Talk:Sicko/Archive 2

message: Although this film presents fact-- & identifies itself as a documentary in its marketing campaign-- it shouldn't be identified as such here. Webster's two-word definition of documentary pertaining to documentary film is "factual, objective." Even a documentary on the Holocaust will present Hitler's psycological background/motivations & Germany's devestated economy during the rise of the Nazi party, whereas this film doesn't even address economic forces at work in current US healthcare, especially HMOs.  Of course, it's not a mockumentary like Blair Witch Project or Borat but should fall into the realm of political propaganda.
It takes a perspective, but it is still a documentary. Just like an op-ed piece in a major newspaper. --NYCJosh 21:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your correlation to a news paper article here. A newspaper article is not a documentary, and does not pose itself as one. This film portrays itself as a Documentary ("factual, objective.") but it is actually based on fiction. It by definition more closely resembles a mockumentary. While it is not a mockumentary in the way the film Borat was ( A film done in the documentary style that does not portray itself as being factual. ) but is more like the mockumentary made for the purpose of promoting the film The Blair Witch Project. ( A film done in the documentary style portraying itself as a factual account.) In this mini-mockumentary titled Curse of the Blair Witch, the filmmaker seeks to fool the viewer into believing that the events from 1785 to 1941 about a woman "Elly Kedward" in Blair Township located in North Central Maryland as true historical events. When in reality all of the events were fictitious.--Macindan 07:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on fiction? Please document your alleged instances of fabrication. - aluxeterna 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: While the film does not meet that definition of a documentary, it does meet this one from PBS.
"Refers to film or video that explores a subject in a way the public expects to be factual and accurate. Documentaries may be balanced by including various viewpoints, or they may be subjective, offering the viewpoint and impressions of one producer."JoeCarson 12:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's clearly not a documentary, it is in fact propaganda, which isn't a dirty word necessarily.  It is not objective, but aims to persuade people to a political point of view.  That's propagana. - AbstractClass 23:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with unsigned 84.78.221.49 and others that this article should use the word documentary, not propaganda.  Although I personally disagree with pretty much everything that comes out of Michael Moore's mouth or camera, it must be labeled a documentary because it is one whether I like it or not.  Although you may disagree with the obviously carefully selected information as I do, and disagree with the opinions of the filmmaker as I do, by relabeling this as propaganda, you are opening a pandora's box to relabel ANY documentary that portrays ANYTHING controversial as propaganda.  I cannot think of a documentary that does not have an agenda for someone.  Maybe I don't like penguins, or migrating birds, or spelling bees.  Maybe I think global warming is a crock.  Does that really matter?  The great joy (and great burden) of freedom of speech is that sometime, somewhere, somehow, someone is going to flip you off, and do it often.  Get over it, and thank your stars that you have the freedom.  I genuinely disagree with Michael Moore's views on virtually everything. I genuinely dislike his smugness in interviews, his quickly amassed wealth from his exploiting of the working classes plights, and his apparent stance that pirating copywrit material is ok (which is hypocritical at best seeing how much money he earns from his work)  That's exactly why I haven't edited a single ENCYCLOPEDIC article that relates to him or any of his films.  If you have strong opinions for or against something or someone, to the point of disparaging their work or their lives, do it on a blog.  You have free speech too, just get the right forum that's all, this isn't the place, this is an encyclopedia.  If you are having trouble finding websites that are pro-Moore or anti-Moore, you don't know how to use a web browser.    Some other thoughts...Webster's dictionary also defines documentary as "of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art" so just pulling out the two words could perhaps be perceived as self-serving.  And comparing it to a Hitler documentary -- even if the film presented the other side/cause of his atrocities, (and you are right, many do) do you honestly believe that it should stay objective to the end and not condemn Hitler's actions that resulted from his psychology and/or state of German economy?  Presenting "both sides" does not make you neutral, nor should it.  Bias is a word that is too easily thrown at someone as a way to illegitimatize their differing opinion.  If you have an opinion about my opinions, calling my opinions "bias" is the cheap way out of an argument.  It's name calling, and impossible to cite.  Opinions are good.  We've all got one or two, mine are the opposite of Michael Moore. SO WHAT. If I decide to make a film that exposes universal health care's negative side and it's devastating effect on Canadian economics and working class, I would assume that would be a documentary, not a mockumentary.  If you believe MY movie is a mockumentary and Michael Moore's is a documentary, or vice versa, then you are a hypocrite and should refrain from major edits of this or any related article for obvious NPOV reasons.  If you believe we are both making mockumentaries simply because we, in the end,  advocate one viewpoint, then we disagree on the purpose of a documentary.    All in all, there is no legitimate reason for changing this one word in an encyclopedic article. Excuse my rant, by no means do I mean to sound too critical of any one person's beliefs or viewpoints regarding this talkpoint.   Keeper76 23:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I decide to make a film that exposes universal health care's negative side ...  I would assume that would be a documentary, not a mockumentary. Indeed, there are one or two documentaries that champion private health-care at the expense of universal coverage.  Uninsured in America was released recently, too. (THF made sure to create a new page for it, and was also helpful enough to include a See also link on this page; though, for whatever reason, he neglected to add a return See also Sicko link on the page he had created.) Tellingly, the same people who criticise Michael Moore for being one-sided openly recommend this and many other one-sided films all of the time. But, apparently, it won't do to point these contradictions out, even when I can quote Sicko's director complaining about it. Moore has obviously been singled out for special treatment. In any case, we agree this and other films are documentaries, so we should move on. smb 02:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not A Documentary

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

message: * Merge with Controversies over the film Sicko.Not nesessarly to be definitive, but voting can tell what current consensus is. Rodrigue 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied and pasted this at the merger discussion at Talk:Controversies over the film Sicko. well, never mind that now, if the discussion is going to take place here.Noroton 23:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: Just to make it clear, Noroton has pushed the limits of WP:CANVASS as noted by his user contributions and the comments at the bottom of his talk page. I believe that he has contacted everyone who has every edited the Sicko article. Even those who were just reverting vandalism, fixing a typo, or pushing pov. Turtlescrubber 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone (or just about, I left out a vandal or two) who contributed to the story over the four days from June 22-26, I think. I intended to go back a week, but there seemed to be enough. I provided a link to WP:CANVASS in every message I left. Noroton 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CANVASS]] 

message: Nine editors for and two against (one is the creator of the page and the other doesn't want to bloat the page)if the page is greatly reduced. I would say that this is a very strong consensus to merge and reduce. Some editors want to take a chainsaw to it and others want 10% left. Should we start the discussion on what to keep and what to lose while the page is still protected?
My first thoughts (maybe from smb) are to keep:
:Piracy
::Visit to Cuba
:::Resulting investigation
What else should we keep? What should we lose? Turtlescrubber 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most editors seem to agree that the piracy issue and Moore's visit to Cube constitute the actual controversies surrounding the film. I'll perform the merge with that notion in mind and suggest to thoroughly discuss potential future additions. - Cyrus XIII 16:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus reached on page merge

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

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

message: Someone may want to add something about the PETA controversy surrounding sicko.  There are plenty of sources, just google PETA sicko. - AbstractClass 00:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My opinion: no way. There's no real PETA controversy. That is, no more of a controversy than anything else in this world that involves eating meat, wearing animal skins, or pretty much any medical procedure. PETA is against all of that, and will have a press release about it all. That might be relevant for PETA's wiki entry, but not for every other entry. It's not like there's a section under the "insulin" or "diabetes" entry that gives the PETA view, that they're against much treatment for diabetics because animal products are used, or a PETA note for every person on Wiki who is not a vegetarian. To give the PETA  view for anything that they express an opinion on is to express the view that PETA is so important that their view must be included in wiki--which violates NPOV, anyway.QuizzicalBee 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would undoubtedly give undue weight to a publicity stunt. If anything, this could be put on the PETA page in some kind of fund raising or publicity section. Turtlescrubber 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious why every corporate victim of a PETA publicity stunt has PETA's criticism polluting their article (e.g., KFC), but not the articles about left-wing causes should exclude them.  Either it belongs here, or it should be scrubbed from the other articles. THF 10:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Start scrubbing. Why is PETA even relevant anymore? Turtlescrubber 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PETA controversy 

message: Should the film be capitalized in similar fashion to the way it is printed on the released film poster, that is as SiCKO as opposed to Sicko. I believe it should be the former of the two. 70.176.92.34 05:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at WP:MOS-TM. - Cyrus XIII 06:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of film name 

message: "Sicko" has received criticism in the mainstream press 
67.78.145.235 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute in "reception" section 

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

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

message: WP:LEAD requires notable controversies to be included in the lead paragraphs of the article.  This is not done here.  The movie has received substantial criticism for inaccuracies and rebuttal, and these facts are given short shrift in the article.  The result is a one-sided article.  Compare the similar polemic The Great Global Warming Swindle, where the bulk of the article consists of criticism of the film.  THF 04:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read wp:lead and don't understand exactly what you are trying to say. Could you please be more specific or and maybe give an example of what you are looking for on the talk page. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Great Global Warming Swindle is not relevant to this article, and what is done in that article does not set precedent here. Putting lots of criticism in the lead makes no sense since these articles are encyclopedic, not platforms for debate. (Incidentally, I think the lead to that article is excessive and I snipped it, although I expect to be reverted.) By the way, can you quote the part of WP:LEAD that says controversies must be mentioned in the lead? Maybe I'm blind but I can't find it.  --⟳ausa کui × 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (And indeed, you were reverted in under 90 minutes.) THF 22:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. THF 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And there's a systematic NPOV problem in Wikipedia where left-wing polemics are consistently treated differently than right-wing polemics. THF 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break 1

message: The NPOV tags were inappropriately removed.  The article falsely implies that reception was overwhelmingly positive, when there was extensive criticism of how misleading the movie was, and that notable (and perhaps majority) POV is entirely absent from the article.            THF 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not asking for privileged treatment.  I'm asking for NPOV treatment. THF 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're misunderstanding the neutrality policy. Overall reception of the film is positive. Some people will shout loudly, but that doesn't make their views any more worthy of weight in Wikipedia. --⟳ausa کui × 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no.  You're misunderstanding the neutrality policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). I've identified several points of view published by reliable sources that are entirely absent from this article. THF 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this seems to be an issue of undue weight. --⟳ausa کui × 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: there is undue weight for the praise of the movie, and zero weight for the significant view that the movie is factually inaccurate and misleading.  There's no "conservative views don't count" rider to WP:NPOV. THF 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no praise in the lead. --⟳ausa کui × 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no mention of the controversy in the lead, despite the clear command of WP:LEAD otherwise. THF 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not a huge amount of praise on the page, if you examine it carefully. A few more critical views should be noted. As with others, we can summarise and correctly source these. It's not necessary to quote extensively from umpteen negative film reviews. smb 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I also contest your assertion that Sicko has received substantial criticism "for inaccuracies and rebuttal". According to a CNN expert fact check, the figures and statistics in the film are essentially accurate, but analysts concluded it was lacking in context: "Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film."  That seems to be by far the biggest complaint. Moore did not address evenly all sides of the issue. Comparing Sicko to The Great Global Warming Swindle is not a good idea. smb 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN found enough inaccuracies that Moore threw a temper-tantrum that they dared to criticize his movie. THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Bi 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably this is why Moore is angry (see link)  We should carry on with these specific criticisms in the appropriate section below. smb 22:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break 3

message: :::Ted, please point out specific bits that you believe are praise. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 Violation of WP:LEAD for failure to acknowledge significant controversies. THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 Compare the talk-page claim that "this is just a movie", with a "synopsis" that is several thousand words recounting every incident and political argument (and even much of the dialogue) of the movie, with the synopsis for any other movie article. THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 The POV (and false) statement of "overwhelming positive reviews" THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is true. The film has gotten "overwhelming positive reviews" from film critics. That's what we mean by "positive reviews". (I'll add that to the article to make the context clear.) The conservative commentary links you provided are not film criticism pieces, they're political screeds against "government medicine", etc. They have more to do with Moore's ideas than Sicko as a film. szyslak 06:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that -- when I tried to add it, it was repeatedly deleted. THF 07:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But can we stop the POV characterization of opinions that disagree with Michael Moore as "screeds"? (And more than one of my sources criticizing Moore for lack of accuracy comes from a film critic.) THF 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 4 The article omits the significant point of view published in several reliable sources that the movie is misleading and inaccurate, even as Moore's POV that the movie is his "strongest critique yet about the economic system of the U.S" is trumpeted (and contradicts the pooh-poohing here that this is "just a movie" and thus only movie critics views should be considered). THF 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope my edit to the "critical response" section has satisfied that particular concern. szyslak 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 5 The article omits the criticism of Canadian film critics that Moore (again) paints an imaginary and unrealistic picture of Canada to bash its neighbor. THF 07:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text: As I say below, if something is a notable aspect of X, most mainstream surveys of X will mention it. If criticism of Sicko on political grounds is notable, most mainstream reviews of Sicko will mention such criticism. If they don't, then it isn't notable enough for the lead. Hornplease 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break 4

message: Remarkably, the tag was removed after someone systematically scoured the article of any criticism of the movie.  The solution to an improper criticism section is to integrate the criticism into the rest of the article, not to delete the criticism and the NPOV tag.  Again, important and well-sourced viewpoints are omitted from this article improperly.  It's simply not the NPOV rule that only left-wing viewpoints count, and centrist and right-wing viewpoints critical of the left must be omitted.  There are plenty of critics of the accuracy and honesty of the Moore movie; the first link in the list here is from the left-wing New York Times even.              THF 11:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break 7

message: Sorry but I couldn't follow how to add references.  I was trying to add the following:  The Miller Center of Public Affairs audio recording (conversation number 450-23. "Richard Nixon - Oval Office Recordings," 
http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/digitalarchive/presidentialrecordings
/nixon/oval?PHPSESSID=b813e56b3017d097cd176720bc10fc74
Copy and paste this after the text you are referencing: 
The Miller Center of Public Affairs audio recording (conversation number 450-23. "Richard Nixon - Oval Office Recordings," Available online. 
C.m.jones 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Has anyone followed this story, that is documented on Gupta's page?  It's pretty bit right now for this film (Google News "Gupta" and "Moore").  Should this be included on the Sicko page, or Michael Moore controversies?  I think the film's page.  --David Shankbone 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting dilemma. I would say Michael Moore controversies, as the argument initially stemmed from Mr. Gupta's report. --AlexPorter 22:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sicko film page is best, since it's currently lacking in criticism. Perhaps we can make a note of both sides. Moore has posted a point-by-point response to Dr. Sanjay Gupta on his website.  smb 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been doing some work on it at the Gupta page.  I think since the report was about the film itself, it should be on the film page, and also for the reason smb gives - it will flesh out criticism.  The paragraph on the Gupta page would be a good starting point, although I'd prefer someone re-write it for the Sicko page so they don't parrot each other.  --David Shankbone 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as Moore's rebuttals (and they seem solid from what I've read) are included, it seems like a fair addition. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  I think a fleshed out "Gupta said this" "Moore responded with this" "Gupta countered" kind of thing would give the nuance of the factual arguments and where they are lacking, and what is not responded to, etc.  Sorry if that was garbled.  --David Shankbone 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I completely disagree.  Here we have a respected medical professional on a major network directly disputing, to the director's face, the facts in the film.  The director answers these charges point-by-point.  Not only are the two people involved notable in their respected fields, but it goes to the core of the movie and the issues surrounding it.  I'm surprised you don't have more editorial wisdom.  --David Shankbone 17:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't the way we edit on Wikipedia, and in relation to the film, the director taking a well-known critic head on, face-to-face, is remarkable enough for inclusion.  I don't think in a month we are going to look back and say "The Gupta Affair was a watershed for this film" and I can't image why we would say that about anything.  The episode is more remarkable than what some two bit movie critic who has no standing on health issues thinks, and we have plenty of those on the page already.--David Shankbone 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think "two-bit" movie critics should be in there either. Neither should you. Neither should anyone with good editorial sense.  Wikipedia is not a trivial collection of stuff. Well, actually it very, very often is, but it should not be. C.m.jones 23:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Shankbone has already explained why the Gupta criticisms are not trivial. And sorry, Wikipedia editors aren't obliged to obey what you "think", the only thing that needs to be obeyed are the Wikipedia policies. Your comments will only serve to fuel some people's flaming that Wikipedia is a hotbed for left-wing hysteria. Please stop. Bi 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Michael Moore actually covered this issue previously, waaaaaaaay back in 95-96 on his TV show TV Nation. He did a segment contrasting the cost and quality of care between the US, Canada, and Cuba. In the segment he was using the example of a broken leg, following a person in each country through the process of treatment for the injury. Anyone have any idea where/how to add this into the article if I can properly reference it? Does anyone have any objections to it? Also, where is the + button for adding new sections? WookMuff 11:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that this doesn't belong in this article, but maybe some article on Universal health care in general. --⟳ausa کui × 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant as being a forerunner to the film? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUcw_foeg3Y if you want to see the story WookMuff 02:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR.  If a reliable source mentions the connection, then one might add a cited sentence on the connection1 (though not the link to the copyright violation), but it's not for individual editors to research themselves. THF 02:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, if I could properly reference it. WookMuff 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, found a fairly obvious link on michaelmoore.com   How should I add it? Also, here is a link for the previously linked copyrighted material FROM MichaelMoore.com  WookMuff 04:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support - per reasons given. Reginmund 06:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a non sequitur.  PhRMA is a redirect to the main article.  So does Phrma.  No one is objecting to SiCKO redirecting to the main article; the question is what the title of the main article should be. THF 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant rule in WP:MOSTM is Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment.  Thus, Realtor rather than REALTOR, Adidas rather than adidas.  OxyContin is a special example because the trademarked capitalization is in CamelCase.  "SiCKO" is not CamelCase, so the CamelCase rule R. Baley mentions is inapplicable.  THF 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey: Move of [[Sicko (film)]] → [[SiCKO]] 

message: I added a tag that explicitly said "This article seems to contain unencyclopedic lists that may require cleanup."  It was deleted because there wasn't discussion on the talk page.  The lengthy soundtrack of every song that has a ten-second snippet is unencyclopedic and requires cleanup. THF 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up. I am unaware of what happens with soundtrack entries, maybe convert to footnotes? I do agree that it takes up too much space. Turtlescrubber 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the list of songs is notable at all.  I'm moving it to this page if someone wants to create a different article for it, though I doubt such an article would meet WP:N standards.  THF 22:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that we don't need a tracklisting of the soundtrack in this article. If a soundtrack is released, give it its own article. --⟳ausa کui × 00:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the process of doing a disambig for L'amour est bleu, and saw this in the "What links here" list. The way the link is currently piped is incorrect, it should either be changed to Love is Blue or simply L'amour est bleu if the soundtrack in question uses the French title. I didn't want to make the change because I'm uncomfortable doing such "corrections" on talk pages, but wanted to point out the error. - 75.156.132.101 (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup-laundry tag 

message: Sicko deals with the problems that Moore perceives in the American for-profit health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  Its main message is that publicly-funded health care is a better all-round model than the present U.S. health-care system because the present system is designed to maximize profit by minimizing the care delivered to patients.
At one point in the film Moore cites a World Health Organization report: "And the United States slipped to 37 in health care around the world, just slightly ahead of Slovenia."Masters, Kim, article/news segment titled "Michael Moore's 'Sicko' Flogs U.S. Health Care", Web site of National Public Radio, dated June 20 2007, accessed June 24 2007 
The movie begins with the retelling of the stories of people who were denied health care, either because they did not have health insurance or because the insurance companies denied their request for coverage for a particular ailment, due to specious reasons. Some repentant former employees of insurance companies are also interviewed, and describe dubious practices of their former employers, such as considering the best doctor in their employ to be the one who could deny the most treatments.
 
The movie also describes the connection between lobby groups such as PhRMA, the lobbying arm of the largest drug companies in the United States and one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington D.C.Drug Firms Gain Church Group's Aid; Claim About Import Measure Stirs Anger, Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post, July 23, 2003 and Congressional politicians.  Moore says that Hillary Clinton, who once championed the Clinton health care plan, is the Senate's second-highest recipient of campaign donations from the health care industry.  Moore said that Clinton's friend Harvey Weinstein, whose company provided financing for the film, asked him to remove the scene but Moore refused.“Moore Says Weinstein Wanted Clinton Scene Cut”, Washington Post, Accessed June 26, 2007.  
Moore states that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not offer free basic health care to all of its citizens, and compares the American system to those of Canada, the United Kingdom and France, which have universal health care for their citizens.
Moore then interviews those who volunteered as rescue workers after the World Trade Center September 11, 2001 attacks; these volunteers had subsequently developed physical and psychological maladies, including respiratory disease and PTSD, and were denied government funds to care for their ailments.  Since the U.S. government has touted the medical care provided for the alleged enemy combatants detained at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, Moore assembles the 9/11 rescue workers and one of the people seen earlier in the movie, and any others who need medical care that they cannot get in the U.S.  They sail from Miami for Cuba on three speedboats.  After a journey that is mostly not shown (due to "prohibition by Homeland Security laws"), the group arrives at the entrance channel to Gitmo.  Moore asks for access with a megaphone, pleading for treatment for 9/11 heroes that equals the treatment the "evildoers" are getting, but no response is given.  Moore finally gives up when a siren is blown from the base.  The group then moves on to Havana, where they can buy medicine for very cheap price and receives free medical treatment they would otherwise not be able to afford.  The volunteers are hospitalized there and receive treatment, having only to provide their names and birth date.  Moore asked the doctors to provide them only the same level of care they would give to Cuban citizens.  
In the film's finale, Moore provides an example of "taking care of each other, no matter the differences".  When he found out that the biggest anti-Moore website, MooreWatch, would have to close because its webmaster Jim Kenefick needed the money to pay for his wife's medical treatment, he sent a cheque for US $12,000 anonymously.  Moore says that he does not want the health care system to trump the first amendment.  The audience is shown a "thank you" letter posted by the host, calling Moore his "Guardian Angel" (written while he was still unaware of Moore being the donor), while continuing to criticize Moore on his website. Since finding out that the anonymous donation would be shown in the movie, Kenefick has responded on his website,
 criticising Moore for sending an anonymous cheque but then including it in his movie, saying Moore was "using" him.
:Still believe it would be better to move much of this information into a different section, though if no one else agrees, I will not object to your proposal. If memory serves, when Moore says: "...and the United States slipped to 37 in health care around the world...", it was in response to Clinton's failed reforms. So it might read better if it's placed in context. Something like this:
:"Moore says that Hillary Clinton, who once championed the Clinton health care plan, is the Senate's second-highest recipient of campaign donations from the health care industry. At one point in the film Moore cites a World Health Organization report: "And the United States slipped to 37 in health care around the world, just slightly ahead of Slovenia." Moore said that Clinton's friend Harvey Weinstein, whose company provided financing for the film, asked him to remove the scene but Moore refused." smb 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that modification.  Might the people who criticized my edit and reverted it contribute to the discussion over the next three days while the article is protected? THF 14:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A third request for comments.  The edit was reverted and heavily criticized when I made it, but no one has identified anything materially objectionable about it or anything material that is missing from it, so I'm making it again. THF 21:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to me to be an improvement over the present version, which is unnecessarily detailed and unencyclopedic. --Marvin Diode 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted an attempt to reinsert 6K of synopsis into the article as an unencyclopedic "Anecdotes" section. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  THF 04:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rough cut at proposed edit of "Synopsis section"

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

message: It has been suggested that this article actually deals with a work of fiction and not a truth-telling documentary. This may be true, but since the film was released as a documentary, it should certainly be treated as one. If there are factual errors in the film, then let them be discussed in the article. The film should not be labeled as a work of fiction, since it was clearly not intended to be one. Even if deliberate misrepresentation of facts did occur, it should be discussed within an article on a documentary. --Bearnmyrthre 03:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be difficult to reconcile that belief with the quotation from Moore about piracy in the Legal controversy section. --⟳ausa کui × 05:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction vs. Fact Status 

message: I agree with Ryan that we should avoid the passive voice, but the proposed solution in the lead violates NPOV by trivializing the criticism, by implying that it's just David Ansen, rather than a wide variety of film critics, economists, and public policy analysts who have criticized the film for its inaccuracies and misleading claims.   Of course, if the article weren't so unbalanced, it would be easier to note that many many people have criticized the film. THF 03:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear on how making it clear who is making the objection trivializes the objection itself. --⟳ausa کui × 07:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the above user's complaint is more related to the narrowness of the statement rather than the specifics ie. that naming one commentator who disagrees to the exclusion all the other commentators who disagree. But I may be putting words into his mouth. WookMuff 08:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that could apply since the citation is only from one article on MSBC. "Has been criticized" doesn't specify who is doing the criticizing. I'm still ambivalent about putting criticism in the lead anyway; I have a strong intuition that that belongs in Universal health care and the policy debate threads, and that this article should be restricted to facts about this film. But that's another debate. --⟳ausa کui × 09:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By your edits it would appear there are many things about this article you are ambivalent about, such as the lack of any mention of Michael Moore being nominated for sainthood or voted sexiest man alive. A political film being criticized for its seeming bias is certainly something to be mentioned in the article, and indeed in the lead. WookMuff 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "David Ansen of MSNBC criticized the film" 

message: The CNN controversy section is wildly unbalanced and POV.  It's ludicrous that--while no weight is given to the detailed rebuttals of Moore's inaccuracy by health-policy experts and economists--that there are ten paragraphs devoted to Moore and other left-wingers' scathing criticism of a minor tv reporter's short segment whose sin was that he only sort of agreed with the movie instead of nominating Moore for sainthood.  Why aren't any of the substantive and well-sourced criticisms mentioned other than a single vague sentence in the lead and in the criticism section?  It trivializes the criticism when it's only David Ansen, Kurt Loder, and Sanjay Gupta mentioned.  I haven't seen a single person who knows anything about health policy approve of the film, yet Moore is lionized for his supposed expertise.  THF 11:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Canonized. In case you weren't sure of the word. I know I was having trouble thinking of it directly above here when I said the same thing. :) WookMuff 11:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: TedFrank added the unbalanced tag back into the article with the edit summary: Again, the article fails to include critical discussion of film, even as it includes extensive defenses of Michael Moore's accuracy and POV. Hence, unbalanced.  Ted, I see plenty of "critical discussion", too much in fact, and I would like you to show me where it "fails" to include it, as you claim.  As for "extensive defense", this article is about Moore's film, not the health care debate waged by his critics.  If you see a way of solving the problem to your satisfaction, please briefly describe the solution so that I can implement the changes and remove the tag.  I'm going to assume good faith on your part for now, but in my experience, these types of tags are easily abused by POV warriors. —Viriditas | Talk 12:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the "extensive discussion", and I've asked you to briefly tell me how to fix the article so that I can remove the tag.  This a reasonable request.  You need to be able to defend the use of tags whenever asked.  —Viriditas | Talk 12:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's extensive discussion above of what is omitted, and why the article is unbalanced:    .  An entire POV-fork article was created to divert criticism of the film away from this article, and then that article was deleted into a redirect and the criticism was deleted.  Since I've added the unbalanced tag, a dozen paragraphs were added defending Moore's accuracy, and the omitted points of view           remain omitted. THF 12:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it too much to ask you to directly answer my simple question?  I see that in addition to slapping an unbalanced tag on the article without giving me a rationale on how to remove it, you've now added "pov-statement" to a basic statement about the premise of the film.  My good faith is rapidly diminishing. —Viriditas | Talk 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted, I'll make this as painless as possible; just give me a diff to your preferred version of the article from the page history.  Ok? —Viriditas | Talk 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a preferred version.  The page needs a complete rewrite to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#PLOT. Even minor improvements are reverted by the page-owners without any attempt at justifying the reversion on the talk page, and I don't wish to spend a couple of hours writing something that will last five minutes. THF 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted, you said there were "omitted points of view", which means there must be diffs in the article history that include those views, right? —Viriditas | Talk 13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "omitted," not "deleted."  Though some points of view that were deleted are included in a diff cited above.  THF 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, we're getting somewhere.  Am I to understand that most of the missing viewpoints can be found in the 02:12, 1 July 2007 version of Controversies over the film Sicko, and that the merging of this information into the article would allow me to remove the unbalanced tag?  —Viriditas | Talk 13:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article would not be perfect, but it would be a step in the right direction, and I would accept the removal of the unbalanced tag if (1) those criticisms (and the criticisms identified in the reliable sources cited in my 12:43 edit above) were included and (2) the WP:NOT#PLOT problem were resolved.  THF 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see what the plot has to do with the unbalanced tag that you added due to a perceived lack of criticisms.  And, since you just trimmed the plot down to 653 words, I'm sure you'll add the criticism you claim is missing and then remove the unbalanced tag, right? —Viriditas | Talk 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I will and did.  The article needs a "Factual errors in the movie" section, the way similar articles do (and there are certainly plenty of reliable sources pointing those out), but it's in the best shape it's been since I started looking at it a week and a half ago. THF 21:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most "factual errors in the movie" sections are composed of original research, so I wouldn't recommend it.  It's best to add such errors to the relevant section. —Viriditas | Talk 00:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: resent indent.  I agree that any such section should comply with WP:NOR, especially for a controversial article like this one.  My point is that there are numerous verifiable reliable sources that do this accounting.  What "relevant section" do you suggest integrating such information into?  We'll see how well the page holds up against POV-pushing over the weekend when I'm not around. The synopsis section could use further trimming. THF 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections still need to be developed, so this is really in its infancy.  Factual errors can be sorted by topic, as much of that information was removed from the synopsis and could be added back into new sections with sources. The synopsis needs to be entirely rewritten.  Take some time to browse :Category:Documentary films, paying particular attention to the B, GA, and FA-Class articles. —Viriditas | Talk 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: reset indent. This article can't contain critical discussion (or fawning discussion) of the film, THF - Wikipedia is not a discussion board. The article can, however, contain citations of relevant analysts who take a position on the movie. If the bulk of analyst quotes side with Moore because the bulk of analysts side with Moore, that's not POV - equal time need not be given to minority views. Tagger needs to provide remedy. 198.112.236.6 13:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bulk of analysts do not side with Moore--every economist and responsible public policy analyst to comment have criticized the movie. Contrary to your claims, I have suggested a remedy: include the omitted points of view, and fix the WP:NOT#PLOT problem--I've suggested one possible edit above, and it's been ignored. THF 13:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So edit the article with the sources you've found and then remove the tag. I suggest holding off on editing the lead until you've established that the criticisms are sufficiently notable in the body to establish consensus that it's lead-worthy. I might have some reservations about some of the sources you list. Non-SiCKO-specific philosophy about whether the government is good or bad, or whether taxation to pay for a single payer system is 'theft' will probably be reverted. 198.112.236.6 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might you bother reading what I've asked to be accounted for, and what's been reverted, before falsely characterizing my edits? THF 14:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't characterize your edits, buddy. 198.112.236.6 14:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why raise the "taxation is theft" strawman, when I've cited a dozen reliable sources omitted from this article that point out the inaccuracies of Moore's movie, and not a single one makes that argument? WP:CIVIL, please. THF 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unbalanced tag 

message: That Moore believes a reason for denying healthcare is "specious" is just his POV.  This needs to be made clear, rather than stated as fact. As some of his critics have noted, at least some of the examples of people denied care in the US would have been denied care in the countries he celebrates. THF 12:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's his POV...this article is about his film (and POV), and the material in question is located in the pseudo-plot section.  —Viriditas | Talk 13:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "specious reasons" 

message: I just feel the need to point out that Che was not a doctor he was a medic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtman (talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this has popped up a couple of times, why doesn't somebody explain what that means, and also give a citation.  Because he went to medical school and received his diploma, which is well-documented.  --David Shankbone 02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, is it? The sources in the Che Guevara article assert this, but they are either official Cuban hagiography or they evidently repeat his official biography. Enrique Ros once went to the UBA to request a copy of Guevara's diploma and was told there was no such thing. (And even if it had gone missing, there would be a class photo or students and professors who recalled graduating with him, but nope.)  If he did graduate as a "medic" (not a doctor, more akin to a paramedic) he nonetheless later claimed to be a doctor. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Front Page is by far not a acceptable source, nor is the author of the article who wrote, "Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him."  I by far don't idolize Guevara, but I'll go with Time Magazine over that claptrap.  --David Shankbone 11:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, there is some evidence out there that Guevara lied about being a doctor, and it would be an easy enough matter to put right if he really were one. ProhibitOnions (T) 12:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of proof is on the people who claim he was not, since mainstream historical perspective claims he was.  And in the article you pointed at, there is no "evidence" just a lot of conjecture.  This is an issue for the Che Guevara page, and until that page comes to a consensus that he was not a doctor, this page should walk in step with it.  This isn't the forum to debate whether he was a physician or not, and again, the burden of proof is on the deniers of his credentials.  --David Shankbone 12:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Che Guevara page, with extensive citation, says he "complet[ed] his education as a medic", not a doctor. So it's this page that's out of whack. THF 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Che Guevara: "doctor"? 

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

message: Query: does the movie claim the HMO originated with Nixon, or is that an editor's interpolation?  Kaiser Permanente, on which the HMO Act of 1973 was loosely based, predates Nixon by decades.  THF 06:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It's merely poor wording on my part, given space constraints. The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 originated with the Nixon White House, not the HMO itself.  I'll try to fix it. —Viriditas | Talk 10:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of HMO 

message: User:Viriditas placed the following edit on my talk page:
:I'm guesing you haven't seen the film? The content regarding the WHO's ranking of the American health care system features prominently in the film, is covered in dozens of sources, and is discussed extensively by reliable secondary sources in direct relation to the film. I'm surprised you would consider it "advocacy". —Viriditas | Talk 09:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The film investigates the American for-profit health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, comparing them with the publicly-funded health care systems in other countries. Sicko criticizes the American health care system, which is ranked number 37 in the world by the World Health Organization, and is the only industrialized nation that does not offer free, basic health care to all of its citizens.
Following "Sicko criticizes the American health care system" immediately with these facts seemed to suggest to the reader that the film is right to criticize them for these reasons. It's a rhetorical tool; the thesis is stated and then followed by the evidence. I don't think the way it was originally written is perfectly neutral. That said, I don't think it would be difficult to rework the lead to include that fact if someone judges it especially important. --⟳ausa کui × 18:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: TedFrank believes that the term "exposé" is POV and should not be used to describe the film, or as a compromise, should be referred to as " a description of world health care systems, called an exposé of the American healthcare system by some".  In fact, the term is used by a wide variety of publications, including medical, trade, industry, film, entertainment, and newspapers around the world; it is used by both Moore's supporters and critics to describe Sicko.  A very small sample of these sources is posted below. —Viriditas | Talk 13:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an impressive list, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a single point of view, and that expose' is a charged word.  Every single one of these is by a Moore supporter.  If it were worth the trouble, I could find a few dozen, including by supporters, that call it a polemic.  If polemic makes it into the lede without qualification, I won't object to expose making it into the lede without qualification, but it was deleted when I added it on the same grounds that I object to expose' on.  THF 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide evidence that it is a "single point of view"; many of these articles, such as MTV and USA Today are highly  critical of Moore and Sicko, and even Variety expresses doubts as to the marketability of the film.  Your claim that "every single one of these is by a Moore supporter" is demonstrably false.  Do you think that Brandweek, British Medical Journal, Time Magazine, and the The Philadelphia Inquirer are pro-Michael Moore?  Please.  Perhaps you have forgotten that this article is not about Michael Moore, but concerns the film Sicko, which has received very good reviews, placing 92% on Rotten Tomatoes alone. —Viriditas | Talk 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive the imprecision of using the shorthand "Moore supporter" for "supports Moore's goals of increasing government involvement in healthcare."  Again, the issue is that it is a POV.  A widespread POV, but a POV.  The term "polemic" is even more widespread, and even more neutral, but was deleted from the Wikipedia article.  I haven't seen a single supporter of the American healthcare system call the movie an expose. As the New York Times noted, Moore's anecdotes are not new and some have been known for decades. What's factual is not new, and what's new is not factual. I've expressed a willingness to compromise: equal treatment for the term "polemic." Right now, "expose" is given better treatment than "polemic," and you're asking to unbalance it further. THF 14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This USA Today piece calling it an expose' is hardly that much of a critic of Moore: "Sicko doesn't have the answer, but if it can do for health care what An Inconvenient Truth did for global warming, pass the popcorn."  I really resent the mischaracterization.  Let's see a real opponent of the viewpoint pushed by the movie call it an expose'. THF 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly a critic? "Flawed Sicko...less documentary than poke in the eye...plays on emotions with anecdotes, stories and facts that aren't always in context, up-to-date or accurate...a provocateur's expose of the worst of the American system...applies rose-colored camera lenses to health care in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba. None of these, particularly Cuba, is as idyllic as portrayed. All require higher taxes to finance and are beset by inefficiencies...The truth of the U.S. system is that it is the best in the world for those who can pay for the best it has to offer."  Hardly a critic? —Viriditas | Talk 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's written by someone who agrees with Moore that there are problems in the healthcare system, and that he's doing an expose'.  Show me someone who disagrees with Moore's conclusions that calls it an expose'.  I've shown you people who agree with Moore who call his movie a polemic, yet that word was deleted as POV. THF 15:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Humana, the healthcare benefit company that is skewered in the film, admits in a response to Sicko that "this film does not accurately depict the health benefits industry" and that the company has "long championed the need for fundamental, consumer-focused transformation of health care."  Humana goes on to state that "it is unacceptable that millions of Americans lack access to quality, affordable health care coverage", and "urge the country to embrace coverage for everyone by shoring up the safety net, providing a helping hand for working families and encouraging the purchase of health care coverage." So we see that Humana, a health care benefits company that serves 9 million members admits that there are problems in the healthcare system and disagrees with Michael Moore.  And it doesn't stop there: Aetna, one of the largest insurers in the U.S. admits that there are serious problems in the American health care industry.  Do they also support Michael Moore?  And what about Kaiser Permanente, a leading health care provider who was also heavily criticized in the film?  Kaiser Permanente  openly states that "health care reform is a critical national issue"; In February, 2007, Kaiser's CEO wrote that he found "vast racial and ethnic disparities and inequities" in American "health status and access to health care" and recommended "moving this country down the path to an American form of universal coverage as quickly as possible."  Are you going to honestly tell me that Kaiser Permanente is a supporter of Michael Moore as well? —Viriditas | Talk 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The article in question is a USA Today editorial.  There is no evidence that it was "written by someone who agrees with Moore."  Just because someone claims there are problems in the American health care system, does not mean they agree with Moore; working health care professionals, industry insiders, and insurance, hospital, and pharmaceutical reps agree that there are problems in the American health care system, while simultaneously criticizing Sicko - examples abound from the left, the center, and the right, in articles like "'Sicko': A diagnosis in 5 parts", (The Arizona Republic) and "Local health pros diagnose 'Sicko'" (Cape Cod Times): I can provide many more examples.  There is ample precedence for "America's frustration with managed care", with "polls showing health care as Americans' top domestic concern." (New York Times/CBS poll, March, 2007)  These concerns have been demonstrated in films like Article 99 (1992), Critical Care (1997), As Good as It Gets (1997), Damaged Care (2002), and John Q (2002),  so the topic has been on the forefront of debate in the U.S. (and Hollywood) well before Moore got around to tackling the issue.  And, there is no relationship between the term "exposé" and POV.  "Exposé" describes a type of investigative journalism; its use has no bearing on whether the reporting is accurate or biased.  If you don't want to see the word used in the article, you must show, using reliable, secondary sources directly appealing to the topic, how the word "exposé" is a POV term. —Viriditas | Talk 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please provide a single reliable, secondary source that was written prior to 2007-07-26 that argues that Sicko should not be called an "exposé".  Calling the film an "exposé" is not POV; it is an approximation of the stated purpose of the film.  We are merely representing the film according to a wide variety of reliable secondary sources.  Please give me a single, valid reason for not calling this film an "exposé".  Michael Moore is considered an exponent of exposé journalism, a modern muckracker. —Viriditas | Talk 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a single reliable, secondary source that was written prior to 2007-07-26 that argues that Sicko should not be called a "polemic."  Again, I am only arguing that the lede should be balanced, and not only include POV words that extol Moore's POV.  But the term "polemic" was objected to, even though it is well-sourced, more neutral than "expose", and used by both sides of the debate. THF 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never addressed the use of the word "polemic", only the term "exposé", which apparently you are attempting to deflect by changing the subject.  Your assertion that the use of the word "exposé"  makes the article unbalanced is your own personal opinion, and is not supported by any reliable source, and as such, you are not justified to remove the term from the article.  Michael Moore is described in many reliable sources as a "modern muckracker", making him a leading exponent of "exposé journalism".  There is nothing POV about this in any way: the two terms are not mutually exclusive.  In the San Francisco Chronicle, Steven Winn writes: "Moore is often described as a polemicist or provocateur. A more telling touchstone may be the American muckrakers who flourished a century ago, in the early 1900s. Like Lincoln Steffens (who took on urban corruption), Ida Tarbell (whose target was Standard Oil) and Upton Sinclair (the depravity of slaughterhouses), Moore uses journalistic techniques in an overtly political, sledgehammer fashion. The fact that the muckrakers told people what they wanted to hear, as commentator Walter Lippman said, was "the important revelation of the whole campaign." Moore, like them, sets out to feed an appetite that's growling away and often left unsatisfied." —Viriditas | Talk 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: :That's an impressive list, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a single point of view, and that expose' is a charged word.  Every single one of these is by a Moore supporter.  If it were worth the trouble, I could find a few dozen, including by supporters, that call it a polemic.  If polemic makes it into the lede without qualification, I won't object to expose making it into the lede without qualification, but it was deleted when I added it on the same grounds that I object to expose' on.  THF 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide evidence that it is a "single point of view"; many of these articles, such as MTV and USA Today are highly  critical of Moore and Sicko, and even Variety expresses doubts as to the marketability of the film.  Your claim that "every single one of these is by a Moore supporter" is demonstrably false.  Do you think that Brandweek, British Medical Journal, Time Magazine, and the The Philadelphia Inquirer are pro-Michael Moore?  Please.  Perhaps you have forgotten that this article is not about Michael Moore, but concerns the film Sicko, which has received very good reviews, placing 92% on Rotten Tomatoes alone. —Viriditas | Talk 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive the imprecision of using the shorthand "Moore supporter" for "supports Moore's goals of increasing government involvement in healthcare."  Again, the issue is that it is a POV.  A widespread POV, but a POV.  The term "polemic" is even more widespread, and even more neutral, but was deleted from the Wikipedia article.  I haven't seen a single supporter of the American healthcare system call the movie an expose. As the New York Times noted, Moore's anecdotes are not new and some have been known for decades. What's factual is not new, and what's new is not factual. I've expressed a willingness to compromise: equal treatment for the term "polemic." Right now, "expose" is given better treatment than "polemic," and you're asking to unbalance it further. THF 14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This USA Today piece calling it an expose' is hardly that much of a critic of Moore: "Sicko doesn't have the answer, but if it can do for health care what An Inconvenient Truth did for global warming, pass the popcorn."  I really resent the mischaracterization.  Let's see a real opponent of the viewpoint pushed by the movie call it an expose'. THF 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly a critic? "Flawed Sicko...less documentary than poke in the eye...plays on emotions with anecdotes, stories and facts that aren't always in context, up-to-date or accurate...a provocateur's expose of the worst of the American system...applies rose-colored camera lenses to health care in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba. None of these, particularly Cuba, is as idyllic as portrayed. All require higher taxes to finance and are beset by inefficiencies...The truth of the U.S. system is that it is the best in the world for those who can pay for the best it has to offer."  Hardly a critic? —Viriditas | Talk 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's written by someone who agrees with Moore that there are problems in the healthcare system, and that he's doing an expose'.  Show me someone who disagrees with Moore's conclusions that calls it an expose'.  I've shown you people who agree with Moore who call his movie a polemic, yet that word was deleted as POV. THF 15:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Humana, the healthcare benefit company that is skewered in the film, admits in a response to Sicko that "this film does not accurately depict the health benefits industry" and that the company has "long championed the need for fundamental, consumer-focused transformation of health care."  Humana goes on to state that "it is unacceptable that millions of Americans lack access to quality, affordable health care coverage", and "urge the country to embrace coverage for everyone by shoring up the safety net, providing a helping hand for working families and encouraging the purchase of health care coverage." So we see that Humana, a health care benefits company that serves 9 million members admits that there are problems in the healthcare system and disagrees with Michael Moore.  And it doesn't stop there: Aetna, one of the largest insurers in the U.S. admits that there are serious problems in the American health care industry.  Do they also support Michael Moore?  And what about Kaiser Permanente, a leading health care provider who was also heavily criticized in the film?  Kaiser Permanente  openly states that "health care reform is a critical national issue"; In February, 2007, Kaiser's CEO wrote that he found "vast racial and ethnic disparities and inequities" in American "health status and access to health care" and recommended "moving this country down the path to an American form of universal coverage as quickly as possible."  Are you going to honestly tell me that Kaiser Permanente is a supporter of Michael Moore as well? —Viriditas | Talk 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The article in question is a USA Today editorial.  There is no evidence that it was "written by someone who agrees with Moore."  Just because someone claims there are problems in the American health care system, does not mean they agree with Moore; working health care professionals, industry insiders, and insurance, hospital, and pharmaceutical reps agree that there are problems in the American health care system, while simultaneously criticizing Sicko - examples abound from the left, the center, and the right, in articles like "'Sicko': A diagnosis in 5 parts", (The Arizona Republic) and "Local health pros diagnose 'Sicko'" (Cape Cod Times): I can provide many more examples.  There is ample precedence for "America's frustration with managed care", with "polls showing health care as Americans' top domestic concern." (New York Times/CBS poll, March, 2007)  These concerns have been demonstrated in films like Article 99 (1992), Critical Care (1997), As Good as It Gets (1997), Damaged Care (2002), and John Q (2002),  so the topic has been on the forefront of debate in the U.S. (and Hollywood) well before Moore got around to tackling the issue.  And, there is no relationship between the term "exposé" and POV.  "Exposé" describes a type of investigative journalism; its use has no bearing on whether the reporting is accurate or biased.  If you don't want to see the word used in the article, you must show, using reliable, secondary sources directly appealing to the topic, how the word "exposé" is a POV term. —Viriditas | Talk 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please provide a single reliable, secondary source that was written prior to 2007-07-26 that argues that Sicko should not be called an "exposé".  Calling the film an "exposé" is not POV; it is an approximation of the stated purpose of the film.  We are merely representing the film according to a wide variety of reliable secondary sources.  Please give me a single, valid reason for not calling this film an "exposé".  Michael Moore is considered an exponent of exposé journalism, a modern muckracker. —Viriditas | Talk 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a single reliable, secondary source that was written prior to 2007-07-26 that argues that Sicko should not be called a "polemic."  Again, I am only arguing that the lede should be balanced, and not only include POV words that extol Moore's POV.  But the term "polemic" was objected to, even though it is well-sourced, more neutral than "expose", and used by both sides of the debate. THF 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never addressed the use of the word "polemic", only the term "exposé", which apparently you are attempting to deflect by changing the subject.  Your assertion that the use of the word "exposé"  makes the article unbalanced is your own personal opinion, and is not supported by any reliable source, and as such, you are not justified to remove the term from the article.  Michael Moore is described in many reliable sources as a "modern muckracker", making him a leading exponent of "exposé journalism".  There is nothing POV about this in any way: the two terms are not mutually exclusive.  In the San Francisco Chronicle, Steven Winn writes: "Moore is often described as a polemicist or provocateur. A more telling touchstone may be the American muckrakers who flourished a century ago, in the early 1900s. Like Lincoln Steffens (who took on urban corruption), Ida Tarbell (whose target was Standard Oil) and Upton Sinclair (the depravity of slaughterhouses), Moore uses journalistic techniques in an overtly political, sledgehammer fashion. The fact that the muckrakers told people what they wanted to hear, as commentator Walter Lippman said, was "the important revelation of the whole campaign." Moore, like them, sets out to feed an appetite that's growling away and often left unsatisfied." —Viriditas | Talk 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of exposé and polemic

message: I think "exposé" and polemic are both neutral and accurate according to our own definitions of the terms.  But given that the lead seems fine as it is, I'm not sure it's worth all this fuss. --⟳ausa کui × 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ryan.  --David Shankbone 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beat me by two seconds. I agree with Ryan and David. Turtlescrubber 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the lead rewrite at the moment, but I would like to see the use of exposé and polemic in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weigh in

message: Earlier, I tagged three sentences with the inline weasel tag. User THF was kind enough to fix one of the tags and I think he made a great improvement to the flow of the section. I inserted these tags, not to blunt the impacts of the critics but instead to clarify and improve the readability and structure. Please see WP:WEASEL if you have any questions. Thanks.Turtlescrubber 17:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the manual of style: "The problem with weasel words isn't that what they state is false. Clearly that latter statement isn't; some people do say that. The problem is that truth, while obviously welcome and necessary, is not enough to constitute encyclopedic writing in and of itself. The progression of an article must also be relevant and informative, and this statement about what-some-people-say is neither. Who are these people, one might ask? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? Exactly how many is some, and why is this of any significance, anyway?". Turtlescrubber 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: I propose that the phrase "CNN gave three hours and ten minutes of free publicity to Moore on its shows Larry King Live and The Situation Room," be removed from the Gupta controversy section (leaving the second part of the sentence containing an actual criticism intact).it detracts from the flow and doesn't seem to be relevant to the debate. I seriously doubt anyone will come here seeking information on how much CNN airtime the Gupta controversy consumed, or that the amount of airtime will sway anyone's evaluation of the matter. I previously made this edit but it got reverted so please comment. Ripe 22:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is directly responsive to the sentence in the article stating that "Moore accused CNN and Gupta of being biased in favor of the drug industry because most of the sponsors for their medical coverage, including Dr. Gupta's reports, were drug companies."  NPOV requires the inclusion of reliably-sourced evidence refuting Moore's claim.  I'm okay with both phrases being deleted, but deleting just the second one would permit Moore's POV to be pushed. THF 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand how the 3hr10min factoid is a counterpoint; the amount of time spent covering something doesn't disprove bias. IMO the Moore quote is more relevant because he was directly involved whereas the commentator is a 3rd party, but more importantly it just doesn't seem like an important fact worthy of inclusion, whereas the fact that "L. Brent Bozell III" is of the opinion that Gupta was right & Moore "walked away from the facts" is (I suppose), and the coverage time thing just seems to obscure the debate. I wasn't (and am still not) thinking about POV, I was thinking relevance, but if something is POV it needs to be removed; NPOV is not the inclusion of all possible POV sides. cheers Ripe 11:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If CNN was biased against Moore, they wouldn't give him all that valuable free airtime with only five minutes of mild rebuttal. Read the whole Bozell piece.  NPOV is the inclusion of all material points of view.  Read the policy. THF 12:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with leaving that criticism in there, but I find Ted Frank's assertion that this is proof that CNN is not biased against (or for) Moore to be hysterical.  The entire media machine whores itself out to whoever will bring in ratings, Moore (or Coulter) included.  They could care less who they throw up there.  That's why Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton always represent religion on these shows - it's not because they are Godly, but because people will watch them just to see what they'll say.  Giving "valuable free air time" proves or disproves nothing, and nothing is free.  Especially air time.  CNN uses Moore, Moore uses CNN.  Period.  --David Shankbone 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing you said contradicts the fact that Bozell used that fact to rebut Moore's claim of CNN bias, and the issue is verifiability.  If you have a reliable source that supports your original research, feel free to insert it, since it also contradicts Moore. THF 12:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reply makes no sense since I proposed no change but simply supplied a comment.  And that's not really OR, it's their business model.  Wouldn't be hard to find someone to back the assertion that "The media put people on their shows who people will watch, so that they can sell more advertising at a higher price."  Like I said, get real.  --David Shankbone 12:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Moore makes a similar point in The Corporation.  (see 1 min 26 sec mark). CNN can easily accommodate guests like Moore and still remain biased, dependent on advertisers (as they are) for the majority of their revenues. smb 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Moore's point was that CNN is being underwritten by the drug companies and thus have a financial stake in casting him in a negative light; they'll get the best of both worlds - People watching for the advertising and they'll also make the drug company underwriters happy.  So, my point doesn't contradict Moore.  It finds them "if they put them on the show, they clearly have no bias" logical fallacy.--David Shankbone 12:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to miss the point by arguing that Bozell is wrong.  He may well be.  But that opinion is utterly irrelevant.  The issue is verifiability, and it's absolutely verifiable that Bozell rebutted Moore's claim of bias.  Let readers decide for themselves.  Your opinion that a verifiable point of view is incorrect is not a reason to remove it, just as I can't remove all of Moore's opinions that I think are wrong. THF 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate pile of verifiable facts and through consensus editors have every right to select what is worth including in an article. It's not POV to remove text with low information content, and such content does not need to be tolerated just because there's paucity of quality content to otherwise replace it. But I suppose that if consensus is to leave in L. Brent Bozell III's comment as an exemplar of his thought processes, fine by me. Ripe 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly.  Just because someone said something doesn't make it a notable criticism; especially such a weak and logically fallacious "counter-point" as Bozell's.  Is that really the best counterpoint to Moore?  "They put him on the air, thus they have no bias?"  Pretty weak, and kind of dumb.  I'm not going to take it out, but if somebody else wanted to for the sheer stupidity of the argument, I wouldn't be opposed.  --David Shankbone 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind if both comments come out.  But Moore's false allegation should not stand unrebutted. THF 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your opinion that it is false, and it is not necessary to have a rebuttal, unless CNN specifically offered one.  --David Shankbone 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly: it's my opinion.  And my opinion doesn't count.  But neither does yours.  That's the whole point of WP:NPOV requiring all notable points of view.  If we're going to discuss allegations of CNN bias, let's fairly represent all notable opinions, including the opinion that CNN is biased towards Moore. THF 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, but where our opinions do count is our opinions of notability of arguments and those making them.  We aren't here to include every two-bit argument made.  It's Moore's film and an article about it, its impact and the press coverage surrounding it, so clearly what he says regarding those things matter far more than a weak argument against him by someone who is simply a commentator. And our opinion as to the strength and notability of such things is what counts. --David Shankbone 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's an issue of weight, and Moore has plenty more weight than Bozell in this article; note that I limit Bozell's comments (which are far stronger when it comes to the quality of the movie itself) to the Gupta controversyr.  But your argument is incorrect to the extent you're implying that, when it comes to discussion of controversies in the article, only Moore's point of view is relevant.  That's a plain violation of WP:NPOV. THF 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't what I said, and I would hope you'd be a bit better at debate than to take a comment limited to this one sentence and not mean it to apply to the whole article, which I clearly do not think it does.  Let's not waste each other's time.  --David Shankbone 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Since LBB's article never implies the fact is supposed to be a rebuttal to Moore's bias allegations, how about replacing the 3:10 phrase with "during the King interview Gupta denied that his reporting has been influenced by CNN's medical industry sponsors". Ripe 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an unusual reading of the following paragraph: Let's be blunt: Michael Moore is one ungrateful leftist hack. CNN had showered him with three hours and 10 minutes of face time (repeats included) on "Larry King Live" and "The Situation Room," helping him sell his latest socialist film, "Sicko." That kind of attention would make a conservative drool. But when CNN aired a "fact check" piece on his documentary, adding a fraction of balance, he declared jihad, promising in a letter to be CNN's "worst nightmare."  That sure seems to be saying that CNN is biased towards Moore.  You may disagree with that point of view, but that you or I disagree with a point of view is not a reason to excise it.  The issue is verifiability. THF 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the issue is one of notability.  To say that a broadcast company that efforts to attract viewers by putting on people who draw them to watch (as Michael Moore OR Ann Coulter do) shows bias is not a notable argument, but a little ridiculous.  Yes, our opinion on the notability of an argument counts, and it's simply an unnotable and ridiculous counter-point to Moore saying they are biased.  Here, we have two people involved:  Moore and CNN.  Bozell is neither party.  So if he is going to make an argument, it needs to be a strong/notable one.  --David Shankbone 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of FAIR is to count up the number of leftists who are on tv, and complain that they are supposedly underrepresented and that the media is supposedly biased.  You may think that that argument is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is made, and we don't get to impose our editorial judgment on verified opinions we think wrong, or I'd be slicing two thirds of this article to cut all the Moore arguments I think are wrong and far more ludicrous.  There's more than two opinions: Moore claims CNN is biased against him; CNN claims they are neutral; Bozell claims that CNN is biased towards Moore.  All are notable, all deserve mention if we're going to cover the controversy at all. THF 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Therein lies your problem:  You are giving equal weight to Bozell and Moore, when the article is about Moore and his work, so to say that you would remove his arguments because you disagree with them, when the entirety of the subject is about Moore's arguments, shows your wrong-headed thinking in this regard.  Had Bozell argued that because Moore is fat it gives him little room to make any arguments related to the U.S. Health System since he clearly has a vested interest in having his higher medical costs paid for, this also wouldn't merit inclusion.  Moore's conjecture as to CNN's bias, since he is a directly-involved party, is pretty worthy of inclusion.  Bozell's conjecture that CNN's business model shows bias toward Moore is just dumb, and he is not a party involved in the dispute.  Moore at least brings up evidence that people who underwrite Gupta's show are the ones he attacks in his ad.  Bozell's argument is barely worth a mention, especially since CNN gives this kind of  air time to pretty much all newsmakers.  --David Shankbone 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  As I said, LBB's article never implies the 3:10 fact is supposed to be a rebuttal to Moore's bias allegations. Ripe 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since it needs to be plainly stated:  what is being argued is that one argument (out of three) that is posited by Bozell is unnotable and silly.  Since you seem to be confused, nobody is arguing the entirety of Bozell's argument be removed, but only one of them, since it's kind of stupid.  He is stating that the CNN business model is biased toward Moore because they simply put him on their shows; silly, considering Ann Coulter year-round is on CNN far more than Moore.  Again, to clarify for you Ted:  One argument out of three.  --David Shankbone 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You never said what is wrong with the text I suggested above. "Moore said Gupta is biased due to med. industry sponsors, but Gupta denied the allegations" is much better than "Moore said Gupta is biased due to med. industry sponsors, but L. Brent Bozel III said CNN gave him 3 hours 10 minutes of free publicity." Ripe 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because, as I have said repeatedly, the first ignores the point of view that CNN is biased in favor of Moore, and that Moore is complaining that CNN should be even more biased. THF 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that POV has only been proposed by a single 3rd party commentator, not by any of the principles involved in the dispute. Why is it notable? Ripe 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brent Bozell is more notable than Gary Schwitzer, as the wikilinks show, and, as the article stands now, Bozell has 21 words of quotes, while Schwitzer has 41 words of quotes.  If your problem is notability, there are other places in the article to cut. THF 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Schwitzer was evaluating a dispute by the principles, whereas Bozell's comment does not. You're... comparing apples and oranges. Ripe 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both talking about a dispute by the principals, Moore and CNN.  Bozell says that Moore has nothing to complain about, because CNN gave him lots of face time while only giving him mild criticism.  Bozell and Schwitzer are talking about the exact same controversy, the difference being that (1) Schwitzer is less notable; (2) takes up twice as much space; and (3) is redundant of two other quoted people in the section (Moore and FAIR), while Bozell's POV is not reflected anywhere else in the section.  THF 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have cited to multiple substantive and detailed criticisms in talk-page comments above.          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:       THF 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some additional ones:        THF 18:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bozell's CNN is biased toward Moore for giving him air time argument

message: ::::::::You continue to miss the point by arguing that Bozell is wrong.  He may well be.  But that opinion is utterly irrelevant.  The issue is verifiability, and it's absolutely verifiable that Bozell rebutted Moore's claim of bias.  Let readers decide for themselves.  Your opinion that a verifiable point of view is incorrect is not a reason to remove it, just as I can't remove all of Moore's opinions that I think are wrong. THF 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate pile of verifiable facts and through consensus editors have every right to select what is worth including in an article. It's not POV to remove text with low information content, and such content does not need to be tolerated just because there's paucity of quality content to otherwise replace it. But I suppose that if consensus is to leave in L. Brent Bozell III's comment as an exemplar of his thought processes, fine by me. Ripe 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly.  Just because someone said something doesn't make it a notable criticism; especially such a weak and logically fallacious "counter-point" as Bozell's.  Is that really the best counterpoint to Moore?  "They put him on the air, thus they have no bias?"  Pretty weak, and kind of dumb.  I'm not going to take it out, but if somebody else wanted to for the sheer stupidity of the argument, I wouldn't be opposed.  --David Shankbone 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind if both comments come out.  But Moore's false allegation should not stand unrebutted. THF 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your opinion that it is false, and it is not necessary to have a rebuttal, unless CNN specifically offered one.  --David Shankbone 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly: it's my opinion.  And my opinion doesn't count.  But neither does yours.  That's the whole point of WP:NPOV requiring all notable points of view.  If we're going to discuss allegations of CNN bias, let's fairly represent all notable opinions, including the opinion that CNN is biased towards Moore. THF 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, but where our opinions do count is our opinions of notability of arguments and those making them.  We aren't here to include every two-bit argument made.  It's Moore's film and an article about it, its impact and the press coverage surrounding it, so clearly what he says regarding those things matter far more than a weak argument against him by someone who is simply a commentator. And our opinion as to the strength and notability of such things is what counts. --David Shankbone 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's an issue of weight, and Moore has plenty more weight than Bozell in this article; note that I limit Bozell's comments (which are far stronger when it comes to the quality of the movie itself) to the Gupta controversyr.  But your argument is incorrect to the extent you're implying that, when it comes to discussion of controversies in the article, only Moore's point of view is relevant.  That's a plain violation of WP:NPOV. THF 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't what I said, and I would hope you'd be a bit better at debate than to take a comment limited to this one sentence and not mean it to apply to the whole article, which I clearly do not think it does.  Let's not waste each other's time.  --David Shankbone 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since LBB's article never implies the fact is supposed to be a rebuttal to Moore's bias allegations, how about replacing the 3:10 phrase with "during the King interview Gupta denied that his reporting has been influenced by CNN's medical industry sponsors". Ripe 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an unusual reading of the following paragraph: Let's be blunt: Michael Moore is one ungrateful leftist hack. CNN had showered him with three hours and 10 minutes of face time (repeats included) on "Larry King Live" and "The Situation Room," helping him sell his latest socialist film, "Sicko." That kind of attention would make a conservative drool. But when CNN aired a "fact check" piece on his documentary, adding a fraction of balance, he declared jihad, promising in a letter to be CNN's "worst nightmare."  That sure seems to be saying that CNN is biased towards Moore.  You may disagree with that point of view, but that you or I disagree with a point of view is not a reason to excise it.  The issue is verifiability. THF 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the issue is one of notability.  To say that a broadcast company that efforts to attract viewers by putting on people who draw them to watch (as Michael Moore OR Ann Coulter do) shows bias is not a notable argument, but a little ridiculous.  Yes, our opinion on the notability of an argument counts, and it's simply an unnotable and ridiculous counter-point to Moore saying they are biased.  Here, we have two people involved:  Moore and CNN.  Bozell is neither party.  So if he is going to make an argument, it needs to be a strong/notable one.  --David Shankbone 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of FAIR is to count up the number of leftists who are on tv, and complain that they are supposedly underrepresented and that the media is supposedly biased.  You may think that that argument is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is made, and we don't get to impose our editorial judgment on verified opinions we think wrong, or I'd be slicing two thirds of this article to cut all the Moore arguments I think are wrong and far more ludicrous.  There's more than two opinions: Moore claims CNN is biased against him; CNN claims they are neutral; Bozell claims that CNN is biased towards Moore.  All are notable, all deserve mention if we're going to cover the controversy at all. THF 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Therein lies your problem:  You are giving equal weight to Bozell and Moore, when the article is about Moore and his work, so to say that you would remove his arguments because you disagree with them, when the entirety of the subject is about Moore's arguments, shows your wrong-headed thinking in this regard.  Had Bozell argued that because Moore is fat it gives him little room to make any arguments related to the U.S. Health System since he clearly has a vested interest in having his higher medical costs paid for, this also wouldn't merit inclusion.  Moore's conjecture as to CNN's bias, since he is a directly-involved party, is pretty worthy of inclusion.  Bozell's conjecture that CNN's business model shows bias toward Moore is just dumb, and he is not a party involved in the dispute.  Moore at least brings up evidence that people who underwrite Gupta's show are the ones he attacks in his ad.  Bozell's argument is barely worth a mention, especially since CNN gives this kind of  air time to pretty much all newsmakers.  --David Shankbone 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, LBB's article never implies the 3:10 fact is supposed to be a rebuttal to Moore's bias allegations. Ripe 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break 731

message: (outdent)There is a left-wing professor and a left-wing organization not involved in the Gupta dispute, and they are both quoted at length.  The fact that you keep arguing that Bozell is wrong, when that is irrelevant, shows that you miss the point of WP:NPOV.  If you are arguing that an argument about CNN's bias is irrelevant to an article about Sicko, that's okay, but then take out all of the arguments about CNN's bias, not just the ones you disagree with. THF 23:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it needs to be plainly stated:  what is being argued is that one argument (out of three) that is posited by Bozell is unnotable and silly.  Since you seem to be confused, nobody is arguing the entirety of Bozell's argument be removed, but only one of them, since it's kind of stupid.  He is stating that the CNN business model is biased toward Moore because they simply put him on their shows; silly, considering Ann Coulter year-round is on CNN far more than Moore.  Again, to clarify for you Ted:  One argument out of three.  --David Shankbone 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You never said what is wrong with the text I suggested above. "Moore said Gupta is biased due to med. industry sponsors, but Gupta denied the allegations" is much better than "Moore said Gupta is biased due to med. industry sponsors, but L. Brent Bozel III said CNN gave him 3 hours 10 minutes of free publicity." Ripe 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because, as I have said repeatedly, the first ignores the point of view that CNN is biased in favor of Moore, and that Moore is complaining that CNN should be even more biased. THF 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that POV has only been proposed by a single 3rd party commentator, not by any of the principles involved in the dispute. Why is it notable? Ripe 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brent Bozell is more notable than Gary Schwitzer, as the wikilinks show, and, as the article stands now, Bozell has 21 words of quotes, while Schwitzer has 41 words of quotes.  If your problem is notability, there are other places in the article to cut. THF 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Schwitzer was evaluating a dispute by the principles, whereas Bozell's comment does not. You're... comparing apples and oranges. Ripe 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both talking about a dispute by the principals, Moore and CNN.  Bozell says that Moore has nothing to complain about, because CNN gave him lots of face time while only giving him mild criticism.  Bozell and Schwitzer are talking about the exact same controversy, the difference being that (1) Schwitzer is less notable; (2) takes up twice as much space; and (3) is redundant of two other quoted people in the section (Moore and FAIR), while Bozell's POV is not reflected anywhere else in the section.  THF 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break 731b

message: What I love about Bozell's piece is that it is very typical of the criticisms:  They make statements that they do not back up.  for instance:
Then he walked away from the facts, making the outrageous claim that communist Cuba's dismal ranking is all America's fault: "The fact that the healthcare system in an impoverished nation crippled by our decades-old blockade (including medical supplies and drugs) ranks so closely to ours is more an indictment of the American system than the Cuban system."
Bozell never actually says how this is "walking away from the facts" but just, on its face, is outrageous--as if, you know, it's obvious this it is outrageous.  In his Op-Ed, he never actually says why this is outrageous, provides any evidence or data to back up such an outrageous claim.  I think the Bozell piece is a great addition to the article, because it shows how the critics of the film have poorly-argued against it.  Which is a shame - I would like to see some actual criticisms that, you know, dissect the film instead of just say "that's an outrageous claim" as if that alone makes it so instead of what it really is: an appeal to emotion.  This has been the standard for Conservative critiques.--David Shankbone 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cited to multiple substantive and detailed criticisms in talk-page comments above.          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:       THF 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some additional ones:        THF 18:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "typical of the criticisms"

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

message: It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.
Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not.  In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TedFrank (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant language from [[WP:NPOVD]] 

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

message: Viriditas objects to any addition of the well-sourced criticism of Moore on the grounds that they are not "authoritative film critics and/or film publications."  I have two questions:
:1) There are 44 footnotes in this article.  Maybe a third of them are "authoritative film critics and/or film publications."  Why are you only objecting to the ones that Sarcasticidealist, Tbeatty, and I want to add, and not to the thirty that are already in the article?
:2) What Wikipedia policy limits WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT to "authoritative film critics and/or film publications"? THF 02:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will not be able to show where I "object to any addition of the well-sourced criticism of Moore on the grounds that they are not authoritative film critics and/or film publications" because I have never said such a thing.  The previous discussion was concerning the lead section, and my edit history shows that I have added equal parts pro and con to this article: can you say the same thing? —Viriditas | Talk 07:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single one of my edits have improved the NPOV quality of the article, which was a holy disaster a month ago.  As for what you said, it was "Sarcasticidealist, what authoritative film critics and/or film publications are you using to base this "summary"? —Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: THF do you have any problems with Sarcasticidealist's proposed sentence as the complete lead summary of the controversy? Ripe 03:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcasticidealist's edit is a step in the right direction, and I appreciate him taking the time to comment.  My concern is that the suggestion is a little awkwardly phrased, and "too negatively" and "too positively" elides the real issue: that the movie is criticized as factually incorrect.  "too negatively" and "too positively" makes it seem like it's merely a difference of opinion.  For example, that French doctors are paid substantially less than US doctors is a fact, and many have noted that the movie falsely says otherwise; simply saying that those observers criticize the movie for depicting the French medical system "too positively", I think, doesn't quite capture the nature of the criticism.  Again, Reuters, which has many many levels of copy-editing, felt the criticisms over the film's accuracy substantial enough to merit an appellation in all of its articles its most recent article referring to the film; this isn't something I'm making up. THF 03:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please propose a specific edit, trying to take into account the other editors' feedback in this discussion.. Ripe 03:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reuters ... felt the criticisms over the film's accuracy substantial enough to merit an appellation in all of its articles referring to the film". Please can you provide examples of this. Thanks. smb 17:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think User:TedFrank makes a fair point.  How about "Sicko opened to positive reviews, although Moore was accused by some commentators of distorting facts to portray the American health care system too negatively and those of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Cuba too positively"?  Are we moving in a good direction, here? Sarcasticidealist 08:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't use the lead section of film articles to attack the director based on POV, politically-motivated, non-film sources.  Please represent the consensus of reliable film publications and add them to the reception section. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I find that an acceptable compromise, though I'd prefer "several" to "some." "Several commentators" is awkward, but there isn't a better solution that I'm immediately aware of, because the alternative tack, frequently taken by Viriditas's edits, of simply naming a single cited commentator when several express the same opinion, can be misleading, plus lead to accusations of WP:WEIGHT. THF 10:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The complete opposite of what you claim is true.  Naming a single commentator is called attribution which avoids misleading the reader and placing undue weight on a single opinion.  You may be interested in actually reading WP:NPOV. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that I cited WP:WEASEL in the 10:19 comment, I fail to see why you need to violate WP:CIVIL.  Naming a single commentator falsely implies that only a single commentator made the criticism.  I am okay with specific attribution if all the sources are attributed, but I presume we don't want two dozen footnotes (and I can easily find more).  We are alright with "positive reviews" without listing the several dozen Rotten Tomatoes critics you used to come to that conclusion.  So why is the universal opinion of responsible health policy analysts need to be treated differently? THF 10:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, but I find it highly ironic that someone who keeps adding the POV tag to this article isn't the least bit aware of the actual NPOV policy.  You have to admit, that's funny.  Since you refuse to read it, I'll quote it for you. WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion....Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups....Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it...One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is...as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true...There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words... By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems...To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted...NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each...Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well." —Viriditas | Talk 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a real WP:KETTLE problem here in addition to the WP:CIVIL problem.  Even as you accuse me (and apparently the other editors who agree with me) of violations of NPOV, you just quoted the language "To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups."  But that's precisely what we are proposing, and precisely what you object to.  THF 11:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KETTLE and WP:CIVIL, absolutely.  Look at your comments above: "Viriditas's view of OR is awfully one-sided...Viriditas objects to any addition of the well-sourced criticism of Moore...because the alternative tack, frequently taken by Viriditas's edits, of simply naming a single cited commentator when several express the same opinion, can be misleading..."  Please, give it a rest.  You can't address the issues, so instead, you have chosen to make me the issue.  So, I'll bring you back on topic: What reliable film sources are you using to represent the "leading views"? And you are quoting the NPOV policy out of context.  The quote you refer to above is preceded by "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates.  A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable" and is followed later by "A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. For example, when discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view." —Viriditas | Talk 11:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All three of V's quotes of me are taken out of context, but I don't wish to derail the discussion that's taking place.  V has added nothing new to support the false claim that only film critics count, and the discussion is getting tendentious.  WEASEL and NPOV and WEIGHT requires sourcing, and I've provided plenty of sourcing, including sourcing to the meta-observation that there has been widespread condemnation of the accuracy of the film.  NPOV requires this point of view to be fairly reflected, and LEAD requires it to be described in the lead, and so far, neither has happened. THF 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on Ted, this is getting tiresome. I previously explained how WP:RS covers this: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."  The lead section according to WP:MOSFILMS should reflect "a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why)", but the critical analysis goes into the reception section, where "criticism of content ought to be included if it is presented with reasonable documentation and if there is evidence of public awareness of the controversy. Responses to such criticism should likewise be presented on the same basis. The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged whatever can be said about it; the publicity is by nature citable, and omission creates the false impression that the subject matter is uncontroversial. Cite specific critics, not just "some people have criticized".  It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to act as an investigator of claims, though if criticisms are addressed by others, they should as well be cited."  Which also means, Ted, that if the criticisms you address are notable, you should be able to find them referenced by notable film critics in reliable film publications.  It does not mean that you take 8% of the critical reviews made by political commentators and non film-critics who have attacked Michael Moore and pretend that they are equivalent to the 92% of film critics who have given the film positive reviews.  And just to refresh your memory, you've been claiming this article has been POV far longer than I've been editing this page. —Viriditas | Talk 12:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "No one disputes that most film critics thought that the movie was entertaining..." Not merely entertaining but also "powerful", "compelling", "accomplished", "damning", "hard-hitting", "informative", "provocative", "important" etc etc.  Many reviewers rated this movie because they, too, have firsthand experience with their health-care system. Their views are entirely relevant. To argue otherwise is, frankly, absurd. smb 14:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See film criticism.  Serious film critics "try to come to understand why film works, how it works, what it means, and what effects it has on people."  I can quote plenty of non-film publications, including at least three articles in the British Medical Journal that contradict your professional medical assessements on every level.  That's not the point.  I'm not here to play the POV game.  I'm here to improve an article about a film.  Why are you here? —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here to improve Wikipedia. Please stop the implicit personal attacks. THF 13:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Separately, I thought I'd take V's suggestion and check BMJ.  First result, the "editor's choice" column: "Moore's rose tinted portrayal of Europe's health systems will raise a hollow laugh from anyone devilling with the detail of the NHS." THF 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I would have hoped that misrepresenting (or perhaps I should assume that you only misunderstood) a quote from an editorial would be beneath you, but apparently I was mistaken.  The editorial you chose to selectively quote out of context actually supports the film:  "His polemic exposes the damage to individuals and society that is caused by a system in which competing insurance companies have no reason to care what happens to unprofitable patients."  The quote from the editor, "Moore's rose tinted portrayal of Europe's health systems will raise a hollow laugh from anyone devilling with the detail of the NHS" was written as as a transition into another topic altogether, in good editorial style.  Ted, have you had some free time to improve this article by adding actual film criticism?  No?  Any particular reason you've avoided representing editorials  from people like Ramon Castellblanch, associate professor in the Department of Health Education at San Francisco State University  to the article, Ted?  After all, you only want to improve Wikipedia, right?  Any particular reason you aren't adding pro and con material to the article, Ted? —Viriditas | Talk 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the last personal attack from V I will respond to.  I have reverted multiple inappropriate additionals of con material.  The problem with the article is that it is unbalanced in favor of Moore, with several representations of Moore's point of view already included, while my additions of con material are reverted.  If I were to add both pro and con material, and the con material keeps getting reverted, it would only unbalance the article further.  What pro POV do you think is missing from the article?  If there is a pro POV that is not already represented, I certainly won't argue against its inclusion.  But it's already in there, while the con POV is not.  That violates NPOV, and fixing the NPOV requires the addition of the POVs that are not adequately represented in the article, as documented below.  My quote from the BMJ demonstrates that even those who agree with Moore recognize that his movie is inaccurate.  THF 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No personal attacks.  Actual questions have been left unanswered several times, so repeating them again and again might sound like a personal attack to you.  And, you keep repeating your mantra, "The problem with the article is that it is unbalanced in favor of Moore" again and again, no matter what anyone says or does.  Apparently the only way to unbalance the article is lend undue weight to politically motivated attack pieces that are funded by conservative think tanks with ties to the health care industry.  I'm not sure that makes much sense. —Viriditas | Talk 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "authoritative film critics and/or film publications"

message: ::Separately, I object to the 14:41 claim that I have not been WFTE.  Both times that I've introduced a new issue (the Cuba controversy; the claim that the movie's opening was a "dud"), I've added a response from Moore or from the Weinstein Company.  The problem is that many of the Moore supporters have not been WFTE, so the article is missing the POV that there are factual errors in the movie.  Over the weekend, I'll draft a proposed section on a subpage of the talk page that will be reliably sourced on both sides, and we can discuss from there. THF 22:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you consider "both sides"?  The criticism section should be weighted towards the positive based on the average review; at this point it isn't, and is somewhat biased towards the negative.  And the response section should only cover the most notable responses, and at present, it doesn't.  For example, that article you may have noticed in the BMJ, "US health professionals demonstrate in support of Sicko", would merit inclusion.   I also think the response section can be greatly expanded by subtopic. —Viriditas | Talk 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both sides would be the truthful side and Moore's side. :-)  I don't disagree that there is a lot missing from the article, as I have repeatedly stated that.  It's not clear to me that the demonstration was encyclopedically notable, but I won't contest its addition.  Factual errors in a documentary, on the other hand, are unquestionably notable, and every Wikipedia film article involving a documentary or a true story where there is a factual controversy has a section (or, in the case of Fahrenheit 9/11, a POV-fork) documenting those factual errors. THF 22:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to also add that the article in the British Medical Journal is supported by a related article in the  2007-06-25 Time magazine article, "Health Care's War Against Sicko".  For some reason, these articles aren't focusing on what you call "factual errors".  Why do you think that is? —Viriditas | Talk 22:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I read the Time article you link to, I see lots of discussion of the controversy over factual errors in the movie, albeit at a typically superficial left-leaning newsmagazine level: PhRMA went on to say "a review of America's health care system should be balanced, thoughtful and well-researched" before adding, "Unfortunately, you won't get that from Michael Moore." ... ." Health Care America, a non-profit financed in part by pharmaceutical and hospital companies, held briefings to document the the long wait-times common to government-run healthcare, such as those run by France and Cuba, and posted videos on its Web site detailing horror stories from Canada's system. "Mr. Moore is not telling the whole story. He plays fast and loose with the facts," says the group's executive director Sarah Berk. "We're here to educate the public on what he has left out."  I'm alright using the Time magazine article to discuss the controversy over Moore playing fast and loose with the facts. THF 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article represents the health care industry response to Sicko and documents their claims.  The article does not, however, assert outright that Moore or Sicko are making factual errors.  I'll ask again, according to that article, what are the factual errors that are made in the film?  Use your own words in your brief reply, please.  —Viriditas | Talk 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "I see lots of discussion of factual errors."  I should have said "I see lots of discussion of the factual error controversy" to avoid confusion.  Yes, Time did a shallow job of reporting, and should have done some investigation into whether the accusations of factual errors were true instead of just recounting he-said/she-said.  (Doing so, however, would have run against the apparent Time-Warner editorial policy of celebrating Moore.)  This is why I don't read Time.  Again, please note the difference between a Wikipedia article statement "Moore's movie has lots of factual errors" (NPOV violation) and "Moore's movie was controversial because of contested accusations by healthcare industry representatives, health policy analysts, conservatives, and libertarians that the movie had many factual errors." (both sufficient and necessary for NPOV compliance).  I'm merely asking for the latter idea to be recognized. THF 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the factual errors that are made in the film and why are they notable enough to be included in the lead section?  FYI...all of the claims made against Moore and the film in the Time piece have been countered in many other articles.  Film critics admit that Moore is selective, but all documentary films are selective, so that's a non-notable criticism.  Find something notable about the film that is factually erroneous and can be found in the majority of film criticisms about the film. I've given you the "polemic entertainment" criticism, which has good sources.  But you refuse to represent the film as both a polemic and an expose.   Try to argue from an opinion other than your own, and you will be more successful.  Write for the enemy. It should be very easy for a highly paid, professional writer like yourself to compose a simple, fifty word paragraph, condensing the most important criticism and controversy.  I don't see what the problem is, here. —Viriditas | Talk 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break 806

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

message: What is being discussed are "critiques" or "criticisms," not "controversy." "controversy" (from dictionary.com) is "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." or "A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." - the parties must be engaged directly with each other, and probably through multiple iterations. To qualify as "notable", I think it's minimally necessary that several prominent 3rd party news organizations have reported on the prolonged dispute. The only thing that perhaps qualifies is the Gupta/CNN issue. Everything else we're talking about is just criticism. Ripe 23:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a notable "controversy" according to Wiktionary, which doesn't require multiple iterations.  I'll note that the reliable sources suggested by smb in his 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it was cute, wasn't it? Trying to argue the semantics of the phrasing of the problem, rather than deal with the problem... damn english, always getting in the way of reality! English has a long history of Right-Wing Bias... WookMuff 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Debate and discussion consist of iterated communication between parties. Neither hit-and-run attacks nor situations where one party does not engage or respond to the other constitute a debate or discussion that would then define controversy. One-sided communications to a 3rd party audience on a topic without engaging the other party are criticisms or critiques. We can have a separate discussion about whether the criticisms are notable for the lead, but Gupta is the only Sicko controversy. You vastly overstate the contents of smb's source - the sentence is clearly alluding to the contentiousness of national health insurance proposals, not of Sicko, and it doesn't note the existence of a prolonged public debate between notable parties regarding Sicko. Ripe 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This isn't notable controversy

message: Take a look over at Harry Potter, the article about the Harry Potter series. I think it is safe to say that the Harry Potter series has gotten overwhelmingly positive reviews, is that not safe to say? It has also had its fair share of controversy from vocal minorities, such as various feminist, religious and conservative groups, that have railed against the novels. This is not mentioned in the Lead, however. Perhaps due to the sheer body of the article, the amount of information placed in the lead was deemed more important than the overly publicized but minimally important complaints. Sicko is NOT Harry Potter. It isn't a fictional movie, it isn't an unbiased documentary, it is a well planned and well constructed attack piece. Whether it is right or wrong, the movie isn't about selling tickets or making money (well, not wholy) but about informing and persuading the audience to a certain POV. The relevance of critics shouldn't just be based on movie credentials, but also on the relationship of the critics to the subject matter. If a variety of notable penguin scientists and "so-called experts" had railed against March of the Penguins for an unrealistic and distorted view of penguin society and habits, don't you think that would be in the lead? WookMuff 02:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not feed the trolls. —Viriditas | Talk 08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Importance of Harry Potter to this debate