Michael Moore reasoned his outtake with the fact that France would be hard enough for Americans to comprehend, but that Norway was so insane noone would believe it. His examples included that for certain illnesses, you would get two weeks paid vacation at a spa in the Canary Islands.([27]) ([28]). This might be worth adding to the article. Turtlescrubber 13:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty interesting. Can we get some more sources? I would like to see this in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 08:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's available as an extra on the DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The claim of "Fourth-highest grossing documentary" is inaccurate, and the source cited does not support the claim. It's only the 4th-highest grossing documentary if one excludes IMAX documentaries, concert documentaries, compilation documentaries, and "reality tv" documentary films. THF 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant if a secondary source states that it is a fourth-highest grossing documentary, and it looks like Variety did just that on 2007-07-29: "Among niche pics, Michael Moore's "Sicko" was on the verge of becoming the fourth highest grossing docu of all time, all but eclipsing the $21.5 million grossed by Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." In its sixth frame, "Sicko" made an estimated $1.2 million from 850 playdates for a cume of $21.5 million."[29] It would be helpful to have a more current secondary source that states this for a fact. —Viriditas | Talk 15:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As of 2003, Journey Into Amazing Caves (2001) ($39 million through 2003); Dolphins (film) (2000) ($73.7 million); Everest (film) (1998) ($125.7 million); The Living Sea (1995) ($87.6 million); and To Fly! ($115.7 M) are all documentaries that have taken in more money. Coral Reef Adventure (2003) is almost certainly ahead. Jackass: The Movie is technically a documentary, and grossed $64 million, and Jackass Number Two did even better. Eddie Murphy Raw grossed over $50 million. It's not clear to me that this movie is even in the top ten documentaries, unless, as BOMojo expressly said they did, you limit it to a specific subcategory of documentaries. THF 15:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We have three sources (Variety, Box Office MoJo, and the Traverse City Record-Eagle calling it the fourth-highest. Jackass and Eddie Murphy Raw are not documentaries, but you are using your own criteria, and not those of independent sources that call it the fourth-highest. Whatever happened to the issue of verifiability? --David Shankbone 15:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Murphy Raw is called a documentary.[30] So is Jackass the Movie.[31] And it is unquestionably the case that the listed nature documentaries are documentaries. THF 15:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo does not call Sicko the fourth-highest grossing documentary, it explicitly limits it to a subset of documentaries. THF 15:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that an older version was accurate, and the clarification was deleted.[32] THF 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, find a listing of the highest-grossing documentaries that lists Jackass and Eddie Murphy Raw, and we'll amend. Otherwise, a listing of highest-ranking documentaries on MoJo is explicit it enough; let's not raise silly arguments ("they list it as the fourth-highest, but, you know, they don't say it"). And we have two other sources. --David Shankbone 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, BoxOfficeMojo quite explicitly agrees with my characterization that their list does not include all documentaries. Read the link. THF 15:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I did read the link, and those that are excluded from the list are typically excluded since they do not fall under the classification. I have no problem with putting in the qualifier, though - just do it instead of creating a tag and discussion section about it. --David Shankbone 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll add it back in as footnote if it is truly necessary (I don't see why), but not as a parenthetical. —Viriditas | Talk 16:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the footnote is more appropriate as well. --David Shankbone 16:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I had a tag and discussion section per WP:BRD. Why are editors upset that I am discussing instead of edit-warring? THF 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiment; my point is that some things are discussion-worthy, but some things are better just done and not said, per WP:Bold. --David Shankbone 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I had been bold, made the change, and Viriditas reverted it, so I discussed why I thought my edit was better. We've since reached a compromise. THF 18:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted's right about WBAI

It does appear that there is undue weight placed on WBAI in the article, when the same, exact information can be conveyed with neutral, mainstream sources. —Viriditas | Talk 22:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Ted, these edits cannot be described as vandalism [33][34] so please don't use the Twinkle script to label tag removals as vandalism when they aren't. —Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Response/Scrubs for Sicko

I would like to propose the creation of a new response subsection entitled "Scrubs for Sicko". This campaign has received international media coverage and represents one of the most notable responses to the film. —Viriditas | Talk 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Sarcasticidealist 00:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Manhatten Institute/David Gratzer vs. Oliver Fein

Propose merging this into a new subsection and expanding, although I haven't got a name just yet. Gratzer debated Oliver Fein on "the pros and cons of a single payer health care system". See the podcast: The "Sicko" Case for Single Payer This is really great material for expanding this section. —Viriditas | Talk 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources/notability/POV/undue weight/criticism vs. controversy in lead

I think it's pretty clear that none of User:Viriditas, User:TedFrank, or myself is going to relent on our current position on this question (to summarize, Viriditas feels that any criticism must come from film critics specifically in order to be worthy of inclusion in the lead, while TedFrank and I disagree). To resolve this, we're going to need some involvement from outside parties. An RFC has already been filed (that's where I came from). I would ask 1. that any editors who have been following this dispute but not stepping in take a more active role in an effort to establish consensus on this point, and 2. failing that, if the involved parties would consider moving to mediation (either cabal or committee). I think that despite, good faith on all sides surrounding this question, we're seriously not getting anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Viridias' position - I believe he's saying that if a controversy was sufficiently notable, it would have been reported on by a 3rd party film publication; he's not trying to say film publications should be policy but in this case are a (IMO reasonable) litmus test for notability. But he'll have to weigh in. Also the nature of the sources are not the only contentious issue; it's coupled with notability & appropriate weight, and as I mentioned above, the distinction between controversy and criticism, so I added those to this section heading. Please let's leave this section to one comment per person about their own position (not trying to tear down or characterize other people's) who has already weighed in so we can let other people comment. Reviewers; refer to my comments above, particularly on comparing with The Passion of the Christ and The O'Reilly Factor and my comment on criticism vs. controversy. Ripe 01:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right. I've said that any criticism that appears in the lead must also be found in sreliable film reviews and publications. That does not mean that it must come from film critics specifically, only that it must be corroborated as actual criticism in the film literature, and should not represent a minority opinion unrelated to the film itself. I've asked Ted to provide two of the best links (out of the fourteen non-film sources he has culled) and to condense their main criticism into bullet points so that I can corroborate the criticism in the literature; He has not done this, but I'll ask again: what specific criticism and controversy is missing from the lead? I can answer that myself, but I don't think Ted et al. are going to like the answers. —Viriditas | Talk 02:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"I've said that any criticism that appears in the lead must also be found in reliable film reviews and publications." Sounds like you're opinion to me. Anyway, as shown here, Documentaries are a special case "...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". This may just be my reading, but to me that says "as long as its Verifiable, its in" WookMuff 02:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Public awareness of the controversy" is key, and the lead partially covers that at the moment. I think we need to deal with these types of issues on a case by case basis, which is why I've asked Ted to give us at least two bullet points. There's been a whole lot of talk, but not too much evidence from Ted et al. Instead of just focusing on the lead, we really need to start improving the article and the lead simultaneously. I think a nice, three paragraph lead could depict the position of film critics, the response from the health care industry (which includes their declared "war against Michael Moore") and campaigning by "Scrubs for Sicko", which appears to be totally unprecedented in the history of film. There's a lot of interesting topics here that have yet to even make their way into the article; the article is only 30 kilobytes. People need to stop using the lead as a platform for their POV. —Viriditas | Talk 02:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When I post evidence, you accuse me of spamming and threaten to delete it from the talk page, so I object to the claim that I haven't provided "much evidence." But I'll agree to postpone discussion of the lead until we finish the rest of the article. The article needs a factual errors section. I'll write one up in the next week if I can get my real-life writing done; I have two or three deadlines in the next week or two. THF 03:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've posted the same fourteen links over and over agian; by definition that's spamming. Is there something preventing you from actually posting the actual criticism you want to see in the lead, rather than pasting the same fourteen links again? I asked if you could at the very least, summarize the main point, and better yet, choose two of the best links and provide bullet points. I'm still waiting for you to do that. I don't understand why there is a POV tag in the article; are we supposed to read your mind? You're holding this article hostage, again. —Viriditas | Talk 08:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Public awareness of the controversy"... so, yet again your malleable arguement moves onto another bastion, falling back to another trench as each one is overrun. Please stick with one excuse at a time, Viriditas. Everytime someone comes at the problem from another angle, you change exactly what it is you are objecting to. You like Moore? good for you. NPOV isn't about having only the most popular viewpoint, its about having no specific viewpoint at all, by portraying any and all pertinent viewpoints. I think that it is safe to say that the views of Moore's detractors are easily as important as those of his supporters. Otherwise you end up with an article like Tony Snow, where conservative supporters vigourously remove or ignore any evidence that doesn't fit their view of the champion of the whitehouse. WookMuff 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second...you're attacking me for quoting you? That's pretty funny. What else do you have up your sleeve? —Viriditas | Talk 08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am "attacking" you for constantly changing exactly what your argument IS. As for my sleeves, I am sure I just have more censored invective and mocking comments, leaving most of the ACTUAL hard work re: sources and the like to the talented THF. I think that he is doing a fairly good job of keeping on top of your pretzel-like logic. Also, there are over a google search reveals over two hundred thousand results for "sicko" "moore" and "ontroversy" WookMuff 08:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you are clearly trolling (as your bizarre and outlandish Harry Potter post in the above section makes very clear). I've never changed my argument at all (in fact I've maintained this argument for several years across multiple articles) and I was directly responding to your argument. Ok, that's the last response you're going to get from me. —Viriditas | Talk 08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Tony Snow comparison is misplaced. Tony Snow is an person, and it follows that any article about him, to be balanced, would include both "good" and "bad" facts about Snow, just as would be the case for an article about Moore. This article, however, is about a polemical documentary film that has one specific viewpoint. Having a complete and balanced article about this film requires a description of its central viewpoint -- the very purpose for which the film was created. Simply because the article describes a viewpoint doesn't constitute bias; it has to describe that viewpoint in order to describe the film that revolves around it. And the central viewpoint belongs in the lead. It's appropriate to include criticism about the film, contrary viewpoints, and accusations of inaccuracy, but because these points are not central to the film, they are not appropriate for the lead (which should sum up the essence of film in a pithy paragraph or two); instead, those should be placed in sections devoted to those sidebar subjects. Waterthedog 08:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The comparison is completely accurate, as that in both places supporters of the material are rigourously defending it against the evils of NPOV WookMuff 08:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Supplemental to the above

In order to adhere to User:Ripe's request that comments in the above be limited to one explanation of one's own position per editor (I think it's a good request), I'm posting here to clarify a couple of things: 1. I certainly realized that the controversy extended beyond just the nature of acceptable sources; it was just the only issue that it appeared to me that there was no willingness to move on either side (I think that, if User:Viriditas would drop his refusal to use non-film sources, we could achieve consensus on the rest; of course, everyone always thinks that the other side should be more flexible) and, since I was proposing a relatively extreme measure, I limited my comments to that one issue. 2. Thanks for your interpretation of User:Viriditas's position. If he confirms that your characterization of it was accurate, this would result in a new understanding on my part of where he's coming from. Sarcasticidealist 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"David Ansen and Kurt Loder"

I object to this language. It implies that these are the only two who objected, when dozens of others (as I've documented) did also, and gives undue weight to their objections over those of dozens of others, when they have been chosen by an editor only as representatives of the larger viewpoint. Ansen in particular is pro-single-payer, and pulls his punches. THF 03:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, etc. Attribution is always preferable to weasel words and generalizations. —Viriditas | Talk 08:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't actually HAVE to act like a jack-ass to get your points across, you know. Maybe if you have "been there, done that" you should step back and take a look at why people aren't responding positively to your edits and learn from that. WookMuff 10:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to continued comments like this, I've added the troll warning header back into the article. TedFrank is responding to edits made by User:Hal Raglan, not me.[35] And the reasoning for using attribution has been explained to Ted several times by different editors. Now please, go find another bridge. —Viriditas | Talk 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank is responding to someone elses edits? So what? That still leaves you, wandering along making smartarse comments. As for trolling, it would appear that the comments above could only be designed to incite and enflame. Hence, I will leave your warning, Troll. WookMuff 12:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Both WookMuff and Viriditas could stand to check out WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL. THF 12:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt" Ted, but thank you for your concern. I find Viriditas's arrogance and attitude insulting. I have been here trying to help NPOV this page for a while now, I believe that I found the Kurt Loder source, though I might be hallucinating that, and it really Irks me to have someone accuse me of trolling on a page that I have been editing for some time. WookMuff 22:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Attribution is not preferable to generalization when the generalization is less misleading and more informative than the attribution. The article generalizes in several places: "Sicko opened to positive reviews"; "highlights cases in which insured individuals were denied care"; "Interviews are conducted with... former employees of insurance companies", "pundits argue against universal health care systems with the backdrop of 1950s-style anti-communist propaganda"; "Moore interviews... a group of Americans living in France". In all of these cases, attribution is possible, but for readability, generalization is done instead of listing the people Moore interviewed or the insured individuals who were denied care. THF 12:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Attribution is always preferable to POV generalization and weasel words; we went over this already in a previous discussion about WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. The generalization about positive reviews is already attributed and substantiated by review statistics and actual reviews; in other words, it's an accurate assessment. And the generalization in the lead is an accurate summary of the film; none of those things requires or necessitates attribution. Attribution is only needed when we are talking about specific claims, particularly those that can be disputed or are controversial. We've already been over this, and your rehashing of the matter is quite strange. Read the NPOV policy. —Viriditas | Talk 12:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"opened to positive reviews" is POV generalization. "In a cafe, Moore is told that the reason the French have public health care..." which you just added, is both POV generalization and poorly-phrased passive voice. Who told Moore, and why should we care? THF 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing POV about claiming that the film opened to positive reviews. I suggest you take a look at the reception section of most films; any film that opened to positive review is going to state just that or variations on that, like "the film was positively received by the majority of professional critics". Perhaps you are using a different definition of POV, but these things are sourced from the reception section. If you need more sources, just ask. The plot point I added is not POV in any way. I think you must be using a different definition of POV than the one we use on Wikipedia. It's actually one of several important scenes in the film that needed to be added to the synopsis; each trip Moore makes culminates in a discussion about why a specific country has a public health care system and their opinion as to why Americans don't. This still needs to be added to the Canada and UK portions. It's an essential part of the film. —Viriditas | Talk 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC comment

I saw the RFC. I would suggest that a criticism can be included in the lead even without being sourced to a film site provided that it is sourced to a place which would justify such a placing. I am thinking of distinguished publications like the New York Times or the Washington Post. If the source is at such a level, then I think the addition can be justified. If not, perhaps the lead should just have some covering statement like "Sicko has raised controversies" and the detail can be in the body of the article.

Also "opened to positive reviews" is fine for me provided it can be verified from the sources. I hope I have addressed the issue sufficiently. Eiler7 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some editors prefer wiki-lawyering to support their case over common sense understanding of the spirit of the rules. WookMuff 22:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally would try to avoid characterising things as wiki-lawyering. Assuming good faith for me implies assuming that when people are quoting the rules, they are doing so in a positive frame of mind intended to help the project. Is there now a consensus on the right approach for the lead?Eiler7 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko is 22nd-highest grossing documentary (+ COI disclosure)

Consensus reached not to include cite to American article per WP:WEIGHT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a fit of insomnia Sunday night, I went around the web looking for a list of highest-grossing documentaries, realized that there wasn't one, decided to compile one for my own curiosity, and then realized I could turn it into something I could sell, and was able to sell it as a free-lance piece to The American (magazine). Sicko is the 22nd-highest grossing documentary. Because of the WP:COI policy, I won't change the article to cite myself, or further edit the box-office section, but others may feel this reliably-sourced POV should be included. Separately, I think I've adhered to the NPOV policy and have been careful to adhere to WP:BRD and WP:Dispute resolution policies, but if there is a consensus that the fact I used what I learned researching edits for Wikipedia to sell a related piece for a few bucks creates a COI, I'll avoid all main-page edits to avoid unnecessary contention. THF 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I removed your Talk page comments from the Sicko talk page where you spam an article you have written. Aside from the fact that you wrote the article and now are attempting to promote it through Wikipedia (which is inherently COI) you also cite no methodology aside from "I stayed up late one night." It was also disappointing to see that you resorted to typical partisan truth-twisting. For instance, the title makes no sense. The box office numbers are fuzzy? Are you disputing how much it has taken at the box office? If so, your article doesn't address that at all - you address third-party rankings of documentaries, and where Sicko falls in with those. It's a little obsessive that, just in order to knock Sicko down a few rungs, you feel the need to compile a list that was objective in the first place, as if it's some kind of left-wing conspiracy to pump up Moore when the original compilations were innocuous. But the eye-catching title was pretty untruthful on its face, but I guess "How people rank documentaries are fuzzy, too" doesn't catch as many readers. Bravo, Ted! Regardless, I will strenuously oppose any inclusion of this list, which is a good example of why Wikipedia requires mainstream sources: anyone can sit up late one night and compile a list (that doesn't include concerts, but is comprehensive?) and then turn it into a hit piece and have it posted somewhere. --David Shankbone 14:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Not "posted." "Sold." This isn't a WP:SPS: the piece was fact-checked and edited and published by professional fact-checkers, editors, and publishers (who also chose the title you're so unhappy with). And you're right: anyone can try to research, write, and sell a piece to be professionally published. It was inspired by the factual errors I saw on Wikipedia, and my OCD about correcting urban legends, but has otherwise nothing to do with Wikipedia; more people are going to read The American piece than anything I do with my Wikipedia hobby. (In fact, rather than research and write a section on factual inaccuracies on Sicko for Wikipedia, I'm going to research, write, and try to sell such a piece for wider publication.) I acknowledge the COI: that's why I am following WP:COI procedures, which state that an author of a reliably-sourced piece should disclose the COI on the talk page and discuss the article rather than adding it to the article himself. I acknowledge that my reliably sourced POV that Sicko is the 22nd-highest-grossing documentary contradicts other POVs. I leave it to other editors whether that POV is verifiable (I think it plainly is, as I cite all my sources in the article), but I use the same sources to reach that conclusion as Wikipedia does elsewhere, so I fail to see why that published research is worse than BOMojo's published research. THF 14:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I don't know how difficult it is to sell a piece to a right-wing magazine published by the right-wing organization you yourself work for. The title is just a branch-off of the points you make in the text of the article yourself, and the Transformers comparison falls pretty flat (Hmmm...people who have no health insurance and choose which finger they can afford to spare vs. "robots in disguise" - typical conservative dumbing-down of an issue), but I feel pretty certain in saying that most articles on Wikipedia are read more widely than anything freshman The American puts out. Considering its right-wing spin on neutral issues, such as which types of documentaries are included in a ranking, I think only its intended audience will howl along. I'm sure you won't have any trouble getting Conservapedia, land of The Flintstones, to use it. --David Shankbone 15:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Ah, if only it was as easy to publish as you think it is. And what right-wing spin? The Village Voice is a noted right-wing tabloid that calls Jackass a documentary. Ok. The higher-grossing That's Entertainment! was identified by Wikipedia to be a documentary long before Sicko was released. It's interesting that you perceive a neutral factual list of information from movie sites to be "right-wing spin," but, whatever. THF 15:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Hmmm... right wing spin: You take something like the way BOMoJo ranks documentaries, and turn it into an anti-Michael Moore hit piece. Everything from the fake controversy "You might be surprised which documentaries have actually earned the most…" lead to the first sentence, to "The movie itself often gets a similarly misleading numerical gloss" to turning a "factual ranking" (again, where are concert videos? What about Eddie Murphy Delirious? Or did you just not have access to those numbers on the two websites you looked at?) into an anti-Sicko tirade? That is...well...right wing spin. And you weren't "published" you were posted on the website. I see no evidence that your left-wing conspiracy on the rankings of documentaries piece made it into the print Magazine itself. --David Shankbone 15:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Eddie Murphy Delirious was a television special. The highest grossing non-comedy concert film documentary is Woodstock, which did not make the top-25 list at only $13.3 million. (Stop Making Sense was under $10 million; Gimme Shelter under $1 million.) I looked at more than two websites. If you're aware of other documentaries that grossed more than $20 million that I inadvertently overlooked, please let me know, and I'll publish a correction. The article was about how factually false numbers were used to promote Michael Moore's agenda, and, yes, one of them was the false "fourth-highest grossing documentary" factoid. Again, it's interesting that the truth is right-wing spin. Not sure why the left wants to cede the facts to the right. THF 15:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Its not really about that, it's more taking a commonly-accepted method of ranking documentaries, to the exclusion of IMAX and Jackass-esque films, and saying, "Well, this is a left-wing effort to pump up this film" that is the right-wing spin. Just like the March of the Penguins page says it "it became the second most successful documentary released in North America" (a film many right-wingers love, but according to your estimates is factually inaccurate since that 'honor' belongs to Fahrenheit 9/11) not everything people on the left (or right) is done with malice or an effort to deceive, which is the inherent tone of your underwhelming Internet post. But, whatever... it's just pretty typical of partisans is all. I don't think anything needs more needs to be said on my end. But the "Ted Frank Documentary List" will unlikely usurp those tracked by Box Office MoJo et. al. --David Shankbone 15:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC) convenience break 808 I think people should avoid editing or participating in talk page controversy on topics that they will later write articles on to avoid perception that they are causing Wikipedia editors' time to be spent serving as free personal fact checking or research services. I think given both THF's employer and his profiting from writing a partisan Sicko article prevents him from further participation in this article. Ripe 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I think that TedFrank has attempted to improve this article not out of political machinations or future revenue raising, but because he wants wikipedia to be the best it can, not a mouthpiece for any particular political agenda. You are all whiners. Congrats on the sale Ted. WookMuff 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks WookMuff, a compliment from someone who pretty much has one person or another, on all sides, taking an issue with every comment you make on this Talk page. --David Shankbone 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Why respond by making bullet points? Also, Why have your entire edit in the edit summary... why not just have an edit and say, like, response. Anyway, if people aren't disagreeing with me, then wherein is the point of editing. If everyone always agreed then that would mean that the page is already great and there is no point messing with it. As long as people continue to defend the status quo against common sense edits or perfectly well verifiable, notable edits then there will be dissatisfaction. I have found links and brought up points here, as well as weighing in on discussions, and that has earned me censure and ludicrous personal attacks. Yay me. What have you done? WookMuff 22:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) LOL. Perhaps your editing style instead of the substance of what you say that makes everyone take issue with you. Calling people "Jackass" and "Whiner" don't really make you seem like you're adding anything worthwhile to the discussion. Just my opinion. --David Shankbone 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Yeah, thats my talk page style. My editing style is different, thank you. As for jackass and whiner, read the appropriate edits and disagree. WookMuff 02:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC) convenience break 808b In case anyone hasn't read the opinion piece in question, it's worth noting that the lead sentence reveals a strong partisan position: "“Sicko,” the recent Michael Moore documentary, has faced well-earned criticism because of Moore’s typical playing fast and loose with the facts." Also, The American is published by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank. I don't think any of that precludes us from citing some of its claims in the story, but it certainly restricts the way this source should be treated. I applaud Ted Frank's disclosure of his COI, and his providing some background on the piece; I disagree with WookMuff that TF's motives are entirely to improve Wikipedia, as TF has made no secret of his political position. I don't think there's any problem with TF participating in the discussion, as long as he is not dominating it; that's my understanding of COI. At any rate, I think we all need to focus on the specific edits that need to be made, rather than using this talk page as a forum for political discussion. What edits do people think need to be made, at this point, to improve the article? -Pete 23:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I disagree with your disagreement, in that to my mind, regardless of his political beliefs, TF is trying to make the article NPOV. I would probably disagree with most of TF's political beliefs... I can almost guarantee it, but as long as he is trying to make the article represent BOTH sides of the story, as opposed to its current pro-moore stance, then I will support him all the way. As mentioned, I quite like Michael Moore and, whilst I haven't seen Sicko, from what I have read I imagine I will totally agree with the salient points. But as long as their are dissenting opinions from a variety of sources, not just Republican Think Tanks, they should be included. WookMuff 02:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Wookmuff, I maybe shouldn't have said that, sorry. I don't have any problem with TF's approach. I would stop short of heaping praise upon him, but really none of that is important, and I probably shouldn't have brought it up. I'm curious about what you said, though - to my mind, TF's opinions ARE generated by a Republican think tank, the AEI. As I said before, that doesn't disqualify them entirely from inclusion, but it seems to be the case. You seem to disagree? More important, could you state what improvement you think currently needs to be added to/removed from the article? -Pete 02:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I don't disagree, Pete, I just don't care. The point isn't WHY Ted is doing what he does, but whether what he is trying to add is a) notable, b) verifiable, and c) in line with wikipedia guidelines. It is, it is, and it most certainly is, regardless of people wiki-lawyering. To say that a film article is only to have citations from film-related sources is ludicrous. Why not limit articles about the Apollo Moon landings to aeronautical sources? Why not limit JFK articles to the Warren Commission report? Why are the articles for The Da Vinci Code and The Passion of the Christ not limited to film sources? Hell, the passion article doesn't even appear to be limited to sources! What Ted is generally trying to do in this article, as I see it, is to restore a sadly lacking NPOV. If he was to say that this article has a left-wing bias, would you disagree? WookMuff 05:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC) If Ted's novel method for entertainment research is notable, then it will have been covered by all the film and entertainment trade magazines and newspapers. Why hasn't it? How is including a biased hit piece against Michael Moore that distorts actual, published box office reports "restoring" NPOV? —Viriditas | Talk 13:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC) convenience break 808c The issue here was whether we are going to include Ted Frank's listing of top grossing documentaries. His list is an unnotable, partisan-inspired list in a non-film unnotable partisan magazine, that will never be updated. I think Box Office MoJo's list is sufficient, widely-accepted in the film community and doesn't cause confusion. The article (and its accompanying list) is more anti-Michael Moore than it is about a film or tracking the box office receipts of films. MoJo's rankings are used on most of the documentary articles; are we going to change them all to reflect Ted Frank's list? That is apparently what Ted is doing [36] [37], which is a little spammy in my opinion, though others could reasonably differ. --David Shankbone 03:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC) The Box Office Mojo lists are demonstrably inaccurate, and result in this article contradicting other Wikipedia article. One can perhaps stubbornly claim that Jackass is not a documentary contrary to what film critics say in notable publications, but it's undeniable that The Dream Is Alive and Everest (film) are documentaries. It's not clear to me why using inaccurate verifiable information is superior to using accurate verifiable information, but, at a minimum, NPOV suggests that both points of view be included. The American (magazine) is notable, despite your best WP:POINT efforts to get it deleted. THF 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Way to WP:AGF, Ted - the article indicates notability, as opposed to the five months it had a "questionable notability" tag on it (since February) and was virtually un-Googleable. NPOV does not require that Ted Frank create a list that re-defines a neutral, third-party definition, and then insist that we include it. I think you need to read WP:COI, and you should tread lightly when discussing your own work, and trying to get it in every article. --David Shankbone 03:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC) convenience break 808d I think the best way to handle this is to put the qualifiers out of the ref and write something like "Sicko is the fourth highest-grossing documentary of all time not counting concert movies, 'reality-tv' documentary movies, and "large-format" documentaries.[cite MoJo then write: "Counting these sub-genres, one commentator estimates that Sicko is the 22nd highest grossing documentary of all time." cite Ted Frank]" I think leaving this ref to the footnote avoids any WP:WEIGHT problems. In either case, MoJo's qualifications on the term "documentary" should be included inline. Nothing in the article documentary film suggests they can't be IMAX films or reality shows. Cool Hand Luke 03:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I completely disagree with having a politicized film list included; are we going to include the Ted Frank version on all the 25 films he lists? Or is this list just for some articles, and not others? Ted has already tried to have it inserted on two other articles. MoJo's is perfectly neutral, widely accepted in the film community, and oft-cited on Wikipedia. Ted's list is there for one reason: to knock Sicko down in the rankings. It has no credibility with anyone. Inclusion of the other films is debateable. The sources cited calling Jackass a documentary are tenuous. There's no Gene Shalitt; there's no Roger Ebert; there's no film theorists. There are a few borderline fringe publications, and Andrew Sullivan, whose own comment was geared on making a point about Moore itself. I also think there are WP:COI here, an issue Ted has contended with in the past.--David Shankbone 04:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC) It's only a COI problem if I make the edit against consensus or if I fail to disclose the COI. It's certainly not COI if WookMuff or Luke or another editor makes the edit because they believe the material belongs. Simply having an opinion isn't a COI problem: otherwise, you'd have a COI problem, too. And, yes, I think the ranking should be in all 25 film articles, but I've raised the issue at WikiProject Films. (I fail to see why the motivation is of any import: the information is either accurate or inaccurate (or, more importantly for Wikipedia purposes, WP:V or not), and it's irrelevant if I wrote the article because I dislike Moore, because I wanted some additional spending money, or because, as is actually the case, I was curious what the results were and I like debunking urban legends.) It's not like I invented the box-office numbers for Space Station 3D--which Wikipedia has called a documentary since 2005. THF 04:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Ranking documentaries is inherently an inexact science, precisely because definitions of what is included vary from one critic to another. So any citation of a single analysis, without any qualifying words, is a problem. Presently, there has been only one suggestion to mitigate that problem: referencing TF's article. In the absence of another solution, I'd say Luke's suggestion is fairly good; it assigns appropriate weight to the well-established, apolitical source and to the partisan, one-off article. But David's concerns are valid. What other ways could we go about indicating the inherent problem in documentary-ranking? I suspect there's a better solution, though I haven't thought of one yet myself. -Pete 04:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I've raised this issue on the COI noticeboard. I disagree with its inclusion and the act of politicizing neutral rankings to make point, and will likely open this up for a RfC, especially since Ted seems intent on putting this list on as many articles as possible. --David Shankbone 04:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC) IMAX totals are never included in lists. They're not 'audited'. They're not real either. They will count a bus trip of 100 8 years old from a school who went in free as if they had paid 12.00 (or what ever) each! Some IMAX movies that have run for many years have more free viewers than paid for viewers. Here's what BOMOJO says "Unfortunately, IMAX box office only recently started being tracked in a serious way, leaving many popular titles without a gross to report." Link Bmedley Sutler 04:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC) User:TedFrank: ...the information is either accurate or inaccurate... Well that's not reassuring, is it? Please answer the following questions: What qualifies you to compile such a list? Do you have experience in this area at all? How comprehensive is your list? Have you submitted it for review? If yes, who to? Was it to someone with experience in such matters (ercboxoffice.com, for example) or was it to a colleague at the American Enterprise Institute? You stated earlier that if someone were to point out other documentaries not included in your list, you'd amend it. That's not terribly reassuring either. Perhaps I'll do some original research and make my own list. I'll be back in a jiffy. No, I must object to any inclusion of this politically inspired piece. smb 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC) You are confused about WP:OR, which applies only to material that hasn't been published. If you wish to compile a list, and you can sell it to a publication, and the editors publish it after fact-checking, more power to you. (And there was fact-checking, because the editors made me provide a cite for one of the statistics I used in the opening paragraph. BoxOfficeMojo is virtually a WP:SPS by comparison: do you think their numbers are peer-reviewed?) I think this list is accurate: I'm waiting for one person to tell me how it's wrong, rather than making false accusations about motivation. David objected about the absence of concert movies, but, as I explained, there aren't any concert movies (other than 3 comedy concert movies) that have grossed $20M in US BO. That surprised me, too: learning stuff like that was one reason I compiled the list. And what qualifies me to write a list is the same thing that qualifies every other reliable source on Wikipedia: that I was able to persuade someone with editorial control of a publication that their readers will want to read what I write. THF 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Ted says: BoxOfficeMojo is virtually a WP:SPS by comparison: do you think their numbers are peer-reviewed?; an interesting argument, since he uses BoxOfficeMojo's numbers for his own list and article. And yet, BoxOfficeMojo clearly states that they do not trust the IMAX numbers. So Ted, if you are questioning your own source's reliability, but using the statistics that they consider unreliable, do you not think there is a problem with your list, and do the editors of The American magazine not think so, either?!--David Shankbone 05:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Nowhere does BoxOfficeMojo "clearly state that they do not trust the IMAX numbers," and, in fact, BOMojo compiles those numbers on their site, just not comprehensively. THF 05:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (updated 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC) per Luke comment) NPA. Attack the claims, not the editor. More civility should be used around here (everyone). Cool Hand Luke 06:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Cool Hand Luke 07:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC) The statement "the information is either accurate or inaccurate" simply means that if it is accurate, it should be in, and if it is inaccurate, it shouldn't be in, and that's what any discussion should be about. Note that not one person who has objected to its inclusion has had any evidence that it is inaccurate, just complaining about the fact that I was the one who wrote it and speculation about my motives. THF 05:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Suggestion to satisfy WP:WEIGHT This isn't really an OR issue or a V issue, it's a WEIGHT issue. I think it's fair to assign TedFrank's view very little weight, but if we include qualifications on the #4 rank (as we should) some users will wonder where the film would rank if such documentaries were included. I agree that the source is biased, but this isn't normally a problem for us: we just name the biased source. How about: Sicko is the fourth highest-grossing documentary of all time not counting concert movies, 'reality-tv' documentary movies, and "large-format" documentaries.[1] [1] "Documentary Movies". Genres. Box Office Mojo. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-23. One political commentator, writing for the The American of the conservative American Enterprise Institute claims that Sicko is the 22nd highest grossing documentary when all sub-genres are counted.[38] This names the bias, but gives the reader further reading if they desire. Not a bad thing, I think. Cool Hand Luke 06:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Unfortunately, Ted's method of original cross-categorization is totally unique and is not used by any reliable sources to track films, like say, ERC Box Office, which is used by dozens of newspapers and magazines.[39] Nor is Ted's method notable in any way. Further, adding, "One political commentator...claims that Sicko is the 22nd highest grossing documentary when all sub-genres are counted" is absurd. Ted is not an authority or an expert on entertainment research. Why would we quote a political commentator on this issue? I see no rational reason to include this trivia. —Viriditas | Talk 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC) We should only include it because it is a criticism of the claims about this movie. We have plenty of punditcommentary here, and we would expect that for a political movie. I think TedFrank is off base to suggest mentioning this ranking for Jackass Number Two, but the piece is pointed squarely at a claim in this article. By not putting it inline we remain appropriately agnostic about whether it's factually accurate or not, just as we're agnostic about the political claims that commentators have made. In short, I think this merits a footnote mention not because it's an authoritative source of movie rankings, but precisely because it's relevant political commentary. Cool Hand Luke 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Luke, what makes the guidelines of notability of criticism irrelevant here? First, it is unnotable criticism, by an unnotable critic, on a relatively unnotable website. We aren't here to include criticism for criticism's sake, and you know this as well as I do. It's an artificial controversy over documentary rankings - where else is this even a controversy, except on this one article? Second, it is criticizing criteria that has been adopted by almost the entire mainstream media, film community and is oft-cited. If there is an issue with how MoJo does it's documentary rankings, the Sicko page is not the place to hash it out. Third, nobody uses this list in particular. So, notability, disuse, and improper forum for its issue regardless. Please explain, how do we circumvent these problems that should on its very face exclude it? --David Shankbone 20:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC) It is commentary that relates to the subject of the article. However, I do not think it merits even a footnote. It it were such a big deal, surely it would have been picked up by more prominent sources. Eiler7 20:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (unindent)'This list violates policy: WP:UNDUE (quoting): 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. I'd like it explained to me how this list is not a Tiny Minority view on 1. the ranking of documentaries; 2. how those rankings are compiled; and 3. the use of those rankings. --David Shankbone 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you for reprinting in bold the policy I linked to you. I know this is a potential WEIGHT problem, that's why I drew attention to it instead of COI (which other parties have noted is not being violated). Eiler7 is spot-on I think. The biggest problem is that other's haven't picked up on it—the others don't have to be in the film industry, but notable conservative pundits haven't picked up on it either. If they did, policy would favor inclusion. We often interject potential WEIGHT problems in article. This isn't much different, I think, from quoting a letter to the editor which has little more resonance than Frank's article. We often pass upon the views of small minorities in commensurately small mentions when they add value to an article, and I think a footnote claim satisfies WEIGHT, but I realize that opinions can differ. It's a good argument. Cool Hand Luke 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I suppose where you and I differ is that I don't believe that if conservative pundits think Jackass and Eddie Murphy Raw are documentaries, this list deserves inclusion. I disagree that politics colors everything, there are two sides that should always be presented, etc. This is a film issue, not a political one. --David Shankbone 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC) NPOV requires us to mention widely-held conspiracy theories in history articles and popular superstitious nonsense in science articles. Mentioning a political film ranking for a Michael Moore movie hardly seems outrageous to me. (Besides, Film Mojo apparently thinks Raw and the others could be considered documentaries because it explicitly excepts them.) But this is all moot. The WEIGHT is a powerful argument, and unless independent sources pick up on it, it's fair to exclude (see also MastCell's comment below). Cool Hand Luke 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) The problems with including Ted Frank's Documentary List Ted Frank has no expertise in film, in charting films, or in compiling a list of this nature. The Internet article is not an article about ranking films, but an article that is a Michael Moore hit piece against his film Sicko This is a one-shot deal: this is not an on-going list, but a list compiled with one objective: a one-point-in-time effort to criticize the generally-accepted method of ranking documentary films because they show Michael Moore's film Sicko is "fourth highest-grossing" (currently). There is no "The American List of Highest Grossing Documentary Films" Inclusion of films such as Eddie Murphy Raw and Jackass The Movie, The Real Cancun and Jackass Number Two are not generally accepted as documentaries in the film industry. Neither BoxOfficeMoJo.com nor the-numbers.com nor mainstream film critics review these films as or call these films documentaries. Ted is unable to provide citations to any film theorists or mainstream film reviewers who have called these films documentaries, or reviewed them on such terms. He only provides bit newspapers, a couple of alternative weeklies, or political commentators. It would be undue weight to take a minor review or off-hand remark to create a list of documentaries when no other mainstream publication includes these as documentaries. The only inclusion of these films is Ted Frank, who has no film expertise, who published a partisan hit piece on The American magazine's website, which has no standing in the film community. IMAX film numbers until recently have never been audited. IMAX films count busloads of school children who go to see their movies at no-cost or sharply reduced cost as having paid full price. This is the reason IMAX films are typically not included on documentary lists for box office receipts. No other mainstream news source uses this list, nor its methodology and criteria. Wikipedia would be the sole source for using this list, and for the sake of consistency would need to amend over 25 articles to reflect this new ranking, unused by any other mainstream source. We would thus be the sole source promoting this list. --David Shankbone 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Response Point by point: 1. The only expertise one needs to compile a list is to (a) be able to count; and (b) have lots of patience looking up several different sources. The underlying data is all sourced--to the exact same sources DSB wishes to use. 2. This is irrelevant. 3. WP:CRYSTAL. You don't know whether I (or someone else) will update the list. If the list becomes out of date, it can be qualified with an "as of August 5, 2007". 4. This is simply false, as I've documented with extensive cites to film critics on the Wikiproject page. Even BOMojo contradicts DSB here: if Jackass is so clearly not a documentary, why does BOMojo have to footnote that they excluded it from their documentary list? They don't footnote that they're excluding "Titanic" from their list. The difference is that Jackass is (at least arguably) a documentary, while noone thinks Titanic is. In any event, DSB's argument goes to NPOV, not to V, and works out to be an argument for inclusion. Note that BOMojo contradicts Wikipedia by failing to include several movies that Wikipedia calls documentaries: by DSB's argument, this error should exclude that list, also. 5. This is also false, an unsourced claim, and irrelevant. What evidence does DSB have that studio BO numbers are accurate? They are widely accused of being fudged. For example, The Omen opened at $12,633,666, and it was generally agreed that the last three digits were made up as a publicity stunt. I think my numbers are more honest than BOMojo's, because I don't claim eight or nine significant digits of accuracy, like they do. 6. Yet. Goes to WEIGHT, not to V. 7. Again, WP:CRYSTAL. Blogs are starting to pick up the list, and we'll see how it propagates. The argument goes to WEIGHT, not V. 8. Note that DSB does not identify a single mistake on my list, other than criticisms of choices for inclusion (though those choices are endorsed by BOMojo): but, by the same criterion, BOMojo flunks because of its arbitrary exclusions. The argument proves too much. I won't comment further. Luke's proposed edit is an acceptable compromise, and consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. THF 19:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Thought I would perform a blog search to test point 7 ("Blogs are starting to pick up the list"). I found only three, and two of those were posts written by THF himself. [40] [41] [42] The only feedback he has received at this time is from someone objecting to his inclusion of non documentaries in a documentaries list. [43] The only non-political site that has picked up his list is hero-movies.com. However, when I click on the link to read Ted's piece, it is nowhere present. (It probably ran momentarily in a Java scripted news window, then dropped off the bottom.) smb 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Even on blogs that are right-wing they question the films that Ted Frank included on the documentary list. If the list is even questionable to the right wing blogosphere, how is it even a tiny minority, as opposed to a minority of one? --David Shankbone 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC) At this point, I believe the Frank article should not be cited here, although I don't fault him for bringing it up for discussion. The does, however, leave a significant problem with the article in its present state. I believe this problem all hinges on the bolded words in the following sentence: “ …Sicko has grossed $22,647,000 in the United States, which makes it the fourth-highest grossing documentary since 1982, not counting concert movies, "reality-tv" movies, and "large-format" documentaries. ” I'd prefer that there be a period after "United States," which keeps all the non-controversial facts contained in one sentence. The rest should be rephrased, perhaps as follows: "According to one common ranking of documentaries, which excludes x, y, and z, Sicko was the fourth-highest grossing documentary since 1982 as of July, 2007 (or whenever.)" -Pete 17:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC) This issue has only been controversial with one editor. The MoJo rankings are used by so many mainstream media sources, that they are hardly controversial. I think all the extra wording is better left in a footnote because it is cumbersome and pedantic. --David Shankbone 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC) I just think that "which makes it" is a poor choice of wording. Perhaps all the qualifiers I put in are not necessary, but I still think it should be rephrased somehow to avoid that phrase - which has an overly authoritative tone. Anyone else, suggestions? -Pete 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Yeah, sure. Why not just do the full stop where you recommend, and then say "According to BoxOffice MoJo, this makes Sicko the fourth highest-grossing documentary.*" And then add a footnote where the star is listing the reference citation and the caveats. Does that work? --David Shankbone 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Works for me. -Pete 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Me too. smb 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) If we're worried about authoritative tone, it doesn't make sense to hide the qualifications. I think the sentence reads fine. No reliable sources seem to doubt the ranking, but their definition of "documentary" is an essentual part of the statistic. Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC) I don't really care one way or the other, to be honest. Footnotes are perfectly acceptable ways to qualify a statement, no other media source seems to feel the need to qualify it at all, and I only think it's less clumsy and awkward. But, in text or footnote won't be argued against by me. --David Shankbone 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Request for Comment Well, I don't think the new list is notable enough to include in this article, but User:TedFrank is also not in violation of WP:COI by suggesting his article on the talk page (along with the disclosure of his potential COI. At this point, I would recommend to User:DavidShankBone that you ease out of the argument, as it serves little purpose at this point. As far as I can tell, no-one has attempted to add TedFrank's list, and he would violate COI if he were to add it himself. Sxeptomaniac 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I think User:THF handled the COI issue adequately by coming to the talk page, although I'd prefer to see a little less in the way of strenuous advocacy. After all, if the source is appropriate, then it shouldn't require so much pushing from the editor who wrote it. As to the source itself, I don't find it rising to the bar of notability/inclusion/WP:WEIGHT. The American is not a notable source of film rankings. The piece itself is clearly not a scholarly reassessment of film ranking methodology, but a partisan attack on Michael Moore. It also raises serious questions about WP:V when an editor can write a piece, have it published by the partisan source they work for, and then argue strenuously for its inclusion on Wikipedia. Surely if this factoid or ranking scheme is notable, it will be picked up and amplified by independent reliable sources. If that happens, it's notable. Until then, it's not. Those are my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Re; Anti-Michael Moore comment "The article (and its accompanying list) is more anti-Michael Moore than it is about a film or tracking the box office receipts of films" I am sorry... maybe I misread that article... what did it say was the number 2 ranked documentary? WookMuff 06:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unclear intentions

THF, after a number of your edits met with resistance, you expressed your intention to work on something larger, obviously with the intention of discrediting the film Sicko, here on the talk page: "In fact, rather than research and write a section on factual inaccuracies on Sicko for Wikipedia, I'm going to research, write, and try to sell such a piece for wider publication." (14:54, 8 August 2007) Would you kindly clarify your current position? Thankyou. smb 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My position is

• 1. The current article violates WP:NPOV by failing to account for the well-documented factual inaccuracies in the movie.
  2. No one has compiled all of these inaccuracies in one place the way others have done for other factually inaccurate Michael Moore movies.
  3. On nights when I couldn't sleep, I spent some spare time gathering the information with the intent of writing a section of this article that complied with Wikipedia rules and addressed the WP:NPOV violation, and have a pile of notes.
  4. Because editors continue to misconstrue WP:COI despite repeated corrections from administrators, because a group of Michael Moore partisans own the page, and because Wikipedia won't do anything to stop the hecklers' veto and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations, it is not a productive use of my time to discuss changes on the talk page, especially when it has been like pulling teeth to fix something as simple as a several-thousand-word plot summary that blatantly violated WP:NOT. This is a hobby, and it's not particularly fun to spend an inordinate amount of time parrying personal attacks, and it doesn't improve the encyclopedia, either. I'm taking this page off of my watch list. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Wikipedia pages that violate WP:NPOV: why should this one be any different?
  5. On the other hand, #2 and #3 are still true. So, as a rational economic actor, I have two choices:

a) I could use this information to spend hours programming a finely formatted piece that complies with WP:NPOV, argue with people who have rejected the WP:NPOV policy and misrepresent sources and resist even the simplest of improvements to the article and uncivilly and personally attack me, issue a seventh RFC and wait for neutral editors to insert the material, and then keep a long watch over the article to resist POV-pushing by Moore partisans, all without getting a dime for the effort; or,

b) I could take the same information, and since all the hard work is done, write a couple of thousand words in a fraction of the time, and sell it to a publication with a much wider readership than the dozen people who read this page, have something that I can actually add to my CV (since, despite all the conspiracy theories, not a single relevant employer in the world cares about Wikipedia editing, unless my friend Mike Godwin is hiring), and use the time saved and extra money to do something nice for my domestic partner, who's both hotter and smarter than I am, yet hasn't left me despite all the time I waste editing Wikipedia in my spare time.

Thanks to Luke for being a neutral voice of reason, and I hope that this mess didn't cost him too many billable hours. THF 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"The current article violates WP:NPOV'; "a group of Michael Moore partisans own the page";

I can't agree with you more. I came to wikipedia to try out editing. A semi-celebrity I like kept talking up the community and success of wikipedia. Michael Moore's films were among the first edits I made. All but one of my edits were removed and marked as vandalism, even though according to Jimmy Wales it was not. I tried to prove that the edits were accurate, I used information from wikipedia itself, Websters dictionary, various web sites, and a recording from a Jimmy Wales interview. All to no avail. Not only was I ridiculed and branded a vandal, I was attacked on my own talk page. The funny thing is the admins have rewarded the guy who did this to me.

I gave up. I tried on last attempt to edit. I put a help tag on my talk page to solicit suggestion on which article to edit. But it was just answered with a link to the wikipedia help page.

I gave up, and I no longer use wikipedia as a source of any kind. There is no WP:NPOV in wikipedia, and this article and most of the editors definitely violate WP:COI! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.5.215 (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Industry response section

The article deserves a section on the industry response to the film: two to four paragraphs should suffice. Ideally, this section should begin by only discussing the specific players mentioned in the film, and if necessary, broaden the scope to include extra-cinematic responses. There's a lot of very interesting information, but some of it is difficult to find. For example, according to several sources, Kaiser Permanente authored a response to the film on their website, but I've been unable to track it down. If anyone could help write this section, it would be greatly appreciated. —Viriditas | Talk 08:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.seiu-uhw.org/mediacenter/news/page.jsp?itemID=28672235 is a pro-KP article from the SEIU United Healthcare Workers—West organization? could that be what you are after? WookMuff 11:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, KP posted an official response on their website and I hope we can find it. The SEIU United Healthcare Workers West article you have provided is very informative; I think it should be represented in a new industry response section along with KP. Thanks for finding this gem. —Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

According to google, the word sicko does not appear on the KP website. But then if it was a response that didn't deign to mentio the film it was responding to... it also doesn't mention the word moore WookMuff 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I found it. I was initially referring to a 2007-06-30 article in the San Francisco Chronicle by Victoria Colliver, entitled "Sicko' a pain in the neck for health care industry". Colliver writes: "Kaiser, headquartered in Oakland, posted a rebuttal on its Web site to the way it was portrayed in specific portions of the film." Colliver goes on to quote the rebuttal on Kaiser's website: "Ehrlichman's distorted paraphrase badly misrepresents Kaiser Permanente, its goals, its strategy and its not-for-profit model." It occurred to me that I should just search for the quote, which turned up this official rebuttal of Sicko. Note the url: xnet.kp.org. —Viriditas | Talk 03:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"maximum of £6.65"

In a National Health Service (NHS)... pharmaceuticals are free of charge if one is younger than 16 or older than 60, and subsidized for everyone else so only a maximum of £6.65 is charged (about $13 U.S.).

This is incorrect. £6.65 is a flat charge (for those not eligible for free prescriptions), not a maximum. So in theory, if you were prescribed some aspirin, costing a few pence, then you would have to pay £6.65 to get that prescription from a pharmacy officially. Clearly in practice people would just buy it from their supermarket instead if it is a non-prescription drug- however- i am sure that there are some prescription-only drugs which cost (the NHS) less than £6.65, that the NHS essentially make a 'profit' on with the fixed price.

...and a loss too. For example, a 7-day course of the antibiotic - Co-amoxiclav - costs £13.20, according to BNF 54 Panthro 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, "pharmaceuticals are free" implies that over-the-counter medicines are given away with no medical intervention. A prescription signed by a doctor (or more recently, some nurses) is needed to get any pharmaceutical.. take Moore's example; you could not just choose to have 120 tablets if a Dr decided you only required 30.

Further, free of charge if one is younger than 16 or older than 60, is an oversimplification; there are other groups of people eligible for free prescriptions; eg. those 18 or under and in full-time education, those with very low incomes. Also, the charge no longer applies at all in Wales. ~ Bungalowbill —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Is there a cite for this vis-a-vis Sicko? It's not surprising to me that Moore got it wrong, but unless there is a reliable source describing how Moore got it wrong, the qualification in the article violates WP:NOR. We, the editors, don't get to say Moore is wrong, even if he says two plus two is five; we only get to cite reliable sources that discuss the issue. THF 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moore didn't get it wrong. The quote above is factually correct. The criticisms given here do not show any of the statement to be false - it isn't. MegdalePlace 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

MegdalePlace is right. It's true that in most cases the charge is either zero (children under 16, youngsters under 19 and in full time education, people over 60, pregnant women and women who've had a baby in the last year, people on a low income; also contraceptives are free, as are all medicines supplied in hospital) or a flat charge of £6.65. And it's true that some presciption medicines may cost less than the flat charge, but that doesn't alter the fact that the maximum charge is £6.65. And in fact if you need to buy a large number of prescriptions and don't fall within the many exemptions, you can buy a season ticket ("prepayment certificate" - which you can even pay for in instalments) which reduces the cost significantly. I've simplified the details - the full details are here. --NSH001 00:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Moore was correct, it was just a simplification of the system. One could have made a movie just about the NHS and its financial model, so its understandable if even implied that he was making an example rather than explicitly conveying the conditions of the system.90.201.67.82 (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Sicko (film) to Sicko

Sicko used to be a redirect to Sicko (film) which mean that there was over disambig of the title this guideline. I would presume there's no objections. Sasquatch t|c 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unless "Sicko the MMORPG" comes out, this should be fine.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed (for now) info said to be directly from the movie

User:Carlton added the following information. User:THF deleted it and Carlton added back. I just deleted it for very specific reasons I'll go into below. Here's the text, which can be added back in if we can resolve it:

Also in the film Moore shows that while Cuba is rated 39 while spending approx $251 per person in the world health, the United States is only 37, yet spends approx $7000 per person. Moore argues that for the additional approx $6,750 the United States should be rated a lot higher by being healthier but is not.

My reasons for removing it:

1. I don't remember this information being in the movie at all. It surprised me to read this. If a couple of other editors can say they remember it, I'll consider my memory faulty and withdraw my objection. Eventually the DVD will come out anyway.

2. Is this presented accurately or should it be rewritten? If Moore mentioned the cost of health care, for instance, but not the ranking, then the information shouldn't imply that he did.

3. The word "shows" is POV. It needs to be changed to something like "asserts", "states" (meaning he actually, explicitly said it close to the way it's presented here), or to some other word that doesn't imply endorsement.

These aren't objections, but we should consider whether this information should go in the "Summary" section describing the film's contents. I'm not sure. And the passage needs to be copyedited. Noroton 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the movie, and there are several reliable sources criticizing Moore for not explicitly mentioning Cuba's ranking. E.g., NPR. (Moore does mention the $251/$7000 disparity, though he gets that figure by using two different sources that used two different measurements; Moore claims after the fact that there is a glancing shot of Cuba's ranking if you look for it in the shot of the US ranked 37th, though that's not what the added sentences claim.) The sentences violate WP:SYN at a minimum. (The WHO figures are bogus for other reasons, but that's a different issue.) THF 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko controversy page (again)

There was agreement to trim and merge the Controversies over the film Sicko page (see above). After opting out of this process, Noroton has recently removed the Redirect and is now attempting to inject new life into the page, rather than merging individual criticisms he would like to see on the main page. Having failed previously, is this user now within his right to request a deletion, in the hope of keeping the page, overriding the consensus that it should be merged? smb 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CCC. New arguments are being presented, and the original complaint about the controversies page was that it was created before the movie came out. THF 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It says on the page you helpfully provided me with a link to, "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind." All well and good. Though it continues, "An editor who thinks there are good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated may discuss it on the relevant talk page". Noroton has not done so. There is no such discussion on the relevant talk page. (In addition, because the original consensus emerged here, would it not also be helpful to have a link to the new proposal here?) It also goes on to say, "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent. A precedent usually has reasons too, which may still be valid. There is a balance between unresolved good-faith concerns over a reasonable or policy related matter, and disruptively trying to enforce an individual view." Indeed. And therefore I would like to point out that Noroton never accepted the original consensus. On Cyrus XIII's talk page he said: "The consensus of a couple of handfuls of editors to merge was defective in that it violated NPOV." On my talk page he commented: "The decision to merge flagrantly violated NPOV rules and therefore can't be allowed to stand." He then added, "Not only is the controversies article staying, so is the link to it." And on the present AfD page he states: "I made a mistake in letting a group of editors at the Sicko article vote to merge it into that article..."' King Noroton 'let', 'allowed', 'permitted' other editors to vote. Apparently by mistake, but we should be eternally grateful all the same. smb 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA, please. There isn't a Roberts' Rule of Order analogue that says one has to accept the current consensus before seeking to change it. If you have concerns about Noroton's conduct, take it up on Noroton's talk-page or in a RFC/U, not the Sicko talk page. THF 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, consensus can change, the problem is, that Noroton never sought to present those new arguments. He has scarcely posted on this talk page since a little while before the original merge discussion closed (In the belief that this venue is firmly in the clutches of nasty POV pushers? Who knows.), he never objected to the notion that most of the content from the merged article page simply wasn't worth mentioning as they did not constitute genuine controversies. Instead, upon his return to the issue, he went into full-on revert warring over re-opening a page previously merged via consensus and instigated that AfD stunt, after his behavior was met with resistance. Those aren't compelling arguments presented to the community by proper means of discussion, it's just disruptive and has nothing to do with pursuing or verifying a change in consensus. - Cyrus XIII 13:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not a participant in the earlier consensus, and both Swatjester and I believe that the blanking of the controversies page without inclusion of sourced material in this article is unwarranted. So there is no consensus on this. Please stop blanking the page. THF 14:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think a controversies page is warranted. --David Shankbone 14:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• I would support a merge. If the controversies article is being used to include criticism that is not able to be included in this article, doesn't that make it a POV fork? As much as I dislike Moore, I don't think it's appropriate to have an article that is just for beating on the man, or his work. If it is notable and sourcable, it should be in Sicko. - Crockspot 17:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • Crockspot, I think that's an interesting point. I hope you'll follow the links I put in the AFD discussion: It's a content fork, not a POV fork, as defined at WP:Content forking. As I said in the AFD discussion, creating a new article because the content is too much for one article is absolutely proper, as that guideline explicitly states, and it's the justification I have for it. If you've read the controversies article, you know it includes both criticism and defense of Moore, including Moore's own defense of his work. I think it's pretty much a model of fair coverage of a topic. If your argument is that to even have the topic is NPOV, then I point you back to Wikipedia:Content forking and to the fact that we do, in fact, have articles that cover controversies (even a category, Category:Controversies and a subcategory, Category:Political controversies, and even other controversy articles about Moore). A controversy is a topic debated in public. The numerous citations in the controversy article prove without a doubt that the topic of the article has been debated in public. I think all this meets your objections. Please reconsider. Noroton 19:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cyrus XIII is correct, I don't have any faith at all that the majority of editors who would pay attention to this page have any commitment whatever to NPOV, although they deny that. I speak from enormous experience on this page. I think it was Cyrus XIII who tried to archive this page (and I hope he'll fix it so that it's properly archived and we can get a page of the previous arguments), but I had discussions on this page that went on forever and that got absolutely nowhere. It's obvious to me that the commitment of most editors who post here is to push a particular point of view. I was quite explicit in what I was doing at the AfD that was closed early: I want a broader number of editors to consider this and I want it considered fairly.

Some editors have brought up the objection that too much space is given on the controversies page. The real question is whether or not the controversy over the film is notable enough. That's a WP:Notability question and the answer is that you need enough sourcing. There is plenty of sourcing, and it's sourcing of articles that happen to be exactly or almost exactly centered around the same topic as the article. Noroton 19:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've stated my position before and for the record I will express it once more. Looking over Category:Political_controversies I don't believe Sicko belongs. Moore's past work is brought up in previous discussions. An unmistakable reference to Fahrenheit 9/11. But that film was so much broader. It didn't just attempt to influence foreign policy - it attempted to remove a president from office. Sicko doesn't compare (and if Moore's latest work does seriously influence the Democratic Party on a single issue then Sicko and the United States healthcare policy debate would be more appropriate). At this moment I firmly stand with Cyrus XIII in that there isn't enough genuine controversy to justify a separate page. What Noroton has managed to accumulate is movie criticism (there is no Piracy controversy or Treasury Department probe controversy on his page because he disqualified both). And much of the criticism that makes up the page is skewed. Kyle Smith and Rich Lowry berate Moore because he skates over the faults of the Cuban, British, Canadian etc health-care systems. Others are quoted as saying much the same thing. But why is this even notable? To quote the film director directly:

--"There are problems in all health-care systems but at least [Europeans] have a health-care system that covers everyone, and it's not my position or my right or my responsibility to point out the flaws in [foreign] health-care systems - that is [their] job - it is [their] job to fix those problems."

--"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."

--"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."

And so the premise of Sicko is very clear: "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." And the director identified many excellent qualities in the health-care establishments he featured in his film. I'm a recipient of one (living in the UK). Yet for some strange reason this can't be allowed to stand. Many people are upset with Moore for making a different movie to the one they themselves would like to see made -- one that savagely attacks socialised medicine. Yes, many Cuban clinics could do with a fresh lick of paint and supplies are inconsistent. So what? That is not the reason why Moore went to Cuba. He even decided to answer some of his critics on his homepage, pointing out that Cuba's economy is being squeezed, which is one of the reasons for the increasingly poor state of affairs. Will editors be allowed to quote and insert these responses at length? And even if the answer is Yes, why should they bother? since this still has nothing to do with the premise of the film. As user Szyslak pointed out in the original RFC, "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." I believe Controversies over the film Sicko is headed in the wrong direction. It was obvious that something was wrong when Noroton originaly titled the section "Rebuttals to the film". Now, having said all of that, valid points of criticism can easily be accommodated on the main page. There are different estimates of uninsured in America for a start. Most people quote the same figures as Moore but there are four or five different estimations and it's not wrong to have something in the article to that effect, providing undue weight is not afforded other estimates over ones that are widely more accepted and publicized. And the claim that the September 11th rescue workers got exactly the same treatment as ordinary Cubans has been contradicted by the Cuban authorities themselves, who say the rescue workers actually got special treatment. Why can't we cite authoritative independent sources instead of partisans who use individual criticisms as a soapbox from which to attack socialised medicine as a whole? smb 07:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Smb writes that critics berate Moore because he skates over the faults of the Cuban, British, Canadian etc health-care systems. Others are quoted as saying much the same thing. But why is this even notable? It's notable because a documentary, in addition to being a work of art, is a work of journalism. People expect even opinion journalism to offer a fair description of subjects being referred to, so the criticism that Moore's reporting is biased isn't a criticism that he offers opinions (no one has criticised him for that at all) but that he ignores facts to such an extent that obvious distortions arise. And this has been said even by people who generally agree with him and who like the movie. The movie is considered controversial and there is no doubt about that. None whatever. Smb's insistance that there is no controversy is simply not credible, given the many, many sources, quoted in the article, that say there is a controversy.

Why can't we cite authoritative independent sources instead of partisans who use individual criticisms as a soapbox from which to attack socialised medicine as a whole? Because the article is not directly about socialized medicine. The article is about the controversy. An article about the controversy needs to quote the controversialists. Controversialists are partisans. Since the movie's accuracy and fairness of treatment are part of the controversy, the facts are mentioned in describing the points each side makes. But the facts themselves, while important and necessary to the article, are only there to show what's being argued. The focus is on the debate, not the facts behind the debate. Moore's movie isn't worth an article because it's about an important subject: plenty of documentaries are about important subjects but not important enough for articles or multiple articles. Moore's movie is important because it's a widely seen, influential work that has generated controversy about itself. If you want to write about socialized medicine or about the health care systems of various countries, there are plenty of Wikipedia articles for that and plenty more should be created and added to.

smb, you say you live in the UK. How familiar are you with America? Do you not realize that the commentators I quote in the article are as much from the left as the right? Do you think Nation magazine or The American Prospect are right-wing publications? Also, in my country, we have a low opinion of British journalism and perhaps it's low in your country as well, but we have a higher regard (not very high, but higher) for our own newspapers and magazines because, for the most part, it is understood that even opinion journalism has an obligation to attempt to fairly describe a subject. Therefore when Sicko or Moore's other works are called grossly inaccurate and misleading, that's considered a relatively serious charge. And when journalists in newspapers and magazines are making the charge, that's considered more serious. I don't want to denigrate or even just mischaracterize British opinion, but I'm beginning to wonder whether there's a cultural difference here. You talk about "authoritative, independent sources". Americans consider American opinion magazines to be authoritative, independent sources. Perhaps the fact that freedom of the press is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights lends a certain aura of seriousness to American journalism, and a certain status to it in this country. Whatever the reason, it's there. When a film is labeled a documentary, Americans at least expect it to be fair enough not to, in effect, lie. That's the basic argument that underlies the controversy about this film.

valid points of criticism can easily be accommodated on the main page This is disingenous. In the past, every attempt to include criticism beyond three paragraphs was met by vociferous opposition ... by smb. Except for the post just above, smb has never, to my knowledge, written anything on this page that was critical of Sicko, either in discussion or on the article page itself. When the merger discussion succeeded the last time, neither smb nor anyone else who voted for merger did anything at all to add back criticism or information about the controversy, from what I can tell. That says volumes about where they think fairness lies. Any criticism of Sicko was later added by others. smb has fought tooth and nail every inch of the way to defend everything about Moore. Please, smb, correct me if I'm factually wrong with any of this. You just point out the diffs and I'll take it back. Anyone editing this page has to contend with constant, rabid partisanship. I believe it takes more than three paragraphs to validly cover the nature of the controversy over Sicko's content and methods, and that includes both the criticisms and the responses. Noroton 13:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The accusation that I have attempted to restrict criticism to just "three paragraphs" is demonstrably false. In discussion on your talk page I encouraged the merger of individual criticisms you wanted to see included. [44] The only qualification was that you try to summarise these as concisely as possible and avoid repetition. In the past, even before the film was released, you were rapidly expanding the 'Rebuttals to the film' section. You attempted to add a 'Fallacies in the film' section. It was original research. Other users pointed these things out to you. (See Archive 01.) It wasn't just me. Two months ago it was requested you slow down, "to take pause in order to help create a balanced page". That was because the criticism section was starting to expand when the rest of the page was underdeveloped. Your response: "It is not debatable that the controversy surrounding the film is an essential feature of it." "The controversy sections of Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 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." "We need to describe the controversy about what it says." I'm convinced that if two or three editors had not acted as a brake then this page would be even more lopsided and at least three times its present length, especially after moorewatch.com posted a note asking its readers to get directly involved. But I would suggest you have not been paying careful attention or have become shortsighted if you think I am trying to stop all criticism.

Attacking my fairness is easy; much harder to look in the mirror. Am I opinionated? Yes. I'm not a proficient editor but I respond to reason and respect the rules. You asked me how familiar I am with the American corporate press system. Familiar enough to be able to reject your characterization of its reputation and obligations when it comes to dealing with people who insist on overturning corporate rule. From my perspective, the question of cultural difference is interesting in a different way. Most people in the developed world already have access to what Moore is advocating for the United States, so America is isolated on this issue, not the other way around. Consider if socialised health-care is nearly so bad as the corporate press continually make it out to be, why would billions of people insist on defending it? Understand this is exactly the point expressed during the film by former British Parliamentarian Tony Benn -- purportedly a communist who is a big fan of Adolf Hitler, according to Kyle Smith, one of the journalists whom you cite as having "an obligation to attempt to fairly describe [the] subject". [45] Again, it's easy to accuse a director of distortion when one ignores the premise of his film. Perhaps Moore's mistake concerning Cuba was assuming people were already aware it is a small island operating under restriction (or el bloqueo). Or could it be that several of Moore's critics are deceitful because they know perfectly well these facts, but pretend not to see them? All irrelevant in any case. I'm going to attempt to make several improvements to the page. We can always discus here further changes if need be. smb 03:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive

The archive link has been fixed, or rather, Talk:Sicko (film)/Archive 1 was moved to Talk:Sicko/Archive 1. Come September, a second archive for all threads with no posts newer than July might be in order, given that this page keeps generating quite a bit of output. - Cyrus XIII 20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

August 24 RFC over SYN violation

This edit violates WP:SYN and should be undone. THF 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the violation and given a lengthy explanation in the comments. There's also a WP:POV issue, as far more time is spent exploring Moore's purported response to the criticism than the criticism itself. THF 07:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The tags have now been removed twice without anyone discussing on the talk page, though the comments to the tags provide a lengthy explanation why there is a violation of Wikipedia policy. THF 13:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Moreover, the edits violate NPOV: Moore's arguments about Cuba are already found in the synopsis section, and the hanging of additional arguments in the response section that do not directly respond to the criticism that Moore's portrayal of Cuba is wildly inaccurate is POV-pushing. THF 13:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the movie? Moore is the one that links these facts together. It's not SYN to report on arguments synthesized by the subject of an article. Ripe 23:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Not only did Moore not link those facts together, he was criticized (by Gupta, among many others) for failing to mention Cuba's rank.

2. If you're saying that it comes from the movie, you're admitting that it violates WP:SYN, because the movie was not responding Lowry. That's an editor's original research anticipating how Moore would respond, and that is precisely what SYN forbids. Moore has addressed the criticism in his own words. (Indeed, I added a quote from Moore doing just that.) Why not use those quotes instead of editors' original research? If it is in the movie, put it in the synopsis, so long as you comply with WP:MOSFILMS#Plot.

3. Even though the WHO report was mentioned in the movie, the WHO report does not mention Sicko and is not about Moore's rebuttal to criticism, and thus, under WP:SYN cannot be cited as support for an editor's original research rebutting criticism.

4. Finally, there still remains the fact that the editor's original research is a non sequitur. The criticism is that Moore glamorized Cuba by failing to report the true abysmal state of Cuban healthcare. The editor's original research does not address that and is out of place in the "Response" section. THF 23:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not merely a film review, but discusses the Sicko movie as well as the controversy surrounding it. Therefore it is perfectly valid to include facts Moore points out here and here. This is neither WP:SYN nor WP:OR.--Raphael1 12:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you cite to Moore's website if Moore pointed out the facts there. You hadn't cited to Moore's website, you cited to improper links under WP:SYN, and the ttags I added were appropriate. THF 12:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK are the links on Moore's website as well. Therefore they are appropriate and do not constitute WP:SYN.--Raphael1 14:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The old links are bad. The new links are good. I think we have a consensus. Isaac Pankonin 06:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a consensus on how to cite to this issue, but we don't have a consensus. Another editor, in an effort to sanitize the article, deleted discussion of Lowry's criticism entirely, violating WP:NPOV, as well as mooting the issue of how to cite to Moore's response. Amazingly, after an extensive discussion on the need to integrate the old Controversies article into this article, the editors have reduced the amount of discussion of controversy in this article, limiting it to a single sentence. As the number of cites show, the controversy is extensively noted and notable. THF 11:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit: Stossel

I propose adding the following sentence, as it is a notable point of view that is not currently reflected in the article:

John Stossel criticized Moore's reliance on WHO rankings in making his argument; Stossel argues that the WHO rankings are biased because they give excessive weight to how "socialistic" a health-care system is, and because their life-expectancy measures failed to adjust for factors outside the health-care system such as transportation and crime fatalities.[46]

THF 07:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research. Stossel was criticizing the NYT, and only mentioned Moore in passing. Claiming from here that Stossel was, in fact, criticizing Moore, is a stretch. Bi 05:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

The recent additions of criticism sections (hint: see the controversy sections) by Noroton give undue weight to a mainly positively received movie and take up half the page. We went through all this before and it was pov the last time. These sections should be shortened and throughly de-poved. I hate to get into another edit war with Noroton but that has always seemed to be his inclination, at least with this page. I will try to make some npov edits but past history tells me they will be instantly reverted. Turtlescrubber 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed page tag and hav now added a weasel/pov tag to section. Weasel phrases and poor sources need to be fixed. Ill leave this tag on for a bit and then start removing the weasel bits. Turtlescrubber 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please put the tag back. There is an NPOV dispute being discussed in the RFC section above. THF 18:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with THF - it may be pre-mature to remove, although the RfC is becoming dated and consensus is building that there is no SYN violation; regardless, there is no reason to not have the tag up for a few days longer. I think it can come down on September 1, barring the SYN issue becoming murkier, which I don't think it appears it will be. --David Shankbone 18:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• To clarify, it should not be at the top of the page, but over the section that is considered problematic. --David Shankbone 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was that there was a SYN violation and it would be solved by changing the citation so that there wouldn't be original research and it would be clear that the claim was Moore's rather than the encyclopedia's. But Turtlescrubber's solution to the SYN tag problem, done without discussion in the RFC, was blanking the entire discussion and violated NPOV. THF 18:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?Turtlescrubber 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole page violates NPOV because it does not fairly present all notable points of view about the movie. If you recall, the reason there was a consensus for a merger of the Controversies fork was because there was going to be a merger. What has happened is a blanking, which is both against consensus and violates NPOV. THF 18:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the consensus was reduce and merge. That was done and everyone was happy. Dont obfuscate the situation and make your own history. Turtlescrubber 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The tag I removed was the one I added. If there is another ongoing dispute then feel free to add your own tag. Turtlescrubber 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

new POV tag

As Turtle suggested As I perhaps mistakenly thought was suggested by this talk-page comment, which stated "Feel free to add your own tag", I have readded the tag. Notable points of view omitted, off the top of my head: — THF — continues after insertion below

I didn't "offer" you anything. Stop using my name as if I am some magical gatekeeper to the page that gives your edits legitimacy. It's a really creepy thing to do and this isn't the first time. Turtlescrubber 15:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggested no such thing. Stop using me to further your own pov. Turtlescrubber 02:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you were mistaken. I in no way endorse this pov tag. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 02:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber didn't suggest anything. Please don't use my name to further your own agenda. Turtlescrubber 19:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You misquoted me again. Why don't you just leave me alone? Turtlescrubber 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As I was saying before I was interrupted by someone who didn't leave an interruption tag, the following notable points of view are omitted:

1. The WHO rankings measure whether a country's medical system is socialized, not whether it is good. (Stossel)
2. Inaccurate portrayal of Canada. (Gratzer, Howell, Pipes, others)
3. Inaccurate portrayal of Great Britain. (Reinhoudt, others)
4. Inaccurate portrayal of Cuba. (Lowry, Smith, others)
5. Inaccurate portrayal of France. (Elder, Loder, Reinhoudt, others)
6. Failure to acknowledge any tradeoffs. (Mitchell, others)
7. Stale anecdotes of marginal relevance. (Freudenheim, others)
8. 45 million number misleading. (Elder, Tanner, many many others)
9. Inaccurate portrayal of socialized US services (Stossel)
10. Failure to account for benefits of competition (Tanner)
11. Kaiser inaccurately portrayed. (Kaiser)

There may be others that do not immediately come to mind. THF 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Further to what David said on your talk page, I'd like to add:

07. This is devoid of good reason. So what if Sicko received criticism from one or two individuals because some of the featured anecdotes are old? Is Moore seriously expected to leave the testimony of Linda Peeno out of his movie because it's been covered in the past? What a joke.

08 The 45m figure comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov). Clinton relied on them. Bush relies on them. How can it be considered a legitimate and notable criticism of Sicko that Moore used the same official numbers? What you seem to be saying is, there is another unofficial study that argues the number of uninsured is lower. But that still doesn't make this a valid criticism of Moore or his movie.

10. Again, people seem to be moaning that Moore didn't make the film they had in mind, and not the film he had in mind. Moore setout to demonstrate (i) the US health-care system is broken, and (ii) advocate a particular solution. Moore had no requirement to show the benefits of private insurance, especially when his objective was to express another point of view millions of Americans are not accustomed to.

By now it should be obvious that Moore is coming in for special treatment. It's not that his movie is a bad one - quite the reverse, it is highly rated indeed. Rather, judging by the amount of contrived criticism, some people must not like his politics. smb 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If Moore is getting "special treatment," the special treatment is that he is being treated with kid gloves. Compare an article about an equally wild and inaccurate right-wing polemic, The Great Global Warming Swindle, or even the treatment of a fictional piece like Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

All of SMB's arguments are that the anti-Moore point of view is wrong. This is not a chat page to discuss which point of view is correct. WP:NPOV says that all notable points of view are included, and many people have criticized Moore for these issues. Thus when Moore's critics are wrong, their point of view is included, just as we don't exclude Moore's point of view when Moore gets facts wrong (and he got a lot of facts wrong in this movie). Wikipedia's test is verifiability, not truth. THF 21:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not getting it. It must not be apparent to you how absurd some of these criticisms actually are. Instead you now try and link two completely unrelated films together when they don't compare at all. Michael Moore was completely honest about his starting point, unlike the director of The Great Global Warming Swindle, Martin Durkin. Moore states very clearly that he wanted to express the other side of the story. He said there are many excellent qualities in socialist systems (fact) and these should form the backbone of a new non-profit American system (opinion). That's what the film is about. Highlighting the good things and making people aware of the alternatives. I can produce the quotes if required. So any criticism of the movie should fall reasonably within the premise and scope of the movie itself. For example, during the film, Moore said the 9/11 rescue workers got exactly the same treatment as ordinary Cubans, but this claim has been contradicted by Cuban authorities, who said their treatment was fast tracked, so that would be a good quality criticism. But what seems to be going on here is criticism by proxy. i.e. Attack something that stands outside or independent of the movie, or perhaps offer a different political opinion, then try to stretch and make it a direct criticism of the piece itself. The CDC uninsured study is a good example. Moore was just doing what most other people (including politicians) do - he cited a peer-reviewed study. But because some organisation has contested the accepted wisdom of the number of uninsured in America, partisans are attempting to make this a direct criticism of Moore and his film (when in fact, if they want to contest the study, they should first take it up with the governmental department that produced it). Now compare that with the The Great Global Warming Swindle. Here we have an example of opinion masquerading as science. The production team physically altered scientific charts and graphs. It touted research that had been rejected by every peer-review journal known to man. Global Warming Swindle was a monumental fraud from start to finish (which is the reason why lots of negative criticism keeps sticking on its respective page). The only connection between that film and this, is you have just typed both their names out on the same page. And that's where the connection ends. It's a red herring. smb 23:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm not a magician. I can't wave a mystical wand and make a bogus argument seem plausible. I think you should step back and consider why so many other editors have resisted repeated attempts by you and Noroton to insert an unreasonable amount of criticism on this page. smb 23:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In my eyes, it is because people are confusing the question of whether Moore is right with the NPOV policy. This is the sixth RFC I have had to bring on this page because of editing by you, David, and Turtle; and in four of the first five outside editors have agreed with me that you have incorrectly resisted NPOV-required edits. Despite this repeated consensus against you, you continue to sanitize the article, making it even more unbalanced than when we started months ago. THF 12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To correct the record, I have only once removed criticism from this page (in June). It was a temporary measure. The criticism was moved from the main page and here onto the talk page. And with the RFCs, as before, you are generalising. Everyone agreed we should add notable criticism - but doubts and questions still remain over the notability of individual criticisms, and how much space we should attribute to each. That is why I'm glad we are considering this now. I suggested some time ago we attempt this - to examine each and see if they qualify for inclusion, and if so, at what length - as opposed to building a general library for Moore's critics. But I have a request if we are going to process this stuff; would someone kindly archive some of the previous discussion, because this page is taking forever and a day to load on my screen and every time I attempt to page scroll, I enter Matrix bullet time. Kpow! smb 19:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with Smb about all of these. To recap from THF's Talk page, #1 is a criticism of the WHO, not Moore. #2, 3, 4 and 5 should be combined, perhaps with a small paragraph. #9 does not make sense to me, so I need to think about that and I want to read Kaiser's defense in #11. --David Shankbone 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The #1 is being misinterpreted here anyway. It's how "socialistic" (according to Stossel) the system is, not how "socialized." As in "what is the difference in care provided to the poorest vs. the richest," not "does the gov't run the system Y/N?". Also it's just one of the criteria so to say that the WHO rankings "measure" it seems misleading; the rankings incorporate a measure of equitable distribution along with measures life expectancy, patient satisfaction, infant mortality, etc. Consider the fact that Cuba's national system doesn't result in a higher ranking than the U.S. though it is gov't run. Ripe 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Stossel and WHO

Stossel criticizes the WHO numbers and Moore for using them. #9 is Stossel's separate article a month earlier criticizing a minor point in the movie where Moore says socialized medicine will work because social security works. THF 21:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Stossel doesn't like widely-accepted numbers from a highly-respected organization; we can't include Stossel on every article that uses those WHO numbers, and it would violate WP:WEIGHT to do so. It's not notable that one person criticizes them, and then criticizes someone who, like countless others, uses them. --David Shankbone 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Stossel's with a highly-respected organization, too. And WHO is far from universally accepted. Again, you are arguing that WHO is correct, but that is just one POV. Given that WHO is measuring whether health-care systems have been socialized, it is wildly misleading to claim the numbers have anything to do with quality: if US lifespans were twenty years better than any other nation in the world, it would still rank low in the WHO list because WHO disagrees with the US's economic system. Given how much of the movie is based on that #37 ranking, it is important to include the fact that the ranking is considered by some to be misleading when Moore has been criticized for using it. Otherwise, the encyclopedia article is taking sides. It is a fact that Moore uses the WHO rankings; it is a fact that a national news reporter and best-selling author has criticized Moore for using the numbers and has given a reasoned argument why the numbers are misleading. That's not a violation of WP:WEIGHT to include that fact. THF 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, Stossel is criticizing the WHO, and this is more appropriate for the WHO's page than it is for Moore's page. It is unreasonable and anti WP:WEIGHT. A lot of people, governments and organizations use these statistics. It would be different if Moore relied on esoteric data from an esoteric organization, but the World Health Organization does not qualify. It would be the same thing if someone relied on the Centers for Disease Control for statistics about Hepatitis rates, and some person at a respected organization said, "Hey, it doesn't account for X" but then someone made a movie using the CDC, and this person said, "They shouldn't use those statistics because they don't account for X". This is also after the fact, after someone uses widely used stats from a respected organization. And Stossel's notability and credibility on this issue, when compared to the WHO's, barely registers. --David Shankbone 22:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not the case that there is only one ranking of healthcare systems: there are countless others that rank the US higher. Moore chose the one that slanted his case the most, and falsely represented what it meant. THF 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of Stossel, quoting Bi:

Original research. Stossel was criticizing the NYT, and only mentioned Moore in passing. Claiming from here that Stossel was, in fact, criticizing Moore, is a stretch. Bi 05:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Stossel's piece does not count as criticism of Sicko, because it is only mentioned in passing. Moore used the same statistics that our own government uses. THF frames the question this way: Moore had a choice to 1. go with the vastly-accepted World Health Organization's statistics that everyone else uses, or 2. go with John Stossel. Has anyone else abandoned the WHO for Stossel? No. Thus, Stossel is not only a minority view, he is a "tiny-minority view" which it is against policy to include per WP:WEIGHT. It's not even an argument; THF, you like to quote policy and guidelines often, so I am always surprised to find your arguments violating them. --David Shankbone 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Stossel isn't the only one who criticizes WHO. Robert Helms USA Today [47], many many others that I do not have time to find right now. His position is hardly unique, he's just the most notable journalist who has noted these very old criticisms of the misleading WHO numbers and how Moore uses the misleading numbers without context to further mislead. It's a notable opinion, not least because it is correct. If you go by other, more relevant rankings (cancer survival rates, for example), the US has the best healthcare in the world. THF 11:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, THF, that behind so many of your proposed mainspace edits lies an agenda to push somebody who has spoken at some forum for AEI, or written for AEI, etc. Your argument falls utterly flat. Criticizing someone for using widely-accepted statistics and methodology is unnotable. I think we've both made our arguments, and it is pretty obvious which is the better. --David Shankbone 11:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Stossel's writing, and am familiar with it; I have a job that permits me to put on panels of writers and thinkers whose ideas I like. I've met a lot of people, just like you have. I fail to see the relevance of the fact that I am cleaning up a wildly POV-pushing Stossel article also. Again, you are arguing that Moore is correct to use the statistics, and that is irrelevant under NPOV even if you were right. The fact that I have a POV is no more relevant than the fact that you have a POV: we're both trying to enforce Wikipedia guidelines about how to create a good encyclopedia article. This one falls way short. Didn't we just agree that you were going to stop accusations of bad faith? THF 12:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not my POV that the WHO statistics are widely accepted, THF, it's a fact, thus the WP:WEIGHT issue. It's a fact nobody except a tiny minority have latched on to Stossel. It's a fact that this is giving undue weight to a person criticizing the WHO, not Moore. --David Shankbone 12:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did Stossel criticize Moore in any significant way? Was it, as David says, merely in passing? Since you didn't address this, the sense I'm getting is that the logic seems to be something like: Stossel et al criticized the WHO's stuff, Moore used their stuff, so Stossel criticized Moore. That's original synthesis of published material. Croctotheface 11:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Stossel is notable criticism and it belongs in the article. Why would this even be argued? --Tbeatty 11:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For the gazillion reasons above. Stossel is criticizing the WHO, and only off-handedly mentions Moore for using widely accepted statistics. Put the criticism in the WHO article; it doesn't belong here. --David Shankbone 12:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Croc, I agree that that would violate WP:SYN. But Stossel did criticize Moore for using it, notwithstanding Shankbone's claim otherwise. David, you and I have both made our points, and you're repeating yourself now. Let's let others discuss. THF 12:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Stossel doesn't even criticize Moore - This is the WP:WEIGHT problem with including this criticism of the WHO, not Moore, in the article. Here is the only thing the article says about Moore:

In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie "Sicko."

This has no place in the Sicko article, since it only references Moore as someone who has used universally-used stats. That's not a criticism, it's an acknowledgment. --David Shankbone 12:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Uninsured Americans

Here is further corroboration. The U.S. Census Bureau have, just today, issued their report covering the year 2006. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006 (issued August 2007) According to the L.A. Times, "The number of Americans without health insurance rose last year from 44.8 million, or 15.3% of the population, to 47 million, or 15.8%..." [48] smb 01:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Um, did I hear a, "Booyah!" I believe I did... --David Shankbone 01:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And that number is misleading, as many many people are going to point out in the next few days, since it includes both people who can afford insurance but choose not to purchase it, people who choose to go uninsured for short periods of time, people who are eligible for government insurance but choose not to sign up, and millions of people who aren't American citizens and wouldn't be eligible for single-payer insurance even if Moore were put in charge of the health-care system. Again, this is an argument that Moore is correct, but this is not a chat room, but a discussion about improving the article by including notable points of view about Moore's movie that have been omitted. THF 12:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to read over this whole talk page, so the reply to this might be quick and easy. I understand your point of view about the issue, which is that the statistic that 44-or-so million Americans lack health insurance is misleading for reasons X, Y, and Z. What I don't see is this point of view being expressed and attributed somewhere. Croctotheface 12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I list sources above at the top of the RFC. THF 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything I could actually read? I just see a bunch of names in parentheses. Croctotheface 12:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There's the report from the census bureau. The first, and probably biggest, stat that is used to mislead is that this is over the course of a year. Anyone who has been uninsured for any amount of time during the year is counted as uninsured. So saying 15% were uninsured, 70% were covered by privated insurance and 30% were covered by government insurance is correct using census methodology. [49] It is misleading to imply that this information is "snapshot" data. --Tbeatty 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point of view. I don't see attribution of this opinion. Croctotheface 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The census bureau acknowledges it in their report. Page 18 "People were considered “insured” if they were covered by any type of

health insurance for part or all of the previous calendar year. They were considered “uninsured” if they were not covered by any type of health insurance at any time in that year." . --Tbeatty 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion is that people who are between jobs that would qualify for government insurance often don't know they are eligible unless they are hospitalized. Therefore, they report "uninsured" for their whole family for the time they are between jobs when in reality they and/or their children are covered by state plans. --Tbeatty 13:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've cited it several times above. It's the Elder and Tanner links. There's at least one other article that makes the same point, but people will get mad at me if I mention it. THF 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with attributing the opinion to the Cato paper, provided its information is accurate. Needless to say, we can reference this point of view very briefly, like a sentence or less. Croctotheface 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

All I want is a sentence for each of the points of view identified in my list above, with possibly a sentence rebuttal from Moore if Moore has commented on the criticism. That's all NPOV requires, but NPOV does require it. THF 14:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not require that each of those 10 items be required, since there are problems with a number of them. --David Shankbone 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguing about the total number of the uninsured in America, is a total sock puppet issue in regard to Sicko. Sicko opens with a statement about that there are a lot of uninsured, throws a large number in the air, and then says, "But this movie is not about them, it's about those who have insurance." The focus of the wiki article on Sicko should focus on the content of the movie, and not a single number mentioned in the opening of the film. Especially since the film does not talk about the uninsured again. The fact that the movie visits countries where no one is uninsured, is a comparison not between the uninsured in the USA but the insured. I would love to see more citations about how well the insured are treated in the USA. If you are going to argue that a single payer system does not work, then show us how the multi-payer system we have is working. Sicko shows that it is not working for everybody. 207.171.180.101 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. If the criticism doesn't apply to the film, or applies only to a few seconds of it, then it probably doesn't belong. Croctotheface 09:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The only under insured are the 9/11 volunteers, and they may have private insurance (we aren't told that directly) but they aren't covered by the governments policy for the professionals involved with the cleanup/rescue. The majority of the film concentrates on folks who have insurance but do not have coverage or are denied coverage for reasons that are suspect. One of the major points in the movie is that in other countries the denial for what would appear to be reasonable care doesn't exist. Whether that is true for ALL cases is clearly open to debate. But it has nothing to do with the census number of who does not have insurance. 207.171.180.101 16:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Misstated facts speak to the credibility and "truthiness" of the entire movie. If he's willing to skew facts that can be easily criticized and refuted, it speaks of what he would do with facts that are not so verifiable such as the anecdotal evidence presented. The problem is that most people only have experience with one system and can't relate to the positives and negatives of the different systems out there. --Tbeatty 05:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a faulty generalization. Also this article is not about the health care debate, or the intricacies of census bureau statistics, or even OR fact-checking of Sicko. I respectfully ask that we all try to work on the SNR on this talk page. If a citation does not say "Sicko" in the article, then that's a good indication that the information doesn't belong here (but is not by itself sufficient for inclusion). Having all these extended tangential arguments about a few words or single sentences or the inclusion or exclusion of single citations is kind of ridiculous. Why don't we all go edit some other completely unrelated pages for a week or two rather than burning all our time on trench warfare here. Ripe 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's massively faulty. The complaint started out as 'misrepresentation', which if it is at all, is only slightly so - let's all agree that there are a large number of uninsured American citizens - that much is irrefutable. If you want to complain that it's 'misleading' not to explain why they are unisured, fair enough, but to extrapolte to this latest comment, "Misstated facts speak to the credibility and "truthiness" of the entire movie" is ridiculous. The fundamental truth is there, and if anything, attests to the fundamental truth of the whole argument. Incidentally, the total number of uninsured citizens in the UK? Zero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

UK Prescriptions

UK prescription charges are a fixed amount -- irrespective of the cost to the NHS, thus, in some cases, patients pay more than the cost of the drugs and are actually putting money back into the NHS. It is not correct to state that prescriptions are subsidised for all.

• Up to a point, Lord Copper. Many doctors will issue a private prescription for drugs that are cheaper than the NHS charge, and people on long-term medication can get a season ticket which gives them a year's prescriptions for a fixed feed. Oh, and people on benefits don't pay, and neither do children. The contribution made by prescription charges over the packet price is not great, although the prescription charge itself is a significant source of revenue (offsetting some of the significant cost of drugs, especially new and patented drugs). Guy (Help!) 09:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is true to say "prescriptions are subsidised for all" because it generalises. It would not be true to say "All prescriptions are always subsidised", but because some are, then prescriptions in general are and the statement holds true. By way of analogy, it would be true to say "workers get paid for their work" or "Cars are driven on roads". The obvious existence of some exceptions to this does not negate the statements themselves, which are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversies - inaccurate portrayal of other systems

Reference THF's list above, it seems that most of it is problematic to include in a controversies section for various reasons discussed above. But something that could stand to be in the article are criticisms that he did not accurately portray other national health care systems. Ideas for crafting this? --David Shankbone 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ban thf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.66.253 (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added some sourced information about criticisms of the film, focusing on inaccurate portrayal of other systems. There's a bit about it in the lead section, but I put more info under the Controversies header. Generally I cited specific critics, so avoiding the problems with WP:WEASEL in the earlier text. Walton^One 17:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with quoting the critics is that it's massively undue weight here, and editors use it as an excuse to insert POV-by-proxy. There were/are just as many weasel words in the new version than the earlier version. It's only the collective criticism that reaches sufficient notability and therefore needs to be concisely described. In the lead "The film has also been criticised by policy specialists" who? how many? all policy specialists? many policy specialists? some policy specialists? In the criticism of accuracy section, "a number of critics" is no better than "some critics" in the previous version. Ripe 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I can't see how to avoid saying "a number of commentators" - and it shouldn't be a problem, as the paragraph then goes on to name and cite specific commentators. We need these criticisms in the article, and I can't see how to word it more neutrally. Walton^One 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am backing out of editing this article until my ArbCom (they've accepted) with THF is over, since it directly deals with the issues on this page. --David Shankbone 00:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The controversies section, two quotes from two different newspapers that criticize exactly the same thing, almost word for word. If you read the controversies section you can't miss it. Do we really need to say in two seperate lines/paragraphs that two papers said EXACTLY the same thing? Or are we trying to get that point across twice as hard, drum it into peoples heads through repetition? JayKeaton 10:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"sick and sicker" "trailer" link RFC

User:Profg keeps adding a link to a 4 minute youtube video that claims to be a trailer for a movie called "Sick and Sicker," but it appears very doubtful that it will be released in theaters, etc. I've removed the link several times. I'd like to establish consensus that the link should not be added to the article. Neither the website nor the trailer mention Sicko once, so IMO it shouldn't be here due to relevance, notability and undue weight issues. This article isn't a repository for general health care debate POVs and links. Please comment. Ripe 00:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What is more, this film is not yet available according to the website. Nor is there anything about it on IMDb. So this appears to be an effort to generate publicity. smb 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, the problem is that User:Ripe keeps changing his mind about why he doesn't want the link to an alternative view/rebuttal movie in there. First he says that he removed the links because he insisted that I "find (him) a reputable cite that links sick & sicker and sicko". So I did exactly that, and he immediately removed them again because he insisted that they not "point users to nonnotable youtube videos that are only related by virtue of being about health care". (Plus he accused me of "Youtube video linkspam" on my Talk page.) So then I removed the direct link to the YouTube video, and left the actual relevant link to the actual rebuttal movie website which is specifically about and in rebuttal to Sicko. I wondered what his excuse would be this time (since he could no longer accuse me of "adding a link to a 4 minute youtube video"), and now I see: it's NOW because "Sick & Sicker doesn't mention Sicko once in the trailer or on the website". OK, so if I point out where Sicko is mentioned on the creator's website, will User:Ripe be satisfied? Of course not. He will come up with another excuse, so that rebuttals can be censored. So he wins, by virtue of coming up with enough excuses to gather the Michael Moore faithful to keep the link off the radar. Good for him, bad for Wikipedia. profg 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a number of reasons why those links aren't acceptable. Nor should you be linking directly to full programmes on other pages. smb 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If and when the movie is released it could have it's own Wikipedia entry depending on it's relevance, and it's length. It should be linked to the Medical Controversies category, of which Sicko is also. And perhaps the great Canadian vs American Health debate page, but AFAIK the movie is not 'sicko', it's not a review of sicko. Therefore it belongs on its own, and not linked here and should be removed. 207.171.180.101 20:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut Scenes (Fact wrong)

"Mr. Moore, also filmed the Healthcare in Norway which is run by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision. Norway was removed because it duplicated many of the good things that are done in France. For example in Norway, if you have certain illnesses, like psoriasis or rheumatism, you get two weeks paid vacation at a spa in the Canary Islands.[46]

This is wrong. We (Norwegians) do get paid if we are sick, but that does not mean that we get paid vacation for two weeks. You actually have to seek special permission with a declaration from a doctor, if you are going outside our border's to keep you income for that period. Also the source mention is a tourist site for grand canarian, and shouldn’t be considered as primary source.

Translated from this paper [50] the reason why the scene was cut was because Moore though it would be too good for Americans to believe.

I can translate it if someone wants to.

--Larsen2k 17:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Larsen

Are you saying that the deleted scene was different to what Moore said it is? We can do a rewrite of the whole article if you like, taking out all the information about what was actually in this film and replace it with actual facts according to websites with really long urls. Maybe we can have a small section at the bottom that briefly describes whats in the film, because surely for a page about a movie it is more important to remove all information about the film itself in favour of all new information that wasn't part of the film at all. It would be cool, we could set a new precendent for wikipedia, all other film articles can be rewritten, maybe in starwars instead of talking about starwars we can talk about the science and mechanics of real life space travel, and instead of talking about the characters we can simply talk about the actors that play them and talk about the actors personal lives. Yeah, that would be cool JayKeaton 10:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, so you just admitted that you get paid vacation for being sick, if you have a doctors note. If you could get sent to the Canary Islands for recovery for having one of the mentioned diseases, and you have the note, you are still paid. What's wrong with this statement?

I would be glad if you could tell us with {{Fact}} citations just what a doctor can prescribe. And what Mr. Moore filmed but did not use from Norway. GaryLambda 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I summarized the cut scenes, so this may no longer be an issue. The previous description gave undue weight to the cut scenes details, and seemed to only be here to push a POV, either "hey aren't these national systems great" or "hey aren't these national systems overly extravagant and wasteful." Either way it was too much weight IMO. Ripe 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Came out a bit wrong. I don't wont you to change things to a real life, but there is noe reliable source to this statment. I tried searching for it my self and the only thing a found was a small article from a danish reporter, which i don't consider good enough, and the source that refere to a gran canari island tourist site is far from it!

Althoug you a doctor can give you a prescription for going outside the country it is very unlikly that he will give it if you are only sick for 2 week's. It must also be approved by a goverment department. So it is not imposible, but unlikly to happend.

I will try to translate the danish article later today

Larsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsen2k (talk • contribs) 05:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. People with rheumatoid arthritis are not sick for only two weeks. They have a lifetime disease. My Aunt has it and its crippling. Being in a warm climate seems to alleviate some of the symptoms. And as noted in the tourism citation the local apartments are used by Norwegians for just this purpose. And Norway has one of the highest incidents of rheumatoid arthritis and no one really knows why, other than a lack of vitamin D seems to play a part. So going to a warm sunny climate may be the right therapy. So the statement you may get a paid trip to the Islands is possible. But as you say, a mere cold isn't going to rate approval for a trip. GaryLambda 16:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

From a discussion on my talk page: I think the cut scenes need to be summarized in one or two (at most) sentences. My edit that was reverted was to simply state that "Moore cut footage detailing benefits in the French, UK, and Norwegian health care systems." which I think adequately summarizes the cut scenes. We have nearly as many words in the Wikipedia article on the cut scenes than there is in lone source cited that mentions Sicko. That's why I think it's undue weight. "Verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point" NPOV. Clearly why the cut scenes are described in such detail with undue weight is because someone is trying to make a point about something. Ripe 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Far from trying to make a point, I'd like the cut scenes sections to describe in as few words as possible, yet with enough detail exactly what is left on the cutting room floor. It's quite possible that when the DVD "directors cut" comes out, we can all see for ourselves what missed the main movie. That said, I think that the edits by Ripe were too severe. Something in between what is there and what was written would be appropriate. I'm working on wording but I have a limited amount of time to devote to this. I would also like better citations, and a second statement by Mr. Moore to some other reputable journalist. GaryLambda 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Third highest-grossing documentary

MoJo has an updated ranking and box office number if anyone wants to correct the article: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm. It is now the third-highest ranking documentary. --David Shankbone 16:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Done GaryLambda 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

CNN on Sicko

"Moores numbers mostly accurate" they say in a mostly glowing essay. I don't know how that one slipped in, I guess it was just the vocal minority that said they didn't like the movie ^_^ Anyway, we can expand on the reception section JayKeaton 01:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sicko is not a Mockumentary

I would like to comment on the labelling of Sicko as a mockumentary in the first sentence of the sypnopsis section. Unless the definition is changing, a mockumentary is a movie which is made in the style of a dockumentary, but is not presenting any research at all. It is fictional. A mockumentary uses real actors, and a real script. Noted examples are Spinal Tap and A Mighty Wind. Mockumentaries are usually made to be funny, and I believe this is why Michael Moore documentaries are sometimes labelled as mockumentaries. However, funny is not the same as fiction. We, at Wikipedia, should try our best to maintain the objective definition of words. I have made the change. 171.64.165.83 15:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Release in other media

Does anyone know when the movie will be released on DVD or for showing on mainstream network TV stations in the US and/or globally? --Tom 11:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Was released in the UK on DVD last week.

Need More positive reviews of film

I am going to post some more articles that agree with Moore's view of healthcare in America. It seems that all there is is negative responses to Moore's film. I mean every conservative/libertarian think tank that had a respons to this film is posted on here but only a few favorable film critic reviews counter it? C'mon! Who is writing this article, Rush Limbaugh?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.166.103 (talk • contribs)

Add 'em if you got 'em. Try to keep the partisan remarks at a minimum though. Didn't Fox News publish a very positive review of the film? - Crockspot (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well this isn't a film review site, but yes what a sad statement this is on a very very sick society. I think in this case it will be enough to just get the facts of the film straight and let people decide for themselves. It's easy to see why this inflames right wing trolls though: they correctly think that if people see and buy this films message they will reject forever the culture of ignorance, fear, and death which they are pushing. Über-Christian stuff like Moore's paying the moorewatch.com individuals medical bills just drives them to distraction. Lycurgus (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As the changes I made are factual and based upon a viewing of the film within the last 8 hours or so, I will proceed to protection and arbitration if necessary unless it can be shown that I got a doctored release of the film or something. Lycurgus (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Done what I can for the commons on this article; It appears there are enough individuals with opinions contrary to those of Justin below and any further input from me will be contributed from my space(s). Lycurgus (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

While I don't agree with reverting edits without discussion, I do believe the edits by Lycurgus fail to maintain a neutral point of view and are written in an inappropriate style. While the additions by Lycurgus may be entirely accurate, the tone seems highly point of view and lacks citations, especially by secondary sources. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I'd suggest reverting the article to it's original form until the additional information can be verified by secondary sources, and written in neutral tone. Justin ^chat 10:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are confused. Verifiability and truth are in the case of an easily verified matter of fact practically the same concept and neither is a simple standalone criterion for content here. The wikipedia policies are more complex than you apparently realize. I would expand on this but giving you the benefit of doubt and some time to perhaps do some research and think about your life. (Lycurgus (using one of two recently leased IPs: 74.78.162.229 talk) 11:18, 15 December 2007 UTC)

Verifiability is very much a criteria for content here. To quote WP:V:

"Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

There's a clear distinction between verifiability and truth as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Truth is an absolute, whereas, verifiability is not. The two are neither mutually inclusive or mutually exclusive.

• "I work for a company in the Pacific Northwest." That's true, but certainly not verifiable by WP's standards.
• "Robin Williams is an actor." That's both true and verifiable by WP's standards.

The fundamental difference between truth and verifiable by WP's standards is the requirement of a reliable source. You've failed to provide a reliable source for your additions, not to mention the style problems associated with them. I'm well aware of the complexity of Wikipedia standards, however, unlike most this is as clear as a summer day. However, if you feel that I'm incorrect, please feel free to make a request for comment and I'm sure you'll get more input on your edits. Justin ^chat 06:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncreditted song?

There appears to be an uncreditted song in Sicko. It's the one played during the segment with the guy who trys to do a handstand before crossing Abbey road, in London. Here's the clip (audio only): http://youtube.com/watch?v=zFlqEKLDrQA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.180.50 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm dying to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Please review WP:OR. A wikipedia editor can't go into primary sources (such as the UK statistics for patient wait times), research those, and post his personal analysis of the credibility of claims made by Think tanks. If some 3rd party made this claim , find it and source it to them. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Canadian Monkey. The editorial tone in the contested paragraph is unacceptably unencyclopedic. ⟳ausa کui ^× 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the personal claim and just kept the information and you still deleted it. Why?--Tom (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You can use only those sources that refer to the movie. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again

This page was reasonably well balanced before today. I thought users had agreed to provide a description of major criticism of the film without handing a soapbox to advocates of private healthcare? Now we hear from the likes of Sean Hannity who, in turn, points to Stuart Browning, who produced a separate film (before Sicko) promoting private medicine, giving an excuse to reproduce a synopsis of his film here on this page! And we now have criticism from a Music Television presenter too. It's like the numerous discussions on this page never happened. smb (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting the page. #1. We already have four sources - namely, Rich Lowry, John Stossel, Paul Howard and David Gratzer - criticising Moore's depiction of the Canadian health care system, so we don't need Sean Hannity ("...Moore's propaganda film...", "[he] want[s] them to get sick and die, that's basically how the propaganda goes...", "...he [Moore] comes out with this propaganda film...") as a fifth source. #2. The negative opinion of Kurt Loder, a music television presenter, is poorly written, in violation of WP:NPOV (e.g. "Loder criticized Moore for the film's cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews, and unsubstantiated assertions"). These two additions also have something in common. They are used here to promote Stuart Browning and his two films, Dead Meat and Uninsured in America, both released before Sicko, which advocate private medicine. Moreover, pointing to copyrighted material (in this case, on YouTube) is a no-no. This change will leave expansion of the Stossel-Pierce conflict untouched. smb (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, with respect to your statements about previous discussions, common sense should tell you that on a project like WP, editors new to a particular article are not going to be privy to past discussions. Why you would think that anyone finding this article at any ol' time after your previous discussions would be aware of them, I don't know. Second,the criticisms do not amount to advocacy of private health care, much less a synopsis of any film. They simply are what they are: criticism of Sicko. Third, the fact that Kurt Loder is a television presenter is irrelevant to the validity of his criticisms. Focusing on his occupation is simply an ad hominem argument, which is a type of logical fallacy. His statements, or any others, should be accepted or refuted on the basis of their internal merit. Putting this aside, he is journalist, film critic, author, and former editor of Rolling Stone magazine, experience which perfectly qualifies him to write reviews of films, including unfavorable ones. Fourth, the POV appearance of the passage relating Loder's comments can easily be fixed with the qualifier "what he perceived to be". I acknowledge my failure to include that, but to go ballistic because my extensive edits and writings did not include every single qualifier they should have, and erase the entire passage, rather than simply improve it as Wikipedia prescribes by editing it, strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Fifth, the Hannity interview pertained to Stuart Browning's films, which provide a view that conflicts with Moore's, which has nothing to do with Hannity himself. As aforementioned, critiquing socialized health care does not constitute, in and of itself, advocacy of private medicine. To argue thus is to engage in non sequitur. Lastly, where you get the ridiculous idea that pointing to copyrighted material is prohibited is just mind-boggling to me, but to put it simply, you're wrong. ALL material used as sources at Wikipedia---The New York Times, The New England Journal of Medicine, A film's official website, interviews, articles, etc.---is copyrighted. Where you get the idea that YouTube is copyrighted but all these other things are not, I have no idea, but copyright infringment (if that's indeed what you were alluding to) occurs when too great a portion of a copyrighted work that is not covered by Fair Use is used. Citing it as a source and linking to it is not only not copyright infringement, it's what Wikipedia REQUIRES. This point even came up at the March 16 Wikipedia Meetup in Manhattan, and I was told the same thing. Reproducing copyrighted material in full is prohibited. Pointing to it, including YouTube, is not.

I'm going to replace the deleted material back into the article (which includes more than just Hannity and Loder, incidentally), but trimmed a bit, and with the appropriate qualifiers. Nightscream (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not coherent enough?

It might just be me, but I'm still having trouble organizing in my mind what the arguments are on each side of the issue. There are some things that repeat themselves over and over (waitlists, dealing with insurance companies, etc.), but I feel that most of the article is just a big list of different critics and their opinions. May need a big overhaul. Possibly could be reorganized to be either a counterpoint-listing, or using headings for each major argument, with advocates listed below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.65.6 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a point-by-point layout is a good idea. Nightscream (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote from the MTV video on piracy

Before we talk about how Moore's remarks should be represented in the article, I think we ought to agree about what exactly he said in full. Here's a complete transcription of the interview that we cite. Please let me know if I have made any mistakes, and feel free to edit the below section and leave any comments below. Once we've agreed on the full transcription, hopefully we can agree on what the abridged version of the quotation should look like. ⟳ausa کui ^× 01:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Transcript

Q: Sicko is available on the internet. Do you have any sense of how that happened?

A: No. Do they think I did it?

Q: No, no one thinks you did it.

A: Oh, okay. Do they think the pharmaceutical companies did it so they could, maybe, destroy the box office for this movie? No, that wouldn't happen, would it? (laughs)

Q: Is that-- what do you think, really?

A: I have no idea what happened. Generally most movies these days get out on the internet and, you know, I'm just happy that people get to see my movies. I'm not a big supporter of the copyright laws in this country. I thought Napster was a good idea. You know, when I was a kid, there were vinyl record albums, and then cassette tapes came along, and people started making cassette tapes, and I remember some-- one day, somebody giving me a cassette tape of an album called London Calling by a group called The Clash. And I thought, Wow! This is really cool. And suddenly I became a Clash fan. From that point on, I bought their albums and I went to their concerts, and they ended up making money off me because somebody gave me a free tape of their music. I don't understand bands, or filmmakers, or whatever, who oppose sharing -- hav[ing] their work being shared with people, because I think it only increases your fanbase. It's good that people, maybe who, who maybe can't afford to buy that many CDs or download them off iTunes or whatever, that they're able to hear the music or see these movies. I've always been happy in the past when teenagers have downloaded pirated copies of my movies, because my movies until this point have all been R-rated -- and I've opposed that system too. Teenagers should be able to see my movies, and they haven't been able to, so they've been downloading them and sharing them, and I think that's great.

I just watched the video again, essentially triple-checking it, and your transcrption is pretty much accurate, except that he says, "filmmakers, or whatever, who oppose sharing -- have their work..." He says "have", not "having". Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked again and it sounds like you're right. He should have said "having", so I guess we should flag it (sic) or something along those lines? ⟳ausa کui ^× 04:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's grammatically incorrect, I'd suggest using "hav[ing]", since that's the standard practice I've observed when relating what someone said for meaning, without including the everyday grammatical mistakes that occur when people speak publicly. Nightscream (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

This is the current revision:

When asked about the leak, Moore said, "I'm just happy that people get to see my movies…I'm not a big supporter of copyright laws in this country…I don't understand filmmakers…who oppose sharing, have their work being shared by people, because it only increases your fanbase…I've always been happy in the past when teenagers have downloaded pirated copies of my movies…they've been downloading them and sharing them, and I think that's great."[59]

My proposed revision removes the first ellipsis (because there is nothing between those two statements), implies a grammatical correction on behalf of Moore in the case of "having", and adds a missing word "bands":

When asked about the leak, Moore said, "I'm just happy that people get to see my movies. I'm not a big supporter of copyright laws in this country…I don't understand bands or filmmakers…who oppose sharing, hav[ing] their work being shared by people, because it only increases your fanbase…I've always been happy in the past when teenagers have downloaded pirated copies of my movies…they've been downloading them and sharing them, and I think that's great."[59]

Look good? ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Cool beans, brother. :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks ⟳ausa کui ^× 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)